ACADEMIC YEAR 2013-2014
YEAR ONE: INTRODUCTION TO LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING
#10: Motivation and other socio-affective factors
1. Defining motivation
By and large, the social-psychological construct of MOTIVATION is thought of as an inner drive,
impulse, emotion, or desire that moves one to a particular action. In other words, it refers to  the
choices people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid, and the degree of
effort they will exert in that respect (Brown 2007: 168-169). However, when applied to language-
learning situations, motivation may be interpreted as  the attitudes and affective states that
influence the degree of effort that learners make to learn an L2 (Ellis 1997: 75). In the light of
extensive research, motivation is believed to be a key to learning (Crookes & Schmidt 1991). In
fact, it appears to be the second strongest predictor of success in the study of L2, after aptitude
(Gass & Selinker 2008: 426).
2. Motivation and human needs
Social psychologist Abraham Maslow
(1970) put forth the concept of a
HIERARCHY OF BASIC HUMAN NEEDS
(Fig. 1) which are believed to account
SELF-
ACTUALIZATION for motivation. The strata of Maslow s
pyramid begin with DEFICIENCY
AESTHETIC NEEDS
NEEDS, such as physiological nece-
ssities (air, water, food), and then
COGNITIVE NEEDS
advance to higher needs of security,
identity, and self-esteem, the fulfil-
ESTEEM NEEDS
ment of which, in turn, leads to
GROWTH NEEDS: from cognitive and
BELONGINGNESS AND LOVE NEEDS
aesthetic needs to self-actualization.
SAFETY NEEDS Educational psychologists have
acknowledged other essential needs,
such as achievement, autonomy,
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS
affiliation, order, change, endurance,
aggression. What is more, cognitive
Fig. 1. Maslow s hierarchy of human needs
psychologist David Ausubel identified
(adapted from Salkind & Rasmussen 2008: 634)
six higher-level drives (Ausubel et al.
1978: 368-379):
o the need for EXPLORATION, i.e. for seeing  the other side of the mountain , for probing the unknown;
o the need for MANIPULATION, i.e. for  operating on the environment and causing change;
o the need for ACTIVITY, i.e. for movement and exercise, both physical and mental;
o the need for STIMULATION, i.e. the need to be stimulated by the environment, by other people, or by ideas,
thoughts, and feelings;
o the need for KNOWLEDGE, i.e. the need to process and internalise the results of exploration, manipulation,
activity, and stimulation, to resolve contradictions, to quest for solutions to problems and for self-consistent
systems of knowledge;
o the need for EGO ENHANCEMENT, i.e. for the self to be known and to be accepted and approved of by others.
1
G
ROWTH
N
EEDS
D
EFICIENCY
N
EEDS
3. Motivation and language learning/teaching
Brown (2007) believes that motivation, like self-esteem, can be viewed as global, situational, or
task-oriented. Learning a foreign language might require some of all three kinds of motivation. For
example, a learner may be highly  globally" motivated but his low  task motivation may hinder
his participation in group activities or his written performance in L2.
Traditionally, language teaching has understood  the attitudes and affective states as belonging
to the system of inner and outer drives determined socially and environmentally, such as the
distinction between instrumental and integrative ORIENTATIONS on the one hand, and the choice
between extrinsic and intrinsic MOTIVES on the other. In recognizing the role of motivational and
attitudinal factors modern language pedagogy needs to go beyond the paradigm of Robert Gardner
and Wallace Lambert dating from the 1970s and 1980s (cf. Gardner & Lambert 1972; Lambert
1972; Gardner 1985) which was clearly biased towards SLA at the expense of FLL. In this model,
INSTRUMENTAL MOTIVATION to study L2 is interpreted as the desire to achieve concrete goals, such
as pursuing a professional career, reading professional literature, or translating. In contrast,
INTEGRATIVE MOTIVATION is supposed to make the learner want to become a part of the L2 speech
community and culture. This kind of orientation was thought to apply to immigrants, but not to
foreign language students in typical educational settings. However, more recent studies show that
there is no single motivational factor determining the learning of L2: certain learners in certain
contexts may indeed profit from integrative orientation, while others in different contexts may be
more successful if they are instrumentally oriented. The findings also lend support to the more and
more widespread conviction that the two types of motivation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Second language learning is rarely stimulated by attitudes that are purely instrumental or purely
integrative. In most situations, the two types of motivation complement each other.
