REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1. Motivation
The first of the theoretical parts aims to provide an overview of motivation, which serves
as background material for the practical survey of this diploma thesis. It is divided into three
subchapters.
The first subchapter focuses on the meaning of the term ‘motivation’. It presents several
approaches to understanding motivation and a specific one for the purposes of this study. The
following subchapter deals with factors influencing motivation and reviews three models of
motivation. Finally, the third subchapter discusses motivating students, and teachers and parents’
responsibility to do so. In order to motivate students, teachers use different techniques that promote
the individual’s goal-related behaviour. Therefore, the final subchapter suggests a list of practical
motivational strategies, some of which were selected from Dörnyei’s framework of motivational
teaching practice in the L2 classroom.
1.1 What is motivation?
This thesis addresses motivation from two different perspectives; that of the student in their
drive to successful learning, and that of the teacher and their fundamental role in motivating
students.
A student should be motivated to succeed if any educational task is going to be successfully
achieved. Biggs presents a teacher’s motivational role as persuading students that learning tasks
are both valuable and relevant. If a teacher is able to get students to agree with appropriate tasks,
then the students will learn (14).

1.1.1 Definition of motivation

Teachers when describing both stronger and more successful students, and weaker, less
successful students frequently use the term ‘motivation’. Within research on ‘motivation’, the
focus has been on understanding what motivates, as opposed to agreeing a universal definition of
the term.
Gardner, as one of the leading researchers in the field of second language learning focuses
on motivation, and defines motivation by specifying four aspects – “a goal, effortful behavior, a
desire to attain the goal, and favorable attitudes toward the activity in question” (50). A goal is
seen as a stimulus for increasing motivation rather than a measurable part of motivation.
According to Harmer, motivation can be defined as “some kind of internal drive which
pushes someone to do things in order to achieve something” (51).
As stated by Dörnyei, motivation is “an abstract, hypothetical concept” that explains
people’s thinking and behavior in specific situations. In his view, motivation concerns two basic
dimensions of human behaviour. The first being ‘direction’, is a choice of a particular action, and
the second dimension – magnitude – describes the effort given to the action and the persistence of
this effort. Therefore, motivation is responsible for “why people decide to do something, how hard
they are going to pursue it and how long they are willing to sustain the activity” (“Teaching and
Researching” 7).
All previous approaches to understanding motivation confirm it to be a highly complex
issue, one that is easier to describe than to define. To summarise the theories and choose the most
appropriate definition for this study, I describe motivation as the means to achieve set goals in L2
learning regardless of whether the motivation is fueled by internal or external incentives.

1.2 Motivational factors in L2 learning

There is a seemingly endless list of possible factors that can have an impact on a student’s
level of motivation; personal and family situation, economic condition, age, sex, religion, cultural
background, etc. It is essential to understand how these factors come into play regarding a student’s
attitude toward effective learning.
Teachers are confronted with the challenges of students growing into adulthood, and their
changing attitudes, needs and desires. In the on-going effort to deliver positive influence, teachers
realise they need to motivate in various ways. It is generally accepted that there are two main
sources of motivation. Firstly, there is intrinsic motivation, referring to the personal satisfaction
gained through undertaking an activity; students are driven by the learning activity, by their own
interests, or the enjoyment found in undertaking the task itself. Secondly, extrinsic motivation
concerns outside influences or rewards (such as money, grades and achievements, teacher approval
etc.). An extrinsically motivated student wishes to succeed in order to obtain some reward (to
please a teacher, parent; pass an exam) or to avoid possible punishment (Harmer 3; Ur 276).
In order to provide a complete summary of specific factors that influence motivation, three
models of motivation by Gardner, Dörnyei, and Williams and Burden are reviewed in the
following subchapters.

1.2.1 Gardner’s model

Robert Gardner (54) identified reasons for L2 study that he classifies as ‘orientations’. In
his research, he identifies two main orientations (54). First of them, ‘integrative orientation’, is
characterized as a positively satisfying attitude toward the target language community; possibly a
desire to integrate and adapt to a new target culture through use of the language. Second orientation
called ‘instrumental orientation’ appeals more like a practical reason for learning the language,
such as career advancement, or a language requirement.
According to Gardner’s concept, a learner who is motivated with an integrative orientation
learns the language with the aim of achieving the ability to communicate with members of the
target culture. Also, such learner’s tends to be positively oriented towards the language-learning
situation. Conversely, the instrumentally motivated learner wants to learn the language for more
‘practical’ reasons such as passing exams, getting a better job or prestige.
Gardner made a distinction between these orientations and actual motivation. Motivation
“refers to a complex of three characteristics which may or may not be related to any particular
orientation. These characteristics are attitudes toward learning the language, desire to learn the
language, and motivational intensity” (54).
While Gardener’s model is derived from results he collected in a motivation test, just a few
items in the test were focused on the learner’s evaluation of the classroom-learning situation.
Therefore, Gardener’s model has been typically emphasised for its social psychological aspects of
L2 learning rather than serving as a practical guideline in the classroom context (Dörnyei,
“Motivation and Motivating” 273).
In spite of criticism, which Gardner received for claiming that integrative motivation was
more influential among students, his model shaped the field of motivational research in L2 learning
(Ur 276).

