CHAPTER 1 MOTIVATION THEORIES

1.1 Introduction
Motivation is a concept which has been the core of a major area of concern and a plethora of research in the past decades; it is considered to be one of the most complex variables affecting the individual learners performance in the language learning milieu. With regard to second language learning, Drnyei (1998) suggests that motivation constitutes a key factor, for both its rate and success, as it provides the incentive for the initiation and the sustenance of the learning process. In other words, motivation determines how ready and eager the learners are to invest effort and reach a satisfactory level of understanding, writing and speaking the second language (Engin, 2009). Many theories attest the determinant role of motivation in explaining the failure or success of a language learner, in that achievement in EFL is closely correlated with measures of motivation (Sayadian & Lashkarian, 2010); according to Gardner (2006, p.241) students with higher levels of motivation will do better than students with lower levels. Such learners study with perseverance, rigor and intensity and, as Gardner (2001) postulates, enjoy striving for their goals experiencing positive reinforcement, have aspirations and employ a wide array of strategies in order to achieve their goals. It becomes clear, thus, that it is the behavior of the individual rather than the motivation itself that can be directly observable; hence, defining the complex concept of motivation is the focus of the subsequent sections from the perspective of two of the most distinguished motivation theories. Therein, an attempt will be made to shed light on their relation to the process of learning a second or foreign language by identifying their distinct characteristics and exploiting their impact on the learners performance.

1.2 Definition of motivation

There is no such thing as motivation (Drnyei, 2001, p.1). This provocative claim signifies the controversy around what really constitutes motivation. Surprisingly enough, as Drnyei (1998, p.118) posits it is not the lack but rather the abundance of motivation theories which confuses the scene. What renders motivation challenging to define is the fact that it involves a multiplicity of sociological and linguistic factors; as Gardner (2007) argues, some of the characteristics attributed to a motivated learner are cognitive in nature (being goal-directed and expending effort), some are behavioral (demonstrating self-efficacy and having motives to persevere), while others are affective (exhibiting positive affect and being aroused), triggering an educational shift toward these characteristics and classroom considerations (Kimura et al., 2001). Hence, motivation is to be treated as a broad umbrella term, as Drnyei (2001, p.1) ingeniously puts it. This significant dimension in language learning is an internal state that stimulates learners, engrosses them and keeps them engaged (Ormrod, 2008, in Lei, 2010). Put differently, it is the drive that urges an individual to act so as to achieve his/her goals (Harmer, 2003). Of course, motivation involves much more than simply activating and instigating behavior; in fact, it affects the extend of the learners perseverance, the kinds of exerted behavior, the values and beliefs involved along with the actual achievement and finality of action (Ellis, 1994; Guay et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In the EFL/ESL context, the role of motivation as a determinant of success and achievement is so pivotal that, according to Drnyei (2001) without it even the brightest students cannot attain any useful language. Still and all, considering that one cannot directly observe motivation per se, but only its reciprocity with the individuals behavior and environment, Burstall has raised a very interesting issue: is it success that breeds its own motivation, or does motivation itself lead to success (Burstall et al., 1974, in Ur, 1996). That is to say, it is debatable whether a learner is successful owing to his/her high levels of motivation, or the other way around, that is that considerable achievement results in high motivation. In the vast, truth be said, literature concerning the complex construct of motivation, there have been suggested numerous theories in the last decades, each investigating and focusing on different psychological and educational viewpoints; however, this

paper concentrates on two very renowned distinctions: the first one is integrative and instrumental motivation, resourced from Gardners Socio-educational model and the second is intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which is the cornerstone of the Selfdetermination theory (SDT), proposed by Ryan and Deci.

1.3 Motivation in Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a motivation theory which, when applied to educational settings, is concerned with fostering to students an interest in learning and confidence in their abilities and capacities (Deci et al., 1991). A basic tenet in SDT is internalization which refers to the process whereby the individual behavior is ultimately governed by his/her inner values and beliefs; in Gagne and Decis (2005) words, the external regulation of a behavior is converted into an internal one, no longer requiring any external contingencies. SDT distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the former pertaining to autonomous, while the latter to controlled behaviors; a third distinction, lying at the far end of the internalization continuum is amotivation which involves a complete lack of volition and intentionality and can ultimately lead to procrastination as, according to Tahaineh and Daana (2013), motivation is the driving force that engages individuals into action. Deci and Ryan (2000) postulate that intrinsically motivated behaviors are instigated out of a genuine interest in the task at hand, promoting growth and satisfying the needs for autonomy and competence; in extrinsically motivated behaviors on the other hand, motivation stems from an outside force rather than the self (Chalak & Kassaian, 2010) with the scope of receiving an extrinsic reward, or to avoid, in some cases, punishment (Drnyei, 1998). What follows is a detailed account of each of these two types in SDT, namely of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

