Can You Motivate The Unmotivated - Essay Example

Can You Motivate The Unmotivated? A Case Study of Male EFL University Students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Background Students in Saudi Arabia face many challenges studying in a language other than their first language (L1). A lot of schools and colleges restrict their students from speaking in their native language in classroom activities, so all they are left with is their second language (L2) (Jenkins 2010). In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia it is believed that ‘no Arabic rule’ would facilitate English language learning conditions. Students are prohibited from the use of L1 in everyday classroom activities, as the teachers and proponents of this rule believe that the active use of L1 may inhibit learning with L2 as the medium. Jenkins emphasizes that restricting the use of L1 does not help develop positive attitude towards L2. In fact flexibility to use L1 can motivate the students and provide the necessary foundation on which to build. Dörnyei (2001) agrees that facilitation, not control can motivate humans. Jenkins asserts that restricting the use of L1 is monolingualism and this practice is ineffective in low-level homogenous EFL settings. This is because languages have strong, inseparable and complex ties to culture and insisting on monolingualism is to exert pressure on the students to check their identities. The question then arises whether restricting the use of L1 assists in or inhibits the proper acquisition and learning of the second language, in short whether it is an asset or a liability. This paper sheds some light on motivation theories and their application with respect to EFL. This would help the teaching fraternity as well as help students in developing a, positive attitude towards the target language, thereby enabling them to lay a firm foundation for speaking and writing in L2. Methodology In order to evaluate the issue under consideration, I will look at the recent research works and studies on L2 motivation as a second language (in a foreign environment) or foreign language (in a native English-speaking country). For the analysis of the problem I have selected a few relevant documents to accumulate knowledge and to establish well-grounded theoretical context and conceptual framework for the paper. So this assignment can also serve as a comprehensive summary of the relevant studies which comprise, for example Clément and Gardne, (2001), Dörnyei (2001a, 2001c) and MacIntyre (2002). Hence, instead of restating what has already been very well described in the articles and journals selected for the anthology, I have tried to evaluate the answers to the question under study from various standpoints, highlighting their importance and trying to establish the connections with other approaches to the problem. Perception of L2 In trying to understand the acquisition of L2 as a language we need to see it not just as a subject, but as a deeply social and cultural event; this is what makes language learning different from other academic subjects (Dörnyei 2001). The elements of language learning as a subject include the understanding of lexical terms, vocabulary and grammatical rules; whereas it is also socially bound, requiring the language learner to integrate several elements of the culture of the second language (Gardner 1979 and Williams 1994 cited in Dörnyei 2001). L2 motivation researchers have widely supported this approach, which has led to the inclusion of social and cultural dimension in the language learning and studies. This has also introduced the concepts of multiculturalism, language globalisation, power relations between different cultures and social groups in the study of L2 motivation. Intrinsic value of L2 learning Students must have interest in and anticipate enjoyment in the language learning activity (Dörnyei 2001). This entails arousing the students’ curiosity and attention. They must be presented with challenging and satisfying aspects of L2 learning. Students must be able to connect L2 learning and hold it in high esteem. They must be made aware of the numerous activities that L2 learning could lead to and the benefits that could be achieved after learning L2. Dörnyei (2001 cited in Jenkins 2010) further contends that when low-level students are forced to make connections to L2 after L1 has been restricted from classroom, it can lead to the risk of students losing interest and becoming demotivated. This leads one to understand what motivation actually is. Perception of Motivation Motivational strategies are techniques that promote the individual’s goal-related behaviour (Dörnyei 2001). These are conscious efforts and influences aimed at achieving some systematic and enduring positive effect. Dörnyei asserts that motivation cannot be applied in a vacuum and needs certain preconditions (p39). These include an appropriate teacher-student relationship in addition to a supportive classroom atmosphere and a cohesive learner group that adheres to group norms. Motivation, within the study of L2 learning, according to Gardner (1985) is "the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language" (cited in Noels 1999, p.23). That language aptitude is not sufficient and language learning is also related to motivation was found by Gardner and Lambert in 1959 (cited in Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Noels et al (2000) view motivation in L2 learning as dynamic and adaptable through teacher intervention (cited in Vandergrift 2005). The first