In a different typology (Brown 2007), learners with EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION are those who pursue
a goal of L2 learning exclusively to receive an external reward (e.g. a good grade, positive
feedback, a prize or money) from someone else, whereas learners with INTRINSIC MOTIVATION study
L2 out of their own self-perceived needs. However, the complexity of the network of motives,
orientations and attitudes is far greater than the choice between the two systems presented above.
For example, Ellis (1997) demonstrates that it is possible for motivation to be the result  rather
than the cause  of learning. He writes that  learners who experience success in learning may
become more, or in some contexts, less motivated to learn (p. 75). Accordingly, this type is called
RESULTATIVE MOTIVATION.
4. The motivational grid
Brown (2007: 175) plotted the relationship between the two above-mentioned dichotomies on the
following diagrammatic representation:
INTRINSIC EXTRINSIC
INTEGRATIVE A L2 learner wishes to integrate Someone else wishes the L2 learner to
with the L2 culture (e.g., for know the L2 for integrative reasons (e.g.,
immigration or marriage) Japanese-American parents send their
children to a Japanese language school)
INSTRUMENTAL
A L2 learner wishes to achieve An external power wants the L2 learner
goals utilizing L2 (e.g., for a to learn L2 (e.g., a corporation sends a
career) Japanese businessman to the U.S. for
language training)
Table 1: The motivational grid (after Brown 2007)
2
5. Attribution
Alongside emotional security, a language student needs to develop a positive attitude to himself as a
learner. According to ATTRIBUTION THEORY, which studies causes that learners assign their success
or failure to, behind one's performance in L2 there are factors within one's control as well as those
beyond one's control. By and large, attribution theory shows how people make causal explanations
and what responses to questions beginning with  why are given. It accounts for the behavioral and
emotional consequences of those explanations. As Weiner (1984) states, achievement behavior may
be influenced by a task s objective qualities and to a considerable extent by an individual's attribute
responsibility for success on the task.
Psychologists believe that when learners feel that their performance is determined by factors
which they can control  such as their own efforts or abilities  they will show achievement
behavior and respond positively to failure, trying harder next time. On the other hand, when they
are convinced that their output is determined by factors outside their control  such as luck or the
task s difficulty  they may respond negatively to failure and give up altogether, believing that they
will not succeed, however hard they may try.
Attribution theory originated in the 1950s and 1960s as one of the approaches to the study of
motivation. It suggests that people vary in the way they attribute causes to events. The four
principal determinants of success are: ability, task difficulty, effort, and luck. These are analyzed in
terms of STABILITY and LOCUS OF CONTROL (see Table 2 below; after Skehan 1989: 51). The former
two are relatively unchangeable and are therefore in the stability dimension. In contrast, the latter
two are unstable and they are subject to modification.
LOCUS OF CONTROL
STABILITY INTERNAL EXTERNAL
STABLE ability task difficulty
UNSTABLE effort luck
Table 2. Learner attributions (after Skehan 1989)
Graham (1994) has added further traditional ATTRIBUTIONS: mood, family background and help or
hindrance from others. Clearly, such factors may also influence success or failure in L2 study.
For the learning/teaching context, the worst situation obtains when individuals  consistently
attribute bad outcomes to stable internal attributes, and good outcomes to unstable external causes
(Skehan 1989: 52)  in other words, when they are convinced that their failure is due to their lack
of ability. Clearly, for language learning it is essential to what a student ascribes his or her
achievement. If the unstable factors, for example effort, are believed to be the causes of success,
the motivation tends to be higher. Learners who think that they have succeeded thanks to effort
which they have invested are usually more persistent and motivated, since they perceive
themselves as having some bearing on the learning process.
According to Dörnyei (2001), there are two reasons why attribution theory is relevant for the
study of language learning. Firstly, the feeling of failure in learning an L2 is very common: most
learners are not fully satisfied with their level of L2 and they typically fail in at least one L2 during
their lifetime. Secondly, a lot can be attributed to linguistic aptitude. Therefore, promoting effort
attributions is important. Teachers should stress the role of effort and make students believe that it
can lead to success. On the other hand, language instructors should not lay emphasis on ability
because, unlike effort, it does not offer everyone en equal chance.
