Differences in motivation for learning English in Japanese higher education:

Comparison between English major and non-English major undergraduate students

1. Introduction
Learning English is incredibly important in today’s globalized world. It is the primary language of
international business, science, and technology, making it essential for career advancement and global
collaboration. For Japanese university students, learning English is particularly important as it opens up a
world of opportunities both academically and professionally. However, English proficiency has long been
well below the global average in Japan. What’s more, it has been on a continuous decline over the past
decade, with Japan ranking 83rd out of 113 countries in 2023, and the sharpest drop registered among the
18-20 year-old cohort (EF EPI 2023).

While there may be many factors behind this concerning trend, in this paper, I would like to focus on the
role of motivation, as it “is one of the most influential factors to determine success or failure in second
language learning” (Shirai, 2012; cited in Moritani & Manning, 2017). Specifically, I will analyze the
differences in motivation for learning English between English major and non-English major
undergraduate students based on a survey conducted at Kyoto Tachibana University.

The goal of this paper is to shed some light on what motivates Japanese university students to study
English, so that English instruction could become more effective in boosting their motivation and English
proficiency in the future.

2. Literature review
Motivation is a key factor in second language acquisition (SLA), and all other factors “presuppose
motivation to some extent” (Dörnyei, 2005). Even students with low aptitude can master a second
language (L2) if they are sufficiently motivated. Conversely, “without sufficient motivation, even students
with the most remarkable abilities cannot achieve long-term goals” (Zareian & Jodaei, 2015).

Research on L2 motivation includes a multitude of theories, with the most influential being the following
four: the Socio-Educational Model, Attribution Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the L2
Motivational Self-System (Chapman & Shinya, 2019).

The Socio-Educational Model, first proposed by Gardner and Lambert (1959), classifies motivation into
“integrative” and “instrumental.” Integrative motivation was defined by Lambert as “a sincere and
personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other language group” (1974, p. 98). This
type of motivation is rooted in a desire to connect with the target language’s culture and foster
cross-cultural understanding (Alisoy, 2023). On the other hand, instrumental motivation reflects “the
practical value and advantages of learning a new language” (Lambert et al., 1973, p. 13). In other words,
students driven by instrumental motivation seek practical goals, such as passing tests or advancing their
careers.

Attribution Theory, proposed by Weiner, focuses on achievement when striving to attain something,
whereas the perceived causes of success or failure are known as causal attributions, which have three
dimensions: locus, stability, and control (Weiner, 1974). These attributions may vary across cultures, with
Western cultures attributing their success to internal factors (self-enhancement bias) and Asian cultures
attributing failures to internal factors (self-depreciation bias) (Kitayama & Uchida, 2003). These
attributions play an important role in how confident students are in using L2 in practice and how
motivated they are to engage both in and outside of the classroom.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), involves the satisfaction of three
basic psychological needs that are universal across most cultures when discussing motivation: autonomy
(sense of initiative and ownership in one’s actions), competence (the feeling of mastery, a sense that one
can succeed and grow), and relatedness (a sense of belonging and connection). SDT analysis primarily
focuses on the extent to which educational settings meet or frustrate these basic needs (Ryan & Deci,
2020). Another important aspect is the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, perhaps one
of the most well-known concepts in psychological motivational theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic
motivation is driven by internal desire and enjoyment, whereas extrinsic motivation relies on external
rewards or pressures (Alisoy, 2023). In education, transforming extrinsic motives into personally
endorsed values is considered to have a much more positive and long-lasting effect on students’ learning.
This so-called internalization represents the active attempt to assimilate behavioral regulations that are
originally external to the self (Ryan, 1995).

Finally, the L2 Motivational Self-System framework, developed by Dörnyei, involves a learner’s whole
being by adding a new dimension to their identity—their second language speaking self (Dörnyei, 2016).
The L2 Motivational Self-System has three components: the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self, and the
L2 learning experience. The ideal L2 self represents a person’s imagined ideal future self as a second
language speaker, thereby promoting integrative and internalized instrumental motivation in language
learning. The ought-to L2 self refers to attributes that a person believes they ought to possess in order to
meet expectations and avoid possible negative outcomes, which is associated with extrinsic motivational
orientations. The L2 learning experience component includes the immediate learning environment and
experience (e.g., the impact of the teacher, the curriculum, the peer group, the experience of success) as
well as one’s subjective learning experience (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009).

The relevance of the L2 Motivational Self-System to the interpretation of this paper’s case study findings
will be explained in the discussion.

