2.7. Speaking…………………………………………………………………………………………40
2.7.1. Theory of speaking………………………………………………………………………….41
2.7.1.1. Bygate’s theory……………………………………………………………………………..41
2.7.1.2. Harmer’s theory………………………………………………………………………..41-42
2.7.2. Production skills………………………………………………………………………..42-43
2.7.3. Interaction skills…………………………………………………………………………43-44
2.8. Communicative Language Teaching and Speaking Activities………………………….44-45
2.8.1. Organizational forms……………………………………………………………………45-46
2. 8.1.1. Whole-class teaching (Lockstep method)………………………………………………..46
2.8.1.2. Group work…………………………………………………………………………………47
2.8.1.3. Pair work…………………………………………………………………………………….47
2.9. Demotivating factors influencing speaking skill……………………………………………….48
Chapter 3: Method
3.1. Research design…………………………………………………………………50.
3.2. Qualitative phase………………………………………………………………….50
3.2.1. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………..50
3.2.2. Data collection instruments………………………………………………………………….51
3.2.3. Data analysis procedure………………………………………………………………………51
3. 3. Quantitative phase………………………………………………………………………………51
3.3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………51
3. 3. 2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………51-52
3. 3.3. Data collection instruments……………………………………………………………..52
3. 3.4. Data analysis procedure…………………………………………………………………52
3. 4. Procedures……………………………………………………………………52
3.4.1 Qualitative phase…………………………………………………………52-54
3.4.2. Quantitative phase………………………………………………………………………54-56
Chapter 4: Results and discussion
4.1. Qualitative phase……………………………………………………………………………….58
4.1.1. Factors leading to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress as perceived by students…………………………………………………………………..58
4.1.1 .1 Teachers’ inadequate language knowledge and teaching style………………………….59-61
4.1.1.2. Unsuitable learning materials………………………………………………………….61-62.
4.1.1.3. Lack of technological equipment…………………………………………………………….63
4.1.1.4. Non-communicative method…………………………………………………………63-64
4.1.2. Factors leading to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress as perceived by teachers…………………………………………………………………64-65
4.1.2.1. Teachers’ inadequate language knowledge and teaching style…………………………..65-66
4.1.2.2. Learner characteristics……………………………………………………………………67-68
4.1.2.3. Unsuitable learning materials……………………………………………………………….68
4.1.2.4. Lack of technological equipment………………………………………………………….69
4.1.2.5. Non-communicative method…………………………………………………………69-70
4.1.3. Similarities and differences in students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the demotivating factors regarding students’ practice of L2 speaking……………………………………………………70-71
4.2. The Quantitative Phase……………………………………………………………………….71
4.2.1. Factor analysis……………………………………………………………………………72-76
4.3. Reliability of the instrument……………………………………………………………….76
4.4. Research Question 3…………………………………………………………………………..77-82
4.5. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………….82-85
Chapter 5: Conclusion and implication of the study
5.1. Summary of findings………………………………………………………………………….87
5.2. Pedagogical implications and applications………………………………………………88-90
5.3. Suggestions for further studies……………………………………………………………….90
5.4. Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………………………91
5.5. Delimitation of the Study……………………………………………………………………….91
References………………………………………………………………………92-100
Appendices
Appendix I……………………………………………………………………………………102-103
Appendix II…………………………………………………………………………………..103-105
Appendix III………………………………………………………………………………….105-106
Appendix IV…………………………………………………………………………………..106-107
Appendix V……………………………………………………………………………………107-108
Appendix VI…………………………………………………………………………………….108-109
Abstract in Persian……………………………………………………..110
List of tables
Table2. 1. From extrinsic to intrinsic motivation in educational institutions (Brown, 2000, p.79)……………………………………………………………………………………………21
Table4.1. Rotated component matrix…………………………………………………………..72
Table4.2. The factors structure of ”Foreign Language Speaking Demotivation”( FLSD)…………………………………………………………………………………………….75
Table4.3. Normality Tests………………………………………………………………………77
Table4.4. Mann-Whitney U Test; Negative Attitude as a Demotivating Factor……………….78
Table 4.5. Mann-Whitney U Test; Teachers’ inadequate competence and performance…….79
Table4.6. Mann-Whitney U Test; Lack of Technology in Classroom……………………………79
Table4.7.Mann-Whitney U Test; Lack of adequate teaching materials………………………..80
Table4.8. Mann-Whitney U Test; Unfavorable Classroom Environment…………………………81
Table4.9. Mann-Whitney U Test; Insufficient Opportunities for Speaking………………………..81
List of Graphs
Figure 2. 1. Gardner’s integrative model (1997, cited in Dornyei, 2001, p. 50)………………….13
Figure 2.2. Tremblay and Gardner’s model (1995, p. 510)…………………………………18
Figure2. 3. Teacher L2 motivational teaching practice (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 112)……………30
Figure2. 4. Ushioda’s model of Future time perspective (FTP) (2001, p. 118)……………….33
Graph4.1. Median Scores on Demotivating Factors…………………………………………..82
List of Acronyms
AMTB: Attitude Motivation Test battery
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ELT: English Language Teaching
ESL: English as a Second Language
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language
TESOL: Teaching English to Speakers of other Language.
