success, and the extent to which success is under control. According to Dörnyei (2001a), this component is related to the learner’s self-confidence and self-efficacy at a general level and to the perceived difficulty of the task, the amount of effort required the amount of assistance and guidance available, the teacher’s presentation of the task, and familiarity with the task type at the language learning level. The satisfaction component in the model refers to the combination of extrinsic rewards, such as grades, and intrinsic rewards, such as enjoyment and pride.
In 1987, Keller developed a modified model in response to his desire to find more systematic ways for understanding the influences of motivation to learn as well as to identify and solve problems with learning motivation (Keller, 1987). The four categories in Keller’s (1983) original model were renamed (‘interest’ became ‘attention,’ and ‘expectancy’ became ‘confidence,’ and the final modified model was labelled as ARCS representing four major conditions: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Keller has explained that these conditions are the four conditions that have to be met for people to become and remain motivated. He adds that each of the four conditions subsumes several areas of psychological research and has been divided into specific subcategories with sample motivational strategy prescriptions.
Drawing on Keller (1983) model of motivation, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) have developed a theory of L2 motivation made up of the same four components presented in Keller model: interest, relevance, expectancy, and satisfaction. Dörnyei (1994) has argued that these components appear to be particularly useful in describing some course-specific motives.
2.3.2. The Cognitive-Situated Period (1990-2000)
As a result of a variety of new models and approaches designed in the 1990s, the study ofL2 motivation reached an exciting turning point during this period resulting in what Gardner and Tremblay (1994) have called a “motivational renaissance”. Dörnyei and Skehan (2003, p. 613) clarify that “the study of L2 motivation reached an unprecedented boom in the 1990s, with over 100 journal articles published on the topic and a wide array of alternative theoretical constructs proposed.” Ellis (2008) explains that the attention of L2motivation research has switched to a more cognitive-situated view of motivation where the significance of situation-specific factors, such as the classroom learning situations was examined. The new approach, called education-oriented approach, promoted the cognitive aspects of L2 motivation, which resulted in the appearance of some new motivational constructs, especially those related to the learner self-concepts like self-confidence, self-efficacy, self-determination, and those of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, the need for achievement, and expectancy of success, etc. Beside its concentration on the cognitive aspects of L2 motivation, this approach focused on situational factors relevant to classroom applications such as the characteristics of the language course and the language teacher and therefore expanded the L2 motivation paradigm (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007).
During the 1990s period, researchers have made many attempts to reopen the research agenda in the field of L2 motivation developing new approaches and models for the construct, a discussion of which follows.
126.96.36.199. Dörnyei’s (1994) Framework of L2 Motivation
This model consists of three main levels that encompass many sub-motivational components:
1. The Language Level includes components relevant to some social aspects of L2, such as the L2 culture and L2 community (i.e. the integrative motivation subsystem). It also involves other components relevant to the intellectual and pragmatic values and benefits associated with L2 proficiency (i.e. the instrumental motivation subsystem).
2. The Learner Level comprises some components that display some of the traits the learner brings to the L2 learning process, such as the need for achievement and self-confidence. Self-confidence comprises various aspects of language anxiety, perceived L2 competence, motivational attributions, and self-efficacy.
3. The Learning-Situation Level involves some situation-specific motives rooted in various aspects of language learning in the classroom as follow:
A. The course-specific motivational components, such as the learner’s interest in theL2 course, the relevance of the L2 course to the learner’s needs and goals, expectancy of success, and satisfaction about the task outcome.
B. The teacher-specific motivational components are concerned with the motivational impact of the teacher’s personality, behaviour, and teaching style on students’ motivation. Some of the components constituting this sub-level are the affiliative motive, the teacher’s authority type, task presentation, and feedback.
C. The group-specific motivational components are relevant to the group dynamics of the learner group, such as its goal-orientedness, group-cohesiveness, norm and reward system, and the classroom goal structure.
A significant fact about Dörnyei’s model is that the three divisions in this model were based on empirical research findings such as that of Keller (1983), Dörnyei (1990) and Clément and colleagues (1994). These three levels also coincide with the three basic constituents of the L2 learning process (i.e. the target language, the language learner, and the learning situation). They also reflect three different dimensions of language: the social dimension, the personal dimension, and the educational subject-matter dimension. Another very important issue about this construct is that the motivational strategies that have been empirically tested in experimental studies were primarily introduced and designed based on its components (see Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Dörnyei’s (1994) Model of L2 Motivation (Dörnyei, 1994a, p.280)
188.8.131.52. Williams and Burden’s (1997) Model of L2 Motivation
William and Burden’s (1997) was another attempt to produce a new construct of L2motivation during this period. Their research attempted to categorize some motivational components relevant to L2 learning in terms of internal and external factors. They believe that the extent to which the internal factors interact with each other and the relative importance that individuals attribute to them will affect the level and extent of learners’ motivation to complete a task or maintain an activity (Williams & Burden, 1997). Among the internal factors included in this model were intrinsic interest of activity, perceived value of activity, self-concept, and attitudes. Williams and Burden add that the internal factors are subject to the influence of some external factors, with which they interact in a dynamic way. They also propose that the external factors interact with each other. As we can see in Figure 6, the factors that were regarded as external in this model were significant other people (e.g. parents, teachers, etc.), the nature of interaction with significant others (e.g. feedback), the learning environment, and the broader context (e.g. cultural norms).
Figure 2.5. Williams and Burden’s (1997) Framework of L2 Motivation (cited in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p.54)
184.108.40.206. Task Motivation
Task motivation was another concept investigated during the cognitive period of L2 motivation research. Dörnyei (2002) believe that learning tasks constitute the interface between educational goals, teacher, and students. He conceives a learning task as a combination of various goal-oriented mental and behavioural operations performed by students in the timeframe between the teacher’s initial task instructions and the students’ completion of the final task outcome.
Dörnyei (2005) states that there were few studies that examined the motivational basis of language learning tasks and that the few studies that investigated task motivation considered the concept as a combination of generalised and situation-specific motives. Tremblay and colleagues (1995) distinguish trait and state motivation by explaining that the former involves stable and enduring dispositions while the latter includes transitory and temporary responses or conditions.
In his experimental study, Dörnyei (2002) proposes that task motivation may be more complex than state/trait dichotomy as instructional tasks involve a series of learner behaviours that can last for a considerable period in which the learner’s motivation is unlikely to remain constant. Dörnyei supposes that instead of assuming a simple and stable state motivation component to account for the situation-specific aspect of task motivation, a more accurate characterisation could be provided by taking a process-oriented approach looking at the dynamic motivational processes that take place during task completion. Dörnyei (2005) explains that the dynamic processing system can be seen as the interplay of three interrelated mechanisms: task execution, appraisal, and action control. According to him, task execution refers to “the learners’ engagement in task-supportive learning behaviours, following the action plan that was either provided by the teacher or drawn up by the [learner] or the task team,” (p.81). Appraisal, on the other hand, refers to the learners’ continuous processing of the multitude of stimuli coming from the environment and of the progress made toward the action outcome, and comparing actual performances with predicted ones or with ones that alternative action sequences would offer. Dörnyei believes that action control processes represent self-regulatory mechanisms that are called into force in order to enhance, scaffold, or protect learning-specific action. As can be seen in Figure 6, Dörnyei (2005) describes this dynamic process by stating that when learners are engaged in executing a task, they continuously appraise the process, and