Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
General Motivation Theories, motivation theory in SLA, integrative Motivation, instrumental motivation, Garnder's Socio-educational model
Citation preview
Introduction
Motivation
is a psychological feature that arouses an organism to act
towards a desired goal and elicits, controls, and sustains
certain goal directed behaviors. It can be considered a
driving force; a psychological one that compels or
reinforces an action toward a desired goal. For example,
hunger is a motivation that elicits a desire to eat.
Aim
To hypothesize Motivation Process through incorporating
a number of early and contemporary Motivational
theories.
and
from generally describing the phenomenon of motivation to
specifically analyzing this theory in educational field.
Sequence
Part 1 What is Motivation? Early Motivational Theories
a. Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory
Part 2b. McGregor’s Theory X Theory X
c. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory
Sequence
Part 3 Contemporary Motivational Theories
Expectancy Theory Motivation in Learning L2 The Integrative Motivation
Part 4 The Instrumental Motivation The Resultative Motivation The Intrinsic Motivation
Motivation Hypothesis
LearningWorkachievement
Definitions of Motivation
“Motivation is the process of arousing the action sustaining the activity in process and regulating the pattern of activity.”
Younge
“Motivation refers to states within a person or animal that drives behaviour towards some goal.”
Morgan and King
Nature of Motivation
Based on Motives
Affected by motivating
Goal directed behaviour
Related to satisfaction
Person is motivated in
totality
Complex process
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Needs and Drives
Motivation may be defined in terms of some
outward behavior.
It is the
willingness to do something
and is conditioned by this action’s ability to satisfy
some need for the individual.
Needs & Drives
An unsatisfied need creates tension, which stimulates drives within the individual. These drives generate a
search for particular goals
that, if attained, will satisfy the need and
lead to the reduction of tension.
The Motivation Mind Map
There are a number of key theories in relation to
motivation.
The Motivation Mind Map
identifies the main ones. Before we look in more
detail at these, let's look a little further into the nature
of motivation.
Early Theories of Motivation
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory
1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation"
Theory X and Theory Y1960s at MIT Sloan School of
Management
Two Factor Theory1959 book The Motivation to Work.
Maslow’s Need Hierarchy Theory
Maslow's hierarchy of needs
is a theory in psychology proposed by
Abraham Maslow
in his 1943 paper
A Theory of Human Motivation.
Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his observations of humans'
Innate curiosity. His theories parallel many other theories
of human developmental psychology, some of which focus on describing the
stages of growth in humans.
Model of Maslow’s Need Hierarchy
PHYSIOLOGICAL OR SURVIVAL NEEDS
SAFETY NEEDS
Social Needs
ESTEEM NEEDS
SELF-ACTUALIZATION
Model of Need Hierarchy Theory
Key Notes of Maslow’s Theory
As each is satisfied, the next need becomes dominant.
A substantially satisfied need no longer motivates.
Maslow separated the five needs into higher and lower orders.
Appreciation and Criticism on Maslow’s Theory
Maslow’s need theory has received wide recognition, particularly among practicing managers.
This acceptance is due to the logic and ease with which the theory is intuitively understood.
However, research does not generally validate the theory.
There is little support for the pre diction that need structures are organized along the dimensions proposed.
Nor does the prediction that the substantial satisfaction of a given need leads to the activation of the next higher need seem true.
Theory X Theory Y
Theory X and Theory Y
are two extremes introduced by Harvard Professor
Douglas McGregor
in his book
The Human Side of Enterprise.
It was published over 50 years ago. Still, you can find both theories in practice today.
THE CRITICAL PATH BY DEREK HUETHER
Model of X Theory Y
Criticism & Implications of McGregor’s Analysis
Though the theory of x and y are not absolute in how human nature plays out in our places of work, there will always be those among us who are polarizing and think of life as a side of a coin.
Theory X assumes that lower-order needs dominate individuals.
Theory Y assumes that higher-order needs dominate individuals.
Unfortunately, no evidence confirms that either set of assumptions is valid.
Two-Factor Theory
Frederick Herzberg (1959),
a behavioural scientist proposed
a two-factor theory or the motivator-hygiene theory.
According to Herzberg, there are some job factors that result in
satisfaction while there are other job factors that prevent
dissatisfaction. According to Herzberg, the opposite of “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction” and the opposite of
“Dissatisfaction” is
“No Dissatisfaction”.
Model of Two-Factor Theory
Criticism on Two-Factor Theory
The two-factor theory overlooks situational variables. Herzberg assumed a correlation between satisfaction
and productivity. But the research conducted by Herzberg stressed upon satisfaction and ignored productivity.
No comprehensive measure of satisfaction was used. An employee may find his job acceptable despite the fact that he may hate/object part of his job.
The theory ignores blue-collar workers. Despite these limitations, Herzberg’s Two-Factor theory is acceptable broadly.