Abstract
Motivation is an issue which has been the focus of attention in the field of second language (L2) learning and teaching for a rather long time (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Muhonen, 2004; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). However, its opposite side, i.e. demotivation, has drawn researchers’ serious attention only recently (e.g., Dornyei & Ushioda, 2011, Falout, Elwood, & Hood, 2009, Falout & Maruyama, 2004, Kikuchi, 2009, Sakai & Kikuchi, 2009). What is more unfortunate is that in the context of Iran, this concept has not been explored in more than a few studies (e.g., HeidariSoureshjani & Riahipour (2012). In order to address this gap, the present study was carried out to investigate and compare Iranian EFL teachers’ and learners’ perceptions about demotivating factors with regard to practicing speaking skill in high school. To achieve this goal, 12 Iranian male and female EFL learners and Iranian male and female 12 EFL teachers (male and female) were interviewed. As a result of thematic analysis of the interviews, four themes emerged from students’ and five themes emerged from teachers’ data. The themes common between the two groups were teachers’ inadequate language knowledge and teaching style, unsuitable learning materials, lack of technological equipment, and non-communicative methods. The additional theme which emerged from teachers’ interviews was learner characteristics. These findings along with the researcher’s review of the related literature were used to develop a questionnaire to explore Iranian L2 students’ and teachers’ perceptions of demotivating factors with regard to speaking practice in high school in a wider scope. The questionnaire was administered to 150 Iranian male and 150 female EFL learners and 40 male and 40 female teachers. To validate the questionnaire, the researcher conducted principal components analysis with varimax rotation. The personal and external factors which emerged were negative attitude toward learning L2, teacher’s inadequate competence and performance, lack of technological facilities in classroom, lack of adequate teaching materials, unfavorable classroom climate, and insufficient opportunities for speaking practice. The Mann-Whitney test was run to probe any similarities and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the six factors which lead to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress. Both groups have similar perceptions about how much impact of teachers’ inadequate competence and performance and competence on learners’ motivation to practice speaking. Compared to teachers, students put significantly higher emphasis on the effects of their negative attitude to language learning and speaking on their demotivation regarding speaking practice and the other factors emphasized by teachers significantly more than by students regarding its contribution to students’ demotivation regarding speaking practice. The pedagogical implications and applications of these findings as well as some suggestions for further research are discussed.
Key words: Demotivation, motivation, speaking skill, EFL high school learners’ perceptions, EFL high school teachers’ perceptions.

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

Overview
There are diverse factors that play an important role in the process of language learning and language teaching. Motivation is a major one and is usually defined as
an internal state that arouses, directs, and maintains behavior. We all know how it feels to be motivated, and to move energetically toward a goal. We also know that it is something like to working hard, even if we are not fascinated by the task (Woolfolk, Winne, & Perry, 2003, p. 354).
Thus, the study of motivation is concerned with what makes someone interested in learning a second language and what keeps them motivated. However, motivation to learn L2 is a complex construct, considering that language is always socially and culturally bound and hence quite different from other school subjects (Students who have higher motivation are more successful and efficient in their learning (Ely, 1986).Many researchers (e.g., Crookes& Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 2001a; Oxford, 1996) have investigated how students can be motivated. Among these researchers, Dornyei, in particular, has done extensive research on practical aspects of motivation such as the question of how teachers can help to improve learner motivation in classroom (Dornyei, 2001b).
