System 31 (2003) 501517

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Intrinsic motivation and young language

learners: the impact of the classroom
environment
Xinyi Wu*
Sunchime & Yiyan Science and Education Development Corporation, Third Floor, Suite Tower B, Fuhua
Mansion, No.8 Chaoyangmen North Avenue, Dongcheng District, Beijing, China
Received 4 November 2002; accepted 24 April 2003

Abstract
A quasi-experimental study examined the inuence of classroom learning environment on
L2 intrinsic motivation of young foreign language learners in a predominantly monolingual
context. Classroom observation was conducted to obtain data on the instructional practice
and learning process in both the experimental group and the control group. An interview
measure of intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and perceived autonomy was administered after the experiment. The results showed that a predictable learning environment,
moderately challenging tasks, necessary instructional support, and evaluation that emphasized self-improvement and attributed success or failure to controllable variables were eective ways to enhance young learners self-perceptions of L2 competence, while freedom in
choosing the content, methods and performance outcomes of learning, as well as integrative
strategy training led to a promotion of perceived autonomy, both of which were proved to be
the antecedents of L2 intrinsic motivation.
# 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: L2 intrinsic motivation; Perceived competence; Perceived autonomy; Classroom learning
environment

1. Introduction
The importance of childrens English education has been widely recognized in
countries where English is learned as a second or a foreign language. At present,
early English education has become a new tendency in Mainland China. However,
* Fax: +86-10-65542092.
E-mail address: xinyi525@sohu.com (X. Wu).
0346-251X/$ - see front matter # 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2003.04.001

502

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

there is a long-standing mistaken idea that a foreign language is a skill that children
have little intrinsic desire to learn or master. Therefore, in introductory foreign language learning in formal settings, extrinsic incentives and controlling events are seen
as the only eective ways to coerce children to learn sucient of a foreign language
to develop intrinsic motivation (Dickinson, 1995). However, my longitudinal study
revealed that by creating a supportive learning environment and eectively intervening in the learning process, the intrinsic motivation of young foreign language
learners could be stimulated from the beginning.

2. L2 intrinsic motivation and classroom learning environment

2.1. Intrinsic motivation in L2 learning
L2 intrinsic motivation involves enjoyment of learning a second or foreign language for its own sake without any external coercion or pressure. Noels et al. (2000)
categorized L2 intrinsic motivation (IM) into three types based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 1985) and the empirical studies by Vallerand
(1997) and Vallerand et al. (1992, 1993). IM-Knowledge is the motivation for
learning an L2 for the feelings associated with exploring new ideas and developing
knowledge; IM-Accomplishment refers to the sensations related to the attempt to
master a task or to achieve a goal; IM-Stimulation is related to motivation based
simply on the sensations stimulated by performing the task, such as aesthetic
appreciation, fun or excitement.
L2 intrinsic motivation has been attached great importance by several researchers
(e.g. Brown, 1990, 1994; Dickinson, 1995; Dornyei, 1994, 2001). Some recent studies
conrmed its validity in predicting perceived competence, perceived autonomy,
persistence, lower anxiety, and positive attitudes towards language learning (see
Clement et al., 1994; Ehrman, 1996; Noels et al., 1999, 2000, 2001; Ramage, 1990;
Tachibana et al., 1996).
2.2. Antecedents of L2 intrinsic motivation
Compared with the studies that have dealt with L2 intrinsic motivation, there has
been less research on the antecedents of L2 intrinsic motivation, among which the
series of research by Noels et al.(1999, 2000, 2001) have drawn some attention. They
found that L2 learners who had a more positive perception of their L2 competence
or those who experienced more environmental support for their self-determination
were more intrinsically motivated in learning an L2. In other words, L2 intrinsic
motivation could be well predicted by perceived L2 competence and autonomy.
2.3. Studies on L2 intrinsic motivation and classroom learning environment
The immediate classroom environment produces a direct eect on the L2 learning
process. It can therefore be an indispensable supportive condition for the main-