1.2.2 Dörnyei’s model

Psycholinguistics professor, Zoltán Dörnyei, outlines another concept of L2 motivation in
which he focuses on motivation from a classroom perspective. In contrast to Gardener’s focus on
integrative orientation, Dörnyei makes a claim that in a classroom setting, language learners would
be more influenced by instrumental orientation. He created a model of L2 motivation,
“Components of Foreign Language Learning Motivation”, which includes three different levels of
motivational factors. The factors encompass both the inclusion of orientations and educational
context (see table 1).
Table 1. Dörnyei’s framework of L2 motivation based on Components of Foreign
Language Learning Motivation (1994)

LANGUAGE LEVEL Integrative Motivational Subsystem

Instrumental Motivational Subsystem

LEARNER LEVEL Need for Achievement

Self-Confidence
 Language Use Anxiety
 Perceived L2 Competence
 Casual Attributions
 Self-Efficacy

LEARNING SITUATIONAL LEVEL

Course-Specific Motivational Interest (in the course)
Components Relevance (of the course to one’s needs)
Expectancy (of success)
Satisfaction (one has in the outcome)

Teacher-Specific Motivational Affiliative Drive (to please the teacher) Components

Authority Type (controlling vs. autonomy-
supporting)
Direct Socialization of Motivation
 Modelling
 Task Presentation
 Feedback

Group-Specific Motivational Goal-Orientedness

Components Norm & Reward System
Group Cohesiveness
Classroom Goal Structure

Source: Adapted from Zoltán Dörnyei, Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom,
Modern Language Journal (Blackwell, 1994) 280. Print.
 It is important to be aware of the individual perspectives, which are being simultaneously
looked at, rather than three subtypes of motivation. The Language Level is related to the social
side of L2 motivation, including Gardner’s integrative and instrumental motivation. Individual
characteristics of the learner (most notably self-confidence) are represented by the Learner Level.
The Learning Situational Level is associated with a classroom setting and situation specific factors,
i.e. Course-specific, Teacher-specific, and Group-specific motivational components (Dörnyei,
“Motivation and Motivating” 280 - 282).

1.2.3 Williams and Burden’s model

Marion Williams and Robert L. Burden offered a framework (1997) of motivational
components, in which they assume that each human is motivated differently and an important part
is played by choice. They approached design of the framework from the perspective of influencing
the individual’s decision. The motivational components were divided into two categories; internal
factors and external (see table 2). Within these two categories, they distinguished a large number
of subcomponents. The internal subcomponents are dynamically influential in a non-linear style,
and “affect the level and extent of learner’s motivation to complete a task or maintain an activity”
(Williams, 137). These subcomponents do not just affect others within the ‘Internal’ category, but
they are also subject to influence from the ‘External’ subcomponents, the interaction is dynamic
as well (Williams, 137).
Table 2. Williams and Burden’s (1997) framework of L2 motivation
 Source:
Zoltán Dörnyei, Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom, Modern Language Journal
(Cambridge UP, 2001) 20. Print.

All three models discussed above, demonstrate different priorities when characterising the
motivational factors. It is beyond possibility to fully address to just one approach which could be
seen as ever valid and actual. And so it is not surprising that psychologists have not produced a
comprehensive model presenting the very motivational factors and their interrelationships. Human
behaviour is complex, a great number of factors (ranging from basic physical and mental needs,
through well-being needs to higher level of values, beliefs and autonomy) influences and
distinguishes every human being and individual culture (Dörnyei, “Motivational Strategies” 6-7).
With this in mind, it is rather impossible to define a model concerning all diverse motivational
factors.

1.3 Motivating students

Students’ motivation has become a frequent topic in both, psychology and L2 studies.
Unfortunately, most of the material has been generated and applied to the benefit of further
research, rather than to help in practical teaching situations. Dörnyei finds a simple reason for the
gap between theory and practice. Teachers prefer clear ideas that bring the teaching environment
and learning material to life. Although teachers are keen on making “this works and that does not”
statements, psychologists tend to be more circumspect about such statements because when it
comes to human beings, not many straightforward rules and valid principles can be found,
independent of the actual context and purpose of the learning activity (“Motivational Strategies”
23). Dörnyei concluded “motivational researchers in the past have been rather reluctant to come
out with sets of practical recommendations for teachers” (“Motivational Strategies” 24).
This subchapter attempts to explain the term ‘motivating’ and what exactly is involved in
‘motivating students’. It presents two major influencers that facilitate learners’ motivation.
Furthermore, it provides a set of techniques and strategies for motivating L2 students. Having said
that, the main aim and also the extent of this work limits the following information by and large,
please note the subchapter cannot provide a complete arrangement of the subject.

1.3.1 Motivating students in L2 learning

Motivating someone to do something includes a lot of various things that can be included
in the process. Generally speaking, in L2 learning context (i.e. lower secondary and grammar
schools) the language is usually taught for a few hours a week, and therefore cannot be considered
as a daily means for communication. On the other hand, classroom experience is one of the most
influential factors affecting students’ motivation. In contrast with natural settings, a teacher is the
prime source of the new language (Dörnyei, “Teaching and Researching” 35). Students can be
influenced directly – a teacher can motivate them by setting a specific/lesson/course goal,
assessment methods, giving immediate feedback, providing interesting learning materials and
tasks etc. Indirect influence can be delivered by arranging the conditions in a way that a student
has got the opportunity to choose what, when and how he or she takes part.
 In classroom contexts, it is rare to find all students naturally enthusiastic about learning,
whereas it is quite common to witness students who need to be inspired and stimulated by their
teachers. It sounds simple, however, each student is different and so it is his/her kind and level of
motivation which is needed to be transformed in working and learning. Furthermore, Dörnyei
explains, “it is highly unlikely that everybody can be motivated to learn everything and even
generally motivated students are not equally keen on every subject matter” (“Motivational
Strategies” 25). With regard to different needs, values and desires students are motivated by, it is
a relatively simplistic view to believe that any learner can be motivated to learn under the
appropriate conditions of a classroom, if a teacher provides such conditions (Dörnyei,
“Motivational Strategies” 25).