3
6. Learner beliefs
 Understanding language learners is a matter of examining a variety of evidence, both observable
and unobservable, about their learning of language (Wesley 2012: 97). And so, studying LEARNER
BELIEFS about L2 learning (i.e. learner cognitions, perceptions, attitudes, expectations and
preferences about learning and teaching; Ellis 2004; Dörnyei 2005; Wesley 2012) is an intriguing
field of second language acquisition. Research findings supply interesting data on how students
view the process of L2 learning/teaching. Thus, according to Lightbown & Spada (2001), learners
 are not always conscious of their individual learning styles, but virtually all learners, particularly older
ones, have strong beliefs and opinions about how their instruction should be delivered (p. 35). These
attitudes may concern, for example, preferences regarding error treatment (e.g. teacher vs. peer
correction) or L2 models (e.g. native- vs. non-native-speaker teachers). Besides, learner cognitions
may simply follow from their link to learning strategies and the cultural dimension of belief systems
(Dörnyei 2005: 216).
The beliefs that learners hold can be represented as MINI THEORIES about L2 learning (cf. also
Horwitz 1985, 1987, 1988, 1999). For instance:
" relying on L1 (e.g. translation);
" learning about the language, i.e. studying grammar and vocabulary;
" learning  naturally , i.e. thinking in L2, practising, and seeking output opportunities;
" attaching importance to personality and affective factors, i.e. to feelings that may enhance or
hinder learning.
Fortunately, unlike the influence of certain cognitive individual factors (e.g. aptitude or
intelligence), the detrimental effect of false and naïve learner beliefs is subject to change through
awareness-raising sessions and teacher-student interactions outside of class time. Dörnyei (2005)
writes that  there is no doubt that learner beliefs greatly affect behaviour, for example when
someone believes in a particular method of learning and therefore resists another, perhaps better,
approach, but we can easily argue that this is simply an example of false cognition that can be
changed by rational explanation (p. 214).
7. Personality
It seems logical to assume that the learner s low self-esteem or insufficient confidence will increase
his or her anxiety level. Consequently, those socio-affective variables could be negatively correlated
with underachievement in language learning. Poor learning effects, in turn, might adversely
influence the learner's motivation to learn. For this reason, it is worthwhile investigating the role
played by PERSONALITY FACTORS and related ILDs in (un)successful second or foreign language
learning. Although potential interrelationships between affective states and L2 acquisition are not
easy to pinpoint, one thing can be safely stated: if learners are to apply themselves to the learning
task, they need to feel secure and stress-free.
8. Extroversion vs. Introversion
According to Brown (2007: 146), the extroversion/introversion split determines  the extent to
which a person has a deep-seated need to receive ego enhancement, self-esteem, and a sense of
wholeness from other people (extroverts), as opposed to  receiving that affirmation within
oneself (introverts). Psychological profiles of the two types of personality go back to the seminal
works by Hans Eysenck (1965; 1967: 59f.; 1970):
4
The typical EXTROVERT is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and
does not like studying by himself. He craves excitement, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the
spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He always has a ready answer, and likes change.
The typical INTROVERT, on the other hand, is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather
than people; he is reserved and distant, except with intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead and distrusts the
impulse of the moment. He does not like excitement, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness,
and likes a well ordered mode of life.
Research conducted in ESL environments  both formal and naturalistic  over 25 years ago
(e.g. Krashen 1985; Swain 1985; Long & Porter 1985) tended to indicate that extroverts make
better language learners in terms of:
o being more outgoing o seeking output opportunities outside
the classroom
o volunteering in practice activities o maximizing interaction
o generating more input o maximizing comprehensible output
In other words, those research studies more or less confirmed the popular stereotype,
whereby individuals who eagerly engage in interpersonal interaction, and who are  flexible,
talkative, excitable, impulsive and risk-taking students (Lolande et al. 1987), stand a better chance
of succeeding in L2 learning. As observed by Ellis (2008), extroverted learners take advantage of
their outgoingness and look for practice opportunities to achieve their communicative goal, and, as
a result, receive more input, thus enhancing acquisition.
However, the above characteristics appear to be favoured by only one type of instructed and
uninstructed language learning activities, namely oral communication, where certain types of
learners may indeed benefit from increased opportunities of using L2. In contrast, however,
concurrent research (cf. studies reported in Skehan 1989) showed that extrovert learners tend to
become more impatient, have a shorter concentration span, and get more easily distracted from
studying, in comparison with introvert students. In actual fact, some scholars (e.g. Eysenck 1970)
demonstrated that extroverts are often outperformed by introverts in certain types of learning, such
as committing material more effectively to long-term memory. Johnson (1996) believes that
introverts owe success in language learning to their diligence, tranquillity and emotional stability.
