Learning second language (L2) is a complex phenomenon as it demands a conscious and well driven effort to acquire L2. However, among all facets needed to acquire L2, motivation is the most pre dominant facet. It isn’t only responsible for initiating the process of learning a language but side by side affects the performance of a learner till it successfully adjoins the road to success or failure. This elusive concept of motivation in second language acquisition (SLA) has gone through the various stages of its developments and often brings conflicting findings. Sometimes due to the limitations or refinement process in multiple theories and models put forwarded by Scholars such as Lambert , Gardner, Dornyei, Krashen , Schumann etc. This write up in brief discusses the history of SLA developmental phases in motivation research. Therefore, commencing from the definition of motivation, three phases of motivation development i.e. socio educational or socio psychological, cognitive and contemporary approaches are being taken up for an account to discuss its developmental route.
Keywords: socio educational, cognitive, temporal, motivation development,
What is motivation? , this challenging question seems too easy to answer but due to multi-faceted nature and huge research to explain this term “motivation” has made it a difficult task to exactly turn up with one exact, complete, brief and comprehensive definition of this term. Thus, there is no agreement among researchers on one single definition of “motivation”.
According to Gardner (1985) motivation is:
Motivation is the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning language plus favorable attitudes towards learning the language.
Though, language learning is not the sole discipline where motivation works, that’s why Keblawi cited McDonough (1981:143) who refers this term ironically, calling it a “dustbin” that is used to include a number of possibly distinct components, each of which may have different origin and have different effects and require different classroom treatment. Dornyei (2001:7) researchers disagree about everything that relates to the concept of motivation; viewing it as no more than an obsolete umbrella that hosts a wide range of concepts that do not have much in common. The complexity of motivation can be more appreciated if one takes into consideration that it is ‘intended to explain nothing less than the reasons for human behaviour’ (Dörnyei, Csizér, & Németh, 2006). For that reason, Rajb et al. (2012:419) says, without motivation, “even gifted individuals cannot accomplish long-term goals; whatever the curricula and whoever the teachers are”. Undoubtedly it shows that motivation is a stimulating force that causes an activity in human beings though researchers are still struggling with this idea in broad perspective.
This write up aims to discuss the journey of motivation development in last 50 years where it went through different phases and standing now in process – oriented era. The social psychological period (1959-1990) – characterized by the work of Robert Gardner. The cognitive-situated period (during the 1990’s) – characterized by work drawn on cognitive theories in educational psychology, mainly conducted outside Canada. New approaches (past decade) – characterized by an interest in motivational change and in the relationship between motivation and identity/self. As shown in the figure given below;
Let’s find out chronologically about all of them.
Social- psychological Phase
Gardner’s (1959) social-psychological model is one of the most dominant models presented for SLA. Gardner and Lambert (1959) were the first researchers who measured the variables affecting development of bilingualism. The socio-educational model “The socio-educational model of second language acquisition was developed … in an attempt to provide a fundamkbental basis for the role played by different classes of variables … It is intended to provide a platform where the role of these variables can be understood in the context of learning a second language in a classroom context.” (Gardner 2010: 22)
Taie and Afshari (2015) cited that this model shares common features with the seven language learning models listed below:
a. Krashen’s monitor model includes attitude and motivation like Gardner’s model but differ in the aspect that here motivation is seen as an instigator while Krashen came up with the facilitating function of it.
b. Carroll’s conscious reinforcement includes cognitive component such as intelligence and language aptitude which are similar in both the models.
c. Bialystok’s strategy model didn’t contain any definitive motivational construct , however, both Bialystok and Gardner’s model present the operations of cognitive and affective processes.
d. Lambert’s socio-psychological model is identical to Gardner’s socio educational model, however, former talked about direct and casual relationship between attitudes L2 proficiency and orientations. While the later predicts that this association is mediated by motivation. One more difference is that Gardner didn’t explicitly discuss the effects of proficiency on self-identity. On the other hand Lambert was caught while dealing with these constructs.
e. Schumann’s acculturation model contains many social variables which are analogous to cultural belief in Gardner’s model. Such as,
a. Individual variables like language and cultural shock are in the same line to the concept of situational anxiety.
b. The concept of ego-permeability in Schumann is quite similar to the integrative concept of Gardner.
c. Motivational context exists in both models.
f. Clément’s social context model contains many aspects that are similar to Gardner’s model. However, they differ where Clément’s cultural context is presented as a determinant of the types of motivation and includes fear of assimilation as an element of integrativeness. Addition to this, unlike Gardner, Clement ignores the sociological outcomes of language learning.
g. Giles’s intergroup model puts considerable emphasis on integrativeness as a major motivational concept. Likewise it includes intelligence, language aptitudes, situational anxiety, language acquisition context and language learning outcome.
