A. Definition of Motivation
Motivation has been widely accepted as one of the key factors that
influence the success of foreign language (FL) or second language (L2)
learning. Although it is a term frequently used in both educational and
research contexts, there is little agreement as to the exact meaning of this
concept (Dwinalida, 2015:385). The following are some definitions quoted
from different researchers.
Motivation refers to the choices people make as to what experiences
or goals they will approach or avoid, and the degree of effort they will exert
in that respect (Keller (1983) as cited in Crookes & Schmidt, 1985:481).
When people make certain choice and use effort to attain it, they are
motivated.
From the simple definition, it is developed to be motivation refers to
the direction of attentional effort, the proportion of total attentional effort
directed to the task (intensity), and the extent to which attentional effort
toward the task is maintained over time (persistence) (Kanfer & Ackerman
(1989) as cited in Dornyei, 1998:118). Motivation deals with effort,
proportion, and the maintenance of the effort.
Furthermore, Dornyei (1998:117) defines motivation as a process
persists as long as no other force comes into play to weaken it and thereby
terminate action or until the planned outcome has been reached.
In addition, there is an attempt to achieve a synthesis of conception of
motivation by defining it as a state of cognitive and emotional arousal, which
leads to a conscious decision to act, and which gives rise to a period of
sustained intellectual and/or physical effort in order to attain a previously set
goal (goals) (Williams & Burden (1997) as cited in Dornyei, 2001:46). To
make the three stages of motivation clearer, let’s see the following model of motivation:
special purpose. In addition, motivation is thought to be responsible for why
people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the
activity and how hard they are going to pursue it (Dornyei, 2001:47). The
psycho-social views that to be motivated means to move to do something
(Ryan & Deci, 2000:54). Unlike unmotivated people who have lost impetus
and inspiration to act, motivated people are energized and activated to the end
of a task.
From reviewing various definitions proposed by different researchers,
it is concluded that there has been no general agreement on definitions of
motivation. Besides, motivation research is an area of ongoing debate and,
Although there has been no agreement on definitions of motivation, it
can be seen from the review above that most research agree that it concerns
the direction and proportion of human behavior. Those are:
1. the choice of a particular action;
2. the effort made towards accomplishing that action;
3. the persistence towards accomplishing the action.
Therefore, this research draws a conclusion that motivation is
responsible for:
1. why people decide to learn a language (here in this means English as a
foreign language);
2. how hard they are going to pursue this study;
3. how long they are willing to sustain the activity.
The three elements of motivation are interrelated to one another.
Motivation starts with the learner’s choice of a particular action. Without a
choice in the first place, there will be no motivation at all.
B. Motivation and Foreign Language Learning
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners is described as
situations where learners are learning English in order to use it with any other
English speakers in the world; when learners may be a tourists or business
people (Harmer, 2007:19). Learners often study EFL in their own country, or
sometimes on short courses in Britain, USA, Australia, Canada, Ireland, New
In addition, a lot of research shows that in foreign language learning, a
number of factors can contribute to differences in various learners’ academic
performance and attainment, such as age, gender, attitudes, aptitude,
motivation, learning approach, language learning strategies and learning style
(Dornyei, 1994:274). Among all those contributing factors, motivation has
been regarded by researchers working in the field of second/foreign language
learning as one of the most vital factors in the process of second/foreign
language learning (Dornyei, 2001:275).
Along with ability, motivation is seen as the major source of variation
in educational success (Keller (1983) as cited in Dornyei, 2001:45).
Specifically, these researchers also suggest that motivation of a learner can
indicate the rate and success of second/foreign language attainment. Hsu
(2010:188) also says that learners’ motivation is critical for the effectiveness
of learning foreign language. Therefore, motivation is one of the main
determinants of successful second/foreign language learning (Dornyei,
1994:273).
Besides, Gardner (1985:146) awards great importance to the subjects’ orientation or integral motivation. His socio-educational model seeks to
interrelate four aspects of foreign language (FL) or second language (L2)
learning:
1. Cultural beliefs. L2 learning takes place in specific cultural contexts. The
their attitude towards the community of L2 speakers exerts an important
influence on those subjects’ identities and on the results they obtain.
