Luận văn thạc sĩ fostering classroom english to motivate the first year non major students in EFL classes at a college in hanoi

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
----------------------------

HOÀNG THANH THẢO

FOSTERING CLASSROOM ENGLISH TO MOTIVATE THE FIRST YEAR
NON-MAJOR STUDENTS IN EFL CLASSES AT A COLLEGE IN HANOI
(Tạo động lực học tiếng cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại một trường cao
đẳng ở Hà Nội thông qua tăng cường sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Hà Nội - 2020


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
----------------------------

HOÀNG THANH THẢO

FOSTERING CLASSROOM ENGLISH TO MOTIVATE THE FIRST YEAR
NON-MAJOR STUDENTS IN EFL CLASSES AT A COLLEGE IN HANOI
(Tạo động lực học tiếng cho sinh viên không chuyên ngữ tại một trường cao
đẳng ở Hà Nội thông qua tăng cường sử dụng tiếng Anh lớp học)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field

: English Teaching Methodology

Code

: 8140231.01

Supervisor : Professor Nguyen Hoa

Hà Nội - 2020


DECLARATION
I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Fostering classroom English to motivate the
first year non-major students in EFL classes at a college in Hanoi” is the result of
my own research for the Degree of Master of Arts at University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University, and that I accept the
requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s
Graduation Paper deposited in the library.

Hanoi, 2020

Hoàng Thanh Thảo
Appoved by
SUPERVIOR
(Signature and full name)

Datye: .................................

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Nguyen
Hoa for his helpful guidance, critical comments, valuable suggestions and
contributions in the preparation and completion of this minor M.A. thesis.
I hereby formally express my debt of gratitude to the lecturers and staff at the PostGraduate Department for their valuable lectures and tireless academic support and
encouragements, which laid the foundation of this thesis.
Furthermore, my thanks also go to the students who participated in my research.
Their willingness to support will be always remembered.
Last, I wish to acknowledge the support and invaluable help of my family while the
work was in progress. They have been part of my interesting journey.

ii


ABSTRACT
The present study aimed to investigate the influence levels of classroom English
(CE) intensity over foreign language learning of non-English major freshmen at a
teacher training college in Vietnam. The topic germinated from my personal
experiences and observation as an EFL teacher.

I used a mixed methods design to achieve the research aims, involving the use of
questionnaires, tests and semi-structured interviews.
The main arguments were centered around several points: (a) non-English major
freshmen were motivated in their English studies brought from intensifying
classroom English; (b) the main factors influence on this motivation; (c) the
motivation keeps most of the time.
The study findings indicate that students’ motivation is enhanced as more CE is
used. The findings also offer some pedagogical recommendations for the teachers
and make some suggestions for future research.

iii


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CE

classroom English

EFL

English as foreign language

L2

the second language

CEFR

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages

CLT

Communicative Language Teaching

RQ(s)

research question(s)

T

Teacher

Ss

Students

iv


LISTS OF TABLES
Table 1: Main language functions related to classroom management ...................... 24
Table 2: Process of CE application in lessons .......................................................... 26
Table 3: Frequent channels of English communications to the students ..................36
Table 4: Students’ self-assessment to the CE and its correlation with the
communicative skills .................................................................................................39
Table 5: Students’ frequency of conversations in English with the teacher .............42
Table 6: Comparison results of pre-test and post-test ...............................................46
Table 7: Student interviewees’ percentage of CE apprehension...............................50

v


CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................. iv
CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1
1. Rationale .................................................................................................................1
2. Aims and significance of the study .........................................................................2
3. Research questions ..................................................................................................2
4. Scope of the study ...................................................................................................2
5. Method and design of the study ..............................................................................3
6. Structure of the thesis ..............................................................................................3
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................5
2.1. Classroom English ...............................................................................................5
2.1.1. Definitions of classroom English ....................................................................... 5
2.1.2. Roles of classroom English .................................................................................. 7
2.1.3. Second language acquisition theories................................................................ 9
2.1.4. Different situations in the classroom ............................................................... 10
2.1.5. Major factors affecting classroom English application .............................. 10
2.2. Motivation ..........................................................................................................13
2.2.1. Definitions of motivation .................................................................................... 13
2.2.2. The importance of motivation in English learning ...................................... 13
2.2.3. Major motivation orientations ........................................................................... 14
2.2.4. Devising motivational strategies....................................................................... 15
2.2.5. Relationship between learning motivation and CE ................................ 16
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...............................................19

