Zoltán Dörnyei and István Ottó - Worktribe

Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, Thames Valley University, London, Vol. 4, pp. 43-69© 1998 Zoltán Dörnyei & István Ottó

Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation1

Zoltán Dörnyei and István Ottó

As part of a long-term project aimed atdesigning classroom interventions tomotivate language learners, we havesearched for a motivation model thatcould serve as a theoretical basis for themethodological applications. We havefound that none of the existing modelswe considered were entirely adequatefor our purpose for three reasons: (1)they did not provide a sufficientlycomprehensive and detailed summary ofall the relevant motivational influenceson classroom behaviour; (2) they tendedto focus on how and why people choosecertain courses of action, while ignoringor playing down the importance ofmotivational sources of executing goal-directed behaviour; and (3) they did notdo justice to the fact that motivation isnot static but dynamically evolving andchanging in time, making it necessaryfor motivation constructs to contain afeatured temporal axis. Consequently,partly inspired by Heckhausen andKuhl’s ‘Action Control Theory’, wehave developed a new ‘Process Modelof L2 Motivation’, which is intendedboth to account for the dynamics ofmotivational change in time and tosynthesise many of the most importantmotivational conceptualisations to date.In this paper we describe the maincomponents of this model, also listing anumber of its limitations which need tobe resolved in future research.

Introduction

The motivation model presented in thispaper has grown out of a research projectwhose aim was to design motivationalstrategies for the purpose of classroomintervention in second language (L2) edu-cation. The rationale for the project lay inthe fact that the amount of psychologicalresearch devoted to analysing how to moti-vate language learners has been rathermeagre relative to the amount of research

conducted on what motivation is—the em-phasis in both theoretical and empiricalwork on motivation has traditionally beenplaced on identifying various influentialmotives and validating motivational theo-ries. Consequently, as Good and Brophy(1994) summarise, “motivation [in theclassroom] did not receive much scholarlyattention until recently, so that teachers wereforced to rely on unsystematic ‘bag-of-tricks’ approaches or on advice coming fromquestionable theorizing” (p. 212). It must benoted that there have been a number ofexceptions to this generalisation (e.g.Brophy, 1987, 1998; Burden, 1995; Good &Brophy, 1994; Jones & Jones, 1995,McCombs, 1994; McCombs & Pope, 1994;Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Raffini, 1993,1996; and in the L2 field: Alison, 1993;Brown, 1994; Cranmer, 1996; Dörnyei,1994; Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998; Oxford &Shearin, 1994; Williams & Burden, 1997)and these studies on various aspects ofmotivating learners have constituted animportant starting point in our project.

In order to generate a systematic col-lection of motivational strategies, we need asolid motivational theory to serve as anunderlying organisational structure. Al-though, as is well known, there is no short-age of competing motivational theories insocial and motivational psychology, none ofthe models we have considered were entirelyappropriate for our purpose for three mainreasons:

(1) They did not provide a sufficientlycomprehensive and detailed summary ofall the relevant motivational influenceson learner behaviour in the classroom.

(2) Motivational theories typically focus onhow and why people choose certaincourses of action, rather than on themotivational sources of executing goal-directed behaviour, whereas, as we willargue below, in educational contexts(and from the point of view of motiva-tional classroom interventions in par-ticular) the motivational influences onaction implementation are more im-

44 Working Papers in Applied Linguistics

portant than the directive function ofmotivation.

(3) We felt that most motivational theoriesdid not do justice to the fact that moti-vation is not a static state but rather adynamically evolving and changingentity, associated with an ongoing pro-cess in time; thus, we intended to drawup a motivation construct that had afeatured temporal axis.

Comprehensive versus reductionistparadigms

The fact that motivation theories in generaltend not to offer very detailed and compre-hensive taxonomies of the relevant motiva-tional components is not at all surprising,because the main objective of mainstreammotivation research has been exactly theopposite. Since the study of motivationconcerns the basic question of why humansbehave as they do, it follows that this issueis immensely complex and the number ofpotential determinants of human behaviouris extensive. A great deal of effort in moti-vation research has, therefore, focused ondrawing up reductionist paradigms by tryingto identify a relatively small number of keyvariables to explain a significant proportionof the variance in people’s behaviour.

In order to reduce the number of rele-vant motivational components, varioustheories have selected certain motivationalvariables as principal components and thenproposed that these subsumed or mediatedthe other interrelated factors. Expectancy-value theories assume that motivation toperform various tasks is the product of twokey factors: the individual’s expectancy ofsuccess in a given task and the value theindividual attaches to success in that task.Within this framework, we can find a varietyof subtheories that attempt to explain thecognitive processes that shape the indi-vidual’s expectancy: attribution theoryplaces the emphasis on how one processespast achievement experiences (successes orfailures); self-efficacy theory refers topeople’s judgement of their capabilities tocarry out certain specific tasks; and self-worth theory claims that the highest humanpriority is the need for self-acceptance andto maintain a positive face.

Following somewhat different princi-ples, goal theories propose that humanaction is spurred by purpose, and for actionto take place, goals have to be set and pur-

sued by choice. Accordingly, key variablesin goal theories concern various goal prop-erties. The underlying principle of a thirdmain direction in current motivation re-search, self-determination theory, and theaccompanying intrinsic vs. extrinsic moti-vational paradigm, is that the desire to beself-initiating and self-regulating is a pre-requisite for any human behaviour to beintrinsically rewarding, and therefore theessence of motivated action is a sense ofautonomy. Finally, the key tenet in socialpsychology is the assumption that it isattitudes that exert a directive influence onpeople’s behaviour since one’s attitudetowards a target influences the overallpattern of the person’s responses to thetarget. It must also be noted that althoughthese broad approaches dominate currentthinking, in motivation research, there havein the past been a number of other factors aswell that were at the time seen as central tothe understanding of human behaviour (e.g.inner forces such as instincts, volition, andpsychical energy; stimulus andreinforcement contingencies; basic humanneeds).

From the point of view of designingmotivational classroom interventions weneed a particularly detailed and somewhateclectic model that would list all the mainmotives that are likely to have an impact onlearning achievement. Although some keyvariables do indeed appear to stand out interms of their pervasive effect on learningbehaviour in general, the number of moti-vational influences that are fundamental (inthe sense that their absence can cancel orsignificantly weaken any other factorswhereas their active presence can boostaction behaviour) is far more extensive thaneach individual theory would suggest.Weiner’s (1984) conclusion summarises wellour stance: “Any theory based on a singleconcept, whether that concept isreinforcement, self-worth, optimal motiva-tion, or something else, will be insufficientto deal with the complexity of classroomactivities” (p. 18).

‘Choice’ versus ‘executive’ motivation

Another reason why existing motivationmodels were inadequate for designing mo-tivational classroom interventions is relatedto the target of our research: the study of aforeign language. Schumann (1998) refers toL2 studies as “sustained deep learning” andargues that all such sustained learningprocesses of skill/knowledge acquisition

Zoltán Dörnyei & István Ottó 45

(i.e. also applying to other areas such as thestudy of mathematics, bridge, celestialnavigation, etc.) show different motivationalcharacteristics from short-term activities andsimpler learning tasks. This is because insustained learning contexts a major moti-vational function is to maintain the moti-vational impetus for a considerable period(often several years). In contrasting themotivational basis of “skill acquisition” withthat of simpler activities that do not requiretask learning because the goal is executedquickly, Kanfer (1996) presents a rathersimilar argument:

When goals can be accomplished with-out task learning, the influence of mo-tivation on behaviour is often largely amatter of choice. For example, the de-cision about which of two job offers toaccept depends primarily on the individ-ual’s evaluation of the costs andbenefits associated with each offer.Once a decision is made, however, theactions involved in implementing thegoal of accepting the job are straight-forward. … However, this is not thecase in skill acquisition. During skilltraining, goal accomplishment proceedsslowly, as the individual develops anunderstanding of the task andproficiency in skills relevant to per-formance. … Continued task practice(i.e. persistence) is necessary to yieldimprovements in task performance. Butfor practice to have a positive effect onperformance, additional motivationalmechanisms are required to sustainattention and effort over time and in theface of difficulties and failures. (p. 405)

In other words, complex learning contextsreduce the role of the motivational influ-ences associated with the initial decision topursue the goal, and highlight the impor-tance of motivational influences that affectaction during goal implementation. Heck-hausen (1991, p. 170) refers to this dualityof motivational aspects as ‘choice motiva-tion’ and ‘executive motivation’, and pointsout that motivation research has traditionallyrestricted its focus to the first aspect, whileincluding few motivational paradigmstouching upon executive aspects.

Educational settings differ from manyachievement situations in that most of thedecisions and goals are not really thelearners’ own products but are imposed onthem by the system, thus limiting the im-portance of the ‘choice’ aspect of motiva-

tion. In school environments, the key moti-vational issues involve maintaining assignedgoals, elaborating on subgoals, andexercising control over other thoughts andbehaviours that are often more desirablethan concentrating on academic work.Therefore, in order to explain a significantproportion of the variability in learnerpersistence in classroom contexts, we needto focus on ‘executive motivation’, that is,consider motivational influences that operateduring task engagement, facilitating orimpeding goal-directed behaviour.

The temporal organisation of motivation

The third main concern of ours has been thatvery few of the existing motivation theoriescontain a temporal dimension, that is, theydo not portray motivational processes asthey happen in time. Although somemotivation theories have included certaintime elements, these have typically focusedon broad issues such as past attributions orfuture goals, rather than detailing sequencesor patterns of motivational events andcomponents (cf. Karniol & Ross, 1996;Raynor & Roeder, 1987). We would assert,however, that in view of the fact that themastery of most subject matters, particularlya second language, usually takes severalmonths or years, the temporal axis of amotivational theory relevant to suchsustained activities should be featured.Indeed, even within the duration of a singlecourse, most learners experience a regularfluctuation of their enthusiasm/commitment,often on a day-to-day basis. One basicassumption underlying this paper is thebelief that motivation is not so much arelatively constant state but rather a moredynamic entity that changes in time, with thelevel of effort invested in the pursuit of aparticular goal oscillating between regularups and downs.

We must also note that the initial moti-vation to pursue an action does not simplyarise from one moment to the other. Rather,motivation can be associated with a dynamicmental process whereby the individualundergoes a number of stages such as initialplanning and goal-setting, intention-formation, the generation of concretesubtasks to be taken, prioritising betweenmultiple tasks, the enactment of intentions,and the evaluation of the outcomes. In otherwords, motivation from this perspectiverefers to a complex of decision-making,


action-implementation and action-controlling processes as well as the accom-panying energy sources fuelling the action.Although motivation theories in the pasthave typically suggested a more static con-struct, one valuable exception has been aline of research associated with the work ofGerman psychologists Julius Kuhl and HeinzHeckhausen and their associates (e.g.Gollwitzer, 1990; Heckhausen 1991; Heck-hausen & Kuhl, 1985; Kuhl, 1985, 1987,1992; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). Theirmodel of motivational processes, oftenreferred to as ‘Action Control Theory’,emphasises the distinction of separate,temporally ordered action phases, intro-ducing a “temporal perspective that beginswith the awakening of a person’s wishesprior to goal setting and continues throughthe evaluative thoughts entertained aftergoal striving has ended” (Gollwitzer, 1990,p. 55). This approach has been very influ-ential on our thinking and, therefore, beforepresenting our Process Model, we begin witha brief summary of the main tenets ofHeckhausen and Kuhl’s theory.