3. Methodology
I designed an original one-page questionnaire with 15 questions, which I distributed among freshman
students during their regular English class at Kyoto Tachibana University (KTU). There were six groups
of non-English major students with various academic backgrounds (e.g., nursing, architecture, economics,
health sciences, etc.), totaling 200 students. In addition, there were three smaller groups of English major
students, totaling 36 students. Although students were aware that participation in this survey was
voluntary and did not affect their grades in any way, the questionnaires were administered as part of
classroom instruction, and respondents’ identities were recorded. As a result, the response rate was 100%,
with a minimum of erroneous responses or omissions (<1%). This high response rate was undoubtedly
also due to the bilingual structure of the questionnaire, where all questions and instructions were provided
both in English and Japanese.

In this highly structured questionnaire, 14 out of the 15 questions were closed-ended, and only one
question remained open-ended to investigate students’ free-association skills. There were nine
multiple-choice questions and four questions using a scale (with numerical values 1 to 5). Due to the
simplicity of the answers, the total time for explaining and answering all questions took less than 15
minutes.

The main purpose of this survey was to examine the types of motivations for studying English and
investigate whether there are noticeable differences between English major and non-English major
students. For this reason, most questions focused on the contrast between instrumental and integrative
motivation. Although I took inspiration from the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
(MSLQ), which was developed to measure the types of learning strategies and academic motivation used
by college and university students (Pintrich et al., 1991), my approach was much more simplistic. I aimed
to keep the questionnaire clear and simple, both for the purpose of my limited analysis and for the sake of
students’ limited attention spans. Ideally, this initial analysis will serve as a stepping stone for a long-term
survey of motivations among students at Kyoto Tachibana University, both quantitative and qualitative.

The first half of the questionnaire focused on students’ backgrounds (e.g., When did you start learning
English?), attitudes (e.g., Why do you study English now?), and study habits (e.g., How much time per
week do you spend studying English outside of the classroom?).

The second half dealt with students goals and aspirations regarding English (e.g. Do you think you will
ever use English in the future?; What do you hope your English level will be in the future?). Last question
gauges students’ confidence level of passing the final test (Do you think you will pass this class?).

Figure 1: Example of a question analyzing attitudes to studying English

4. Results
The first surprising finding was already in response to question 1, where a much higher proportion of
non-English major students reported that they had started studying English in elementary school (86%)
compared to English-major students (63.6%). The latter group often chose junior high school instead,
perhaps because they did not consider English classes at the primary level to be “studying.” On the other
hand, English-major students indicated a slightly higher rate of cram-school attendance than non-English
majors, as well as a significantly higher rate of private tutoring (9.1% vs. 0%), indicating an increased
level of motivation to study English at the secondary education level.

In response to question 3 (Mark your current English level on the scale), there was almost no difference in
the self-evaluation of English skills (non-English major = 2.2 vs. English major = 2.4, where 1 represents
a complete beginner and 5 represents a native speaker). This is perhaps not surprising, given the cultural
tendency toward self-deprecation in Japan. Similarly, in question 6 (On a scale of 1-5, how difficult is
studying English?), both cohorts’ average level of perceived difficulty was nearly identical (4 = very
difficult). It is very rare to find a Japanese student who would state that English is “easy,” even if they
excel in it. When asked about the specific aspect of learning English they find most difficult, both groups
selected “speaking,” but English-major students also chose “writing” at the same level of difficulty. This
may be due to the fact that they have to deal with regular writing assignments, unlike non-English major
students, who are rarely exposed to writing tasks.

Question 4 (Why do you study English now?) reveals the first considerable differences in motivations
between the two groups. The majority of non-English major students chose the pragmatic answer “I need
credits” (64%), with only a small minority selecting “I like English” (10%). In contrast, English-major
students selected these answers in nearly reverse proportions (21% and 67%, respectively). This indicates
that non-English major students have an instrumental motivation toward studying English, being
primarily interested in passing the course, while English-major students demonstrate integrative
motivation, showing a positive attitude toward studying itself. In this case, instrumental motivation
closely corresponds to extrinsic motivation (external pressure), while integrative motivation aligns with
intrinsic motivation (curiosity and enjoyment). This result confirms the initial hypothesis that
English-major students are motivated by a desire to connect with other cultures, as they are expected to
join a study abroad program (SAP) in their sophomore year, much more than by the external pressures of
passing tests. Conversely, non-English major students show little interest in language study itself, as they
are required by the university system to pass English as a mandatory course.

