lable at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36

Contents lists avai

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ tate

EFL teachers' behavior of using motivational strategies: The case ofteaching in the Korean context

Unkyoung Maeng a, *, Sangmin-Michelle Lee b

a Graduate School of Education, Ajou University, Worldcup-ro, Suwon 443-749, Republic of Koreab School of Global Communication, Kyung Hee University, Deogyeong-daero, Yong-In 446-701, Republic of Korea

h i g h l i g h t s

� EFL teachers' use of motivational strategies was investigated based on the ARCS model.� Only one component of ARCS, attention, is found to be effectively utilized.� Motivational strategies are appropriately used only in the beginning phase.� L2 proficiency is positively correlated with the use of motivational strategies.� Teaching experience is negatively correlated with the use of motivational strategies.

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 January 2014Received in revised form12 October 2014Accepted 21 October 2014Available online

Keywords:MotivationMotivational strategiesEFL teacherTeaching experienceLanguage proficiency

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 31 219 1883; faxE-mail address: my5329@ajou.ac.kr (U. Maeng).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.0100742-051X/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

While studies have investigated the role of motivation in learning and teaching, research on teachers'motivational strategies remains scarce. This study examined the motivating behavior of in-serviceteachers of English in Korea (N ¼ 12). Videotapes of the teachers' classes were analyzed based on Kel-ler's ARCS model using NVivo, revealing that the teachers did not effectively utilize motivational stra-tegies or tactics, except for attention. Additionally, teachers' motivational strategies were correlatedpositively with their language proficiency but negatively with teaching experience. Finally, teachers'motivational strategies were shown to be grounded in traditional teacher-centered approaches ratherthan the promotion of student ownership of learning.

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Motivation is a key factor in successful second language (L2)learning. It is an individualized trait that helps learners persist longenough to master the L2 regardless of their language aptitude orcognitive characteristics (D€ornyei, 2001a; Masgoret & Gardner,2003). Motivation to learn is acquired through classroom experi-ences such as direct instruction, modeling, and interactionwith theinstructor, as well as general experience (Cheng & D€ornyei, 2007;D€ornyei, 2001a; D€ornyei & Csiz�er, 1998). Moreover, a teacher'sskills and teaching style are positively correlated with studentachievement (Hirsch, 2001; Westwood, 2004). Several studies havealso reported that motivation is an important component ofeffective teaching and that teachers' use of motivational strategies

: þ82 31 219 2096.

affects students' English learning achievement (Bernaus& Gardner,2008; Hirsch, 2001; Westwood, 2004). Teachers' skills are a crucialbasis for the incorporation of motivational strategies into curriculaand teaching to create motivating learning environments (D€ornyei,2001a). However, few motivational studies have been specificallyaimed at the implementation or evaluation of motivational strate-gies in the classroom (Moskovsky & Alrabai, 2009). To furthersupport actual L2 teaching practices rather than merely developingtheoretical concepts or components of motivation, then, it isnecessary to focus on teachers and the strategies and techniquesthey use to motivate students in the language classroom.

At both the research and classroom levels, teachers' motiva-tional strategies are not fully utilized. The Korean Ministry of Ed-ucation (KMoE) has recently emphasized teacher education andtraining programs for in-service EFL teachers (KMoE, 2006). Duringthe practicum for in-service EFL teachers in Korea, it was found thatthe teachers did not effectively incorporate motivational strategiesto promote student motivation. Further, there is no teaching model

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e3626

available to help EFL teachers improve their use of motivationalstrategies in the classroom. In addition, there is a lack of empiricalinvestigation of the differences between themotivational strategiesused by novice and experienced teachers (Bernaus, Wilson, &Gardner, 2009; Yilmaz, 2011). Moreover, most previous motiva-tional studies have utilized surveys or self-reported questionnairesto gather data rather than basing their findings on the actualobservation and evaluation of teachers' classroom motivationpractices (Moskovsky, Alrabai, Paolini & Ratcherva, 2013).

Therefore, it is imperative to develop a teacher-driven motiva-tional model incorporating practical strategies and tactics for EFLclassrooms. In the classroom, L2 teachers' major interest with re-gard to motivation is not in the properties or components ofmotivation, as it is for most researchers, but rather in the skills thatare required to motivate students. From this perspective, the ARCS(attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction) model (Keller,1994, 2010) provides effective motivational strategies for class-room use. This model, unlike many other motivational models,offers a comprehensive picture of motivation, including bothteachers and students, theory and practice, and broad componentsand detailed constructs of motivation. Moreover, the ARCS model iseasily adapted into tools for instructional design, classroom guid-ance, and teacher evaluation or teacher training on motivationalstrategies. Thus, the ARCS model is an adequate tool for examiningmotivating behavior in the practice of Korean English teachers tosupport the development of an effective motivation training modelfor these teachers.

To develop effective motivational strategies and models for theuse of teachers, it is first necessary to examine the status quo ofteacher behaviors in relation to motivational strategies. Hence,employing the ARCS model, the present study analyzed the moti-vational strategies that Korean EFL teachers used in their teachingpractice. The study aimed to answer the following researchquestions:

Q1: How do Korean English teachers utilize motivational stra-tegies in their instruction?Q2: How do these teachers' motivational strategies differ byinstructional phase (beginning, during [the session], or closing)?Q3: How do teachers' personal characteristics (English profi-ciency level and teaching experience) influence their use ofmotivational strategies?

In the following section, we review theoretical perspectives onlearning motivation and present the theoretical modeldthe ARCSModeldthat is used as the analytical framework in this study.

1.1. L2 learning motivation theories

Motivation has drawn a considerable amount of attention in L2learning, as it is difficult for unmotivated students to accomplishsuch a long-term, challenging goal as language learning (Madrid,2002). As in the area of motivational psychology, scholars havehighlighted the importance of L2 motivation and attempted toexplain it from diverse perspectives (Brown, 2007; D€ornyei, 2001a,2001b, 2005; D€ornyei& Schmidt, 2001). D€ornyei (1994) proposed aframework for L2 motivation comprising three levels of compo-nents: the language level, learner level, and learning situation level. Ina subsequent model based on a process-oriented approach, D€ornyei(2001c) proposed the following motivational strategies: a) creatingthe basic motivational conditions, b) generating initial motivation, c)maintaining and protecting motivation, and d) encouraging positiveretrospective self-evaluation. These aspects are dynamic and cyclic;in other words, the last strategy influences the first in an ongoingvirtuous circle. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) suggested four levels of

L2 motivation: a) the micro level, which concerns motivational ef-fects on the cognitive processing of L2 stimuli; b) the classroomlevel, associated with motivational techniques and activities; c) thesyllabus level, related to content decisions based on an analysis ofneeds; and d) the extracurricular level, related to informal, out-of-class, and long-term factors and to continuing motivation.Williams and Burden (1997) further distinguished L2 motivationalconstructs by contextual influences, including internal and externalfactors.

Other motivational studies have explored the factors that in-fluence the motivational strategies used by teachers. According toD€ornyei (2001a, 2001c), motivational components at the learningsituation level are especially associated with situation-specificmotives related to the syllabus, teaching materials and methods,learning tasks, teacher's personality and behavior, teaching style/practice, and learner group characteristics. Chacon (2005) discov-ered that teachers with low self-efficacy for teaching tended toemploy less effective techniques, and Yilmaz (2011) asserted thatteachers' personal characteristics, such as gender, grade level thatthe teacher taught, and teaching experience, influence instructionaldecisions. He further found a positive relationship betweenteachers' sense of self-efficacy and their perceived level of languageproficiency; that is, his study results suggested that more proficientand efficacious teachers use more effective instructional strategies,including motivational strategies. By contrast, Tschannen-Moranand Hoy (2001) indicated that the level of teacher efficacy did nothave an effect on the types of instructional strategies used; Newby(1991) reported that extrinsically oriented strategies such as re-wards and punishment were implemented most often by noviceteachers, and Keller (1987b) mentioned that more teaching expe-rience is required to effectively implement intrinsically orientedstrategies such as confidence-building and relevance strategies.

