Moskovsky Et Al-2013-Language Learning

Language Learning
ISSN 0023-8333
The Effects of Teachers Motivational

Strategies on Learners Motivation: A
Controlled Investigation of Second
Language Acquisition
Christo Moskovsky
The University of Newcastle
Fakieh Alrabai
King Khalid University
Stefania Paolini
Silvia Ratcheva
While consensus exists about the critical role of learners motivation in second language
acquisition, controlled investigations of the effects of teachers motivational strategies
are limited. The research reported here used a quasi-experimental design to assess the
effects of motivational strategies used by Saudi English as a foreign language (EFL)
teachers (N = 14) on Saudi EFL learners (N = 296) self-reported learning motivation.
The experimental treatment involved class-time exposure to 10 preselected motivational
strategies over an 8-week period; the control group received traditional teaching methods. Multivariate analyses revealed a significant rise in learner motivation over time
exclusively or predominantly among experimental vs. control learners, which held robust even when controlling for pretreatment group differences. These results provide
compelling evidence that teachers motivational behaviors cause enhanced motivation
in second language learners.
Keywords foreign language motivation; teacher strategies; EFL; language teaching
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christo Moskovsky, The University
of Newcastle, School of Humanities and Social Science, University Drive, Callaghan, New South
Wales 2308, Australia. Internet: [email protected]
Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

C 2012 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00717.x
34
Moskovsky et al.
The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies
Introduction
The study of second language (SL) acquisition has in the past 40 years been
among the most dynamic and rapidly expanding sciences within the humanities. Few issues have seen as much attention by SL researchers as the role that
motivation plays with regard to the attainment of nonprimary languages. In a
field that is notorious for its lack of agreement on almost anything, there is
essentially a consensus that SL motivation is related to achievement and that
SL motivation is the driving force that enables learners to expend the continuous sustained effort language learning requires. It is widely accepted that,
everything else being equal, more motivated learners would be more successful
at learning the second/foreign language than less motivated learners, and that
without sufficient motivation even highly competent and cognitively capable
individuals may be unable to accomplish long-term goals (Dornyei & Csizer,
1998; Wlodkowski, 1999; see also Cheng & Dornyei, 2007; Guilloteaux &
Dornyei, 2008). It has also been suggested that motivation influences the whole
range of learner-internal and learner-external factors that are involved in second/foreign language acquisition, such as attitudes, aptitude, self-confidence,
language anxiety, intelligence, learning strategies, communication strategies,
and so on, and has the potential to determine to what extent these factors are
realized (Gardner, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994, among others). Motivation
for learning a second/foreign language, however, is not a given: Levels of motivation have been found to vary, sometimes substantially, among individual
learners, as well as among groups of learners (see, e.g., Guilloteaux, 2007,
among many others).
In light of the undeniable importance that motivation has for learning outcomes, the need to find effective means of reinforcing and sustaining learners
motivation does not seem to require justification. The amount of research on
practical applications designed to enhance learner motivation however has been
extremely limited. The current study looks in particular at the role that teachers
can play in that regard by implementing specific motivational strategies in their
classrooms.
Motivational Strategies
Dornyei (2007) distinguishes three phases in SL motivation research: a socialpsychological period, a cognitive-situated period, and a process-oriented period. Historically motivation research in SL acquisition is associated with
35
Moskovsky et al.
Gardners social-psychological approach and the highly influential integrativeinstrumental motivation dichotomy (originally proposed in the early 1960s),
which dominated the field for quite a while (e.g., Gardner & Tremblay, 1994).
From around the 1990s on there has been a significant shift in the focus and
nature of research on SL motivation. This shift gave rise to a range of new
theories of SL motivation typically drawing on related research in the field
of psychology, including expectancy-value theories, attribution theories, selfefficacy theories (Dornyei, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994), self-worth theories
(Stipek, 2002), and value of success theories. Overall, the cognitive-situated
period of SL motivation research shifted the attention to classroom-specific
aspects of motivation and created a fertile ground for educational implications
directly relevant to classroom practice (Dornyei, 2007, p. 111).
It deserves to be noted that, even though these theories may take different perspectives on motivation and often disagree in relation to how to
define SL motivation theoretically and how to explain its operation, they all
acknowledgeexplicitly or implicitlythe crucial role that the teacher can
play in enhancing his/her learners motivational levels. In light of this the question of what teachers can do to enhance their learners motivation assumes
critical significance. This brings us to the most central issue of the current
study: teacher motivational strategies.
Dornyei (2001) defines motivational strategies as the motivational influences that are consciously exerted to achieve some systematic and enduring
positive effect (p. 28). Guilloteaux and Dornyei (2008) propose that motivational strategies fall into two categories: (a) instructional interventions applied
by the teacher to elicit and stimulate student motivation and (b) self-regulating
strategies used purposefully by individual learners to manage the level of their
own motivation. Our study is specifically concerned with the former.
Literature abounds with sources defining and categorizing motivational
techniques to be used in the language classroom (e.g., Alison, 1993; Brown,
2001; Chambers, 1999; Dornyei, 2001; Williams & Burden, 1997; see also Alison & Halliwell, 2002). As Cheng and Dornyei (2007) acknowledge, however,
the studies that have actually looked at practical applications of such motivational strategies are disappointingly few, and regardless of how much intuitive
appeal the idea of motivational strategies may hold their usefulness can only
be established empirically (Gardner & Tremblay, 1994).
The only three studies that we are aware of which have actually attempted
to empirically test the effectiveness of motivational strategies are Dornyei
and Csizer (1998) in Hungary, Cheng and Dornyei (2007) in Taiwan, and
36
Moskovsky et al.
Guilloteaux and Dornyei (2008) in South Korea. In the first two studies, relatively large groups of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers were asked
to rank 50 odd motivational strategies according to their perceived importance
and also according to how frequently the EFL teachers thought they actually
used them in their language classes. Notably, neither of the two studies based
its findings on actual observation and evaluation of teachers classroom motivational practices or learners behaviors, but rather just on teachers responses
to a self-report questionnaire. As suggested by critics (e.g., Bernaus & Gardner,
2008), such studies are unrevealing with regard to the actual motivational effect
that teachers classroom behaviors can have on learners.
The third of these studies (Guilloteaux & Dornyei, 2008), which involved 27
EFL teachers and over 1,300 EFL learners in South Korea, is to our knowledge
the only one so far that has attempted to assess empirically the effects of
motivational strategies on learners motivation in language classes, using a
range of instruments, as follows:
(a) a 20-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure the learners
situation-specific motivational disposition (e.g., attitudes toward their
current SL course, linguistic self-confidence, SL classroom anxiety,
etc.);
(b) a classroom observation instrument used to assess both the quality of
the teachers teaching practices and the levels of the learners motivated
behavior; and
(c) a postlesson teacher evaluation scale developed to provide a post hoc
evaluation of the teachers motivational practices.
Guilloteaux and Dornyei (2008) found a strong positive correlation between
teachers motivational teaching practices and their learners learning motivation in the actual classroom. It is necessary to recognize, however, that even
though in comparison with the other two the Guilloteaux and Dornyei study
employed a much more rigorous methodology, it still had a cross-sectional
design (with data collected once at the end of the term and no experimental
treatment) and did not involve a control group. This type of methodology does
not allow for stringent causality inferences. These can only be established experimentally and/or via a longitudinal study. It is also noteworthy that the study
was concerned with the teachers general motivational practice in the classroom
and did not specifically target the implementation of motivational strategies.
Hence, to the best of our knowledge, there has not so far been a controlled (i.e.,
37
Moskovsky et al.
experimental and/or longitudinal) study that has addressed the issue of the effect
of the implementation of motivational strategies in the language classroom.
The Present Study
This article reports on the main findings of a quasi-experimental study with
a prepost intervention plus control design specifically conducted to fill this
gap. The project involved a relatively large number of participants (14 teachers
and nearly 300 EFL learners in Saudi Arabia) split into an experimental and
a control group. Learners in the former were exposed to 10 preselected motivational strategies over an eight-week period, while the latter only received
traditional teaching methods. Motivation questionnaires were administered to
learners at the start and the end of this treatment period. To strengthen our interpretations with potentially nonequivalent groups, a careful matching procedure
of experimental and control teachers and learners was implemented during
data collection. Moreover, statistical control was carried out during analyses
to further minimize the impact of any preexisting differences between groups
and to ascertain that any posttreatment advantage in motivational levels of the
experimental group over the control group was independent from confounding
factors. We expected the analyses to reveal a significant rise in motivational
levels over time exclusively, or to a greater extent, among experimental (vs.
control) learners.
In light of the design and the careful procedure and analytical approach used,
we believe that our results provide a compelling test for the most fundamental
assumption in each and all motivational theories: that teachers motivational
behaviors cause enhanced motivation in their SL learners.
Method
Participants
The selection and recruitment of participants was aimed at capturing as much
variance as possible in terms of school levels, the teachers age, qualification,
and teaching experience, the learners age and learning experience, and the
social and regional backgrounds of both teachers and learners. Potential
participants were informed that the research project was about the role that
teachers motivational strategies play in enhancing learner motivation, and
were given a broad outline of its methodology and its relevance for the study of
SL motivation. While no material incentives were offered to participants, the
38
Moskovsky et al.
Table 1 Social demographic information for participating EFL teachers