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

503

tenance and development of intrinsic motivation. In the two main areas of research
on L2 motivation, i.e. construction of frameworks or models of L2 motivation, and
exploration of the relationships among motivational variables, the immediate classroom learning environment has been attached more and more importance by
theorists and practitioners.
From the 1990s, in order to account for the situation-specic motives and render them
more suitable for classroom application, some researchers (e.g. Dornyei, 1994; Williams
and Burden, 1997) attempted to incorporate more environmental variables into their L2
motivation frameworks. To nd out eective ways of motivating L2 learners, some
research has engaged in the task of designing motivating strategies and techniques for
classroom application (e.g. Brown, 1994; Chambers, 1999; Oxford and Shearin, 1994).
Criticism of most of the existing L2 motivation frameworks has focused on their
insucient explanatory power. Researchers have identied many classroom environmental variables, and attempted to make classication according to a variety of
criteria. However, they failed to make a dimensional analysis to reveal the logical
relationships among these variables. In other words, they failed to make discriminations among antecedent variables, attributive variables and consequence
variables. As a result, researchers encountered great diculty when explaining why
and how these environmental factors might exert inuences on L2 motivation.
In a series of studies in recent years, Noels et al. (1999, 2000, 2001) introduced SDT
into the L2 eld and veried its validity in a series of research on L2 motivation. Their
research ndings conrmed two antecedents of L2 intrinsic motivation, i.e. perceived
competence and perceived autonomy. However, they made no attempt to extend the
framework to incorporate the environmental variables that might bring about the
variance in perceived competence, perceived autonomy and L2 intrinsic motivation.
Then how can we foster a sense of competence and autonomy in learners by
means of classroom interventions? Some research in general motivation psychology
provides us with much enlightenment. According to Spaulding (1992), a predictable
learning environment, a balance between challenging and easy tasks, instructional
support, and the evaluation practice that emphasizes self-improvement are eective
ways of improving learners self-condence. The attribution theory further suggests
that feedback that attributes the success or failure to controllable variables promotes
self-condence in learners (Weiner, 1992). On the other hand, Zimmerman (1994)
argues that to cultivate a sense of autonomy in learners, they should be provided
with a moderate amount of freedom in choosing the content, methods, and performance outcomes of learning. In addition, to benet from this freedom, learners
should be equipped with a set of learning strategies (Paris and Byrnes, 1989). Paris
and Jacobs (1984) and Stright et al. (2001) found that strategy training that was
integrated into learning activities was feasible and eective for young learners.
In the empirical studies of L2 motivation, some of them attempted to establish
relationships between motivational variables and environmental variables, such as
the cohesiveness of the learning community (Clement et al., 1994), communicative
style of the teacher (Noels et al., 1999), authenticity of learning materials (Matthew,
1997), opportunities for decision-making (Bachman, 1964), and opportunities for
cooperative learning (Long and Porter, 1985).

504

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

When we take a close look at these studies, we can nd that most of them
obviously adopted an individualistic perspective. They argued that the complexity of
the social environment was only important inasmuch as it was reected in the individuals mental processes and the resulting attitudes, beliefs and values (Dornyei,
2001). However, the problem with this position is that it failed to account for the
fundamental resources of these psychological attributes that were embedded in
physical and social contexts.
Another problem with these empirical studies is that they were not comprehensive.
They usually focused on a single or several environmental variables and ignored the
joint dependence among these structures. This might impede the internal validity of
these studies. Furthermore, the empirical base of a majority of studies on L2
intrinsic motivation consisted of adolescents or adults. Little research has looked at
young foreign language learners.
As a result, the purpose of the present study is to present a comprehensive and
logically constructed framework of L2 intrinsic motivation, and on the basis of
which to explore the impact of classroom environmental variables on L2 intrinsic
motivation of young foreign language learners.

3. The research design

3.1. The framework of L2 intrinsic motivation
Variables pertaining to the immediate classroom learning environment may exert
a signicant inuence on L2 intrinsic motivation, and to have a better understanding
of their inuences, a comprehensive, multi-dimensional and logically constructed
framework is not only desirable, it becomes essential.
Based on research ndings in general motivational psychology and L2 motivation,
the present study attempts to extend Noel et al.s framework of L2 intrinsic
motivation by adding a new dimensionthe immediate classroom learning environment. In addition, the environmental variables are formulated as instructional
strategies, which are classied into two main categories according to their contribution to perceived competence or perceived autonomy, respectively. Fig. 1 is
the extended SDT-based framework of L2 intrinsic motivation (ESDT
framework).
3.2. Research questions
Based on the ESDT framework, the present study looks at two questions:
1. For young foreign language learners, do the motivating strategies specied in
the ESDT framework lead to positive variance in L2 intrinsic motivation?
2. For young foreign language learners, do the motivating strategies promote
the development of L2 intrinsic motivation through the intermediary of
perceived competence or perceived autonomy? In other words, do these

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

505

Fig. 1. Extended SDT-based framework of L2 intrinsic motivation.

strategies generate positive variance in perceived competence and perceived

autonomy, which then leads to enhanced L2 intrinsic motivation?