3.1. Methodological Approach ..................................................................................19

vi


3.2. Context of the study ............................................................................................19
3.3. Participants .........................................................................................................20
3.4. Research questions .............................................................................................20
3.5. Instruments .........................................................................................................21
3.5.1. Survey questionnaires .......................................................................................... 21
3.5.2. Test of listening comprehension of classroom English .............................. 22
3.5.3. Interviews ................................................................................................................ 23
3.6. Planning the Intervention ...................................................................................23
3.6.1. Planning ................................................................................................................... 23
3.6.2. Action ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.6.3. Lesson Plan Illustration ....................................................................................... 27
3.6.4. Observing ................................................................................................................ 30
3.7. Data collection procedures .................................................................................30
3.8. Data analytic framework ....................................................................................31
3.9. Role of the researcher.........................................................................................32
3.10. Ethical consideration ........................................................................................32
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .................................................35
4.1. Findings ..............................................................................................................35
4.1.1 Findings from the pre- questionnaire ................................................................ 35
4.1.2. Findings from the post-questionnaire .............................................................. 41
4.1.3. Results of the tests ................................................................................................ 46
4.1.4. Findings from the interviews ............................................................................. 47
4.2. Discussion ..........................................................................................................50
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ..............................................................................55
5.1. Recap and conclusion ........................................................................................ 55

5.2. Pedagogical implications and suggestions for further studies .......................... 56
5.3. Limitations of the study .................................................................................... 57
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................59
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... I

vii


Appendix 1: Pre-Questionnaire for Students Before CE Application ........................ I
Appendix 2: Post - Questionnaire ..........................................................................XIII
Appendix 3: Pre-Test of Classroom English........................................................ XVII
Appendix 4: Post-Test of Classroom English ...................................................... XXII
Appendix 5: Interview Questions..................................................................... XXVIII
Appendix 6: Materials for lesson plan illustration ............................................. XXIX

viii


CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Since the introduction of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in the
late 1970s, the use of target language in EFL classrooms (English as a Foreign
Language) has arisen as an essential trend to provide optimal learning opportunities
for foreign language learners. Among the pros for the teaching, the most utility is
frequently the society’s increasing demand for good English communication. In
addition, linguistic research has presented a range of advantages related to the CLT
approach, especially the two characteristics of “authentic” and “practical”.
However, traditional methods for a long time, especially the grammar translation
method die-hard, seem to be a barrier to the second language (L2) use - prone
classes in Vietnam. The thought of how to change the old mind and in what way has

reminded the author of classroom English. In many parts of the world, studies on L2
use in general and CE in particular in EFL classes have received a great deal of
attention from researchers. Salaberri (1995) and Gardner (2000) asserted that
teachers should strive to incorporate the L2 right from the beginning of a course.
However, the statement competed with numerous others. Nunan (1989) contended
that in an EFL environment a teacher faces a challenging task in obtaining
"authentic" materials. The question is whether authentic materials, once removed
from their natural environment, remain authentic.
In Vietnam, such researches were scant or mainly focused on studying the
relationship between teachers’ target language proficiency and the ways to use it in
the classroom to engage learners in the learning process (Nguyen, 2007; Pham,
2007; Ngo, 2009; Pham, 2014; Le, 2017). To my best knowledge, the issue of using
CE to motivate students has been under-researched. For that reason, I am convinced
that there exists a need for an exploration into this field.
In the specific context of the researched college in Hanoi, the improvement
of non- English major students’ target language proficiency and motivation receives

1


much attention of administrators as well as teachers. This study, which is titled
“Fostering classroom English to motivate the first year non-major students in EFL
classes at a college in Hanoi”, is expected to find out the impact of using CE on
improving students’ motivation.
2. Aims and significance of the study
My foremost interest is to study how teachers can make use of classroom
English as a tool to benefit non-major students’ foreign language acquisition as well
as motivate their learning process.
The present study, practically, aims to:
-

examine the influence levels of CE intensity over foreign language
learning of non-English major freshmen.