Highest qualifications
BA
Condition
FQ
Experimental 2
Control
2
Total
4
MA
Teaching experience
PhD
510y
1015y
over 15y
FQ
FQ
FQ
FQ
FQ
28.60
28.60
28.60
4
4
8
57.10
57.10
57.10
1
1
2
14.30
14.30
14.30
4
4
8
57.10
57.10
57.14
2
2
4
28.60
28.60
28.58
1
1
2
14.30
14.30
14.28
Note. FQ = frequency. Sample sizes: 153 (experimental group), 143 (control group),
and 296 (total).
research project was generally well received by both the teachers and learners
that were approached.
Invitations for participation in the project were extended to a large number
of educational institutions all over Saudi Arabia. Seven of them provided their
formal consent to take part in the research. These institutions were located in
three parts of Saudi Arabia as follows. Two high schools and two university
colleges were in Riyadh (the capital city), one university college and one
technical institution were in the southern region in Saudi Arabia, and another
technical institution was in the western region.
Fourteen EFL teachers between 20 and 50 years of age took part in this
study. They were holders of several qualifications and had a range of teaching
experience from as little as 5 years to over 15 years. Social demographic
information about participating teachers is reported in Table 1.
The participating learners were 296 Saudi EFL students of different ages
(from 12 to over 25 years), different levels of study (secondary and tertiary),
and of different levels of English proficiency (beginner, intermediate, and advanced). Learner participants were all males and all spoke Arabic as their first
language. They had different regional backgrounds (rural and urban). Social
demographic information about participating learners is reported in Table 2.
Design and Matching Procedure

Participating teachers were allocated to one of the two conditions of a 2 Condition (experimental/control) between-subjects design partly based on teachers
expressed preference to be involved in either group. Hence, to minimize the impact of any preexisting differences between groups, the two cohorts of teachers
were carefully matched for qualifications, experience, and age. This matching
39
Moskovsky et al.
Table 2 Social demographic information for participating EFL learners (N = 296)

Condition
Experimental
(N = 153)
Demographic variable
Age
1215
1518
1822
2225
over 25
Control
(N = 143)
Frequency
Frequency
4
33
93
20
3
2.60
21.60
60.70
13.10
2.00
1
24
97
18
3
0.70
16.80
67.80
12.60
2.10
17
123
13
11.10
80.40
8.50
19
116
8
13.30
81.10
5.60
34
57
62
22.20
37.30
40.50
24
45
74
16.50
31.50
51.70
72
32
49
41.10
20.90
32.00
45
26
72
31.50
18.20
50.30
EFL learning experience

15y
510y
1015y
School level
High school
Diploma
University
Region of origin
Capital city
Western region
Southern region
procedure was aimed at ensuring that the single key difference between the two
groups was the implementation of the motivational strategies.
Learner participants were almost evenly divided between the experimental
and the control groups (153 and 143, respectively). The allocation of learners
to different groups naturally followed from the allocation of the teachers (i.e.,
learners were assigned to their own teachers).
Effective matching of teachers and learners to the two study conditions
along key social demographic variables can be appreciated in Tables 1 and
2. Effective matching along these (categorical and ordinal) variables was also
statistically tested through a set of chi-square tests performed on the teachers
and students demographic data, which revealed that condition had a null effect
on all but one of the variables. Students from the capital city were significantly
40
Moskovsky et al.
overrepresented in the experimental group; students from the Southern Region

