Demotivation .engl.pdf

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

System 37 (2009) 403–417 www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes Joseph Falout a,*, James Elwood b, Michael Hood c a

Nihon University, College of Science and Technology, 7-24-1 Narashinodai, Funabashi, Chiba 274-8501, Japan b Tsukuba University, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukaba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan c Nihon University, College of Commerce, 5-2-1 Kinuta, Setagaya, Tokyo 157-8570, Japan Received 20 May 2008; received in revised form 23 February 2009; accepted 2 March 2009

Abstract Demotivation can negatively influence the learner’s attitudes and behaviors, degrade classroom group dynamics and teacher’s motivation, and result in long-term and widespread negative learning outcomes. 900 university EFL learners were surveyed to investigate the demotivating factors in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in Japan, and the relationship between past demotivating experiences and present proficiencies. Affective states and capacity to self-regulate learning were compared among learners with varying academic interests, experiences, and proficiencies. Demotivating factors were grouped into three categories: external conditions of the learning environment, internal conditions of the learner, and reactive behaviors to demotivating experiences. Internal and reactive factors were shown to correlate with long-term EFL learning outcomes. Findings from this study indicated that beginning, less-proficient learners in non-English majors were least likely to control their affective states to cope with demotivating experiences. Finally, this paper discusses steps that might prevent or minimize demotivation and facilitate remotivation. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Motivation; Demotivation; Remotivation; Self-regulation; Grammar-translation

1. Introduction ‘‘Motivation to tackle assignments voluntarily and willingly is lacking,” responded 85% of the 362 deans surveyed at ninety-five national universities in Japan, accounting for the nationally-perceived drop in academic performance at the tertiary level (Suzuki et al., 1999, p. 51). In a follow-up survey of 33,432 learners from 335 public and private universities, the average respondent reported a lack in motivation to study across all academic subjects (Yanai et al., 2003). Demotivated learners are a recurring topic in academic conferences and teachers’ rooms across Japan, particularly regarding the learning of English as a foreign language (EFL). Teachers recognize that motivation is co-regulated among all the people in the classroom. They realize how one highly motivated learner can pos*

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Falout), [email protected] (J. Elwood), [email protected] (M. Hood). 0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004

404

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

itively influence the classroom experience and how one demotivated learner can have an opposite effect. Through the interpersonal processes of group dynamics, one subgroup affects another, efficiency decreases, and the purpose of lessons becomes obscured (e.g., Do¨rnyei and Ehrman, 1998; Do¨rnyei and Murphey, 2003). Soon the motivation of the entire class is at stake, including the teacher’s motivation to persist in such an adverse environment (e.g., Ames and Ames, 1984; Grayson and Alvarez, 2007; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2009). Consequently, the quality of education deteriorates. Learning environments that require high-stakes testing and provide inappropriate level of courses may further exacerbate motivational problems. Secondary and tertiary school entrance exams generate a washback effect of exam-centered syllabi and curricula. The term ‘‘exam hell” (Amano, 1995) commonly describes the period when learners struggle to pass these exams. High-stakes, performance-based testing continues into adulthood as scores from the standardized Test of English for International Communication (TOEICÒ) play a key role in job placement and promotion. Students are not usually streamed by ability level in Japan, with just 12% of public junior high schools and 60% of universities streaming students for EFL courses (MEXT, 2007). Compulsory EFL education begins in the first year of junior high school. Most lower proficiency learners are demotivated by their second year in junior high school, with their motivation continuing to drop throughout high school and into university (Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004). Matching student abilities by class levels would especially benefit the motivation of lower ability students by providing them a better chance to experience competency and thus improve their self-confidence toward learning EFL. The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) has announced that English classes will become compulsory for younger students, starting in primary schools in 2011 (MEXT, 2008), mirroring a trend worldwide (e.g., Honna, 2002; Nunan, 2003; Otani et al., 2004). Thus learners who become demotivated earlier in formal schooling might suffer a longer term of negative affect, low proficiency, loss of self-confidence, self-blame, and a more difficult struggle to remotivate while learning EFL (Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Ushioda, 1998, 2001). While this scenario is somber, a positive note is that teachers can make a difference in the motivation of their learners through motivational practices (Do¨rnyei, 2001a; Guilloteaux and Do¨rnyei, 2008). The purpose of the present study is to investigate the underlying processes involved in demotivation to help guide policymakers, administrators, and teachers toward preventing or minimizing its harmful effects on learning. 2. Literature review Demotivation, as defined by Do¨rnyei (2001b), is a decrease or drop in level of motivation. It does not result from (a) distractions of a more attractive option, (b) a gradual loss of interest across a period of time, or (c) internal triggers. Demotivation starts from an external locus, a demotivating trigger, before it becomes an internalized process, and motivation must exist before there can be a subsequent decrease. Absence of any motivation is the state of amotivation, marked by passivity. Amotivated people feel a lack of competence or control over their external environments, a feeling of helplessness caused by lack of contingency between behaviors and outcomes (Vallerand and Ratelle, 2002). They ‘‘go through the motions with no sense of intending to do what they are doing” until they quit the activity (Ryan and Deci, 2002, p. 17). Gorham and Christophel (1992) cataloged what learners perceived as causes of their demotivation in university classrooms in a variety of academic subjects. In comparing learner attributions of demotivation and motivation, they found that the absence of demotivators in the classroom—such as unenthusiastic teaching, dissatisfaction with grading, and boring subject—had a more positive influence on motivation than the presence of motivators such as an enthusiastic and inspiring teacher. The researchers concluded that teachers could promote learner motivation simply by preventing demotivation. Second language (L2) researchers have sought to identify attributions of demotivation specific to L2 learning across wide contexts—learning English in Japan (Falout and Falout, 2005), Hungary (Do¨rnyei, 1998), and Vietnam (Trang and Baldauf, 2007), and learning French in Ireland (Ushioda, 1998, 2001)—yet the results are remarkably similar, with external attributions most often found to influence internal conditions of the learner in the demotivational process. For instance, one consistently top-ranking attribution was a boring teacher due to monotonous instruction. Demotivators identified in Japan include a heavy focus on translation, grammar,