Contemporary Theories of Motivation
McClelland’s Theory of Needs
Goal-Setting Theory
Reinforcement Theory
Job Design Theory
Equity Theory
Expectancy Theory
Expectancy Theory
In 1964, Vroom developed the Expectancy theory through his study of the
motivations behind decision making.
His theory is relevant to the study of management.
Expectancy Theory
The most comprehensive explanation of motivation is expectancy theory. Expectancy theory argues that the strength of a tendency to act in a certain way depends on the strength of an expectation that the act will be followed by a given outcome and on the attractiveness of that outcome to the individual.
Vroom introduces three variables within the expectancy theory which are valence (V), expectancy (E) and instrumentality (I). The three elements are important behind choosing one element over another because they are clearly defined:
effort-performance expectancy (E>P expectancy), performance-outcome expectancy (P>O expectancy).
Model of Expectancy Theory
http://www.web-books.com/eLibrary/NC/B0/B66/057MB66.html
Motivation in Learning a Language
Language teachers readily acknowledge the importance of learner’s motivation.
Like “Language Aptitude” the discussion of “Motivation” occurs in Second rather than First Language Learning.
SLA research views motivation as a key factor in L2 learning. If to satisfy our needs, to influence the actions and thoughts of
others, to pursue our occupation and our recreation, it is necessary to use foreign language, then we will learn that foreign language more rapidly and more effectively than under any other condition.
However, there have been differences in the way in which teachers and researchers have conceptualized motivation ( see Crookes and Schmidt 1990)
The Study of Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Skehan’s Hypotheses
Skehan (1989) puts forward four hypotheses:
These hypotheses have their associates in the study of
motivation in SLA research, but the Internal Cause
Hypothesis has gained a great deal of researcher's
attention.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Skehan’s Hypotheses
1. The Intrinsic Hypothesis:
motivation derives from an inherent interest in the learning tasks the learner is asked to perform.
2. The Resultative Hypothesis:
learners who do well will persevere, those who do not do well will be discouraged and try less hard.
3. The Internal Cause Hypothesis:
the learner brings to learning situation a certain quantity of motivation as given.
4. The Carrot and Stick Hypothesis: external influences and incentives will affect the strength of the learner’s motivation.
The Study of Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Integrated Motivation
Howard Earl Gardner
is an American
developmental psychologist at
Harvard University.
He is best known for his
theory of multiple intelligences,
as outlined in his book
Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983).
Gardner and Macintyre’s Model
Integrative Motivation
According to Gardner’s socio-educational model, an integrative orientation involves an interest in learning L2 because of a sincere and personal interest in people and culture represented by other language group’ (Lambert 1974: 98).
Gardner has become increasingly critical of research that focuses narrowly on the role of orientation in L2 learning, arguing that effects of learners’ orientation are meditated by their motivation- that is , whereas orientation and L2 achievement are only indirectly related, motivation and achievement are directly related.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
What is Integrative Motivation
As Gardner has given different operational definitions of this concept in his studies, the answer to this question is not that clear (Crookes and Schmidt (1989).
Gardner’s research rests on the use of self-report questionnaires.
Questions related to a number of Orientation and Motivational variables are included and learner’s response are factor-analysed in order to study general factors.
One of the factors that has emerged from this procedure is Integrative Motivation.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Integrative Motivation
The following table includes the variable “integrative
orientation” together with a number of other variables
that are concerned with the learners’ interest, attitude and
desire regarding the learning of French.
Variable Questionnaire Item Example
Attitude towards French Canadians
Five positively worded and five negatively worded items
“If Canada should lose the French culture of Quebec, it could indeed be a great loss.”
Interest in Foreign Language
Five items expressing positive interest and five relative disinterest
“I enjoy meeting and listening to people who speak other languages.”
Integrative orientation Four items expressing the importance of learning French for integrative reasons.
“Studying French can be important as it allows people to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups.”
Desire to learn French Three positive and three negative items
“I wish I were fluent in French.”
Gardner asserts that whereas instrumental motivation emerges as an important factor in some studies, the integrative motivation has been found perpetually relevant to L2 achievement.
According to him learners can have both instrumental and integrative motivation.
Muchnick and Wolfe (1982) found that 337 students of Spanish in high school in the United States could not possibly separate the integrated and instrumental motivation.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Instrumental Motivation
The carrot and stick hypothesis sees external incentives and influences as determinants of learner’s motivational strength.
It is useful to distinguish “orientation” and “motivation”.
Gardner and Macintyre (1991) measure
“orientation” by means of self-report questionnaire.
They equate “instrumental motivation” with giving students a financial reward for performing a task successfully.
Machiavellian Motivation
Ely (1986b) investigated the types of motivations in first-year university students of Spanish in the USA. He found that both types of motivation, though emerging as separate factors, were present in the same students.
The studies of Oller, Beca and Vigil (1977) have failed to locate a correlation between the integrative motivation and L2 achievement.
Their research found out that women in California who rated Anglo people negatively were more successful in learning English than those who rated them positively.
Oller and Perkins (1978) suggest that some learners may be motivated to excel because of the negative attitude towards the target language community.
