Tạo động lực cho người học ngoại ngữ: Từ các lý thuyết phổ biến tới việc áp dụng trong nghiên cứu và thực hành
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
55
MOTIVATING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNERS:
FROM MAJOR L2 MOTIVATION THEORIES
TO IMPLICATIONS FOR L2 CLASSROOM PRACTICE
AND RESEARCH
Truong Thi My*
Hanoi University
Km9, Nguyen Trai Road, Nam Tu Liem district, Hanoi, Vietnam
Received 28 September 2020
Revised 24 December 2020; Accepted 20 January 2021
Abstract: Motivation has long been emphasized as a determinant factor in a learning process in general, and
second language (L2) acquisition in particular. Equivalent to such importance, a vast number of theories and
models have been proposed in the literature to explain why students choose to learn a second language. The
proliferation of L2 motivational theories and models in the literature, however, might have caused certain
confusion to practitioners and researchers in choosing a suitable methodological and theoretical framework for
their teaching practice and research. This paper aims to address this concern by critically reviewing the major L2
motivation approaches and their featured L2 motivational models to date, based on which several implications
will be made for L2 teachers who seek to create a motivating language teaching practice, and for L2 researchers
whose goal is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the construct in their empirical enquiries.
Keywords: second language (L2) motivation, literature review, second language teaching, L2 motivation
theories
Being of such importance, L2 motivation
1. Introduction*
has been illuminated on via numerous theories
and approaches over the past five decades.
Serving a shared purpose of helping teachers to
create motivating teaching practices, and
For a long time, the vital role of an
individual’s motivation in his/her learning has
been emphasized by many educational
researchers to better understand the L2
psychologists (e.g. Cave & Mulloy, 2010;
motivation construct, the proliferation of L2
Dörnyei, 2007; Graham & Weiner, 2012; Cook
motivation theories, however, must have caused
& Artino, 2016). As stressed by Cave and
certain difficulty for teachers and researchers in
Mulloy (2010), information about how and why
selecting a theoretical framework that best suits
people learn is essential in helping educators to
their context and research purposes (McEown,
design effective instructional practice. In the
Noels, & Chaffee, 2014). This suggests a need
field of second language (L2) education,
for a comparative review of the most influential
motivation is frequently mentioned as a factor
models in the vast L2 motivation literature with
worthy of special attention. Both practitioners
concrete implications for practice and research.
and researchers consistently share the view that
This paper aims to address this need by
learners’ motivation affects the success of their
L2 learning (Dörnyei, 2001b, 2005, 2007;
critically reviewing the major approaches to
understanding L2 motivation to date, as well as
Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013). According to
their corresponding featured motivational
Dörnyei (2007), it is not so much the quantity
models. Based on the discussion of the
and the quality of L2 input, the teaching
strengths and flaws in each L2 approach and
methods applied, or the nature of the L2
model chosen to review, and of them all
learning tasks, but the continuing motivation in
collectively,
several
practical
and
learners that can “inspire a lifelong commitment
to the subject matter” (pp. 719-720).
methodological recommendations for both L2
teachers and researchers will be presented.
The review starts with a brief definition of
motivation before examining how the
understanding of the construct has evolved over
_______
* Tel.: (+84)377682510
Email: [email protected]n
T. T. My / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
56
time through the analysis of four major
approaches in the history of L2 motivation
research. The paper then discusses the literature
collectively to draw implications for practice
and research at the end.
that the goal of learning is instrumentally
beneficial and achievable) should be present
(Day, 1999). However, educators normally
consider intrinsic motivations to be more
desirable and lead to better learning outcomes
than extrinsic drives (Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Graham & Weiner, 2012).
2. Motivation in mainstream psychology
Before L2 motivation literature is critically
reviewed, this section provides readers with a
general understanding of the construct by
defining “motivation”, its characteristics and
categories in mainstream psychology.
3. Motivation in second language acquisition
Having long been recognized as
a
significant predictor of L2 achievement, L2
motivation has been rigorously researched in
the last five decades. This section critically
reviews the most prevalent approaches to
understanding L2 motivation, starting with the
earliest social-psychological approach, and
concluding with the latest socio-dynamic
approach.
By definition, human motivation simply
refers to the reasons why people think and
behave in the way they do or the process
whereby a goal-directed activity is initiated and
sustained (Kazdin, 2000). In another
mainstream psychology text, Graham and
Weiner (2012) defined motivation as “what gets
people’s behaviour started, what directs,
energizes, sustains, and eventually terminates
the action” (p. 367). It is clear from these
definitions that insights into an individual’s
motivation for an action cannot only explain
why s/he does so, but also indicate how long
s/he is willing to sustain the activity and how
much effort s/he is going to spend pursuing it.
This also implies two aspects of the
motivational construct, namely, the choice
aspect (why a person behaves the way s/he
does), and the intensity aspect (how much s/he
wants to do it).