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

405

rote memorization of vocabulary, and a lack of practical application (e.g., Arai, 2004, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Miyata et al., 2004). These are the applications of the dominant pedagogy across secondary and most tertiary English education in Japan, often referred to as grammar-translation (e.g., Gorsuch, 2000; O’Donnell, 2005; Taguchi, 2005). Another common attribution of demotivation was an inappropriate level of class activities and courses (Arai, 2004; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Miyata et al., 2004). Disagreeable teacher behaviors and personalities also ranked among the highest in attributions of demotivation in the US (Kearney et al., 2002; Millette and Gorham, 2002) and Japan (Potee, 2002). The interrelationships between teachers and learners are important to the development of learner motivation and for better learning outcomes (e.g., Chesebro and McCrosky, 2002; den Brok et al., 2005; Noels et al., 1999). However, teachers in various contexts are often unaware of how their behaviors and methodologies demotivate learners (Arai, 2006; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Potee, 2002). Teachers and learners attribute learner demotivation differently, with teachers underestimating their own influence on student demotivation. Teachers were more likely to attribute student demotivation to factors other than the teacher (i.e., learner performance or total curricular load) and give themselves credit for motivating learners (Gorham and Millette, 1997). However, learners perceived motivation as a learner-owned state and demotivation as a teacher-owned problem (Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Gorham and Christophel, 1992). Learners’ perceptions of their external environments are processed internally, where further psychological factors contribute to the demotivational process. Reduced self-confidence was identified by Do¨rnyei as an internal factor. He reasoned that it can be a factor of demotivation if it extends from the experience of failure or lack of success in response to an external element, such as grades (1998; reported in Do¨rnyei, 2001b). Reduced self-confidence showed the largest statistically significant difference in means in two studies that compared lower and higher proficiency university EFL learners (Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Tsuchiya, 2006). Christophel and Gorham (1995) identified antecedent conditions that learners bring into the classroom at the start of a course. These internal conditions can negatively influence motivation, and they involve general achievement orientation, self-concept, attitude toward the subject and learning environment, learning goal orientation, and expectations of success. Using data collected from of 164 university freshmen, Falout (2006) extracted antecedent conditions of the learner, as well as the factors of teachers and course pace. Teachers contained items about personality and pedagogy, the latter of which consisted of demotivators particular to the grammar-translation methodology. Course pace relates to whether learners found the pace or level of the course and materials inappropriate. Teachers and course pace correlated (r = .350, p < .01) as did teachers and antecedent conditions of the learner (r = .294, p < .01), showing that the personality and pedagogy of teachers are associated with learner perceptions of the course, the subject, and learner abilities. Comparing eighty-six lower and seventy-eight higher proficiency learners, Falout and Maruyama (2004) found a probability dependence (v2 = 52.33, df = 1, p < .001), meaning a likeliness of co-occurrence, between past demotivation and present negative affect toward EFL learning, but only in the lower proficiency group. The higher proficiency group showed a probability independence (v2 = 2.35, df = 1) and had fewer individuals with present negative affect. In addition, the lower proficiency learners reported experiencing demotivation earlier in their formal schooling than did higher proficiency learners, thus holding negative affect toward EFL learning longer. Another distinction between the groups was that the higher proficiency learners were more apt to attribute demotivation to external factors, especially teachers, while lower proficiency learners were more apt to attribute their demotivation to internal factors, particularly disappointment in performance. Falout and Falout (2005) found these observations comparable with those of Ushioda (1998), who found that lower proficiency learners are unable to control their affective states regarding L2 learning, and thus are caught in a cyclical pattern of reduced self-confidence, self-blame, and poor performance. In comparing the self-regulatory strategies used by more and less successful learners, Arai (2005) found that the less successful learners reported maladaptive self-regulatory strategies, such as sleeping in class, dropping out of class, ignoring the teacher, and discontinuing study. Such maladaptive behaviors inhibit learning and prolong the demotivated state (Falout and Falout, 2005). Ushioda (1998, 2001) observed that demotivated learners can remotivate themselves in two ways: (a) by dissociating experiences that demotivate, accomplished through placing blame on external factors, which protects learners’ beliefs of themselves, and (b) by believing in a capacity of self-motivation through a process of

406

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

affirmation, resourcefulness, goal-setting, initiative, and engagement in rewarding L2 activities. In other words, students remotivate themselves by using adaptive self-regulatory strategies. 3. Research questions To investigate the processes involved in demotivation, the research questions (RQ) for this study are: (RQ 1) Which demotivating factor has the most negative influence on EFL learning in this context? (RQ 2) To what degree do past demotivating experiences correlate with present proficiency? (RQ 3) Do lower proficiency learners show less capacity to self-regulate when experiencing demotivation? Our first hypothesis is that a perceived boring teaching method will be indicated as the most common demotivating trigger, since such a method—grammar-translation—is a commonly reported demotivator, and is practiced mono-methodically and ubiquitously, at the secondary level in this country. Our second hypothesis is that if the reactive behaviors to demotivation debilitate learning, then a corresponding lower proficiency would be evident. The hypothesized effect is that early and frequent maladaptive reactions to demotivation will correlate with lower levels of proficiency. The third hypothesis is that if chronically demotivated learners are less able to control their affective states, correspondingly they will show less capacity to self-regulate when facing difficulties in L2 learning. 4. Methodology 4.1. Participants Nine hundred EFL university learners comprised the sample, representing twenty-eight majors across seven universities in four Tokyo-area prefectures. The percentages of demographic variables within this population were: female 38.00%, male 61.56%, humanities majors 71.11% (including English majors 15.89%), science majors 28.88%, freshmen 51.33%, sophomores 25.67%, juniors 17.67%, seniors 4.78%, graduate students .22%. 4.2. Materials The EFL Demotivational Questionnaire (see Appendix A) comprised two sections. The first was a demographic section that recorded major, gender, and self-reported proficiency levels based on results from standardized tests. The second section comprised fifty-two Likert scale items that measured with two 6-point semantic scales, one for reporting agreement with the affective items (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree), and the other for reporting the frequency of the experiential items (1 = almost never happened; 6 = almost always happened) relating to teacher and class experiences, and to reactive behaviors to demotivating experiences. Items related to demotivating experiences and antecedent conditions were selected or modified from those that best discriminated proficiency and that best grouped on a factor analysis (Falout, 2006) based on previous research (Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004). Items related to reactive behaviors to demotivation were derived from research in Japan (Arai, 2004, 2005) which reported the behaviors that most frequently occurred, and that best discriminated ability using groups separated by major. Other items pertaining to reactive behaviors that marked points of escape from demotivational processes were derived from the findings in Ushioda’s qualitative research (1998, 2001). 4.3. Procedure To obtain information about past experiences, and avoid the bias of participants basing their responses on their immediate circumstances, questionnaires were administered in the first or second class session at the beginning of the academic school year. Moreover, the participants were requested to reflect on their past experiences when responding. They were told that the survey was for research purposes only, participation was