In addition to factors which increase students’ motivation, there are factors which more likely reduce motivation rather than reinforcing it. Dornyei (2001a) has defined demotivation as “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivation basis of a behavior intention or an ongoing action” (p.143). Therefore, a demotivated learner is someone who was once motivated, but has lost his or her interest for some reasons. In the same vein, we can speak of demotives, which are negative counterparts of motives.
Sometimes it is said that demotivation is the same as amotivation, while some scholars like Dornyei, Dci, and Ryan(1985) believe that amotivation is” the relative absence of motivation that is not caused by a lack of initial interest but rather by individual feelings of incompetence and helplessness when faced with the activity”. Accordingly,” amotivation” events are those that occur within the person that signify his or her inability to master some situation or events”(Dornyei, Dci & Ryan, 1985, p.110).
One of the skills that learners might feel unable to develop is speaking, especially in contexts like Iran where speaking practice does not happen much. With regard to the importance of speaking, there are three major reasons for encouraging learners to speak in classrooms. First, speaking activities prepare practice opportunities-chances to practice real life speaking in the classroom. Secondly, speaking tasks in which students tend to use any or all of the language they know provide feedback for both teacher and students. And finally, the more students have opportunities to activate the diverse elements of language they have kept in their brains, the more automatic their use of these elements become. As a result, students gradually become independent language users. This means that they will afford to use words and phrases fluently without very much conscious thought (Harmer, 2008). However, some factors may negatively affect the speaking practice and they may decrease the learners’ motivation to speak in the classroom.
First and foremost, this study seeks to investigate Iranian teachers’ and learners’ ideas about demotivating factors with regard to practicing speaking skill. More precisely, this study is mainly set out to obtain the perspectives of two groups who are involved in the teaching and learning process, namely language teachers and learners, on factors which may negatively influence the speaking performance of language learners. Also, the study serves as an attempt to see the similarities and differences between the students’ and teachers’ perspectives on the subject of the study.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
English language teaching involves the development of four macro skills which are listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Speaking is often considered as a neglected skill in foreign language education and accepted as the most complex and difficult skill to acquire (Ur, 1996). Furthermore, Speaking is complex and difficult to learn thoroughly because it includes linguistic and non-linguistic elements such as vocabulary, intonation, articulation, formal and informal language expression, gestures, and so forth. Iran is a country where English is taught as a foreign language, and English learners have little chance to practice English speaking outside the classroom except from online environments and English is taught to learners only in the formal context of classes.

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

Most teachers tend to use the grammar translation method in their classes in the official system of education in Iran, which clearly ignores the oral skills of speaking and listening in the golden age of communicative approach in language education. Also they tend to use the mother tongue in order to explain repetition and question answer drills. Consequently, students feel few opportunities exist inside or outside the classroom for genuine spoken communication. Moreover, although the learner spend seven years of studying English (three years in junior of high school, three years in high school and 1 year in pre-university level), the majority of learners who graduate from this system are incapable of utilizing the taught material for speaking in real- life situations.
A consequence of this is students’ losing motivation for improving their oral skills .This is a major concern in ELT because motivation plays an important role in learning process and the related literature shows that those students who have higher motivation are more successful and efficient in their learning (e. g., Ely, 1986). It is obvious that motivation and demotivation as well as speaking are very important matters in the process of language learning. In this way, language teachers can become aware of factors which may encourage language learners to speak and also factors which may impede their speaking progress.
Considering the picture presented above of the current conditions in language education system in Iranian schools, it is necessary to conduct a study which helps to progress the speaking skill. Furthermore, many theories have been proposed that explain why students want to learn or what motivates them. Nevertheless, few studies focus on why students are not motivated to learn a second language.
Despite the importance of demotivating factors and severity of the problem of speaking instruction, few insightful profound studies have been carried out on this issue in the context of Iran. Hence, this study makes a deliberate effort to partly fill the existing gap.