1.3.2 The teacher’s responsibility vs. parental

Whose job is it to motivate learners? Leading researchers and psychologists all have
different approaches and arrive at different answers to this question. Harmer argues the teacher’s
main and most important function is to be a good motivator who (with regard to personality,
training and experience) is able to provide interesting lessons and develop a good relationship with
students (6). Nonetheless, according to Ur, in recent “learner-centered” approaches, the teacher’s
role is mainly seen as a “provider of material and conditions for learning, while the learner takes
responsibility for his or her own motivation and performance” (276). Somewhere between Harmer
and Ur’s estimation, Dörnyei emphasises the teacher’s job is to motivate learners, but only if the
teacher thinks of the “long-term development of his/her students” (“Motivational Strategies” 27).
Motivational teaching should be a teacher’s long-term goal as far as he/she intends to encourage
and maintain the learners desire to invest effort in learning. Similarly, a teacher as a competent
motivator shapes learners motivational qualities to stimulate effective learning in the classroom.
Williams and Burden (1997) and Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) argue that language teachers
have a motivational impact on their students in both ways, negative and positive. When organising
various teacher motivational influences, Dörnyei separated four interrelated dimensions
(“Teaching and Researching” 35 – 37):
Firstly, the personal characteristics of teachers (e.g. level of commitment, empathy,
competence, reliability, etc.). Teachers’ characteristics are essential to create and maintain a
learning environment, in which students feel comfortable and are motivated to learn. The
relationship between the teacher and the student is largely responsible for the “affiliative motive,”
which has reference to the student’s need to be successful at school in order to please the teacher
or someone else (e.g. parents).
Secondly, teacher immediacy influences students’ motivation, students have a more
positive attitude towards a teacher who exhibits verbal and non-verbal closeness to students. Such
behaviour reduces the distance between a teacher and students (e.g. calling students by name,
smiling, gesturing, using humor, discussions with students).
Thirdly, ‘active motivational socializing behaviour’, by which a teacher communicates
beliefs, expectations and attitudes. In this way, a teacher pushes students to adopt similar beliefs
and expectations. A systematic motivational influence is enforced by means of modeling, task
presentations and a feedback/reward system.
Lastly, classroom management procedures including setting and maintaining group norm
and type of authority (autonomy supporting or controlling).
Another significant effect that motivates learners was pointed out by Gardner (1985) and
Dörnyei (2001). Parental influences may affect their child’s beliefs about the L2 community and
language learning. Children are witnesses of their parents’ language learning, parents attitudes
towards different cultures and communities, and their life experience. If parents actively
participate and help their children in the process of learning, and there is a good cooperation
between parents, teachers and learners, obviously, learners feel all the parties are interested in their
success, which affects them to a great deal.
Dörnyei compares parents and teachers’ roles in terms of shaping learners motivation. He
states that the teacher’s role is as complex as a parents’ role. A teacher is seen as a “powerful
motivational socialiser,” providing guidance, support and limit setting and as such he/she
symbolises class unity and identity (“Teaching and Researching” 35).

1.3.3 Taxonomy of motivational strategies

As it was mentioned previously, researchers and psychologists have been more interested
in motivation in terms of general motivational processes, different approaches and theories.
However, the question for practicing educators is not “what motivation is” but “how to motivate
students to learn.”
In this subchapter, a variety of techniques and strategies are briefly examined in order to
offer a practical guide for teachers. A framework of “The components of motivational teaching
practice in the L2 classroom” (“Motivational Strategies” 29) developed by Dörnyei in 2001 is
reviewed first as a central source of information in the area. Secondly, a few strategies and practical
tactics are discussed on the basis of further study of literature and my observations and teaching
experience at the grammar school.
I completely agree with Dörnyei’s assertion that “almost any influence a person is exposed
to might potentially affect his/her behaviour” (“Motivational Strategies” 28). Nonetheless, it is
important to remind the uniqueness of each learner and therefore, what works for one can fail for
others. This is particularly factual with consideration of how language-learning situations are
varied in any situations. With regard to the differences in students’ culture, age, language level of
proficiency and relation to the second language may render some strategies completely useless,
and vice versa (36). Moreover, to get students excited about individual activities does not mean
they will be excited in next lessons, initial enthusiasm needs to be generated and maintained.
The question of forming motivational strategies is answered by a simple and logical
taxonomy which I designed on the basis of the “The components of motivational teaching practice
in the L2 classroom” and “Taxonomy of motivational strategies” both compiled by Dörnyei
(“Motivational Strategies” 29). The crucial units of my taxonomy are as follows:
 Creation of basic motivational conditions involving the scene settlement for the further use
of motivational strategies
 Generating learner’s primary motivation, which more or less conforms with the pre-stage
of the organization
 Maintaining and protecting learner’s motivation, which conforms with the actional/main
stage of the organization
 Encouraging positive self-evaluation, which conforms with the post-stage of the
organization