In terms of characteristics, it is generally
agreed that motivation is temporal, dynamic
(Gardner, 1985; Gottfried, 1990; Dörnyei,
2001b; MacIntyre, 2002; Graham & Weiner,
2012); and domain-specific (Fernet et al., 2008;
Gottfried, 1990). This means motivation varies
over time, across subject areas, learner groups
and learning situations. Such characteristics
necessitate the account of factors that influence
motivational changes in the whole course of an
action in a theory or model that aims to explain
an individual’s motivation for such an action.
3.1. The social-psychological approach
The first foundation in the long history of
L2 motivation research was laid with the social-
psychological approach which features the
two-fold formulation of L2 motivation
proposed by Gardner and Lambert (1972). They
theorize that the L2 learning process has
important psychological and social aspects that
make the motivation to learn an L2 differ from
the motivation to learn all other subjects. That
is, language learners are expected to acquire not
only the linguistic knowledge, but also to adopt
the L2 native community’s distinct linguistic
styles and behaviors (Gardner & Lambert,
1972). It is, according to Gardner and Lambert
(1972), primarily the learners’ attitudes towards
the L2 native speakers and their culture that
directly affect their learning motivation and
performance. This led these two social
psychologists to propose two kinds of
motivation in L2 learning: the “integrative”
motivation referring to “a willingness to
become a member of another ethnolinguistic
group” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p. 12), and
the “instrumental” type denoting “a desire to
gain social recognition or economic advantages
through knowledge of a foreign language”
(ibid., p. 14). To be more specific, those who
are integratively motivated choose to learn an
L2 because they are genuinely interested in the
language itself and its culture, or want to be
identified with the target people. Those who are
instrumentally motivated, on the other hand,
Concerning
educational psychologists
categorization,
have
most
framed
motivation in the extrinsic/intrinsic dualism.
For learning to be best conditioned
psychologically, both intrinsic motivation (i.e.
the internal drive to follow one’s interest to
enhance knowledge and skills and become more
capable), and extrinsic motivation (the belief
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
57
aim at the practicality and utility of the L2
proficiency, for example, to have better job
opportunities, or to gain course credits. Of the
two motivational orientations, integrativeness is
expected to be more desirable and lead to
higher outcomes in L2 learning than the other
(Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985).
On this theoretical basis, Gardner (1985)
devised the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
(AMTB), an instrument to quantify the amount
of motivation. This includes three sub-scales
measuring three constructs that would
collectively underlie a learner’s motivation for
learning an L2: (i) the motivation intensity (i.e.
how much effort a person invested or is willing
to invest in learning the language; (ii) the
attitudes towards learning the L2 (i.e. how
much enjoyment the person feels when s/he
learns the language); and (iii) desire to learn
(i.e. how much the learner personally wants to
learn the L2) (Ortega, 2009). The latest version
of the instrument (Gardner, 2004) consists
of 104 Likert-scale statements measured on
a 6-points continuum, ranging from strongly
disagree (scored 1) to strongly agree (scored 6),
and seven items on a 7-point rating of various
types (e.g. weak-strong; very low-very high;
unfavorable-favorable). Researchers who adopt
the instrument may select the specific contents
that suit best their research purposes.
Gardner’s and his associate’s social-
psychological perspective was noted as being
radically ahead of its time (Dörnyei, 2005)
since it had, for the first time, distinguished L2
motivation research from the mainstream
motivational psychology, which was then still
dominated by purely individual-cognitive
perspectives on motivation. In light of this
differentiation, L2 motivation is rigorously
articulated in terms of both motivation per se
(effort, desire to learn) and its social-
psychological contributors (attitudes, learning
orientations). In fact, Gardner’s and Lambert’s
(1972) theory and the subsequent model of
AMTB, since its inception, has underpinned a
wealth of empirical research that aims to
measure motivation as an individual-difference
variable in L2 acquisition and predicts its causal
link with other aspects of L2 learning and with
L2 achievement throughout two decades
thereafter (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner,
1985; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Masgoret &
Gardner, 2003; Ditual, 2012). Current research
examining the cultural and attitudinal factors
that contribute to students’ motivation in
English language learning is still found based
its argument on Gardner’s and associates’
(1972, 2004) work (e.g. Lai & Aksornjarung,
2019; Darmanto, 2020).
Although these empirical studies largely
confirm the validity of the socio-psychological
approach as well as the role of motivation as a
causal variable in predicting L2 success, the
model nevertheless has not gone unchallenged.
First, some studies (Kruidenier & Clement,
1986; Belmechri & Hummel, 1998) did not
detect the presence of integrative motivation in
certain groups of second language learners, but
instead revealed a different set of motivators:
instrumental,
friendship,
travel,
self-
understanding, knowledge, whose dominant
orientations vary across learning situations.