1.3. Significance of the Study
Speaking is a valuable skill to enhance language learning, since it provides highly motivational activities for students, and also increases opportunities for students’ interaction with each other and their teachers. Speaking a language involves more than knowing the linguistic components of the message. In comparison with other language skills, speaking plays a vital role in learning to use language in order to communicate and it is the most basic means of global human communication. Indeed, motivation plays a significant role in improving speaking skill. In contrast, demotivating factors may negatively affect language learners and their ability to speak. Also, the effect of demotivation on the acquisition and learning of foreign language has rarely been discussed in Iran.
Considering these, it is vitally needed to do a study on the Iranian high school students since one section of their textbook materials has been written to improve students’ speaking skill and knowledge of language functions. Moreover, school is a formal educational system and a large number of students enroll in schools every year. It seems that high school students in Bandar Abbas are weak in speaking English. Furthermore, they seem to have more or less lost their motivation to speak English. Hence, this study tries to investigate the demotivating factors influencing the speaking skill in an Iranian high school.
The results of this study will raise teachers’ awareness of other teachers’ and learners’ opinions about factors decreasing high school students’ motivation to practice speaking. Therefore, they can choose proper methods and strategies for teaching EFL to increase students’ motivation to learn English, in general, and improve their speaking skill, in particular. Moreover, the findings of the current study can help students to improve their speaking skill by recognizing the demotivating factors influencing the practice of speaking. Also the findings can be utilized by educational planners to design more useful curriculum programs by identifying these factors. Similarly, it can help school managers to create more favorable school environment to increase the students’ motivation for language learning and speaking practice.
Last but not least, the importance of such a study will become more noticeable in light of the fact that very little or no research has dealt with the influence of demotivating factors on the speaking ability of language learners in Iran. The few examples are HeidariSoureshjani and Riahipour (2012).
1.4. Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to shed light on a variety of demotivating factors influencing speaking skill. This study has three areas of focus .The first one is concerned with finding out which factors lead to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress as perceived by students .The second one is concerned with finding out factors leading to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress as perceived by teachers. The third area of focus is concerned with finding out similarities and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions in this regard.
1.5. Research Questions
This study seeks to answer these questions:
What factors lead to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress as perceived by students?
What factors lead to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress as perceived by teachers?

What are the similarities and differences between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the factors which lead to Iranian high school students’ demotivation for L2 speaking practice and progress?
This study is exploratory; most of which is qualitative and even the quantitative part is also exploratory. Since in an exploratory study the researcher is interested in creating rather than testing hypotheses, it is impossible to have hypothesis.
1.6. Definitions of key terms
Demotivation: According to Dornye (2001, p. 143), demotivation is the flip side of motivation. As Dornye (2001, p. 143) claimed a demotivated learner is someone who has initially motivation to fulfill a goal to engage in an activity and has lost the motivation to do so. Demotivating factors include the factors which may negatively influence on language learning and speaking skill.
Speaking: speaking is an oral language skill. It is a basic means for global communication. Some speaking sub skills include: intonation, stress, word-linking and weak forms, syntactic and morphological.
CHAPTER 2:
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Introduction
Motivation is an important factor in learning a second/foreign language (Gardner, 1985b, Scarcella& Oxford, 1992). Research shows motivation has a positive effect on language learning. However, there is another side to motivation that probably every learner has encountered at some point: temporary loss of motivation. In contrast with factors that have a positive effect on motivation, there are also ones with a negative effect. These factors are called demotivating factors since they may negatively influence learner’s interest in language learning and development of the four skills, namely listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Since the present study is focused on speaking, in addition to a review of the theoretical background and research on motivation and demotivation, the skill of speaking and the impact of motivation and demotivation on its improvement will be presented in this chapter.
2.2 Motivation
Several definitions and theories have been presented with regard to motivation so far. These theories try to explain human thought and behavior. There are unlimited reasons why one can be motivated towards an aim, which vary from one individual to another, and there are also different factors which can ruin or increase motivation. Therefore, it is unsurprising that developing a decisive definition of motivation has been problematic. This, in itself, is a daring task and so we should not expect a complete and full explanation of this complicated concept (Dörnyei, 1999, 2005; Maclntyre, 2002). Pennington (1995) believes that this problem is due to the fact that motivation cannot be directly observed and that the properties of each individual’s motivational behavior are different and vary under different circumstances.