Finding optimal strategies for motivating students in the class-room remains a challenging issue for most L2 teachers. Severalstudies have identified motivating students as the second-mostserious source of difficulty that teachers encounter in the class-room (Daniels, 1994; Veenman, 1984), but relatively few studieshave been conducted on how best to motivate learners in an actualclassroom setting (D€ornyei, 1994, 2001c; Keller, 2008; Williams &Burden, 1997). Furthermore, prior studies on motivation havefocused primarily on applied-linguistic aspects, such as attitudesand psychological components (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; D€ornyei,1994); far less attention has been devoted to L2 motivation in termsof the various aspects of the learning context (that is, in general, theclassroom context). Even the studies that have investigated moti-vation in the classroom context have largely focused on students,for example on their behaviors and perceptions, rather than onteachers' use of motivational strategies (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008;D€ornyei, 2001b).

Many theorists and researchers have proposed theories toexplain motivation, but these have failed to provide an overallpicture of motivation (D€ornyei, 2001b, 2001c; Wloodkowski, 1988).Overall, these studies have investigated cognitive characteristics ofindividual students and treated motivation as a personal, un-changeable trait rather than one that is changeable and manage-able by teacher intervention. Consequently, a majority of theresearch on L2 motivation to date has focused on the conceptualnature of motivation and of its role in L2 learning and on theperspective of L2 learners, as derived from insights in the field ofcognitive psychology (D€ornyei, 2001c). Subsequent studies influ-enced by social psychology have begun to deeply consider the so-cial context in which learning occurs as well; however, thesestudies have still emphasized universal motivational componentsin general learning situations rather than specific componentspertaining to foreign language classrooms (D€ornyei, 2001c). In

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 27

other words, early research in this area has not adequatelyconsidered important aspects of L2 motivation from a classroomperspective, such as teachers, materials, tasks, and instructionaldesign.

The ARCS model (Keller, 1987a, 1994, 2010) helps address thesegaps by providing a more thorough picture of motivation, includingmotivational concepts, roles and strategies, classroom imple-mentation, material and task integration, and the responsibilities ofthe teacher. Moreover, because the model has been widely studiedand tested in various classroom settings, there is abundantempirical evidence of its usefulness for assisting teachers toimprove their effectiveness (Doyle, 1985; Keller, 1987a, 2010). TheARCS model is discussed in greater detail in the following section.

1.2. The ARCS model

The ARCSmodel originated in themacro theory of motivation andinstructional design developed by Keller (1979, 1983); Keller's the-ory was based in turn on Tolman and Lewin's expectancy-valuetheory of motivation, which suggested that people are motivatedto learn when there is value in the knowledge presented and expec-tation of success. In Keller's original model, these two concepts weredivided into four components: interest, relevance, expectancy, andoutcomes. After years of research and application, this originalmodel was refined into the ARCS model, and the four componentswere renamed attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction(Keller, 1987a). According to Keller (2010), whereas attention,relevance, and confidence are the primary components and areconsidered the backbone of the theory, satisfaction is dependent onthe other components and is the combined outcome of them andother environmental and design factors.

Each component is divided into three subcategories (defined inTable 2 below). Attention refers to the interest displayed by learnersduring learning. The subcategories of attention are perceptualarousal, inquiry arousal, and variability. Relevance can be obtainedthrough language or examples that are familiar to learners. Thiscomponent includes the subcategories of goal orientation, motivematching, and familiarity. Confidence focuses on establishing posi-tive expectations for success. As confidence has a strong correlationwith motivation for accomplishing objectives, learning design-dincluding syllabus, grading policy, and learning timedshouldprovide learners with a method for estimating their probability ofsuccess. Keller (2010) suggests three subcategories of confidence:learning requirements, success opportunities, and personal control.Finally, satisfaction refers to a sense of achievementda positivefeeling resulting from successfully accomplishing a goal. Satisfac-tion is a result of learning and, according to Keller, refers to thereinforcement and conditioning of learning. Keller further sub-divides satisfaction into intrinsic reinforcement, extrinsic rewards,and equity.

The ARCS model, beyond merely offering a framework andfleshing out the concept of motivation, is intended to provide abridge between theory and practice and to emphasize the re-sponsibility of instructional designers and teachers to promotelearner motivation. According to Keller (2010), “[m]otivation isinfluenced by the degree to which a teacher and the instructionalmaterials provide a curiosity arousing and personally relevant set ofstimuli together with challenge levels that encourage feelings ofconfidence” (p. 10). Thus, it is imperative for teachers to implementeffective instructional design and motivational strategies to elicit,direct, and sustain learner motivation. To effectively integratestrategies to improve motivation into practice, systematic guidancethrough the motivational process is essential. More specifically,Keller provides step-by-step guidance and specific example work-sheets to train teachers to incorporate ARCS tactics into their

lessons successfully. The ARCS model provides blueprints for inte-grating motivational and instructional strategies into class to trainteachers on how to develop effective lesson plans.

Since research began to focus on L2 motivation from theperspective of classroom situation, in the 1990s, the ARCS modelhas influenced and been adopted into a variety of subsequentstudies related to motivation. For instance, D€ornyei's (1994, 2001c)four conditions of classroom components (interest, relevance, ex-pectancy, and satisfaction) are rooted in the work of Keller (1983).Similarly, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) reaffirmed that Keller's fourdimensions of motivation are important components of EFL class-room practice. This model provides teachers with effective strate-gies to improve the motivational aspects of learning environmentsand also guidance on how to incorporate such strategies into formalinstruction design and curricula (Keller, 1999, 2008; Kim & Keller,2008; Song & Keller, 2001). Additionally, a number of other re-ports and studies (Means, Jonassen, & Dwyer, 1997; Small & Gluck,1994) have tested Keller's ARCS model and verified its validity.

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

Twelve Korean secondary school teachers of English partici-pated in the study, ten of whom were enrolled in an intensive in-service teacher-training program. The cohort comprised eight fe-males and fourmales and included ninemiddle school teachers andthree high school teachers. Their overall teaching experienceranged from six to twenty years: five teachers had 6e10 years ofexperience, four had 11e15 years of experience, and three had16e20 years of experience. Six teachers perceived their own level ofEnglish proficiency as high, four teachers as moderate, and twoteachers as low.

2.2. Procedures

This research project was centered on an intensive teachertraining program organized for Korean secondary school Englishteachers by KMoE to enhance their communicative skills in Englishand their teaching skills. The training program contained threemain modules, respectively covering language skills, teachingmethodology, and microteaching. The microteaching course wasdesigned for teachers to perform microteaching at the end of theprogram. All of the microteaching sessions were video-recordedwith teachers' pre-approval to use the videos for educational pur-poses. The data were collected over a one-year period, and tenmicroteaching videos were randomly selected. After data collec-tion, the target teachers were contacted, the purpose and pro-cedures of the study were explained, and the target videos wereanalyzed. The participants conducted the teaching practice for45 min per session, with their peer trainees (teachers) playing therole of students.

Microteaching was selected for the present study for thefollowing reasons. First, to develop and suggest a desirable moti-vational strategy model for an in-service teacher training program,it is worthwhile to investigate the motivational strategies thatteachers have used in similar teaching situations. Moreover,microteaching is an important practice in and of itself for teachersto develop and improve their teaching skills, reflect on theirteaching practice, and transfer their skills to actual classroomteaching. Thus, the current study aimed to offer suggestions toimprove classroom teaching skills, with a focus on teachers' moti-vational strategies. In addition, it was presumed that the teachers'microteaching was a reflection of their actual classroom teaching.

Table 1Features of teaching.

Actual classroom teaching conditions Microteaching conditions

Phase of instruction Teachingskills

Teachingtime

Number ofstudents

Phase of instruction Teaching skills Teachingtime

Number ofpeer trainees

High School 3 Phases (beginning,during, closing)

Writing 50 min 30 3 Phases (beginning,during, closing)

Listening andreading/Listeningand speaking

35e45 min 14Middle School Reading 40 min 35

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e3628

Hence, the data could also potentially be used as a substitute foractual classroom teaching.