-

explore the main factors influence on this motivation.

-

investigate students’ attitudes towards the CE frequency in English lessons.

At the theoretical level, the study complements existing literature of
classroom English and learning motivation as it addressed the gaps in this area. The
study would be a reference source for English language teachers to adjust not only
the target language proficiency but also their classroom management proficiency in
order for an improvement of teaching capacity.
3. Research questions
To achieve aforementioned aims, the study set out to seek answers to the
following research questions:
a. In what ways does fostering classroom English motivate non-English major
students?
b. What are their attitudes towards the increased use of CE in English lessons?
4. Scope of the study
The application of classroom English involves both students and English
language teachers. However, due to the limited time and difficulty in timetable
arrangement, the study only focused on the non-English major freshmen of a K39
Primary class in the college.

2

5. Method and design of the study
This study is an action research project, based on the theoretical framework of
Gerald Susman (1983) on Action Research and carried out by the writer herself as a
practitioner in EFL teaching and concurrent with the teaching and learning process.
It adopted a mixed method approach. Both quantitative and qualitative data
are collected in order to get a full view of the influence of CE intensity on students’
learning motivation.
For the quantitative data, the author used the two questionnaires – one at the
beginning to get a general view over the research subjects and another at the end to
measure the results gained after the intervention process. To support the phase, the
two tests were also conducted in the same way.
In order to dig deeper into the answers to the RQs, the qualitative phrase was
conducted. A total of 11 face-to-face individual interviews with the participants
were employed in order to improve the validity of research results as well as
identify possible solutions that teachers can do to make the method more effective.
6. Structure of the thesis
The study consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter covers the rationale for the study, aims, significance, research
questions, scope, methods, and structure of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter synthesizes the theoretical framework of the studies related
to classroom English, foreign language learning motivation and previous studies
of the theme.
Chapter 3: Methodology Research
This chapter presents the context, the methodology used in this study
including the participants, data gathering instruments, data gathering procedures and
data analysis procedures.

3


Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion
This chapter consists of the action plan and procedures, a comprehensive
analysis of the data from questionnaires, tests and interviews and discussion on the
findings.
Chapter 5: Conclusion
This chapter gives the conclusion from the results of the findings,
implications, limitation of the study and some suggestions for further study.

4


CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter, I will present and discuss aspects of theories of CE and
motivation underpinning the study. For both these sections, I follow a motif of
firstly reviewing the general theories and secondly selecting and discussing the
theories of those relevant to this research. The chapter’s overview scaffolds the
presentation of the research questions of the study.
2.1. Classroom English
2.1.1. Definitions of classroom English
As a result of the fact that English is naturally a language, the prime term
needed to be clarified in the study is classroom language. Bern Voss (1984) defined
classroom language as real communicative acts between teacher and pupil, pupil
and teacher, or amongst the pupils themselves, within the classroom setting. He
specified classroom business, “e.g. to set up groups for group work, to distribute
material, to organize activities, to tell a pupil off, to focus attention onto a particular
teaching point, to ask for further clarification or for a repetition, to bid for the floor,

to express joy or regret over something that has just happened in the classroom etc.”
(Voss, 1984, p.3).
Heath (1978) also found that a special feature of classroom language “is
the connected units that make up the “discourse” or flow of speech in interaction
between teacher and students.” Teacher or student comments cannot be analyzed
in isolation; they must be examined within the context of their occurrence with
other stretches of speech. Heath further contends that classroom language can be
described in terms of the special provinces of control to which many of the
“'directives,” or requests for action, refer: i.e., time and space usage, and respect
for others”.
Hughes (1981) indicated that the classroom procedures derived from a
particular method almost invariably have to be verbalized. In other words,
instructions have to be given, groups formed, time limits set, questions asked,