Heckhausen and Kuhl’s theory ofvolition

The starting point in Heckhausen’s theory(for an English summary, see Heckhausen,1991) is that research on motivation shouldbe divided into two main camps, the study of(a) how intentions are formed and (b) howthey are implemented. As he argues, “Whyone wants to do something and that onewants to do it is one thing, but its actualimplementation and successful completion isanother” (p. 163). He compares theboundary between the intention-formationprocess of the ‘predecisional phase’ and theimplementation process of the‘postdecisional phase’ to a metaphorical‘Rubicon’, which separates two distinctprocesses with different functional charac-teristics. The first, decision-making stage(‘choice motivation’) has been the mainfocus of most mainstream psychologicaltheories of motivation in the past, with theanalyses centring around complex planningand goal-setting processes during whichinitial wishes and desires are articulated andevaluated in terms of their desirability andchance of fulfilment. According toHeckhausen’s conceptualisation, a positiveevaluation results in an intention to act,which then guides the particular action

sequence until the goal is reached. Thissecond, implementional stage (‘executivemotivation’, also termed the ‘volitional’stage), involves motivational maintenanceand control during the enactment of theintention. The key issues to be examinedhere are the phenomena of action initiation,perseverance, and overcoming internalobstacles to action.

Building on the above principles,Heckhausen and Kuhl (1985) developed amore detailed ‘Theory of Action Control’,which was further elaborated on by Kuhl andhis associates (e.g. Kuhl, 1985, 1987, 1992;and the studies in Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994).The theory attempts to explain the commonobservation that people’s actual behaviourdoes not always correlate with the prioritiesset by their expectancy and value beliefs,and that even when the expectancies andvalues remain constant, the accompanyingmotivational tendencies show a markedwaxing and waning. Furthermore, there isalso the phenomenon that people sometimespersist in pursuing an activity in spite ofmore attractive alternative goals.

The key component of Kuhl’s (1987)action control model is ‘intention’, which isdefined as an “activated plan to which theactor has committed herself or himself”(Kuhl, 1987, p. 282). In order for action totake place, two memory systems need to beactivated at the same time: motivationmemory (which is content-independent, thatis, when it is activated, it serves as acontinuous source of activation supportingany structure that is currently dominant inother memory systems) and action memory(which contains behavioural programmes forthe performance of the particular act). Anactivated plan with support from themotivation memory system becomes whatKuhl (1987, p. 284) calls a “dynamic plan”,which means that the executional processhas been instigated. From this point on themotivation system carries out a new, chieflymaintenance role, that is, it keeps sustaining(i.e. energising) the pursuit of the intentionand also protecting it against the detrimentaleffects of competing plans. Once the planhas been completed, the motivation systemis turned off. If the execution of the plan isunsuccessful, an attempt is made to abandonthe plan.

An important part of action controltheory is the set of processes in charge ofaction maintenance, that is, the active use ofaction control strategies to protect dynamic(i.e. ongoing) behavioural intentions. Kuhl(1987) describes six such self-regulatory


strategies:

(1) selective attention, that is, intentionallyignoring attractive alternatives orirrelevant aspects;

(2) encoding control, that is, selectivelyencoding only those features of astimulus that are related to the currentintention;

(3) emotion control, that is, the activeinhibition of emotional states that mayundermine the enacting and protectionof the intention, as well as the consciousgeneration of emotions that areconducive to the implementation of theintention;

(4) motivation control, which is an activeprocess of changing the hierarchy oftendency strengths when a more pow-erful alternative arises, for example, byfocusing on what would happen if theoriginal intention failed and by keepingin mind favourable expectancies orpositive incentives;

(4) environment control, that is, manipu-lating the environment in a way that theresulting environmental (or social)pressure or control makes the aban-doning of the intention more difficult(e.g. by making a social commitment orasking people not to allow one to dosomething), or by creating safeguardsagainst undesirable environmentaltemptations (e.g. by removing objectsthat invite unwanted activities);

(5) parsimony of information processing,which essentially refers to a “let’s notthink about it any more but get down todoing it” strategy, particularly if furtherprocessing may reveal information thatundermines the motivational power ofthe current intention.

Another important facet of Kuhl’s(1987) theory is the distinction betweenaction and state orientations. In the first, theindividual’s focus is on a fully-developedand realistic action plan; in the state orienta-tion mode, however, “attention focuses onthe present state (status quo), a past state(especially: a failure) or a future state (es-pecially: unrealistic goals)” (p. 289). Stateorientation (which is similar in many waysto ‘learned helplessness’) is therefore seenas a counterproductive disposition. Althoughstate orientation can be induced byuncontrollable failure experiences or unre-alistic instructions, Kuhl assumes that thetwo orientations are, to some extent, estab-lished individual difference factors; that is,

some people are more inclined toward oneorientation than towards the other.

The proposed Process Model of L2Motivation

Figure 1 presents the schematic represen-tation of our proposed Process Model of L2Motivation. As can be seen, the modelcontains two dimensions: Action Sequenceand Motivational Influences. The firstdimension represents the behavioural proc-ess whereby initial wishes, hopes, and de-sires are first transformed into goals, theninto intentions, leading eventually to actionand, hopefully, to the accomplishment of thegoals, after which the process is submitted tofinal evaluation. The second dimension ofthe model, Motivational Influences, includeall the energy sources and motivationalforces that underlie and fuel the behaviouralprocess. These will be detailed whendiscussing the specific subphases of theaction sequence they affect.

Action Sequence

Following Heckhausen and Kuhl’s ActionControl Theory, the action sequence processhas been divided into three main phases:preactional phase, actional phase, andpostactional phase.

Preactional phase

The first, preactional phase, is made up ofthree subphases, goal setting, intentionformation, and the initiation of intentionenactment. Goal setting is described ashaving three antecedents, wishes/hopes,desires and opportunities. This last compo-nent is included because on occasions thestarting point of the motivated behaviouralprocess is not the individual’s fantasy land


Action-Launching

ACTIONAL

PHASE

P

R

E

A

C

T

I

O

N

A

L

PHASE

POST-AC-TION-ALPHASE

I N S T I G A T I O N FORCE Crossing the “Rubicon” of Action

MOTIVATIONAL INFLUENCES ACTION SEQUENCE

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the Process Model of L2 Motivation

MotivationalInfluences onPostactionalEvaluation(Table 5)

MotivationalInfluences on

the Initiation ofIntention

Enactment(Table 3)

Motivational Influences on

IntentionFormation(Table 2)

Executive

Motivational

Influences

(Table 4)

MotivationalInfluences onGoal Setting

(Table 1)

Modify Goal

+-

Goal Setting

Modify orContinue Action

Commitment(Compliance)Action Plan

SubtaskGeneration &

Implementation

Appraisal Action Control

Intention

Means &Resources

StartCondition

Action

Initiation ofIntention

Enactment

IntentionFormation

PostactionalEvaluation

ElaboratingStandards &

Strategies

FormingCausal

Attributions

DismissingIntention &

FurtherPlanning

Terminated Action

Wishes & Hopes

Desires Opportunities

Goal(Assigned Task)

ActionalOutcome

Achieved Goal


but rather an emerging opportunity. As canbe seen in the figure, the above componentsof goal setting are not shaded grey, indi-cating that at this stage the process has notas yet reached a state of concrete reality.The first component to do so is the outcomeof the goal setting process, the actual goal.It is at this point that the motivated be-havioural process begins in earnest.

A ‘goal’ is a rather ill-defined or overdefined term in motivation theories. Theassumed role of goals in various constructsranges from being secondary (e.g. the pre-dominating social psychological theory oflanguage learning motivation by Gardner,1985, did not include goals—or as he termedthem, orientations—in the core motivationconcept), to being the single most importantdeterminants, or the motivational foci, ofaction. In Locke and Latham's (1994) goal-setting theory, for example, a goal, is seenas the ‘engine’ to fire the action and providethe direction in which to act. We take anintermediary position and see goals as thefirst concrete mental representations of adesired endstate; goals, in our theory, do notdirectly determine action but are anindispensable step in the motivatedbehavioural sequence.

Similarly to Action Control Theory, an‘intention’ in our model is qualitativelydifferent from a ‘goal’ in that it alreadyinvolves commitment. This is an importantdistinction and it has been made in order toaccount for the huge difference which existsbetween, on the one hand, the multipleideas, wishes, hopes, desires, and long-termplans the individual may harbour at a givenpoint of time and, on the other hand, the farfewer concrete intentions the individual willmake actual resolutions to carry out. Thesignificance of the ‘commitment’ componentwas also recognised by goal theoreticians.Locke and Latham (1990), for example, statethat “Believing that a goal is desirable andreachable does not automatically force anindividual to act. The individual mustchoose to put his or her judgement inaction” (p. 127); accordingly, they postulatethat ‘goal commitment’ is an important goalproperty. Commitment making is a highlyresponsible personal decision and it entails asignificant qualitative change in one’s goal-related attitudes. As Baumeister (1996) ar-gues,

commitments may involve staking in-terpersonal prestige and even materialresources on that goal. Commitmentsmay also entail forgoing other possible

goals or pastimes, along with the re-wards that might have attended them. Inshort, these cases involve placingcontingencies on oneself. (p. 37)

It needs to be noted here that school situa-tions typically dictate that students meetestablished goals as a performance re-quirement for many academic tasks; thesegoals are often set by teachers, sometimesschool districts, or by parents (Corno,1993). Thus, instead of a voluntarily se-lected goal we often find assigned tasks setexternally for the students and, therefore,commitment making can be seen more as aprocess of reaching compliance. We willreturn to this issue at the end of the paper.

Adding commitment to a goal is a cru-cial step in the motivational process but it isnot sufficient in itself to energise action ifthe goal is not translated into concrete stepsthe individual needs to take. Thus, a finalnecessary step in generating a fullyoperational intention is to develop a man-ageable action plan which contains thenecessary technical details regarding theplanned action, namely the action schemata(i.e. concrete behavioural guidelines such assubtasks to implement, and a number ofrelevant attainment strategies to follow) andthe time frame or start condition (i.e.temporal specifications regulating the actualtiming of the onset of action, e.g. a concretetime - “I’ll get down to it tomorrow” - or acondition - “I’ll do it when I have finishedthis”). Although a plan of action does nothave to be completed before initiating anact—it may be (and usually is) finalisedwhile acting—there must be at least ageneral action plan before one is able to actat all.