Besides, as suggested by Skehan (1989), there might be a positive correlation between introversion
and academic success combined with the age variable. Thus, in pre-pubertal learners achievement
is apparently positively influenced by extroversion, whereas among post-pubertal learners it is
introversion that tends to generate greater success.
9. Self-esteem
Traditionally, SELF-ESTEEM has been referred to as a personal judgement of worthiness (Brown
1981: 114) or  the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to
himself (Coopersmith 1967: 4). A modern approach, e.g. by Christopher J. Mruk (2006: 35),
defines the notion in question as  the experience of being capable of meeting life s challenges and
being worthy of happiness . It is typically expressed by an attitude of approval or disapproval held
towards oneself. In terms of language learning, high self-esteem can, for instance, prevent seeing
errors as a potential threat to one s ego. Benson & Voller (1997: 134) point out that such students
perceive making mistakes as the inevitable and natural ingredient of the learning process  a side
effect of testing hypotheses in L2. By the same token, they will not be easily discouraged by
negative feedback on the part of the teacher. However, much of the published literature on the
subject shows a strong ESL bias. For example, White (1999) and Bernat (2004) point out the
relationship between an immigrant young learner s self-esteem and L1 cultural identity,
5
emphasizing that the child s success in English is directly proportional to his or her achievement in
the mastery of the mother tongue.
10. Inhibition and language ego
INHIBITION is closely related to self-esteem, as well as to the concept of LANGUAGE EGO. Brown
(2007: 38) argues that learners with lower self-esteem  maintain walls of inhibition to protect what
is self-perceived to be a weak or fragile ego, or a lack of self-confidence in a situation or task .
Inhibition may considerably affect any learning situation that involves interactive activities. This is
because mistakes  potential threats to an individual's ego  can cause some learners to build walls
of inhibition which they put between themselves and other people, thus hindering communication in
L2. One of the most frequently cited studies in this connection is one by Alexander Z. Guiora et al.
(1972), who designed a project in which the experimental group of learners received small doses of
alcohol or valium so that their inhibition could be reduced. The researchers found that the
experimentals  who had less-than-normal inhibition  significantly outperformed the control group
in pronunciation tasks. This may support the claim that there exists a relationship between different
levels of inhibition and success in foreign language learning.
11. Risk-taking
Learners who are not ready to take a risk often experience the following concerns and discomforts
(Beebe 1983: 40):
In the classroom, these [& ] might include a bad grade in the course, a fail on the exam, a
reproach from the teacher, a smirk from a classmate, punishment or embarrassment imposed
by oneself. Outside the classroom, individuals learning a second language face other
negative consequences if they make mistakes. They fear looking ridiculous; they fear the
frustration coming from a listener s blank look, showing that they have failed to
communicate; they fear the danger of not being able to take care of themselves; they fear the
alienation of not being able to communicate and thereby get close to other human beings.
Perhaps worst of all, they fear a loss of identity.
In contrast, students who are prepared to take risks do not fear making mistakes or projecting a
reduced image of themselves.
12. Language anxiety
Research studies have provided diverse opinions on the construct of anxiety. For example, Gass &
Selinker (2008: 400) state that is not clear whether anxiety is a matter of personality, an emotional
reaction to a situation, or a combination of both of these factors. Dörnyei (2005: 198), on the other
hand, believes that the construct in question should be conceived of as:
(i) beneficial/facilitating vs. inhibitory/debilitating anxiety
(ii) trait vs. state anxiety
The former dichotomy refers to whether or not anxiety can affect learning positively or negatively,
while the latter refers to whether anxiety is a learner s stable predisposition to become anxious,
uneasy and tense in various situations (cf. also MacIntyre & Gardner 1994) or whether it is a
reaction in a particular situation.
6
Other researchers have come up with the following types of anxiety observed in educational
contexts:
" communication apprehension: fear of speaking with or listening to others (Horwitz et al. 1986;
Horwitz 2000, 2001)
" test anxiety: fear of scoring poorly or failing the course (Horwitz et al. 1986; Horwitz 2000,
2001)
" archaic anxiety: a repressed distress of the past acting as a latent personal trauma; a
psychological discomfort resulting from negative experience of earlier failures (Arnold &
Brown 1999)
" performance anxiety: fear of not being able to learn what one is supposed to learn (Heron 1989)
" orientation anxiety: fear of failing to understand everything that happens in the classroom
(Heron 1989)
" acceptance anxiety: fear of not being liked or accepted by the classmates (Heron 1989)
LANGUAGE ANXIETY can be defined generally as an  emotion often produced in response to stress
(Piechurska-Kuciel 2011: 200) and more specifically as the feeling of tension and apprehension
particularly associated with L2 contexts, including speaking and listening (MacIntyre & Gardner
1994: 284).