were overrepresented in the control group (see Table 2), 2 (2) = 10.898,
p < .005. However, the size of this effect was small, Cramers V = .19.
Altogether, this set of null differences between experimental and control teachers/learners indicates that our matching procedure had indeed been
effective at creating two groups that were comparable on key social dimensions. In the Results and Discussion section, we report additional analyses
carried out on the learners motivational variables and further ascertaining the
comparability of experimental and control learners.
Instruments
The main goal of the study was to test the effects of teachers motivational teaching practices on learners motivated behaviors. For the purposes of the study
we developed a designated guide to help experimental teachers with the implementation of motivational strategies, and we used a quantitative instrument (a
motivation questionnaire) to measure participating learners motivational levels before and after the treatment. We ran a pilot study to assist us in selecting
the specific motivational strategies to be used in the current study.
Pilot Study
As part of the pilot study, we conducted a survey involving 119 Saudi EFL
teachers who were asked to evaluate 53 motivational strategies according to
their perceived importance. This survey was to a large degree a replication of
Dornyei and Csizer (1998) and Cheng and Dornyei (2007). It used essentially
the same set of motivational strategies1 and produced results that are consistent
with the earlier studies. A detailed discussion of this preliminary study is
beyond the scope of this article and will be presented elsewhere.
Pilot study participants ranked the following ten strategies as the most
important ones, and these are the strategies that we used for the experimental
treatment in the current study:
1. Break the routine of the classroom by varying learning tasks and the
presentation format.
2. Show students that you care about their progress.
3. Show students that you accept and care about them.
4. Recognize students effort and achievement.
5. Be mentally and physically available to respond to your students academic needs in the classroom.
6. Increase the amount of English you use in the language classroom.
41
Moskovsky et al.
7. Make learning tasks more attractive by adding new and humorous elements to them.
8. Remind students of the importance of English as a global language and
the usefulness of mastering the skills of this language.
9. Relate the subject content and learning tasks to the everyday experiences
and backgrounds of the students.
10. Consistently encourage students by drawing their attention to the fact that
you believe in their effort to learn and their capabilities to succeed.
Implementation Guide
Based on the results of the pilot study and the identified key motivational
strategies, an advisory guide was constructed to assist the teachers who taught
in the experimental groups in strategy implementation. The guide comprised a
range of specific techniques to translate the preselected motivational strategies
in the classroom context. For this operational translation, we drew on leading
textbooks on motivation, educational psychology, and motivation in education
(e.g., Malouff, Rooke, Schutte, Foster, & Bhullar, 2008; Pintrich & Schunck,
2002; Plax & Kearney, 1992; Woolfolk & Margetts, 2007) and also consulted
a number of experts in the field of SL motivation, psychology, and education,2
as well as some participating teachers. Thus for Strategy 3, for instance, the
guide specified a range of teacher behaviors, such as:
(i) show respect to your students in the way that you address them or
comment on their work and behavior;
(ii) help your students get to know and appreciate you as a person by
sharing some of your background, life experiences, interests, and
opinions with them;
(iii) get to know your students: learn their preferred names quickly and
use these names frequently as you interact with them;
(iv) show warmth to students (e.g., by greeting your students with a smile
when you enter class or wherever you meet them).
Prior to the implementation of the experimental treatment, the teachers
in the experimental group were provided with instructions on how to use the
advisory guide. They were also equipped with a checklist of strategies designed
to ensure that they were using the strategies regularly in their classes during
the intervention period. Teachers were required to consult the implementation
guide before every class and to make sure that they used all (or, at least, most)
in each individual lesson. Structured classroom observations conducted by one
of the coauthors over the experimental period established that the experimental
42
Moskovsky et al.
teachers did follow the implementation guide and did engage in at least some
of the designated behaviors. Classroom observations in the control group on
the other hand showed little evidence of similar behaviors occurring on a
spontaneous basis.
Learners Motivation Questionnaire
To assess learners motivation in the class, a motivation questionnaire was constructed in line with the view that learner motivation can have either a trait
or state orientation (Brophy, 1987; Tremblay, Goldberg, & Gardner, 1995),
and that learners task motivation involves both situation-specific and general motives (Dornyei, 2002; Julkunen, 2001). The full questionnaire (in the
English translation) can be found in Appendix S1 in the Supporting Information online. The questionnaire consists of three individual parts. Part A (32
items) targeted learners trait motivation for learning generally; Part B (44
items) targeted learners situation-specific motivational dispositions for learning English; and Part C (four groups of altogether 56 items) targeted learners
attitudes to: (i) their English language teacher, (ii) the English course, (iii)
the group of EFL learners in their class, and (iv) themselves as EFL learners.
Most of the questionnaire items were drawn from Dornyeis (1994) Model of
SL motivation, although in the construction of the instrument a range of other
sources were also consulted (AlMaiman, 2005; Al-Shammary, 1984; Clement
& Baker, 2001; Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994; Dornyei, 1990; Gardner,
Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997; Guilloteaux, 2007; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,
1986; Jacques, 2001; Moskovsky & Alrabai, 2009; Pintrich & Groot, 1990;
Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Schmidt, Boraie, & Kassabgy, 1996; Tremblay &
Gardner, 1995).
While the instrument included questions about trait motivation and language attitudes, there was a greater representation of items targeting state
motivation, which we expected to be particularly sensitive to the experimental treatment. All items used a 17-point Likert-type scale where high scores
indicated high statement endorsement and low scores indicated low statement
endorsement. The tool was administered in the learners native language, Arabic, in order to eliminate the risk that some learners limited competence in
English could affect their ability to respond to all questions. An English version of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix S1 in the online Supporting
Information.
Intervention Schedule and Data Collection
The intervention period was over eight weeks during the 2009 autumn term of
the Saudi academic year, including a 2-week semester break in the middle. The
43
Moskovsky et al.
study commenced in the 3rd week of the term to make sure that students had
enrolled at their institutions and started their actual classes. The study concluded
three weeks prior to final exams to make sure that exam arrangements would
not affect the study and to avoid the course withdrawals that might occur at
the end of the semester. The learner motivation questionnaire was administered
to participating learners twice: once at the start of the treatment (Time 1 or
T1) and a second time at its end (Time 2 or T2). The same member of the
research team was involved in the administration of the questionnaire with all
groups. Participating learners received ample reassurance of the anonymity and
confidentiality of the responses they provide. To avoid undue influences and
possible bias in learners responses, their teachers and/or other representatives
of the participating institution were not allowed in the classroom during the
administration of the questionnaire. This, and the anonymous nature of the
questionnaire, ensured that learners would be in a position to provide honest
responses to all questionnaire items, including some that could be described
as sensitive, such as providing an evaluation of their teacher. It took learners
between 60 to 90 minutes to complete the whole questionnaire booklet at each
point in time. To diminish possible fatigue effects, learners were given a short
break after completing each section of the questionnaire.
Results and Discussion
Preliminary Data Analyses
Preliminary analyses were conducted to check for out-of-range and missing
values. Principal component analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted on
the evaluation of English teacher and evaluation of the EFL group of learners scales (in part C of the questionnaireboth consisting of a larger number
of items than the rest of the scales) in order to identify their underlying dimensions (the final groupings of specific questionnaire items which loaded
on each factor are shown in Appendix S1 in the online Supporting Information). The results indicated that evaluation of English teacher was comprised
of two factors. The first factor (49.53% variance explained) loaded on items
like organized, intelligent, and competent, and we labeled it teacher
teaching style and competence. The second factor (7.77% variance explained)
loaded on items such as trusting and lenient, and we labeled it teachers
personality. Similarly, two factors were found to underlie evaluation of the
EFL group of learners and we labeled these collectivist (50.17% variance explained; loading on items like considerate, respectful, and obedient) and
individualist (10.08% variance explained; loading on items like ambitious,
44
Moskovsky et al.
competitive, and stimulated)labels which we thought best reflected the

