Chapter 8 – Motivation in SLA

Case study

Minh is a university student learning English. He studies hard and does well in reading and grammar, but he becomes very nervous when speaking in class. He worries that classmates will laugh at his pronunciation, so he avoids answering questions and rarely joins pair-work discussions. His teacher notices that Minh understands the lesson, yet his spoken English improves slowly. Another student, Lan, is more outgoing and speaks often, even when she makes mistakes. Minh also admires people who can speak many languages and wishes he had their confidence. The class must discuss whether Minh’s difficulty is mainly due to personality, anxiety, motivation, or classroom experience.

Discussion

1. What factors may explain Minh’s difficulty in speaking English?
2. How are personality, anxiety, and motivation connected in this case?
3. What can the teacher do to help Minh speak more confidently?

Introduction

In second language acquisition (SLA), motivation is generally understood as the force that initiates, directs, and sustains language learning over time. It is not simply a learner’s momentary desire to study, but a dynamic process that influences the effort learners invest, the length of their persistence, and the extent to which they engage with learning opportunities. For this reason, motivation has remained one of the most important individual-difference variables in SLA research.

Early L2 motivation research was dominated by Gardner’s (1998) socio-educational model, which linked language achievement to attitudes toward the target language community, motivational intensity, desire to learn the language, and positive affect toward the learning situation. In this tradition, motivation was closely connected to the learner’s social orientation toward the target language and its speakers, especially through the construct of integrativeness. Gardner’s work remains foundational because it established motivation as a central explanatory construct in SLA rather than a secondary personality trait.

From the 1990s onward, however, researchers argued that the original social-psychological model did not fully capture the range of motives relevant to classroom language learning. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) called for motivation research to reconnect with mainstream educational psychology, while Oxford and Shearin (1994) argued for a broader theoretical base that included goals, expectancy, self-beliefs, and other motivational processes. Dörnyei (1994, 1998) further expanded the field by emphasizing the classroom, the teacher, the task, and the learner’s evolving self-concept. As a result, motivation in SLA is now viewed as a broader and more dynamic construct than in the earlier integrative–instrumental framework alone.

Motivation matters because it affects attention, effort, persistence, strategy use, and willingness to communicate. Motivated learners are more likely to remain engaged with difficult tasks, recover from setbacks, and continue investing in language learning across time. Current perspectives therefore treat motivation not as a single trait, but as a changing system shaped by learner goals, social context, classroom experience, and future self-images. This broader view is especially important in contemporary SLA, where learners may be motivated not only by contact with a specific target-language community but also by global communication, imagined identities, and international participation.

Types of motivation

A useful starting point is the classic distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation. In Gardner’s (1998) tradition, integrative motivation refers to a learner’s openness toward the target language community and desire for social or psychological affiliation with it, whereas instrumental motivation refers to more practical goals such as employment, academic success, travel, or examination requirements. This distinction was highly influential because it showed that language learning can be driven by both interpersonal affiliation and utilitarian goals. Importantly, Gardner and MacIntyre (1991) demonstrated that instrumental motivation can also facilitate learning effectively; it should not be treated as inherently weaker than integrative motivation.

At the same time, integrative motivation is not the same as intrinsic motivation, and instrumental motivation is not identical to extrinsic motivation. Integrative and instrumental motivation describe orientation toward language learning, whereas intrinsic and extrinsic motivation describe the source of regulation behind behavior. This distinction became clearer when SLA researchers drew on self-determination theory (SDT). From an SDT perspective, intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in language learning because the activity itself is interesting, enjoyable, or satisfying, while extrinsic motivation refers to learning for separable outcomes such as rewards, approval, status, or obligation. Ryan and Deci (2000) further showed that extrinsic motivation is not a single category but ranges from more controlled to more self-endorsed forms.

This distinction is important for SLA because learners often study languages for mixed reasons. A student may genuinely enjoy using English, while also wanting high test scores or career opportunities. Noels et al. (2000) showed that motivational orientations in L2 learning can be examined fruitfully through the SDT framework, distinguishing intrinsic motivation from several forms of extrinsic regulation. Their work helped move the field beyond the assumption that all “practical” motives are equivalent and showed that the quality of motivation matters, not just its strength.