An operationalised intention is theimmediate antecedent of action, but it isimportant to realise that action does notfollow automatically from it. The rightopportunity for starting the action may nevermaterialise, or the means and resources maynot be made available, leaving the intentionunfulfilled. Thus, our model suggests thatthere are two necessary conditions forissuing an “action-launching impulse”(Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985, p. 137): theavailability of the necessary means andresources and the start condition. The exactstart condition has been specified by theaction plan and, as mentioned above, it canbe a specific time or a condition. Inaddition, one usually has several parallelintentions in mind of which only one or twocan be implemented at a time. In order to


coordinate these, the action plan assignspriority tags to the intentions, determiningtheir order of enactment, and, therefore, thestart condition may also mean that the turnof a certain intention has come.

Actional phase

The onset of action is a major step in themotivational process, resulting in significantqualitative changes. Following Heckhausen,we believe that action engagement can becompared to crossing a metaphorical‘Rubicon’: the individual has committedhim/herself to action and now the emphasisshifts to factors concerning the implemen-tation of action. In other words, “choicemotivation” is replaced by “executive moti-vation” (Heckhausen, 1991, p. 170). AsDibbelt and Kuhl (1994) state, “The theoryof action control explicitly states that theactual enactment of an action can be basedon sources of motivation that differ fromthose upon which the original decision wasbased.” (p. 179).

During the actional phase three basicprocesses come into effect: subtask genera-tion and implementation, a complex ongoingappraisal process, and the application of avariety of action control mechanisms. Thefirst of these refers to learning behavioursproper. Action initiation starts withimplementing the subtasks that were speci-fied by the action plan; however, as men-tioned earlier, action plans are rarely com-plete (particularly not with sustained ac-tivities such as the pursuit of L2 learning)and during the course of action, one con-tinuously generates (or is assigned) sub-tasks/subgoals. In fact, the quality of subtaskgeneration and the accompanying setting ofsubgoals is one of the principal indicators ofeffective learning.

The second important ongoing processis appraisal. One continuously evaluates themultitude of stimuli coming from theenvironment and the progress one has madetowards the action outcome, comparingactual events with predicted ones or withones that an alternative action sequencewould offer. This complex process is furthercomplicated if we consider the multi-levelnature of the stimuli one receives. The basicunit of language learning behaviour is theparticipation in language tasks. These tasksare embedded in a number of physical andpsychological contexts of various breadthssuch as the language class, the course, the

L2 as a subject matter, language learning ingeneral, learning in the classroom in general,learning in the particular institution ingeneral, learning in general, andachievement behaviour in general. Theimportant point is that a person’s appraisalof one level can easily be transferred to abroader or narrower level; for example,negative attitudes evoked by failure in doinga particular task can easily be generalised tothe whole language course or to the whole oflanguage learning (“I’m just not good atlanguages…”), and, conversely, establishedattitudes about the whole school canprofoundly affect one’s specific L2 learningdisposition (“I dislike everything that’sgoing on in this building”).

The third main process, action control,denotes those processes which “protect acurrent intention from being replaced shouldone of the competing tendencies increase instrength before the intended action iscompleted.” (Kuhl, 1994, p. 102). Inacademic situations this can be charac-terised, using Corno’s (1993) words, “as adynamic system of psychological controlprocesses that protect concentration anddirected effort in the face of personal and/orenvironmental distractions, and so aidlearning and performance” (Corno, 1993,p.16). Although the term ‘action control’may sound novel, similar processes havebeen the subject of an increasing amount ofresearch in educational psychology for thepast decade under the umbrella term of ‘selfregulatory processes’. For the purpose of ourmodel we will distinguish between threetypes of self-regulatory strategy: actionmaintenance, language learning, and goalsetting strategies. Active use of suchstrategies may ‘save’ the action whenongoing monitoring reveals that progress isslowing, halting, or backsliding.

Action control/self-regulatory strategiesare particularly important from an educa-tional point of view for at least two basicreasons. First, as Wong and Csikszentmi-halyi (1991) have found, studying andschoolwork in general are considered amongadolescents’ to be the least rewardingactivities. When in class or doing homeworkstudents report “low intrinsic motivation andnegative experience. They generally feelsad, passive, constrained, bored, detached,and lonely” (p. 544). Schneider,Csikszentmihalyi & Knauth (1995) report astrong negative relationship between beingin an academic class and feeling motivated,which they explain by the fact that studentstend to find most academic classroom


activities unenjoyable and uninteresting. Allthis creates fertile ground for distractionsthat need to be controlled for the sake oflearning effectiveness.

Second, as argued in the introduction,in school environments most tasks areimposed on the students without involvingthem in designing their own learningschedules or choosing which activities toengage in. In school, there is often littlepreactional activity by students. Therefore,the cumulative instigation force arising fromthe preactional phase (i.e. ‘choicemotivation’) is often relatively weak andneeds active scaffolding during the actionalphase, which is exactly what action controlprocesses are there for.

On the basis of the interplay of theappraisal and control/maintenance proc-esses, the ongoing action will lead to somekind of actional outcome: the optimal sce-nario is that the actor achieves his/her goal,whereas the other extreme is terminating theaction completely. However, arriving at adead end during the actional phase does notnecessarily lead to action abandonment. Ifthe motivational foundation of the initialwish or desire was sufficiently powerful, theindividual may mentally step back to thepreactional phase, revise the concrete goalto be pursued and form a new intention (e.g.by lowering the level of aspiration).Alternatively, by maintaining the originalintention, the individual may fine-tune ormodify the strategies and subtasks applied inthe pursuit of the goal during the actionalphase. Finally, in case of a temporaryinterruption, action can be continued at alater time.

Postactional phase

The postactional stage begins after either thegoal has been attained or the action has beenterminated; alternatively, it can also takeplace when action is interrupted for a longerperiod (e.g. a holiday). The main processesduring this phase entail evaluating theaccomplished action outcome andcontemplating possible inferences to bedrawn for future actions. Postactionalevaluation is different from the ongoingappraisal process in that here the individualis not engaged in actual action any longer(that is, he/she is no longer in animplementation-oriented mind set), whichallows him/her to adopt a broader perspec-tive on the whole motivated behavioural

process (starting from goal-setting) and itseffect on his/her self-esteem (Heckhausen,1991). During this phase, the actor comparesinitial expectancies and plans of action tohow they turned out in reality and formscausal attributions about the extent theintended goal has been reached. This criticalretrospection contributes significantly toaccumulated experience, and allows thelearner to elaborate his/her internalstandards and the repertoire of action-specific strategies. It is through suchevaluation that an individual can develop astable identity as a successful learner(Boekaerts, 1988).

The formation of adequate standards tocompare actual and potential performance,and the extension of the repertoire of per-sonalised action-control strategies alreadyserve to prepare the ground for the future,but before further action can be taken, theinitial intention has to be dismissed to giveway to new wishes, goals, and intentions. Anaccomplished intention may clear the wayfor a subsequent intention leading to a moredistant superordinate goal—in this case thepostactional motivation process evolves intoa preintentional phase and the cycle beginsanew.

Motivational influences on the differentaction phases of the model

The action sequence dimension describedabove outlines the sequential pattern of themotivational process but it is incompletewithout a second, complimentary dimensionof motivation which is made up of thevarious motivational influences that fuel theactional sequence. These energy sources canbe enhancing or inhibiting, depending onwhether they contribute to the successfulimplementation of the goal or dampen theactor’s endeavour. As such, motivationalinfluences encompass all the various motivesdiscussed in the motivation literature,including cognitive, affective, and situ-ational factors or conditions. In our model,we have made a point of including everymajor motivational factor from previousstudies in the L2 field and from mainstreampsychology that has been found to influencethe commitment to learning.

As indicated in Figure 1, motivationalinfluences form five clusters, according tothe five specific phases of the motivatedaction sequence they affect (i.e. goal setting,intention formation, initiation of intention


enactment, action, and postactionalevaluation). The specific lists of the relevantmotives are included in Tables 1-5; Figure 1describes the interrelationship between thesemotive sets. The motivational influencesassociated with goal-setting are linked withan arrow to the determinants of intentionformation, which are in turn linked to thoseof the initiation of intention enactment. Thisindicates that in the preactional phase therelevant motivational influences are assumedto have a cumulative effect: the forces activein the first stage continue to exert theirinfluence in the second and the third phases,and the factors first appearing in the second(intention formation) phase also fuel thethird (intention enactment) phase.

Thus, the preactional motivational sys-tem works like a series of interlinked filters:Only the wishes that receive sufficientsupport from the first set of motivationalinfluences qualify for becoming goals; thesegoals are then submitted to a secondmotivational phase, intention formation,where new energy sources are added to theresultant motivational force, and if thisexceeds the necessary threshold for steppingfurther, the goal becomes a fully-fledgedintention; finally, an action launchingimpulse will be issued if the sum of theinfluences that have fuelled the intention sofar and the new factors that come into forcein the third, action initiation phase reaches acertain level of strength. The overallresultant motivational force associated withthe preactional phase is labelled in the figureas the instigation force, which determinesthe intensity of action initiation.

Moving further ‘down’ Figure 1, how-ever, the motivational influences associatedwith the actional phase are not directlyrelated to the motives affecting the earlierstages of the process. This is in line withHeckhausen and Kuhl’s ‘Action ControlTheory’, which emphasises that ‘executivemotives’ are largely different from themotives making up ‘choice motivation’.Indeed, very few motivational forces have aglobal effect on every stage of the actor’sbehaviour, which explains why even a strongmotivational disposition can be cancelledout by newly emerging forces. Only byassuming such a division of motives relatedto the preactional and the actional phasescan we explain, for example, the frequentphenomenon of someone deciding to enrol ina language course (motivated by ‘choicemotivation’), then soon dropping out(because the ‘executive motives’ fail tosustain the instigation force), and then again

reenrolling in the course (since once actionengagement has been terminated, preactionalforces become activated again). The reasonwhy such cycles do not go on ad infinitum isthat after the termination (or completion) ofaction a third set of motivational influences,associated with the postactional phase, comeinto force, and the explanations one arrivesat during this phase about the previoussequence (e.g. “I simply don’t have thetime/energy/aptitude for L2 learning”)significantly affect subsequent actiontendencies.

Goal setting

At any given time people harbour a greatvariety of wishes, hopes, desires, ‘what-would-happen-ifs’, ‘if-onlys’, etc. Thesecoexist peacefully alongside each other onthe plane of unreality; some of them willnever get beyond this stage and remain as‘daydreams’, whereas others will be actedout and fulfilled in the long run. How do weselect from the multitude of our wishes anddesires and how do we process the selectedwish/desire? The understanding of humanmotivation starts at this basic level oftransforming ‘fantasies’ into reality-orientedgoals.