respondents perceptions of their peers orientations in a classroom context. For
sets of items with recognized factor structure, we simply checked reliability
and computed an aggregate score. The next step in the analysis was to screen all
aggregate indices for normality. The resulting motivational indices are reported
in Table 3, with their descriptive statistics and information about their psychometric properties.
Trait motivation and state motivation were computed as higher order variables comprising specific and lower-level trait (vs. state) variables as listed in
rows 119 in Table 3. With the exception of trait motivation, all aggregate motivational indices proved to be internally consistent (alphas ranging between .60
and .96) and displayed satisfactory test-retest reliability (rs ranging between
.44 and .98). Despite its borderline alpha (.58), the index for trait motivation was included in subsequent analyses for comparison purposes; the reader
should bear this in mind with regard to the interpretation of this portion of the
results.
To check for any preexisting differences between the experimental and control groups on the key motivation variables post group matching, a 2 Condition
(experimental vs. control) between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed on all T1 aggregate indices. (Relevant T1 means are in the body of
Table 4.) There were no significant preexisting differences between learners in
the two groups in terms of learning anxiety, learning self-efficacy, English class
anxiety, English self efficacy, instrumental motivation for learning English, and
integrative motivation for learning English (all ps > .05). The Condition factor,
however, had a significant effect on the other variables (all ps < .05).
While learners in the experimental condition reported significantly higher
ratings on the remaining variables, reflecting some preexisting differences between learners in their favor that were not nullified by the careful matching
procedure, it is important to note that the size of most of these differences was
very small. With the exception of the differences on learners perceptions of
the teachers personality, F(1,294) = 45.82, p < .001, p 2 = .14, and their
evaluation of the English teacher, F(1,294) = 36.12, p < .001, p 2 = .11, all
eta squares ranged between .01 and .09 indicating a small to marginally moderate effect (Kinnear & Gray, 2009). Nevertheless, in our key analyses testing for
the effects of our experimental treatment, we took into careful consideration,
and controlled statistically for, any of these modest residual group differences
to identify the net effects of the motivational strategies intervention. These key
analyses are reported in the next two sections.
45
5
4
3
8
5
6
4
1. Learning anxiety
2. Learning self-efficacy
3. Positive attributions for learning
4. Intrinsic motivation for learning
5. English class anxiety
6. English motivational intensity
7. English self-efficacy
8. Intrinsic motivation for learning English
Construct
No. of
items
I usually feel uneasy whenever my teacher
asks me a question.
I am confident I can master hard learning
tasks if I try.
If I do well in my study, it will be
because I have high ability to do so.
When classes end, I often
wish they would continue.
It embarrasses me to volunteer answers
in English classes this semester.
I have been working hard to
learn English this semester.
I feel confident that I can do an excellent
job on the problems and tasks we do in
English class this semester.
I would study English even if it were not
required by this school/university.
Example(s)
4.91
(1.39)
2.10
(1.46)
5.61
(.92)
5.61
(1.05)
4.83
(1.07)
2.34
(1.45)
4.48
(1.19)
5.28
(1.13)
T1
Mean
(SD)
5.05
(1.33)
2.49
(1.52)
5.71
(.87)
5.66
(1.06)
4.94
(1.14)
2.19
(1.64)
4.54
(1.33)
5.48
(1.12)
T2
Mean
(SD)
.90
.83
.80
.84
.79
.60
.69
.81
T1
()
.67
.64
.67
.53
.64
.58
.58
.50
(Continued)
.90
.87
.86
.90
.84
.71
.75
.86
T2
()
Table 3 Means (and standard deviations), internal consistency (alphas), and test-retest reliability (rs) for the motivational indices across the
whole sample at Time 1 and Time 2
Moskovsky et al.
46
47
5
7
15. Evaluation of English course
18
13. Teachers teaching style and

competence
14. Teachers personality
23
11. Integrative motivation
12. Evaluation of English teacher
No. of
items
9. Positive attributions for learning

English
10. Instrumental motivation
Construct
Table 3 Continued
If I do well in English this semester, it is

because I try hard.
Studying English is important to me
because it will be useful in getting
a job in the future.
Studying English is important to me
because I want to know the way of
life of the English-speaking nations.
Competent vs. Incompetent
Friendly vs. Hostile
Capable vs. Incapable
Helpful vs. Unhelpful
Strict vs. Lenient
Suspicious vs. Trusting
Enjoyable vs. Unenjoyable
Difficult vs. Easy
Example(s)
5.49
(1.22)
5.53
(1.31)
5.34
(1.38)
4.76
(1.54)
5.59
(1.26)
5.18
(1.35)
5.85
(1.09)
T1
Mean
(SD)
5.69
(1.31)
5.75
(1.31)
5.46
(1.52)
4.84
(1.61)
5.64
(1.17)
5.47
(1.24)
5.97
(1.02)
T2
Mean
(SD)
.90
.76
.96
.95
.86
.83
.76
T1
()
.62
.55
.62
.64
.48
.50
.63
(Continued)
.92
.84
.96
.97
.85
.84
.76
T2
()
Moskovsky et al.
15
19. EFL learners motiva-tional

self-evaluation
Trait motivation
15
Variables 519 above
Autonomous vs. Controlled