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

407

voluntary, their privacy would be protected, and that the information given would in no way affect their grades. They completed the questionnaire within 20 minutes. The collected questionnaires were checked for missing data or uniform answers marked across all items on a page (at least sixteen out of fifty-two items). Of the 1010 surveys collected, twenty-seven had such insufficient data and were eliminated from the final sample. Similarly, values that contained multivariate outliers were checked with a p 6 0.001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance, (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), an additional eighty-three surveys were deleted, leaving a sample size of 900. Five items were not normally distributed—four were transformed with a square root transformation, one with a log transformation, and the remaining item, which was strongly leptokurtic, was discarded. Eleven cases of missing data were handled by mean replacement. First, to answer RQ 1, a principle component factor analysis was performed with SPSS Version 14.0 (2007) using an oblique (oblimin) rotation. The cutoff point for loadings on factors was set at .45 and nine factors emerged, each with at least three loadings (see Appendix B). Second, 211 reported TOEICÒ scores and 201 reported grade levels on the Society for Testing English Proficiency (STEP) test, both standardized tests common in Japan, were used to divide the participants into groups of high, middle, and low proficiency (see Table 1). To answer RQ 2, a stepwise multiple regression was performed with the reported TOEICÒ scores as the dependent variables (n = 211) and the nine factors as the independent variables. Third, to answer RQ 3, three families of analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine the relationships between the nine factors and three independent variables: proficiency, year in school, and whether learners were English majors or not. A Bonferroni post hoc, family-wise adjustment was made to protect against Type 1 error, resulting in an adjusted p value of .017. 5. Results The factor analysis was performed to answer RQ 1: Which demotivating factor has the most negative influence on EFL learning in this context? This analysis produced nine factors that explained 57.41% of the variance, without complex loadings (see Appendix A). Mean values indicate a tendency toward negative affect in six factors and positive affect in three factors (Tables 2 and 3). The nine factors can be categorized as three external factors (factors 1, 4, 8), three internal factors (factors 6, 7, 9), and three reactive factors (factors 2, 3, 5) of demotivation. The external factors describe sources of demotivation in the classroom context. Items grouped in factor 1 related to perceptions and experiences with past teachers, specifying whether past teachers had been approachable or friendly. Therefore this factor was named Teacher Immediacy, a common motivator when perceived positively, and a demotivator when perceived negatively, affecting both motivation and learning outcome (e.g., Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Gorham and Zakahi, 1990; Potee, 2002). The mean Likert value of 4.12 indicates that these learners overall had positive interpersonal experiences with past English teachers. Factor 4 comprised items that measured learner affect related to a common demotivating factor (e.g., Arai, 2004, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Miyata et al., 2004) and previously described dominant pedagogy, Grammar-translation. The mean Likert value of 3.01 indicates that these learners overall had negative experiences with the grammar-translation method, the dominant pedagogy that defined much of their learning goals and content, the ‘‘things (they) had to learn,” as represented in item A-8.

Table 1 Proficiency level parameters. Proficiency level

TOEICÒ score

STEP grade level

High Middle Low

>630 360–625 <355

Level 1 Level 2 Levels 3–5

408

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Table 2 Results from the demotivating factor survey (N = 900). Component name

Eigenvalue

% of variance

Cumulative (%)

a

Teacher immediacy Help-seeking Enjoyment-seeking Grammar-translation Avoidance Self-denigration Value Course level Self-confidence

10.84 4.37 3.21 2.49 1.97 1.85 1.69 1.57 1.29

21.26 8.57 6.29 4.89 3.86 3.63 3.31 3.07 2.53

21.26 29.83 36.12 41.01 44.87 48.50 51.81 54.88 57.41

.89 .85 .74 .71 .69 .72 .87 .85 .72

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the demotivating factors. Component name

Number of items

Mean

SD

Teacher immediacy Help-seeking Enjoyment-seeking Grammar-translation Avoidance Self-denigration Value Course level Self-confidence

8 4 5 5 4 3 6 5 6

4.12 2.89 2.31 3.01 2.65 3.65 3.60 3.67 3.06

0.92 1.24 0.99 0.88 1.10 1.25 0.49 0.96 0.56

Skew 0.22 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.39 0.13 0.31 0.12