A further development in SLA motivation research is the recognition that many learners are motivated less by identification with a specific speech community than by broader global or future-oriented images. Yashima (2002) introduced the construct of international posture to explain why many English learners, especially in EFL contexts, are motivated by an interest in international communication rather than direct integration into an English-speaking community. Building on this shift, the L2 Motivational Self System reconceptualized motivation in terms of the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self, and the L2 learning experience. Papi (2010) showed that these self-related components are linked to intended effort and anxiety, confirming that motivation is closely tied to learners’ self-images and classroom experience.

Another important type of motivation in classroom research is task motivation, or the motivation generated by the immediate learning activity itself. Even learners with generally positive long-term goals may disengage if classroom tasks are repetitive, unclear, or low in personal relevance. Conversely, well-designed tasks can increase engagement, effort, and enjoyment, especially when they support autonomy, competence, and meaningful participation. This is why current motivation research places strong emphasis on learning experience in addition to broad orientations or long-term goals.

Overall, the most balanced conclusion is that SLA motivation is multifaceted. Learners may be driven at the same time by social affiliation, practical goals, intrinsic enjoyment, future self-guides, and the immediate appeal of classroom tasks. A modern account of motivation therefore needs to include both the classic integrative–instrumental tradition and newer approaches from educational psychology and self theory.

Integrativeness as an antecedent of motivation

In classic L2 motivation research, integrativeness refers to a learner’s openness toward the target language community and a readiness to identify with, affiliate with, or come psychologically closer to its members. Within Gardner’s (1998) socio-educational model, integrativeness is not motivation itself, but one of the key antecedents that helps generate and support motivated behavior in language learning. In this model, motivated learners are characterized by effort, desire to learn the language, and positive affect toward the learning process, while integrativeness helps explain why such motivation develops in the first place.

This distinction is important because early L2 motivation research was not concerned only with measuring how much motivation learners had; it also aimed to identify the motivational substrates behind that motivation. Gardner and MacIntyre’s (1991) work on the measurement of affective variables helped clarify that constructs such as integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, and motivational intensity should not be collapsed into one undifferentiated variable. Instead, they are related but distinct parts of a broader system.

Empirically, integrativeness has been linked to successful second language learning, especially in the Gardnerian tradition. Masgoret and Gardner’s (2003) meta-analysis found that integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, motivation, and related variables were all positively associated with L2 achievement, although the strongest relationship was typically found for motivation itself rather than for integrativeness alone. This supports the view that integrativeness matters, but mainly because it feeds into broader motivational processes.

At the same time, the explanatory power of integrativeness depends on context. In bilingual or multilingual settings where learners have meaningful contact with target-language speakers, integrativeness can be a highly relevant construct. However, in many foreign language settings, especially where English functions as a global language rather than as the property of one specific cultural group, the traditional notion of “integrating” into a target-language community may be less appropriate. Lamb (2004) argues that in such contexts the concept loses some of its explanatory force because learners may be motivated less by identification with a particular speech community than by broader global identities and aspirations.

This is one reason why later researchers criticized the narrowness of the original framework. Crookes and Schmidt (1991), Oxford and Shearin (1994), and Dörnyei (1994, 1998) all argued that motivation research in SLA needed to move beyond a predominantly social-psychological model and incorporate insights from educational psychology, classroom learning, and self-related processes. These critiques did not make integrativeness irrelevant, but they did show that it is only one part of a more complex motivational picture.

A balanced conclusion, therefore, is that integrativeness remains historically and theoretically important, especially for understanding how attitudes toward the target language group can support L2 motivation. However, it should not be treated as a universal or exclusive basis for motivation in all SLA settings. In contemporary research, it is best seen as one possible antecedent of motivation whose relevance varies according to language, context, and learner goals.

Orientation and attitudes

Orientation refers to the learner’s reasons or goals for learning the L2. In the classic literature, the most influential distinction is between integrative orientation and instrumental orientation. Integrative orientation involves learning the language in order to affiliate with or participate in the target-language community, whereas instrumental orientation involves practical goals such as employment, academic advancement, travel, or examination success. Gardner and MacIntyre’s experimental work showed that instrumental motives can also facilitate learning effectively, so the field no longer treats instrumental orientation as inherently weaker or less useful than integrative orientation.