Whilst acknowledging that scholars differ in what they believe constitutes motivation, Pintrich and Schunk (2002) say that, motivation, in its complexity, “has been conceptualized in varied ways including inner forces, enduring traits, behavioral responses to stimuli, and sets of beliefs and affects” (p. 5). This definition presents us with a category of variables. An added difficulty is that diverse motives, at times, positively interact, whilst at other times they are in conflict. Moreover, in many studies, according to Schmidt, Boraie and Kassagby (1996), it is not clear whether successful learning is the result or the cause of motivation. Dodick (1996) believes that a more adequate explanation of motivation has yet to be discovered and, indeed, no single definition of motivation has been agreed upon at present (Pintrich&Schunk, 2002).
In 1985, Gardner defined motivation as a multi-faceted construct which combines effort, desire, and positive attitudes toward language learning if the goal of learning L2 is to be achieved. This definition of motivation generated several problems because its main concern was integrative orientation which implied a situation where the language learners were in contact with the target language community. Often this is not the case and learners have almost no contact with speakers of the target language (Dönyei, 1990; Ryan, 2005). Also, Gardner’s definition does not take into consideration the fact that motivational levels fluctuate over time. The idea of time was included in Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) expanded definition of motivation. For them language learning motivation features both internal and external aspects. The internal aspects include an interest in the L2, relevance of learning the L2 to personal needs, expectancy of success or failure and rewards. The external aspects consist of the decision to engage in language learning, persistence over time, and maintaining the activity at high levels.
Dörnyei (1998) presents a more dynamic definition of motivation to learn, emphasis the fact that motivation needs to be supported over time. For Dörnyei, “L2 motivation provides the primary impetus to initiate the learning behavior and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process; that is, all the other factors involved in L2 acquisition presuppose motivation to some extent” (Dörnyei, 1998, p. 1).
Both Chambers (2001) and Dörnyei (2001) emphasize the multifaceted nature of motivation. They see motivation as changing over time and being influenced by the surrounding context. They recognize various factors which affect human behavior and which are, therefore, related to motivation. Both authors drawn up Dörnyei and Ottö’s (1998) definition of motivation which takes all of these factors into consideration: “The dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalized and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out” (p. 64).
According to Maclntyre (2002), any explanation of language learning motivation requires one to answer three questions:
(a) Why is the performance directed toward a specific goal?
(b) What establishes the amount of intensity or effort devoted to achieving the goal?
(c) Why do people who have the same learning situations differ in their motivational levels?
In respect of the last question, Maclntyre (2002) focuses on the fact that individual differences are of extreme importance when it comes to studying motivation, and he acknowledges several authors, such as Crookes, Schmidt, Dörnyei, Oxford and Sherain, who actually promote this in their definition of motivation. This same attention to individual differences is also given by Masgoret and Gardner (2003).
Masgoret and Gardner (2003) define the motivated individual as someone who “expands effort, is persistent and attentive to the task at hand, has goals, desires, and aspirations, enjoys the activity, experiences reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure, makes attributions concerning success or failure, is aroused, and makes use of strategies to aid in achieving goals” (p. 173). The same notion of motivation as being goal-directed is presented by Pintrinch and Schunk (2002), who claim that “motivation involves goals that provide an impetus for and direction to action” (p. 5).
The above conceptions of motivation show that it is a complex concept and, therefore, defies a comprehensive definition.
2.2.1. The history of L2 motivation research
With the development of the various L2 motivation models, different phases in L2 motivational research evolved over time. Dörnyei (2005) divides the history of language learning motivation research into three periods: the social psychological period, the cognitive-situated period and the process-oriented period which are presented below.
2.2.1.1. The social psychological conceptualization
The main aspect focused upon during the social psychological period is the contact with L2 speakers and attitudes toward them; namely integrative motivation. The main exponents of this are Robert Gardner, Wallace,Lambe, their students and associates. Their main premise is that language is affected by social factors such as language attitudes and cultural stereotypes, and these, in turn, affect language learning (Dörnyei, 2005).
Two major theories were developed by Gardner in this period, one of L2 motivation and the other of L2 acquisition. Gardner (1985) also developed a tool which measures L2 motivation, the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery. These are discussed below.