Second, the definition of integrative motivation
appears inapplicable to the L2 learners who
demonstrate very little or no genuine interest in
the target culture due to limited opportunities to
interact with the native speakers. The
presumably
superior
influence
of
“integrativeness” on L2 achievement is also
challenged when instrumental motivation was
actually found to be much more powerful
among this group of learners in several cases
(Lukmani, 1972; Gonzales, 2010). The reason
is that when English is increasingly viewed as
an international language, the notion of
integrating with native speakers from specific
Anglophone communities has become less and
less meaningful (Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2006).
Not only was the power of integrativeness
found problematic, the correlation between
learners’ attitudes and their L2 motivation was
also not as positive as expected by the model in
certain contexts. In Lai and Aksornjarung’s
(2018) study on Thai EFL students for instance,
the research sample did not show a level of
motivation that duly matched their reported
positive attitudes towards English language
learning. Research findings as such led several
notable scholars to critiquing Gardner’s socio-
psychological model as being too deterministic
and static (Ellis, 2008; MacIntyre, 2002). On
the one hand, it considers motivation as an
individual-difference factor that obviously
determines a learner’s L2 success. It also seems
to ignore, on the other hand, the dynamic
character of motivation, which causes it to
constantly change as a result of different
learning experiences and a multiplicity of other
T. T. My / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
58
purely personal factors. Acknowledging this
limitation after decades of research, Gardner
(2010, p. 59) conceded that the socio-
psychological model could only account for
“general relationships”, and is unable to provide
context-specific and individualized advice to L2
teachers on how to motivate their students.
needs for competence and relatedness (Otoshi
& Heffernan, 2011) on the L2 motivation of the
researched participants.
This shift in L2 motivational research is
said to acknowledge one major development in
L2 motivation study: recognizing the temporal
and dynamic nature of the motivational
construct. In fact, much research under the
approach has shown that learners’ motivation
can vary across different individual cognitions
(e.g. self-confidence, explanation of progress or
lack thereof) (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, the focus
of the cognitive-situated approach on classroom
processes has started to allow research framed
under this approach to yield practical advice to
language teachers (Boo et al., 2015).
This discovery is, however, still limited in
its characterization of motivation as a conscious
process that happens within a relatively short
duration (Boo et al., 2015). It thus does not
suffice to fully address the instability of
motivation during an extended learning event,
such as a lesson, or the whole course of
learning (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012). To
address this, the process-oriented approach was
developed at the turn of this century.
3.2. The cognitive-situated approach
The limitations of the social-psychological
approach as discussed above led to the
emergence of what Dörnyei (2005) named the
cognitive-situated approach in motivation
research during the 1990s. The approach is
influenced by two interrelated trends: (i) the
desire to incorporate cognitive theories in
general educational psychology in the analysis
of L2 motivation and (ii) the need to shift from
a macro socio-psychological perspective to a
more situated view of L2 motivation in specific
learning contexts, for example, classrooms. The
resulting models of motivation under this
approach are those considering motivation in a
particular learning situation (e.g. classroom
environment, course material, instructional
methods) through the lens of one cognitive
notion in mainstream psychology. Some of the
most influential concepts considered include
“self-determination” – which posits that higher
motivation and subsequently increased learning
outcome is engendered when learners are more
involved in the decision-making process and
self-determine their learning goals and styles
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Crookes & Schmidt,
1991); “self-efficacy” – the belief in one’s
ability to succeed in L2 learning; the stronger
the belief, the more motivated the learner is
supposed to be (Clement, Dörnyei, & Noels,
1994); and “attributions” (Weiner, 1992), which
asserts that the types of reasons to which
learners attribute their L2 performance, being
either effort-related or ability-related, will shape
their motivation in the L2 learning process
(Dörnyei, 2005). Examples of empirical studies
applying and applauding the applicability of
this approach in L2 motivation research are
Otoshi and Heffernan (2011), Thurman (2013),
and Rahmanpanah (2017). Quantitatively
designed and focusing on English as a second
language (ESL) learners, these studies
confirmed the significant effects of learners’
autonomy, self-efficacy (Rahmanpanah 2017;
Thurman, 2013); teachers’ support of students’
3.3. The process-oriented approach
The process-oriented approach to
understanding L2 motivation features the
attempt to capture the temporal feature of the
construct, which the previous theories fail to, at
least explicitly, account for (Dörnyei, 2002). An
outstanding outcome of such an attempt is
Dörnyei and Ottos’s (1998) process model
which describes L2 learning motivation as
experiencing three distinct stages: (1) “pre-
actional” featuring choice motivation, (2)
“actional” concerning executive motivation,
and (3) “post-actional” involving learners’
evaluation of the learning experiences.