Robert Gardner started developing his socio-educational model for L2 learning in 1960s after discussing his thesis topic with his supervisor. He genuinely believes that nobody can learn any language if he/she doesn’t like the community who speaks the same language.
Hence, on the very same idea he present his model in 1979 cantering the role of motivation and attitudes in SLA. Although he revised it in 1985 and in 2001 again after facing the serious criticism from researcher like (e.g. Krashen, 1981: 28 ; Mc Groarty, 2001: 72, Dornyei, 2001; Chen, warden and chang, 2005) etc.
Though its influential role is difficult to neglect. Nevertheless Dornyei who has been ranked among the critics of his model, not only acknowledged his work but he also attempted to integrate the social psychological constructs of Gardner and his fellow associates into the new framework of L2 motivational.
Cross Section of the model:-
There are 4 basic constructs on which his model stands;
d) Attitudes towards the learning situation.
Motivation to learn second language plays the leading role in the socio-educational model. Consequently, according to the Gardner (2010 a), is measured by following three scales:
a) Motivational intensity- the amount of effort extended in learning the language
b) Attitudes towards the target language- it refers to the individual’s reaction to anything associated with the immediate context in which learning occurs. It is also measureable through following two scales :
a. Attitude towards the teacher
b. Attitude towards the course.
c) Desire to learn the target language
Therefore for an individual to be considered motivated four elements of a goal, desire to achieve the goal, positive attitudes an effort are necessary as mentioned by Gardner (1985). That’s why, motivation, as defined by Gardner (1985) refers to “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes towards learning the language” (p.10)
Integrative motivation is considered as the backbone of this model. It is the individual’s openness that place a measure role in the process of SLA.The role of attitude towards the learn language or desire to integrate with the members of target community is known as integrativeness. Infect, this model of integrativeness also contains three different components: integrative orientation, integrativeness, and integrative motivation.
Further, Gardner and Lambert (1959) developed a “Motivational Intensity Scale” which measured the amount of effort and enthusiasm which students show to acquire the second language. To recapitulate it should be mentioned that:
a) Integrative motivation is a complex of attitudinal, goal-directed, and motivational variables.
b) The concept of integrative motivation assumes that:
a. Second language acquisition refers to the development of near-native like language skills, and this takes time, effort, and persistence
b. Such a level of language development requires identification with the second language community.”(Gardner, 2001b,pp.1-2)
It refers to the set of reasons which causes the learning of language. Gardner and Lambert (1959) developed the “orientation index” which aims at identifying the types of motivation associated with success in language. This index classifies individuals as integratively or instrumentally oriented. Gardner, (2010 b) in this regard says that there is an important distinction between integrative motivation and integrative orientation.
Therefore, Taie and Afshari (2015) noted that Gardner and Lambert (1959) developed the “orientation index” which aims at identifying the types of motivation associated with success in language. This index classifies individuals as integratively or instrumentally oriented.
Attitudes towards the learning situation
According to Gardner (2001b), attitudes toward any aspect of the situation where the language is learned is referred to as Attitudes Toward the Learning Situation. For example, in the context of school, these attitudes could be directed toward the teacher, the course, classmates, the materials, extra-curricular activities associated with the course, etc. In other words, “in any situation, some individuals will express more positive attitudes than others, and it is these differences in attitudes toward the learning situation that are the focus of the model.” (Gardner, 2001b, p. 6)
Basic Elements of Gardner’s model:-
According to Gardner (2010 a), the 1985 version contains 4 elements:
a) Social milieu
b) Individual differences
c) SLA context
d) Language learning outcome
The first factor refers to the social or cultural setting where the process of SLA takes place. As it shapes the learner’s believe about other linguistic communities i.e. monolingual/ monocultural v/s multi lingual / multi cultural society.
Gardner and MacIntyre (1992, as cited in MacIntyre, 2002) have referred to the socio-cultural milieu which affects both cognitive and affective (Individual Differences) ID variables. Cognitive variables include intelligence, language aptitude, and language learning strategies, and affective variables include attitude, motivation, language anxiety, and self-confidence. As noted by Lovato (2011) cited in Shah, include 4 sub factor (two cognitive and two affective factors). The cognitive factors refer to intelligence and language aptitude while the affective factor involves motivation and anxiety. According to Gardner, these four factors affect the L2 learning greatly.
Second Language Acquisition Context
This factor is about context or the setting where learning takes place. It includes formal and non-formal experiences.
Language learning outcome
It refers to the performance of learner relating to linguistic knowledge which includes vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation etc. It contains linguistic and nonlinguistic outcome.
Finally, the time to explore the other phase in the history of motivation research which causes great expansion with the introduction of new models and theories.