Dörnyei uses the simple organization of four main units for further separation and suggests
35 motivational strategies for teachers to increase learners’ motivation and establish a motivation
sensitive teaching (for details, see Dörnyei “Motivational Strategies” 2001). He reminds of the
importance of quality rather than quantity, even a few applied techniques and chosen strategies
can deliver the best results. He recommends a stepwise approach from beginning to identify
strategies that are already practiced by a teacher, to addressing those strategies that ha not been a
part of a teaching practice. Dörnyei proposes that such strategies should be selected and one or
two specific techniques tried out in the classroom.
The first eight strategies go under the cumulative name “creating the basic motivational
conditions.” These strategies focus on teacher behaviour, classroom atmosphere and social
interactions between teachers and learners and among learners themselves.
“Generating initial motivation” is the second area, in which Dörnyei discusses the basic
ways to encourage students’ acceptance of set goals. By making the curriculum relevant for the
students and creation of realistic student beliefs, students’ attitudes towards learning will be
positive.
Another 14 strategies fall under the category of “Maintaining and protecting motivation,”
which is particularly prominent in terms of student’s natural tendency to get bored and tired of the
tasks if motivation is not protected. Increasing the student’s self-confidence and creating student
autonomy are argued as the basic yet great maintenance strategies.
The last but not least group of strategies highlights how teachers can help their students to
evaluate themselves in a more positive light. Dörnyei presents such strategies as providing
motivation feedback, promoting attributions to effort rather than to ability and other strategies all
in the final category of “encouraging positive self-evaluation.”
As already mentioned above, there is not a golden rule or the unique choice of strategies
that successfully work anytime for anyone. Each teacher has to find his/her own way that will work
best for a specific group of students. Bearing this in mind, a few points that have been explored in
my classes as enhancing students’ motivation are presented here. For the practical reason of
illustrating a number of motivational techniques (that may be beneficial for teachers in their day-
to-day classroom practice), the following outline is a set of practical recommendations, rather than
a sophisticated taxonomy summarising motivational strategies. Some of the tactics presented are
shared among teachers and researchers as basic motivational strategies and can be found in most
overviews and works offering motivational ideas, effective learning and teaching, and language
teaching in general (see Harmer 1991, Ur 1991, Ushioda 2001 and others for further reading).
 Teacher’s enthusiasm and creativity
Students love teachers who can translate theory into practice while using interesting ideas
and materials. Children’s natural creativity should be also constantly supported by challenging
tasks, engaging the learner’s imagination (creating make-believe stories, role playing, acting out,
comic drawing etc.).
An American psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has stated that the most influential
teachers are the ones who show their love and passion for the subject they teach and teaching in
general. Csikszentmihalyi also adds that even students sometimes make fun of a teacher’s
dedication, they admire his/her passion anyway (qtd. in Dörnyei “Motivational Strategies” 32-33).
Teachers using humor, doing unexpected things, moving around a classroom entertain their
students who feel that to miss a lesson would mean to miss something fun. The more interesting a
lesson is, the more likely it is that students form positive attitudes.
Classroom environment – from the psychological and physical attributes
A positive classroom climate is one of the most frequently mentioned elements in which
student learning is maximised (see Dörnyei 2001, Gardner 1985, Young 1999, Beard and Senior
1980 for further details). The classroom climate is made up of a number of different components.
Two major components are named by Dörnyei “the teacher’s rapport with the students” and
“students’ relationship with each other” (“Motivational Strategies” 40-41). These components
influence students’ physical and mental needs, feelings and emotions. In order to improve the
classroom atmosphere to be supportive and pleasant, a personal relationship between teachers and
students needs to be applied. From the teacher’s side it is about showing students that you (as a
teacher) accept and care about them (e.g. addressing students by name, including personal topics
based on students past time activities, interests and lives outside school), indicating high
expectations for students’ achievement, providing non-verbal encouragement (e.g. maintain eye
contact, be expressive) letting students give feedback during lessons. The question of establishing
rules and norms in the classroom should be followed with students input. “Norm of tolerance” is
another element mentioned by Dörnyei which helps students to feel comfortable in risking
potential mistake or failure as they know there will be no negative criticism or embarrassment. By
physical attributes I refer to the classroom atmosphere, which can be influenced by its size, colours,
the type of furniture, the amount of light, room arrangement and decoration (posters, notice boards,
flowers, etc).
 Personally, I have tried to apply several not yet mentioned tactics to create a more relaxed
atmosphere. I applied them spontaneously (with neither previous study of the topic nor based on
my own experience). Firstly (at the beginning of the school year), I invited volunteers (from all of
my students) to help with decorating a wall of the English Language Laboratory. Students voted
and later painted the wall with images and symbols of English speaking countries. The
“personalising” and “familiarising” of the classroom increased students’ interest in their new
environment, their classmates, and English speaking countries and their symbols as well. During
students’ breaks between lessons, I have been observing that the original decoration provides a lot
of conversation topics, along with the sense of accomplishment that comes with doing something
extraordinary. Secondly, students were offered background music during some activities,
especially during writing tasks and tests. For such activities relaxing music was chosen. Lastly,
and some teachers might disagree with me, students are allowed to have soft drinks in a class, as
long as they do not disrupt others.
Success expectation
Penny Ur listed success and its rewards as “the single most important feature in raising
extrinsic motivation” (278). Students who were successful in past tasks believe they can succeed
in new tasks and they are more likely to persist in their efforts. It is important to realise that
“expectancy of success” would not be enough in itself if not accompanied by positive language-
related values and attitudes (e.g. using authentic materials, promoting contact with native speakers
of the L2, offering extrinsic rewards, arising learners’ curiosity and attention for the course). A
Teacher’s most important role here is simply to generate positive student attitude towards learning
the subject matter by making sure that students regard the learning task as achievable and they
know exactly what success in the task involves (Dörnyei and Ushioda 113-115). Achieving success
expectations is summarised by Brophy “the simplest way to ensure that students expect success is
to make sure they achieve it consistently” (60).
Feedback and Encouragement
Frequent, instant and positive feedback is essential for students to make progress in
reaching their personal goals. Appropriate feedback supports students’ self-confidence and gives
them constructive information about the areas that would need to be improved. Negative feedback
influences motivation too and teachers must be careful about its power that could lead to a negative
class atmosphere. Ur suggests a teacher’s attitude should stay positive to a student’s weak
performance. A teacher giving negative feedback lets a student know that he or she believes in the
student’s improvement over some time and that mistakes are a natural and useful part of language
learning (242-243).
The previous paragraphs dealt with teachers’ responsibility to develop and keep student’s
motivated and engaged in learning. Nevertheless, Dörnyei and Ushioda stress the difference
between motivating students and developing their motivation. To put it differently, they admonish
“unhealthy teacher-dependent forms of student motivation” (136) within which students will not
develop their own motivation and self-regulatory strategies. “Rather than merely thinking about
techniques for motivating students, we should perhaps also think in terms of creating conditions
for developing students’ motivation from within and helping them to sustain this motivation”
(Dörnyei and Ushioda 136).
2. Demotivation
The second of the theoretical parts aims to provide an overview of demotivation, which
serves as background material for the practical survey of this diploma thesis. It is divided into three
subchapters.
In the first subchapter the notion of ‘demotivation’ is introduced and compared to the
concept of ‘amotivation’. After that, attention is given to reviewing several studies that focused
partially or fully on investigating demotivation. In order to further understand the role of
demotivation and its negative impact in L2 studies, the most salient sources of demotivation are
summarised in the last subchapter.
2.1 What is demotivation?
Having looked into the nature of L2 motivation and having analysed the range of
motivational strategies in the previous chapter, only “the positive” side of motivation has been
described. Unfortunately, during the learning process students may become negatively influenced
as well. Certain negative influences have a significant effect on motivation. They may relate to
particular learning-related experiences (e.g. public humiliation, poor test results) or social learning
events (e.g the personality and the behaviour of the teacher, the classroom community) (Dörnyei
and Ushioda 137). This “dark side” of motivation, called demotivation, has not been considered
as a research topic until recently, even though its crucial role in the learning process has been
confirmed (Dörnyei and Ushioda 137-138).
Though I have only been a practicing teacher for a short time, based upon the teacher
training I have received, and most of the learning material I have read, demotivation in L2 learning
has been typically overlooked or forgotten. In spite of the general view in English as a Second
Language (“ESL”) field, where demotivation and demotivated students are seen as exceptions to
the rule, I think that demotivation is a more common and frequent phenomenon than regularly
admitted.
In my opinion the number of students who were once motivated and have lost their interest
in L2 learning is relatively high. This combined with wanting to help such students avoid and
overcome demotivation in my lessons were the driving motivators for analysing all available
literature that exists outside and within the L2 field on demotivation. And whereas there is a
relative shortage of the literature on demotivation, the phenomenon is discussed mainly in the light
of previous research outputs.