5


answers confirmed, discipline maintained, and so on. According to Hughes, the role
of this linguistic interaction is perhaps one of the least understood aspects of
teaching, but it is clearly crucial to the success of the teaching/learning event.
In short, the classroom language can be understood as the routine language
that is used on a regular basis in classroom.
Relating to the field, another term to consider is “teacher talk”. This phrase is
generally used in the field of pedagogy to refer to the form of language used by
teachers with their younger and less-skilled learners (Chaudron, 1988). Several
characteristics of teacher talk include providing context through restricting the
topics to the "here and now," modifying and simplifying the language to meet the
level of the students and others such as explaining, questioning, and commanding.
This description includes the length and frequency of silence, repetitions and
restatements, shortening the utterances, and the speed and clarity of speech.

Based on these mentioned – above definitions, classroom English should be
offered as a modification of classroom language and teacher talk that has been
imported to a L2 classroom (where students are learning a second or foreign
language).
According to B. Gardner and F. Gardner (2000), CE is a term that refers to
the ways teachers of English use the target language in the EFL classroom to
establish routines, give instructions and evaluate performance.
Dickey and Sang (1999) suggested the following definition: “classroom
English is the English used in the classroom, in context, in a planned and
appropriate level of language, together with extra-linguistic clues, for any purpose
other than the teaching of that language.”
Basically, the CE use by teachers of language means that they are using the
target language. In other words, the CE use is merely a subfield of the L2 use,
however, in the narrower scope: the classroom.
It is undeniable that Vietnamese non-English major students are constrained
by the social urge of communicative English improvement on one side and their low

6


language competence as well as different external causes on the other. As such,
there exists a need to conduct empirical research on these learners’ attitudes to
communicative English learning and which factors are able to sort out the gap.
Therefore, this study will provide an insight into making use of the CE as a starter
to help freshmen be closer to the L2-prone learning environment.
2.1.2. Roles of classroom English
The focus in EFL contexts had been on grammar translation for a long time
until the modern communicative approaches claiming good communication skills
stepped in. The new approach results in significant changes in EFL classes,
typically more L2 use or much more speaking and listening skills. Nevertheless, it

almost immediately runs into a series of barricades, namely teacher’s language
proficiency, level of students, cultural differences which all bring in reluctance in
EFL oral communication classes.
In fact, a number of students who have been learning English for a long time
still have difficulty understanding CE however simple it is.
Rising amongst the ideas to deal with the situation, classroom English is
favored for several concepts of which the most important perhaps is that students
want to learn "authentic English" (or "real-life English").
Nunan (1989, p.54) suggests "[a] rule-of-thumb definition for 'authentic' here
is any material which has not been specifically produced for the purpose of
language teaching." Under Nunan's definition, in an EFL environment a teacher
faces a challenging task in obtaining "authentic" materials.
Widdowson (1979), quoted by Adams (1995), defined that “authenticity is
realized by appropriate response and the language teacher is responsible for
designing a methodology which will establish the conditions whereby this
authenticity can be realized.” In short, authenticity is generated within the
classroom itself and the language in such case produced not for the purpose of
language teaching, but for authentic communication.

7


The classroom situation is a genuine social environment which allows ‘the
meaningful situation use of the language’ and its communicative potential is closer
to real interaction than is often assumed (Hughes, 1981, p.6). Furthermore, Gardner
(2000) also express classroom language has the advantage of being a highly
authentic use of language: there is a real communicative need for it.
Admittedly, by managing the class deliberately and flexibly in the L2, the
teacher is taking an important step towards removing the barriers between controlled,
often meaningless, practice and more genuine interactional language use.