comprehensive study of motivation to learn L2 was initiated by Gardner and Lambert in 1972 (cited in Dwaik & Shehadeh, 2009). While Gardner and Lambert introduced the distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation, Gardner in 1985 developed the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB). Deci and Ryan in 1985 distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation while Skehan in 1989 suggested a comprehensive model which described and explained different motivation types (cited in Dwaik & Shehadeh, 2009). Gardner and Lambert (1972 cited in Dwaik and Shehadeh 2009) viewed language learning as a means of reconciling differences between different cultures and social groups. According to them, for intercultural communication and association to take place, “motivation” to learn the language of others is the primary driving force. It enables us to understand others and take action. Theories of Motivation There is no single motivational theory that can help understand all the factors involved in understanding human behaviour (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Integrative Motivation The “integrative” aspect is the most important and distinctive element of Gardner’s motivation theory (Dörnyei, 1994). In essence, the integrative motivational orientation means a tendency to be affected by and to be like the prominent personalities of the L2 group. It also includes a desire to interact with the members of that group, and group cohesion is an important motivational component in the L2 learning context. This can be summed up as some kind of psychological and emotional “identification” with the L2 group. In a cohesive group members want to contribute to the groups success. This identification according to Gardener (2001) concerns identifying and interacting with the speakers of the second language, which is why, we may say, a person quickly learns and starts speaking in the second language while living in the cultural environment of that language. However, such an environment is highly unlikely in a school or college setting (unless it is a highly diversified multi-cultural school setting). Dörnyei (1990) contended that in the absence of the L2 group or native language speakers within the learner’s environment (which is most likely the case for students learning L2 as a part of their course syllabus), the “identification” can be provided in the form of cultural and rational values related to that language. This is an integrative motive and is one of the most decisive factors in motivating an individual to learn a second language. Gardner’s theory was based on social psychological studies, the grounds of which were laid down in 1960s. In the recent years there has been a shift from integrative motivation to other motivational paradigms in understanding language learning motivation (Noels, Clement & Pelletier, 1999). During the subsequent years several researches as cited in Dwaik and Shehadeh (2009) were presented as a result of cognitive revolution in the field of psychology. As a result several cognitive motivation theories were presented, and soon the L2 researches started utilizing these theories for L2 motivation. Attribution theory, self-determination theory, and goal theories are three of such influential motivational models that attempt to outline such cognitive approach. SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY The self-determination theory presented by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2002) is a theory of human motivation which states that human beings have a natural tendency to engage within their social context (cited in Maherzi 2011). It focuses on the degree to which the behaviours are performed without any influence or coercion. The pleasure lies in performing the action simply for the pleasure and satisfaction derived in performing it (Noels 1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are the two main concepts introduced by and related to the self-determination theory of motivation. Intrinsic motivation drives students to learn and engage in activities that accelerate the L2 learning process as students find a new way to express an idea in the L2 (Noels 1999). However, students can also be extrinsically motivated, for instance they may have the desire to learn L2 because of the practical advantages such as job advancement (Vandergrift 2005). Therefore, motivation in learning L2 would depend upon the value that students attach to it, on their expectation to succeed and the belief that they have what it takes to succeed. Noels et al. (2000) has provided how these concepts fit into the field of L2 motivation through reliable measuring instruments to assess the many elements of self-determination theory such as intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. The second study by Noels attempts to describe the relationship between student autonomy and communication style of L2 teachers. This relation of student autonomy with L2 learning motivation has also been seconded by several other authors and researchers like, Humphreys, Spratt et al. (2002) and Ushioda (1996). ATTRIBUTION THEORY The central theme in the Attribution theory is how past experience in some task affects future motivation and subsequent efforts to achieve that purpose (Dörnyei 1994). Attributions about past failures have been found to be significant in foreign language learning contexts where “L2 learning failure” is common, contends the author. However, Gray (2005) found through a study among Chinese students that