2. Individual learner differences. These differences are determined by the
degree of:
a. Intelligence, which establishes the efficiency and rapidity with which
subjects perform tasks in class.
b. Language aptitude, which includes several verbal and cognitive
capacities which facilitate learning, such as the capacity for phonetic
codification, grammatical sensitivity, memorization of linguistic
elements, inductive capacity, verbal intelligence, auditory capacity,
etc.
c. Motivation, which involves the subjects’ degree of commitment to L2 acquisition. It integrates three basic components namely desire to
learn, effort towards a goal (L2 learning), greater or lesser
satisfaction in learning (affective component).
3. Learning contexts. The activity of obtaining knowledge within particular
situation.
a. Formal: when L2 learning takes place in the classroom.
b. Informal: it occurs in more spontaneous and natural situations where
there is no formal instruction.
4. Outcomes. The result of teaching and learning process.
a. Linguistic: they refer to linguistic competence: knowledge of
b. Non-linguistic competence: this involves the affective component,
that is, the subjects’ attitudes and values.
In an educational context, Skehan (1989: 49) distinguishes four main
sources of motivation:
1. Learning and teaching activities. Those are related to the learner’s intrinsic motivation. In this case, the learner’s interest to learn would generate motivation, due to the types of tasks (s)he is offered, as such
tasks can generate a greater or lesser degree of motivation.
2. Learning outcomes. The learners’ success or failures are the basis of what is termed resultative motivation. Good results act as a reward and
reinforce or increase motivation, whereas failure diminishes the learners’
expectations, sense of efficiency, and global motivation. In this sense,
motivation is a consequence and not a cause of the learning outcomes.
3. Internal motivation. This dimension is closely related to the first point in
that extrinsic motivation is present in both cases. The difference lies in
the origin of that motivation: whereas in the first case it is to be found in
attractive tasks, in this instance, the learner already has a certain degree
of motivation upon arriving in class, developed due to the influence of
other motivating agents (e. g. importance of languages in present-day
society, parental influence, etc.).
4. Extrinsic motivation. Finally, Skehan (1989:50) highlights the influence
of external incentives (such as rewards or punishment) on the learners’
The afore-mentioned four sources of motivation are presented in the
following table (Skehan, 1989:50):
Table 2.1. Sources of Motivation
Learning contexts Learning outcomes
Outside individuals
In line with this, Crookes and Schmidt (1985:484) hold a perspective
which is less centered upon social factors and more focused on the classroom.
The suggested model relates motivation with L2 learning on four levels:
1. Micro level. At this level, the relationship between attention and
motivation is especially noteworthy. The former is a necessary condition
for L2 learning to take place. In turn, attention is closely tied to interest
and to the subject’s disposition, goals, intentions, and expectations.
2. Classroom level. The events which take place in the classroom are likely
to increase, maintain, or decrease the learners’ motivation. Classroom
tasks, the methodology followed, the type of interaction between teacher
and learners, possible anxiety states, and many other factors, all have an
important bearing on the learners’ motivation. Crookes and Schmidt
(1985:484) also establish a relationship between classroom dynamics and
the learners’ needs for “affiliation”. With the generalized use of
collaborative enterprise, and group work is more frequently employed,
thereby satisfying the learners’ needs of socialization. The effects of the
learners’ perceptions and their expectations should be placed at this level.
3. Curricular level. With the advent of the communicative approach, it has
become essential to explore the learners’ needs as a step prior to curricular planning and implementation.
4. Long-term learning outside the classroom. This level comprises those
learning contexts which are outside the classroom. Certain research has
revealed that motivated L2 learners seek out opportunities in which to
practice the language outside the classroom, such as informal situations
with natives or other contexts.
C. Types of Motivation
1. Gardner’s Model
Led by the pioneering work of Canadian social psychologists,
research into motivation is shaped by social-psychological perspectives
on learner attitudes to target language cultures and people (Gardner &
Lambert (1972) as cited in Lamb, 2007:758). Language learning
motivation is understood differently from other forms of learning
motivation, since language learning entails much more than acquiring a
body of knowledge and developing a set of skills. On top of this, the
language learner must also be willing to identify with members of
behavior, including their distinctive style of speech and their language
(Gardner & Lambert (1972) as cited in Lamb, 2007:759).