Although the notion that teachers' microteaching practicesrepresent their actual classes has been hypothesized and supportedby previous studies (Sampath, Pannerselvam, & Santhanm, 2007;Wallace, 1991), it still requires further confirmation. Hence, prior tothemainanalysis, the researchers contacted twoKoreanEFL teachersnot already involved in the study who voluntarily contributed videorecordings of their actual classes so that theycouldbe comparedwiththe microteaching videos. The results, shown in Table 1, confirmedthat there was no significant difference between them; in fact,Wallace (1991) noted that extended types of microteaching arecloser to “real” lessons and focused on more than one teaching skill.Thus, the results of the current study will provide valuable insightinto teachers' motivational strategies in actual practice.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

A mixed method approach was employed by this study. Among50 microteaching videos recorded over a year, ten randomlyselected videos and two actual classroom teaching practice videoswere used and analyzed using NVivo 10. The features (motivationalstrategies) that emerged were analyzed; coded based on the defi-nition of motivational strategies reflected in the ARCS model(Keller, 1987a, 1994, 2010); and categorized into the four compo-nents of attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. Eachcategory consisted of three subcategories (operationally defined inTable 2). All of the analyzed features (motivational strategies/tac-tics) were given coded labels; in, for instance A11, A stands forattention, the first 1 for the subcategory, and the second 1 for theindividual tactics found in the data. All of the features appearing inthe videos were coded accordingly.

Table 2Operational definitions of motivational strategies.

Major category Subcategory Definition

Attention Perceptual arousal (A1) � Capturing learners' interest by uany sudden or unexpected chan

Inquiry arousal (A2) � Stimulating learners' curiosity tgenerating inquiry, and nurturin

Variability (A3) � Maintaining learners' interest band use of media

Relevance Goal orientation (R1) � Providing statements or exampMotive matching (R2) � Making instruction responsive t

cooperative activities, leadershiFamiliarity (R3) � Making materials and concepts

learners' experienceConfidence Learning requirements (C1) � Helping build positive expectati

Success opportunities (C2) � Enhancing learners' beliefs in ththat increase learning success

Personal control (C3) � Helping learners see their succepersonal control and providing

Satisfaction Intrinsic reinforcement (S1) � Encouraging and supporting leaone's efforts and accomplishme

Extrinsic rewards (S2) � Reinforcing learners' success byEquity (S3) � Building learner perceptions of

expectations and using consiste

Prior to the main analysis, a pilot test was conducted to enhancethe reliability and validity of coding of tactics. First, to confirm val-idity, the researchers analyzedfive videos individuallyandcomparedthe results. The pilot test was conducted to identify discrepanciesamong the researchers, diagnose the reasons underlying these dis-crepancies, and reach consensus on the best analysis before themainanalysis was conducted. Some features appearing in the videoswereeasily categorized; in other cases, they overlapped across multiplesubcategories or the researchers had different perspectives withrespect to certain features in the videos, which resulted in divergentgroupings. However, ultimately, the researchers came to agreementregarding the nature of each item and the criteria used to group thefeatures in the videos. After consensus and final confirmation of theanalysis of the first five videos, the researchers analyzed sevenmorevideos. In the first stage of the analysis, each researcher analyzed thevideos individually; inter-rater reliability of the main analysis wasfound to be .795. In the second stage, the compiled results of analysiswere further analyzed to examine the overall patterns of the featuresusing NVivo 10. In addition, Friedman's test was conducted to mea-sure differences in the use of each strategy and the Jonckheer-eeTerpstra test was administrated to verify the influence of thedesignated variables on these differences. For these non-parametricanalyses, SPSS version 20 was used.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Strategy pattern of ARCS components

3.1.1. Attention-getting strategiesIn the present study, as summarized in Table 3, the teachers

applied diverse tactics for each attention strategy and they werefrequently observed in all three phases of instruction. Teachers used

sing novel approaches and injecting personal and emotional materials;ge in the environmento learn by asking questions, creating paradoxes/problem situations,g thinking challengesy changing in presentation style, instructional approaches, sequences,

les of the usefulness of the instructiono learners' motives and values by providing personal achievement opportunities,p responsibilities, and acting as a positive role modelfamiliar by providing concrete examples and analogies tied to the

ons by explaining the requirements for success and the evaluation criteriaeir own competence by providing many, varied, and challenging experiences

ss is based upon their own efforts and abilities by using techniques that offercomments that attribute success to personal effortrners' success by providing feedback that reinforces positive feelings aboutntspraising them verbally and providing real or symbolic rewards and incentivesfair treatment by making performance requirements consistent with statednt measurement standards for all learners, tasks, and accomplishments

Table 3Descriptive features of the use of motivational strategies.

Category Strategies Frequency

Phase Proficiencylevel

Teaching experience

B D C Total H M L 6e10 11e15 16e20

AttentionPerceptual arousal (A1) A11: Using audiovisual aids (video or animation) 3 1 1 5 3 2 0 1 1 3

A12: Using diagrams, concept maps, or flowchartsto illustrate processes or relationships

1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1

A13: Using images or cartoons 9 8 1 18 9 7 2 4 8 6A1 Subtotal 13 10 2 25

Inquiry arousal (A2) A21: Connecting to prior knowledge- activating prior knowledge (B)- activating prior linguistic knowledge (D)

7 2 0 9 5 3 1 5 3 1

A22: Facilitating Q&A activities (interaction) 9 14 2 25 10 14 1 9 13 3A23: Presenting problem to solve while learning 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0A2 Subtotal 16 18 2 36

Variability (A3) A31: Changing the types of visual media orpresentation style

2 14 0 16 6 8 2 8 5 3

A32: Changing the language of instruction(i.e., L1 and L2)

10 17 0 27 14 12 1 13 10 4

A33: Changing the instruction style 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0A3 Subtotal 12 32 0 44Attention total 41 60 4 105 50 47 8 43 41 21

RelevanceGoal orientation (R1) R11: Explaining to students the benefits of instruction 3 3 0 6 3 3 0 2 3 1

R1 Subtotal 3 3 0 6Motive matching (R2) R21: Providing a non-competitive context for learning 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 2 3 0

R22: Providing a context for collaborative learning 0 7 0 7 4 2 1 5 1 1R2 Subtotal 0 12 0 12

Familiarity (R3) R31: Using familiar events, examples, context 5 11 0 16 8 7 1 7 4 5R32: Connecting familiar concepts to current tasks 2 2 1 5 3 2 0 1 2 2R3 Subtotal 7 13 1 21Relevance total 10 28 1 39 23 14 2 17 13 9

ConfidenceLearning requirements (C1) C11: Presenting goals and structure to understand

the outline of the class12 2 0 14 7 5 2 7 4 3

C12: Presenting evaluation criteria to understandcourse requirements

1 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 0

C1 Subtotal 13 3 0 16Success opportunities (C2) C21: Providing content or tasks from simple to complex 1 6 0 7 6 1 0 0 3 4

C22: Controlling the levels of difficulty appropriately 2 2 0 4 3 1 0 1 2 1C2 Subtotal 3 8 0 11

Personal control (C3) C31: Allowing learners to control the pace of learning 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0C32: Encouraging students to exert efforts toward learning 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0C33: Allowing learners to return to the appropriatepoint when needed

0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

C3 Subtotal 0 3 0 3Confidence total 16 14 0 30 21 7 2 12 10 8

SatisfactionIntrinsic reinforcement (S1) S11: Providing application opportunities 1 4 1 6 4 2 0 3 0 3

S12: Providing feedback to correct students'knowledge and skills

0 18 0 18 9 5 4 3 9 6

S1 Subtotal 1 22 1 24Extrinsic rewards (S2) S21: Praising students highly for having the right answer 0 3 0 3 2 0 1 2 1 0

S22: Rewarding students who win 0 5 0 5 1 3 1 2 1 2S2 Subtotal 0 8 0 8

Equity (S3) S31: Ensuring that performance requirementsare consistent with learning objectives

0 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 0 0

S3 Subtotal 0 1 1 2Satisfaction total 1 31 2 34 18 10 6 12 11 11

B: beginning phase; D: during phase; C: closing phase.

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 29

a variety of multimedia materials, such as video clips, MicrosoftPower Point files, and pictures, to capture students' attention in allthree stages.However, theyused audiovisualmaterialsmostoften inthe beginning phase of instruction, where the ability of these ma-terials to help attract students' attention without requiring exces-sive cognitive demandwas most useful. The teachers also provokeddeeper curiosity in students by activating students' prior

knowledge, asking certain types of questions for scaffolding, andengaging them in solving a problem (see Appendix 1).

