منبع پایان نامه ارشد درمورد motivation، studies، language
performance and progress. He clarifies that if the controlling aspect of rewards is more salient, that will pressure people toward specific outcomes and is likely to undermine their intrinsic motivation (Deci &Ryan, 1985). Deci added that if, on the other hand, the informational aspect is more salient, the intrinsic feelings of competence and self-determination will be initiated. In addition, Sansone and Smith (1999) argue that extrinsic motivation can actually enhance intrinsic motivation when it motivates the individual to engage in interest-enhancing strategies. More discussion about the effects of rewards on students’ motivation is presented in section 22.214.171.124.
2.6. The L2 Motivational Self System
In 2005, Dörnyei laid the foundation of a novel theoretical shift in L2 motivation research. The new paradigm that emerged from theoretical considerations as well as empirical research findings was conceptualised as The L2 Motivational Self System. Dörnyei has clarified that there were some reasons that led him to lead such a major reformulation of the concept of L2 motivation. Among such reasons was the common belief that L2 motivation researchers share that “a foreign language is more than a mere communication code that can be learned similarly to other academic subjects, and have therefore typically adopted paradigms that linked the L2 to the individual’s personal ‘core,’ forming an important part of one’s identity,” (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 9). Dörnyei consequently has proposed a system explicitly focusing on the different aspects of the individual’s identity. Another reason for such a reformulation was the growing concerns about the notion of integrativeness/integrative motivation, which was initiated by Gardner and Lambert (1959), and the need to reinterpret the concept. Dörnyei (2005, 2010) has explained that integrativeness did not make any links with the up-to-date cognitive motivational theories that emerged recently in the field of motivational psychology, such as goal theories and self-determination theory. He adds that the concept ‘integrative’ is limiting as it makes sense in multicultural contexts rather than other contexts where there is no real available contact with L2 speakers. Dörnyei (2010) claims that The L2 Motivational Self System is built upon the foundations laid by Gardner’s (1985) theory of integrativeness and integrative motivation, but at the same time, Dörnyei has tried to broaden the scope of the theory to make it applicable in diverse language learning environments. Dörnyei (2005, 2009, and 2010) has proposed a new L2 motivational self-system comprising three dimensions, as shown in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9. Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (cited in Dörnyei & Usioda, 2011, p. 52)
Dörnyei (2009) claims that the proposed motivational self-system is compatible theoretically with some influential conceptualisations of L2 motivation like Gardner (2001a), Ushioda (2001), and Noels (2003), as well as empirically with other experimental studies that took place in five different countries: China, Hungary, Iran, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. He has highlighted some practical implications for the self-based approach assuming that it offers new avenues for motivating language learners. Dörnyei points out that the first component of the system, which is the ‘Ideal L2 Self’ is associated with a novel area of motivational strategies concerning the promotion of this component through generating a language learning vision and through imagery enhancement. Similarly, the third component of the system, the ‘L2 Learning
Experience’ is associated with a wide range of techniques that can promote motivation. According to Dörnyei, the second component of the system, the ‘Ought-to L2 Self,’ does not lend itself to obvious motivational practices as it is external to the learner (i.e. it concerns the duties and obligations imposed by friends, parents, and other authoritative figures).
2.7. Motivational Strategies
Many of the studies that investigated various aspects of the issue of L2 motivation over the past 40-50 years gave rise to proposals in relation to what motivation as a concept and a theoretical construct involves, as well as in relation to the various types of motivation that, by one way or another, may affect the EFL/ESL learning/teaching in a specific learning context. Most of such studies, though, paid no attention to the important practical dimensions of the issue (e.g. classroom practices) as they were more concerned about analysing various motives and validating motivational theories (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007) rather than about finding pragmatic ways to motivate language learners.
Due to the fact that motivational strategies did not receive sufficient attention as a significant dimension of L2 motivation research until the early 1990s, which is considered a marked shift in the field as a whole, there were very few studies that tried to conceptualise this term. Dörnyei (2001b, p. 28) asserts that “motivational strategies refer to the motivational influences that are consciously exerted to achieve some systematic and enduring positive effect.” Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2008) indicate that motivational strategies could be conceptualised to refer to two concepts: (a) instructional interventions applied by the teacher to elicit and stimulate student motivation, and (b) self-regulating strategies used purposefully by individual students to manage the level of their own motivation. In other words, we can conceptualise motivational strategies as the techniques that are used for the purpose of enhancing individuals’ goal-related behaviour.
The works of Crookes and Schmidt (1991), Oxford and Shearin (1994), and Dörnyei (1994) were the first in the field of L2 motivation research to call for reopening a new research agenda in the field to adopt a practical education-oriented approach of motivation research. Such an approach, according to (Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998), was consistent with the perceptions of practicing teachers and was in turn directly relevant to classroom applications. In light of such a call many scholars such as Alison (1993), Williams and Burden (1997), Chambers (1999), Brown (2001), Dörnyei (2001b), and Alison and Halliwell (2002), have designed and summarised motivational techniques to be used in the language classroom. Gardner and Tremblay (1994) have claimed that from a scientific point of view, intuitive appeal without empirical evidence is not sufficient to justify strong claims in favour of the use of such strategies, and have recommended testing these strategies to validate their practical effectiveness. There was in reality no great response by researchers in the field for Gardner and Tremblay’s recommendation due to the fact, elaborated by Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2008), that validating studies of motivational strategies are labour-intensive since they require the application of experimental research and/or extensive classroom observation. It is not surprising that there have only been three published studies to date that have empirically tested the effectiveness of motivational strategies. These studies were by Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) in Hungary, Cheng and Dörnyei (2007) in Taiwan, and Guilloteaux and Dörnyei (2008) in South Korea. The experimental study of Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) was the first response to Gardner and Tremblay’s (1994) recommendation. The authors conducted an empirical study on 200 Hungarian EFL teachers to evaluate a list of 51 motivational strategies in terms of how important teachers consider these techniques to be and how frequently they actually implement them in their classes. These strategies were originally proposed by the first author himself in 1994, and were based both on his own experience in the field as well as on the findings of educational psychology research. Based on the findings of this study, the two researchers produced a set of the most important motivational strategies as revealed by participants and called it The T
en Commandments for Motivating Language Learners.
The second empirical study was that of Cheng and Dörnyei (2007), and was carried out in the Taiwanese EFL context. This study used a modified version of the research instrument used in Hungary to recruit 387 EFL Taiwanese teachers. Participants were asked in the same way to rate the strategies based on how important they consider them and how frequently they actually implement these strategies in their language classrooms. The findings of the two studies reflected the fact that some of the tested motivational strategies (especially the ten macro strategies revealed by the first study) were perceived to be effective in both contexts and also, they seemed freely transferable across diverse cultural and ethnolinguistic contexts (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007). There were, on the other hand, some other motivational strategies that seemed to be culture sensitive, or even culture dependent, based on the findings that emerged from the two EFL contexts.
It is, however, worth mentioning that neither of the two studies based its findings on actual observation and evaluation of teachers’ classroom motivational practices or students’ behaviours but rather just on teachers’ responses to self-report questionnaires. Bernaus and Gardner (2008) have clarified that despite the motivational strategies proposed in these two studies being seemingly important, and all of them having been proposed as potentially important by participants, there appeared to be little research to directly investigate the relationship between the use of these strategies and students’ motivation in language classes. They wondered if a systematic way of research, in which students were randomly assigned to classes taught by teachers who actively followed some of these strategies, while other students were taught by teachers who did not use the strategies were conducted, would the anticipated results obtained?