Later research showed that orientations are more varied and more context-dependent than the early two-way distinction suggested. Clément and Kruidenier (1983) demonstrated that, in addition to instrumental and integrative reasons, learners may report orientations related to friendship, travel, knowledge, and ethnic identification, and that the salience of these orientations depends on the learner’s ethnic background, the target language, and the broader sociocultural milieu. Their study remains important because it showed that orientations are not fixed universal categories but context-sensitive patterns of learner goals.

Research influenced by self-determination theory further broadened this area by distinguishing orientations based on the quality of regulation behind them. Noels and colleagues showed that learners can be oriented toward language learning for intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative reasons, and that these orientations relate differently to feelings of autonomy, competence, and sustained engagement. This line of work is important because it demonstrates that learners’ goals are not only social or practical; they can also be shaped by enjoyment, curiosity, or internalized personal values.

Attitudes are equally important in SLA motivation research. In Gardner’s tradition, attitudes toward the target language group and attitudes toward the learning situation were central components of the motivational system. Positive attitudes can strengthen motivation, increase persistence, and support achievement, whereas negative attitudes can weaken engagement and reduce willingness to invest effort. Gardner and MacIntyre’s (1993) work on affective variables and Masgoret and Gardner’s (2003) meta-analysis both support the conclusion that attitudes are consistently related to L2 learning outcomes, although again, motivation itself tends to be the more proximal predictor of achievement.

Attitudes are shaped by the learner’s broader sociocultural milieu, not only by classroom experience. Gardner, Masgoret, and Tremblay (1999) found that early home and community background variables were linked to later attitudes, motivation, and self-perceived proficiency, which supports the view that motivational dispositions are socially grounded rather than purely individual. This means that learners’ feelings about the L2 and its speakers are influenced by family experience, community language relations, and earlier contact with the language.

In many contemporary EFL contexts, however, positive attitudes may be directed less toward a specific national group and more toward international communication. Yashima’s construct of international posture captures this shift by showing that learners may be positively oriented toward global communication, intercultural exchange, and international participation even when they have little direct desire to integrate into a specific English-speaking community. This development is especially important for explaining motivation in global English contexts.

Overall, orientation and attitudes remain crucial for understanding SLA motivation, but they should be treated as dynamic and context-sensitive rather than static categories. Learners often hold multiple orientations at once, and their attitudes may change as they gain experience, encounter new communities, or develop new self-images. For this reason, contemporary motivation research views orientation and attitudes as important parts of a larger motivational system rather than as isolated predictors.

Self-Determination Theory and Intrinsic Motivation

The socio-educational model was a major early breakthrough in L2 motivation research, but by the 1990s many scholars argued that it did not adequately explain classroom-based motivation or the qualitative differences among learners’ reasons for studying a language. Crookes and Schmidt (1991), Dörnyei (1994), and Oxford and Shearin (1994) all called for a broader research agenda that would connect SLA more closely with mainstream motivational psychology.

One of the most influential responses to this call was the application of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). SDT distinguishes not just how much motivation learners have, but also what kind of motivation they have. Ryan and Deci (2000) define intrinsic motivation as engaging in an activity for its inherent interest and enjoyment, whereas extrinsic motivation refers to doing an activity for outcomes separable from the activity itself. They also argue that extrinsic motivation varies in quality, ranging from more controlled forms to more self-endorsed forms.

A central contribution of SDT is the claim that learners have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are supported, learners are more likely to develop intrinsic motivation or more autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation. In L2 learning, this means that students are more likely to engage deeply when they feel some choice in learning, believe they can succeed, and feel socially connected to teachers, peers, or relevant language communities.

SDT has been especially productive in SLA because it helps explain why learners who appear equally “motivated” on the surface may differ in persistence, well-being, anxiety, and long-term engagement. Noels et al. (2000) showed that L2 learners’ reasons for learning a language can be meaningfully examined through SDT, distinguishing intrinsic motivation from several forms of extrinsic regulation. Their study helped shift the field away from a simple quantity-based view of motivation and toward a more nuanced account of motivational quality.

For language teaching, the implication is clear: motivation is strengthened not only by rewards or pressure, but also by classroom environments that support learner agency, competence, and meaningful social connection. This is one reason SDT remains one of the most useful psychological frameworks for understanding motivation in SLA.