The choice motivation in phase 1 contains
three sub-elements that occur prior to a
language learning event, namely goal setting,
information intention, and enactment (Dörnyei
& Ottos, 1998, p. 47). The subsequent actional
phase starts at the onset of the action and goes
on under the effects of three basic processes,
including
subtask
generation
and
implementation, appraisal of environmental
support and on-going progress, and action
control mechanisms. Finally, the post-actional
phase, which begins upon the achievement of
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
59
goals or termination of the action, involves
causal attributions about the result of the whole
learning process, and inferences of future action
orientations. The whole actional sequence is
fueled by the so-called “motivational
influences” (Dörnyei & Ottos, 1998, p. 51),
appearing in and corresponding to every stage
of the motivation process. It is beyond the
scope of this review to exhaustively list all
these influences, but some examples include
language attitudes that direct goal setting in the
initial phase, learners’ sense of autonomy that
affects the actional stage, and teachers’
feedback that may shape post-actional
evaluation (Dörnyei & Ottos, 1998).
Such a “flexible” model was found superior
to its “static” antecedents in its ability to
distinguish conceptually the motivations to
engage in learning an L2 (reasons, decisions,
goals) from motivations that sustain the
engagement during the L2 learning process
(feelings, behaviors, reactions to learning
environment) (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012).
Projecting the wax and wane of motivation on
the whole process of L2 learning, the model
also provides systematic and helpful guides for
teachers on how to create motivating teaching
practice (Dörnyei, 2007). Last but not least, the
model is able to incorporate into its scope other
past motivational concepts, for example,
integrative motivation and instrumental
motivation in the pre-actional and actional
stage, or attribution in the post-actional stage,
thus offering a more extended framework for
research than its predecessors (Ellis, 2008).
Examples of studies that applied and applauded
the validity and usefulness of the procedural
view of L2 motivation include Dörnyei and
Csizér (2005), Inbar et al. (2001), Ushioda
(2001), Hiromori (2009), and Khudur (2019).
Although conducted at different scales and
adopting different research designs, all of these
studies found motivational variations over time,
whether it be a historical period (Dörnyei &
Csizér, 2005), a school year (Inbar et al., 2001),
from other motivational processes which the
learner may be simultaneously engaged in
(Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012). In other words, it
still treats motivation as an individual
difference factor that is relatively stable and
easily identifiable, which in fact has been
proved to be highly sensitive to context
specificity in reality (Al-Hoorie, 2017). These
short-comings actually reveal the limitations of
most studies in L2 motivation to date; that is,
they have mostly attempted to draw an
explanatory linear relationship between
motivation and learning outcomes without
adequately considering the full situated and
dynamic complexity of the whole L2 learning
process with various factors that may shape a
learner’s motivation (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2012).
3.4. The socio-dynamic approach
The latest movement in L2 motivation
research has shifted to a more dynamic
contextual perspective in analysing motivation,
which is marked by the socio-dynamic
approach. In light of this approach, motivation
is no longer treated as an individual-difference
variable, but rather, as an integral part of
organic dynamic systems which evolve and
develop in a non-linear manner and in the
interaction of multiple personal, social and
contextual factors (Dörnyei, 2009; Ushioda,
2009; Dörnyei, MacIntyre & Henry, 2015). The
approach is thus characterized by a need to
theorize L2 motivation “in ways that take
account of broader complexities of language
learning and language use in the modern
globalized world – that is, by reframing L2
motivation in the context of contemporary
theories of self and identity” (Dörnyei &
Ushioda, 2012, p. 398).
Dörnyei’s (2009) conceptualization of the
“L2 Motivational Self System” (LMSS), based
on two parent theories of “possible selves”
(Markus & Nurius, 1986) and self-discrepancy
(Higgin, 1987) in psychology, is one
noteworthy response to this need. Central in the
model is the concept of “ideal self”,
representing all the attributes that a person
ideally wishes to possess (as revealed in his/her
personal hopes, wishes, desires), and the
complementary concept of “ought-to self”,
signifying the attributes that a person feels
necessary to possess as a result of his sense of
responsibilities, obligations and duties. A
principle is that one’s psychological desire to
or
a
particular course (Ushioda, 2001;
Hiromori, 2009; Khudur, 2019) thanks to the
application of process-oriented L2 motivation
framework.
The process model of L2 motivation,
however, exhibits two shortcomings: (i) it
assumes a clear definition of the starting and
ending point of a learning process and (ii) it
does not acknowledge the possible interference
T. T. My / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
60
bridge the gap between the “current actual self”
and “future self” will serve as a great source of
motivation for one to learn. Investigations into
the selves must also take into account their
interaction with the third component of the
LMSS – L2 learning experience, which
contains the specific motives shaped by the
immediate learning environment. (Dörnyei,
2005, p. 106). According to Ushioda (2009),
these motives can be instructor-specific (e.g.
teachers’ professional profile and nature of
feedback), course-specific (e.g. the teaching
materials, the mode of delivery), or learner
group-specific (e.g. the dynamics of the group
of learners learning together).
process (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007; Hadfield &
Dörnyei, 2013).
Shortcomings, however, are still noticeable.