Furthermore, the tactics used to evoke prior knowledge in thebeginning phase were largely derived from world or generalknowledge, and more varied types of tactics were used, whereasthe tactics used in the during phase focused more on the linguisticdomain, and less varied types were utilized. For instance, in

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e3630

teaching new vocabulary, the participants used cognates, wordfamilies, or verbal context rather than presenting theword in visualcontext. During discussion and comprehension checkups, theteachers providedmore language input through questioning. Averyfew questioning and answering tactics were used in the end stageof instruction to review the target content, expressions, and words.However, most questions appearing during microteaching weresuperficial, asked merely in order to check the target expression orlistening/reading comprehension; as a result, questions were rarelyfound to provoke deeper curiosity or engage higher thinking skills,as some types of questions, for example stimulatingmental conflict,do (see Appendix 1).

Tomaintain students' attention, various types of visualmedia andmaterials such as pictures, CDs, worksheets, maps, photos, and anoverhead projector were used. In addition, teachers also employedthe language of instruction; such changes have been found to play animportant role in the English classroom. Although the primaryinstructional language required in microteaching was English, themajorityof the teachers usedbothKoreanandEnglish. Teachers usedthe L1 for various purposes (repeating instructions, confirming ordescribing meanings or words; giving suggestions, directions orexplanations; explaining grammar; translating; and facilitating) andthe degree of L1 use varied among the teachers depending on theirEnglish proficiency. That is, the less English-proficient teacherstended to use the L1 more often and to use the L2 for giving short,simple instructions. Interestingly, however, we found no large dif-ference in the effectiveness of the use of the L1 between languageproficiency groups as shown in the following excerpts.

Excerpt 1) Teacher B (L-Level)

T: There are three expressions. pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (expressions). One,in Korean, twemutnɨn pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (requesting). The other,tajashan pʰyohjəndɨlɨl (various expressions). twemutnɨnpʰyohjəndɨlɨl (requesting). First, “I'm sorry.”

Ss: I'm sorry.

Excerpt 2) Teacher A (M-Level)

T: What is it in this picture? What do you call this one? me:ragopurəjo? (What do you call this?)

S: mor 3ʃigje (hourglass)

T: In English.

S: Sand.

T: Sand what?

Excerpt 3) Teacher D (H-Level)

T: Actually, in the last class, we learned this expression. cinansigane i:pʰyohjəndɨlɨl p 3ewətc'ijo (In the last class, we learned thisexpression) Do you remember?

Ss: Yes.

T: OK. Let's look at the first expression. “What's the problem?”“What's the problem?” Uh, where can you hear this expression?

Ss: Hospital.

T: Hospital? Or since you are at school so [pause]?

The above excerpts illustrate that more proficient teachers usedmore complicated and longer L2 sentences than less proficientteachers, but most teachers in all groups used the L1 merely torestate what they had already mentioned in the L2. Although a fewteachers code-switched between the two languages more effec-tively without producing redundant utterances in either of them,most used one language to translate the other.

3.1.2. Relevance-producing strategiesThe types of tactics under relevancewere quite limited, and they

were used mostly in the beginning and during phases as shown inTable 3. Among the three subcategories of relevance, goal orienta-tion appeared in the beginning and during phases and motivematching in the during phase. Familiarity tended to be widespreadacross all three phases but was mainly found in the beginning andduring phases. It is well known that students are moremotivated tolearn when they understand how the target knowledge, skills, oractivities will help them achieve a goal in the present or future(Keller, 2010). However, in the present data only four teachersexplained the benefits of the lesson and how the objectives wererelated to the activities and to evaluation.

The teachers used the motive matching strategy to create a non-competitive, comfortable learning environment in order to lowerthe anxiety often found in the language classroom. The mostfrequently used tactic was the pursuit of collaborative learningthrough pair or group work (see Appendix 2). Four teachersattempted to reduce students' anxiety by fostering comfortablelearning environments (excerpt 4) or by offering assistance (excerpt5). Other teachers provided individual or group games (excerpt 6).

Excerpt 4) Teacher C (H-Level)

Answer each questionwith Tor F…. You can do it with your pair(partner) …. You don't need to try to get the right answers. Justuse your knowledge and common sense about koalas. [pause]We are going to find the answer at the very end of this class … .

Excerpt 5) Teacher H (H-Level)

If you don't know how to translate, please get help from yourfriends or the teacher. You can ask me or your friends … .

Excerpt 6) Teacher H (H-Level)

T: I am going to play the audio file now. You are going to find outwhich word it is. We will do “Catch a Fly” game. What's this?

Ss: [laugh]

T: … there are ten flies. While you are listening to the audio file…. So a person who catches as many flies as possible will be thewinner. I will choose three students from each group … .

In addition to comfortable learning context, familiarity plays akey role in providing students with a sense of relevance. Althoughthe use of unexpected or novel events often effectively draws stu-dents' attention and curiosity, most students are more interested infamiliar content that has a connection with their previous experi-ences or immediate interests (Keller, 2010). The teachers in thisstudy frequently utilized familiar contexts and concrete andauthentic examples to introduce new vocabulary, expressions, andconcepts, as shown in the following excerpt.

Excerpt 7) Teacher A (M-Level)

T: These items are we used it every day. kəɨy m 3il sajoshanɨnmulgəndɨlijejo (we use these items almost every day). “One-timeuse” ragohaɟijo (we say “one-time use”). mwəɟijo? (What is it?)

Ss: ilhwejos (disposable).

T: Ne ilhwejos mulgəndɨlijejo mwəga mwəga pojəjo? (Yes, theyare disposable materials. What materials do you see?) … .

T: Plastic bottles, kɨeɟjo (Yes!) … . i:gətdɨlɨl pʰjəllihagesajoshanɨnde mwəga munɟeɟjo? (These disposable items givecomfort, but what is the problem?)

Ss: ojəm (pollution).

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 31

T: … hwangjəsojəm (environmental pollution) environmentalproblem. kɨr 3sə i:gətdɨlɨl (So these) “disposable item” ɨl təl s'əjaɟjo(Let's use these disposable items less) … . kɨr 3sə mwəga and-weɟjo? (So what is the problem?) Ne (yes) “decompose” gaandwe bunh 3ga andwejo. (They are not decomposed) … Whichone do you think it will take the shortest time? …. Plastic bag[writing on the board] ….

Overall, the teachers were successful in generating external goalorientation and utilitarian motivation, but they failed to respond tostudents' personal motives or allow them space to control theirown learning. Tactics related to this issuewere not found, butmighthave included providing different levels of goals, allowing studentsto choose the types of tasks performed, presenting evaluationcriteria to understand course requirements, allowing learners tobegin from different points based on their abilities, and aligningtesting with learning content, which can enhance student moti-vation. Other strategies suggested in the ARCS model for creating anon-competitive and collaborative learning context, such asproviding preparation time, using silent reading techniques,employing risk-taking strategies, or using humor to alleviate lan-guage anxiety, were not used in the microteaching course.

3.1.3. Confidence-building strategiesThe results of this study showed that the range of confidence-

related tactics was narrow and that their content was superficialand did not appeal to students' personal interests. In addition, thesetactics appeared only in the beginning and during phases, not in theclosing phase. Learning requirements and success opportunitieswere used in both the first two phases, but personal control-relatedtactics were used only in the during phase.

Without exception, the teachers articulated the expectedlearning objectives at the beginning of the lesson, and the majorityof the teachers described the lesson objectives. However, they usedrigid, teacher-language rather than student-friendly language;thus, the students were unable to clearly understand the goals, asshown in excerpt 8:

Excerpt 8) Teachers M (M-Level)

Our objective…. Today's objective is students will be able to askand answer questions about new vocabularies. And second, youwill be able to predict the story and present it. And third, thingsread in the textbook loudly and arrange strips of the story.