people can, by changing the explanations about their failures and successes, create new attitudes. If we associate our past failure in doing anything, to a low ability on our own part, it’s quite unlikely that we will ever try that task again. However, if we associate our failure to the incorrect learning strategies or insufficient efforts on our part, we are likely to try that task in future as well. An individual’s self-esteem can be enhanced but the role of the EFL teacher becomes important. Not much of research has been conducted on how attribution theory can be applied to language learning. GOAL THEORY Tremblay and Gardner (1995) contend that goal setting theory, established by Locke and Latham in 1990, defines how to improve work performance. This has been typically referred in the language learning as “Orientations” (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). Tremblay and Gardner (1995) proposed in their motivation model, the concept of “goal salience” as the major component of L2 learning motivation. This implies that people that have specific and difficult goals will outperform others with non-specific and easy goals. In the context of language learning, students that assign themselves specific targets would be better learners than those that do not have such goals. Other than the Goal-Setting Theory, L2 motivational studies and educational psychology has hardly adopted any other goal theories. Hence, there is possibility for research and development in this area. It has been recently concluded by Pintrich and Schunk (2002, p. 242) that it is probably the most active area of research on student motivation in classrooms and it has direct implications for students and teachers. L2 MOTIVATION AND NEUROBIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT After the adoption of mainstream motivation theories linked to L2 studies, advances in neurobiology and technological developments that made brain and neuroimaging possible, opened the path to a whole new and different line of research in L2 and motivational studies. This revolutionised the field of psychological investigation. In late 1990s, John Schumann initiated the neurological probe of the brain mechanisms involved in second language learning (Dörnyei 2003). This is very important for our L2 and language learning aspect, as L2 motivation was the first aspect examined by Schumann which resulted in a fascinating theory of motivation. “Stimulus appraisal” is the main component of Schumann’s theory. Dörnyei (2001) explains that stimulus appraisal occurs in brain in five dimensions, as follows: Novelty (which is the level of familiarity or unfamiliarity) Pleasantness (which leads to attraction and fascination) Goal significance/Valence (whether the goals or the ending result will be instrumental in satisfying the individual’s needs or requirements) Coping potential (can individual handle the circumstances); and Self- and social image (is individual’s self-image compatible with the surrounding events). Schumann demonstrated that the stimulus appraisal becomes a part of the person’s overall value system. Therefore the above mentioned dimensions of the stimulus appraisals are largely responsible for any individual action and motivation. LEARNING STRATEGY AND MOTIVATION As a part of learning, students often apply certain strategies to aid them in the learning process. These are referred to as the learning strategies and can be referred to as instances reinforcing motivated learning behaviour. Systematic studies of relations between the L2 learning motivation and the use of language learning strategy were conducted in the mid-1990s by Richard Schmidt (Dörnyei 2003). A major study on British school children conducted by Williams, Burden, and Lanvers (2002 cited in Dörnyei 2003) revealed that participants have great difficulty in discussing different aspects of their metacognitive strategy use and lack of sense of control over their learning. They seldom planned their behaviour. MOTIVATION OF LANGUAGE TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTORS Due to developments in social psychology and enhanced knowledge of classroom realities, recently some attention has been drawn to one of the most neglected areas of motivation –motivation among the educators and teachers. The motivation level of a teacher is an important factor in deciding the interest of an individual and his/her motivational disposition towards learning a second language. However, surprisingly the amount of L2 research in this area of studies is very deficient in quality and quantity (Dörnyei 2003). Investigations in this area can have wide practical implications. Something along the lines of “ways to motivate language teachers” has not been studied and could be very useful and practicable. READING MOTIVATION Reading is one of the most important components of communication. This is often one of the most basic skills that students acquire (accompanied with writing, speaking and listening) while learning a new language. However, compared to the large amount of literature available on the motivation to interact with others in a foreign language, only a meagre amount of research and studies are found for motivation for reading in a foreign language. Mori (2002) has, however, presented a very extensive research study about reading motivation. According to the journal article the data for this study was obtained from an original questionnaire, based on Wigfield and Guthrie's (1995, 1997) theory of reading motivation in L1. Based on the findings the