Table 1. Motivational influences on goalsetting

In our model we have distinguished fivemain motivational factors underlying thegoal-setting process (Table 1). First andforemost are the individual’s subjectivevalues and norms that have developedduring the past, as a reaction to past expe-riences. This “sense-of-self” dimension(Maehr, 1984, p. 126) refers to the more or

• Subjective values and norms• Incentive value of goal-related action,

outcomes, and consequences(instrumentality)

• Perceived potency of potential goal• Environmental stimuli; action

possibilities; family expectations• Language/language-learning-related

attitudes (integrativeness)


less organised collections or internalisedperceptions, beliefs, and feelings related towho one is in the social world. Individualsdiffer greatly in the content and the hierar-chies of their value dispositions (cf. thesaying, “There is no accounting for taste”).These internal preferences interplay with thespecific incentive values associated with theanticipated goals. It is important to realisethat there are three different levels of goal-specific values (Heckhausen & Kuhl, 1985):The first-order level refers to the action (i.e.the intrinsic value of the ongoing activityitself), the second-order level to the outcomeof an action (the inherently valuablecharacteristics with reference to one’s basicpersonal values and needs), and the third-order level to the consequences that mightarise from an achieved outcome.Heckhausen and Kuhl’s conceptualisation isvery similar to a comprehensive model oftask values developed by Eccles andWigfield (1995), defining such values interms of four components: “intrinsic value”(or interest), “attainment value” (orimportance), “extrinsic utility value”, and“cost”. In our model the last component,cost, is assumed to come into force only inthe second, intention formation stage.

In the L2 field, the perceived incentivevalue of the outcome and the consequencehas typically been captured by Gardner’s(1985) concept of ‘instrumental motivation’or ‘instrumentality’. Because the study of anL2 has usually been conceived of as merelyinstrumental to reaching the desired endstate(namely, L2 proficiency), the first aspect,the intrinsic interest in pursuing languagestudies, has been largely underplayed (cf.,however, Noels, Clément & Pelletier, inpress).

The above mentioned value preferencesalready screen out many ‘unsuitable’ wishesand desires, and they also help to determinethe general “potency” (Heckhausen & Kuhl,1985, p. 135) of the goals. This refers to asubjective feeling about the generalprobability of attaining the respective goal.Potency appraisals are based on theopportunities and affordances that oneperceives one will have in the future—wishes and desires that are seen as totallyunrealistic remain ignored.

The external environment also exerts aconsiderable influence on our choice ofpotential goals. Some of our wishes may beseen as supported by the environment whileothers may be completely out of place.Maehr (1984) uses the term ‘action possi-bilities’ to refer to the behavioural alterna-

tives that a person perceives to be availableand appropriate in a given situation, in viewof the sociocultural norms and pressures(including family expectations), as well asother external factors such as geographiclocation and socioeconomic status that existsfor the individual. Broadly speaking, onewill act in terms of what is perceived aspossible. In educational contexts the role ofthe environment is particularly strong. AsAnderman & Maehr (1994, p. 296) argue,

While individuals may bring enteringbiases to bear in any given situation,characteristics of the situation are alsocrucial in determining what goals willbe adopted. Thus, recent studies suggestthat the psychological environment ofthe classroom may have a stronginfluence on the goals that studentsadopt…. The adoption of goals isrelated to specific instructional prac-tices (e.g. grouping, recognition,evaluation, the nature of the task) andstudents’ perception of goal stresses...Other research suggests that the schoolas a whole can influence the goals thatstudents adopt. Research on schoolculture and climate suggests thatschools emphasise different goals.

Finally, since our model concerns moti-vation to learn a L2, attitudes toward the L2and L2 learning (captured by Gardner’s,1985, concept of ‘integrativeness’) also playa crucial role in making any L2-relatedmotivational decisions (e.g. language choice,decision to start L2 learning or to visit theL2 community for learning’s sake).

Intention formation

Arriving at a goal, means that the individualhas formulated an ‘I want to’ type of internalstatement. However, the fact is that notevery goal will be realised. Simply havingthe incentive to strive for a goal does notguarantee that the person will actuallyundertake the effort that is required. Thereare a great number of factors that determinewhether the goal will be further processedinto an intention, and therefore intentionformation involves a process of deliberation,weighing the feasibility and desirability ofthe available options, and visualising thepossible incentive-laden consequences ofone’s potential actions (Table 2)


Table 2. Motivational influences on in-tention formatiom

A selected goal, by definition, musthave already passed the test of potency, thatis, it must have been regarded as broadlyattainable. In the intention formation phasethe expectancy of success is morespecifically assessed. Based on a number ofinteracting factors such as self-efficacy/self-confidence, perceived goal difficulty, theamount of expected support, L2 anxiety,perceived competence, the quality andquantity of previous L2 contact, and causalattributions about past experiences(successes and failures), the individualmakes an evaluation of his/her copingpotential in the planned action. The greaterthe perceived likelihood of goal attainment,the higher the degree of the individual'spositive motivation. Conversely, it is un-likely that effort will be invested in a task ifthe individual is convinced that he/shecannot succeed no matter how hard he/she

tries. One thing needs to be noted hereregarding goal difficulty: The above wouldsuggest that the easier the goals are thehigher the individual’s motivation, whereasthis is not the case. Locke and Kristof(1996) report on meta-analyses of over 400studies which show unambiguously thatgoals that are perceived as difficult andchallenging (but still attainable) lead tohigher performance than goals that are easy.

A second important motivational factoris the perceived relevance of the goal andthe accompanying cost-benefit calculationsthe individual makes. Relevance can be bothpersonal and setting-related. The personalaspect is associated with the individual’scurrent life concerns: Only a limited numberof goals can be pursued at a time so theindividual needs to choose the onescurrently most pressing. Setting-relatedrelevance is similar in nature but concernsmore specific situational aspects. It impliesthat a goal may or may not fit into thecurrent concerns that dominate at the time orsocial setting. For instance, actiontendencies directed at relaxing activities aremore appropriate, and therefore morepowerful, for leisure or holiday periods thanin vocational settings (Heckhausen & Kuhl,1985). Costs involve the negative valuecomponent of a goal. So far it has been thepositive aspects of the initial wishes thatwere considered, whereas now the individualneeds to compare those with the inevitablenegative valence of the planned action,which includes factors such as expendedeffort and time, other actions that theplanned action would exclude, and variousemotional costs (e.g. anxiety, fear offailure).

Achievement motivation theories havetraditionally entailed the relatively stableand enduring personality constructs of needfor achievement and fear of failure (e.g.Atkinson & Raynor, 1974). Individuals witha high need for achievement are interested inexcellence for its own sake, tend to initiateachievement activities, work with heightenedintensity at these tasks, and persist in theface of failure. Fear of failure is the oppositeof need for achievement in that here themain drive to do well comes from avoiding anegative outcome rather than approaching apositive one. These two tendencies areconsidered to affect a person's achievementbehaviour in every facet of life, includinglanguage learning.

The issue of self-determination, orlearner autonomy, and the related paradigmof intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation have

• Expectancy of success/perceivedcoping potential• self-efficacy/self-confidence• perceived goal difficulty• amount of expected support• L2 anxiety• perceived L2 competence• L2 contact• causal attributions

• Relevance (personal and setting-related); cost-benefit calculations

• Need for achievement and fear offailure

• Degree of self-determination (type ofregulation)

• Goal properties• goal specificity• goal proximity• goal harmony/conflict• level of aspiration

• Availability of task opportunities andoptions

• Learner beliefs about L2 learning;knowledge of learning strategies;domain-specific knowledge

• Urgency; external demands; uniqueopportunity


been in the focus of motivational psychologyfor over two decades, and it has become anintegral part of several L2 motivationalapproaches in the 1990’s (for a review, seeDörnyei, 1998). Without going into detailshere, it has been generally accepted thatmotivation to learn and learner autonomy gohand in hand, that is, “enhanced motivationis conditional on learners takingresponsibility for their own learning [...] andperceiving that their learning successes andfailures are to be attributed to their ownefforts and strategies rather than to factorsoutside their control” (Dickinson, 1995, p.173-74).

A further set of influential factors con-cern various properties of the selected goal,such as goal specificity, proximity, goalharmony/conflict, and the level of aspira-tion. Goal specificity refers to how clear andelaborate goal specifications are. Locke andKristof (1996) provide evidence that goalsthat are specific rather than vague enhanceperformance. A second importantcharacteristic of goals is their proximity. Interms of time scale, goals range in time fromthose that are nearly immediate to those thatare several months or years away. AsKarniol and Ross (1996) summarise, a“positive time preference” (p. 603) can beobserved, with the motivational pull of goalswith immediate outcomes being strongerthan that of goals in a temporal distancebecause it is easier to judge progress towardthe former. Furthermore, the power of distalgoals, even if they are selected for action,may spontaneously decrease more rapidlyduring goal pursuit than that of proximalgoals, and it is also easy to postponepursuing a distal goal in the present in thebelief that there is ample time to mount theeffort later.

A further issue is that an individual mayoften wish to achieve a number of differentgoals at the same time, for example, acquireknowledge, meet people, and have a goodtime. With such multiple goals the extent ofgoal harmony/conflict is an important factor.If the various goals one entertains cancoexist harmoniously, this will increase goalcommitment, whereas if striving for a goalgoes at the expense of a potential other,efforts towards this goal may eventuallyweaken as one thinks about alternatives(Green, 1995). A final goal property that isof great importance with complex learningtargets such as the mastery of L2 proficiencyis the level of aspiration. In our case thisvariable is not so much related to conceptslike goal level or goal difficulty as to the

ultimate level of L2 proficiency the learnerintends to reach. Not everybody sets out toattain a near-native level of L2 competence:some learners, for example, only aim toacquire a working knowledge of the L2,which obviously effects their long-termachievement strivings (cf. Dörnyei, 1990).

As was said earlier, the development ofan action plan is an imperative to forming afully operational intention. This is why theavailability of task opportunities andoptions is an important, though not indis-pensable, motivational condition. It is easyto see that one may be more inclined todecide on a certain course of action whereready-made options are given than on anactivity for which creating the necessaryconditions already requires considerableeffort. For example, an advert drawingattention to an attractive language coursemay be more influential in initiating lan-guage learning than a situation in which thelearner needs to find out from scratch whatchannels of learning, if any, are available.As Heckhausen (1991) argues, “The decision[of initiating action] is frequentlypredetermined by anticipated opportunitiesthat seem favorable for the realization ofparticular intentions” (p. 11); indeed, it isthis recognition that underlies the provisionof vocational information to learners beforethey commit themselves to a certain careerpath.

Another, equally important, determinantof the quality of the action plan onedevelops is the learner’s beliefs about L2learning, knowledge of learning strategies,and sufficient domain-specific knowledge.These factors form influential predisposi-tions in the learners about the learningprocess, stemming from the learners’ fami-lies, peer groups, and prior learning expe-riences. For example, If someone thinks ofthe study of a language only as tedious andhard work characterised by endless memo-risation of bilingual word lists, this willobviously reduce his/her initial enthusiasm,whereas an informed, ‘made to measure’action plan (e.g. a computer devotee de-ciding to learn through specially designedcomputer games) might give the necessaryincentive to engage in the learning process.