Ushioda and Dörnyei (2012) point out that a
challenging question remains about how to
operationalize the complex and dynamic
relationships between learner, language and
environment in measurable terms. The
advanced L2 Motivational Self System is also
not far from problematic. As “humans […] are
inherently social beings” (Dörnyei & Ushioda,
2009, p. 353), one’s perceptions about “selves”
are supposed to be grounded in the social
environment s/he is in and the constant
interactions s/he has with that environment.
Given such a social influence, it is thorny to
decide with absolute confidence the desired self
a learner perceives at a certain time is “ideal”,
i.e. the possible self “that is fully owned by
the leaner” and “not imposed by others”
(ibid., p. 353). Finally, the concept of strongly
goal-oriented future self might not apply to
learners of the languages that are not associated
with strong instrumental utility (Duff, 2017). In
fact, while well-defined L2 learning goals (an
integral part of the learner’s future self) are
considered a strong motivational force in the
LMSS, the total absence of such was
interestingly found in highly motivated learners
of te reo Māori, an indigenous New Zealand
Dörnyei’s (2009) LMSS under the socio-
dynamic approach has a number of advantages.
First, by considering the individual self system
with its full complexity and relationship with
other social and contextual facets (learning
experiences,
responsibilities),
sense
the
of
model
obligation,
offers
a
comprehensive and versatile framework for L2
motivation research under the socio-dynamic
approach. Ortega (2009) noted that the
conceptualization as such has opened “the
horizon to research on individual differences
where cognitive, conative and affective
dimensions can be blended and studied
interrelated” (p. 188), and Boo et al. (2015)
acknowledged the model’s ability to afford both
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. This
can actually be seen in the surge of studies
conceptually framed under the LMSS and of
various designs since 2011 (Boo et al., 2015) in
both ESL (e.g. King, Yeung & Cai, 2019; Papi
et al., 2018), and learning languages other than
English (LOTEs) contexts (e.g. Berardi-
Wiltshire, Bortolotto & Morris, 2020). Second,
the notion of “ideal language self” in the LMSS
has reinterpreted Gardner’s concept of
“integrativeness” in an interesting way, being
for example, a personal desire to be proficient
in English as an international language (Ellis,
2008). This has addressed the conceptual issue
of integrative motivation as discussed earlier,
extending its application even to contexts where
chances to interact with the target language
community are not present. Third, the focus on
how learners conceive themselves has laid an
important foundation for research into practical
strategies to initiate, sustain, and enhance
learners’ motivation throughout the learning
language (Berardi-Wiltshire, Bortolotto
&
Morris, 2020). The complexities and nuances
behind the motivation of LOTEs are therefore
not yet fully accounted for under the socio-
dynamic L2 motivation approach.
4. Discussion and implications
It can be seen from the review above that
the concept of L2 motivation and its full
complexity has been gradually uncovered with
the increasing sophistication of the analytical
framework over time. From a static notion
bearing a simplified linear relationship with
learning outcomes, motivation has recently
been depicted as a temporal and dynamic
construct, which constantly changes under the
effects of numerous variables in the learning
process. Throughout the evolution process, later
theories in consecutive stages did not simply
replace but modified and complemented former
ones, creating certain overlaps and subtle
interactions (Boo et al., 2015).
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
61
It is, however, striking to notice that none of
the existing approaches and models would, by
itself, be entirely adequate to serve as a
comprehensive theoretical basis for both
practical and research applications. First, no
approach to date suffices to capture all the
features of the motivational construct. While
the socio-psychological approach, for instance,
fails to capture the “temporal” feature, the
process-oriented model appears to simplify the
“dynamic” aspect of motivation in its temporal
axis. Second, most approaches tend to
emphasize the initial phase of a motivational
process (i.e. the reasons for people’s choice of a
certain course of action), while ignoring or
depreciating the importance of sustaining
learner’s motivation during an L2 learning
process (i.e. how and why a learner continues to
engage or choose to disengage in learning an
L2). The only model that does justice to
executive motivational sources – Dörnyei’s and
Ottos’s (1998) process model of L2 motivation
– unfortunately seems to display one former
shortcoming: insufficient in portraying the
“dynamic” feature of motivation (Bower,
2019). Third, all born in the contexts where
English is a typical second language, the above
theories might be offering a narrow view of L2
motivation, excluding some priorities and
experiences of LOTEs learners and thus failing
to cover all the nuances of their motivation
(Berardi-Wiltshire, Bortolotto & Morris, 2020).
As explained by Ushioda (2017), the future-
oriented and goal-based nature of L2 motivation
as depicted in the mentioned theories has
necessarily associated L2 motivation discourses
with “necessity, utility, advantage, power,
gained scholarly attention in mainstream
psychology (Ryan & Legate, 2012), is still
largely overlooked, leaving much room in the
L2 motivation field to be enriched.
These
points
imply
several
recommendations for both practitioners and
researchers. For L2 instructors, including those
in Vietnam context, even simple psychological
techniques such as encouraging in students the
positive attitudes towards the targeted language,
people, and culture, or emphasizing the
instrumental benefits of learning the L2 can be
powerful ways to instil the initial drive for
students to learn a second language (Dörnyei,
2007). However, since students’ motivation is
ever-changing and unstable, teachers must
invest constant effort in sustaining student’s
motivation throughout the learning process.