motivation to read in English was divided into four sub-components – the intrinsic and the attainment value of reading in English, the extrinsic utility value and the expectancy for success (Mori, 2002, p.1). The main basis for the study is the reading motivation theory of L1 as put forward by Wigfield and Guthrie in 1995. This may raise questions and doubts about the validity of the study concentrated on reading in a second language. But the article communicates that the theory of first language learning was used instead of second language learning because of lack of theories available on L2 motivation aside from those from Day and Bamford (1998). Guthrie and Wigfield tried to conceive their theory on the basis of the possibility that motivation may be “domain-specific” in students; meaning that motivation may be different for reading in English. Wigfield and Guthrie based their motivation model for reading on some of the most basic and general psychological theories of reading motivation. Expectancy Theory is one of the most influential theories among these. According to the Expectancy theory, an individual decides how much effort he/she is going to put in any task according to two factors: Valence – This is the value of reward in the eyes of the individual. Expectancy – This is the possibility or expectation of success in a given task according to the individual himself. These two factors combine to form the force of motivation. For example, difficulty in doing some tasks may negatively affect the expectancies for success in that task, whereas an individual’s anticipation of their capabilities in doing a task is related to the expectancies for success in a positive manner. The proponents further contended that a student’s ability in mastering a language depends on their past experience in that language and how they interpret the outlook and attitudes of others in their classroom. A negative attitude from others would serve as a demotivating factor while encouragement would motivate the student. Eccles and Wigfield (1995) hypothesize that the value the individual associates with success in that task consists of four components: Attainment Value, Intrinsic Value, Extrinsic Utility Value, and Cost. Attainment value is derived based on the importance given to success while intrinsic value is achieved when the individual enjoys engagement with the activity itself. Extrinsic utility value depends upon the usefulness of the task and the cost (in terms of extended effort, time and emotional expenditure) is calculated based on the perceived negative consequences of engaging in the task (Mori, 2002, p.3).The article also suggests that more research is needed to verify this point and in order to establish the relationship between reading behaviour and reading motivation (Mori, 2002, pp. 19). CHALLENGES FACED BY SAUDI STUDENTS From day one in the school, Saudi students face a number of challenges trying to learn English as an L2 (EFL and ESL). In many schools and colleges the use of Arabic as L1 is considered unacceptable as it supposedly hinders the learning of English as L2 (Jenkins 2010). Use of L1 is mostly considered a negative classroom practice and students can even be penalised for their use of Arabic in classroom activities. According to Phillipson (1992), this type of pedagogic behaviour can compromise the way in which students’ think and shape their identity. Always censuring the use of L1 in the classroom also sends the message that the language itself, and not just language, but the L1 culture as well, is not acceptable. Whilst this pedagogic practice may be considered acceptable by some cultural standards and norms, some cultures may view it as an English invasion and a means of retarding local identity (Kubota, 2002). Some people see the learning of English as L2 as merely for educational and instrumental purposes while maintaining their local heritage and cultural norms and values (Jenkins 2008). Also, once the local language is banned from the classroom, it is harder (especially for lower level students) to express their views and feelings in the L2 classroom setting as they are not familiar enough with the new language to do so. As a result of this they are unable to contribute and participate in the classroom activities which results in boredom and may even result in the loss of interest in studies. Hence demotivation results from not being able to have full command in the foreign language (Dörnyei 2001). Students, especially those in lower levels, who have always communicated in their native L1, have all of their life experiences and cultural awareness in their local language. So L1 is the only reference point for them. Thus, in this monolingual situation, if they are presented with some content in L2, it would be very hard for them to form a reality based on their very limited understanding of L2. In such cases, students try to translate the words and phrases into their native language to get the total grasp of the language instead of trying to understand the intended meaning of the content. This may hinder the learning practices and even demotivate students to learn L2. So the essential connection between the foreign language and past experience learnt in L1 are difficult to be formed by these students. As students struggle to make these connections, they may find the process of new language acquisition is very difficult and demotivating. So this method of teaching English as a foreign language is very unproductive and makes the learning environment a little more