Relate to this, there is a speculation saying that learners’ underlying attitudes to the target language culture and people will have a
significant influence on their motivation and thus their success in
learning the language. This speculation gives rise to the now classic
distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation, the former
reflecting a sincere and personal interest in the target language, people,
and culture and the latter its practical value and advantages (Gardner &
Lambert (1972) as cited in Lamb, 2007:760).
In addition, Crookes and Schmidt (1985:471) state that when
learners are driven to learn English because they believe learning it will
benefit them in certain, specific ways (meeting other people, getting a
job, and social pressure), this is referred to as instrumental motivation
because the foreign language (English, in this case) is learned so that it
can be used as a tool to improve the learners’ lives. Crookes and Schmidt (1985:471) state that one will be instrumentally motivation to learn a
foreign language when they recognize the practical advantages provided
by learning the language, for instance, to pass an examination or to
advance economically or socially). In one of research in Egypt, it was
found that adult EFL learners demonstrated instrumental motivation in
that their major goal of learning English was to emigrate to the West
not the only factor, however. Good communicative ability in English
brings with it possibilities for an improved life in Egypt, a high level of
fluency in English implies a high level of education, which therefore
determines a person’s social status, affecting the advancement of careers
in many fields (Kassabgy (1976) as cited in Kassing, 2011:12).
On the other hand of the spectrum lies what is known as
integrative motivation. This type of motivation is driven by an
individual’s desire to learn a foreign language because he or she is
genuinely interested in the culture of the language. Crookes and Schmidt
(1985:474) state that one is integratively motivated if he or she desires to
learn a foreign language simply because they find the target language
culture, group, or the language itself to be attractive.
In one of research, two French dominant bilingual American
graduate learners were interviewed and it was found that they were
intensely motivated to learn French. The conclusion was that this
motivation was the cause of their high competence levels in the L2
(Lambert (1974) as cited in Gardner, 1985:53). One of the learners was
“certain that he did more thinking in French” and only had positive
reactions for French-related materials. This learner, he deemed, was
dominated by integrative motivation. On the other hand, the other learner
was a French teacher at a high school, trying to get a graduate degree in
French. She had to learn French for the sake of her career, and therefore,
1985:55). In addition, in one of research on learners of Welsh, it was
found that their attitudes had significant correlations with their Welsh
proficiency levels. (Jones (1966) as cited in Gardner, 1985:57).
Furthermore, Learner’s ethnocentric tendencies and his attitudes toward the other group are believed to determine his success in learning the new
language (Lambert (1974) as cited in Gardner, 1985:58).
From the explanation above, a question appears then, which is
more effective for foreign language learning? Is it an instrumental drive
to learn a foreign language as a tool or an integrative drive to learn a
foreign language simply because of an attraction to the target language
and culture? While these two motivational factors may be seen as being
in opposition to each other, this is not always true, as in the case of
learners who are motivated by both instrumental and integrative
motivation, those who are motivated by neither, and those who have
higher motivation in one type than another (Crookes & Schmidt,
1985:475). Although there is a commonly held belief that integrative
motivation is stronger than instrumental motivation because instrumental
motivation holds that the learner may or may not actually like the
language being learned and only learn it for the purposes of advancing in
life. Crookes and Schmidt (1985:475) further state that based on several
previous research, it is unclear whether integrative motivation causes
Furthermore, the investigation of the effects of motivation on
foreign language learners emphasized that integrative motivation had an
important role in language learning success (Shaaban & Ghaith (2000) as
cited in Kassing, 2011:15). Ma and Ma (2012:840), however, found that
in the case of Chinese learners in a Chinese cultural setting, learners were
more instrumentally motivated. Ma and Ma (2012:842) attributed this
tendency to the fact that Chinese learners learning English did so because
of the important international role that English holds, as well as
government requirements. In addition, Alrabai (2014:240) found that
Saudi EFL learners were also instrumentally motivated rather than
integratively motivated.
On the other hand, some research has been conducted regarding
the motivation of Indonesian learners. All of these are presented through
the lens of the dichotomist viewpoint and present Indonesian learners as
being purely instrumentally motivated. This may be true, but Indonesian
EFL learners can also be characterized by values and motivations
generally associated with a more integrative motivation (Bradford (2007)
as cited in Nichols, 2014:16).