SE skew .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08

Items loading on Factor 8 concern the appropriate level of the textbooks and courses, and pace of the courses, therefore it was named Course Level, a common factor of demotivation found in Japan (Arai, 2004, 2005; Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004). Also, Course Level and Teacher Immediacy showed a positive correlation (r = .411, p < .01), corroborating previous findings (Falout, 2006) that the more learners perceive teachers as approachable, the more they perceive the level of the courses as appropriate (see Appendix C). The mean Likert value of 3.67 indicates that these learners perceived the pace of past courses as adequate. The internal factors describe perceptions of affect that relate to EFL learning and demotivation. Factor 6 reflected the perceived frequency of past demotivation, and self-blame and loss of confidence when demotivated. This factor combined two previously identified triggers of a negative affective cycle: Reduced self-confidence (Falout and Falout, 2005) and Self-blame (Ushioda, 1998). With this combination, the factor was named Selfdenigration. The mean Likert value of 3.65 indicates a tendency for these learners to have lost confidence after past failures. Items from Factor 7 were concerned with positive affect toward studying English, or the Value learners place on the subject. Williams and Burden (1997) stressed the greater the value that learners place on the learning activity, the more motivated they will be. Meanwhile, Falout (2006) and Christophel and Gorham (1995) described the negative effects on motivation of low value toward the subject of study. The mean Likert score of 3.60 indicates these learners have had a positive attitude toward English. Factor 9 was composed of items describing confidence, expectations of success, embarrassment when using English in class, and perceptions of comparative L2 ability. Central to this factor was self-confidence, hence the name Self-confidence. The mean Likert value of 3.06 indicates these learners tended to have felt low selfconfidence, especially in relation to their expectations of success. The reactive factors describe learners’ behaviors as they attempt to cope with demotivation. Factor 2 comprised items about seeking help from friends and teachers, common responses found by Arai (2004, 2005), and can be considered a self-regulated learning strategy (e.g., Newman, 2008; Ryan et al., 1997; Zimmerman and

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

409

Martinez-Pons, 1988). This factor was named Help-seeking. The mean Likert value of 2.89 indicates that these learners tended to have not sought help when demotivated. Factor 3 was composed of items that describe a step toward self-motivation or remotivation following a period of demotivation (Ushioda, 1998, 2001). This involves engaging in intrinsically motivating language learning activities outside of institutional constraints, such as watching movies or listening to English songs simply for the sake of enjoyment. This factor was named Enjoyment-seeking. It can be considered an affective learning strategy (Do¨rnyei, 2005). The mean Likert value of 2.31 indicates these learners overall had not engaged themselves with enjoyable English materials or activities when demotivated. Factor 5 was composed of items whose central feature is avoidance of studying, such as sleeping in class, and thus the factor was named Avoidance. These reactions to demotivation are seen to debilitate learning in the Japanese EFL context (Arai, 2004, 2005). The mean Likert value of 2.65 indicates these learners tended to have not sought escape from their EFL studies when demotivated. However, in other studies such as Ushioda (2001), certain types of avoidance, specifically taking a break from studies as reflected in item RD-11 of the present study, have been shown as a remotivating strategy, therefore these data should be interpreted with caution. A stepwise regression was performed to answer the RQ 2: To what degree do past demotivating experiences correlate with present proficiency? Four demotivating factors correlated with proficiency in the stepwise regression: Enjoyment-seeking, Self-denigration, Help-seeking, and Self-confidence (see Table 4). The three families of ANOVA were performed to investigate the relationship between proficiency level and capacity for self-regulation when demotivated. Across these ANOVAs, the factor which consistently incurred the largest difference in means, with statistical significance at the p < .017 level, was Enjoyment-seeking. This factor showed the largest difference at .85 between low and high proficiency learners (see Table 5), with large differences relative to this study of .74 between senior and freshman learners (see Table 6), and .61 between English majors and non-English majors (see Table 7).

Table 4 Stepwise regression on demotivating factors and proficiency. Factor

Constant Enjoyment-seeking Self-denigration Help-seeking Self-confidence

Unstandardized coefficients

Standardized coefficients

B

SE

b

271.28 63.58 22.73 34.72 71.47

82.47 11.17 9.37 9.43 20.57

t

Significant

3.29 5.69 2.43 3.68 3.47

.36 .16 .24 .22

.001 .000 .016 .000 .001

Note: Y = 271.28; R = .49; R-squared = .24; and adjusted R-squared = .23.

Table 5 ANOVA for proficiency. Factor

Teacher immediacy Help-seeking Enjoyment-seeking Grammar-translation Avoidance Self-denigration Value Course level Self-confidence *

Significant at p < .017.

Proficiency group Low (n = 184)

Middle (n = 178)

High (n = 54)

4.03 3.11 2.30 2.97 2.75 3.63 3.58 3.65 3.01

4.41 2.92 2.48 3.28 2.51 3.57 3.72 3.93 3.22

4.63 2.54 3.15 3.12 2.39 3.07 3.83 4.04 3.35

F

Significant

13.54 4.69 15.53 5.76 3.55 4.51 7.21 6.14 12.86

.000* .010* .000* .003* .030 .011* .001* .002* .000*

410

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Table 6 ANOVA for year in university. Factor

Teacher immediacy Help-seeking Enjoyment-seeking Grammar-translation Avoidance Self-denigration Value Course level Self-confidence *

Year in university Fresh man (n = 462)

Sopho more (n = 231)

Junior (n = 159)

Senior (n = 43)

4.19 2.87 2.09 3.03 2.53 3.55 3.61 3.73 3.03

4.04 2.98 2.48 3.03 2.70 3.81 3.60 3.67 3.11

4.01 2.81 2.56 2.99 2.81 3.71 3.55 3.49 3.10

4.16 3.08 2.83 2.90 3.01 3.71 3.63 3.71 3.05

F

Significant

1.59 .65 11.25 .23 3.33 1.72 .68 1.58 1.36

.159 .661 .000* .948 .005* .128 .635 .163 .238

Significant at p < .017.

Table 7 ANOVA for English major/non-English major groups. Factor

Major Non-English (n = 757)

English (n = 143)

Teacher immediacy Help-seeking Enjoyment-seeking Grammar-translation Avoidance Self-denigration Value Course level Self-confidence

4.07 2.91 2.22 2.98 2.68 3.66 3.57 3.62 3.04

4.42 2.81 2.83 3.19 2.47 3.58 3.76 3.97 3.19

F

Significant

17.91 .78 48.41 7.10 4.63 .52 17.13 16.11 9.23

.000* .377 .000* .008* .032 .471 .000* .000* .002*

N.B. An earlier version of this study was presented at the 41st annual Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Convention and Exhibit, Seattle, March 23, 2007. * Significant at p < .017.

