Language	learning	
mo-va-on	in	Asia
Ma#hew	Apple	
Ritsumeikan	University	
Terry	Fellner	
Saga	University		
Dexter	Da	Silva	
Keisen	University
Drawbacks	with	exis-ng	theories	
and	possible	solu-ons
Language	learning	
mo-va-on	in	Asia
Ma#hew	Apple	
Ritsumeikan	University	
Terry	Fellner	
Saga	University		
Dexter	Da	Silva	
Keisen	University
Drawbacks	with	exis-ng	theories	
and	possible	solu-ons
Defini-ons
“[M]oBvaBon	can	be	defined	as	the	dynamically	
changing	cumulaBve	arousal	in	a	person	that	
iniBates,	directs,	coordinates,	amplifies,	
terminates,	and	evaluates	the	cogniBve	and	
motor	processes	whereby	iniBal	wishes	and	
desires	are	selected,	prioriBsed,	operaBonalised,	
and…acted	out.”	
	 	 	 	 	 (Dörnyei	&	O#o,	1998,	p.	65)
What	is	“mo-va-on”?
Defini-ons
			Mo-va-on	explains	…	 		
!
	 	 	 	 -		why	a	parBcular	acBvity?		
	 	 	 	 -		how	long	they	will	persist?		
	 	 	 	 -		what	effort	they	invest	in	it?		
!
Defini-ons
			Mo-va-on	explains	…	 		
!
	 	 	 	 -		why?		
	 	 	 	 -		how	long?		
	 	 	 	 -		how	hard?		
!
Defini-ons
			Mo-va-on	explains	…	 		
!
	 	 	 	 -		why?		
	 	 	 	 -		how	long?		
	 	 	 	 -		how	hard?		
!
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 	
Choice
Persistence
Effort
Published	in	October	2013



Studies:	
•		MulBple	analysis	techniques	
•		MulBple	educaBonal	levels	
•		Primary	focus	on	Possible	L2	Selves	
!
Overviews	
•		An	overview	of	why	there	are	so	many	
studies	on	moBvaBon	in	Japan	

																																							(E.	Ushioda)	
•		Examining	the	use	of	Self-determinaBon	
theories	in	cross-cultural	contexts	

																																							(K.	Noels)	
•		InternaBonal	posture,	communiBes	of	
pracBce	

																																							(T.	Yashima)	
•	Comparing	teachers’,	researchers’,	and	
teacher	educators’	views	of	moBvaBon

																																							(Y.	Nakata)
L2	Selves	and	MoBvaBons	in	
Asian	Contexts
!
Japan	 	 	 	 Malaysia	
China	(PR)	 	 	 Indonesia	
China	(Hong	Kong	SAR)	 India	
China	(Taiwan)		 	 Vietnam	
South	Korea	 		 	 Philippines	
!
Winter	2016	/	Spring	2017
Overview
1. MoBvaBonal	theories	
2. Assessing	appropriateness	
3. Flaws	in	current	models	and	approaches	
4. A	post-paradigm,	suprathemaBc	
approach
Overview
1. MoBvaBonal	theories	
2. Assessing	appropriateness	
3. Flaws	in	current	models	and	approaches	
4. A	post-paradigm,	suprathemaBc	
approach
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	(Gardner,	2010)
Influences
mo=va=onal	intensity

(persistent	effort)	
desire	to	learn	
				(desire)	
a?tudes	toward	L2	learning

(posiBve	affect)
integra=veness

integraBve	orientaBon	
				interest	in	foreign	languages	
				aotudes	toward	L2	community	
a?tudes	toward	learning	
situa=on	
(instrumentality)
Aspects
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-on
Self	Determina-on	Theory	(Deci	&	Ryan,	2000)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Cogni-ve	
Evalua-on	Theory	
(CET)
Organismic	
Integra-on	Theory	
(OIT)
1.	Mo-va-on1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Cogni-ve	
Evalua-on	Theory	
(CET)
feeling	competent	
and	a	sense	of	
control	=

lead	to	internalizing	
of	external	rewards	
and	goals
Self	Determina-on	Theory	(Deci	&	Ryan,	2000)
1.	Mo-va-on1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Organismic	
Integra-on	Theory	
(OIT)
a	series	of	steps	/	
categories	=	
!
show	the	degree	to	
which	moBvaBon	is	
self-directed
Self	Determina-on	Theory	(Deci	&	Ryan,	2000)
1.	Mo-va-on
Self	Determina-on	Theory	(Deci	&	Ryan,	2000)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
	Mo-va-on	is	enhanced	by:	
	 1.	Autonomy		 -					capacity	to	choose	to	engage	in		
– 	 	 	 							certain	acBviBes	
!
	 2.	Competence	 -					ability	to	carry	out	an	acBvity	and		
	 	 	 																		to	rise	to	a	challenge	
!
	 3.	Relatedness		 -					feeling	of	security	between	learner	
	 	 	 							and	others	(family,	friends,	teacher,		
	 	 	 																		classmates)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
“Possible”	or	“imagined”	selves	
• Ideal	L2	Self	 															the	self	one	desires	to										
																																									become																		
• Ought	to	L2	Self													the	self	one	is	obliged	