Additionally, the pragmatic use of English is highly valued,
specifically as it relates to economic gain. The motivations effective for
most Indonesian EFL learners involve the ability to communicate in the
workplace, the possibility to advance to a higher social position, and the
cited in Nichols, 2014:16). In this regard, then, Indonesians fit the model
of instrumental motivation for English language learning. Yet, there are
also elements of integrative motivation in Indonesian EFL learners as
well, though they are mitigated by instrumental concerns. Indonesians do
report using English language media, but they do not identify the desire
to participate in media as a goal for learning English as foreign language.
Furthermore, Indonesians do express a desire to befriend native English
speakers, but they do not desire to integrate. For example, they are not
motivated to mimic native speaker pronunciation or nonverbal
communication techniques. Any attempts to integrate seem to be focused
as means to an end for social or economic advancement and are therefore
more instrumental in nature than integrative (Bradford (2007) as cited in
Nichols, 2014:16).
In line with this, two research conducted in Indonesia, for
instance, revealed that the participants’ motivation in studying English as
a foreign language in two Indonesian high schools were more integrative
than instrumental (Lamb (2004); Liando et al., (2005) as cited in Astuti,
2013:17). This could indicate that the primary reason for studying
English in these research contexts was to be able to have opportunities in
a conversation with English speaking people, rather than pragmatic goals
like in assisting in the pursuit of a career (Liando et al., (2005) as cited in
There is a common belief that integrative motivation is stronger
than instrumental motivation as learners who are instrumentally
motivated may not actually like the target language being learned; yet the
superiority of integrative motivation over the instrumental is debatable,
as research results have varied in different research contexts (Crookes &
Schmidt, 1985:486).
2. Deci’s Model
With the move towards more education-friendly and
classroom-based approaches to the research of motivation, research attention since
the 1990s has increasingly turned to cognitive theories of learner
motivation, thus bringing language learner motivation research more in
line with the cognitive revolution in mainstream motivational
psychology. Cognitive theories focus on the patterns of thinking that
shape motivated engagement in learning. These patterns of thinking
include, for example, goal setting, mastery versus performance
goal-orientation, self-perceptions of competence, self-efficacy beliefs,
perceived locus of control, and causal attributions for success or failure
(Dornyei, 1994:276). From a pedagogical perspective, a key message
emanating from research on cognitive theories of motivation in education
and in language learning is the vital importance of learners having their
own motivation “from within” (Ryan & Deci, 2000:54). The optimal kind
pleasurable rewards of enjoyment, interest, challenge, or skill and
knowledge development. Conversely, extrinsic motivation, that is, doing
something as a mean to some separable outcomes, such as gaining a
qualification, getting a job, pleasing the teacher, or avoiding punishment
(Ryan & Deci, 2000:55).
Relate to this, there is a considerable body of research evidence to
suggest that intrinsic motivation not only promotes spontaneous learning
behavior and has a powerful self-sustaining dynamic but also leads to a
qualitatively different and more effective kind of learning than extrinsic
forms of motivation. This may be because the rewards of learning are
inherent in the learning process itself, in the shape of feelings of personal
satisfaction and enhanced personal competence and skill deriving from
and sustaining engagement in learning (Ushioda (2007) as cited in
Griffiths, 2008:22). Thus, intrinsically motivated learning is not simply
“learning for the sake of learning” (though many teachers would
undoubtedly value such learner behavior in itself); nor it is simply
learning for fun and enjoyment (though many teachers and learners,
especially within primary and secondary school contexts, might regard
“motivating” assynonymous with “fun” as opposed to “boring”). Rather,
intrinsically motivated learners are deeply concerned to learn things well,
in a manner that is intrinsically satisfying and that arouses a sense of
optimal challenge appropriate to their current level of skill and
motivated counterparts, research suggests that such learners are likely to
display much higher levels of involvement in learning, engage in more
efficient and creative thinking processes, use a wider range of
problem-solving strategies, and interact with and retain material more effectively
(Ushioda (2007) as cited in Griffiths, 2008:21).
Furthermore, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
amotivation lie on a continuum from self-determinedness to
non-self-determinedness. Amotivation means there’s no motivation at all or no impetus to make movement, where demotivation is a condition when a
learner has got motivation but because of some factors, it decreases
(Ryan & Deci, 2000:55). Regarding the first ‘category’ of motivation, Ryan and Deci (2000:57) point out that three innate needs that foster
intrinsic motivation can be distinguished:
a. Competence involves understanding how to attain various external
and internal outcomes and being efficacious in performing the
requisite actions.
b. Relatedness involves developing secure and satisfying connections
with others in one’s social milieu.
c. Autonomy refers to being self-initiating and self-regulating of one’s
own actions’ (italics mine).