In other words, classroom English makes use of the spontaneous and
unconscious acquisition processes that take place when learners are placed in an
immersion context rather than in a teaching or learning context. Classroom
language helps promote acquisition in a variety of ways - the language is highly
contextualized with many extra-linguistic clues to help comprehension and it
appeals to the young learners' previous experience. (Salaberri, 1995, p.3)
The present study, thus, will focus on exploring the expedient points as
mentioned in the above theories. Not to minimize the contributions of a
bilingual classroom but when the teacher is not speaking in English, they are
not modeling English.
The advantages of using classroom English may be basically stated as follows:
• maintain a good “English-speaking atmosphere”, which makes the English
lesson very different from any other lessons in the school day and helps the
learners focus on learning and using the language
• keep the learners thinking in English
• create active learning where the used words and phrases are linked to actions,
objects, ideas and people in a strong and positive way
• improve learners’ confidence when the language gradually becomes
absorbed unconsciously by the students and also increase teachers’ own
confidence
(B. Gardner & F. Gardner, 2000)

8


2.1.3. Second language acquisition theories
As Sallaberi pointed out the key role of classroom English in promoting
second language acquisition, it is necessary to recognize the distinction of the two
options “acquisition” and “learning”. Krashen (1985) asserts that language
acquisition is a subconscious process where language acquirers are not aware of the

fact that they are acquiring language, but are only aware of the fact that they are
using the language for communication. Unlike language learning which refers to
conscious knowledge of a second language, the acquisition interrelates “a feel for
correctness”. According to Krashen’s comprehensible input hypothesis, we acquire
by “going for meaning” first, and as a result, we acquire structure.
We acquire only when we understand language that contains structure that is
“a little beyond” where we are now. How can we understand language that contains
structures that we have not yet acquired? The answer to the paradox is that we use
more than our linguistic competence to help us understand. We also use context, our
knowledge of the world, our extra-linguistic information to help us understand
language directed at us.
It seems that classroom English is suitable to the L2 acquisition’s first stage,
called Preproduction, for which “teachers might use visual aids, body language and
constant repetition in order to help the students understand” (Krashen, 2003).
In the same vein, Long (1983) showed that modified interaction is the
necessary mechanism for making language comprehensible. Modified interaction
does not always involve linguistic simplification. It may also include elaboration,
slower speech rate, gesture or the provision of additional contextual cues.
According to Long, almost beginner-level learners acquiring a L2 from nativespeaker have modified their talk in some way. Others researchers (Salaberri, 1995;
Gardner, 2000) posed that teachers should incorporate the L2 needed for
instruction-giving right from the beginning of the course.
Besides, that teachers use classroom English and repeat it time by time is the
so-called usage-based learning. Cognitive psychologists showed less agreement to

9


the kind of declarative knowledge that characterizes skill learning and traditional
structure-based approaches to L2 acquisition. Ellis (2000) explains the emphasis is
on the frequency with which learners encounter specific linguistic features in the

input and the frequency with which language features occur together.
2.1.4. Different situations in the classroom
In order for the deeper understanding of CE, the following table built by Hughes
(1981) shows the various language functions related to classroom management.
❖ Organization
- Giving instructions
- Sequencing
- Supervision
❖ Interrogation
- Asking questions
- Replying to questions
❖ Explanation
- Metalanguage
- Reference
❖ Interaction
- Affective attitudes
- Social ritual
(see A Handbook of Classroom English, Glynn S. Hughes, 1981, p.8-11 for more
reference)
2.1.5. Major factors affecting classroom English application
2.1.5.1. Teachers’ target language proficiency
Despite the controversial training programs to raise teachers’ target language
proficiency or the constant conflicts in which language should be used in the L2
classes, language proficiency has been recognized as an important aspect of teacher
expertise, an essential factor affecting student learning (e.g. Andrews, 2007; Chen
& Wang, 2004; Butler, 2004; Richards, 2015).
Le and Renandya (2017) analyzes that “the challenge in researching