This can be done by maximizing student’s
freedom in pursuing their own learning styles,
nurturing self-esteem and autonomy in them
(Rahmanpana, 2017), or prioritizing effort-
related feedback over the ability-related type
(Dörnyei, 2007). In addition, helping students
to understand their current self, and directing
them towards a suitable ideal self image would
also be an effective way to create on-going
motivation in L2 classes (King, Yeung & Cai,
2019). Last but not least, since motivation is
individually different and context sensitive,
teachers should be flexible in choosing
motivational techniques to apply in classrooms.
As emphasized by Dörnyei (2007), while it is
necessary for teachers to be aware of the vast
repertoire of possible motivational strategies, a
motivating teaching practice must be tailored
based on the “specific needs that arise” in their
“concrete circumstances” (p. 731). The
integrative motivational technique, for instance,
might work well with learners who demonstrate
a genuine interest in the targeted culture, but is
highly likely to fail with those whose sole goal
of learning the L2 is to earn a promotion at work.
For L2 researchers, it is advisable that the
motivation construct should be viewed from
different angles to obtain a more comprehensive
understanding. Several useful directions for
research include, first of all, applying multiple
theoretical lenses since no theory or concept
alone is sufficient in capturing the nuances of
L2 motivation (Bower, 2019). In a review
extending over a decade, Boo et al. (2015) have
in fact observed a surge of “more than one
concept” studies since 2011, which typically
advancement,
mobility,
migration
and
cosmopolitanism” (p. 417), the concepts that
may not fully apply to the reasons behind
individuals learning minority languages not
connected with economic utility or hegemonic
status. Furthermore, some concepts no longer
deemed much meaningful to learning English
as a global language, such as integrativeness
(Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2006), has now been
found resurface in LOTEs motivation research
(Al-Hoorie, 2017). Finally, past and current
views on L2 motivation tend to assume, at least
implicitly, that L2 learners are rational
individuals who are conscious of and able to
articulate their drives in L2 learning (Al-Hoorie,
2017). In other words, the importance of
unconscious motivators, which has recently
T. T. My / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
62
paired the LLMS with another motivation
theory – the trend still prevalent until today in
motivation research (e.g. Bower, 2019; Berardi-
Wiltshire et al., 2020). Conceptual pairing,
according to these authors, would on the one
hand allow for an extended understanding of L2
motivation in a given context; and on the other,
create room for juxtaposing different theoretical
perspectives, thus enabling possible expansion
of the theoretical basis in the area (Boo et al.,
2015; King et al., 2019). When comparing
empirical studies framed under multiple
theoretical lenses, McEown et al. (2014) also
concluded that L2 outcome variables are best
explained under a framework that combines key
concepts from different approaches. Second,
the unexplored unconscious motivators in L2
learning are also an area that holds potential for
future research. The inclusion of implicit
processes such as implicit attitudes, implicit
self-concepts, implicit prejudice, may move the
field towards an equivalent place with other
educational psychology sub-disciplines where
unconscious motivation, or “the other side” of
the motivation construct, has been duly
expanding their scope to include the complexities
involved in the LOTEs contexts as well.
5. Conclusion
This literature review has chronologically
described and critiqued the major approaches to
understanding L2 motivation to date. It has
highlighted motivation as a determinant factor
in L2 learning, and a construct attracting
growing attention in L2 and educational
psychology research. The paper also argued that
the literature still lacks a comprehensive
framework to depict L2 motivation, especially
in the context of LOTEs, suggesting the need
for both teachers and researchers to be critical
and inclusive in their choice of a motivational
theory to apply to their practice and research.
Such an observation matches what Dornyei
wrote more than two decades ago; that is,
“motivation is indeed a multifaceted rather than
a uniform factor and no available theory has yet
managed to represent it in its total complexity”
(1998, p. 131). This review though, by putting
all notable L2 motivation theories and models
in one place, is hoped to have described
different facets of the construct, and equipped
researchers and teachers with an integrative
repertoire of strategies to explore and nurture
students’ L2 motivation. Put in MacIntyre and
associates’ words (2010), the review may have
provided “complementary, and perhaps richer,
ways of understanding motivation and language
learning” (p. 1).
investigated
(Al-Hoorie,
2017).
Methodologically, future researchers are
advised to adopt longitudinal designs (Ortega,
2009). Unlike the cross-sectional methods that
dominate current L2 motivation research
(McEown, 2014), long-term investigations
would unfold the revolutionary trajectories of
the motivation processes, and thus be able to
capture the temporal and long-term feature of
L2 motivation (Al-Hoorie, 2017). Finally, the
inadequate affordance of LOTEs in the scope of
the current L2 motivation theories points to a
critical need for inquiries into relatively
unexplored motives in relatively unexplored
contexts, among which, ones involving the
learning of minority, indigenous, or heritage
languages should deserve special attention
(MacIntyre, Baker, & Sparling, 2017, p. 501).