Unambitious vs. Ambitious
Variables 14 above
Cooperative vs. Uncooperative

Considerate vs. Inconsiderate
Unreliable vs. Reliable
Coherent vs. Incoherent
Competitive vs. Uncompetitive
Example(s)
4.97
(1.26)
5.10
(1.29)
4.72
(1.59)
5.11
(1.88)
5.35
(.70)
5.39
(.65)
T1
Mean
(SD)
5.29
(1.22)
5.45
(1.23)
4.97
(1.67)
5.21
(1.34)
5.62
(.65)
5.58
(.71)
T2
Mean
(SD)
.84
.58
.90
.85
.83
.88
T1
()
.87
.58
.94
.88
.85
.87
T2
()
.98
.80
.75
.47
.44
.51
Note. SD = Standard deviation, = Cronbach alpha coefficient, r = test-retest reliability. All indices ranged between 1 and 7; high scores
indicate high representation of the construct. All values reported for total N = 296.
Isolated items were discarded from this construct due to low (.30) item-total correlations (numbers of items refer to items retained in
aggregated indices).
Indicates transformed (square root) variable.
State motivation
18. Individualist orientation
No. of
items
16. Evaluation of the EFL

learner group
17. Collectivist orientation
Construct
Table 3 Continued
Moskovsky et al.
48
49
1. Learning anxiety
2. Learning self-efficacy
3. Positive attributions for
learning
4. Intrinsic motivation for
learning
5. English class anxiety
6. English motivational intensity
7. English self-efficacy
8. Intrinsic motivation for
learning English
9. Positive attributions for
learning English
10. Instrumental motivation for
learning English
11. Integrative motivation for
learning English
Construct
.00
.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.02
.03
11.21
27.81
13.30
248.86
22.12
95.28
6.11
4.69
9.55
7.64
132.33
F
(1,152)
.03
.04
.39
.16
.08
.62
.13
.07
.06
.05
.47
6.49
6.58
6.54
3.21
4.62
5.39
5.09
4.98
3.36
6.50
5.77
T1
Mean
EXPERIMENTAL Time
6.55
6.64
5.75
2.75
4.91
6.54
5.45
5.18
3.05
6.56
6.57
T2
Mean
.26
.44
.59
1.27
.00
162.02
.15
.01
.00
.25
.87
.03
2.11
7.10
203.49
1.36
.00
.77
.00
9.41
.09
161.34
F
(1,142)
.01
.004
.53
.02
.05
.59
.01
.000
.06
.001
.53
6.50
6.57
6.44
3.47
4.32
5.15
4.72
4.66
3.66
6.46
5.44
T1
Mean
CONTROL Time
6.46
6.59
5.17
3.66
4.13
6.35
4.63
4.67
3.97
6.46
6.44
T2
Mean
5.08
1.07
13.80
17.32
20.01
.22
16.99
5.41
18.92
3.13
3.71
F
(1,294)
.02
.00
.05
.06
.06
.00
.06
.02
.06
.01
.01
p2
(Continued)
.03
.30
.00
.00
.00
.64
.00
.02
.00
.08
.06
Time by Condition
INTERACTION
Table 4 F and descriptive statistics for experimental vs. control learners motivational variables as a function of Time and
Time Condition interactions
Moskovsky et al.
.00
.00
.00
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
37.03
3.72
32.68
26.71
19.61
30.33
67.57
133.20
155.56
54.43
F
(1,152)
.31
.47
.17
.11
.15
.20
.02
.17
.51
.26
5.47
5.58
5.30
4.96
5.26
5.83
5.19
5.19
5.88
6.59
T1
Mean
EXPERIMENTAL Time
5.82
5.92
5.69
5.52
5.70
6.29
5.38
5.67
6.75
6.76
T2
Mean
20.88
6.54
.00
.01
.01
.58
.31
7.05
.00
.06
.69
.09
.00
.41
8.63
3.69
.16
2.87
176.74
.70
F
(1,142)
.13
.04
.05
.002
.06
.03
.001
.02
.55
.01
5.22
5.19
4.91
4.46
4.92
4.81
4.31
4.79
5.07
6.36
T1
Mean
CONTROL Time
5.40
5.22
4.69
4.38
5.18
4.59
4.26
4.94
6.30
6.33
T2
Mean
8.46
31.35
31.68
12.10
2.18
24.64
2.41
7.52
9.58
27.02
F
(1,294)
.00
.00
.00
.00
.14
.00
.12
.01
.00
.00
.03
.10
.10
.04
.01
.08
.00
.03
.03
.08
p2
Time by Condition
INTERACTION
Note. F = variance of the group means, p = significance value, p2 = Partial Eta square, 2 = Eta square. All indices ranged between 1 and
7; high scores indicate high representation of the construct. N = 153 (experimental group), 143 (control group), and 296 (total).
12. Evaluation of English teacher

13. Teachers teaching style and
competence
14. Teachers personality
15. Evaluation of English course
16. Evaluation of the EFL group
of learners
17. Learners collectivist
Orientation
18. Learners individualist
Orientation
19. EFL learners motivational
self-evaluation
Trait motivation
State motivation
Construct
Table 4 Continued
Moskovsky et al.
50
Moskovsky et al.
Differential Changes in Learners Motivation Over Time as a Function

of Treatment
Table 4 reports the means for T1 and T2 motivational variables, separately
by experimental and control conditions. While most of these variables were
expected to change over time due to basic maturation processes and to the influence of standard teaching practices in common between the experimental and
control groups, the key focus of this research was on the incremental changes
on the motivational variables due to the experimental treatment. To identify
the variables that changed over time to a greater extent in the experimental
(vs. control) condition, we first ran a 2 Condition (experimental vs. control)
2 Time (T1 vs. T2) mixed-model ANOVA with time as repeated measure factor
on each of the learners motivation variables. The effects of key interest, here,
are the significant Condition Time interactions (for relevant F statistics and
p values see the right-most column in Table 4). Significant interaction indicates
that changes over time in learners motivation were statistically different for
the two groups.
The Time Condition interaction was statistically significant for all motivational variables, all ps < .05, except for learning self-efficacy, positive attributions for learning, instrumental motivation for learning English, evaluation
of English course, and learners collectivistic orientation, all ps > .05. Hence,
most variables had changed over time differently for the experimental and the
control groups. It is worth noting that these interactive effects are independent
from preexisting differences between groups, because they gauge differential
changes over time rather than absolute group differences at a specific point in
time.
We followed up the significant interactions with simple effects analyses. For
this, a 2 Time (T1 vs. T2) repeated-measure ANOVA was carried out separately
among experimental and control learners. We expected changes in motivational
variables over time to be significant exclusively among experimental learners or
to be larger among experimental than control learners. The relevant F statistics
and p values for the effects of Time separately by conditions are reported
in the central columns in Table 4. Importantly, we expected the advantage
of the experimental condition over the control condition to reflect increases,
rather than decreases, in learners motivation over time due to the experimental
treatment. The means relevant to interpret the direction of these Time effects
are also reported in the central columns in Table 4.
Learners motivation increased significantly over time exclusively among
experimental learners in terms of increased intrinsic motivation for learning, reduced English class anxiety, increased intrinsic motivation for learning
51
Moskovsky et al.
English, integrative motivation for learning English, teachers teaching style