10

teachers’ target language proficiency lies in how the construct of language
proficiency is defined.” He quotes Richards, Conway, Roskvist, and Harvey (2013)
“define teachers’ language proficiency as one component of teachers’ subject
knowledge in addition to knowledge of second language acquisition theory,
pedagogical knowledge, curricular and syllabus knowledge and cultural
knowledge.”
Richards (2015, p.113) further specifies teachers’ target language proficiency
into competences in:
• providing good language models
• maintaining use of English in the classroom
• giving explanations and instructions in English
• providing examples of words and grammatical structures
• giving accurate explanations of meanings of English words and grammatical items
• using and adapting authentic English-language resources in teaching
• monitoring one’s own speech and writing for accuracy
• giving correct feedback on learner language use
• providing input at an appropriate level of difficulty
• engaging in improvisational teaching
Recognizing “it is not clear what minimal level of language proficiency
teachers need to acquire in order to teach effectively”, Le (2017) essentially found
out that while teachers’ general proficiency significantly affects the way they use
language in the classroom to promote learning, their classroom proficiency is at
least as important as their general proficiency.
Within the framework of this study, I want to focus on how effectively the
teacher’s use of classroom language stimulates students’ learning. Therefore, the
aspect of teacher target language proficiency will not be dug more deeply.
Moreover, a pre-survey on the input facts of the participants conducted at the
beginning of the course is expected to evidently show that the teacher L2
proficiency plays less key role in the research.

11


2.1.5.2. Learners’ L2 competence
L2 learners’ unequal levels of competence as well as the inconsistency of
their performance in target language is not new to teachers. These variables are
considered to affect language learning and teaching remarkably.
In regard to competence, Chomsky (1965) claimed that it included the
constitutive components of grammatical competence, discourse competence and
sociolinguistic competence. The first involves computational aspect of language, the
rules or formulations or constraints that allow us to pair sound with meaning, the rules
that form syntactic constructions or phonological or semantic patterns of varied sorts.
The second deals with the knowledge of the structure of text, both oral and written. It is
the ability to use (produce and recognize) coherent and cohesive text, oral or written.
Meanwhile, sociolinguistic competence has to do with the ability to produce, recognize
socially appropriate language in context (Jacquelyn, 1990).
Many researches shows that second language learners vary in their levels of
competence with many failing to reach target - language competence. William
(1984) found out the link of both social and cognitive factors to the varied
competence, which provides some ideas on why learners differ in the rate of second
language learning.
Gardner’s socio-educational model (1985) also names the social factor
among the four interrelated aspects of L2 learning. He expresses that the social and
cultural milieu determines beliefs about language usage and culture. The others are
individual learner differences (this relates to motivation and language aptitude), the
setting (formal and, or informal learning context) and learning outcomes.
Specially, Myles (2004) specifies the following social factors which can
affect learner’s level of communicative competence in second language:
(i) negative attitude towards the target language;

(ii) continued lack of progress in L2;
(iii) wide social and psychological distance between the learners and target culture; and
(iv) lack of integrative and instrumental motivation for learning.

12


2.2. Motivation
2.2.1. Definitions of motivation
Because motivation is difficult to observe (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), the
definition of motivation often becomes confusing because researchers do not provide a
uniform definition of motivation (Dörnyei, 2001). In general, motivation is defined as
the will and skills to learn (Paris & Oka, 1986), goal-directed behavior (Heckhausen,
1991), or learners’ purposeful endeavors toward a goal (Snow & Farr, 1983).
Michell (1982) believes that motivation is not action itself, but “a
psychological process that cause arousal, direction, and persistence of voluntary
actions that are goal-related”. It, thus, cannot be directly observed, but can be
inferred from learners’ classroom behaviors and choices they made to complete the
goal (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
In the second language learning field, motivation relates motivational factors
to linguistic aptitudes (Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Gardner explains L2 motivation
in terms of three psychological concepts: the learner’s attitude towards the target
language, the desire to learn the language and the intensity of the engagement.
2.2.2. The importance of motivation in English learning
In the process of L2 motivation research, scholars (Gardner, 1985; Gardner
& Clement, 1990; Dörnyei, 2003) have recognized the importance of motivation for
successful second language learning. Dörnyei expressed that by restating that
learning an L2 is different in many ways from learning other school subjects.
Besides discrete elements of the communication code (e.g. grammatical rules and
lexical items) that can be taught explicitly, an L2 is also socially and culturally