2.1.1 Definition of demotivation and the related term amotivation

As it was discussed earlier, there is no official definition of motivation that most
researchers can agree upon. And similarly when it comes to understanding demotivation, which is
besides a relatively new issue in the field of L2 learning.
 Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) have significantly contributed to the general awareness of
demotivation and increased interest in an issue that was not so long ago left with little attention.
According to them, demotivation refers to “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the
motivational basis of a behavioural intention or an ongoing action” (138-139).
In 1998 Dörnyei presented an analysis of main demotivating factors (“Teaching and
Researching” 150-151). His analysis concerns the learner’s ‘reduced self-confidence’ and
‘negative attitude towards the L2’ as sources of demotivation. However, this argument seems to
contradict with his and Ushioda’s definition of demotivation. As Sakai and Kikuchi (58) point out,
Dörnyei himself listed two internal factors that reduce or diminish motivation to L2 learning.
Results of my preliminary findings, which are presented in the practical part, support the doubt
about demotivation being related to external forces only. For these reasons, my own definition of
demotivation is drawn:
Demotivation describes the psychological state of a student who was previously motivated to learn
and successfully reach set goals, but who is now affected by internal and/or external factors that
restrict his or her full progress.
There are many reasons, whether internal or external, to experience demotivation and
become demotivated. Dörnyei and Ushioda have created hypothetical examples of a demotivated
learner to illustrate various influences cancelling out existing motivation (138). The first example
is a learner who becomes demotivated after his/her language group was split into two groups. The
groups were divided according to the ability of learners and the learner was put among less able
ones. The second example is of a learner whose motivation to learn a language is diminished as a
result of not understanding teacher’s interpretation during a lesson. The last example demonstrates
how an embarrassing experience, such as speaking in front of a class, can negatively influence a
previously motivated learner. In short, being demotivated relates by no means to a student who
has never been motivated before. It has exactly the opposite meaning; a demotivated student used
to be motivated but has lost his or her interest for some reason. These reasons cancelling out
previously existing motivation are called ‘demotives’ which are the negative counterparts of
motives. And whereas motives are driving forces increasing the tendency and desire to succeed,
demotives de-energise the tendency and desire (Dörnyei and Ushioda 138-139).
Athough demotivation is related to negative influences, Dörnyei and Ushioda do not
consider all negative influences as demotives. In their opinion there are three negative factors not
resulting in demotivation. (1) Powerful distractions or more attractive options (e.g. watching a
movie instead of doing homework); (2) the gradual loss of interest in a long-lasting, ongoing
activity; (3) an internal process of deliberation without any specific external trigger (e.g. a learner
starts realising how demanding it is to attend an evening course after all day working) (138-139).
Furthermore, Dörnyei (“Teaching and Researching” 143) draws attention to the distinction
between the states of ‘diminished motivation’, that is demotivation, and ‘total lack of motivation’
that is amotivation. He emphasises the difference by referring to the process and results of both,
demotivation and amotivation. The first of them does not necessarily cause the loss of all the
positive influences that made up the motivation at the beginning. Giving an example of a learner
who has partly lost the interest in learning English, as his teacher did not treat the learners fairly,
Dörnyei points at demotivation and the remaining positive motives that are operational. Despite
the insensitive English teacher, the learner may still consider learning English language important.
The term ‘amotivation’ was introduced by Deci and Ryan (1985) as one of three types of
motivation (besides intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and its relation to self-determination theory
(Dörnyei “Teaching and Researching” 23). Dörnyei explains his concept of amotivation as “the
relative absence of motivation that is not caused by a lack of initial interest but rather by the
individual’s experiencing feelings of incompetence and helplessness when faced with the activity”
(“Teaching and Researching” 144). A model of four sources causing amotivation has been
developed by Vallerand (1997). The first reason people/learners can be amotivated is because they
think they don’t have the ability to perform an action (‘capacity-ability beliefs’). Secondly, the
strategies used are not considered by learners to be effective (‘strategy beliefs’). The third type of
amotivation results from the belief that to reach the desired outcomes is too demanding and
requires too much effort (‘capacity-effort beliefs’). The last category refers to amotivation due to
the general perception that a learner’s required efforts are inconceivable considering the enormity
of the task to be accomplished (‘helplessness beliefs’) (Vallerand 271-360). To recapitulate the
difference between these two related terms, Dörnyei and Ushioda conclude that amotivation is
related to broad outcome expectations that are unrealistic for one reason or another, whereas
demotivation is related to specific external forces (140).
After the terms demotivation and amotivation have been defined and compared to each
other, the main focus is shifted to the previous studies on demotivation. Since demotivation is
rather far from being a well researched and documented area, previous investigations of
demotivation are reviewed somewhat in detail to create a more precise picture of the phenomena
and provide an adequate theoretical background for the practical part of this thesis.