and competence, learners individualist orientation, and evaluation of the EFL
group learners. The significant changes for these variables must be attributed
to the experimental treatment implemented in the experimental group.
Learners motivation increased over time more among experimental than
control learners along learners evaluations of teachers personality and EFL
learners motivational self-evaluation or declined significantly less among experimental learners than control learners along positive attributions for learning English. These effects indicate that the experimental treatment had an
incremental effect on these motivational variables above and beyond the effects
of standard teaching practices and basic maturation effects.
There were also two isolated cases in which changes over time occurred
in different directions for the experimental and control groups. While learning
anxiety significantly decreased and English motivational intensity significantly
increased in the experimental condition, learning anxiety significantly increased
and English motivational intensity significantly decreased in the control condition. These oppositional changes over time suggest that the new strategies
teachers used in the experimental group had to play against natural decrements
over time in these motivational variables, as displayed in the control group.
There were also two cases, evaluation of English teacher and positive attributions for learning English, in which changes over time were larger in the
control than the experimental condition. However, these two unexpected findings are likely to do with a ceiling effect in the experimental group caused by
the particularly high value of these variables at T1, limiting room for changes
over time among these learners (M = 5.88 for evaluation of English teacher
and M = 5.77 for positive attributions for learning English on a 7-point scale).
It is also interesting to note that the experimental treatment produced a
large positive effect on both aggregate trait and state motivation of learners
and these effects were again in favor of the experimental group (see, e.g.,
in Table 4, state variable 19 EFL learners motivational self-evaluation, and
trait variable 4 intrinsic motivation for learning). Notably, the treatment effect
was comparatively larger in the state (vs. trait) motivation variable, in line with
Christophel (1990) and Frymier (1993). The significant change which occurred
in learners trait motivation in the experimental group at T2 is not unexpected
either: Guilloteaux (2007) argued that appropriate interventions by the teacher
designed to stimulate state motivation would lead to positive changes in trait
motivation also in the longer term.
Overall, increases in learners motivation over time were significantly
more pronounced in the experimental than control conditions, and were in the
52
Moskovsky et al.
predicted direction. This pattern of findings speaks for the substantial capacity
of motivational strategies of the type used in our study to increase learners
motivation.
Group Differences in Learners Motivation at T2 Due to Treatment (and
Independent of Preexisting Group Differences)
First, it is worth noting in Table 4 that all the variables that had no significant
differences between the experimental and control groups at T1 (i.e., learning anxiety, English class anxiety, learning self-efficacy, English self-efficacy,
instrumental motivation, and integrative motivation) became significantly different at T2, as a result of the treatment. This means that the variables that in
this study were most directly comparable displayed the expected advantage of
the experimental group over the control group. Moreover, across all variables,
the size of the Condition effect (i.e., the difference between the experimental
and control condition, as expressed as p 2 ) was larger at T2 than T1 in 16 out
of 18 variables that significantly changed at T2. Together, these results already
indicate that any minor preexisting differences between experimental and control groups were glossed over by the positive effects on learners motivation of
the experimental treatment.
Yet, we carried out a final and more incisive set of analyses to better deal
with any preexisting group differences potentially clouding our key effects. For
this, we ran a set of 2 Condition (experimental vs. control) between-subjects
analyses of covariance on each T2 index with T1 data as covariate. These
analyses were carried out to identify key posttreatment differences between
experimental and control learners at T2 that held after the impact of any group
difference at T1 had been controlled for (i.e., statistically removed). The results
are shown in Table 5.
As indicated in Table 5, after controlling for preexisting group differences
at T1, the Condition factor (intervention variable) had a significant effect on
all the variables at T2, except on instrumental motivation for learning English.
Because these analyses control for any residual group differences, they are
capable of capturing the net effects of the experimental treatment.
The only null finding in Table 5 on instrumental motivation for learning
English deserves some commentary. Many previous studies that investigated
the role of SL motivation in the Saudi EFL context (e.g., Al-Amr, 1998; AlOtaibi, 2004; Alrabai, 2007; Al-Shamary, 1984) found that Saudi EFL learners
were instrumentally motivated in the first place. This fact was confirmed by the
extremely high (and almost equal) marginal mean values this variable scored
at T1 in both the experimental and control groups (M = 6.58 for experimental,
53
Moskovsky et al.
Table 5 Effect of Condition on T2 learners motivation indices while controlling for