3.3. Methods
The present study adopts a nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental
design, with the teaching method as the independent variable and L2 intrinsic
motivation, perceived competence and perceived autonomy as dependent variables.
A pretest was omitted because all the subjects in the experimental and control
groups were real beginners of English. Posttest measures are obtained by means of
structured interviews at the end of the study.
To guarantee that the treatment in the quasi-experiment is consistent with the
motivating strategies proposed in the rst hypothesis, and to uncover the motivational dynamics involved, a qualitative method, i.e. classroom observation,
was conducted to obtain data on the process of teaching and learning in both
groups.
3.4. Participants
The 72 subjects who participated in this study were students in a spare-time English school in China. All the subjects were real beginners of English and aged from 4
to 6 at the beginning of the study.
3.5. Materials
The materials used in the interview consisted of three sections, i.e. L2 intrinsic
motivation, perceived competence and perceived autonomy. All the items in the

506

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

materials were developed by the researcher and used a four-point scale. In developing the materials, rst, the researcher reviewed the relevant literature and examined
the relevant instruments and their underlying theoretical assumptions. Second, she
used her own experience as an English teacher, kept observational diaries during the
study, and had semi-structured interviews with eight subjects and their parents.
Third, she designed adequate items for each scale and tried them out on 28 child
foreign language learners who had similar background to the subjects in this study,
which resulted in deletion, revision or modication of some ambiguous or confusing
items.
3.5.1. The scale of L2 intrinsic motivation
The scale of L2 intrinsic motivation was adapted from The Academic Motivation Scales by Vallerand et al. (1992, 1993) and Language Learning Orientations
Scale by Noels et al. (2000, 2001). The scale consisted of nine items that fell into
three subcategories (see Appendix): IM-Knowledge (3 items, =0.78, e.g. I always
ask my teacher or others for English words because I want to know many English
words.); IM-Accomplishment (3 items, =0.83, e.g. I prefer the activity that is
challenging just to see if I can accomplish it.); and IM-Stimulation (3 items, =0.85,
e.g. I have much fun in English class.). The Cronbach a index of the overall
Intrinsic Motivation scale was 0.92.
3.5.2. The scale of perceived competence and perceived autonomy
The scale of perceived competence was adapted from The Perceived Competence
Scale for Children by Harter (1982). It consisted of ve items (see Appendix),
representing the young foreign language learners self-perceptions of competence in
the L2 (=0.87; e.g. Im certain I can understand what is taught in class if I pay
attention.).
The scale of perceived autonomy was adapted from The Perceived Choice Scale
in The Self-Determination Scale (Sheldon et al., 1996). It consisted of ve items
(see Appendix), indexing young foreign language learners perception of autonomy
in regulating their language learning (=0.89; e.g. I take part in an activity because
Im willing to do so.).
3.6. Procedures
The study began in September 2001 and lasted about 8 months. The 72 subjects were assigned into four parallel classes according to the sequence of signing up (18 students for each class). Two classes belonged to the experimental
group, receiving an innovative teaching method, which was designed to promote
learner IM based on the instructional strategies specied in the ESDT framework; the other two classes belonged to the control group, following the normal
curriculum. Table 1 shows the dierences of the language teaching methods
applied in the experimental group and control group in respect of (1) teaching
procedure, (2) teaching and learning activities, (3) teacher roles, and (4) evaluation
practice.

Table 1
The dierent teaching methods adopted in the experimental and control group
Control Group

Teaching procedure

Five stages, i.e. brainstorming and introduction

of an activity; presentation and mechanical
drills; communicative drills; meaningful production
and creative use; Evaluation.