uninteresting, which may make the student feel bored. Students learning English as a foreign language within Saudi Arabia have an advantage over those learning it as a second language in some native English-speaking country. Almost all the students in such EFL classes are homogenous and familiar and sufficiently competent in L1 (Arabic). Thus L1 can be used as a useful tool to provide motivation to the students and a useful means of communication. Similarly for learners at lower levels, it can help them to develop new meanings and explanations in L2 by activating their prior knowledge and experience in L1. Thus it can be said that the inclusion of L1 in the day to day EFL classroom activities and communication in the class is completely normal and should not be discouraged. Teachers should realise that L1 is an integral part of the students’ lives, their identity and the culture to which they belong. So as Cummins suggested “we need to investigate pedagogical ways of incorporating, not alienating L1” (Cummins, 2009 Jenkins, 2012, p.3). So L1 should be used in productive ways to make the language learning process less intimidating. MOTIVATION IN LEARNING LANGUAGE FROM A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE Various studies have shown that the students who are the most quick and motivated to learn a new language in ESL and EFL contexts are those who possess high a level of integrative or intrinsic motivation (Dwaik & Shehadeh, 2010). This implies that they admire the culture of the target language, like the people speaking that language, are inspired by the dominant personalities of that culture and wish to integrate into the target society without any difficulty. To quote Lambert, an integrative orientation means a desire to learn the target language due to "a sincere and personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other language group" (1976: p. 98). Conversely, instrumental motivation means the interest of students in learning L2 arises when it is going to bring him/her benefits such as a good academic career, better job etc. The level and type of motivation that the students may develop while learning new language may depend on the context and the desire to interact with the target language community. Dwaik and Shehadeh (2010) conducted a study to evaluate the motivation patterns of different EFL students. This was based on a study of 127 students majoring in English and Engineering at Hebron University and Palestine Polytechnic University, respectively (Dwaik & Shehadeh, 2010, pp. 01). The main objective of this study was to assess the influence of various factors such as education level, required technique and competence, and gender on the level of their motivation. The participants answered a questionnaire and took an interview. The result of their study has shown that Palestinian students do not exhibit the types of motivation pattern that are demonstrated in classical motivation studies carried on migrants in the core English speaking countries. Extrinsic motivation is most prevalent among the Palestinian students. For example, they learn the language simply because it is an academic syllabus requirement or in order to protect their own culture from others’ influence. This is because knowing the language of the “enemy” helps them face the enemy. The participants, the students, have not shown integrative or intrinsic motivations which are most effective in influencing high motivation levels among the language learners. Hence the researchers recommend serious efforts in increasing the intrinsic motivation among the EFL learners in Palestine. The above-mentioned article also enlightens the various researches carried out on different Arab learners of EFL and ESL in the field of motivation. These are discussed below. Kuwait Studies Al-Shalabi (1982) investigated motivation in Kuwaiti university students. He found that there was a presence of strong instrumental motivation among the majority of these students. Al-Mutawa (1994) also conducted a study of one thousand and thirty secondary schools in Kuwait and found that 75% of them disagreed that EFL could provide the means of trying to understand the foreign culture. Saudi Studies Alam (1988) explored the goal orientation in EFL among a group of Saudi students. Most of the students were of the view that they pursued English as a language because of its requirement in business world and higher studies. Studies conducted by Dhaif Allah in 2005 showed slightly different results in middle school, Saudi students; in which the students’ motivation patterns were both instrumental and integrative. UAE Studies The studies mentioned above are in congruence with the conclusions drawn by Musa (1985) who surveyed 357 UAE students (Dwaik & Shehadeh, 2010). More than three-fourths of these students believed that they pursue English because of its global importance in communication and as a language of instruction in most graduate programs. CONCLUSION This review has tried to present various stimulating former and recent studies in the field of L2 learning motivation. There is a lot of interesting research work going on in this field and hopefully these studies combined with other lines of psychological and related studies are likely to enhance the understanding of L2 learning motivation. The results presented and the work done by these studies is highly valuable to linguistic scientists, teachers and learners of language because of the rich source data on the components of motivation in learning L2. The findings suggest that