2.2 Studies of demotivation

There have only been a few studies that focuse on student demotivation, in spite of how
important role demotivation plays in learning and teaching in general, and foreign language (“FL”)
learning in particular. Since motivation is viewed as a central element within the field of education
and has been examined and developed by diverse research disciplines, it is not surprising that the
only systematic line of research on demotivation is found in the seemingly unrelated field of
instructional communication (Dörnyei and Ushioda 140-141). The area of instructional
communication research expects that the classroom, as a place where interactions between a
teacher and students take place, is a suitable environment to study language communication (see
Christophel and Gorham, 1995). Logically, analysing how teacher behaviour affects students’
motivation, the outcomes of the research involved the study of the negative impact of various
factors. According to Gorham and Christophel’s study (1992), approximately 79 % of students’
demotivation was caused by negative teacher behaviour (see Gorham and Christophel, 1992). And
as it was later noted by Dörnyei and Ushioda, “the general finding that negative teacher behaviour
is perceived as central to students’ demotivation is fully consistent with the results obtained in the
L2 field” (141).
Demotivation in relation to the teacher’s interaction with the learners, has generated
interest among instructional communication researchers; however, the reason demotivation has
started to be examined in L2 studies is different. Most of people studying languages have failed at
least in one (or more) of them. This issue is called learning failure and it characterises the area of
L2. Thus, studying what are the causes of language-learning failure is directly related to
demotivation (Dörnyei and Ushioda 142).
The following subchapters are focused on five main investigations that I feel carried out
interesting issues and findings lacking from other studies that seek a way to address and manage
students’ demotivation.
2.2.1 Chambers’s investigation
Gary Chambers was one of the first researchers who took an interest in demotivation in the
area of L2 learning (see Chambers 1993). Chambers visited four schools in Leeds (1993) and
collected data from 191 ‘year nine’ learners (age 13). He used means of a questionnaire to find out
what goes on in heads of the learners who are not interested in learning German in the UK. What
is interesting about this research is the new approach of looking at the issue from different point
of views. Particularly from the view of those, who according to the previous evidence had the main
responsibility in generating demotivation. Thus, the questionnaires were given and filled out by
seven teachers as well.
Based on this study, teachers found demotivation to be a salient problem in relation to L2
learning at schools. Demotivation was considered to be a very serious problem by one of the seven
teachers, two teachers labeled it as quite serious and the rest (4 teachers) gave demotivation a
position of concern and anxiety. The teachers were also asked to characterise a typical demotivated
student. Such students were identified, for instance, as having poor concentration during lessons,
not believing in their competence, making no attempts to learn, distracting their classmates and
failing in bringing study materials to lessons. Surprisingly, when the teachers were asked to qualify
the possible causes of demotivation, they included a variety of reasons such as psychological,
social, attitudinal, historical and geographical reasons, but they did not mention themselves.
As one could guess, the students’ responses were not indifferent to their teachers’. A
pleasing fact was to find that despite a number of demotivated students who had been indentified
by the teachers, the large majority of the students agreed with language learning to be very or quite
important. Although only about 10% viewed language learning as enjoyable, about 50% did not
feel learning languages would be a ‘waste of time’ and did not mind learning it. The rest of the
students went on record as either not enjoying or loathing language learning. However, it is
important to take into account both the results and age of the respondents. A lot of teenage students
do not show much enthusiasm for learning and they can become bored quite easily. There are many
external stimulations taking their attention away and they need to learn to recognise what they
really like and want to do. Moreover, each student is a unique individual with different needs and
so if there are two students attending a lesson and one of them is fascinated and the other one is
bored and falls asleep, it simply means the students react differently to the same experience.
 The students blamed their teachers for various reasons, for instance, not giving enough
clear instruction, criticising students, using old-fashioned teaching materials, shouting at students
when they do not understand. Other students stressed the learning group was too big and on the
other hand the actual classroom where the lessons were held was too small. But some students
expressed opposite dislikes such as the need for a smaller room. On account of this data, Chambers
was not able to draw far-reaching conclusions about the impact of demotives on the L2 learning.
According to him “what one pupil likes, the next pupil detests” (14).
Unfortunately, Chambers neither determined what demotives are nor looked at them
critically. Although it was the first investigation fully devoted to demotivation in the field of L2
learning and Chambers started it off to satisfy his curiosity, he did not feel satisfied at all. “I find
that I am dealing not with a molehill but rather a mountain. There are so many aspects to the
problem of motivation that I have not even started to do it justice. I have made a barely perceivable
scratch on the surface” (16).

2.2.2 Oxford’s investigation

Rebecca Oxford’s study (1998) is based on analysing 250 essays written by American high
school and university students. Her study progressed the understanding of negative influences by
dealing with the time factor, in her case, five years. As she saw a significant association with
students feelings and experiences over a period of time, she asked them to respond to a variety of
prompts, such as “Describe a situation in which you experienced conflict with a teacher”, and
“Talk about a classroom in which you felt uncomfortable” (qtd. in Dörnyei and Ushioda 143). In
the content analysis of the student essays, four broad sources of demotivation were revealed, i.e.
the teacher’s individual relationship with the students, the teacher’s attitude towards the course or
the material, style conflicts between teachers and students, and the nature of the classroom
activities.
Oxford, following the data provided by participants in the study, specifically pointed to the
teacher’s behaviour and attitude as causes of demotivation; however, she did not include
potentially differing views of teachers on the subject matter and no other demotives (apart from
those referring the teacher’s role) were revealed in her research. In all probability other potential
sources of demotivation were not provided by the participants in her study. The hypothetical gap
was filled in the same year by Ema Ushioda.