Excerpt 9) Teachers N (H-Level)

[Looking at the Power Point slide that shows steps 1e4 of “Howto write a shape poem”] kɨr 3sə (so), so, today what you need todo is, first one, try to decide the subject which you want to ex-press in your shape poem as a group. And then, next one, yes, tryto get some ideas…. And then, next one is, yep, you need to havea kind of topic sentence about that. And… . last one will be, yep,make, put all these things into an ima… image. That is the stepswhat you're going to do … cʰasɨyɟəkɨro s'ɨrjəgo cʰwed 3han i:ldannorjək ɨn i:ldan haʃimjən twegetsɨpnida (Try to write as creativelyas possible) … i:ldanɨn joge (Well, this) that is the process ofmaking “Shape Poem.” Any questions? [monitoring students'response] i:h 3haʃigetsɨpnik'a? (understand?) [Looking at stu-dents] me:hanɨnɟi hokʃi i:h 3ga andweʃinɨn pun … ? (Well, anyonewho does not understand?)

Like in excerpt 8, many of the teachers presented the goals froma third-person perspective, as if they were being described in theteachers' manual. By contrast, however a few of them explained the

goals in detail as they spoke to the students, provided the keyconcepts in Korean at the end, and checked the students' under-standing, as shown in excerpt 9.

As shown in excerpt 8 above, the language and method used topresent objectives were not creative or customized to students;rather, they were largely copied from the teachers' manual. Thus,most of the objectives were stated in similar language and in asimilar manner. Furthermore, evaluation criteria, which areessential to building student confidence and decreasing learninganxiety, were rarely given (Keller, 2010).

The teachers used tactics related to success opportunities morefrequently and in more varied ways than they did the other tactics,whereas the use of tactics related to personal control was verylimited (see Appendix 3). Diverse tactics, such as organizing thecontent in a clear sequence, sequencing tasks from simple todifficult, setting overall challenge levels appropriate for students,and providing exercises that were consistent with objectives andmethods, were used in an elaborative manner (see Appendix 3). Forinstance, to sequence tasks from simple to complex, the teachersemployed various tactics, such as beginning the lesson by review-ing the previous lesson, building a short paragraph beginning withtarget words and expressions, providing many clues at the begin-ning of the lesson and then decreasing them over the course of thelesson, providing worksheets with different difficulty levels, anddeveloping the main ideas based on target words and phrases. Thefollowing excerpt exemplifies how the teachers presented a taskthat progressed from simple to complex.

Excerpt 10) Teacher G (H-Level)

T: Today we are going to some food. I'll show you some pictureand its ingredients.

Ss: Yes. [silent].

T: What's this? [Pointing at a slide of pictures of food (t'əkbokgi)with ingredients t'ək (rice cake), eggs, apples written next to thepictures of the relevant items. Underneath these pictures, thefollowing sentence is given: I need____ but I don't need_______.]

Ss: t'əkbokgi.

T: Do you like t'əkbokgi? [Pointing at the picture].

Ss: Ye-s ….

T: We learned last class … [pause] …. And … what's this?[Pointing at the slide: pictures of pizza with ingredients writtennext to the picture. Underneath these pictures, the followingsentence is given: I need_______.]

Ss: Pizza! Pizza.

T: What do you need to make a pizza? Use these ingredients.OK?

T & Ss: [Teacher initiates, and students follow immediately] Ineed some flour and cheese, but I don't need any chocolate. …

T: And … this is the last picture. What is this? [Pointing at theslide, which shows only pictures of kimppap].

Ss: kimpap … kimpap.

T: What do you need to make kimpap… ? First, kim (dried laver)… [pointing at the picture to elicit a response from students].

Ss: kim (dried laver) … kim (dried laver) ….

T: Seaweed… seaweed…. Laver… [Pointing at the next pictureto elicit another response from students].

Ss: [immediately] Rice…. …

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e3632

T: And …

Ss: …

T: So, how can you express… uh…when I ask like this: what doyou need to make kimpap?

T& Ss: [Altogether. Students initiate, and then teacher repeats] Ineed some pickled radish, seaweed,…, rice, but I don't need any… [pause and one students says] chocolate.

T: Yeah …. Good …. Then, let's start today's class ….

In the excerpt above, the teacher began with an exampleincorporating sentence structure cues that were familiar to thestudents, and then moved to other words with a gradually reducednumber of sentence structure cues. Finally, the students were led tocreate their own sentences, without any structural cues. As theteacher led the students to complete the task, she facilitated stu-dent learning through scaffolding, confirmational feedback, andelicitation of techniques/questions.

3.1.4. Satisfaction-generating strategiesAmong the four components of ARCS, the fewest tactics were

observed for satisfaction. As satisfaction comes about as a result ofthe other components (Keller, 2010; Song & Keller, 2001), themajority of the tactics related to satisfaction appeared in the laterphases. As shown in Table 3 teachers used diverse intrinsic rein-forcement tactics, which could be gained through application op-portunities and praise (Keller, 2000, 2010; Song & Keller, 2001),whereas they used few tactics related to extrinsic rewards or equity.

In the current study, the teachers attempted to provide appli-cation opportunities, but they were usually confined to behavior-istic, monotonous exercises, such as drills, short answers, recitedrole-play, memorization activities, and completing questions orfill-in-the-blank sheets focusing merely on form rather thanauthentic, meaningful applications (see Appendix 4). Only fourteachers conducted games, projects, or story-writing activities.However, many teachers effectively mixed corrective, direct, indi-rect, positive, and negative feedback, attempting to avoid anydetrimental effect on students' confidence. In the following excerpt,the teacher provides both corrective feedback on the student'sincorrect pronunciation and a compliment on the student'sanswers.

Excerpt 11) Teacher N (H-Level)

T: You guys are really, really quiet [silent].

S: Ah … Teacher [calling].

T: Uh-huh.

S: What opposite [pause].

T: What opposite word to … [rising intonation].

S: What opposite word to crea-tive [wrong pronunciation].

T: creative [correcting pronunciation].

S: creative.

T: Boring animjən ci:nbuhan (or trite)? Monotonous.

S: hmm …

T: plain pʰjəsbəmhan (plain) [silent] Oh, calhanɨnd 3(doing well).

In conjunction with intrinsic reinforcement, the teacherssometimes offered extrinsic rewards such as verbal praise or

tangible rewards. Finally, the teachers used only a minimal numberof tactics related to equity. In ARCS, equity strategies are those thathelp students find value and satisfaction in their learning outcomesdespite their different personal values and situations. Because it isimpossible to assess outcomes in isolation, the best tactic forfostering equity is to ensure that learning activities and outcomesare consistent with goals, objectives, and criteria proposed inadvance. However, as mentioned earlier in the paper, most of theteachers articulated goals and objectives only superficially, andfurthermore, they seldom presented criteria for the course or tasks;hence, it would have been difficult to build perception of fairtreatment on the part of the learners.

3.2. Effects of variables on strategy use

Table 4 shows the statistical results for the motivational stra-tegies the teachers used in the microteaching sessions. Overall, theteachers' use of motivational strategies from each component of theARCS model showed a statistically distinctive pattern by instruc-tional phase. Attention-getting strategies appeared most often,followed in order by relevance, satisfaction and confidence-building strategiesda statistically significant difference, as shownin Table 4. Furthermore, teachers used motivational strategies mostfrequently in the during phase and least frequently in the closingphase (Beginning Phase: M ¼ 5.67, SD ¼ 2.84, Mean Rank ¼ 2.00;During Phase: M ¼ 11.00, SD ¼ 4.35, Mean Rank ¼ 3.00; ClosingPhase: M ¼ .583, SD ¼ .669, Mean Rank ¼ 1.00, c2 ¼ 24.00,p ¼ .000).

More specifically, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, the teachers usedall three types of attention-getting strategies in the beginning andduring phases of instruction, but the use of these strategies wasrelatively rare in the closing phase. Unlike attention-getting stra-tegies, all three subcategories of each of the other catego-riesdrelevance-producing strategies, confidence-buildingstrategies, and satisfaction-generating strategiesdwere used onlyin the during phase of instruction. Overall, attention-getting stra-tegies were the most frequently used regardless of instructionalstage. In the beginning phase, confidence and relevance followedattention, in that order; in the during and closing phase, satisfac-tion and relevance followed attention. Among the subcategories offour motivational components, A3, A2, A1, S1, R3, C1, R2 and C2/S2were used most often, in that order (Mean Rank ¼ 9.96, 9.50, 8.63,8.42, 7.33, 7.21, 6.25, 5.04; c2 ¼ 63.254, p ¼ .000), while R1, C3, andS3were used least often (Mean Rank¼ 3.92, 3.54, 3.17; c2¼ 63.254,p ¼ .000).