Gardner (1985) featured integrative motivation as the key component of his socioeducational model. Gardner (1985), is the combination of integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation and motivation (see Figure2. 1, below). The term integrativeness “refers to a broader concept representing an interest in the target language group, which subsumes the orientation and supports it with positive attitudes and interest” (Maclntyre, 2002, p. 3). With regard to the second aspect of this model, the “attitudes toward the learning situation”, the learning situation comprises the course and the teacher. In this model, motivation consists of three components; the desire to learn the L2, the effort expended to learn the language (motivational intensity) and attitudes toward the L2.
Figure 2. 1. Gardner’s integrative model (1997, cited inDornyei, 2001, p. 50)
Gardner’s (1985) theory of motivation has frequently been criticized for placing too much emphasis on integrativeness. The reason for this criticism is that in the research on which the model is based, integrativeness was the major factor influencing motivation, while instrumental motivation, which is associated with more concrete benefits (to be discussed in the following section), was found to be the second major type. Despite this criticism, integrativeness actually proved significant in both the later studies of 1993 and 1999 conducted in Hungary by Dömyei and Csizer (2002). These findings, therefore, unambiguously confirm Gardner’s (1985, 2001) constant claim that integrativeness plays a key role in L2 motivation.
A further major criticism of the integrative model concerns the context on which the model bases its theoretical framework. Both Chambers (1999) and Dörnyei (2001) point out that the Canadian context is one where learners do have some contact with speakers of the L2. This is not a common scenario for the language learner. The majority of the time the context is not conducive to English learned as a second language (ESL) but rather to English learned as a foreign language (EFL). In an ESL situation, the learners are exposed to English outside the classroom and many times have direct contact with target language speakers.
In an EFL situation learners have no or only limited contact with the target language speakers and the only exposure they get to English is that found in the classroom. One such EFL scenario is found in Schmidt et al.’s (1996) study which was based on Egyptian students of English in Egypt. In some contexts both EFL and ESL situations prevail. Such is the case in Malta. Some students acquire and use English as a second language as they communicate with their family and friends mostly in English (Caruana, 2007).Other students learn English as a foreign language as they hardly have any contact with English outside the classroom.
Lamb (2004) also draws attention to the fact that as concepts, integrative and instrumental orientations are difficult to separate. This is so because of the global status which English is assuming. Thus, reasons for learning English such as travelling, using computers, meeting foreigners and working or studying abroad are combined and not seen as separately falling under integrative or instrumental orientations language of a particular country or countries as in the case of other foreign languages, therefore, integrative goals seem to melt together with instrumental ones.
Yashima (2004) terms this as ‘international posture’ which Dömyei (2005) assimilates to an ‘international orientation’. This global community is also more technologically advanced and thus represents more opportunities for professional advancement. In this sense, integrative and instrumental reasons for learning a language overlap. Kaylani (1996), for example, was surprised to discover that Jordanian male students of English possessed an integrative orientation when they were so far away from any English language speaking group. She attributed this to the fact that the students wanted to be part of the international community. The same result was obtained by Ozek and Williams (2000) in their study of Turkish learners of English.
The emphasis in the L2 motivation literature, however, goes beyond integrative and instrumental orientations. Many studies have identified other types of orientations (Clement &Kruidenier, 1983; Noels, Pelletier, Clement &Vallerand, 2003) prevalent among L2 learners, including travel, friendship, international, sociocultural and knowledge orientations.
In fact, according to Noels et al. (2003), the desire to be in some way part of the target language group is not essential in certain sociocultural contexts. The same can be said for Belmechri and Hummel’s study (1998) in which integrative orientation was absent and other orientations such as travel, friendship, understanding and instrumental orientations were identified.
However, according to Masgoret and Gardner (2003), motivation does not rely entirely on orientations. For example, one might be integratively oriented but show no desire to learn the language of the target group. This is in conflict with what Gardner (1985) claims, that orientations are the equivalent to goals. In this respect Gardner differs from mainstream motivational psychology and the practice of defining L2 motivation. However, Gardner’s claim was supported by certain studies such as that carried out by Belmechri and Hummel (1998) in Quebec City where it was demonstrated that orientations are related to motivation in that they are precursors of motivation. Their findings upheld what had already been established in an earlier study, conducted in the same city, by Kruidenier and Clement (1986). Clement’s social context model and Clement’s (1980) model of second language learning place emphasis on the social context, in that contact with the L2 community is seen as particularly important.