2.2.3 Ushioda’s investigation

Ema Ushioda conducted a small-scale (20 Irish learners of French) empirical study of
effective motivational thinking at Trinity College in Dublin (1998). Without specifying prompts,
she wanted to explore students’ own conceptions of motivation, their experiences with changes in
motivation over time and what they find to be demotivating in their L2 learning (see Ushioda
2001).
The study consisted of two phases, separated by 15 – 16 months. The purpose of the first
phase was to explore what participants find as motivating them to learn French language. Thus,
Ushioda chose to use loosely structured interviews to get the data without her influence on
participants’ thinking. In spite of a detailed content analysis and its collected data, the first part of
this study is omitted here as it does not concern the study of demotivation or its analysis.
To elicit data in the follow-up phase, a technique of a more structured interview was used.
The interview questions were open-ended in order to encourage the learners to describe events
from their point of view. There were four aspects of motivation the interviewees focused on:
primarily motivation and its evolution over time; secondly, factors negatively affecting L2
motivation; and finally, motivational strategies (Ushioda 109).
The third aspect (factors negatively affecting L2 motivation) of Ushioda’s study is the most
interesting and important in terms of this thesis. As Ushioda summarises, almost all participants
agreed on external factors associated with the learning environment as the most demotivating in
their L2-related learning experience. Only one learner mentioned internal factors leading to
demotivation – namely the pressure of setting too high standards. Ushioda reports that all the
factors (except for one internal attribute) which were perceived by participants as having a negative
effect on motivation, are related to negative aspects of the institutionalised learning context, such
as teaching methods and learning tasks (114). Regarding her elaborated findings, demotivating
factors fell under three categories. First category, ‘L2 classes with native speakers’ was critically
evaluated by the participants for the atmosphere being too casual and too many classes and/or too
many students in a class. Students have also experienced boredom from listening to artificial
prepared speeches which they found to be a waste of time, or a teacher’s private joke that left the
learner feeling alienated. Secondly, ‘L2 coursework/methods’ were said to have a demotivating
effect because of studying literature, dull teaching methods in a particular grammar class, learning
grammatical rules, writing L2 compositions on set topics of little relevance and gap between
coursework studied and exam questions were criticised among other demotives. Thirdly,
demotivation derived from issues related to ‘Institutional policies and/attitudes’, including for
example, too many lectures in English rather than L2, lack of oral L2 use or practice, lack of
individual attention with too many students and lack of teacher concern about student motivation
(115).
Ushioda’s investigation (mainly the third part of a broader discussion on effective
motivational thinking) provided similar results as in previous studies. However, her conclusion is
rather positive. Most students experiencing the lack of motivation considered external factors as
the main sources rather than personal factors. Thus, Ushioda lays emphasis on students’ ability to
“limit their loss of motivation damage and dissociate the negative affect they are currently
experiencing from their own enduring motivation for wanting to learn the language” (121).

2.2.4 Dörnyei’s investigation

All the previous studies which were presented above, differ from the study by Dörnyei
(1998). Dörnyei did not agree that students who were quite interested in language learning were
able to provide full-value data on the possible factors demotivating others. Thus, he focused
specifically on demotivated students or those who had experienced demotivation before, rather
than looking at a general sample of students (Dörnyei and Ushioda 147-148).
Like Ushioda’s, Dörnyei’s study was exploratory in its nature and so he followed a
qualitative approach (see Dörnyei and Ushioda 2011). One-to-one structured interviews were
conducted among 50 secondary school pupils in Budapest, studying either English or German
language as a foreign language. The participants were chosen on the basis of identification by their
teachers or peers as being particularly demotivated. A stepwise theme-based analytical procedure
was followed to analyse the data, in which firstly, all the salient demotivating factors mentioned
by the participants were marked and common themes were established. Dörnyei assumed that
some of the negative influences mentioned by participants might have only been reflections of
existing demotivation. Hence, the most important demotivating factors (‘primary demotives’) were
identified for each student and tabulated to the main categories (Dörnyei and Ushioda 148). The
result of the analysis is a table listing nine main negative influences, which were mentioned by at
least two students as the main sources for their demotivation.
The most salient source of demotivation (40% of the total frequency of occurrences) was
directly attributed to the ‘teacher’. This result, including the teacher’s personality, commitment to
teaching, attention paid to the students, competence, rapport to the students, teaching method and
style, was fully consistent with the previous studies (cf. Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Chambers,
1993; Oxford, 1998; Ushioda, 2001). The second most frequent factor demotivating 15% of the
participants, was found to be ‘the learner’s reduced self-confidence’ which again, although
indirectly, concerned the teacher (e.g. perception of too strict grading). In short, these two
categories, the teacher and the learner’s reduced self-confidence, were mentioned by more than
50% of all participants as the most demotivating factors. Then, another two demotivating factors
were significantly marked by more than 10% of the occurrences: ‘inadequate school facilities’ and
‘negative attitude towards the L2’. The first of them related to factors such as an inappropriate
group level, a group being too big or frequent changing of teachers within groups). The second
factor, ‘negative attitude towards the L2’, was mainly reflected in students’ dislike of the way the
language sounds and/or operates (Dörnyei and Ushioda 148-149).
Aside from the identification of four most influential demotivating factors, participating
students mentioned other, less frequent elements having demotivating effects. Namely, some
minor factors causing demotivation were divided into five categories: ‘the compulsory nature of
the L2 studies’, ‘interference of another foreign language being studied’, ‘negative attitudes
towards the L2 community’, ‘attitudes of group members’ and ‘course book’ (Dörnyei and
Ushioda 148).
Dörnyei has provided data, which were not unlike the data collected by previous
researchers directly pointing out a negative teachers’ influence on students and causing their
demotivation. He gathered the data by interviewing individual students and following analysis.
There is no doubt he intended to offer a qualitative investigation based on real learners’ experience.
Nonetheless, what remains to be seen is the validity of dealing such a sensitive issue directly with
demotivated learners. It is arguable whether students who have experienced demotivation or are
currently demotivated feel comfortable enough to discuss the issue face to face with a teacher/
researcher.