T1 variable (analyses of covariance)
Experimental
(N = 153)
Construct
1. Learning anxiety
2. Learning
self-efficacy
3. Positive attributions
for learning
4. Intrinsic motivation
for learning
5. English class
anxiety
6. English
motivational
intensity
7. English
self-efficacy
8. Intrinsic motivation
for learning
English
9. Positive attributions
for learning
English
10. Instrumental
motivation for
learning English
11. Integrative
motivation for
learning English
12. Evaluation of
English teacher
13. Teachers teaching
style and
competence
14. Teachers
personality
15. Evaluation of
English course
Control
(N = 143)
M Mean
SD
M Mean
SD
F
(1,293)
p2
3.14
6.55
1.41
.26
3.87
6.48
1.50
.29
31
7.85
.00
.01
.10
.03
6.54
.31
6.47
.35
4.60
.03
.02
5.06
1.04
4.81
1.18
9.39
.00
.03
2.84
1.44
3.57
1.72
25
.00
.08
4.80
1.24
4.26
1.31
28
.00
.09
6.52
.31
6.38
.35
22
.00
.07
5.33
1.18
4.76
1.36
33
.00
.10
5.67
1.07
5.26
1.34
10
.00
.03
6.63
.33
6.60
.34
1.57
.21
.005
6.55
.36
6.46
.37
6.50
.01
.02
6.68
.26
6.37
.40
89
.00
.23
6.70
.27
6.40
.40
83
.00
.22
6.01
.89
4.88
1.57
75
.00
.21
5.12
1.33
4.54
1.68
16
.00
.05
(Continued)
54
Moskovsky et al.
Table 5 Continued
Experimental
(N = 153)
Construct
16. Evaluation of the
EFL group of
learners
17. Collectivist
18. Individualist
19. EFL learners
motivational
self-evaluation
Trait motivation
State motivation
Control
(N = 143)
F
SD (1,293)
p2
M Mean
SD
M Mean
5.52
1.06
5.04
1.28
21
.00 .07
5.60
5.39
5.56
1.08
1.45
1.06
5.29
4.52
4.84
1.33
1.69
1.41
8.34
30
47
.00 .03
.00 .09
.00 .14
5.74
5.79
.58
.53
5.49
5.36
.65 25.79
.70 62.96
.00 .08
.00 .18
Note. M Mean = Marginal means are means that adjust for the removal of the covariates
influence, SD = standard deviation, F = variance of the group means, p = significance
value, p2 = Partial Eta square. All indices ranged between 1 and 7; high scores indicate
high representation of the construct.
6.57 for control, on a 7-point scale). Given these originally existing high values,
we had limited expectations of change on this indicator.
The single largest group difference ( p 2 = .23) in Table 5, scored for the
evaluation of English teacher, is most noteworthy. There is a huge amount
of theoretical research that recognizes teacher behavior as the most powerful
means for motivating learners (see, e.g., Brophy, 2004; Burden, 2000; Oxford
& Shearian, 1994; Wlodkowski, 1999). In Dornyeis (2001) words, [a]lmost
everything a teacher does in the classroom has a motivational influence on
learners, which makes teacher behavior the most powerful motivational tool
(p. 120). Based on the findings from research on motivational strategies (e.g.,
Chambers, 1999; Cheng & Dornyei, 2007; Dornyei & Csizer, 1998), EFL
teachers also overwhelmingly acknowledge the crucial importance of what they
do in the classroom with regard to their learners motivation. These findings
are additionally reinforced by the results of our pilot study with Saudi EFL
teachers (briefly referred to in the Method section) and the 10 key strategies
they identified. As far as our current study is concerned, the data presented
here leave little doubt that the teachers enhanced motivational behaviors in
the experimental group were responsible for a significant increase in learner
motivation along a range of motivational dimensions at the end of the eightweek English course. The experimentally induced advantage in motivation of
55
Moskovsky et al.
the experimental group over the control group remained significant even when
controlling for weak preexisting advantages of the experimental group over the
control group. The experimentally induced advantage overrode the effects of
mere maturation processes and of traditional teaching methods as they were
captured by motivational changes in our control group.
Summary of Main Findings and Contributions
The present research built on scant prior empirical investigations on the effects
of motivational strategies in EFL contexts (Cheng & Dornyei, 2007; Dornyei
& Csizer, 1998; Guilloteaux & Dornyei, 2008). It used a prepost treatment
quasi-experimental design with a control group to provide a methodologically
controlled investigation of the effects that 10 preselected teachers motivational
strategies, as implemented in an 8-week teaching program in an experimental group, had on SL learners motivation above and beyond the effects of
traditional teaching methods (and maturation processes), as implemented in a
control group. To minimize the impact of group nonequivalence and strengthen
data interpretation, a careful matching procedure was implemented during data
collection, and statistical control for minor preexisting group differences was
maintained during data analysis.
Self-reported motivational levels in Saudi EFL learners were recorded both
prior and post experimental treatment with motivational strategies. When subjected to multivariate statistical analyses, these data indicated that, overall,
increases in learners motivation over time were significantly more pronounced
in the experimental than control conditions, and they were in the predicted
direction of a relative greater increase in the experimental group. Importantly,
this experimentally induced advantage remained significant even when controlling for weak preexisting group differences, suggesting that it was not a mere
reflection of a positive selection bias among teachers (and as a consequence
among learners) due to lack of complete randomization to groups, but rather
reflected a net benefit on motivation of the experimental treatment.
In particular, we were able to discard simple maturation as an explanatory
variable. Namely, the time factor had a strong positive effect on nearly all of
the variables in the experimental group while in the control group less than a
third of all variables changed overtime, and some of the changes in that group
were, in fact, in the negative direction. Importantly, even where positive changes
occurred in both groups, the size of the change in these variables was statistically
larger in the experimental group. Likewise, the results concerning the effects of
the condition/treatment in the analysis of covariance also reflect very sizeable
differences between the two groups. With the exception of one variable, at T2
56
Moskovsky et al.
the treatment factor produced meaningful and sizeable group differences on all
other variables and in favor of the experimental group. Notably, these effects
held after controlling for preexisting group differences at T1, thus capturing
net effects of the motivational strategies intervention. Overall, in light of the
quasi-experimental design of our study, it is clear that the Time/Condition
differences obtained for the two groups can only be attributed to the treatment
that the learners in the experimental group received. Finally, as far as the
trait/state motivation dichotomy is concerned, our data show that regardless of
any preexisting differences found between learners in the two groups at T1, the
experimental treatment produced a large and statistically significant positive
effect on both the trait and state motivation of learners in the experimental
group. Notably, this effect was larger in the state motivation variable than in the
trait variable, suggesting that especially learners state motivation was strongly
influenced by the treatment and that changes in trait variables might need
prolonged or repeated interventions over time to show a comparable degree of
change.
Overall, therefore, the results of the present investigation provide compelling evidence that implementing motivational strategies in Saudi EFL classrooms resulted in a significant positive change in the learners SL motivation
in these classes. More generally, these results speak not for mere correlational
evidence but for the causal influence of teachers motivational practices on
learners motivated behaviors. They reinforce and significantly extend the correlational findings of Guilloteaux and Dornyei (2008) in the South Korean EFL
context, which established that EFL teachers motivational practices covary
positively with learners motivation. The present study is the first to shed light
on the exact direction and causal nature of such covariations. Because of our
reliance on a quasi-experimental prepost treatment design, with multiple control mechanisms (i.e., a base-line control group, a matching procedure, and the
statistical assessment and control for group differences), we are confident that
the motivational practices of our experimental EFL teachers as predicted caused
increases in learners motivation. Our confidence stems from the fact that our
research design, data collection procedure, and choice of statistical analyses
were geared toward obtaining stringent and unequivocal results. Moreover, because we moved away from Guilloteaux and Dornyeis general focus on the
teachers motivational practice as a whole toward a range of individual motivational strategies, we believe that the present investigation is the first to
appropriately respond to Gardner and Tremblays (1994) call for empirical tests
of the effectiveness of motivational strategies in language classes. In so doing,
our study is one of few set out to test empirically the fundamental assumption
57
Moskovsky et al.
in SL learning motivation theory, namely, that teacher behavior is responsible