The more the learners interact with the L2 speakers, the more they gain self-confidence, which serves to enhance their language learning. The self-confidence construct in this model is a secondary motivational process (MacIntyre, 2002), which involves high proficiency in the language and low language anxiety (Masgoret, Bernaus& Gardner, 2001).
Clement’s model was criticised mainly for the fact it was based on language learning situations where there is contact with target language speakers. As was discussed earlier, this is most often not the case. However, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels (1994) present a number of studies that suggest self-confidence may be significant in playing a role in second language achievement even in contexts where there is no direct contact with L2 speakers but where the L2 is seen as a prestigious language and where there is some kind of exposure to it (Masgoret et al., 2001).
Tremblay and Gardner’s model (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) expanded Gardner’s (1985) socioeducational model so that the language attitudes which influence motivational behavior consist of three variables:
1. Goal salience: influenced by attitudes as learners are bound to develop specific language learning goals if their attitudes toward the language are positive (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995).
2. Valence: refers to the values attached to the learning of the L2. Valence comprises the desire to learn the language.
3 Self-efficacy: refers to the learners’ judgment of their capabilities to learn English. It involves expectations with regards to performance minus the anxiety component. However it could be that low self-efficacy includes elements of anxiety. It differs from self-confidence in that the latter is perceived as proficiency during testing, whereas self-efficacy bases itself on what the individual believes s/he can achieve in the future (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Higher self-efficacy leads to enhanced motivational behavior (see Figure 2).
In fact, in this model, which was tested among Canadian learners of French, language attitudes together with French language dominance influence motivational behavior which, in turn, affects achievement. What is referred to as language dominance in this model includes adaptive attributions. Attributions, which will be explained in more detail under the attribution theory, are reasons which learners ascribe to a particular success or failure. Adaptive attributes refer to attributes that are linked to high self-efficacy which means that success is attributed to ability.
Gardner and Tremblay’s model of motivation is an interesting deviation as it does not contain any integrative motivation but rather focuses on new cognitive aspects. It seems to be Gardner’s attempt to get into the new wave of motivational research. In his later writings, however, Gardner did not refer to this model again but rather returned to the integrative motivation concept.
Figure 2.2. Tremblay and Gardner’s model (1995, p. 510)
2.2.1.2. The cognitive/situated conceptualization
In the 1980s, several cognitive theories were presented in educational psychological research. These were soon used to explain L2 motivation (Dörnyei,2003). Gardner’s work was heavily criticized for ignoring these developments and thus falling short of being of any practical use to language teachers and the context where language learning takes place, namely the classroom.
In the 1990s, therefore, motivational research became more concerned with what occurs in the classroom. The macro perspective of L2 motivation, which dealt with general motivational dispositions within a community, shifted to a micro perspective within the classroom. This `situated approach’ focused on the immediate language learning situation that surrounded the learners and the way in which this affected their motivation to learn the L2. Teachers were less concerned with the reasons why their students were learning the L2, but rather with how the students dealt with the language tasks presented in the classroom (Maclntyre, 2002). The situated approach analyzed how the methodology, assessment and relations with teachers and the groupaffected students’ motivation. Researchers therefore combined the cognitive aspects of some educational psychology theories with a situated approach. According to Dörnyei (2005), this was well illustrated by two theories; the self-determination theory and the attribution theory within the L2 field.
2.2.1.2.1. The self-determination theory
Deci and Ryan (1985) contend that an individual’s reasons for learning a language depend on how free or constrained the learner is. If the individual decides freely then we can say that the decision is self-determined. The self-determination theory puts forward a variety of motivational orientations which range from the most to the least self-determined. The more self-determined the orientation, the more the chances for success (McIntosh & Noels, 2004). Orientations that are self-determined contribute to an intrinsic type of motivation, while those reasons which are `controlled’ contribute to extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to the positive effects gained solely by the enjoyment and pleasure of the activity itself (McIntosh & Noels, 2004). In an extrinsic motivation situation, the activity is done for the sake of material or other rewards that are not intrinsically related to learning (Husman& Lens, 1999).