The study showed that the frequency of use of motivationalstrategies was positively affected by increased English proficiencylevel of the teacher but not by teaching experience. As shown inTable 5, the frequency of use of confidence-building strategies wasaffected by teachers' L2 proficiency; teachers with high Englishproficiency used confidence-building strategies most frequently,and those with low English proficiency least frequently. Moreover,the frequency of use of confidence-building strategies in the duringphase was statistically significantly influenced by teachers' L2proficiency. Along with this partial positive influence, a potentialpossibility of the effect of teachers' L2 proficiency on their use ofmotivational strategies across all instruction phases, revealed bythe frequency data shown in Table 3, supports the view that thehigher teachers' L2 proficiency, the more they use motivationalstrategies.

In addition, though the difference in motivational strategy useby teaching experience was not statistically meaningful (A:p ¼ .603, R: p ¼ .763, C: p ¼ .642, S: p ¼ .153), the frequency shownin Table 3 indicates the possibility that it has a negative influence onthe use of motivational strategies; more specifically, teachers with

Table 4Results of Friedman's test on the use of motivational strategies.

Friedman's test

Phase Overall Beginning During Closing

A R C S A R C S A R C S A R C S

N 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12M 8.75 3.25 2.42 2.83 3.42 .83 1.33 .08 5.00 2.33 1.08 2.58 .33 .08 e .17SD 4.27 1.71 1.50 1.64 1.78 1.03 .65 .29 3.49 1.16 1.08 1.51 .651 .289 e .389Mean rank 4.00 2.13 1.79 2.08 3.88 2.08 2.75 1.29 3.67 2.25 1.46 2.63 2.13 1.88 e 2.00c2/(df)/p 23.865/(3)/.000 28.431/(3)/.000 20.009/(3)/.000 1.000/(3)/.602

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 33

fewer than 10 years' teaching experience used more motivationalstrategies than those with more than 16 years of teachingexperience.

4. Discussion

The present study focused on Korean secondary English teach-ers' use of motivational strategies in the classroom on the basis ofKeller's (2010) ARCS model, which has been a largely unexploredarea to date. The results indicated that the teachers utilized a va-riety of strategies and tactics to motivate student learning; how-ever, it also turned out that some strategies suggested by the modelto be necessary to student motivation were not found and somestrategies found during teaching were not effectively used.

The quantitative analysis conducted confirmed that the differ-ence in frequencies of strategies used in each component wasstatistically meaningful. Attention-related strategies were the mostfrequently found. Attention is a prerequisite for learning, and goodinstruction should help students pay attention (Rosenshine, 2012;Westwood, 2004). Numerous studies have reported that usingnew technology and audiovisual resources also helps to increasestudent interest and attention (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008; Bernauset al., 2009; Madrid, 2002). The teachers who participated in thisstudy seemed to be aware of the importance of attention and uti-lized diverse strategies and media to draw students' attention andinspire their curiosity. As the use of audiovisual resources was re-ported to be effective not only in increasing students' initial interestbut also in maintaining this interest throughout the learning period(Gilakjani, 2012; Shelly & Cunter, 2006), it is fair to say that theteachers effectively utilized this type of strategy.

Evidence from our quantitative analysis confirmed that teachersalso adopted tactics that activated students' prior knowledge andasked questions to elicit their curiosity. With regard to priorknowledge, the teachers effectively recalled students' backgroundknowledge and connected it to the lesson, in terms of both topicsand target language components. In contrast, however, questions,the most frequently found tactic in the study, turned out to bebasically superficial; students were merely asked to check targetexpressions or listening/reading comprehension. It has been

Table 5JonckheereeTerpstra test of variable influences.

Group variable Phase: overall

Proficiency A R C

N 12 12 12M 8.75 3.25 2.42SD 4.267 1.712 1.505Proficiency level 3 3 3Observed JeT statistics 18.000 11.500 7.500Mean JeT statistics 22.000 22.000 22.000SD of JeT statistics 6.559 6.484 6.301Stand. JeT statistics �.610 �1.619 �2.301Asymp. sig (two-tailed) .542 .105 .021

observed that questioning serves not only as an effective way toprovide language input for and elicit language use among studentsbut also as a stimulus to arouse deep curiosity and sustain moti-vation (Keller, 2010); nevertheless, in the current study, questionswere rarely found to provoke deeper curiosity or engage higherthinking skills (for instance by stimulating mental conflict).

Another important strategy to maintain attention, particularlyin the language classroom, is changing the language of instruction.Ensuring variation in the instructional language can serve as a goodmotivational strategy (Guilloteaus & D€ornyei, 2008; Keller, 2010).Prior studies have argued for various positive effects of the use ofthe L1 in the language classroom: to arouse students' interest, tobuild good rapport between a teacher and students (Lin, 2000), andto reduce students' language anxiety. An L1 can also make L2 inputmore salient if it is properly used (Cook, 2001; Turnbull & Arnett,2002) and can help students understand their lessons. However,according to some research (Cook, 2001; Turnbull, 2001; Turnbull& Arnett, 2002), this last strategy is not always efficacious, as stu-dents may expect L1 interpretation immediately after L2 and thuswill not pay attention to L2, reducing their L2 intake. In short, ratherthan merely using the L1 to interpret the L2, code-switching be-tween languages is most effectively used to help sustain students'motivation. The teachers in the current study often switched theinstructional language, but a close examination revealed that the L1was used repetitively and redundantly. From this perspective,teachers' strategies related to L1 use were not implemented in away that could effectively raise student motivation.

Relevance-related strategies were second in frequency toattention-getting strategies, but compared to the latter they werelimited in both type and quality. In an EFL situation, it is notpossible to immediately use language skills acquired in the class-room; therefore, linking objectives to future use or jobs can helpstudents perceive the value of the lessons, increasing their moti-vation. As Keller (2000) explained, “even if curiosity is aroused,motivation is lost if the content has no perceived value to thelearner” (p. 2). In other words, this sense of relevance occurs onlywhen the learning content is personally meaningful to students.However, although all the teachers in the study presented lessongoals to students, they did so only mechanically, without

Phase: during

S A R C S

12 12 12 12 122.83 5.00 2.33 1.08 2.581.642 3.490 1.155 1.084 1.5053 3 3 3 3

22.500 24.500 13.000 9.000 24.00022.000 22.000 22.000 22.000 22.0006.484 6.459 6.311 6.225 6.484.077 .387 �1.426 �2.088 .308.939 .699 .154 .037 .758

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e3634

connecting them to student interests, thus not much benefitingstudent learning. Therefore, EFL teachers should place addedemphasis on linking learning content to students' lives, forexample, by clearly stating how the content will be used in theirlives, visualizing the process of learning and achieving, or pre-senting specific role models.

Another relevance-related emphasis of the ARCS model, namelycreating a non-competitive, comfortable, and anxiety-free learningenvironment, was facilitated by the teachers through familiarityandmotive matching. Because students' anxiety is particularly highin the language classroom and L2 anxiety and motivation to learnEnglish are negatively correlated with one another, this subcate-gory is particularly important in the language classroom(Hashimoto, 2002; Liu&Huang, 2011;Macintyre,1999; Yang, Liu,&Wu, 2010). The teachers linked new knowledge to familiar contextsand contents, lowering student learning anxiety. They also utilizedgroup work, collaborative learning, and games to reduce anxietyand raise curiosity. However, they did not utilize motive matchingrelated tactics adequately to address students' personal motives orallow them space to control their own learning. The results of thisscrutiny indicate that teachers did not exercise the full potential ofthe relevancy-related strategies suggested in the ARCS model.