for enhanced motivation among SL learners.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding this studys strengths, it is necessary to recognize two important limitations. First, because of the comprehensive gender segregation
characteristic of all levels of the Saudi educational system we were unable to
recruit from female institutions. While it seems extremely unlikely that there
would be gender-based differences in the effects of teachers motivating behaviors like the ones involved in our study, it would fall on future research to
demonstrate the generalizability of our findings to female teachers and learners
in segregated and mix-gender class contexts. More importantly, our data are unrevealing with regard to the effects that heightened learners motivation would
have on their actual achievement. In other words, although it is very widely
accepted that higher motivation leads to higher achievement (e.g., Bernaus
& Gardner, 2008; Chambers, 1999), as far as our population of learners is
concerned we do not know whether the enhanced motivational levels in the experimental group were ultimately translated into improved learning outcomes.
This was not among the goals of the current study. However, given this issues
undeniable theoretical and practical importance, it is definitely something for
future research to examine empiricallypossibly with an experimental design
of the kind we employed. We expect this future work to demonstrate that the
implementation of motivational strategies in the language classroom causes
higher motivation in learnerslike in the present caseand this effect, in turn,
leads to better achievement.
To conclude, we believe that our studys results provide compelling evidence
that teachers motivational behaviors not just only relate but do cause enhanced
motivation in their SL learners. In so doing, this study reinforces the importance
of the language teachers teaching behaviors as a critical tool for motivating
learners. The implications of these findings for language teaching/learning
practices, including teaching methodologies, teacher training, curriculum design and language policies, are far reaching.
Revised version accepted 21 May 2011
Notes
1 With minor changes/modifications in the wording of some of the strategies to adapt
them to the Saudi educational, cultural, and social context.
58
Moskovsky et al.
2 We received valuable suggestions from J. Brophy, G. Chambers, K. Csizer, D.

Schunk, and J. Malouff, for which we are profoundly grateful.
References
Al-Amr, B. (1998). Attitudes, motivation, and socio-cultural effects on English foreign
language learning and proficiency: The Saudi Arabian context. Unpublished
masters thesis, University of Essex.
Alison, J. (1993). Not bothered? Motivating reluctant language learners in key stage 4.
London: CILT.
Alison, J., & Halliwell, S. (2002). Challenging classes: Focus on pupil behavior.
London: CILT.
AlMaiman, I. (2005). A study of seventh-grade Saudi students motivation level to
learn English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of
Kansas.
Al-Otaibi, G. N. (2004). Language learning strategy use among Saudi EFL students
and its relationship to language proficiency level, gender and motivation.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Alrabai, F. (2007). The role of intrinsic motivation in learning English as a foreign
language by Saudi EFL learners. Unpublished masters thesis, University of
Newcastle.
Al-Shammary, E. (1984). A study of motivation in the learning of English as a foreign
language in intermediate and secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished
doctoral thesis, Indiana University.
Bernaus, M., & Gardner, R. (2008). Teacher motivation strategies, student perceptions,
student motivation, and English achievement. Modern Language Journal, 92,
387401.
Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D. Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.),
Talks to teachers (pp. 201245). New York: Random House.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
Burden, P. R. (2000). Powerful classroom management strategies: Motivating students
to learn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Chambers, G. N. (1999). Motivating language learners. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Cheng, H., & Dornyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language
instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning
and Teaching, 1, 153174.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors,
student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323340.
59
Moskovsky et al.
Clement, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Measuring social aspects of L2 acquisition and use:
Scale characteristics and administration. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa.
Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence and
group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44,
417448.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning.
Language Learning, 40, 4578.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 78, 273284.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dornyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson
(Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137158).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins & C.
Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (Vol. 2,
pp. 719731). New York: Springer.
Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language
learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2,
203229.
Frymier, A. B. (1993). The relationships among communication apprehension,
immediacy and motivation to study. Communication Reports, 6, 817.
Gardner, R. (2001). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher, and the
researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 118.
Gardner, R., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation, research agendas, and
theoretical frameworks. Modern Language Journal, 78, 359368.
Gardner, R., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A.-M. (1997). Towards a full model of
second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal,
81, 344362.
Guilloteaux, M. J. (2007). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented
investigation of teachers motivational practices and students motivation.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Nottingham.
Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dornyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A
classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student
motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 5577.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom
anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 70, 125132.
Jacques, S. (2001). Preferences for instructional activities and motivation: A
comparison of student and teacher perspectives. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.),
Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 185211). Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
60
Moskovsky et al.
Julkunen, K. (2001). Situation and task-specific motivation in foreign language

learning. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language
acquisition (pp. 2942). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (2009). SPSS 16 made simple. New York: Hove.
Malouff, J., Rooke, S., Schutte, N., Foster, R., & Bhullar, N. (2008). Methods of
motivational teaching. ERIC Doc. No. ED499496.
Moskovsky, C., & Alrabai, F. (2009). Intrinsic motivation in Saudi learners of English
as a foreign language. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2, 110.
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the
theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78, 1228.
Pintrich, P., & Groot, E. V. D. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 3340.
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (1992). Teacher power in the classroom: Defining and
advancing a program of research. In V. P. Richmond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.),
Power in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 6784).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal
structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning
motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 970). Honolulu: University of
Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical
preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dornyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.),
Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 313359). Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Tremblay, P., & Gardner, R. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language
learning. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505518.
Tremblay, P., Goldberg, M., & Gardner, R. (1995). Trait and state motivation and the
acquisition of Hebrew vocabulary. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 27,
356370.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers: A social
constructivist approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wlodkowski, R. (1999). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide
for teaching all adults (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Woolfolk, A., & Margetts, K. (2007). Educational psychology. New York: Pearson
Education.
61
Moskovsky et al.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this
article:
Appendix S1. Learners Questionnaire (English Version).
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality
of any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than
missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
62

Moskovsky Et Al-2013-Language Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moskovsky Et Al-2013-Language Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moskovsky Et Al-2013-Language Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Learning

The Effects of Teachers Motivational

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Table 1 Social demographic information for participating EFL teachers

Design and Matching Procedure

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Table 2 Social demographic information for participating EFL learners (N = 296)

EFL learning experience

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

overrepresented in the experimental group; students from the Southern Region

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

competitive, and stimulated)labels which we thought best reflected the

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

3. Positive attributions for learning

4. Intrinsic motivation for learning

5. English class anxiety

6. English motivational intensity

8. Intrinsic motivation for learning English

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

15. Evaluation of English course

13. Teachers teaching style and

11. Integrative motivation

12. Evaluation of English teacher

9. Positive attributions for learning

If I do well in English this semester, it is

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

19. EFL learners motiva-tional

Variables 519 above

Autonomous vs. Controlled

Cooperative vs. Uncooperative

Indicates transformed (square root) variable.

18. Individualist orientation

16. Evaluation of the EFL

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

12. Evaluation of English teacher

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Differential Changes in Learners Motivation Over Time as a Function

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

English, integrative motivation for learning English, teachers teaching style

The Effects of Teachers Motivational Strategies

Language Learning 63:1, March 2013, pp. 3462