Language Learning Motivation

Language learning motivation refers to the processes that initiate, direct, and sustain learners’ engagement in second or foreign language study. It is one of the most intensively researched individual-difference variables in SLA because it is closely related to effort, persistence, strategy use, and achievement. Dörnyei’s review makes clear that motivation research in SLA has developed from relatively stable social-psychological models toward more dynamic, classroom-sensitive, and self-based approaches.

Historically, Gardner’s (1998) socio-educational model was foundational because it linked L2 achievement to attitudes toward the target language group, attitudes toward the learning situation, and motivational intensity. However, later researchers argued that the model needed expansion, especially in foreign language contexts where learners may not seek integration with a clearly bounded target-language community. This critique opened the way for alternative theories that focused more directly on learner goals, self-concepts, and classroom experience.

A major contemporary framework is the L2 Motivational Self System, which conceptualizes motivation in terms of the learner’s ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self, and L2 learning experience. Rather than centering motivation only on attitudes toward target-language speakers, this model highlights the motivational power of imagined future identities and present learning experience. Papi (2010) showed that these self-related dimensions are linked to intended effort and anxiety, supporting the view that L2 motivation is deeply tied to learners’ self-concepts.

Another important development is the recognition that motivation is dynamic rather than fixed. Research reviews show that motivation changes over time, across settings, and in response to classroom events, teacher behavior, peer interaction, and learners’ own evolving goals. Boo, Dörnyei, and Ryan (2015) describe the rapid expansion and diversification of L2 motivation research, showing that the field has moved well beyond early binary distinctions and now includes self-based, contextual, and process-oriented approaches.

This broader perspective also helps explain why motivation can be high in some areas and low in others for the same learner. A student may be highly motivated by future goals but discouraged by classroom anxiety, or may enjoy the language itself but lose persistence when tasks feel irrelevant or overly controlling. For this reason, language learning motivation is best understood as a multidimensional, context-sensitive system rather than a single stable trait.

Affect and Individual Differences

Affect and individual differences play a major role in shaping language learning motivation. Affect includes emotional experiences such as enjoyment, anxiety, confidence, boredom, and hope, while individual differences include variables such as self-regulation, personality, self-beliefs, aptitude, and proficiency. These factors do not operate separately from motivation; rather, they interact with it continuously.

One of the most robust findings in SLA is that negative emotions, especially language anxiety, can undermine engagement and performance, while positive emotions can support persistence and broader participation. MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012) argue that positive emotions can broaden learners’ thought–action repertoires, making them more open to risk-taking, exploration, and communication. Later work on foreign language enjoyment and anxiety further showed that these emotions are not simply opposites, but partially independent dimensions that both shape the learning experience.

At the same time, learners differ in how they pursue and regulate their motivational goals. Teimouri, Papi, and Tahmouresi (2022) show that different self-regulatory modes are associated with distinct emotional and motivational profiles, suggesting that individual differences in goal pursuit matter for SLA. Similarly, proficiency itself can feed back into motivation: Wong (2020) found that self-perceived proficiency plays a critical mediating role in learners’ motivational selves, indicating that motivation and achievement influence one another rather than operating in a one-way relationship.

The classroom implication is that teachers should not treat motivation as independent from emotion or learner variation. A motivating classroom is more likely to be one that reduces debilitating anxiety, supports enjoyment, gives learners realistic experiences of success, and recognizes that students differ in their emotional responses, self-beliefs, and regulatory styles. Lamb’s (2017) review of the motivational dimension of language teaching reinforces this point by showing that pedagogy can shape motivation in meaningful ways.

In brief, current SLA research suggests that motivation is inseparable from affect and individual differences. Learners are not motivated in the abstract; they are motivated as individuals with particular emotional experiences, self-perceptions, histories, and goals. A fuller account of L2 motivation, therefore, must include both the quality of learners’ motivation and the affective and personal conditions under which that motivation develops.

Personality and L2 learning

Personality has long been considered a potentially important individual-difference variable in second language acquisition, but the evidence suggests a complex and indirect relationship rather than a simple one-to-one effect. Dewaele (2012) notes that personality traits may influence language learning through learners’ preferred behaviors, social engagement, willingness to take risks, and emotional responses, but the strength and direction of these effects vary depending on the skill being measured and the learning context.

One of the most frequently discussed traits is extraversion. Extraverted learners are often assumed to have an advantage because they may speak more, seek out interaction, and tolerate communicative risk more readily. However, research has shown that extraversion is not consistently related to all language outcomes. Dewaele (2000) found that personality effects are more likely to emerge in oral and communicative performance than in decontextualized written test scores, which helps explain why findings in the literature have often been inconsistent.