Gardner’s defense
Gardner (1980) has vigoroulsy defended his findings by pointing out a big number of studies which have reported a significant effect for integrative motivation, and attacking the self report questionnaires used in the studies of Oller and associates.
Research on instrumental motivation
Much of the research whereas shows instrumental motivation as a weak predictor of a foreign language achievement in several Canadian studies, (see Gardner and Lambert 1972), it seems to be much more influential in other contexts where learners have little or no interest in the target language culture and few or no opportunities to communicate with its members.
The social situation determines both what type of orientation learners have and what kind is most important for language learning.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Conclusion of Integrative Motivation
Integrative motivation has been shown to be strongly related to L2 achievement.
It combines with instrumental motivation to serve as a powerful predictor of success in formal contexts.
Learners with integrative motivation are more active in class and are less likely to drop out.
However, integrativeness is not always the main motivational factor in L2 learning.
Learners living in bilingual areas, may be more influenced by other factors like self-confidence or friendship.
Criticism
There also have been a number of limitations to the research model that has been used to study integrative motivation.
It takes no cognizance of the latent effect that learning experiences can have on learners’ motivation, as opposed to the effect that motivation has on learning.
Financial rewards
There have been few researches that have investigated the direct effect of instrumental motivation .
Dunkel (1948) (cited in Gardner and Macintyre 1992) awarded financial rewards to students learning Farsi.
He found out that although there was not a significantly better performance on the Grammar test, there was tendency in this direction.
Gardner and Macintyre1991) report a study in which 46 university psychology students were rewarded $10 if they succeeded in doing a vocabulary task, while the same number was told to do their best.
The students offered the reward did significantly better, but they did not perform better on the last part trial, when the possibility of reward no longer existed.
The Study of Second Language Acquisition (Rod Ellis)
Conclusion and Criticism
This lead Gardner and Macintyre to the conclusion that once any chance of getting a reward is eliminated, learns may stop applying extra effort.
They see this as a major limitation of instrumental motivation.
Resultative Motivation
Gardner (1985) asserts that motivation constitutes a causative variable, although he is flexible in accepting that some variations in learners’ attitudes can result from positive learning experiences, particularly in courses of a short duration.
Research on Resultative Motivation
Spolsky (1989) reviews a number of studies which suggest that “while greater motivation and attitudes lead to better learning, the converse is not true” (1989: 153).
Other studies, however, demonstate that learners’ motivation is strongly affected by their achievement.
Hermann (1980) also suggested that success plays a essential role in motivation.
Hermann advanced the ‘Resultative Hypothesis’ which asserts that learners who perform well develop strong motivation and are much more active in the classroom.
The Resulative Hypothesis may be applicable only to those contexts where learners have very low initial motivation.
Conclusion The relationship between motivation
and achievement is an interactive one.
A high level of motivation stirs learning, but perceived success in achieving L2 goals can help to maintain existing motivation and even creates new types.
Vicious circle of
low motivatio
n
Low motivation
Low achievement
Lower motivation
Motivation as Intrinsic Interest
As Finnocchiaro (1981) puts in:
Motivation is the feeling nurtured primarily by the classroom teacher in the learning situation. The moment of truth- the enhancement of motivation- occurs when the teacher closes the classroom
door, greets his students with a warm, welcoming smile and proceeds to interact with various individuals by
making comments or asking questions which indicate personal concern.
The notion of ‘intrinsic motivation’ is an old one in psychology.
It was developed as a substitute to goal- directed theories of motivation that highlight the role of extrinsic rewards and punishments.
Keller (1984) (cited in Crooks and Schmidt 1989) identifies “interest” as one of the main elements of motivation defining it as a positive response to stimuli based on existing cognitive structures in such a way that learners’ curiosity is aroused and sustained.
Research on Intrinsic Method
One way in which intrinsic interest in L2 learning can be achieved is by providing opportunities for communication.
McNamara (1973) claims that ‘ the really important part of motivation lies in the act of communication.’
Rossier (1975) also emphasizes the importance of a desire to communicate, arguing that without this an integrative motivation may not be effective.
One possibility supported by a strong pedagogic literature is that interest is engendered if learners become self-directed (i.e are able to determine their own learning objectives, choose their own way of achieving these, and evaluate their own progress).
Dickinson refers to the study of Bachman (1964) which suggested that engaging students in decision-making tended to lead to increased motivation, and thereby, to increased productivity.
Conclusion
Motivation in L2 learning constitutes one of the most fully researched areas of individual differences.
The bulk of the research, however has rested rather narrowly on integrative and instrumental motivation, relying exclusively on self-report questionnaire and correlation designs.
Little work on motivation as intrinsic interest has taken place.
Also little attention has been paid to the effect of motivation on the process of learning.
Crookes and Schimdt (1989) argue that research that correlates teachers’ and learners’ actions to ‘persistence’ and ‘effort’ in language learning would have a more ‘real-world- impact.
Skehan (1989; 1991) argues for more research on motivation in naturalistic as opposed to classroom settings.