Confidence-related strategies, ranked the least frequent in thisstudy, were found to be used in an ineffective manner. It isimportant to present objectives clearly for students to understandwhat is expected of them, because knowledge of objectives isclosely linked with success in learning (Keller, 2010). In the currentstudy, as mentioned above, all the participants articulated the ex-pected learning objectives at the beginning of the lesson, but onlysuperficially, following the teacher's manual. Furthermore, Keller(2010) notes that students' confidence can be enhanced byreducing anxiety and developing realistic expectations; when stu-dents understand what they will be doing and how they will beevaluated, they tend to focus their efforts on their work and exhibitimproved confidence (Keller, 2010); however, in these data, onlyone teacher presented evaluation criteria for a task. In addition,only two of the teachers attempted to allow learners to controltheir pace of learning according to their efforts and abilities.Although confidence is strongly associated with perception ofcontrol (Keller, 2008, 2010; Yeigh, 2007), in most cases in thepresent study control remained in the hands of the teachers. Thus,in short, tactics in this subcategory were seldom observed in thisstudy. Among the subcategories of confidence, only strategies andtactics for success opportunities were productively used, as theteachers controlled difficulty levels, gradually introduced the targetlanguage, and provided tasks in order from simple to complex.Since many EFL students struggle with low confidence levels,teachers should help them become more confident by creating aless stressful learning environment, setting up attainable goals forlanguage learning, and providing space for students to do their ownlearning. Therefore, teachers need to focus more on makinglearning goals more understandable and meaningful to students,providing clear criteria for tasks, and giving students the oppor-tunity to plan and evaluate their learning.

The frequency of strategies related to satisfaction appearedsimilar to that of strategies related to confidence, although more bya small margin. Given that Korea is an EFL context in which stu-dents do not have much opportunity to use L2 skills outside of theclassroom, it is important for English classes to serve as vehicles formeaningful application of skills (Kouraogo, 1993; Schmidt, 1993).Also, as shown by Paechter, Maier, and Macher (2010), studentsview skills for the application of knowledge as equally important asacquiring subject-matter knowledge and skills. Despite theimportance of opportunities for application, the teachers were notvery successful in creating them, being still mostly limited to

behavioristic practice. On the other hand, the teachers employed avariety of feedback strategies that seemed quite effective for thecorrection of errors, creation of studenteteacher rapport, reductionof negative effects on the students' affective domain, andenhancement of students' intrinsic motivation. The teachers alsooffered extrinsic rewards as well as intrinsic reinforcement; whenappropriately used, extrinsic rewards can complement intrinsicreinforcement, double student satisfaction, and encourage studentsto continueworking hard during learning (ChanLin, 2009;Williams& Stockdale, 2004). The present participants, by offering diverse,timely intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement, effectively supportedstudent learning. Additionally, prior studies emphasize theimportance for satisfaction of a feeling of control over learning(ChanLin, 2009; Keller, 2010); however, the present teachers didnot use any pedagogy and tactics related to personal control toinfluence student satisfaction and support students' self-directedlearning. They also rarely used strategies or tactics related to eq-uity. Therefore, in short, these teachers needed to further developtheir motivational strategies related to satisfaction.

The patterns of use of motivational strategies over instructionalphases in the current study seem reasonable quantitatively but notqualitatively. In the beginning phase, the teachers utilized diversestrategies to elicit motivation in their students. This stage is mainlydevoted to focusing students' attention on the objectives of thelesson (Johnson,1996; Richard& Farrell, 2011) and teachers utilizedall four components of ARCS adequately to meet this need. Sincethe during phase is devoted to practice through various types ofactivity, motivational strategies related to relevance and confidenceare more required than in any other phases. However, in the duringphase of the present study these strategies were used only to alimited degree, as mentioned above, and less than attention-relatedstrategies. Ideally the closing phase “should leave the studentsfeeling that they have successfully achieved a goal that has beenestablished for the lesson and that the lessonwas aworthwhile andmeaningful lesson” (Richard & Farrell, 2011, p. 80). In keeping withthis need, teachers seemed to use satisfaction-related approachesoften in the closing phase, although there is still room forimprovement, as discussed above. Considering the flow ofinstructional phases and the characteristics of each component ofthe ARCS model, it can be said that overall the teachers usedmotivational strategies appropriately only in the beginning phaseof instruction.

Another important finding of the study was the effect ofteachers' L2 proficiency on their use of motivational strategies.Although only the difference in confidence appeared statisticallymeaningful, the frequencies among the components showed adistinctively different pattern. This result, along with qualitativeresults, indicates that teachers with higher English proficiencyutilized motivational strategies and tactics more often and moreeffectively. In addition, the study revealed no statistically signifi-cant effect of teaching experience, but a careful examination offrequencies among the components and qualitative data renderedthe possibility of a negative correlation between teaching experi-ence and use of motivational strategies. This result is inconsistentwith previous research suggesting that more experienced teachersemploy more and better instructional and motivational strategies(Chacon, 2005; Keller, 1987b; Newby, 1991; Yilmaz, 2011). Tworeasons can be conjectured to explain these results. First, it ispossible that more experienced teachers might have alreadyestablished a more or less set teaching practice. Prior research hasnoted that teachers' experience contributes the most to studentlearning during their first few years in the classroom, but additionalexperience does not make a difference after the first few years(Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Goe, 2007; Rice, 2003). Second,teaching experience is closely interwoven with teachers' L2

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e36 35

proficiency and age in Koreadin brief, more experienced Koreanteachers of English tend to have less English proficiency, whereas,because the Korean government has greatly emphasized theimportance of speaking skills for English teachers and reinforcedthese skills on its teacher certification exam in the last severalyears, recently certified teachers exhibit better English proficiency.Therefore, taking into account the effects of both L2 proficiency andteaching experience on motivational strategies, it can be concludedthat unlike the results of previous research (Keller, 1987b; Newby,1991), EFL teachers might not come to use motivational strategiesmore effectively as their teaching experience increases. It can alsobe concluded that the effect of teachers' L2 proficiency on their useof motivational strategies is stronger than that of teaching experi-ence. Therefore, teachers should receive active training in motiva-tional strategies, in conjunction with which it is also imperative toenhance pre- and in-service EFL teachers' language proficiency,which has a positive relationship with effective use of motivationalstrategies.

5. Conclusion and implications

The significance of the current study lies in its exploration of themotivational strategies of in-service teachers. Whereas previousstudies primarily focused on student motivation to learn or teachermotivation to teach, the present study investigated how teachersemployed motivational strategies in EFL classrooms. Although theanalyses in the present study were based on cross-sectional ratherthan longitudinal data, the study nevertheless revealed the in-depth dynamics of the participating EFL teachers' motivationalstrategies by conducting both quantitative and qualitative analyses,under the ARCSmodel. The findings indicate that although teachersemployed a variety of motivational strategies and tactics acrossinstructional phases, there remains much room for improvement.In terms of ARCS, the teachers exhibited strong, diverse strategiesrelated to attention, but they did not demonstrate strength or di-versity in their strategies related to the other components. Strate-gies related to goal orientation under relevance, learningrequirements and personal control under confidence, and equity insatisfaction require improvement. Particularly, the use of both theL1 and the L2 together must occur in a more strategic and sophis-ticated manner. The teachers in this study tended to use the L1merely to interpret what they had just said in the L2 rather than toprovide scaffolding to help the learner understand concepts andterms, which would have been more helpful for language learning.

Based on the findings, the current study proposes the followingsuggestions for in-service EFL teacher training.

1) Intentionally and systematically teach motivational strategies.Motivational strategies may not be used, unless they areexplicitly and intentionally adopted. Since teachers' motiva-tional strategies have a great influence on student motivation(Bernaus et al., 2009), it is imperative that teachers understandthe components of motivation and integrate effective motiva-tional strategies and tactics into their teaching. Therefore, it isnecessary to train teachers on how to incorporate motivationalstrategies into their teaching, particularly the effective use ofstrategies related to relevance and confidence.

2) Provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on their use of moti-vational strategies. While it is important for teachers to usemotivational strategies effectively in each instructional phase, itis difficult for them to evaluate their motivational strategies andtactics in the classroom; hence, they should be given opportu-nities for analysis, evaluation, and reflection during theirtraining program. Comments and feedback of instructors and

peers can serve as valuable sources of revision and enrichmentfor their motivational strategies.

