5TH International Congress on Technology - Engineering & Science - Kuala Lumpur - Malaysia (2018-02-01)

A Review On Alternate Theories Of Motivation Adopted By Sla Researchers

In order to extend our comprehension of L2 motivation and to show the socio-educational model as the dominant model of L2 learning motivation in the field and the model which accounts for motivation in connection with factors such as social, individual, and contextual aspects, the researcher has included popular theories of motivation in educational psychology that have all made inroads into the second language acquisition (SlA) motivation literature such as self-determination theory, expectancy-value theory, attribution theory, and social cognitive theory. 1. Self-determination Theory Self-determination Theory is concerned with the need people have to feel that they are possibly in control and competent (Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000). This theory distinguishes between various kinds of motivation on the basis of different purposes or reasons that causes an action to occur (Deci & Ryan, 2000: 55). Two key components of self-determination theory are extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). An intrinsically motivated learner values the learning task intrinsically. The learner enjoys the learning task for itself, and this is the reason the learner is trying to learn (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In intrinsic motivation the individual finds satisfaction in the activity or behavior itself (Covington & Dray, 2002). Although intrinsic motivation and integrative motivation are similar, they are different in that the latter involves positive feelings towards the target group and a strong tendency to have communication with people of that group. On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is concerned with doing something for the outcome it brings about, such as a better job, entrance into a university, etc., not for the learning itself (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). The purpose of learning in extrinsic motivation is receiving some kinds of rewards that are not essentially linked with the learning itself (Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003). This concept is essentially the same as Gardner's instrumental motivation in the socio-educational model. Boggiano and Pitmann (1992) stated that instrumental orientation is generally associated with extrinsic motivation. Gardner (1994) believes that a prior condition for any kind of action that is to be rewarded intrinsically is self-determination. Hence, rather than considering extrinsic motivation as an opposite counterpart of intrinsic motivation, self-determination theory identifies a ''continuum between self-determined and controlled forms of motivation'' which includes five kinds of regulations (Dornyei, 2001: 47). These five categories include: (i) external regulation which refers to the activities determined by external sources, that is motivation results from outside sources in the form of rewards to avoid punishment; by removing the reason for language learning, there would be no inducement to continue the learning process (Dornyei, 2001); (ii) interjected regulation is defined as the reasons to perform an activity because of some kind of pressure or force that individuals incorporate and integrate into the self, in a way that they oblige themselves to perform that activity to avoid feeling guilty (Dornyei, 2001; Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2003); (iii) identified regulation is explained as the energy the individuals invest in an activity because of some personal reasons and hence, in such a situation, learners would accomplish the activity due to its importance to attain a valued goal (Noels, Pelletier, Clement, & Vallerand, 2003) (iv) integrated regulation includes regulations that are completely incorporated into the learner's other needs, values, and identities (Dornyei, 2001). Therefore, in this level the behavior is chosen based on the students' needs, values, and identities; and (v) involvement of the individual in an action only in the interest of that activity which is referred to as intrinsic motivation (Dornyei, 2001). Studies have indicated the significance of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in learning in general and with L2 learning specifically (Dornyei & Csizer, 2002). Guthrie, Wigfield, and VonSecker (2000) state that both types of motivations positively affect the amount of reading the learners engage in. Koller, Baumert, and Schnabel (2001) found out that whether learners' choose to be involved in more challenging and difficult mathematics courses was significantly affected by intrinsic motivation. In addition, the students who showed higher performance in mathematics had higher intrinsic interest in mathematics than those who reported lower achievement. 2. Expectancy-Value Theory Expectancy-Value Theory assumes that human motivation is identified or formed by two main concepts: expectancy and value (Wigfield, Tonk, & Eccles, 2004). This theory emphasizes the opinion that behavior or action is a reciprocal role of individuals' anticipations of attaining special outcomes or achievement as the use of carrying out an action as well as the degree to which the outcomes are valued by the individuals (Pintrich, 1989). Expectancy refers to what learners expect to occur if they attempt to learn something. For instance, if the students expect that they will obtain a high grade, then they form a positive expectancy. Research has indicated that expectancy has a relationship with effort and achievement (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Learners who have high expectations to be successful in a particular task will be more engaged in the task and persist longer than will learners who show low expectations of being successful. In determining the learners' engagement within a task, another motivational component should be also considered, namely, value. Value refers to the value that learners ascribe to what they are learning. Eccles and Wigfield (1994 as cited in Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) have claimed that there are four principal types of value. Attainment value is the significance that learners assign to a particular task because it affirms who they think they are. For example, if individuals suppose that they have a natural talent or gift to learn languages, then to learn another language will affirm such a belief about them; hence, learning the language becomes important for these people. Intrinsic value is defined as the joy learners obtain from learning a special thing (Eccles & Wigfield, 1994 cited in Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Utility value, the third type of value, is the significance of the learning task to achieve some other purposes. The learners have a utility value, for instance, if they value learning a second/foreign language as a requirement for graduating from university or college. As stated by Kline (2006) this value is similar to instrumental motivation in Gardner's socio-educational model as well as extrinsic motivation in self¬-determination theory. The negative outcomes that students