1.3.1 Intrinsic motivation According to Ryan and Deci (2000), intrinsic motivation reflects the human propensity to learn and assimilate, since it triggers spontaneous exploration and curiosity. This type of motivation involves individuals deriving satisfaction from the activities they are engaged in, which is why it is characterized by Gagne and Deci (2005) as prototypically autonomous; in fact, it is originated inside the individual, as
3

action stems from the joy, the intellectual stimulation, the inherent satisfaction or its worth-doingness (Tahaineh & Daana, 2013, p.163). Intrinsically motivated behaviors, animated by a sense of volition, do not involve the anticipation of separable consequences and rewards or constraints, other than the internally rewarding outcomes of self-satisfying feelings of competence and self-determination. For this reason, intrinsic motivation is regarded as a natural wellspring of learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.53) and is associated with achievement, competence and selfefficacy, as described by Lei (2010). While most researchers view intrinsic motivation as a global construct (Vallerand et al., 1992), there has been suggested a tripartite taxonomy which challenges its commonly-held unidimensionality; the three identified subtypes are: intrinsic motivation a) to Know, b) to Accomplish things, and c) to Experience stimulation. The first one relates to constructs such as exploration, curiosity, intellectuality and a motivation to learn (Vallerand et al., ibid). In other words, it involves the epistemic need to know (Pelletier et al., 1995) and the engagement in an activity for the satisfaction of exploring the world (Drnyei, 1998) and gaining new knowledge. In the school context, learners are intrinsically motivated to know, when they study or read something with the aim of pleasurably extending their knowledge. Intrinsic motivation to accomplish things pertains to the tendency of individuals to interact with the environment with a view to accomplishing great feats, just for the pleasure of excelling and surpassing their capacities. For instance, learners who extend their efforts beyond the curriculums requirements demonstrate intrinsic motivation to accomplish things. The final type of intrinsic motivation is operative when the aim of the action taken is experiencing stimulating sensations, such as fun or aesthetic pleasure (Vallerand et al., 1992). An example from the educational context would be a student who views schooling as a scope for exciting experiences and the intense feelings that it may entail. Having provided a detailed account of intrinsic motivation, the following subsection is consumed with a description of its counterpart in SDT, extrinsic motivation.

1.3.2 Extrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation pertains to behaviors engaged in as a means to an end (rather than for their own sake) without the presence of self-determination (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). The catalyst for the animation of extrinsic motivation is external
4

rewards and desirable outcomes (Lei, 2010), a fact which renders it instrumental in nature (Deci et al., 1991). Examples of such reinforcement contingencies may be opportunities for improving ones working status, passing an exam, or avoiding punishment, to name but some. According to Drnyei (1998), extrinsic motivation is thought to be undermining its rival in SDT; this phenomenon, also known as the undermining effect of extrinsic reward (Graham & Weiner, 1996), posits that students may lose their genuine interest for a task should there be any external rewards involved. Deci and Ryan (2000) justify this process by proposing that individuals have a tendency to feel controlled by such rewards, even though their primary engagement in a task has been spontaneous and dependable upon their inner interests. Hence, the perceived locus of causality1 for their displayed behavior has shifted from internal to external. It should be stressed though, that extrinsic motivation is no longer considered to be a solid construct, antagonistic to intrinsic motivation (Drnyei, 1998); on the contrary, in the light of SDT, it may vary in the degree of its internalization and instrumentality and classified into four types, placed along a continuum between self-determined and controlled forms of motivation. In other words, there are extrinsically motivated behaviors prompted solely by external contingencies and others which are selfdetermined or performed through varied degrees of self-regulation (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). The four types of extrinsic motivation are a) external regulation, b) introjection, c) identification, and d) integration, summarized in the table below (Figure 1). External regulation, which is the least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, (ztrk, 2012) occurs when a behavior is regulated through rewards or constraints; these contingencies are the loci of the initiation of behavior (Deci et al., 1991). The second type, introjected regulation, is an internal, albeit, controlling regulation whereby individuals perform actions mostly out of pressure or to avoid feelings of guilt and anxiety (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The motives of action are external, even though the learners have incorporated a kind of pressure into the self (ztrk, 2012).

Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC): a person's perception of whether the origin of their reasons for engaging in a behaviour is internal (done willingly and out of free choice) or external (done because they are compelled or required to do so, either by external pressure from others or because of self-imposed pressures).
5

The rewards involved in this regulation (ego-enhancement, ego-involvement, or feelings of worthiness) are what propel the desired behavior. In identified regulation, the learners value the behavior and have identified with the regulatory process (Deci et al., 1991); it is quite self-determined, as the individuals feel freedom and volition (Gagne & Deci, 2005), since their behavior is consistent with their goals. Finally, integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. It involves choiceful behaviour (Drnyei, 1998, p.121) which is fully compatible with the individuals values, identifications and interests, and most importantly, with their self-concept (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). In short, integrated regulation represents full self-determination, since, as Deci and Ryan (2000) postulate, what started as an external regulation has been transformed into self-regulation which is in coherence with aspects of their inner-value system. Integrated regulation resembles intrinsic motivation in that both forms involve autonomous self-regulation (Deci et al., 1991); however, their major difference lies in the instrumentality of the external regulation and the importance assigned to some outcome, while intrinsic motivation is characterized by an interest in the activity itself. Nevertheless, despite the inherent differences between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, it should be borne in mind that these types of motivation are not mutually exclusive (Lei, 2010, p.159); it is possible that an individual may be motivated from both the self (an inside source) and an external one at the same time (Tahaineh & Daana, 2013).

Figure 1. A taxonomy of human motivation

6

1.4 The Socio-Educational Model

One of the most influential motivation theories in the educational field related to second language learning is the socio-educational model proposed by Gardner. His progressive work rests on the principle that success in language learning is directly correlated with the students attitudes toward the corresponding language group. Taking into consideration the social nature of foreign language learning, Williams 1994, in Drnyei, 1998) contends that the learner experiences a self-image transformation as he/she strives to adopt new social and cultural behaviors. Gardner (1985) argues that motivation subsumes three interrelated components, namely motivational intensity, which refers to the effort expended on the learners part to learn the language (Gardner, 2001), desire to learn and task-enjoyment reflected through a positive attitude toward the act of learning (Drnyei, 1998). With regard to the learners reasons for studying a foreign language, also referred to as orientation in this model, Gardner and his associate Lambert (1959) have distinguished two broad categories, after their influential study in the bilingual context of Canada: integrative and instrumental motivation. Integrative motivation springs from a genuine interest and desire to identify with the target culture (Ahmadi, 2011), learn about the language group (Gardner & Lambert, 1959), and ultimately, integrate oneself with it. On the other hand, instrumental motivation becomes the primary drive of behavior when the learner learns the foreign language for a specific purpose, be it social recognition or economic advantages (Sayadian & Lashkarian, 2010) and generally wishes to reap any potential pragmatic gains of L2 proficiency (Drnyei , 2001, p.16). In the subsequent subsections, these two types of motivation will be described in more detail.

1.4.1 Instrumental motivation Instrumental motivation reflects a utilitarian value of linguistic achievement (Gardner & Lambert, 1959); that is, it usually involves an aspiration to get practical benefits from the study of a second language (Hudson, 2000). Examples of this instrumentality are passing an exam, increasing ones occupational opportunities or achieving higher status and prestige. Additionally, the goal of instrumentally motivated learners is simply to achieve a sufficient knowledge of the language without aspiring to the prospect of integrating with the target culture group. After all,

such learners are not interested in interacting socially with the new target language community members, as they tend to be, as Ahmadi (2011) argues, more educational and career oriented. Individuals who decide to learn a foreign language for such reasons, though, according to Gardner (1960), are not likely to sustain their motivation in high levels for extended periods of language study. This claim, referred to by MacIntyre et al. (2002, in Sayadian & Lashkarian, 2010) as the seemingly contradictory behavior reveals a mismatch between the learners expended effort and their professed instrumental motivation. It should be noted that instrumental motivation, despite these claims, can also be conducive to successful learning, especially in contexts where the language learnt is a foreign, rather than a second one (like Canada, for instance) and there is no chance, therefore, to directly interact with members of that target group. Examples of such social contexts are the Philippines, India, or Japan (Gardner & Lambert, 1972).

1.4.2 Integrative motivation Integrative motivation reflects a powerful drive to learn a foreign language; according to Gardner (1960), it involves positive attitudes toward the language group and an expressed desire to meet more of its members and their cultural identity. The aim of an integratively motivated learner is not simply to learn the language per se, but come psychologically closer with its speakers (Gardner, 2001). Many researchers award great importance in integrative motivation, as it is believed to underlie the acquisition of a wide array of registers and a native-like pronunciation (Finegan, 1999, in Tahaineh & Daana, 2013). It is important therefore, to recognize the construct of motivation as a multi-factorial one, as the two orientations do not seem to be mutually exclusive (Ahmadi, 2011; Chalak & Kassaian, 2010; Sayadian & Lashkarian, 2010; Tahaineh & Daana, 2013). As Gardner (2001) argues, it is possible that both sets of reasons apply to a learner and that he/she opts for a combination of the two orientations (Brown, 2000, in Ahmadi, 2011). One might, for example, study a foreign language in order that he/she may move to a country where it is being spoken, with a view to both working and intermingling with its community. Gardner (2001) firmly argues that it would be an oversimplification to assume that the existence of one orientation automatically excludes the existence of the other.