Finally, in certain cases commitmentdoes not happen even if many of the abovementioned motivational influences are inplace—at such times what we need is a final‘push’, such as some sort of urgency,powerful external demands, or a uniqueopportunity. In Heckhausen and Kuhl’s(1985) words,


Commitment, however, does not appearto be a necessary result of the beliefthat attainment of a goal is desirable.Even a high product of value andexpectancy may not be sufficient toproduce a commitment. A unique op-portunity or increased urgency—in theface of an approaching deadline—mayrepresent an additional requirement fora commitment for future action (i.e. forgenerating an intention). (p. 136)

The initiation of intention enactment:Crossing the ‘Rubicon’ of action

It is not always the case that intentions areimplemented immediately after their for-mation; quite frequently there is some delaybefore action takes place, and, as arguedearlier, in certain cases even fullyoperationalised intentions never reach theactional phase. This indicates that there is aseparate processing phase between intentionformation and action: the initiation ofintention enactment. This is not to be con-fused with intention formation, which con-cerned the actual decision whether to do acertain thing; here the main question isfinding the right point in time for actualisingthe intention to act, particularly with respectto seeking and utilising suitableopportunities and the preparation of appro-priate steps for implementation. Table 3presents the main motivational influencesthat affect this action initiation phase.

Table 3. Motivational influences on theinitiation of intention enactment

As Kuhl (1994) argues, people often do,or perhaps more importantly fail to do,things without any available ‘rational’explanation to derive from the informationthat underlay the selection of the intention.In order to explain such irrational failure to

enact an intention and thus to bridge the gapbetween choice and action, Kuhl introducesthe constructs of action versus stateorientation, which we have already de-scribed when summarising his theory. Stateoriented people tend to be hindered by“intrusive thoughts about bugs, slips instrategy, and failure” (Boekaerts, 1994, p.434); they often procrastinate and tend toruminate on acting rather than getting downto it. Those with action orientation, on theother hand, are more disposed to act theirintentions out. Thus, action and stateorientations differ from achievement ten-dencies such as need for achievement andfear of failure in that they concern theeffectiveness or impairment of the control ofaction implementation rather than theformation of intentions.

A second variable affecting the enact-ment of an intention is the person’s per-ceived behavioural control. In Ajzen’s(1988) theory of planned behaviour thiscomponent is one of the key variables (alongwith intention) predicting behaviouralperformance. It refers to the perceived easeor difficulty of performing the behaviour;simply stated, one must believe that he/shehas sufficient control over the outcome toexert effort towards achieving it.

There are also some negative forcesworking against intention enactment. Thesemay be caused by various distracting influ-ences and obstacles, which obviously standin the way of action implementation, par-ticularly if there are powerful competingaction tendencies available. In situations inwhich the efficient implementation of anintention is rather difficult or requires toomuch time to seize the best opportunity,even relatively strong intentions may easilybe downgraded in terms of priority and theexecution of a competing action alternativemay occupy attentional capacity.

Finally, should one be inclined to aban-don the enactment of an intention due tosome of the above difficulties, there is onemore powerful factor that comes into force,potentially making the person think again:the perceived consequences for not acting.Even if everything seems to work againstpursuing an intention, the feeling that “Isimply cannot not do it!”, that is, shifting theperspective from what it takes to reach thetarget to what will happen if it is notreached, may provide the necessary impetusto instigate action.

• Action vs. state orientation• Perceived behavioural control• Distracting influences and obstacles;

number and strength of competing actiontendencies

• Perceived consequences for not acting


Actional processes

Once an initial wish has ‘obtained’ sufficientmotivational support to pass all the hurdles,the individual is ready to embark on a courseof action. The intensity of the ‘action-launching impulse’ will depend on thecumulative or resultant force of all themotivational influences active in the pre-actional phase (i.e. ‘instigation force’). Asstated earlier, crossing the metaphorical‘Rubicon’ of action opens a whole newchapter in the motivation scene; indeed, onlyfew of the motivational influencesassociated with the actional phase in Table 4appeared earlier in relation to preactionalevents. Not surprisingly, the biggest groupof factors concerns the appraisal system andthe outcome of the appraisal process. Therest of the components concern theeffectiveness of the action control processes,the impact of external influences such theteacher’s role, and factors inherent to theaction itself.

The functioning of the appraisal systemis greatly affected by the individual’s se-lective sensitivity to aspects of the envi-ronment. As Boekaerts (1987) points out,learners give different weights to specificsegments of the task-situation complex.Based on the learners’ idiosyncratic featuresand past experiences, they may encodecertain aspects of the learning environmentin a strikingly different manner. Forexample, what one person may find stressful,another may find challenging. For a reviewof the various psychological factors thatmight underlie individual differences in thelearners’ perception and interpretation of theenvironment, the reader is referred to arecent summary by Ehrman and Dörnyei(1998). A second, partly related factoraffecting the appraisal system is the qualityof the internal model of reference(Boekaerts, 1988). In order to be able tointerpret the learning context, the taskdemands, and one’s own competence to meetthese demands, learners draw on aninternally generated model made up of“declarative, procedural and episodicinformation … activated from long-termmemory upon confrontation with a learningtask” (Boekaerts, 1988, p. 275). This inter-nal model acts as a frame of reference andfunctions as a performance standard indefining what success and failure entails in aparticular situation. It also provides a soundbasis for selecting, constructing, andmonitoring strategies and subtasks.

Table 4. Executive motivational influ-ences

• Selective sensitivity to aspects of theenvironment

• Quality of internal model of reference• action schemata• performance standards

• Quality of learning experience• novelty• pleasantness• goal/need significance• coping potential• self and social image

• Perceived contingent relationshipbetween action and outcome; perceivedprogress• success• “flow”

• Sense of self-determination/autonomy• Teacher’s and parents’ motivational

influence• autonomy supporting vs. controlling• affiliative motive• direct socialisation of motivation

• modelling• task presentation• feedback

• Performance appraisal, reward structure,classroom goal structure (competitive.Individualistic, cooperative)

• Influence of learner group (goal-orientedness, cohesiveness, norm androle system, peer role modelling),classroom climate, and schoolenvironment

• Task conflict; competing action tendencies; other distracting influences;availability of action alternatives

• Costs involved and natural tendency tolose sight of goal and get bored/tired ofthe activity

• Knowledge of and skills in using self-regulatory strategies• language learning strategies• goal setting strategies• action maintenance strategies

• Perceived consequences of actionabandonment


The next group of factors affecting theresults of the appraisal process are the actualstimuli generated by the environment, thatis, the perceived quality of the learningexperience. According to Schumann’s(1998) neurobiological model of stimulusappraisal, the brain evaluates the stimuli itreceives along five dimensions: novelty(degree of unexpectedness/ familiarity),pleasantness (attractiveness), goal /needsignificance (whether the stimulus isinstrumental in satisfying needs or achievinggoals), coping potential (whether theindividual expects to be able to cope withthe event), and self and social image(whether the event is compatible with socialnorms and the individual's self-concept).The five dimensions capture well the varioussituation-specific appraisals proposed in theL2 literature (e.g. Crookes & Schmidt’s,1991, system made up of interest, relevance,expectancy, and satisfaction, also adoptedby Dörnyei, 1994), as well as coveringseveral of the most important current issuesin the educational psychological literature(e.g. the concern about self-esteem/self-worth, self-efficacy, intrinsic interest, well-being). For example, based on her extensiveclassroom research, Boekaerts (1994)identified three types of appraisals toexplain much of the variance in learningintention: (1) task attraction, (2) perceivedpersonal relevance, and (3) perceived self-competence. Schumann’s model covers allthe three components. In a more detailedsummary of the main aspects of the task-situation complex from the pupils’ point ofview, Boekaerts (1988) also listedfamiliarity judgement, success expectancyjudgement, reward value judgement,perceived teacher utility judgement, andpeer success expectancy in addition to theabove factors. Only the last two componentsare not directly covered by Schumann’sproposed appraisal dimensions, but they canbe seen as being subsumed by the othercomponents. However, in order to emphasisethe social nature and aspects of classroomlearning, we have also separated peer andteacher appraisals from the more generalappraisal of the course and the curriculum(see below).

Because learning is a goal-orientedactivity, the perceived contingent relation-ship between action and outcome and theperceived progress the learner has made onthis contingent path deserves explicittreatment. Students constantly evaluate howwell they are doing in terms of approachingthe desired outcome, and if they feel that

their action is conducive to reaching thatoutcome they experience a feeling ofsuccess, which then provides furthermotivation. In Boekaerts’s (1988) words,

When a learner perceives a contingentpath between his potential actions andthe learning outcome, his confidencewill be high and his performance willnot be impeded by debilitating anxiety.When the opposite relation holds,mental withdrawal from the threateningdemands may result as well as theperception of discomfort and tension.(p. 275)

A particularly powerful state of optimalexperience is the concept of ‘flow’ intro-duced by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). It repre-sents a state of total involvement duringsome creative activity that is characterisedby an equilibrium between the amount ofchallenge in activities and the individual’scapabilities.

A further powerful factor regardinglearning experiences that was alreadymentioned with respect to the intentionformation stage is the learner’s sense of self-determination/autonomy. The issue of thetype of regulation seems to be one of themost pervasive ones during the motivatedbehavioural process; this underlies Deci andRyan’s (1985) claim that the need forautonomy, that is, the desire to be self-initiating and self-regulating of one's ac-tions, is an innate human need, and is aprerequisite for any behaviour to be intrin-sically rewarding (indeed, Csikszentmi-halyi’s, 1990, ‘flow’ also presupposes aprimarily intrinsically regulated behaviouralsequence).

Besides the learner, there are certainother key figures affecting the motivationalquality of the learning process, namely theteacher and the parents. Their role as mo-tivational socialisers has been described indetail by a number of works in the literature(e.g. Colletta, Clément & Edwards, 1983;Dörnyei, 1994; Gardner, 1985, Gottfried,Fleming & Gottfried, 1994). Teachers arethe officially designated leaders within theclassroom; as such they are the most visiblefigures, who embody group conscience andserve as a reference and a standard. They areoften the focus of attention and, as Jesuíno(1996) summarises, they function as an“emotional amplifier of the group whoseappeals and example are critical formobilising the group” (p. 115) In short, “Tolead is to motivate, that is, ‘directing’ and


‘energizing’ ” (p. 114). One of the mainimpacts teachers and parents exert is relatedto self-determination, as several studies havefound that these authority figures’motivational practices can be describedalong a continuum between autonomy-supporting versus controlling (e.g. Gottfriedet al. 1994; Noels, Clément & Pelletier, inpress). Another important motive related tothese superordinate figures is the ‘affiliativemotive’, which refers to students’ need to dowell in school in order to please the teacheror their parents. Finally, teachers can alsoexert a direct motivational influence byactively socialising the learners’ motivationthrough appropriate modelling, task pres-entations, and their feedback.