think may originate from pursuing a learning task, is the fourth kind of value called cost belief value (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Most research shows that different kinds of value have larger influence on the learner choices concerning learning tasks but has a lesser influence on the effort learners extend (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Wu (2006) states that Outcome expectations are significant because learners are not prompted to perform in a manner they think will lead to negative results; they do not pursue things which they do not value. On the other hand, motivation and learning are influenced, but not guaranteed by values and outcome expectations (Wu, 2006). He suggests that learners will not do a learning task if they do not perceive that they are capable of doing it, even though they value the task. In other words, learners must have faith in their abilities to accomplish a task before they make the decision to take part in the activity. Two important theories are noticeable in the domain of expectancy: self-efficacy and attribution theories. 3. Attribution Theory Attribution theory proposes that one's expectancy is connected to attributions about his/her success (Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003). These researchers believe that some students think that their success in language learning is attributable to their abilities and or actions, but others think that their success is dependent upon other individuals or fate. This theory assumes that prior successes and failures as well as the perceived reasons for those successes or failures influence the learners' understandings of their own abilities, which in turn affect their motivation (Dornyei, 2003). Covington (1984) stated that according to this theory, successful learners ''attribute their successes to a combination of skill and effort,'' while failing learners ''attribute their successes to external factors such as luck, task ease, or the generosity of a teacher'' (Covington, 1984: 93). Thus, successful learners think that their failure originates from ''a lack of proper effort,'' and failing learners ascribe failure to ''lack of skill or ability'' (Covington, 1984: 93). Therefore, more successful learners show higher while unsuccessful learners show lower motivation in the classroom. Moreover, Dornyei (2003) believes that if individuals attribute their past failure on a specific task to their low ability, it is possible that they will never do the activity again, while if they think that the problem is due to insufficient endeavor or inappropriate learning strategies that they employed, it will be more probable that they try again. More recent researches on the attribution theory have indicated that reactions from teachers and classmates might have more effect on learners and their motivation rather than achievement, to an extent that they ''override the significance of the achievement itself'' (Hareli & Weiner, 2002: 183). 4. Social Cognitive Theory Social Cognitive Theory has greatly influenced second language acquisition motivation researchers. The theory asserts that learning is affected by the complex interaction of the individuals' beliefs, environment, and behavior (Schunk, 2004). This interaction is called ''triadic reciprocality'' because each part affects and is affected by the other parts (Pajares, 1996). Therefore, the social cognitive theory like socio-educational model, place a great emphasis on social variables. The main characteristic of the social cognitive theory that has drawn the attention of L2 researchers has been self-efficacy (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). As stated by Kline (2006), self-efficacy tends to be much more specific than expectancy which is a more global concept. In addition, the research seems to indicate that the self¬-efficacy variable is much more predictive than expectancy (Pajares, 1996). 5. Conclusion In summary, some popular theories and models have been discussed in order to extend our comprehension of L2 motivation. However, as asserted by Wesely (2009), in theories like expectancy-value and goal orientation the role of affect is not clear. It appears that, regardless of the learner, the path from causal roots to causal attribution, to causal dimensions, to expectation of success, and to effect is viewed as automatically determined (Oxford & Shearin, 1996). Deci and Ryan (2002), two of the leading scholars of self-determination theory, considered this a failure to “acknowledge any human nature of deep design to human psyche other than plasticity and docility” (2002: 434). References Boggiano, A. K., & Pittman, T. S. (1992). Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective. Cambridge University Press. Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on Motivation in Education (Vol. I, pp. 77-113). New York: Academic Press, Inc. Covington, M. V. & Dray, E. (2002). The development of course of achievement motivation: A need-based approach. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (First ed., pp. 33-56). Ann Arbor: Academic Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 319-338. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 431-441). Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. England: Pearson Education. Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53, 3-32. Domyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 421-462. Ehrman, M. E., Leaver B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences in second language learning. System, 31, 313-330. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331-341. Hareli, S., & Weiner, B. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 183-193. Kline, M. W. (2006). The relationship between motivational variables, anxiety, exposure to English, and language learning strategies among adult ESL learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California. Koller, 0., Baumert, J., & Schnabel, K. (2001). Does interest matter? The relationship between academic interest and achievement in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 448-471. Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 53 (1), 33-63. Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12-28. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543-578. Pintrich, P. R (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. Advance in Motivation and Achievement, 6, 117-160. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schunk, D. H. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. Wesely, P. M. (2009). The language learning motivation of early adolescent French and Spanish elementary immersion program graduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Wigfield, A., Tonk, S., & Eccles, J. (2004). Expectancy-value theory in cross-cultural perspective. In D. McInerney & S. van Etten (Eds.), Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning, Vol 4: big theories revisited (165-98). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers. Wu, P. (2006). The effects of goal orientation, self-efficacy, and cognitive/metacognitive self-regulatory strategy use on EFL college students' course achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Masoomeh Khodadad