The second aspect, extrinsic motivation, is divided into four
become “self-regulation”, Ryan and Deci (2000:61) make a distinction
between the following types of regulation:
a. External regulation is the least self-determined form of extrinsic
motivation. An example provided by Ryan and Deci (2000:61)
concerns the wish for praise. In this sense, the behavior is initiated
by another person, most probably the teacher in a classroom context,
and is highly-reward or punishment-driven.
b. Introjected regulation involves internalized rules or demands that
pressure one to behave and are buttressed with threatened sanctions
(e.g. guilt) or promised rewards (e.g. self-aggrandizement) (Ryan &
Deci, 2000:62). The most important difference between this type and
the former one is that no physically present authority is required
here. Although this form of extrinsic motivation consequently finds
itself in the learner, it does certainly not stem from his innate needs.
The example provided by Ryan and Deci (2000:62) concerns a
learner who does not want to be late for class, in order to avoid
feeling guilty.
c. Identified regulation finds itself on the verge of extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation. If the learner identifies with a certain activity,
and hence has come to value it, his behavior is in keeping with his
own convictions.
d. Integrated regulation refers to activities that have become fully
between integrated motivation and intrinsic motivation entails that
the former concerns activities that lead to highly valued results,
whereas the latter involves activities that are valuable and interesting
in themselves. Since the presence of an intrinsic interest nevertheless
seems inevitable to execute the former activities, this integrated
regulation clearly is the last step in Ryan and Deci’s (2000:64)
so-called “organismic integration process” and can easily be linked to
the previously mentioned concept ofintrinsic motivation.
Next to these concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, Ryan
and Deci (2000:61) mention that an overload of externally controlled
actions, which do not align with the learner’s intrinsic motivation at all,
only leads to amotivation. All these notions can be presented as the
following figure:
Figure 2.1. Motivation/Self-Determination Continuum.
This representation of a continuum from external to internal
to stimulate learning, rather than oppose one another (Ryan & Deci,
2000:61). Hence, externally controlled actions can only be beneficial if
they gradually fall in step with intrinsically motivated actions, so that
other-regulation can become self-regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2000:62). As
a consequence, an important task for teachers is to stimulate their
learners’ intrinsic motivation, so as to get the most out of their interests and curiosity. Ryan and Deci (2000:63) point out, “not doing so is like
sailing into the wind”.
As can be derived from the notion of external regulation, a great
pitfall in this context is the use of “surrogate motivators”, which severely undermine intrinsic motivation. When you reward learners for their
behavior, you tend to reduce learners’ interest in performing those behaviors for their own sake (Ryan & Deci, 2000:63).
3. Dornyei’s Model
Among other models which attempt to explain motivation in an
educational context, Dornyei (1994:280) is worthy of mention. In this
model, the components of motivation are organized in three levels which
are somehow related to L2 learning processes (Dornyei, 1994:280):
a. Language Level. The most general level of the construct is the
language level where the focus is on orientations and motives related
to various aspects of the L2, such as the culture it conveys, the
community in which it is spoken, and the potential usefulness of
goals and explain language choice. In accordance with the
Gardnerian approach, this general motivational dimension can be
described by two broad motivational subsystems:
1) The subsystem of integrative motivation is centered around the
individual's L2-related affective predispositions, including
social, cultural, and ethnolinguistic components, as well as a
general interest in foreignness and foreign languages.
2) The subsystem of instrumental motivation consists of
well-internalized extrinsic motives (identified and integrated
regulation) centered around the individual's future career
endeavors.
b. Learner Level. It involves a complex of affects and cognitions that
form fairly stable personality traits. Two motivational components
underlying the motivational processes at this level can be identified
namely need achievement and self-confidence and security (anxiety,
self-esteem, causal attributions, self-efficacy, etc.).
c. Learning Situation Level. It’s made up of intrinsic and extrinsic motives and motivational conditions concerning three areas:
1) Course-specific motivational components are related to the
syllabus, the teaching materials, the teaching method, and the
learning tasks. These are best described by the framework of
four motivational conditions proposed by Crookes and Schmidt
2) Teacher-specific motivational components include the affiliative
drive to please the teacher, authority type, and direct
socialization of learner’s motivation (modelling, task
presentation, and feedback).