One particularly featured aspect of howteachers structure classroom life is the typeof performance appraisal, reward structure,and the more general classroom goalstructure they introduce. It is well docu-mented in the literature that these have farreaching and often unintended consequenceson how learners approach the learning tasks(e.g. Ames, 1992; Maehr, 1984; Pintrich &Schunk, 1996). Harter (1992), for example,found that the combination of comparativegrading practices, standardised test scores, afocus on the correct solutions, and thesalience of social comparison, serve todecrease children’s interest in andenjoyment of the learning process andmoderate their preference for challenge.Cooperation in the classroom, on the otherhand, has been shown to augment motivationto learn (e.g. Dörnyei, 1997; Sharan &Shaulov, 1990; Slavin, 1996).

Parents and teachers are not the onlyexternal sources of situation-specific moti-vation. An increasing body of research hashighlighted the influence of the learnergroup, the classroom climate, and the schoolenvironment. Learners do not exist inisolation but function within organisationalstructures through socially mediated effort.Therefore, various aspects of the dynamicsof the learner group (e.g. goal-orientedness,cohesiveness, the emerging classroom roleand norm system, peer role modelling; for areview, see Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998) have aprofound influence on the individualmembers’ motivation as they try to conformto social standards set by the class group andthe school. Our belief is that the significanceof these factors has not been sufficientlyhighlighted in the motivational literaturerelative to their importance, although, asDörnyei (1998) summarises, several studiesin social and educational psychology have

recently looked into group-specific cognitiveconstructs (like group efficacy). Recentstudies suggest that the psychologicalenvironment of the school as a whole (e.g.school-wide stress on accomplishment,power, recognition, affiliation; school-levelauthority and management structures,grouping and evaluation practices) may alsohave a strong influence on students’motivation (Maehr & Midgley, 1991). Forexample, Anderman and Maehr (1994)report on a study which demonstrated thatschool effects such as the above seem toincrease with grade level: whereas in the 4thgrade these explained 7% of the variance inmotivation, the figure grew to 21% whenstudents reached the 10th grade.

It probably requires little justificationthat task conflict, competing action ten-dencies, other distracting influences, andthe availability of action alternatives have aweakening effect on the resultant moti-vational force associated with the particularcourse of action. In such cases, unless ef-fective action control strategies are activated(see below), the behavioural process may beinterrupted and in some cases terminated.Further negative influences are provided bythe costs involved in pursuing the activity (afactor already mentioned at the intentionformation phase) and one’s natural tendencyto lose sight of goal and get bored/tired ofthe activity; these factors have been part ofwhat Atkinson and Birch (1974) termed‘consummatory force’ in their ‘DynamicAction Model’.

An important source of scaffolding andenhancing motivation is the knowledge ofand skills in using self-regulatory strategies.Winne (1995) argues convincingly that alllearners inherently self-regulate, but thereare individual differences regarding theirknowledge base about self-regulatorylearning and their knowledge about when toengage that knowledge and their skills. Wealready stated in the introduction that insustained learning of skills and knowledge,self-regulatory processes take on specialsignificance as key motivational influenceson learning and performance (Kanfer, 1996).As mentioned earlier, we distinguish threetypes of such strategies: learning, goalsetting, and action maintenance strategies.

By using learning strategies, a learneralready demonstrates motivation, since theyinvolve processes whereby the learner vol-untarily activates cognitions/behaviours/affects (depending how one defines learningstrategies) in order to increase theeffectiveness of his/her own learning (in-


deed, Corno, 1993, p. 17, for example,refers to them as “mindful effort invest-ments”). The fact that learning strategiesenhance achievement generates positiveaffect in the learners about how and whatthey study, thereby reinforcing their moti-vated disposition.

Goal-setting strategies are more di-rectly related to motivation. Goals are notonly outcomes to shoot for but also stan-dards by which to evaluate one's perform-ance. Thus, goal setting refers to estab-lishing quantitative and qualitative standardsof performance that can help guide andregulate action better than distal, vague, or‘do-your-best’ kind of goals. In the case oflong-lasting, continuous activities such aslanguage learning, where there is only arather distal goal of task completion (i.e.mastering the L2), the setting of proximalsubgoals (i.e. short-term objectives, such astaking tests, passing exams, satisfyinglearning contracts) may therefore have apowerful motivating function in that theymark progress and provide immediateincentive and feedback. Winne (1995) pointsout that although it may appear relativelysimple to train students to set more and moreprecise objectives, their ‘stylisticdispositions’ to set such objectives forthemselves may constitute an importantindividual difference variable.

Finally, action maintenance strategiesare specifically directed at maintainingmotivation and protecting the currentlyactive intention. This reactive, protectionfunction is of particular significance be-cause, as Atkinson and Birch (1974) em-phasised, there are many action tendenciesawaiting implementation at a given point oftime and even during the course of aseemingly smoothly running activity theopportunity to pursue other attractive ac-tivities can suddenly surface. Action main-tenance strategies are also useful with distalgoals to help individuals to maintain theirpriorities in the face of temptation andadversity.

During the last decade quite an array ofaction maintenance strategies have beendocumented in the literature. We havealready described Kuhl’s (1987) system ofsix major types of self-regulatory strategies.Adapting this conceptualisation toeducational contexts, Corno (1993) distin-guishes two large classes of “volitionalcontrol strategies” (the term she uses foraction maintenance and goal-setting strate-gies): motivation control and emotion con-trol strategies. Examples of the former are

“Set contingencies for performance that canbe carried out mentally (e.g. self-reward;self-imposed penance”, “Escalate goals byprioritising and imagining their value”, and“Visualise doing the work successfully”(p.16). Emotion control strategies include“Generate useful diversions”, “Visualise thework successfully and feeling good aboutthat (change the way you respondemotionally to the task”, “Recall yourstrengths and your available resources”, and“Consider any negative feelings about theexperience and ways to make it morereassuring” (p. 16).

Baumeister (1996) emphasises the as-pect of action maintenance strategies thatprovides people with powerful motivationalforces to enable them to regulate the cog-nitive and emotional impact of ego threats.By consciously ignoring face-threateningstimuli, by adopting ‘defensive preoccupa-tion’ (i.e. focusing on an alternative stimulusthat can absorb attention), by summoningpositive feelings/happy memories to defusethe threat, or by constructing their narrativesof events so as to place themselves in a morepositive light, people may self-regulatecognitive processes and thus protect theirself-esteem from threatening implications.Garcia and Pintrich (1994) highlight oneparticular strategy that serves to maintainself-worth, ‘self-affirmation’: If anindividual experiences a negative evaluationof the self in a valued domain, a self-affirmative process is initiated, and theindividual will “seek to affirm a positiveglobal evaluation of the self by activatingpositive conceptions of the self (those inother, equally valued domains)” (p. 137).

Just like in the preactional phase, thelast motivational factor to be listed here isthe perceived consequences of actionabandonment. It is sometimes only wheneverything else fails and one is about to quit,that one thinks over what actionabandonment would really entail, and theperceived possible negative consequencesmay activate enough energy to keep going.

Postactional evaluation

In our model we distinguished four majormotivational influences active in the post-actional phase: attributional factors, self-concept beliefs, the quality and quantity ofevaluational/attributional cues and feed-back, and action versus state orientation(Table 5).


Table 5. Motivational influences on post-actional evaluation

The key tenet of attribution theory isthat the perceived causal attributions of pastsuccesses and failures (i.e. inferences aboutwhy outcomes occur) have behaviouralconsequences on future achievementstrivings. As Graham (1994) summarises, themost common attributions in schoolenvironments are those to ability (includingboth aptitude and acquired skills), effort,task difficulty, luck, mood, family back-ground, and help or hindrance from others.Among these, ability and effort are the mostdominant perceived causes in the Westernculture. In Weiner’s (1992) model, causalattributions can be categorised along threedimensions: stability (the cause is constantor varying over time), locus (the cause isinternal or external to the person), andcontrol (whether or not the cause is subjectto volitional control). It has been shown inseveral studies that the type of attributionone makes directly affects the person’sfuture behavioural outcome expectancies.Failure that is ascribed to stable anduncontrollable factors such as low abilityhinders future achievement behaviour morethan failure that is ascribed to unstable andcontrollable factors such as effort. Evidencefor the importance of attribution to effort insecondary school pupils’ motivationcomplex has been provided by Boekaerts(1988), who found that seeing effort as animportant causal factor in gaining progress(i.e. realising that effort pays off)significantly contributed to the students’willingness to devote processing capacity tolearning tasks in her sample.

There are considerable individual dif-ferences in forming attributions. First,people have different attributional styles,that is, a habitual way of explaining eventsalong one rather than the other attributiondimensions, which develops as a result of

multiple experiences with those events.For example, some people, usually labelledas ‘internals’, tend to perceive a direct linkbetween their behaviour and reinforcement,whereas ‘externals’ tend not to see such acontingency (and thus are likely to makeexternal kind of attributions). Perhaps thebest-known stylistic disposition is ‘learnedhelplessness’, referring to an acquiredresigned, pessimistic, and helpless state that,once established, is very difficult to reverse.

Second, in certain situations people mayalso have attributional biases, that is, in-correct schemas and inference rules that areused to make attributions (Pintrich &Schunk, 1996). Examples include the self-serving bias (the tendency to take responsi-bility for success but deny it for failure); theself-centred bias (the tendency to take morethan due responsibility for any outcome); orbasic attribution errors such as the tendencyto attribute something to dispositional orpersonal factors while ignoring relevant (oreven crucial) situational factors, and viceversa.

Third, as Weiner (1984) points out,attributional search is not indiscriminatelydisplayed in all situations, for this wouldplace great cognitive strain on the individ-ual. Rather, causal searches are moreprominent in the case of unexpected out-comes that do not conform with the ‘scripts’of what are seen as normal events andsituations (e.g. failure when success wasanticipated or unfulfilled desires); it seemsreasonable to assume, then, that differencesin the prior knowledge about scripted eventswill also cause individual differences in theattribution process.

Self-concept beliefs, including one’sestablished level of self-confidence/self-efficacy, self-competence, and self-worth indifferent domains, also influence the resultof postactional evaluation. Learners withrelatively high self-perceptions handleoccasional failures much better than learnerswith low self-worth beliefs in that they tendto heighten and sustain effort in the face offailure, while mobilising new strategies totackle the task. Confident learners are alsoless likely to engage in debilitating self-analysis rather than maintaining a task-focus. It needs little justification that theindividual’s prior performance history playsan important role in shaping these self-beliefs.