Two stages, i.e. Presentation and mechanical drills of isolated

language items; presentation and memorization of the required learning materials

Teaching and learning activities

Activity types

Teacher-intensive activities (e.g. presentation of

language items; TPR activities; big book reading;
etc.); teacher-initiated activities (e.g. open-ended
dialogue, role-playing and dramatic play; story
revision and retelling, etc.) and a few learner-initiated
activities (e.g. composing an ending for a
story; free discussion; designing a dialogue or
role-play under a particular topic, drawing a
picture and describing it, etc.)
The teacher working with the whole class; independent
seatwork; and pair work or group work.

Mainly teacher-intensive activities, often taking the form of

competitive games

Scaolder (who designs diversied, engaging and

challenging tasks), and supporter (who break a
challenging task down into smaller, more
manageable units for students to complete
at dierent points in time or for dierent students to
complete; provides models to arouses learners
awareness on the content, procedure and strategies
involved in fullling a task before its carrying out;
and provides hints or suggestions to prompt the use
of skills or strategies when they are working on
the task.)
Giving reasons, which are based on past performance
in the same or similar tasks; Helping students
to recognize that their own eorts and learning
strategies were means towards success rather than
ability, luck, or task diculty.

Knowledge imparter (who models the target language and provides

language input), activity organizer, and controller (who controls and
monitors in detail the process and outcome of a task)

Participant organization

Teacher Roles

Evaluation Practice

The teacher working with the whole class

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

Experimental Group

Providing few reasons, or giving reasons according to a normative

standard or whether the learner performed better or worse than his peers

507

508

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

Childrens rhymes, poems, songs, stories and daily conversations were adopted as
the main teaching materials. The learners had English classes twice a week, 90 min
each time. The researcher was also the English teacher of the experimental group;
and a teacher of similar age, teaching experience, and English prociency taught in
the control group.
Each class was regularly observed once a month, 90 min each time. The
researcher, who was an active participant in the experimental group and a privileged
observer in the control group, conducted classroom observation.
The survey data on L2 intrinsic motivation, perceived competence and perceived
autonomy were collected during the last 2 weeks by the end of the study. Sixty-nine
subjects were interviewed in a one-to-one encounter in their spare time (three subjects in the control group dropped out during the study). Subjects were asked to rate
the degree to which each item applied to them on a 1 (not at all true of me) to 4 (very
true of me) scale.

4. Analysis
A close examination of Table 1 indicates that the experimental group diers from
the control group in a number of ways.
First, the experimental group follows a whole-to-part procedure, which provides
learners with a predictive learning environment; while the control group follows a
part-to-whole procedure.
Second, the activities adopted in the experimental group have a higher diculty
level, but the teacher ensures students successful performance by providing necessary instructional support, such as modeling, prompting, sub-goaling, task-sharing,
and collaboration. On the other hand, the activities adopted in the control group
were not challenging enough in general.
Third, the experimental group has more open-ended activity types that encourage
learner creativity and initiative (in teacher initiated activities, learners can choose performance outcomes of learning; in learner initiated activities, learners can choose
the content of learning); while most activities types adopted in the control group
were close-ended which provide learners with little choice over the content and performance outcomes of learning.
Fourth, in the experimental group, learners have more opportunities to work
individually or to collaborate with each other in small groups or pairs, therefore,
they have more time to work at their own pace, to choose their favorite physical environment (e.g. reference resources, location) and social environment (e.g. partner, helper)
of learning, and to practice their individualized learning strategies. This exibility in
learner organization permits them more freedom in the dimension of learning
methods. On the other hand, learners in the control group can rarely choose their
own learning methods since they have to respond in a uniform way most of the time.
Fifth, the experimental group attempts to increase the personal relevance of
learning materials by relating them to learners interests, needs, and their daily lives
in the brainstorming stage. In addition, learners are encouraged to apply the

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

509

language they have learned in real communication. By doing so, the experimental
group helps learners to realize that learning of the prescribed learning materials is
also of their own free will, rather than out of pressure from others, thus successfully
fostering a sense of control in learners over the learning content.In contrast, learners in the control group have fewer opportunities for genuine communication.
Learners can hardly see the meaningfulness of what they are learning, thus failing to
establish a sense of control over the learning content.
Sixth, the experimental group uses informative evaluations, which emphasize selfimprovement and attribute students past success or failure in a task to controllable
variables (e.g. eort, learning strategies) rather than uncontrollable variables (e.g.
the performance of others, ability, luck, task diculty), while the control group
makes social comparison salient.
Finally, the experimental group provided more strategy training before, during
and after the carrying out of an activity without impeding learners autonomy; while
the control group seldom provides strategy training.