Adult learners, in particular, are sensitive to the inevitability of errors, largely due to their
impatience to master L2 and their perception of linguistic failure as a face-threatening act. Besides,
there is the well-known phenomenon of the frustration of non-communication  undermining the
status of a grown-up and educated person in a beginner adult learner. Language anxiety may also
follow from the adult learner's low motivation and from the above-mentioned earlier negative
experience, known in the literature as archaic anxiety (Arnold & Brown 1999: 9). Finally, there is a
social dimension to language anxiety, namely the perception of self in relation to other participants
of the learning situation  GROUP DYNAMICS (cf. Turula, 2002; 2006; see below  #7).
Summing up, the construct of foreign language anxiety can be said to be:
" situation-specific
" stemming from the uniqueness of formal instruction in L2
" caused by learners low self-appraisal of their own abilities
" a consequence of poor achievement in L2 learning
" leading to a feeling of tension and apprehension, particularly during speaking and listening
activities
13. Classroom dynamics
The construct of CLASSROOM DYNAMICS refers to a complex of behaviours and psychological
processes which obtain within an educational setting, such as a language classroom. It is
particularly important for the social context of L2 learning and teaching. In particular, the
relationships among classmates may positively or negatively influence language pedagogy based on
cooperation of small groups or pairs, such as communicative language teaching.
Traits of good classroom dynamics are as follows:
" a friendly classroom environment
" supportive atmosphere
" cooperation and interaction
" a positive attitude to L2 and the target language culture
7
14. Empathy
EMPATHY is defined by Brown (2007: 143) as the process of putting oneself into someone else's
shoes,  of reaching beyond the self and understanding and feeling what another person is
understanding or feeling. It is probably the major factor in the harmonious coexistence of
individuals in society . The ILD under consideration is particularly important in learning the culture
of the L2 speech community. Littlewood (1984: 65) points out that this means feeling those people's
sense of identity. Empathy is the very trait that helps a learner go beyond the paradigm of his or her
present identity in order to embrace new patterns of behaviour. Moreover, Brown (2007: 144)
emphasizes that empathy is also a desired characteristic of interpersonal interaction. It is easier to
obtain empathic communication because of feedback that interlocutors give and receive from each
other.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Arnold, J. & Brown, H. D. 1999.  A map of the terrain . In Arnold, J. (Ed.), Affect in Language
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ausubel, D. A., Novak, J. D. & Hanesian, H. 1978. Educational Psychology. A Cognitive View.
Second Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bailey, K. M. 1983.  Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at
and through the diary studies . In Seliger, H. W. and Long, M. H. (Eds.), Classroom
Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 67-103.
Beebe, L. M. 1983.  Risk-taking and the language learner . In Seliger, H. W. & Long, M. H. (Eds.),
Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House Publishers.
Benson, P. and Voller, P. 1997. Autonomy and Independence in Language Learning. London:
Longman.
Bernat, E. 2004.  Investigating Vietnamese ESL learners' beliefs about language learning . EA
Journal 21/2: 40-54.
Brown, H. D. 1981.  Affective factors in second language learning . In Alatis, J., Altman, H. &
Alatis, P. (Eds.), The Second Language Classroom. Directions for the 1980s. New York:
Oxford University Press. 111-130.
Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fifth Edition. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Coopersmith, S. 1967. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company.
Crookes, G. & R. Schmidt, W. 1991.  Motivation: Reopening the research agenda . Language
Learning 41: 469-512.
Dörnyei, Z. 1994.  Understanding L2 motivation: On with the challenge! The Modern Language
Journal 78/4: 515-523.
Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in
Theory, Research, and Applications. Nottingham: University in Nottingham.
Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner. Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. & Skehan, P. 2005.  Individual differences in L2 learning . In Doughty, C. J. & Long,
M. H. (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.
589-630.
8
Ellis, G. & Sinclair, B. 1989. Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2004.  Individual differences in second language learning . In Davies, A. and Elder, C.
(Eds), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 525-551.
Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ely, C. 1986.  An analysis of discomfort, risk-taking, sociability, and motivation in the L2
classroom . Language Learning 36/1: 1-25.
Eysenck, H. J. 1965. Fact and Fiction in Psychology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Eysenck, H. J. 1967. The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. 1970. The Structure of Human Personality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
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: 57-72.