So far we have concentrated on thelearner-internal factors affecting postac-tional evaluation, but the process is also afunction of external evaluational/ attribu-

• Attributional factors: attributionalstyle and biases, prior knowledge about“scripted” events

• Self-concept beliefs: self-confidence/self-efficacy; self-competence; self worth; priorperformance history

• Evaluational/attributional cues,feedback

• Action vs. state orientation


tional cues. Of all the attributional cues inclassroom contexts, the most featured onefrom the learners’ point of view is thefeedback from the teacher, including subtleemotional responses. An often mentioneddistinction of two types of feedback involves‘informational feedback’, which commentson competence, and ‘controlling feedback’,which judges performance against externalstandards (Brophy & Good, 1986). It isgenerally maintained that from amotivational point of view the former shouldbe dominant since social comparison isconsidered most detrimental to intrinsicmotivation (Ames, 1992). Graham (1994)talks about three more subtle feedback typeswhose negative impact on learner behaviourhas been confirmed by laboratory research:communicated pity instead of anger afterfailure; the offering of praise after success(particularly for easy tasks); and unsolicitedoffers of help (particularly ‘gratuitous help’such as supplying answers outright). All thethree feedback practices are often related tolow self-concept of competence; of these,the mention of praise might be mostsurprising, but interestingly, as Grahamsummarises, it is blame and criticism ratherthan praise that often conveys to the learnersthe teacher’s high expectations. Indeed,Paris and Turner (1994) also point out thatstudents may interpret success that comeswithout challenge or risk-taking as anindication of the lower expectations held byothers for their own level of achievement.One well-known effect of teachers’ feedbackbehaviour is the ‘Pygmalion effect’, whenteacher expectations of their students’ rateof progress functions as a self-fulfillingprophecy, with the learners living up (ordown) to these expectations regardless oftheir actual learning potential.

Finally, although one might think thatnothing could be simpler than abandoning anaction, this is not always the case. AsBeckmann (1994: 159-60) argues, “some-times it is just as difficult to stop executingan activity which does not seem to be verypromising any longer and initiate anothermore promising action”. People are knownto get stuck in unfruitful behavioural se-quences, unable to ‘cut their losses’, and thisis why Kuhl has extended the concepts ofaction vs. state orientation (describedearlier) to apply to the “disengagement froman intention and the initiation of a newcourse of action in situations in which theintention has become unattainable or inwhich changing conditions require a changein the goal hierarchy” (Kuhl & Goschke,

1994, p. 95).

Limitations of the model

The Process Model presented in this paper isnot without limitations. The issues that willbe briefly summarised in the following allconcern areas that have not been givensufficient attention in psychological researchand therefore require further investigationsto resolve them.

Unconscious/irrational motives. One ofthe most prevailing issues in motivationalpsychology is the question of how consciousor unconscious the motivationaldeterminants of human behaviour are (theissue has, in fact, come up under a numberof different labels, with non-consciousmotives referred to as unconscious, non-cognitive, automatic, instinct/drive-driven,socially/behaviourally-conditioned, etc.).This issue as a whole reaches far beyond thescope of this paper but it may be worthsummarising our current stance regardingconscious vs. non-conscious motives.Classroom events are varied and complex,and there is no doubt that there are a numberof unconscious/irrational factors thatunderlie (motivate and demotivate) studentbehaviour; for example, as Weiner (1984)summarises, “self-esteem is defended inunknown ways; expectancies are biased;illogical decisions are reached; informationis improperly utilized; and there is grosspersonal delusion” (p. 18). Furthermore,although Freud’s emphasis on the uncon-scious, sexual motivation may not be com-pletely relevant to learning activities,classroom events often have certain sexualundertones. In a review of the con-scious/unconscious issue, Sorrentino (1996)supports the importance of nonconsciousforces by arguing that behaviour can happenwithout reference to conscious thought,although cognitions can inhibit or furtherinstigate such behaviour and can alsostrengthen or weaken other competing actiontendencies. As he concludes, researchevidence leaves “little room for those whobelieve that all behaviour must be precededby conscious thought” (p. 635).

On the other hand, it is also clear thatmany aspects of student behaviour are quitelogical and rational. This is especially true ifwe consider learning behaviours andsustained learning processes in particular—


as Bandura (1991) asserts, “most humanbehaviour is activated and regulated overextended periods by anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms” (p. 71; emphasisours). Psychology is currently dominated bya primarily cognitive approach, and there isa covert agreement among most researchersthat most of the significant thoughts andfeelings that affect learning achievement areconscious and known by the learner. Whilewe tend to agree with this assumption, thereare two areas that we feel should be givenmore attention: the impact of theindividuals’ mood states and the role ofunconscious interpersonal processes. In athought-provoking article, Schwarz andBohner (1996) draw attention to the fact thatdepending on what mood people are in, theytend to find goals more or less attractive,tend to assess their own resources and thesituation in a more or less favourable way,and tend to evaluate their performance asmore or less satisfactory. This is, in fact,well-known to many classroom practitioners,yet little controlled research has been doneto understand the exact nature of such mood-related biases. With regard to interpersonalrelations, psychoanalytic theory hasprovided ample evidence that these are oftenaffected by unconscious ‘scripts’ (such astransference, projections, defencemechanisms, etc.; for a review, see Ehrman& Dörnyei, 1998). Since we believe thatclassroom learning is an intensely interper-sonal process, unconscious relationshippatterns inevitably influence the classmembers’ achievement and performance,which warrants further research into thisdirection.

Simultaneous action. Our ProcessModel appears to suggest that the actionalprocess occurs in relative isolation, withoutany interference from other ongoing be-haviours the actor is engaged in (the onlyindication of this not being the case wasprovided by the inclusion of factors such asgoal conflict and competing action tenden-cies). This is obviously not true in the strictsense. As Atkinson and Birch (1974) high-lighted over two decades ago,

the behavioral life of an individual is acontinual stream of thought and action,characterized by change from one ac-tivity to another, from birth until death.There are no behavioral vacuumsexcept, of course, when an individual isliterally unconscious for reasons ofillness or accident and incapable of

behaving at all. Otherwise, theindividual is always doing something. Asimple change from one activity toanother poses the fundamental problemfor a psychology of motivation. (p. 271)

While people tend to pursue a limited num-ber of actions at a time within the behav-ioural stream (and particularly when sus-tained learning is concerned) various actionepisodes can be simultaneously active. Forexample, a new action may be initiated whilethe success of the previous action is stillbeing evaluated. This raises the question ofwhether we can talk about a purely‘preactional’ phase of the motivationalprocess or whether preactional and actionalphases overlap in a complex manner. Bau-meister (1996) offered a precise summary ofthis issue:

Perhaps, then, the function of mental,emotional, and motivational processesis not so much to initiate behaviour asto steer it—that is, to intervene in on-going behavioral processes so as to in-terrupt, override, or redirect them…Cognitive and motivational processesmay guide action in a way that resem-bles changing the channel on a televi-sion set more closely than it doesturning the set on in the first place. (p.28)

Multiple goals and goal hierarchies.Motivation to learn and learning achieve-ment in a school context are the product of acomplex set of interacting goals and in-tentions. For example, as mentioned earlier,by enrolling in a course, one may want toacquire knowledge, meet people, and have agood time at the same time. Such multiplegoals often form hierarchies, includingsuperordinate and subordinate goals,similarly to the need hierarchies by Maslow(1970) or Murray (1938). In Bandura’s(1991) words, “The complementaryregulation of motivation by hierarchicalgoals of differential achievability charac-terizes most of the strivings of everydaylife” (p. 101). It is still to be decided howsuperordinate and subordinate goals interactwith each other (i.e. override or reinforceeach other) and how they can simultaneouslybe placed in an action sequence process.

Task-specific motivation. We havementioned earlier that a characteristicfeature of school environments is that goalsand corresponding tasks are not chosen


voluntarily by the students but are very oftenassigned to them, and in such cases it makesmore sense to talk about compliance ratherthan commitment. This being the case, task-specific motives may have more significancein the motivation complex than our modelsuggests. Imposed tasks may be seen notmerely as contributors to the general qualityof the learning experience (as our modelsuggests) but also as being associated withthe general power structure of the classroomas a social unit (since compliance isdependent on the perceived power base ofthe authority figure assigning the task).Although we are sensitive to the significanceof the social psychological organisation ofthe learning environment (cf. Ehrman &Dörnyei, 1998), because of space limitationswe have not gone into details regardingissues such as leadership types, the bases ofsocial influence, or the manner in whichleadership is exercised and tasks areassigned.

What is motivation?

Having surveyed a great variety of ap-proaches to and aspects of the notion of‘motivation’, and having set up a constructdetailing what we see as the main compo-nents of the motivation complex, it is time totake stock of what this suggests about thenature and definition of motivation. This isno easy task if we do not want to restrict thedefinition to superficial generalisations; inorder to capture the multiple aspects anddimensions represented in Figure 1, we needa relatively complex formulation.Heckhausen (1991) sees motivation as a

global concept for a variety of proc-esses and effects whose common core isthe realization that an organism selectsa particular behaviour because ofexpected consequences, and then im-plements it with some measure of en-ergy, along a particular path. (p. 9)

Separating various levels of motivation,Bandura (1991) provided the followingdefinition:

Motivation is a general construct linkedto a system of regulatory mechanismsthat are commonly ascribed bothdirective and activating functions. Atthe generic level it encompasses thediverse classes of events that move one

to action. Level of motivation istypically indexed in terms of choice ofcourses of action and intensity andpersistence of effort. Attempts toexplain the motivational sources ofbehaviour therefore primarily aim atclarifying the determinants and inter-vening mechanisms that govern theselection, activation, and sustained di-rection of behaviour toward certaingoals. (p. 69)

Although the two definitions (by Heck-hausen and Bandura) cited above do providean appropriate reflection of the complexityof motivation, and they also emphasisecertain process-oriented elements, they donot highlight sufficiently the dynamiccharacter of motivation in sustained learningactivities. As outlined in this article, themotivational forces that are at work duringthe preactional phase accumulate in thecombined instigation force, the degree ofwhich determines the intensity of the initialaction commitment. This initial force will beincreased or decreased by additional forcesthat come into play during actionengagement, and the postactional evaluationof the actional outcome has a forwardpointing role as it is contributing to themotivational base of further action. Thus, ina general sense, motivation can be definedas the dynamically changing cumulativearousal in a person that initiates, directs,coordinates, amplifies, terminates, andevaluates the cognitive and motor processeswhereby initial wishes and desires areselected, prioritised, operationalised, and(successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out.

Conclusion

The theory presented in this chapter is notnovel in the sense that it offers radically newinsights. Rather, it is a synthesis thatattempts to integrate propositions and mod-els from several sources into a more com-prehensive scheme. Our goal was to con-struct a framework which is based on soundtheoretical foundations and which is at thesame time useful for practitioners. We areaware that the discussion has been highlytheoretical and at points speculative. We cansee two obvious ways to verify thepropositions made: (a) by formally assessingthe construct validity of the model and (b)by testing whether the interventions basedon this model turn out to be effective in


enhancing learner motivation. In our futureresearch we will proceed along these lines.

Adopting a process model of motivationsuch as the one described above offers con-siderable potential practical gains. It helpsus to understand the main stages of actioninitiation and enactment, highlighting theforces that can enhance the intensity of theprocess. It also describes how various actioncontrol mechanisms can consciously beapplied in order to maintain, enhance, andprotect ongoing action. The model offers aunified framework in which the impact ofvarious types of self-regulatory strategies(cognitive, metacognitive, affective, andsocial) can be interpreted and compared.Finally, by listing the motivational influ-ences in a comprehensive manner and byspecifying which concrete phase of themotivational process they are related to, theframework can serve as a structures basis fordesigning motivational strategies to be usedin the classroom.