5. Results
5.1. Dierences in intrinsic motivation
The rst question of the study concerned the validity of the classroom conditions
specied in ESDT framework for the development of L2 intrinsic motivation. A
preliminary 2(gender)3(age)2(teaching method) multifactor analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was run to nd out if dierences in gender, age, or teaching method led
to signicant variance in the overall intrinsic motivation. The preliminary MANOVA revealed no main eects of age and gender on the overall intrinsic motivation,
neither did they have interactive eects with the teaching method, which was found
to have a signicant main eect on the overall intrinsic motivation (F=62.308,
P < 0.001). Consequently, age and gender were excluded from the following independent samples t-tests, which revealed that the teaching method was a signicant
predictor of IM-Knowledge, IM-Accomplishment, and IM-Stimulation. Learners in
the experimental group reported to be more enthusiastic to become knowledgeable
in English. They were also more active in seeking opportunities to prove competence
to themselves and to experience a sense of achievement. Furthermore, they were
more likely to experience a high feeling in L2 learning. Table 2 displays the results of
the independent samples t-tests.
5.2. Dierences in perceived competence and perceived autonomy
The second research question concerned whether the experimental conditions
made a signicant impact on perceived competence and perceived autonomy, which
led to variation in intrinsic motivation. To answer this question, the scales of perceived competence and perceived autonomy were used as dependent variables
respectively in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with teaching method as the

510

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

Table 2
Results of independent samples t-tests (Dependent variable: IM-Knowledge, IM-Accomplishment,
IM-Stimulation)

IM-Knowledge
IM-Accomplishment
IM-Stimulation

Experimental group

Control group

S.D.

S.D.

3.76
3.59
3.74

0.42
0.60
0.49

2.18
2.00
2.45

0.85
0.54
0.83

Sig.

9.94
11.58
7.92

P <0.001
P <0.001
P <0.001

independent variable. Gender and age were also included in the preliminary
ANOVA. The preliminary ANOVA revealed no main eects of age and gender on
the three dependent variables. Neither did they have interactive eects with the
teaching method. Consequently, age and gender were excluded from the following
independent samples t-tests, which revealed that the teaching method was a powerful predictor of perceived competence and perceived autonomy. Learners in the
experimental group had signicantly higher perception of their L2 ability and higher
expectation of L2 performance. In addition, they experienced more control over
their learning environment and learning process. Table 3 displays the results of the
independent samples t-tests.
5.3. The interrelationship between perceived competence, perceived autonomy and the
three subcategories of intrinsic motivation
To provide further support for the second hypothesis, a Pearson productmoment
correlation matrix was calculated on the scores of perceived competence, perceived
autonomy and the three subcategories of intrinsic motivation, which showed that
the three subcategories of intrinsic motivation had signicant positive correlations
with perceived competence and perceived autonomy. In other words, the young
learners who had more positive perceptions of their competence or autonomy were
more likely to be intrinsically motivated in learning a L2. Table 4 presents the
correlation coecients between these variables.

Table 3
Results of independent samples t-tests (Dependent variable: perceived competence and perceived
autonomy)

Perceived Competence
Perceived Autonomy

Experimental group

Control group

S.D.

S.D.

3.75
3.68

0.37
0.30

2.77
2.36

0.37
0.40

Sig.