6. Discussion 6.1. Which demotivating factor has the most negative influence on EFL learning in this context? Not all factors in this study were found to negatively influence EFL learning on the whole. Most respondents had positive perceptions of their past teachers with a mean of 4.12 for Teacher Immediacy—the highest averaged value of the nine factors—suggesting that poor teacher behaviors are not a substantial problem for these learners in Japan, but the converse, that teachers seem quite inspiring. On the other hand, the lowest averaged value of the demotivating triggers, the external factors, was Grammar-translation at 3.01, suggesting that the dominant pedagogy poses the largest threat to student motivation, particularly since it is the sole method of instruction for the first six years—all of secondary school—of most learners’ experience with English. 6.2. To what degree do past demotivating experiences correlate with present proficiency? Internal and reactive factors of demotivation may be more of a determinant in learning outcomes than external factors. This is suggested by the absence of external factors in the results from the stepwise regression, where only internal and reactive factors predominated. These factors formed two sets of interactions in the regression that offer interpretable relationships with proficiency. The internal factors that entered the regression were Self-confidence and Self-denigration; the former contributes positively (.22) to the regression and the latter contributes negatively ( .16). More-proficient learners

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

411

tend to build self-confidence in L2 learning; less-proficient learners tend to respond with self-denigration when experiencing a lack of success. Learners feeling a lack of success may be attributing their failures to internal loci (Weiner, 1986), as demotivated learners reported in Falout and Maruyama (2004), which can lead to selfdenigration. The reactive factors that fit the regression were Enjoyment-seeking and Help-seeking. The former contributes positively (.36) to the regression, and the latter contributes negatively ( .24). The higher the self-regulation, the higher the proficiency, and more frequent help-seeking correlated with lower proficiency. When demotivated, more highly proficient learners are less likely to rely on others, and more likely to regulate their learning by involving themselves in intrinsically motivating activities related the learning. These results corroborate previous hypotheses that an effective way to prevent or overcome demotivation is by controlling affective states through emotion regulation (Falout and Falout, 2005; Ushioda, 2001), which positively influences motivation and learning outcomes (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2004). 6.3. Do lower proficiency learners show less capacity to self-regulate when experiencing demotivation? Learners most susceptible to demotivation are those with less L2 learning experience and those who are less-proficient. They are the most susceptible because they are least able to self-regulate their affective states in the presence of demotivators and when experiencing demotivation. This finding comes from the following cross-sectional analysis and deduction. As the learners progressed to successive years in school, or as they matured, they were more likely to learn to self-regulate their affective states through engagement in intrinsically motivating activities. Therefore the relationship suggested in this ANOVA yields some support to the idea that metacognitive and coping strategies are developmental. Learners can incorporate these self-regulatory strategies into their learning behaviors. According to the ANOVA on proficiency, higher proficiency learners are more likely to engage in enjoyment-seeking than lower proficiency learners. Similarly, English majors are more likely to engage in enjoyment-seeking than non-English majors. The pattern shows that beginning level, less-proficient, nonEnglish-majoring learners are least likely to engage in intrinsically motivating activities and are thus more likely to fall into demotivation, and also the least likely to cope adaptively when demotivated. Therefore learners most susceptible to demotivation are those who lack the capacity to regulate their affective states in their EFL studies both in the presence of demotivators and in response to demotivation. 7. Conclusion When faced with disagreeable teacher personalities or pedagogies, or inappropriate level of courses or materials, learners are at risk of becoming demotivated. Especially susceptible are lower proficiency beginners. In educational systems where English is compulsory, demotivated learners may struggle hopelessly for the duration of their academic lives. This prospect is alarming when the official starting age of EFL education is becoming younger worldwide (MEXT, 2008; Nunan, 2003; Otani et al., 2004). Policymakers and administrators can identify and address problematic aspects of educational policies and classroom practices. One such example is the loss of motivation due to the mismatch between policy and practice in Japan, where in junior high school some learners’ interest is caught with intrinsically enjoyable activities in an environment with meaningful interaction (Falout et al., 2008). However, parents, administrators, and teachers promote the grammar-translation approach in high school because they believe it prepares learners for college entrance exams (Gorsuch, 2000). Consequently the interest caught in junior high school is lost by high school, with learners sitting apart, passively, expected to put their full attention on the translations and explanations of grammar drills provided by the teacher. Learners find this environment dry and depersonalized, useful only for exam preparation (Falout et al., 2008). Teachers who wish to change such practices must still face the ‘‘external constraints” of parents, colleagues, and administrators who enforce the practice of ‘‘exam English” to maintain positive evaluations of teachers and reputations of schools (Sakui, 2004; Taguchi, 2005). Educational policies that change the exam system can be enacted to repurpose teachers and lend societal support to the transition toward classroom practices that are focused on learner interests and rich social interaction, improving both learner affect and learning outcomes.