Findings of this research strand would
complement the current L2 motivation theories,
A limitation of this review should be
acknowledged. That is, the list of the L2
motivational models and theories reviewed in
this paper is not exhaustive. Although the
author is confident that the most influential
ones have been covered, a new theory might
have evolved beyond the author’s awareness
and thus may have been missed in the paper.
Future work with more resources can expand
the current review and complete the picture of
L2 motivation it has depicted.
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
63
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning
tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and
instructed languagelearning (pp. 137-158). John Benjamin.
References
Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). A test of cognitive
and motivational dimensions of domain learning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90, 435-447.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language
learner: Individual differences in second language
acquisition. Erlbaum.
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Sixty years of language motivation
research: Looking back and looking forward. SAGE
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom
environment. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.),
International handbook of English language
teaching (pp. 719-731). Springer.
Belmechri, F., & Hummel, K. (1998). Orientations and
motivation in the acquisition of English as a second
language among high school students in Quebec city.
Language Learning, 48, 219-44.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z.
Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Multilingual Matters.
Berardi-Wiltshire, A., Bortolotto, M. C., & Morris, H.
(2020). Motivation as ethical self-formation in
learning te reo Māori as a second language. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1-13.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizé, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language
attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal
nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23, 421-462.
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.).
(2015). Motivational dynamics in language
learning. Multilingual Matters.
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation
research 2005-2014: Understanding a publication
surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145-157.
Dörnyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process
model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied
Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
Bower, K. (2019) Explaining motivation in language
learning: A framework for evaluation and research.
The Language Learning Journal, 47(5), 558-574.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.
Cave, A., & Mulloy, M. (2010). How do cognitive and
motivational factors influence teachers’ degree of
program implementation? A qualitative examination
of teacher perspectives. National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal,
27(4), 1-26.
Duff, P. A. (2017). Commentary: Motivation for learning
languages other than English in an English-dominant
world. The Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 597–607.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition.
Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second
language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. Edward Arnold.
Cheng, H. F., & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational
strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL
teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 1(1), 153-174.
Gardner, R. C. (2004). Attitude/Motivation Test
Battery: International AMTB research project.
Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noel, K. A. (1994). Motivation,
self-confidence and group cohesion in the foreign
language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417-448.
The
University
of
Western
Ontario.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language
acquisition: The socio-educational model. Peter Lang.
Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2006). Integrativeness: Untenable
for world Englishes learners? World Englishes, 25, 437-
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and
motivation in second-language learning. Newbury
House Publishers, Inc.
Cook, D. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Motivation to learn:
An overview of contemporary theories. Medical
education, 50(10), 997-1014.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s
contributions to second-language learning. Part II:
Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11.
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening
the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Gonzales, R. DLC. (2010). Motivational orientation in
foreign language learning: The case study of Filipino
Foreign Language Learners. TESOL Journal, 3, 3-28.
Darmanto (2020). The roles of a native English speaker
teacher (NEST) on the students’ motivation in learning
English: A case study at SMAN 2 Sumbawa Besar.
TESOL International Journal, 15(1), 93-99.
Graham, S., & Weiner, B. (2012). Motivation: Past,
present, and future. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T.
Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra & J. Sweller
(Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Vol.
1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 367-
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: Challenges of
lifelong learning. Falmer Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.
397).
American
Psychological
Association.
Ditual, R. C. (2012). The motivation for and attitude towards
learning English. The Asian EFL Journal, 63, 4-21.
Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Motivating learning.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the
foreign language classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 78, 273-284.
Longman.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating
self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the
language classroom. Cambridge University Press.
Hiromori, T. (2009). A process model of L2 learners’
motivation: From the perspectives of general tendency
and individual differences. System, 37, 313-321.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and researching
motivation. Longman.
T. T. My / VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
64
Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Shohamy, E. (2001).
Students’ motivation as a function of language
learning: The teaching of Arabic in Israel. In Z.
Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (pp. 297-311). National Foreign
Language Resource Center.
system models. In K. Csizér & M. Magid (Eds.), The
impact of self-concept on language learning (pp. 19-
50). Multilingual Matters.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language
acquisition. Routledge.
Otoshi, J., & Heffernan, N. (2011). An analysis of a
hypothesized model of EFL students’ motivation
based on self-determination theory. The Asian EFL
Journal, 13(3), 66-86.
Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Encyclopedia of psychology.
American Psychological Association.
Khudur, S. (2019). Kurdish students’ motivation to study
in Hungary. BirLE-Journal, 2(2), 6-15.
Papi, M., Bondarenko, A. V. Mansouri, Feng, L., & Jiang,
C. (2018). Rethinking L2 motivation research: The
2x2 model of self-guides. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 41(2), 337-361.