6.15
9.70

P <0.001
P <0.001

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

511

6. Discussion
A detailed examination of the teaching method adopted in the experimental group
showed that classroom interventions in the teaching procedure, teaching and learning activities, teacher roles, and evaluation practice were in consistency with the
motivating strategies specied in ESDT. In addition, the survey data revealed that
these interventions promoted the intrinsic motivation of the young English learners.
Therefore, we can draw a conclusion that the results from the present study provided sucient evidence for the rst hypothesis of the study. This nding was in
substantial agreement with the argument of Ryan and Deci (2000) that optimal
challenges, eectance-promoting feedback, and freedom from demeaning evaluations facilitate intrinsic motivation. The nding also provided empirical support for
the arguments of Benson (2000), Brown (1994), Dickinson (1995), Holec (1981) and
Littlewood (1999), who have argued that language programs that allow L2 learners
freedom and responsibility in their own learning can foster intrinsic motivation.
The second hypothesis of the present study concerned the mechanism of the
impact of classroom environmental factors in ESDT on L2 intrinsic motivation of
young foreign language learners. The research results showed that these factors were
positive predictors of perceived competence and perceived autonomy, which exhibited direct relationships with intrinsic motivation. These ndings provided empirical
support for the second hypothesis of the present study, which was consistent with
earlier studies by Covington (1992), Gottfried(1985, 1990) and Noels et al. (2000,
2001), indicating that learners who had more condence in their ability and/or
experienced more control in their learning showed greater interest in learning for
intrinsic reasons.
The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by Deci and Ryan (1985) can give us an
explanation: Intrinsic motivation stems from the organisms need to be competent
and self-determining. Perception of competence and perception of control are
apparently distinct yet not easily separated. If a learner perceives himself as being
highly competent in a learning situation, then the opportunities to take control of
that situation will be meaningful to him. On the other hand, in order to experience a
feeling of competence, it is necessary to feel responsible for the actions and outcomes that demonstrate competence (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Table 4
Intercorrelations of the three subcategories of intrinsic motivation and perceived competence and
perceived autonomy

PC
PA

IM-K

IM-A

IM-S

0.40**
0.45**

0.45**
0.58**

0.32*
0.29*

IM-K, IM-Knowledge; IM-A, IM-Accomplishment; IM-S, IM-Stimulation; PC, perceived competence;

PA, perceived autonomy.
* Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level.
** Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level.

512

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

To provide further explanations for the second hypothesis, we have to answer the
following question: How do the environmental variables in ESDT exert inuences
upon perceived competence and perceived autonomy? In the following section, I will
discuss this question in terms of their contribution to perceived competence and
perceived autonomy respectively.
6.1. Perceived competence
To be condent in their ability, learners should rst be able to experience success
in tasks that are moderately challenging for them. According to Vygotsky (1978)s
theory of the zone of proximal development, learners feel that they are developing new competencies only when they can accomplish challenging tasks with
some assistance from a more skilled person. Some researchers (e.g. Bronson, 2000;
Malone and Lepper, 1987) claim that successful experience in moderately challenging tasks brings learners a sense of competence, which promotes the maintenance
and development of intrinsic motivation. In other words, both moderately challenging tasks and successful experience are indispensable for the development of
perceived competence. The former is one of the environmental factors in ESDT,
and the later is achieved through the joint force of the other two factors: a predictable learning environment and necessary instructional support. A highly
predicative learning environment conduces towards feelings of competence (see
Rothbaum et al., 1982) in that it not only provides necessary background information for a task, but also enables learners to make reasonable predictions of what
he is going to do and make necessary preparations accordingly, thus decreasing the
diculty level of the task (Freeman and Freeman, 1998). In addition, a predictive
learning environment informs learners of the targets of a task as well as the
required skills or knowledge and the instructional support he will obtain in carrying out the task. Learners are therefore able to make more reliable decisions on
whether to participate and how to participate. These advantages plus appropriate
instructional support will enhance the possibility of success in challenging tasks.
This argument has been conrmed by some research (e.g Kloster and Winne,
1989).
Protecting learners from negative inuences of failure is the second critical means
of instilling condence in learners. In the ESDT framework, this is achieved by
providing the evaluation that emphasizes self-improvement and attributes success or
failure to controllable variables. The research by Ames and Archer (1988), Butler
(1987) and Graham and Golan (1991) reveal that learning situations that emphasize
self-improvement can induce learners to focus more on the task itself than the
discrepancy in competence between themselves, and therefore maintain and develop
a sense of competence. In addition, providing feedback to learners that their failure
is contingent on a lack of perseverance or appropriate learning strategies rather than
low ability is another guard against negative inuences of failure. When learners
believe that they can succeed if they work hard, the experience of failure will not
have negative impact on their perceived competence, but rather stimulate them to
work harder (Weiner, 1986).