412

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Teachers can promote motivation in their learners now simply by avoiding practices that demotivate them, such as mono-methodic teaching, and instead incorporating a variety of teaching methods, teacher non-verbal and verbal behaviors that make a positive impression, and pique learners’ interest. Results from this study suggest that learning outcomes could be improved by considering the affect of the learner—specifically the protection from loss of self-confidence, and the development of adaptive self-regulatory skills. Ultimately teachers have the greatest potential to influence the external contexts in the classroom and the internal conditions of the learner, for better or worse. Learners themselves provide teachers with high expectations and hope. From this study, the learners reported on average a high positive regard for their past teachers. Furthermore, demotivated learners in Japan have had negative experiences in their EFL education, but they have not given up on it. Research shows they are interested in the L2 community (Falout and Maruyama, 2004) and hold positive attitudes toward native speakers of English (Falout et al., 2008; Miyata et al., 2004; Potee, 2002). Although they have been demotivated and continue experiencing poor EFL learning outcomes, they are still reaching out to enjoy English. They are pleading for learner-centered, socially interactive classrooms where they can communicate with their teachers and peers through English. They want to acquire practical abilities for communicating in English, not just the kind of skills necessary for passing mark sheet exams (Murphey, 2002; Falout et al., 2008). Their values toward their own education are in line with the national policy issued by MEXT calling for ‘‘Japanese people who can use English” (MEXT, 2002). Learners are envisioning the wonders of intercultural communication through their L2. This far-sighted learning goal that learners hold differs from the short-sighted goal of cramming that is fostered by the high-stakes testing environment called ‘‘exam hell.” Disappointed learners with negative affect and poor learning outcomes are the product. Learners have higher aspirations, but their immediate environment obscures the possible multiple pathways to their ideal selves. Show them a more socially motivating and humane environment rich in meaningful interaction, with a variety of learning methods and courses at appropriate levels, and learners will share their motivation with teachers and peers. Acknowledgement We express our deep appreciation to David Beglar for his invaluable guidance and support on this paper. Appendix A EFL Demotivational Questionnaire (items grouped by factor). Item

Mean

TCE-8 TCE-5 TCE-2 TCE-3 TCE-1 TCE-4 TCE-7 TCE-9

Teacher immediacy (TI) My English teachers were approachable or friendly My English teachers spent time on answering my questions carefully My English teachers gave me good advice for studying English My English teachers gave me positive comments on my English I liked the personality of my English teachers My English teachers taught me what I wanted to learn about English My English teachers were enthusiastic My English teachers were fair with all the students

4.46 4.12 3.96 3.75 4.14 3.69 4.56 4.30

RD-9 RD-10 RD-8 RD-7

Help-seeking (H-S) When demotivated in When demotivated in When demotivated in When demotivated in

2.89 3.11 2.99 2.59

English, English, English, English,

I asked my friends for help with English my friends gave me help with English the English teacher gave me help I asked the English teacher for help

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

413

Appendix A (continued) Item

Mean

RD-12 RD-13 RD-14 RD-15 RD-16

Enjoyment-seeking (E-S) When demotivated in English, I watched movies in English When demotivated in English, I listened to music in English When demotivated in English, I read stories in English When demotivated in English, I spoke to a native English speaker When demotivated in English, I thought about the fun I could have if I knew English better

2.83 3.43 2.23 2.02 3.38

A-12 A-13 A-11 A-16 A-8

Grammar-translation (G-T) I liked memorizing vocabulary by rote I liked studying for English tests I liked studying English grammar I liked lecture-centered English classes The things I had to learn in English intimidated me

2.61 2.68 3.16 3.14 3.49

RD-17 RD-18 RD-11

Avoidance (AV) When demotivated English When demotivated When demotivated When demotivated

RD-5 RD-3 RD-2

Self-denigration (S-D) When demotivated in learning English, I lost confidence When demotivated in learning English, I blamed myself I have been demotivated in learning English in the past

3.82 3.22 3.92

A-3 A-5 RD-1 A-6 A-17 A-7

Value (VAL) I like studying English now Even if English had not been a compulsory subject, I would have chosen to study it (–) I am demotivated in learning English now Learning English was an enjoyable activity I liked communication-centered English classes (–) Learning English was a painful task

4.15 4.48 2.51 4.22 4.24 2.97

TCE-15 TCE-13 TCE-12 TCE-14 TCE-11

Course level (CL) The English textbooks I have used were at my level The level of my English classes was adequate for me My classes went at an appropriate speed for me I liked the textbooks I used for my English classes I could understand the purpose of activities in English class

3.71 3.86 3.90 3.19 3.72

A-10 A-2 A-14 A-9 A-1 A-15

Self-confidence (S-C) (–) I felt inferior to my classmates for my English ability I was confident in learning English before I started learning it Before doing English tests, I thought I would do well (–) I was embarrassed using English in my classes I am confident in learning English now After receiving grades for English tests, I thought I did well

3.99 2.29 3.01 3.52 2.63 2.94

RD-19

in English, I did something else in English class other than study

3.07

in English, I slept in English class in English, I skipped English class in English, I took a break from my English studies

3.43 1.82 3.70

Note: (–) denotes items which were reverse-coded. For item types: A, affect; TCE, teacher and class experiences; and RD, responses to demotivation.

414

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Appendix B Factor loadings. Item TCE-8 TCE-5 TCE-2 TCE-3 TCE-1 TCE-4 TCE-7 TCE-9 TCE-10 TCE-6 RD-9 RD-10 RD-8 RD-7 RD-6 RD-12 RD-13 RD-14 RD-15 RD-16 A-12 A-13 A-11 A-16 A-8 RD-19 RD-17 RD-18 RD-11 RD-4 RD-5 RD-3 RD-2 A-3 A-5 RD-1 A-6 A-17 A-7 A-4 TCE-15 TCE-13 TCE-12 TCE-14 TCE-11 A-10

TI .751 .748 .731 .722 .684 .668 .656 .513 .406 .286 .134 .114 .350 .252 .005 .009 .003 .021 .025 .068 .023 .031 .084 .016 .133 .001 .035 .010 .118 .219 .062 .019 .007 .096 .083 .030 .215 .106 .122 .031 .019 .042 .086 .070 .188 .028

H-S .007 .098 .101 .012 .001 .022 .049 .054 .012 .053 .888 .876 .734 .718 .385 .039 .038 .022 .086 .110 .007 .118 .041 .036 .054 .024 .011 .011 .096 .210 .052 .088 .048 .019 .072 .014 .058 .036 .070 .084 .013 .039 .021 .025 .068 .037

E-S .080 .060 .101 .014 .101 .018 .004 .053 .064 .114 .010 .015 .005 .050 .114 .874 .786 .782 .680 .535 .069 .032 .063 .112 .107 .016 .013 .168 .101 .147 .006 .093 .026 .118 .034 .034 .098 .109 .076 .063 .064 .019 .013 .105 .056 .022