3) Group-specific motivational components are made up of four
main components: goal-orientation, norm and reward system,
group cohesion, and classroom goal structure. All these notions
can be presented as the following figure:
D. Levels of Motivation
Highly motivated individual enjoys striving for a goal and makes use
of strategies in reaching that goal (Gardner (2001) as cited in Cheng &
Dornyei, 2007:154). Motivation to learn a foreign language is often triggered
when the language is seen as valuable to the learner in view of the amount of
effort that will be required to be put into learning it. With the proper level of
motivation, language learners may become active investigators of the nature
of the language they are studying.
Similarly, a substantial amount of research has shown that motivation
is crucial for second/foreign language learning because it directly influences
how much effort learners make, their level of general proficiency and how
long they persevere and maintain foreign language skills after completing
their language study (Cheng & Dornyei, 2007:155).
Furthermore, cognitive skills in the target language do not guarantee
that a learner can successfully master a foreign language. In fact, in many
cases, learners with greater second/foreign language learning motivation
receive better grades and achieve better proficiency in the target language
(Brown, 2000:73). No matter how appropriate and effective the curriculum is,
and no matter how high aptitude or intelligence an individual has, without
sufficient motivation, even individuals with outstanding academic abilities are
unlikely to be successful in accomplishing long-term goals (Brown, 2000:75).
In addition, high levels of motivation can make up for considerable
(Dornyei, 2001:51). Likewise, motivated learners can master their target
language regardless of their aptitude or other cognitive characteristics,
whereas without motivation, even the most intelligent learner can fail to learn
the language.
In an EFL setting, for example, in a country like Indonesia, English is
a compulsory subject, so learners definitely have no choice but take the
course. Without effort, persistence will make little sense and motivation will
be greatly weakened. Furthermore, without persistence, motivation will be
terminated and can no longer make any contribution to learning outcomes.
Therefore, both effort and persistence are meaningful elements of motivation
and should receive as much attention as reasons for action. In the particular
setting mentioned above, effort and persistence play a more important role.
In the context of Indonesian learners, having the characteristics of low
motivation is often included (Astuti, 2013:15). One of the causes is the large
classroom size (Bradford (2007) as cited in Astuti, 2013:15). This is
supported by Lamb (2007:770) who found that Indonesian high school
learners are initially motivated to learn but their experience of learning
English at school decreases their motivation over time. In general, Indonesian
learners, like other Southeast Asian learners, tend to be passive and nonverbal
in class. Indonesian learners rarely initiate class discussions until they are
called on. This is because of the nature of the course content, teaching
methods and assessment (Bradford (2007) as cited in Astuti, 2013:16). They
case their answers are incorrect. Moreover, relating English to the daily life of
Indonesian learners becomes another problem in increasing their motivation
in learning the language. It is due to the fact that English is a foreign language
not a second language in Indonesia (Liando, et al., (2005) as cited in Astuti,
2013:17). The learners do not have life experience using English and they are
not expected to be able to speak English in their future careers. The learners
use the Lingua Franca, Bahasa Indonesia, most of the time, at school and
sometimes at home. Clearly, the social and cultural environments do not
provide strong support for learning English (Astuti, 2013:18).
On the contrary, some research has been conducted to find out the
learners’ motivation in learning language. One of the researchers is Martin Lamb (2004:12) who conducted a series of research by looking at 11-12 years
old children’s English learning motivation in the Indonesian context. They are
junior high school learners and most of them start learning English for the
first time. In elementary school, English is not a compulsory subject. Lamb
used open and closed questionnaire items followed by class observation and
interviews. His findings indicated that learners’ motivation both integrative and instrumental in relation to learning English as a global language is
moderate.
E. Basic Assumption
Motivation is one of key factors of success in learning English as
foreign language. Figuring out types and levels of motivation of learners can
educational stakeholders of university, and lecturers or educators of English
to gain better understanding on how to design curricula, syllabuses and
pedagogical practices to stimulate and maintain learners’ motivation through
an understanding of the types and levels of motivation of learners in