Other traits also matter. Openness to experience is often theoretically linked to language learning because it involves curiosity, flexibility, and receptiveness to novelty, all of which are relevant to multilingual development. At the same time, neuroticism, or low emotional stability, is more often associated with negative affective reactions, especially anxiety, than with language achievement directly (Dewaele, 2013). More broadly, learner-internal psychological variables do not operate in isolation; personality interacts with motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety in shaping L2 learning experiences and outcomes (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2013).

A balanced conclusion, then, is that personality alone does not determine L2 success. Rather, it interacts with motivation, anxiety, self-confidence, and opportunities for use. This is why personality is best treated as one component within a broader network of learner-internal psychological factors, not as a stand-alone predictor of language attainment (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2013).

Foreign language anxiety

Foreign language anxiety is one of the most extensively studied affective variables in SLA. Horwitz et al. (1986) defined it as a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors associated with classroom language learning, and their work established foreign language classroom anxiety as a specific construct rather than just a form of general anxiety.

Subsequent research has shown that foreign language anxiety can negatively affect participation, willingness to communicate, self-confidence, and achievement. Papi (2023) shows that anxiety is linked to a range of learner-internal and learner-external factors, including self-esteem, mindset, motivation, personality, and the classroom environment. In other words, foreign language anxiety is not caused by a single factor; it emerges from the interaction of personal dispositions and situational pressures.

Personality is one important source of variation in anxiety. Research has shown that extraversion tends to predict lower L2 anxiety, whereas neuroticism tends to predict higher L2 anxiety (Dewaele, 2013). In addition, trait emotional intelligence has been found to be negatively related to communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety, suggesting that learners who regulate emotions more effectively are less likely to be overwhelmed by language-related stress (Dewaele et al., 2008).

The classroom environment matters as well. Supportive teachers, constructive peer relations, and less threatening patterns of error correction can reduce anxiety, whereas harsh correction, excessive comparison, and high-pressure speaking situations can intensify it (Papi, 2023). This is pedagogically important because it means anxiety is not simply a fixed learner trait; it is also shaped by how learning is organized and experienced.

For teaching, the goal is not to eliminate all challenges, but to create conditions in which learners can take risks without feeling chronically threatened. Clear instructions, preparation time, supportive feedback, and scaffolded speaking tasks can all help lower debilitating anxiety while preserving meaningful engagement with the target language (Papi, 2023).

Polyglots

In academic work, polyglots are usually discussed not as mythical “language geniuses,” but as unusually successful multilingual learners whose performance may reflect a combination of high aptitude, strong motivation, language awareness, and sustained learning effort. Hyltenstam (2021) is especially important here because he examines polyglots through interviews and testing rather than relying on anecdotes. He reports that highly successful polyglots tend to show well above average aptitude scores, a strong preference for explicit learning, high language awareness, and strong motivation.

This evidence suggests that polyglots are useful for SLA research because they show what can happen when several favorable learner variables align. However, Hyltenstam (2021) also emphasizes that it is difficult to cleanly separate language aptitude from language awareness in these learners, as the two appear to overlap. This is an important correction to simplified accounts that present polyglots as succeeding solely through motivation or talent.

Research on multilingualism also supports the broader point that learning multiple languages is often cumulative: prior language experience can contribute to metalinguistic awareness, strategic flexibility, and persistence across languages. Jessner (2008) argues that multilingual learners should not be understood through a monolingual norm, as their prior linguistic knowledge shapes both the process and the experience of learning additional languages.

The motivation of polyglots

The motivation of polyglots appears to be both strong and sustained, but it is best described as multidimensional rather than purely intrinsic. Hyltenstam (2021) suggests that unusually successful polyglots combine high motivation, high aptitude, and language awareness. This means motivation matters greatly, but it works together with other advantages rather than operating alone.

Recent work on learners of multiple foreign languages also suggests that multilingual motivation should be studied from a broader perspective than single-language learning. Liu and Thompson (2022) found that learners studying more than one foreign language can display distinct motivational profiles, and that these profiles are related to the quality of their engagement and persistence. Similarly, Henry (2023) argues that persistence in multiple language learning is closely tied to identity and multilingual self-concept. These findings are relevant to polyglots because they suggest that sustained multilingual learning depends not only on isolated techniques but also on how learners see themselves as language users.