G-T .030 .066 .081 .127 .005 .115 .030 .089 .146 .171 .046 .040 .035 .102 .056 .102 .067 .102 .013 .050 .721 .692 .598 .536 .451 .008 .059 .189 .192 .020 .052 .061 .207 .102 .043 .000 .181 .335 .188 .056 .006 .051 .013 .136 .138 .062

AV .014 .074 .018 .065 .000 .054 .067 .088 .315 .132 .015 .030 .019 .017 .057 .030 .095 .020 .081 .035 .004 .073 .007 .010 .096 .834 .814 .598 .466 .364 .036 .069 .319 .038 .034 .076 .050 .023 .077 .150 .007 .041 .031 .133 .029 .067

S-D .088 .072 .048 .054 .042 .055 .036 .085 .049 .218 .061 .066 .046 .073 .343 .010 .006 .047 .045 .201 .012 .026 .018 .075 .192 .061 .057 .036 .292 .248 .794 .727 .476 .066 .063 .176 .013 .069 .198 .283 .059 .074 .075 .177 .048 .298

VAL .003 .146 .084 .148 .092 .110 .004 .167 .067 .026 .012 .014 .103 .142 .193 .073 .022 .041 .056 .229 .057 .034 .276 .241 .218 .012 .032 .045 .176 .131 .035 .105 .272 .723 .718 .709 .629 .610 .487 .407 .064 .117 .038 .114 .163 .049

CL .069 .006 .058 .028 .074 .129 .149 .173 .049 .131 .061 .116 .082 .106 .107 .006 .097 .037 .029 .024 .022 .099 .071 .158 .000 .047 .022 .145 .029 .020 .005 .037 .056 .058 .101 .029 .070 .003 .024 .127 .833 .831 .799 .626 .454 .068

S-C .036 .003 .027 .181 .017 .077 .036 .028 .063 .159 .079 .104 .110 .121 .054 .021 .103 .076 .144 .083 .040 .098 .032 .011 .084 .027 .092 .094 .005 .013 .127 .108 .062 .084 .039 .042 .081 .196 .036 .148 .036 .016 .000 .096 .065 .665

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

415

Appendix B (continued) Item A-2 A-14 A-9 A-1 A-15

TI .065 .127 .004 .069 .059

H-S .015 .009 .037 .021 .030

E-S

G-T

.064 .053 .052 .001 .043

AV

.046 .304 .322 .035 .260

S-D

.056 .014 .104 .008 .108

VAL

.135 .020 .072 .129 .132

.041 .014 .009 .310 .004

CL .081 .173 .017 .039 .193

S-C .583 .556 .551 .550 .480

Note: For factors: TI, teacher immediacy; H-S, help-seeking; E-S, enjoyment-seeking; G-T, grammar-translation; AV, avoidance; S-D, self-denigration; VAL, value; CL, course level; and S-C, self-confidence. For item types: A, affect; TCE, teacher and class experiences; and RD, responses to demotivation.

Appendix C Correlations of factors. Factor TI H-S E-S G-T AV S-D VAL CL S-C

TI .084 .139 .127 .246 .095 .243 .411 .155

H-S

.165 .040 .086 .239 .019 .086 .048

E-S

.055 .031 .097 .191 .083 .190

G-T

.126 .001 .166 .235 .164

AV

.165 .184 .185 .066

S-D

.089 .076 .086

VAL

.234 .254

CL

.149

Note: For factors: TI, teacher immediacy; H-S, help-seeking; E-S, enjoyment-seeking; G-T, grammar-translation; AV, avoidance; S-D, self-denigration; VAL, value; CL, course level; and S-C, self-confidence.

References Amano, I., 1995. The dilemma of Japanese education today. In: Shields, J.J. (Ed.), Japanese Schooling: Patterns of Socialization, Equality, and Political Control. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, pp. 111–123. Ames, C., Ames, R., 1984. Systems of student and teacher motivation: toward a qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (4), 535–556. Arai, K., 2004. Naniga gaikokugo gakushusha no yaruki wo ushinawaserunoka? – Douki gentai no genin to sorenitaisuru gakushusha no hannou ni taisuru shitsuteki chosa (what demotivates foreign language learners: qualitative study of causes for demotivation and learners’ reactions to demotivating experiences). Toyo Gakuin Daigaku Kiyo 12, 39–47. Arai, K., 2005. Why do learners lose their motivation? Paper presented at the 31st JALT International Conference on Language Teaching and Learning, October 10, 2005, Shizuoka, Japan. Arai, K., 2006. Do teachers really know what demotivates learners? In: Proceedings of the 32nd JALT International Conference on Language Teaching and Learning, November 5, 2006, Fukuoka, Japan. Chesebro, J.L., McCrosky, J.C. (Eds.), 2002. Communication for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Christophel, D.M., Gorham, J., 1995. A test–retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy and perceived sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 44, 292–306. den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M., Wubbles, T., 2005. The effect of teacher interpersonal behavior on students’ subject-specific motivation. Journal of Classroom Interaction 40 (2), 20–33. Do¨rnyei, Z., 1998. Demotivation in foreign language learning. In: Proceedings of the TESOL’98 Congress, March 1998, Seattle. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2001a. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Do¨rnyei, Z., 2001b. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Pearson Education, Harlow, England.