Gardner, R. C., Day, J. B. & MacIntyre, P. D. 1992.  Integrative motivation, induced anxiety, and
language learning in a controlled environment . Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14:
197-214.
Gass, S. M. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An Introductory Course. Third
Edition. New York: Routledge.
Graham, S. 1994.  Classroom motivation from an attributional perspective . In O Neil, Jr, H. F. &
M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence: Erlbaum,
31-48.
Guiora, A. Z., Beit-Hallami, B., Brannon, R. C., Dull, C. Y. & Scovel, T. 1972.  The effects of
experimentally induced changes in ego states on pronunciation ability in second language;
An exploratory study . Comprehensive Psychiatry 13.
Horwitz, E. K. 1985.  Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign
language methods course . Foreign Language Annals 18: 333-340.
Horwitz, E. K. 1987.  Surveying student beliefs about language learning . In Wenden, A. L. &
Rubin, J. (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Hall. 119-129
Horwitz, E. K. 1988.  The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language
students . Modern Language Journal 72: 283-294.
Horwitz, E. K. 1999.  Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners beliefs
about language learning: A review of BALLI studies . System 27/4: 557-576.
Horwitz, E. K. 2000.  It ain t over till it s over: On foreign language anxiety, first language deficits,
and the confounding of variables . Modern Language Journal 84/2: 256 259.
Horwitz, E. K. 2001.  Language anxiety and achievement . Annual Review of Applied Linguistics
21: 112 126.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B. & Cope, J. 1986.  Foreign language classroom anxiety . Modern
Language Journal 70: 125 132.
Hadfield, J. 1992. Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heron, J. 1989. The Facilitator s Handbook. London: Kogan Page.
Johnson, C. B. 1996. Personality Traits and Learning Styles: Factors Affecting the Academic
Achievement of Underachieving Gifted Students. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina.
Knowles, M. S. 1990. The Adult Learner. A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: HH Editors, Gulf
Publishing Co.
Krashen, S. D. 1985. The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.
Lambert, W. E. 1972. Language, Psychology, and Culture: Essays by Wallace E. Lambert.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9
Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. 2001. "Factors affecting second language learning". In Candlin, C.
N. & Mercer, N. (Eds.), English Language Teaching in its Social Context. A Reader.
London: Routledge. 28-43.
Linsay, P. 1977.  Resistances to learning EFL . ELT Journal 32/3: 184-189.
Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Learning. Language Acquisition Research and
Its Implications for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lolande, R. N., Lee, P. A. and Gardner, R. C. 1987.  The common view of the good language
learner: An investigation of teachers' beliefs . The Canadian Modern Language Review
44/1: 16-34.
Long, M. H. & Porter, P. 1985.  Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition .
TESOL Quarterly 19: 207-228.
MacIntyre, P. D. & Gardner, R. C. 1994.  The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language . Language Learning 44/2: 283-305.
Majer, J. 2010.  Second language acquisition and foreign language learning . In Lewandowska-
Tomaszczyk, B. (Ed.), New Ways to Language. A
ódz
: A
ódz
University Press. 352-375.
Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motivation and Personality. Second Edition. New York: Harper & Row.
Mruk, C. J. 2006. Self Esteem Research, Theory, and Practice. Toward a Positive Psychology of
Self-Esteem. Third Edition. New York: Springer Publishing.
Piechurska-Kuciel, E. 2008. Language Anxiety in Secondary Grammar School Students. Opole:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Salkind, N. J. & Rasmussen, K. (Eds.), 2008. Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Skehan, P. 1989. Individual Differences in Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. 1985.  Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development . In Gass, S. and Madden, C. (Eds.), Input in
Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 235-253.
Turula, A. 2002.  Language anxiety and classroom dynamics. A study of adult learners . English
Teaching Forum 40/2: 28-33.
Turula, A. 2006. Language Anxiety and Classroom Dynamics. Bielsko-Biała: Wydawnictwo
Naukowe ATH.
Weiner, B. 1984.  Principles for a theory of a student motivation and their application within an
attributional framework . In Ames, R. & Ames, C. (Eds.), Research on Motivation in
Education: Student Motivation (Vol.I). San Diego: Academic Press. 15-38.
Wesley, P. M. 2012.  Learner attitudes, perceptions and beliefs in language learning . Foreign
Language Annals 45: 98-117.
White, C. 1999.  Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners . System
27/4: 443-457.
10