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

513

6.2. Perceived autonomy

The objectives, processes and outcomes of learning are three components of L2
learning or learning in general. Perceived autonomy in L2 learning, rst of all,
depends on whether the environment provides learners sucient control in these
respects (Holec, 1981). In the ESDT framework, the environment allows learners to
set their own sub-objectives within the main learning objective by providing them
freedom in choosing the learning content according to their abilities, interests and
needs. By holding them responsible for the selection of learning methods, the environment helps them to have a control over their learning process. By giving learners
choices over their performance outcomes, the environment encourages self-monitoring, self-modulating and self-evaluation of their performance, hence helping
them to exert a control over their learning outcomes.
However, providing opportunities for self-regulation is by no means a sucient
condition for perceived autonomy. L2 learners need the kind of support which
encourages their developing self-regulatory capacities and interest, especially for
young learners (Bronson, 2000). In the ESDT framework, this is achieved by providing strategy training that is integrated in learning activities.
In summary, the research results provided ecologically and statistically valid
empirical evidence for the two hypotheses and conrmed the validity of motivating
strategies specied in the ESDT framework. The cooperative use of qualitative and
quantitative methods allows triangulation of the ndings, thus ensuring the internal
validity and external validity of the quasi-experiment. However, since the researcher,
who was also the teacher of the experimental group, conducted classroom observation and evaluation, there might exist a halo eect that could impede the objectivity or
reliability of the research. This is basically a weakness in the research design.

7. Conclusion
The present study extended the Noel et al.s SDT-based framework of L2 intrinsic
motivation by adding a new dimensionthe immediate classroom learning environment. It provided an in-depth and comprehensive examination of the impact of
these environmental variables on L2 intrinsic motivation of young foreign language
learners. It has demonstrated that providing young L2 learners with a predictable
learning environment, moderately challenging tasks, necessary instructional
support, and evaluation that emphasizes self-improvement are eective ways of
developing students perceived competence, while giving them freedom in choosing
the content, methods and performance outcomes of learning, as well as providing
integrative strategy training lead to enhanced perceived autonomy. Both of which,
as a result, elicit signicantly higher L2 intrinsic motivation.
This study has also suggested that variables concerning the classroom learning
environment are mutually dependent on each other and interact in a multiplicative
manner, which impact on L2 intrinsic motivation in an integrative way. As a
result, when teachers of young foreign language learners try to create or improve a

514

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

classroom environment that is constructive to the development of their intrinsic

motivation, a comprehensive approach to classroom intervention is especially
important.
L2 intrinsic motivation is of great signicance for young foreign language learners
in terms of stimulating interest in their present study and developing L2 prociency
as well. Furthermore, this positive propensity formed in an earlier time can also
have predicative power for later intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1990). Therefore,
cultivating, maintaining and developing intrinsic motivation of young foreign
language learners are not only means to an end, they should be important goals
pursued by all educators in the L2 eld.

Appendix
Survey of intrinsic motivation
IM-Knowledge
1. I always ask my teacher or others for English words because I want to know
many English words.
2. I always volunteer to answer questions in class because I want to see whether
my answer is correct or not.
3. I read along when I watch English TV programs or VCDs because I want to
learn more English.

IM-Accomplishment
1. Im proud of myself when I can say something in English.
2. I prefer the activity that is challenging just to see if I can accomplish it.
3. I actively participate in activities to see how good I am.

IM-Stimulation
1. I think that what we are learning in English class is interesting and
stimulating.
2. I like speaking English because I have a pleasant voice when I speak English.
3. I have much fun in the English class.
Survey of perceived competence

1. Im sure I can be a good student if I work harder, even when I do poorly on

some tasks or activities.

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

2.
3.
4.
5.

515

Im certain I can understand what is taught in class if I pay attention.

Compared with other students in this class, I think I am a good student.
I expect to do well in this class.
Some tasks or activities in the English class are too dicult for me.

Survey of perceived autonomy

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

In classroom discussion, I always feel free to say what I want to say.

I do what I do because it interests me.
Things I do in English class are always meaningful to me.
I always know what I should do if I want to do better.
I take part in an activity because Im willing to do so.