King, R., Yeung, S. S., & Cai, Y. (2019). Personal
investment theory: A multi-faceted framework to
understand second and foreign language motivation.
System, 86, 1-10.
Rahmanpanah, H. (2017). Investigating teachers’
Kruidenier, B., & Clement, R. (1986). The effect of context
on the composition and role of orientations in second
language acquisition. International Center for
Research on Bilingualism.
communicative styles in EFL context: A self-
determination theory perspective. Journal of Applied
Linguistics and Language Research, 4(1), 268-289.
Rau, P. L., Gao, Q., & Wu, L. M. (2008). Using mobile
communication technology in high-school education;
motivation, pressure, and learning performance.
Computer & Education, 50(1), 1-22.
Lai, Y., & Aksornjarung, P. (2018). Thai EFL learners’
attitudes and motivation towards learning English
through content-based instruction. Malaysian Online
Journal of Educational Studies, 6(1), 43-65.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Lukmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language
proficiency. Language Learning, 22, 261-273.
MacIntyre, P. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in
second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.),
Individual differences and instructed language
learning (pp. 45-68). John Benjamins.
Ryan, R. M., & Legate, N. (2012). Through a fly’s eye:
Multiple yet overlapping perspectives on future
directions for human motivation research. In R. M.
Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human
motivation (pp. 554-564). Oxford University Press.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., & Sparling, H. (2017).
Heritage passions, heritage convictions, and the rooted
L2 self: Music and Gaelic language learning in Cape
Breton, Nova Scotia. The Modern Language Journal,
101(3), 501-516.
Thurman, J. (2013). Choices and its influence on intrinsic
motivation and output in task-based language
teaching. The Asian EFL Journal, 15(1), 202-245.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Moore, B. (2010).
Perspectives on motivation in second language
acquisition: Lessons from the Ryoanji Garden. In M.
T. Prior, Y. Wantanabe & S. K. Lee (Eds), Selected
Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research
Forum (pp. 1-9). Cascadilla Press.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relation view of
emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei
& E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self (pp. 215-228). Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2012). Motivation. In S. M.
Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition (pp. 396-409).
Routledge.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves.
American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.
Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes,
motivation, and second language learning: A meta-
analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and his
associates. Language Learning, 52(1), 167-210.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors,
theories, and research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Williams, M., Burden, R., Poulet, G., & Maun, I. (2004).
Learners’ perceptions of their successes and failures in
foreign language learning. The Language Learning Journal,
McEown, M. S., Noels, K. A., & Chaffee, K. E. (2014). At
the interface of the socio-educational model, self-
determination theory and the L2 motivational self
VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2021) 55-65
65
TẠO ĐỘNG LỰC CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ:
TỪ CÁC LÝ THUYẾT PHỔ BIẾN TỚI VIỆC ÁP DỤNG
TRONG NGHIÊN CỨU VÀ THỰC HÀNH
Trương Thị Mỹ
Trường Đại học Hà Nội
Km 9, đường Nguyễn Trãi, quận Nam Từ Liêm, Hà Nội, Việt Nam
Tóm tắt: Động lực của người học từ lâu đã được khẳng định là một yếu tố quyết định trong quá trình học
tập nói chung và việc học ngôn ngữ thứ hai nói riêng. Tương xứng với tầm quan trọng của vấn đề, rất nhiều lý
thuyết và mô hình nhằm lý giải động lực học ngôn ngữ thứ hai đã ra đời. Tuy vậy, sự đa dạng về số lượng các
đường hướng và mô hình có thể đã gây ra không ít khó khăn cho những người làm chuyên môn muốn lựa chọn
một lý thuyết phù hợp nhất cho nghiên cứu hay thực tế giảng dạy của mình. Bài viết nhằm mục đích tháo gỡ khó
khăn này thông qua việc tổng hợp và phân tích các đường hướng và mô hình lý giải động lực học ngôn ngữ thứ
hai phổ biến từ trước tới nay. Trên cơ sở đó, tác giả đưa ra một số đề xuất mang tính thực tiễn cho giáo viên
ngoại ngữ/ngôn ngữ thứ hai và mang ý nghĩa phương pháp luận cho các nhà nghiên cứu muốn tìm hiểu một cách
toàn diện hơn về khái niệm động lực học ngoại ngữ hay ngôn ngữ thứ hai.
Từ khóa: động lực học ngôn ngữ thứ hai, tổng quan lý thuyết, dạy học ngôn ngữ thứ hai, lý thuyết về động
lực học ngôn ngữ thứ hai
11 trang
27400
Free
Bạn đang xem tài liệu "Tạo động lực cho người học ngoại ngữ: Từ các lý thuyết phổ biến tới việc áp dụng trong nghiên cứu và thực hành", để tải tài liệu gốc về máy hãy click vào nút Download ở trên
File đính kèm:
- tao_dong_luc_cho_nguoi_hoc_ngoai_ngu_tu_cac_ly_thuyet_pho_bi.pdf