Question 5 (How much time per week do you spend studying English outside of the classroom?) confirms
the poor study habits of non-English major students, among whom only 11% reported spending more than
one hour per week studying, while 45% reported spending no time studying at all. This is not surprising,
as general English courses are not the main focus of non-English majors. However, the dismal attitude
revealed directly to the instructor is quite troubling. Although there is no statistical correlation between
the students’ English level and their self-reported study time, it is worth noting that these are freshman
students who still have much potential to grow and mature as they settle into university life.

Figure 2: Comparing non-English majors and English majors: Study time

In question 8 (On a scale of 1-5, how fun was studying English?), we can see a similar trend in both
cohorts (Fig. 3). Studying English was relatively fun in elementary school, then there was a dip in
enjoyment during secondary education, followed by its rise at university, perhaps due to the lack of
pressure from studying for entrance tests. The difference was that English-major students reported a
rebound in the level of enjoyment already at the high school level, most likely because they had already
decided to pursue English studies. Their self-reported level of ‘having fun’ at university was also much
higher than that of their non-English major peers.

Figure 3: Comparing the enjoyment of studying English at different academic stages

In response to question 10 (On a scale of 1-5, how important is studying English for you?), both
non-English majors and English majors answered that English was very important to them (4.3 and 4.8,
respectively). What was surprising was that even the least motivated students, who never came prepared
to class and reported that they never studied or wanted to study English outside of the classroom, still
reported that English was “very important” for their future. This apparent contradiction can best be
explained by the fact that this answer aligns with the social norms or cultural scripts of contemporary
Japanese society (Wierzbicka, 1996).

For questions 11 (Do you want to keep studying English in the future?) and 12 (Do you think you will
ever use English in the future?), English-major students gave overwhelmingly positive answers to both
questions (answering “Definitely” 82% and 91%, respectively). In contrast, only 29% of non-English
major students gave a positive answer to “wanting” to study English, compared to 44% “needing” English
in their future, with a further 17% selecting “Only if I need it for my job.” This indicates a distinct bias
towards instrumental motivation driven by career-related pressures.

To further illustrate the distinction between different motivations, question 13 (What do you think you
will use English for?) revealed that only 23% of non-English major students selected “Making friends,”
compared to 73% of English-major students. This finding reinforces the hypothesis that English-major
students have a greater interest in different cultures and in forming meaningful connections with English
speakers abroad.

Figure 4: Students speculating on their use of English in the future

In response to question 14 (“What do you hope your English level will be in the future?”), 76% of
English major students indicated they hope to become “Fluent” in English. In contrast, only 17% of
non-English major students shared this ambition, with 37% being satisfied with achieving a “Daily
communication” level.

In response to the final question 15 (“Do you think you will pass this class?”), 33% of English-major
students selected the most confident option, “Of course,” compared to 24% of non-English major students,
despite the latter having lower requirements for passing the course. Additionally, 12 non-English major
students (6%) chose the least confident option, “Probably not.” This lack of confidence proved accurate
for three students who did not attend the final test and consequently failed the class. These students would
likely have passed, as all of their other class did, but their lack of confidence became a self-fulfilling
prophecy. I have not yet heard from these students and plan to follow up with them next semester.

One open-ended questioned was designed to gauge students’ free association skills (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Open-ended question from the questionnaire

As anticipated, the scope of answers was rather limited, as the English level of these freshman students is
quite basic, and approximately 10% of students provided incoherent answers. Nonetheless, only 15% of
English-major students and 24% of non-English major students described studying at Kyoto Tachibana
University (KTU) in negative terms (the most common word was “difficult”), while the majority used
positive characterizations (such as “fun,” “interesting,” “useful for my future”). Likewise, students in both
cohorts used mostly positive evaluations in the second sentence (“very important,” “necessary,”
“essential,” etc.), indicating that English is valuable for their future lives. In both cases, English-major
students demonstrated moderately higher levels of instrumental and integrative motivations compared to
their non-English major peers.

As for gender disparities, female students usually manifest higher levels of motivation than male students,
which has also been confirmed by previous research on English as a second language (L2) studies in
Japan (Chapman and Shinya, 2019). In this survey, English-major female students demonstrated much
higher levels of instrumental and integrative motivation across all questions. However, with non-English
major students, the gender differences disappeared, and the results were inconclusive. Further detailed
investigation is therefore required.

5. Discussion
The central issue of motivation is complex, but it is evident that each individual’s motivation to learn is
flexible rather than fixed (Rost, 2006). Motivation and its constructs are context-dependent, meaning each
language learning scenario has its own distinct motivational model (Zareian and Jodaei, 2015). Therefore,
teachers need to be aware of their students’ specific needs and motivations to devise the most effective
learning environment.
The primary concern of how to boost the declining level of English proficiency in Japan, especially
among young adults, still needs to be addressed. To this end, analyzing students’ motivation is key to
identifying proper instructional methods and establishing a learning environment that best stimulates
students’ various needs.