416

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Do¨rnyei, Z., 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey. Do¨rnyei, Z., Ehrman, M.E., 1998. Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. Do¨rnyei, Z., Murphey, T., 2003. Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Falout, J., 2006. What is demotivating Japanese learners? Paper presented at the JALT 2006 Pan-SIG Conference, May 14, 2006, Shizuoka, Japan. Falout, J., Falout, M., 2005. The other side of motivation: learner demotivation. In: Bradford-Watts, K., Ikeguchi, C., Swanson, M. (Eds.), JALT2004 Conference Proceedings. JALT, Tokyo, pp. 280–289. Falout, J., Maruyama, M., 2004. A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation. The Language Teacher 28 (8), 3–9. Falout, J., Murphey, T., Elwood, J., Hood, M., 2008. Learner voices: reflections on secondary education. In: Bradford-Watts, K. (Ed.), JALT2007 Conference Proceedings. JALT, Tokyo, pp. 231–243. Gorham, J., Christophel, D.M., 1992. Learners’ perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes. Communication Quarterly 40 (3), 239–252. Gorham, J., Millette, D.M., 1997. A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 46, 245–261. Gorham, J., Zakahi, W.R., 1990. A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: monitoring process and product. Communication Education 39, 354–368. Gorsuch, G., 2000. EFL educational policies and educational cultures: influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly 34 (4), 675–710. Grayson, J.L., Alvarez, H.K., 2007. School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: a mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 1349–1363. Guilloteaux, M.J., Do¨rnyei, Z., 2008. Motivating language learners: a classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly 42, 55–77. Honna, N., 2002. Ajia no saishin eigo jijo (the encyclopedia of the situation of the English language in Asia). Taishukan, Tokyo. Kearney, P., Plax, T.G., Allen, T.H., 2002. Understanding student reactions to teachers who misbehave. In: Chesebro, J.L., McCroskey, J.C. (Eds.), Communication for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 127–140. MEXT, 2002. Developing a strategic plant to cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English abilities”. Press release issued on July 12, 2002. (retrieved 14.02.08). MEXT, 2007. Eigo ga tsukaeru nihonjin no ikusei: monbukagakusho no eigo kyoiku heno torikumi (Regarding the implementation of an action plan to cultivate ‘‘Japanese citizens with a good command of English”: working toward global exchange). (retrieved 12.03.07). MEXT, 2008. Gengo katsudou ni kansuru gakushushido ryouyou kaiteian no kijutsurei (basui) (Summary of the new Course of Study regarding language activities). (retrieved 03.03.08). Millette, D.M., Gorham, J., 2002. Teacher behavior and student motivation. In: Chesebro, J.L., McCroskey, J.C. (Eds.), Communication for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 141–153. Miyata, M., Shikano, M., Ishida, T., Okabe, J., Uchida, M., 2004. Seito ga tsueketa eigo no tsushinbo (learners’ evaluation on teachers). Eigo Kyoiku 53 (8), 58–65. Murphey, T., 2002. From the horse’s mouth: advice from students to teachers. Learning Learning 9 (1), 2–10. Newman, R.S., 2008. The motivational role of adaptive help seeking in self-regulated learning. In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.), Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, pp. 315–337. Noels, K.A., Cle´ment, R., Pelletier, L.G., 1999. Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal 83 (1), 23–34. Nunan, D., 2003. The impact of English as a global language on the educational policies and practices in the Asia–Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly 37 (4), 589–613. O’Donnell, K., 2005. Japanese secondary English teachers: negotiation of educational roles in the face of curricular reform. Language, Culture and Curriculum 18 (3), 300–315. Otani, Y., Hayashi, K., Aikawa, M., Azuma, M., Okihara, K., Kawai, T., et al., 2004. Sekai no gaikokugo kyoiku seisaku: nihon no gaikokugo kyoiku no saikochiku ni mukete (Language Teaching Policy in the 21st Century). Toshinodo Publishing Company, Tokyo. Potee, N., 2002. Teacher immediacy and student motivation. In: McInerney, D.M., Van Etten, S. (Eds.), Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning: An Historical Perspective. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, Connecticut, pp. 207–223. Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2002. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, pp. 3–33. Ryan, A.M., Hicks, L., Midgley, C., 1997. Social goals, academic goals, and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adolescence 17 (2), 152–171. Sakui, K., 2004. Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 58 (2), 155–163. Skaalvik, E.M., Skaalvik, S., 2009. Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (3), 518–524. SPSS, 2007. SPSS Version 14.0, Computer Software. SPSS Inc, Chicago. Suzuki, N., Arai, K., Yanai, H., 1999. Daigakusei no gakuryoku teika ni kansuru chosa kekka (Survey on the decline in college student performance). Daigaku Nyushi Forum 22, 50–56. Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, fifth ed. Pearson, Boston.

J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

417

Taguchi, N., 2005. The communicative approach in Japanese secondary schools: teachers’ perceptions and practice. The Language Teacher 29 (3), 3–12. Trang, T.T.T., Baldauf, R.B., 2007. Demotivation: understanding resistance to English language learning—The case of vietnamese students. The Journal of Asia TEFL 4 (1), 79–105. Tsuchiya, M., 2006. Factors in demotivation of lower proficiency English learners at college. English and English Teaching, Special Issue: A Festschrift in Honor of Toshiaki Ozasa. Hiroshima Daigaku Gakko Kyoiku Gakubu Eigo Kenkyukai, Hiroshima, pp. 87–96. Ushioda, E., 1998. Effective motivational thinking: a cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In: Soler, E.A., Espurz, V.C. (Eds.), Current Issues in English Language Methodology. Universitat Jaume I, Catello de la Plana, Spain, pp. 77–89. Ushioda, E., 2001. Language learning at university: exploring the role of motivational thinking. In: Do¨rnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, pp. 93–125. Vallerand, R.J., Ratelle, C.F., 2002. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: a hierarchical model. In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, pp. 37–63. Weiner, B., 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-Verlag, New York. Williams, M., Burden, R.L., 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Yanai, H., Shiina, K., Ishii, H., Nozawa, T., 2003. Daigakusei no gakushuiyoku tou ni kansuru chousa kekka (An investigation into learning motivation of university students). National Center for University Entrance Examinations 23, 57–126. Zimmerman, B.J., Martinez-Pons, M., 1988. Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (3), 284–290. Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H., 2004. Self-regulated processes and outcomes: a social cognitive perspective. In: Dai, D.Y., Sternberg, R.J. (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 323–349.