1.5 Implications for the EFL classroom

When all is said and done, it would be interesting to investigate the correlation between the dichotomies described in this chapter and more specifically extrinsicinstrumental and intrinsic-integrative motivations; the table below (Figure 2) is indicative of their relationship; notwithstanding their similarities, extrinsic and instrumental motivations are fundamentally distinguished as the former focuses on the fact that the reasons for learning a language are external to the person, while the latter pertains to the individuals purpose for learning. Similarly, intrinsic motivation relates to the inherent pleasure of learning a foreign language, while integrative motivation involves the learners urge to be assimilated by the target community.

Motivational dichotomies

Figure 2. Source Brown (2000, p.166)

1.6 Conclusion
It remains undisputable that motivation itself constitutes a variable that can lead to successful language learning, regardless of its type, hence the importance that has been awarded to it over the last decades by educational researchers. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to elucidate the most prominent theories of motivation with regard to education and second or foreign language learning. Bearing in mind Gardners (2001) claim that second language learning is dependable upon the nature of the context, it is imperative to explore the implications aroused concerning the context involved in the present study. It is upon this framework that the discussion

about Greek primary students motivation and attitudes toward learning English at school will be based in the following chapter.

10

REFERENCES
Ahmadi, M.R. (2011). The effect of integrative and instrumental motivation on Iranian EFL learners language learning. ELT Voices, 1/2: 7-15. Brown, D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4rth ed.). White Plains, New York: Pearson Education Inc. Burstall, C., Jamieson, M., Cohen, S. & Hargreaves, M. (1974). Primary French in the balance. Windsor: National Foundation for Educational Research Publishing Company. Chalak, A. & Kassaian, Z. (2010). Motivation and attitudes of Iranian undergraduate EFL students towards learning English. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10/2: 37-56, at http://journalarticle.ukm.my/2328/1/page1_21.pdf, accessed 28 September 2013. Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G. & Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26/3&4: 352-346. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11/4:227-268. Drnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31: 117-135. Drnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engin, A.O. (2009). Second language learning success and motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 37/8: 1035-1042. Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Finegan, E. (1999). Language: its structure and use (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.

11

Gagne, M. & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 331-362, at

http://www.langleygroup.com.au/images/Deci---2005---Self-determination-theoryand-work-motivation-.pdf, accessed 4 October 2013. Gardner, R.C. (1960). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, McGill University. Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (2001). Integrative motivation: Past, present and future. Paper presented at the Distinguished Lecturer Series in Temple University, Tokyo and Osaka,
Japan, at http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/docs/GardnerPublicLecture1.pdf, accessed 1 October 2013. Gardner, R.C. (2006). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: a research paradigm. EUROSLA Yearbook, 6: 237-260. Gardner, R.C. (2007). Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum, 8: 9-20. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13/4: 266-272. Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of Educational Psychology. New York: Macmillan, 63-84. Guay, F., Chanal, J., Ratelle, C. F., Marsh, H. W., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2010). Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80/4: 711-735, at http://www.motivation.chaire.ulaval.ca/webdav/site/crcmrs/shared/pdf/2010/Guay,%2 0Chanal,%20Ratelle,%20Marsh,%20Larose,%20Boivin_2010.pdf, accessed 5 October 2013.

12

Harmer, J. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman. Hudson, G. (2000). Essential introductory linguistics. UK: Blackwell Publishers. Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y. & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL learners in Japan-a cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT Journal,23/1: 47-68. Lei, S.A. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: evaluating benefits and drawbacks from college instructors perspectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37/2: 153-161. Macintyre, P., Baker, S., Clment, R. & Donovan, L. (2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52: 537564. Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Human learning (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. ztrk, E.. (2012). Contemporary motivation theories in educational psychology and language learning: an overview. The International Journal of Social Sciences, 3/1: 33-46, at http://www.tijoss.com/3rd%20Volume/elcin.pdf, accessed 17 October 2013. Pelletier, L.G., Tuson, K.M., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J., Briere, N.M. & Blais, M.R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: the sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17: 35-53. Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54-67, at http://mmrg.pbworks.com/f/Ryan,+Deci+00.pdf, accessed 10 October 2013. Sayadian, S. & Lashkarian, A. (2010). Investigating attitude and motivation of Iranian university learners toward English as a foreign language. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3/1: 137-148.

13

Tahaineh, Y. & Daana, H. (2013). Jordanian undergraduates motivations and attitudes towards learning English in EFL context. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4/2: 159-180, at

http://irssh.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/15_IRSSH-433-V4N2.44203943.pdf, accessed 25 October 2013. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vallerand, R.J. & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: a prospective study. Journal of personality, 60/3: 599-621. Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C. & Vallieres, E.F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52: 10031017. Williams, M. (1994). Motivation in foreign and second language learning: an interactive perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11: 77-84.

14