2.2.5 Sakai and Kikuchi’s investigation

While there is a relatively short history of literature focusing directly on L2 demotivation,
the interest in demotivation has been recently aroused and become a major educational concern in
Japanese research. Kikuchi and Sakai (2009) designed a study, which derived from reviewing
locally published studies that investigated demotivation of learners of English in the Japanese
context, e.g. Arai, 2004; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Kojima, 2004; Tsuchiya, 2006 (58). These
studies were the key components in identification of six common demotivating features:

 Teachers (e.g. attitudes, behaviour, teaching competence, language proficiency, teaching

style and methods, personality)
 Characteristics of classes (e.g. course content and pace, focus on difficult grammar and
vocabulary, focus on examination and memorisation, unvarying and dull lessons)
 Experience of failure (e.g. disappointing test results, inability to memorise, lack of
acceptance by others)
 Class environment (e.g. compulsory nature of English study, classmates and friends’
attitudes, school facilities and resources not being used adequately)
 Class materials (e.g. a lot of required literature and handouts, inappropriate and/or boring
materials)
 Lack of interest (e.g. feeling of English learnt at school is impractical and unnecessary,
lack of admiration for English speaking people)

Based on these six constructs, a questionnaire (consisting 35 questions) was designed and
distributed among 656 Japanese senior high school students. In contrast to the original model
consisting of six factors, the data analysis showed a result of five demotivational factors. The
exemplary hypothesised areas of ‘characteristics of classes’ and ‘learning materials’ were linked
together in one demotivational factor ‘learning contents and materials’. The rest of four emerged
factors was likely to represent the previously formed factors: ‘teacher’s competence and teaching
styles’, ‘inadequate school facilities’, ‘lack of intrinsic motivation’, and ‘test scores’. Surprisingly
to the previous research findings and general expectations, demotives related to the teacher’s role
were not found as having the strongest negative influence on students. On the other hand the
analysis showed that ‘learning contents and materials’, and ‘test scores’ were the most distinctive
demotivating factors among the students.
In the previous investigations of demotivation, researchers had been focused on either
demotivated students or rather motivated ones, however, Sakai and Kikuchi decided to examine
the differences between these two groups and compared them in terms of demotivating factors.
They found significant differences among students with no or a little motivation who found
‘learning contents and materials’, ‘lack of intrinsic motivation’, and ‘test scores’ factors to be more
demotivating than the students with moderate or high motivation. Especially ‘lack of intrinsic
motivation’ factor was found to be seen as more salient among demotivated participants.
2.3 Summary of the previous studies of demotivation
To conclude the analysis of the previous studies of demotivation, it is necessary to confirm
the prominence of demotivation as a specific phenomenon in L2 learning and teaching. At this
stage, drawing far-reaching conclusions of the results is not the main intention. In point of fact, as
all of the studies have been experiental and introductory in their nature, it is rather impossible to
carry out the generalised and ever valid results. Moreover, by categorising various negative
influences in different studies, the results are often overlapping and thus difficult to compare. In
addition to this problem, the opinions of researchers are not aligned concerning the internal
attributes as sources of demotivation into account. What seems to be more important is the
complexity of the problem and its correlation not only with learning related events and experiences
but also with factors outside the classroom. Therefore, the aspect of the wider social context must
be considered and shaped by public attitudes and discourses which may have impacted negatively
on individual L2 motivation or motivation to learn other foreign languages.
Even though there have been various differences in conceptualising demotivation and
identifying negative influences as demotives, the studies reviewed above managed to expose the
large-scale range of possible demotives and have introduced and raised the understangding of
demotivation as a complex issue. However, one factor directly referring to the teacher’s role in
causing demotivation seems to be fully consistent with the results reported by all the researchers.
The investigations have confirmed a significant direct correlation between teachers (e.g.,
behaviours, attitudes, personality, teaching style and competence) and a high value of demotivating
experiences identified by most students.
Christophel and Gorham provided the first systematic line of research on demotivation.
Although their investigation is grounded in the field of instructional communication, they revealed
what factors were perceived as demotives according to their students’ responses. The interest in
demotivation in the field of L2 learning was aroused by the Chambers’s study, though he could
draw only a few conclusions from the survey. By taking into account the time factor and students’
descriptive comments about language teachers, the study by Oxford advanced the understanding
of demotives variety and nature. Further, in spite of the fact that Ushioda’s investigation of
demotives was only a part of a larger investigation of effective motivational thinking, she found
that negative aspects of the institutionalised learning context were more demotivating than
negative teacher behaviour. The first study concentrated specifically on demotivated students came
from Dörnyei. Also, he demanded the identification of the most important demotivating factors
for each student. The recent study by Sakai and Kikuchi reviewed a number of studies on
demotvation in the Japanese learning English context. They carried out statistical information on
the pre-set categories of demotivating features, however, the study provided neither characteristic
nor detailed information on various demotives.
In sum, all the studies reviewed above demonstrated that demotivation is a salient
phenomen in learning a L2 and that both classroom practitioners and educational systems have a
considerable impact in this respect. However, negative attitudes and discourses in society influence
learners to the similar extent and might cause real harm to their motivational process.
To increase understanding of demotivation (its causes, how to deal with it, how to cancel
it out) and eliminate all possible factors which lead to its manifestation, this thesis provides an
investigation of the phenomenon, by cooperating with 8-year grammar school students’ and using
their learning experiences.