																																									to	become	
• L2	learning	experience			situaBon-specific
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System	(Dörnyei,	2005)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
“Self-congruency”	-	guides	push	us	toward/away
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System	(Dörnyei,	2005)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
People	are	moBvated	to	reduce	the	discrepancy	
between	who	they	currently	are	and	who	they	
want	to	be	/	do	not	want	to	be		
																																																																									(Higgins,	1987)
Ideal	L2	Self			>		Ought-to	L2	Self

1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
Dynamic	Systems	Theory	(DST)	
!
Chaos	Theory	
!
Complex	Systems	Theory	(CST)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
—	Mo-va-on	is	individual	
	 	 dependent	upon	social	context	
										interac-ons	among	individual	/	situa-on

						specific	events	as	“triggers”	
!
—	Mo-va-on	is	dynamic	
	 	 responds	to	aUractors,	part	of	a	system

						both	stable	and	unpredictable
Overview
1. MoBvaBonal	theories	
2. Assessing	appropriateness	
3. Flaws	in	current	models	and	approaches	
4. A	post-paradigm,	suprathemaBc	
approach
2.	Assessing	Appropriateness
In	Asian	contexts…	
•English	as	required	subject	
•English	as	“great	divider”	of	society	
•Lack	of	L2	community	(varying	degrees)	
•Geo-poliBcal	/	historical	context
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
30
M
uchresearchonhumanbehaviourand
psychology assumes that everyone
shares most fundamental cognitive
and affective processes, and that findings
from one population apply across the board.
A growing body of evidence suggests that this
is not the case.
Experimental findings from several disci-
plines indicate considerable variation among
human populations in diverse domains, such
as visual perception, analytic reasoning,
fairness, cooperation, memory and the herit-
ability of IQ1,2
. This is in line with
what anthropologists have long
suggested: that people from West-
ern, educated, industrialized, rich
and democratic (WEIRD) socie-
ties — and particularly American
undergraduates — are some of the
most psychologically unusual peo-
ple on Earth1
.
So the fact that the vast majority
decides how much of a fixed amount to offer
a second player, who can then accept or reject
this proposal. If the second player rejects it,
neither player gets anything. Participants
from industrialized societies tend to divide
the money equally, and reject low offers. Peo-
ple from non-industrialized societies behave
differently,especiallyinthesmallest-scalenon-
market societies such as foragers in Africa and
horticulturalists in South America, where peo-
ple are neither inclined to make equal offers
nor to punish those who make low offers4
.
affect the way that experienced investors
make decisions about the stock market6
.
We offer four suggestions to help put
theories of human behaviour and psychology
onafirmerempiricalfooting.First,editorsand
reviewers should push researchers to support
any generalizations with evidence. Second,
grantingagencies,reviewersandeditorsshould
give researchers credit for comparing diverse
andinconvenientsubjectpools.Third,granting
agencies should prioritize cross-disciplinary,
cross-cultural research. Fourth, researchers
must strive to evaluate how their
findingsapplytootherpopulations.
There are several low-cost ways to
approachthisintheshortterm:one
is to select a few judiciously chosen
populations that provide a ‘tough
test’ofuniversalityinsomedomain,
suchassocietieswithlimitedcount-
ing systems for testing theories
about numerical cognition1,2
.
Most people are not WEIRD
To understand human psychology, behavioural scientists must stop doing most of their experiments on
Westerners, argue JosephHenrich, StevenJ.Heine and AraNorenzayan.
GRACIALAM
Vol 466|1 July 2010
OPINION2.	Assessing	Appropriateness
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
31
M
uchresearchonhumanbehaviourand
psychology assumes that everyone
shares most fundamental cognitive
and affective processes, and that findings
from one population apply across the board.
A growing body of evidence suggests that this
is not the case.
Experimental findings from several disci-
plines indicate considerable variation among
human populations in diverse domains, such
as visual perception, analytic reasoning,
fairness, cooperation, memory and the herit-
ability of IQ1,2
. This is in line with
what anthropologists have long