bound. As a result, language learning is like a deeply social event that requires the
incorporation of a wide range of elements of the L2 culture (cf. Gardner, 1979;
Williams, 1994).
L2 motivation, thus, is an essential, if not sufficient, condition for learning
process. In the other words, ordinary learners of English need to be put in a practical
learning environment where this language can be used in accordance with its social

13


and cultural functions rather than academic aspects. If not, the school subject is just
similar to Math or Physics.
2.2.3. Major motivation orientations
There have so far existed the two basic theoretical approaches of motivation.
Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) identified two classes of orientations: integrative
and instrumental motivation. According to the researchers, the former refers to a
desire to learn the L2 in order to have a contact with members from the L2
community while the latter contrastingly refers to language learning for immediate
or practical goals such as job advancement or course credit.
However, some early studies found that the desire for personal growth and
cultural enrichment through contact with L2 speakers is not fundamental to the
motivational process, but has relevance only in specific sociocultural contexts
(Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 1990). Dörnyei (1990, p. 69) also posed the
hypothesis concerning the role of the social context in language learning as stating
that “foreign language learners often have not had enough contact with the target
language community to form attitudes about them”.
Because of the weakness of the first approach, Deci and Ryan (1985, 1995),
in their self-determination theory later, named two general types of motivation:
extrinsic and intrinsic. In terms of extrinsic motivation, Deci and Ryan stated “are
those actions carried out to achieve some instrumental end, such as earning a reward

or avoiding punishment.”
In contrast to extrinsically motivated behaviors, intrinsic motivation (IM)
was defined as “innate needs for competence and self-determination that meant are
engaged in an activity because it is enjoyable and satisfying to do.” For the latter,
the two researchers theorized that one has to go through an internalization process
to take external values in and incorporate these into one’s internal structure, to more
successfully cope with the environment and achieve a higher level of
autonomy/choice. When people are free to choose to perform an activity, they will
seek interesting situations where they can rise to the challenges that the activity

14


presents. By striving to meet these challenges, they develop a sense of competence
in their abilities (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 130).
Vallerand et al. (1992, 1993) was the first to apply successfully selfdetermination theory in educational contexts. Based on the tenets proposed by the
predecessors, Vallerand and his colleagues extended the research on perceptions of
intrinsic motivation, and conducted practical studies with students to test the
existence and relationships among self-determined motivational types with other
related factors in students’ learning processes. Accordingly, they categorized
intrinsic motivation into three subtypes: knowledge or IM-to know, accomplishment
or IM-to accomplish things, and stimulation or IM-to experience stimulation.
+) IM-to know emphasizes the satisfaction and pleasure attained from doing
an activity to explore new ideas and enrich knowledge.
+) IM-to accomplish refers to the good feelings associated with mastering or
achieving a goal, or creating something new.
+) IM-to experience stimulation refers to good feelings, such as fun or
enjoyment, simply brought by performing an activity.
Reeve (1996), however, emphasized that self-determined motivations,
internalized or intrinsic, can only be nurtured in environments with appropriate

amounts of social support of autonomy, competence, and relatedness from
important others. Furthermore, intrinsic motivation has been positively and
significantly correlated with the quality of teachers’ instruction and transparency of
requirements (Gottfried, 1985, 1990)
2.2.4. Devising motivational strategies
For many language instructors, they are more interested in how they can
motivate their students than what motivation is. Lightbown and Spada (2006)
noticed to the role of pedagogy interactions with motivation in L2 classrooms.
Teachers can make a positive contribution to students’ motivation to learn if
classrooms are places that students enjoy coming to because the content is
interesting and relevant.

15