References
Ames, C., Archer, J., 1988. Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 260267.
Bachman, L., 1964. Motivation in a task situation as a function of ability and control over task. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology 69, 272281.
Benson, P., 2000. Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Longman, London.
Bronson, M.B., 2000. Self-regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and Nurture. The Guilford Press.
Brown, H.D., 1990. M & Ms for language classrooms? Another look at motivation. In: Alatis, J.E. (Ed.),
Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics. Georgetown University. Washington, DC.
Brown, H.D., 1994. Teaching by Strategies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ.
Butler, R., 1987. Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: eects of dierent feedback
conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology
79, 474482.
Chambers, G.N., 1999. Motivating Language Learners. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon.
Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., Noels, K.A., 1994. Motivation, self-condence and group cohesion in the
foreign language classroom. Language Learning 44, 417448.
Covington, M., 1992. Making the Grade: A Self-worth Perspective on Motivation and School Reform.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Plenum
Press, New York.
Dickinson, L., 1995. Autonomy and motivation: a literature review. System 23, 165174.
Dornyei, Z., 1994. Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language
Journal 78, 273284.
Dornyei, Z., 2001. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Longman, New York.
Ehrman, M., 1996. An exploration of adult language learning motivation, self-ecacy, and anxiety. In:
Oxford, J.L. (Ed.), Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century. University of
Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Freeman, Y.S., Freeman, D.E., 1998. ESL/EFL Teaching: Principles for Success. Heinemann.
Gottfried, A.E., 1985. Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school students.
Journal of Educational Psychology 77, 631645.

516

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

Gottfried, A.E., 1990. Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 525538.
Graham, S., Golan, S., 1991. Motivational inuences on cognition: task involvement, ego involvement,
and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology 83, 187194.
Harter, S., 1982. The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development 53, 8797.
Holec, H., 1981. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Kloster, A., Winne, P.H., 1989. The eects of dierent types of organizers on students learning from text.
Journal of Educational Psychology 81, 915.
Littlewood, W., 1999. Dening and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20,
7194.
Long, M., Porter, P., 1985. Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL
Quarterly 19, 207228.
Malone, T.W., Lepper, M.R., 1987. Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning.
In: Snow, R.E., Farr, M.J. (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction (vol. 3). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Matthew, P., 1997. The eect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal 51,
144156.
Noels, K.A., Clement, R., Pelletier, L.G., 1999. Perceptions of teacher communicative style and students
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal 83, 2334.
Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clement, R., Vallerand, R.J., 2000. Why are you learning a second language?
Motivation orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 50, 5785.
Noels, K.A., Clement, R., Pelletier, L.G., 2001. Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French
Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review 57, 424442.
Oxford, R., Shearin, J., 1994. Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework.
Modern Language Journal 78, 1228.
Paris, S.G., Byrnes, J.P., 1989. The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In: Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H. (Eds.), Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement:
Theory, Research, and Practice. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Paris, S.G., Jacobs, J.E., 1984. The benets of informed instruction for childrens reading awareness and
comprehension skills. Child Development 55, 20832099.
Ramage, K., 1990. Motivational factors and persistence in foreign language study. Language Learning 40,
189219.
Rothbaum, F., Snyder, S., Weisz, J.R., 1982. The world and changing the self: a two-process model of
perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 537.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 6878.
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Reis, H., 1996. What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in
the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, 12701279.
Spaulding, C.L., 1992. Motivation in the Classroom. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Stright, A.D., Neitzel, C., Sears, K.G., Hoke-Sinex, L., 2001. Instruction begins in the home: relations
between parental instruction and childrens self-regulation in the classroom. Journal of Educational
Psychology 93, 456466.
Tachibana, Y., Matsukawa, R., Zhong, Q.X., 1996. Attitudes and motivation for learning English: a
cross-national comparison of Japanese and Chinese high school students. Psychological Reports 79,
691700.
Vallerand, R.J., 1997. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In: Zanna, M.P.
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L., Blais, M., Briere, N., Senecal, C., Vallieres, E.F., 1992. The Academic
Motivation Scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 52, 10031017.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L., Blais, M., Briere, N., Senecal, C., Vallieres, E.F., 1993. On the assessment of
intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation in education: evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of
the Academic Motivation Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 159172.

X. Wu / System 31 (2003) 501517

517

Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Weiner, B., 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Weiner, B., 1992. Human Motivation: Metaphors, Theories, and Research. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Williams, M., Burden, R., 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers. CUP, Cambridge.
Zimmerman, B.J., 1994. Dimensions of academic self-regulation: a conceptual framework for education.
In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of Learning and Performance: Issues and
Educational Applications. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.