suggested: that people from West-
ern, educated, industrialized, rich
and democratic (WEIRD) socie-
ties — and particularly American
undergraduates — are some of the
most psychologically unusual peo-
ple on Earth1
.
So the fact that the vast majority
decides how much of a fixed amount to offer
a second player, who can then accept or reject
this proposal. If the second player rejects it,
neither player gets anything. Participants
from industrialized societies tend to divide
the money equally, and reject low offers. Peo-
ple from non-industrialized societies behave
differently,especiallyinthesmallest-scalenon-
market societies such as foragers in Africa and
horticulturalists in South America, where peo-
ple are neither inclined to make equal offers
nor to punish those who make low offers4
.
affect the way that experienced investors
make decisions about the stock market6
.
We offer four suggestions to help put
theories of human behaviour and psychology
onafirmerempiricalfooting.First,editorsand
reviewers should push researchers to support
any generalizations with evidence. Second,
grantingagencies,reviewersandeditorsshould
give researchers credit for comparing diverse
andinconvenientsubjectpools.Third,granting
agencies should prioritize cross-disciplinary,
cross-cultural research. Fourth, researchers
must strive to evaluate how their
findingsapplytootherpopulations.
There are several low-cost ways to
approachthisintheshortterm:one
is to select a few judiciously chosen
populations that provide a ‘tough
test’ofuniversalityinsomedomain,
suchassocietieswithlimitedcount-
ing systems for testing theories
about numerical cognition1,2
.
Most people are not WEIRD
To understand human psychology, behavioural scientists must stop doing most of their experiments on
Westerners, argue JosephHenrich, StevenJ.Heine and AraNorenzayan.
GRACIALAM
Vol 466|1 July 2010
OPINION2.	Assessing	Appropriateness
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
32
M
uchresearchonhumanbehaviourand
psychology assumes that everyone
shares most fundamental cognitive
and affective processes, and that findings
from one population apply across the board.
A growing body of evidence suggests that this
is not the case.
Experimental findings from several disci-
plines indicate considerable variation among
human populations in diverse domains, such
as visual perception, analytic reasoning,
fairness, cooperation, memory and the herit-
ability of IQ1,2
. This is in line with
what anthropologists have long
suggested: that people from West-
ern, educated, industrialized, rich
and democratic (WEIRD) socie-
ties — and particularly American
undergraduates — are some of the
most psychologically unusual peo-
ple on Earth1
.
So the fact that the vast majority
decides how much of a fixed amount to offer
a second player, who can then accept or reject
this proposal. If the second player rejects it,
neither player gets anything. Participants
from industrialized societies tend to divide
the money equally, and reject low offers. Peo-
ple from non-industrialized societies behave
differently,especiallyinthesmallest-scalenon-
market societies such as foragers in Africa and
horticulturalists in South America, where peo-
ple are neither inclined to make equal offers
nor to punish those who make low offers4
.
affect the way that experienced investors
make decisions about the stock market6
.
We offer four suggestions to help put
theories of human behaviour and psychology
onafirmerempiricalfooting.First,editorsand
reviewers should push researchers to support
any generalizations with evidence. Second,
grantingagencies,reviewersandeditorsshould
give researchers credit for comparing diverse
andinconvenientsubjectpools.Third,granting
agencies should prioritize cross-disciplinary,
cross-cultural research. Fourth, researchers
must strive to evaluate how their
findingsapplytootherpopulations.
There are several low-cost ways to
approachthisintheshortterm:one
is to select a few judiciously chosen
populations that provide a ‘tough
test’ofuniversalityinsomedomain,
suchassocietieswithlimitedcount-
ing systems for testing theories
about numerical cognition1,2
.
Most people are not WEIRD
To understand human psychology, behavioural scientists must stop doing most of their experiments on
Westerners, argue JosephHenrich, StevenJ.Heine and AraNorenzayan.
GRACIALAM
Vol 466|1 July 2010
OPINION
Western	
Educated	
Industrialized	
Rich	
DemocraBc
2.	Assessing	Appropriateness
2.	Assessing	Appropriateness
Absolu=st	