restricting the use of L2 in the Saudi Arabian environment could inhibit progress. Based on the Attribution Theory the first experience in learning a foreign language is critical to motivation and success in learning L2. The use of L1 as a primary and motivating language among the EFL colleges should not be discouraged as it may result in demotivation of the students. Instead L1 should be properly utilised and managed so that it helps learners in acquiring the target language easily. As seen from the results on the Arab and Palestinian studies, many students seem to have a genuine desire to distance themselves from the target culture instead of integrating with it. The studies discussed above suggest that extrinsic motivation appears to be prevalent in learning L2. The role of the teacher has been emphasized upon in developing intrinsic motivation. The students should be made aware of the numerous possibilities and activities that learning L2 would expose them to. Hence it is a joint responsibility of educators, students and policy makers to develop a positive attitude towards the language and target culture. REFERENCES Alam, M.A., Hussein, S.M. & Khan, B.A., 1988. A Study of the Attitudes of Students, Teachers and Parents towards English as a Foreign Language in Saudi Arabian Public Schools. Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Education, Educational Development; the General Directorate of Research and Evaluation. Al-Mutawa, N., 1994. Factors influencing English Language Teaching and Learning in the Secondary Schools of Kuwait. Educational Sciences (Institute of Educational Studies, Cairo University), 1(2), 33-62. Al-Shalabi, F., 1982. Perceived Social Distance: a Re-examination of an Attitudinal Factor in an EFL Setting. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado University. Clément, R. & Gardner, R.C., 2001. Second language mastery. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 489–504). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons. Cummins, J. 2009. Multilingualism in the English-language classroom: pedagogical considerations. TESOL Quarterly, 43 (2), 317–21. Deci, E L. & Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M., (Eds.). 2002. Handbook of self-determination. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Dhaif-Allah, A., 2005. An exploration of Saudi Students' Integrative and Instrumental Motivation for Learning English. In Occasional Papers in the Development of English Language Education, 39, 55-113. Cairo: ASU. Dörnyei, Z., 1990. Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning. Dörnyei, Z., 1994. Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), 273-284 Dörnyei, Z., 2001. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z., 2003. Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications: Wiley-Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. et al., 2006. Motivation, Language Attitudes and Globalisation: A Hungarian Perspective. Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 7 (1) Dwaik, R. & Shehadeh A., 2010. Motivation Types among EFL College Students: Insights from the Palestinian Context. An-Najah Univ. J. of Res. (Humanities), 24 (1), Gardner, R.C., 2001. Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language learning (pp. 1–20). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Gray, R., 2005. Attribution Theory and Second Language Learning: Results and Implications. CELEA Journal, 28 (5) Jenkins, S., 2012. Monolingualism: an uncongenial policy for Saudi Arabia’s low-level learners. Kubota, R., 2002. The impact of globalisation on language teaching in Japan. In D. Block and D. Cameron (eds.). Globalisation and Language Teaching. London: Routledge. Lambert, W., 1974. Culture and language as factors in learning and education. In F. Abboud and Meade (eds.), Cultural Factors in Learning and Education (pp. 91-122). Bellingham, WA: Fifth Western Washington Symposium on Learning. Maherzi, S., 2011. Perceptions of classroom climate and motivation to study English in Saudi Arabia: Developing a questionnaire to measure perceptions and motivation. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9 (2), 765-798 Mori, S., 2002. Redefining Motivation to Read in a Foreign Language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, Musa, M., 1985. Why do not our students speak English fluently after eight years of study? Journal of Education (UAE), 38, 67-72. Phillipson, R., 1992.Linguistic Imperialism: Oxford University Press. Pintrich, P.R. & Schunk, D.H., 2002. Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Schmidt, R. & Watanabe, Y., 2001. Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 313–359). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Schumann, J.H., 1998.The neurobiology of affect in language. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Tremblay, P.F. & Gardner, R., 1995. Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505–518. Ushioda, E., 1996. Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik. Weiner, B., 1992. Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Wigfield, A. & Guthrie, J.T., 1995. Dimensions of children's motivations for reading: An initial study (Research Rep. No. 34). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Wigfield, A. & Guthrie J.T., 1997. Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420-432. Williams, M., Burden, R.L. & Lanvers, U., 2002. French is the language of love and stuff: Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British Educational Research Journal, 28, 503–528. Read More