Extensive research has been conducted on both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Some studies (see Dömyei, 2005; Husman, &, Lens, 1999) have shown that extrinsic motivation hinders and diminishes intrinsic motivation, which is considered to be the best and most lasting type for language learning. However, Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that extrinsic rewards, if self-determined and internalized by the learner, can actually lead to intrinsic motivation. Moreover, Lamb (2001) argues that, in most cases, teachers cannot do without extrinsic incentives to motivate their students as these have a more immediate effect. However, these could be detrimental to intrinsic motivation as the students might lose any interest in performing the activity for its own sake. Lamb (2001) cautions that “extrinsic rewards need to be handled carefully and always with the long-term goal of developing intrinsic motivation, i. e. moving from motivating learners to helping learners motivate themselves” (p. 86). When teachers teach their students how to motivate themselves, the effects are more long lasting.
Based on their research among university students at the University of Ottawa, Canada, Noels et al. (2003) put forward an expanded theory of self-determination consisting of three categories of orientations; intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Amotivationrefers to when there is no reason, intrinsic or extrinsic, for performing an activity (Goldberg, &, Noels, 2006), what Dörnyei (2001) refers to as a `there is no point’ feeling. Noels et al.’s (2003) study revealed that students found L2 learning more pleasurable and more appealing to their self-concept if they were encouraged to learn an L2 autonomously, and the feedback given enhanced their sense of competence.
According to Brown (2000, p.77-78) “educators like Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, Paolo Freire, A.S Neill, and Carl Rogers have all provided exemplary models of intrinsically motivated education. Traditionally, elementary and secondary schools are fraught with extrinsically motivated behavior. The school curriculum is dictated by institutions (sometimes politically influenced) and can be far removed from even the teacher’s choice. Parents’ and society’s values and wishes are virtually forced on to pupils, whether they like it or not. Tests and exams, many of which are standardized and given high credence in the world ‘out there”, are imposed on students with no consultation with the students themselves. The glorification of content, product, correctness, and competitiveness has failed to bring the learner into a collaborative process of competence-building.The consequence of such extrinsic motivators is that schools all too often teach students to play the “game” of pleasing teachers and authorities rather than developing an internalized thirst for knowledge and experience. The administration of grades and praises for being a “good child” builds a dependency on immediate gratification” (Brown, 2000, p.78).
Table2. 1.indicates what can occur “in an institution that takes eight extrinsic elements and while accepting their reality in virtually any society or educational institution, turns those elements in an intrinsically oriented direction”(Brown, 2000, p.78).
Table2. 1. From extrinsic to intrinsic motivation in educational institutions (Brown, 2000, p.79)
Extrinsic
Pressure
Intrinsic
InnovationsMotivational
ResultsSchool curculum
Learner-centered personal goal-setting individualizationSelf-esteem self-actualization decide for selfParent expectation
Family valuesLove, intimacy, acceptance, respect for wisdomSociety’s expectations
(conformity)
Security of comfortable routines task-based teachingCommunity, belonging, identity, harmony, securityTest & exam
Peer evaluation, self-diagnosis level-check exercisesExperience self-knowledgeImmediate-gratification(“M&”M)
Long-term goals the big picture “things take time”Self-actualizationMake money!Content-based teaching, ESP vocational education workplace ESLCooperation harmonyCompetition
Never fall!Cooperative learning group work the class is a team risk-taking, Innovation creativityManipulations, strength, status, security
learn from mistakes nobody’s perfect “c’ est la vie”
2.2.1.2.2 Attribution theory
Attribution theory, which was the main model in student motivation research in the 1980s, focuses on the reasons which learners attribute their success or failure in language learning to. These reasons are based on past experiences, and once these are processed, the expectations for learning the new language can be understood. Attribution theory proposes that these expectations are based on whether learners see themselves as the main cause of success or failure. A further important consideration is whether this attribute is fixed or can be changed. If the latter is the case, it needs to be considered whether the learner is in control of changing or whether the change depends on external factors (Williams & Burden, 1999). This also means that “the causal attributions one makes of past successes and failures (i.e., inferences about why certain outcomes have occurred) have consequences on future achievement strivings” (Dörnyei 2001 a, p. 22). In this regard, positive motivation can be attributed to success which in turn is ascribed to personal ability, and failure to problems which cannot be overcome (Ushioda, 2001).

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

پاسخ دهید