—	moBvaBonal	theories	can	be	applied	universally

					(eBc	approach)	
Rela=vist

—	only	within	the	indigenous	or	local	frames	of	reference	

—	no	generalisaBon	possible	across	cultural	contexts

					(emic	approach)	
Universalist

—	some	aspects	are	universal,	but	the	sociocultural	

					context	is	also	crucial

	 	 	 	 	 (Zusho	&	Clayton,	2011)
Absolu=st
Rela=vist
Universalist
2.	Assessing	Appropriateness
Absolu=st Rela=vistUniversalist
SocioeducaBonal Complex	Dynamic	Systems
Self-determinaBon
L2	MoBvaBonal	Self	System
Overview
1. MoBvaBonal	theories	
2. Assessing	appropriateness	
3. Flaws	in	current	models	and	approaches	
4. A	post-paradigm,	suprathemaBc	
approach
Socioeduca-onal	model	
!
Self-determina-on	theory	(SDT)	
!
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self-System	
!
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)	
!
**	Note:	This	is	playing	Devil’s	Advocate…
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	hard	sciences	
Used	to	mathemaBcally	predict	both	linear	and	
nonlinear	systems	
!
Ouen	referred	to	support	claims	that	
-		individuals	are	unpredictable	
-		findings	cannot	be	generalized	across	contexts	
-		models	cannot	predict	pa#erns	
-		staBsBcs	are	useless
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	hard	sciences	
Used	to	mathemaBcally	predict	both	linear	and	
nonlinear	systems	
!
If	everyone	is	unique	and	unpredictable…	
!
—	then	why	bother	conduct	research?	

											why	bother	read	what	others	write?
Complex	/	Dynamic	Systems	(CDS)
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	hard	sciences	
Used	to	mathemaBcally	predict	both	linear	and	
nonlinear	systems	
!
Is	this	a	model	of	moBvaBon,

		or	an	approach	to	research	methodology?
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	cogniBve	psychology	
											-	Ideal	self,	feared	self,	probable	self	
!
L2	experiences	—	not	a	self	concept	
Ideal	L2	Self	—>	what	do/can	students	imagine?	
Ought-to	L2	Self	—>	Is	this	the	same	as	“feared”?
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	cogniBve	psychology	
											-	Ideal	self,	feared	self,	probable	self	
!
Ought-to	L2	Self	
—	English	is	a	required	course…so…	
—	This	is	the	*current*	self	
—	Ouen	combined	with	family/social		

		expectaBons	(esp.	Confucian-influenced)
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	cogniBve	psychology	
											-	Ideal	self,	feared	self,	probable	self	
!
Ideal	L2	Self	
—	The	“ideal	L2	self”	as	future	user	of	English…

…who	uses	English?	—	naBve	speakers

…who	are	naBve	speakers?	—	white	male	US
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	cogniBve	psychology	
											-	Ideal	self,	feared	self,	probable	self	
!
Ideal	L2	Self	
—	Can	a	speaker	of	another	language	be	accepted	
as	having	an	L2	self	by	L1	speakers?



Russian.	Bantu.	Urdu.	German.	Japanese.
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	cogniBve	psychology	
											-	Ideal	self,	feared	self,	probable	self	
!
Ideal	L2	Self	
—	Self	is	partly	self-determined,	partly	other-
determined	
—	Caught	up	in	issues	of	ethnicity,	religion,	
gender,	history,	poliBcs…	
—	when	is	the	L1	self	stable?	the	L2?	Proficiency?
L2	Mo-va-onal	Self	System
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Originally	from	cogniBve	psychology	
											-	Ideal	self,	feared	self,	probable	self	
!
Is	this	really	“moBvaBon”?	
!
Or	a	pre-exisBng	condiBon	leading	to	

moBvaBng	situaBons	or	factors?
Self-determina-on	theory
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Assumes	choice	
—	What	if	there	is	none?	
—	What	if	students	have	to	study?	
—	What	if	the	goal	is	graduaBon?	or	a	job?	travel?	
!
—	What	if	there	is	choice,	but	there	is	also	
overwhelming	pressure	(societal,	monetary)?
Socioeduca-onal	model
Self-determina-on	theory
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
Assumes	the	existence	of	an	L2	community	
—	What	if	there	is	none	physically	present?	
—	What	if	the	L2	community	is	too	large	to	be	
defined?	
—	What	if	the	L2	community	is	essenBalized	as	
“the	Other”?
Socioeduca-onal	model
Self-determina-on	theory
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
What	kind	of	communicaBon	is	needed?	
!
“The	construct,	IntegraBveness,	reflects	a	genuine	
interest	in	learning…for	the	purposes	of	
communicaBng	with	members	of	the	other	
language	community…
Socioeduca-onal	model
Self-determina-on	theory
3.	Flaws	in	current	models/approaches
“In	the	extreme,	this	might	involve	complete	
iden-fica-on	with	and	membership	in	the	other	
community…in	less	extreme	form	it	might	simply	
reflect	a	willingness	to	incorporate	behavioral	
paUerns	in	the	form	of	the	language	from	the	
other	group…”	(Gardner,	2010,	p.	88)
Socioeduca-onal	model
50
[In the global age, the world is your rival]
LinguisBc	imperialism?	“Fear	of	an	English	Planet.”
Overview
1. MoBvaBonal	theories	
2. Assessing	appropriateness	
3. Flaws	in	current	models	and	approaches	
4. A	post-paradigm,	suprathema-c	
approach
4.	A	post-paradigm,	suprathema-c	