A careful conclusion, then, is that polyglots can serve as informative examples for SLA, but they should not be romanticized. The most defensible scholarly view is that their success reflects a combination of strong motivation, high aptitude, language awareness, and effective long-term engagement with languages (Hyltenstam, 2021).

Problem-Solving Task: Why Does Mai Avoid Speaking?

Mai is a good English student. She understands reading texts, remembers vocabulary, and usually gets high scores on grammar tests. However, when the teacher asks her to speak in class, she becomes very quiet. She worries about making mistakes, feels embarrassed when others listen to her, and often says, “I know the answer, but I’m afraid to speak.” Because of this, Mai rarely joins discussions, avoids presentations, and gets less speaking practice than her classmates.

Recently, Mai told her teacher that she admires students who can speak many languages confidently, but she feels that she does not have the right personality for language learning.

Your task

Work in groups and solve this problem:

How can the teacher help Mai reduce her anxiety and become more confident in speaking English?

Discuss and decide

Your group should identify:

1. Mai’s main problem
2. Possible causes
   such as personality, foreign language anxiety, fear of mistakes, low self-confidence, classroom pressure, or lack of speaking practice
3. Three practical solutions
   to help Mai participate more actively in speaking activities
4. One short classroom plan
   the teacher can use for one week to support Mai

Guiding questions

1. Is Mai’s main difficulty caused by low ability, personality, anxiety, or classroom experience?
2. How does anxiety affect her speaking development?
3. What can the teacher do to create a safer and more supportive speaking environment?
4. What strategies can help Mai become more confident step by step?
5. How can the teacher check whether Mai is improving?

References

Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.10.006

Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: I. The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00542.x

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x

Dewaele, J.-M. (2000). Personality and speech production: A pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(2), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00106-3

Dewaele, J.-M. (2012). Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 42–57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203808184

Dewaele, J.-M. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety and psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism among adult bi- and multilinguals. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 670–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12036.x

Dewaele, J.-M., Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2008). Effects of trait emotional intelligence and sociobiographical variables on communicative anxiety and foreign language anxiety among adult multilinguals: A review and empirical investigation. Language Learning, 58(4), 911–960. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00482.x

Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2018). Foreign language enjoyment and anxiety: The effect of teacher and learner variables. Language Teaching Research, 22(6), 676–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817692161

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31(3), 117–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480001315X

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02042.x

Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second-language learning: Assumptions, findings, and issues. Language Learning, 38(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00403.x

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it isn’t effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009724

Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00714.x

Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A.-M., & Tremblay, P. F. (1999). Home background characteristics and second language learning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(4), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018004004

Henry, A. (2023). Multilingualism and persistence in multiple language learning: An identity-based framework. The Modern Language Journal, 107(2), 526–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12826

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x

Hyltenstam, K. (2021). Language aptitude and language awareness: Polyglot perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 41, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190521000027

Jessner, U. (2008). Teaching third languages: Findings, trends and challenges. Language Teaching, 41(1), 15–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004739

Lamb, M. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.04.002

Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50(3), 301–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000088

Liu, M., & Thompson, A. S. (2022). Motivational profiles of learners of multiple foreign languages. System, 106, 102790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102790

MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2012.2.2.4

Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(S1), 123–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00227

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 424–442. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.424

Noels, K. A. (2003). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners’ orientations and perceptions of their teachers’ communication style. Language Learning, 53(S1), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.53225

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00111

Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02011.x

Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38(3), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.06.011

Papi, M. (2023). Second language anxiety: Construct, effects, and sources. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190523000097

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Teimouri, Y., Papi, M., & Tahmouresi, S. (2022). Individual differences in how language learners pursue goals: Regulatory mode perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000537

Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Learner-internal psychological factors. In J. Herschensohn & M. Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 159–179). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051729.011

Wong, Y. K. (2020). Effects of language proficiency on L2 motivational selves. System, 88, 102181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102181

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00136

Case study Minh is a university student learning English. He studies hard and does well in reading and grammar, but he becomes very nervous when speaking in class. He worries that classmates will laugh at his pronunciation, so he avoids answering questions and rarely joins pair-work discussions. His teacher notices that Minh understands the lesson,…