3) Customize the model and instruction according to teachers' L2proficiency. As shown in this study, motivational strategies varydepending on teachers' proficiency levels. Therefore, it isnecessary to provide diverse models and to elaborate variouslevels of motivational strategies in order to meet the needs ofindividual teachers with different levels of language proficiency.In addition, instruction should be provided to improve teachers'L2 proficiency where it is low, since this variable is stronglyrelated to effective motivational behavior in the EFL context.

The present study has several limitations, however. First,because the study employed a cross-sectional research method,strategies such as those related to long-term teaching practices, forinstance semester goals, tests, and application of knowledge, couldnot be easily identified. Second, although the study utilized in-depth qualitative data on the teachers' speech and actions, thedata set was not sufficiently large to generalize these findings.Finally, the study did not directly measure the effectiveness of themotivational strategies used by the teachers in student learning;instead, it evaluated the teachers' motivational strategies basedonly on the theoretical framework of ARCS; however, it may be thatsome of these strategies would have different influences on studentlearning under different theoretical evaluations, depending on thelocal learning context, immediate situation, and learners involved.

Therefore, future research should develop various motivationalmodels to accommodate the needs of individual teachers in diversesituations. It will also be fruitful for researchers to integrate suchmodels into teacher training programs and to investigate theireffectiveness. As Moskovsky et al. (2013) noted, the time factor hasa strong positive effect on most motivational strategies; thus, alongitudinal study would also be useful. Finally, not all of themotivational strategies improved student learning outcomes, andteachers' beliefs may not always be consistent with student pref-erences and perceptions (Bernaus & Gardner, 2008); thus, futureresearch could benefit by investigating student perceptions andlearning outcomes in relation to the motivational strategiesemployed by teachers.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.10.010.

References

Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. C. (2008). Teacher motivation strategies, student per-ceptions, student motivation, and English achievement. The Modern LanguageJournal, 92, 387e401.

Bernaus, M., Wilson, A., & Gardner, R. (2009). Teacher's motivation, classroomstrategy use, students' motivation and second language achievement. PortaLinguarum, 12, 25e36.

Brown, L. V. (2007). Psychology of motivation. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Chacon, C. T. (2005). Teachers' perceived efficacy among English as a foreign lan-

guage teachers in middle schools in Venezuela. Teaching and Teacher Education,21(3), 257e272.

ChanLin, L. (2009). Applying motivational analysis in a web-based course. In-novations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 91e103.

Cheng, H. F., & D€ornyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in languageinstruction: the case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. International Journal of Inno-vation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153e174.

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and theassessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4),778e820.

Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). London:Arnold.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: reopening the research agenda.Language Learning, 41(4), 469e512.

U. Maeng, S.-M. Lee / Teaching and Teacher Education 46 (2015) 25e3636

Daniels, R. (1994). Motivational mediators of cooperative learning. PsychologicalReports, 74(3), 1011e1022.

D€ornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273e284.

D€ornyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

D€ornyei, Z. (2001b). New themes and approaches in L2 motivation research. AnnualReview of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43e59.

D€ornyei, Z. (2001c). Teaching and researching motivation. London: Longman.D€ornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.D€ornyei, Z., & Csiz�er, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language

learners: results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2, 203e229.D€ornyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition.

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Doyle, W. (1985). Recent research on classroom management: implications for

teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 31e35.Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). The significant role of multimedia in motivating EFL learners'

interest in English language learning. I. J. Modern Education and Computer Sci-ence, 4, 57e66.

Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A researchsynthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for TeacherQuality.

Guilloteaus, M., & D€ornyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: a classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on studentmotivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55e77.

Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors ofreported L2 use. Second Language Studies, 20(2), 29e70.

Hirsch, G. (2001). Helping college students succeed: A model for effective intervention.Minneapolis: Brunner-Routledge.

Johnson, K. (1996). Language teaching and skill learning. Oxford: Blackwell.Keller, J. M. (1979). Motivational and instructional design: a theoretical perspective.

Journal of Instructional Development, 2(4), 26e34.Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp.383e434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivationaldesign. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2e10.

Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance &Instruction, 26, 1e8.

Keller, J. M. (1994). Motivation in instructional design. In T. Husen, &T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education (2nd ed.). (pp.3943e3947). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. Educational Tech-nology International, 1(1), 7e30.

Keller, J. M. (2000, February). How to integrate learner motivation planning into lessonplanning: The ARCS model approach. Paper presented at VII Semanario, Santiago,Cuba.

Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance.Technology, Instruction, Cognition, and Learning, 6(2), 79e104.

Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance: The ARCS modelapproach. New York: Springer.

Kim, C. M., & Keller, J. M. (2008). Effects of motivational and volitional emailmessages (MVEM) with personal messages on undergraduate students' moti-vation, study habits and achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology,39(1), 36e51.

Kouraogo, P. (1993). Language learning strategies in input poor environment. Sys-tem, 21(2), 165e173.

Lin, J. (2000). Reform in primary and secondary school administration in China. InC. Dimmock, & A. Walker (Eds.), Future school administration: Western and Asianperspectives (pp. 291e309). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and Englishlearning motivation. Education Research International, 12, 1e8.

Macintyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: a review of literature for languageteachers. In D. J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second languagelearning (pp. 24e43). New York: Mc Graw Hill Companies.

Madrid, D. (2002). The power of the FL teacher's motivational strategies. Cauce, 25,369e422.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second languagelearning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.Language Learning, 53(Suppl. 1), 167e210.

Means, T. B., Jonassen, D. H., & Dwyer, R. M. (1997). Enhancing relevance: embeddedARCS strategies vs. purpose. Educational Technology, Research and Development,45(1), 5e18.

Moskovsky, C., & Alrabai, F. (2009). Intrinsic motivation in Saudi learners of Englishas a foreign language. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2, 1e10.

Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S., & Ratcheva, S. (2013). The effects of teachers'motivational strategies on learners' motivation: a controlled investigation ofsecond language acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 34e62.

Newby, T. J. (1991). Classroommotivation: strategies of first-year teachers. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 83(2), 195e200.

Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students' expectations of and experi-ences in e-learning: their relation to learning achievements and course satis-faction. Computer and Education, 53, 222e229.

Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Richard, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2011). Practice teaching: A reflective approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: research-based strategies that allteachers should know. American Educator, (Spring), 12e39.

Sampath, K., Pannerselvam, A., & Santhanm, S. (2007). Introduction to educationaltechnology (5th ed.). New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. InG. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21e42). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Shelly, C., & Cunter, C. (2006). Teachers discovering computers: Integrating technologyand digital media in the classroom (4th ed.). Boston: Thomson Course Technol.

Small, R. V., & Gluck, M. (1994). The relationship of motivational conditions toeffective instructional attributes: a magnitude scaling approach. EducationalTechnology, 34(8), 33e40.

Song, S. H., & Keller, J. M. (2001). Effectiveness of motivationally adaptive computer-assisted instruction on the dynamic aspects of motivation. Educational Tech-nology, Research and Development, 49(2), 5e22.

The Korean Ministry of Education. (2006). Polices on reforms to English education inKorea. School policy sector. Seoul: KMoE.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusiveconstruct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805.

Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign languageteaching, but …. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531e540.

Turnbull, M., & Arnett, K. (2002). Teachers' uses of the target and first language insecond and foreign language classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,22, 204e218.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educa-tional Research, 54, 143e178.

Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Westwood, P. (2004). Learning and learning difficulties. Hong Kong: ACER Press.Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Williams, R. L., & Stockdale, S. L. (2004). Classroom motivation strategies for pro-

spective teachers. The Teacher Educator, 39(3), 212e230.Wloodkowski, R. (1988). Enhancing adult motivation to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.Yang, L., Liu, M., & Wu, W. (2010). An investigation of Chinese undergraduate non-

English majors' English learning motivation. In Z. Lu, W. Zhang, & P. Adams(Eds.), ELT at tertiary level in Asian context: Issues and researchers (pp. 48e62).Beijing, China: Tsinghua University.

Yeigh, T. (2007). Information-processing and perceptions of control: how attribu-tion style affects task-relevant processing. Australian Journal of Educational &Developmental Psychology, 7, 120e138.

Yilmaz, C. (2011). Teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy, English proficiency, andinstructional strategies. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(1), 91e100.