To summarise, the above overview ofthe phases of the motivational process, alongwith the multiple components energising it,attest to the fact that the issue is greatlycomplex. A broad array of mental processesand motivational conditions play essentialroles in determining why students behave asthey do. Having reviewed the numerouscomponents, it is difficult to imagine that byfocusing on only a few selected factors (as isdone in various reductionist paradigms) wewould be able to explain a large enoughproportion of variance in motivated learningbehaviour. Therefore, we are in completeagreement with Graham’s (1994) concludingwords:

If there is one message I wish to conveywith what has been presented in thischapter, that message is that classroommotivational life is complex. No singleword or principle such as reinforcementor intrinsic motivation can possiblycapture this complexity. (p. 47)

References

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, andbehaviour. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Alison, J. (1993). Not bothered? Motivatingreluctant language learners in KeyStage 4. London: CILT.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms, goals,

structures, and student motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,267-271.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994).Motivation and schooling. Review ofEducational Research, 64, 287-309.

Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1974). Thedynamics of achievement-oriented ac-tivity. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor(Eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp.271-325). Washington, DC: Winston &Sons.

Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (Eds.)(1974). Motivation and achievement.Washington, DC: Winston & Sons.

Bandura, A. (1991) Self-regulation of mo-tivation through anticipatory and self-reactive mechanisms. Nebraska Sympo-sium on motivation 1990, 39. 69-164.

Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Self-regulationand ego threat: Motivated cognition,self-deception, and destructive goalsetting. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action:Linking cognition and motivation tobehaviour (pp. 27-47). New York:Guilford Press.

Beckmann, J. (1994). Volitional correlatesof action versus state orientation. In J.Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volitionand personality: Action versus stateorientation (pp. 155-166). Seattle, WA:Hogrefe & Huber.

Boekaerts, M. (1987). Individual differencesin the appraisal of learning tasks: Anintegrative view of emotion andcognition. Communication & Cognition,20, 207-224.

Boekaerts, M. (1988). Motivated learning:Bias in appraisals. International Journalof Educational research, 12, 267-280.

Boekaerts, M. (1994). Action control: Howrelevant is it for classroom learning? InJ. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volitionand personality: Action versus stateorientation (pp. 427-435). Seattle, WA:Hogrefe & Huber.

Boekaerts, M. (1995). Self-regulatedlearning: Bridging the gap betweenmetacognitive and metamotivationtheories. Educational Psychologist, 30,195-200.

Brophy, J. E. (1987). Synthesis of researchon strategies for motivating students tolearn. Educational Leadership, 45/2,40-48.

Brophy, J. (1998). Motivating students tolearn. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986).Teacher behaviour and student


achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd

ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmil-lan.

Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by princi-ples. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Burden, P. R. (1995). Classroom manage-ment and discipline. New York: Long-man.

Colletta, S. P., Clément, R., & Edwards, H.P. (1983). Community and parental in-fluence: Effects on student motivationand French second language profi-ciency. Québec: International Center forResearch on Bilingualism.

Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans:Modern conceptions of volition andeducational research. Educational Re-searcher, 22, 14-22.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991).Motivation: Reopening the ResearchAgenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.

Cranmer, D. (1996). Motivating high levellearners. Harlow: Longman.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: Thepsychology of optimal experience. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsicmotivation and self-determination inhuman behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Dibbelt, S. & Kuhl, J. (1994). Volitionalprocesses in decision making: Person-ality and situational determinants. In J.Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volitionand personality: Action versus stateorientation (pp. 177-194). Seattle, WA:Hogrefe & Huber.

Dickinson, L. (1995). Autonomy and moti-vation: A literature review. System, 23,165-174.

Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing moti-vation in foreign-language learning.Language Learning, 40, 45-78.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and moti-vating in the foreign language class-room. Modern Language Journal, 78,273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. (1997). Psychological processesin cooperative language learning: Groupdynamics and motivation. ModernLanguage Journal, 81, 482-493.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in secondand foreign language learning. Lan-guage Teaching, 31, 117-135.

Dörnyei, Z. (in preparation). Researchingand teaching motivation. Harlow:Addison Wesley Longman.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten

commandments for motivating languagelearners: Results of an empirical study.Language Teaching Research, 2, 203-229.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In themind of the actor: The structure ofadolescents' achievement task valuesand expectancy-related beliefs. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 215-225.

Ehrman, M. M., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998).Interpersonal dynamics in second lan-guage education: The visible and in-visible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994).Regulating motivation and cognition inthe classroom: The role of self-schemasand self-regulatory strategies. In D.Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and per-formance: Issues and educational ap-plications, (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychologyand second language learning: The roleof attitudes and motivation. London:Edward Arnold.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases andmind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M.Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook ofmotivation and cognition: Foundationsof social behaviour (Vol. 2, pp. 53-92).New York: Guilford Press.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994).Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). NewYork: HarperCollins.

Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried,A. W. (1994). Role of parentalmotivational practices in children’sacademic intrinsic motivation andachievement. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 86, 104-113.

Graham, S. (1994). Classroom motivationfrom an attributional perspective. In H.F. O'Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.),Motivation: Theory and research (pp.31-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.

Green, R. G. (1995). Human Motivation: Asocial psychological approach. PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Harter, S. (1992). The relationship betweenperceived competence, affect, and mo-tivational orientation within the class-room: Processes and patterns of change.In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman(Eds.), Achievement motivation: Asocial-developmental perspective (pp.77-114). Cambridge: Cambridge


University Press.Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and

action. New York: Springer.Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From

wishes to action: The dead ends andshort cuts on the long way to action. InM. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal-di-rected behaviour: The concept of actionin psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Jesuíno, J. C. (1996). Leadership: Micro-macro links. In E. H. Witte & J. H.Davis (Eds.), Understanding group be-haviour: Small group processes andinterpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 93-125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, V. F., & Jones, L. S. (1995). Com-prehensive classroom management:Creating positive learning environmentsfor all students (4th ed.). NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kanfer, R. (1996). Self-regulatory and othernon-ability determinants of skillacquisition. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action:Linking cognition and motivation tobehaviour (pp. 404-423). New York:Guilford Press.

Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The moti-vational impact of temporal focus:Thinking about the future and the past.Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 593-620.

Kuhl, J. (1987). Action control: The main-tenance of motivational states. In F.Halish & J. Kuhl (Eds.), Motivation,intention, and volition (pp. 279-291).Berlin: Springer.

Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators ofcognition-behaviour consistency: Self-regulatory processes and action versusstate orientation. In J. Kuhl & J.Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: Fromcognition to behaviour. New York:Springer.

Kuhl, J. (1992). A theory of self-regulation:Action versus state orientation, self-discrimination, and some applications.Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 41, 97-129.

Kuhl, J. (1994). A theory of action and stateorientations. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann(Eds.), Volition and personality: Actionversus state orientation (pp. 9-45).Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (Eds.) (1994).Volition and personality: Action versusstate orientation. Seattle, WA: Hogrefe& Huber.

Kuhl, J., & Goschke, T. (1994). A theory of

action control: Mental subsystems,modes of control, and volitional con-flict-resolution strategies. In J. Kuhl &J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and per-sonality: Action versus state orientation(pp. 93-124). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe &Huber.

Locke, E. A., & Kristof, A. L. (1996). Vo-litional choices in the goal achievementprocess. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A.Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action:Linking cognition and motivation tobehaviour (pp. 363-384). New York:Guilford Press.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Atheory of goal setting and task per-formance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1994). Goalsetting theory. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. & M.Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theoryand research (pp. 13-29). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and moti-vation: Toward a theory of personal in-vestment. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.),Research on motivation in education:Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 115-144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). En-hancing student motivation: A school-wide approach. Educational Psycholo-gist, 26, 399-427.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation andpersonality. 2nd ed. New York: Harperand Row.

McCombs, B. L. (1994). Strategies forassessing and enhancing motivation:Keys to promoting self-regulatedlearning and performance. In H. F.O'Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Mo-tivation: Theory and research (pp. 49-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

McCombs, B. L. & Pope, J. E. (1994).Motivating hard to reach students.Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations inpersonality. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G.(in press). Perceptions of teachers'communicative style and students' in-trinsic and extrinsic motivation. ModernLanguage Journal.

Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Lan-guage learning motivation: Expandingthe theoretical framework. ModernLanguage Journal, 78, 12-28.

Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Situated


motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R.Brown & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.),Student motivation, cognition, andlearning (pp. 213-237). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pintrich, P. L., & Schunk, D. H. (1996).Motivation in education: Theory, re-search, and applications. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Raffini, J. P. (1993). Winners without los-ers: Structures and strategies for in-creasing student motivation to learn.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Ba-con.

Raffini, J. P. (1996). 150 ways to increaseintrinsic motivation in the classroom.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Ba-con.

Raynor, J. O., & Roeder, G. P. (1987).Motivation and future orientation: Taskand time effects for achievement moti-vation. In F. Halisch & J. Kuhl (Eds.),Motivation, intention, and volition (pp.61-71). Berlin: Springer.

Schneider, B., Csikszentmihalyi, M., &Knauth, S. (1995). Academic challenge,motivation, and self-esteem: The dailyexperience of students in high school. InM. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Restructuringschools: Promising practices andpolicies (pp. 175-195). New York:Plenum.

Schumann, J. H. (1998). The neurobiologyof affect in language. Oxford: Black-well.

Schwarz, N. & Bohner, G. (1996). Feelingsand their motivational implications:Moods and the action sequence.

Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Coop-erative learning, motivation to learn,and academic achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theoryand research (pp. 173-202). New York:Praeger.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on coopera-tive learning and achievement: What weknow, what we need to know. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 21,43-69.

Sorrentino, R. M. (1996). The role of con-scious thought in a theory of motivationand cognition: The uncertaintyorientation paradigm. In P. M. Goll-witzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psy-chology of action: Linking cognitionand motivation to behaviour (pp. 619-644). New York: Guilford Press.

Weiner, B. (1984). Principles for a theory ofstudent motivation and their applicationwithin an attributional framework. In R.

Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research onmotivation in education: Studentmotivation (Vol. 1, pp. 15-38). SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation:Metaphors, theories, and research.Nebury Park, CA: Sage.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psy-chology for language teachers. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. EducationalPsychologist, 30, 173-187.

Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.(1991). Motivation and academicachievement: The effects of personalitytraits and the quality of experience.Journal of Personality, 59, 539-574.


Notes

1 An earlier version of this paper was presentedas a keynote address at the Annual Conferenceof the Education Section of the BritishPsychological Society (September, 1998,Exeter) by the first author. We are grateful toBob Burden, Ben Rampton, Peter Skehan, SarahThurrell, Peter Tomlinson and Marion Williamsfor their helpful comments and support.

Documents

Zoltán Dörnyei and István Ottó - Worktribe