				approach
Universalist	perspec=ve	on	L2	mo=va=on	
!
—	All	models	are	wrong,	but	some	are	useful	
—	All	approaches	have	some	value,	but	none	perfectly	

					explain	everything	
—	EBc	and	emic	approaches	are	two	complementary	sides	

					of	the	same	coin,	and	are	both	necessary	
—	Individual	within	his	or	her	cultural	context	which	can	also	

					reflect	similar	pa#erns	in	other	individuals	and	contexts
Absolu=st Rela=vistUniversalist
4.	A	post-paradigm,	suprathema-c	

				approach
Quantum	Cogni-on
An	(old)	new	approach	that	can	explain:	
—	how	study	parBcipants	can	hold	contradictory	
views	of	the	same	issue	or	topic	
—	how	using	the	same	quesBonnaire	can	return	
different	results	
—	how	reordering	quesBonnaire	or	interview	
items	can	lead	to	different	results
Complementarity		
—	items	are	not	independent;	influence	each	other	
!
Superposi=on	
—	possible	for	two	differing	opinions	to	be	held	
!
Entanglement	
—	measuring	one	part	affects	another	in	a	system
4.	A	post-paradigm,	suprathema-c	

				approach
Quantum	Cogni-on
MoBvaBon	is		
not	a	state	but	a	
!
						dynamic	
						cumula-ve		
						acEve	process
			that	explains	…			
!
	 	 -		why?		
	 	 -		how	long?		
	 	 -		how	hard?
The	final	word…
“Remember	that	all	models	are	wrong;	
the	pracBcal	quesBon	is	how	wrong	do	
they	have	to	be	not	to	be	useful.”

																																											(Box,	1987,	p.	74)
Thank	you!
Ma#hew	Apple		 	 	 mapple@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp	
Ritsumeikan	University	
Terry	Fellner	
Saga	University		
Dexter	Da	Silva	
Keisen	University
Upcoming
L2	Selves	and	MoBvaBons	in	Asian	Contexts	
!
Japan	 	 	 	 Malaysia	
China	(PR)		 	 	 Indonesia	
China	(Hong	Kong	SAR)	 India	
China	(Taiwan)	 	 	 Vietnam	
South	Korea	
!
Winter	2016	/	Spring	2017
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model
IntegraBve	moBvaBon	
IntegraBve	orientaBon	
IntegraBveness
Instrumental	moBvaBon	
Instrumental	orientaBon	
Instrumentality
v
“No	L2	target	culture”	—>	“Therefore,	no	integraBve	

																																																	moBvaBon”
“No	L2	target	culture”	—>	“Therefore,	no	integraBve	

																																																	moBvaBon”
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Socioeduca-onal	model
IntegraBve	moBvaBon	
IntegraBve	orientaBon	
IntegraBveness
Instrumental	moBvaBon	
Instrumental	orientaBon	
Instrumentality
v
X
1.	Mo-va-on
Self	Determina-on	Theory
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
Intrinsic	moBvaBon	
!
—	internal	
—	thing	in	itself
Extrinsic	moBvaBon	
!
—	external	
—	rewards
v
X
Development	of	internaliza-on	of	the	autonomous	self	
							 	
	 		 	 	 	
!
!
	 		 	 	 	 	 				 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 	
		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
																
Text
Text
IdenBfied	RegulaBon
TIntrinsic	Mo-va-on
Integrated	RegulaBon
External	RegulaBon
AmoBvaBont
Introjected	RegulaBon
(Ryan & Deci, 2002)
1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
1.	Mo-va-on1.	Mo-va-onal	theories
—	feeling	of	connectedness	=	
!
helps	internalizaBon	of	external	
moBvaBng	factors
Self	Determina-on	Theory	(Deci	&	Ryan,	2000)

Language Learning Motivation in Asia