5.1. Motivational Crowding-Out

Perhaps the biggest detriment of studying for tests is that short-term extrinsic motives undermine
long-term intrinsic motivation. This effect, known as the “motivational crowding out effect” by
economists (Frey, 1994), has been demonstrated in many experimental contexts (Deci et al., 1999) and
potentially represents the biggest obstacle for non-English major students in finding a genuine interest in
English beyond school grades.

As Japan is somewhat separated from the rest of the world, both geographically and culturally, it is crucial
to demonstrate to young learners the practical applications of active English skills beyond the classroom.
Most of secondary education is geared toward passing tests and thus focuses on extrinsic motivation in
the form of fear of failing. This approach is naturally not conducive to instilling a long-term passion for
learning in any subject, but especially in English, which is often frustrating to Japanese students due to its
steep learning curve and language-related challenges (Aizawa et al., 2020).

5.2. Japanese context

In the context of Japanese education, “international posture,” as described by Yashima (2002), refers to a
learner’s general attitude towards the international community and foreign language learning. Recent
trends indicate a decline in the number of Japanese students participating in study abroad programs. This
decline could indeed be seen as a sign of a less positive international posture among Japanese youth. A
reduced interest in international experiences might reflect a broader trend of inward-looking attitudes and
a decreased emphasis on global engagement.

Another factor explaining low engagement at the university level lies in the extrinsic motivation structure
of Japanese education. While at the secondary level, English has a clearly defined instrumental role
geared toward passing tests and stripped of any communicative function, the situation is quite the
opposite at the tertiary level, where English lacks any obvious purpose. McVeigh (2002) uses the term
“fantasy English” to describe a phenomenon in Japanese education where English is taught and learned in
a way that is disconnected from practical use and real-world communication. McVeigh argues that this
approach to English education creates an illusion of proficiency and internationalization, but in reality, it
often results in students who can pass exams but struggle with actual conversational skills. This “fantasy”
aspect highlights the gap between the educational goals and the practical outcomes.

How, then, can we bridge this gap and effectively facilitate the integration of motivation in undergraduate
students? Perhaps the most effective approach could be provided by the L2 Motivational Self-System.

5.3. Application of L2 Motivational Self-System

According to the L2 Motivational Self-System, the ought-to self is strongly influenced by peer group
norms and other societal pressures. Consequently, the ought-to self of learners, particularly adolescents,
may include peer-driven attitudes towards academic achievement, such as the “norm of mediocrity,”
which can conflict with their ideal self. In other words, there can be a tension between a learner’s
personal and social identity.

Research by Oyserman et al. (2006) indicates that negative group stereotypes are often prominent among
school children, making them feel that their social group membership clashes with their academic goals.
In such scenarios, teenagers often adjust their behavior to align with their peers (Pizzolato, 2006).
Therefore, for desired possible selves to be effective, they need to align with important social identities,
meaning the ideal and the ought-to selves should be in harmony.

The initial phase of a motivational intervention using the self approach involves guiding learners to
develop their ideal L2 Self, essentially helping them to create their vision. Practical examples include
intervention programs where the instructor asked students to introduce each other in terms of the skills or
abilities they possessed (Oyserman et al., 2006; Hock et al., 2006) or the ‘Best Possible Selves’ writing
project developed by Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2006). Basically, teachers should encourage students to
focus on their strengths and keep striving to become the best version of themselves through positive
self-reflection. This task is naturally not easy to implement in practice with a large group of students, but
ideally, teachers should find time to talk to each student one-on-one and set positive expectations at the
beginning of the course.

Last but not least, teachers should regularly remind learners of the limitations of not knowing languages
as well as prime their ought-to L2 selves by emphasizing the duties and obligations the learners have
committed themselves to (Dörnyei, 2009). Understandably, unmotivated students need some nudging to
get engaged, however the trick lies in the right balance between extrinsic pressure (class rules) and
skillful encouragement of students’ intrinsic motivation potential.

5.4. Deep Active Learning

The main message of Deep Active Learning, as proposed by Kayo Matsushita (2018), is about integrating
the concepts of active learning and deep learning to enhance the educational experience. This approach
emphasizes encouraging students to deeply engage with the material, connecting it to their prior
knowledge and future applications. It also promotes interaction with peers and the world, making learning
a collaborative and dynamic process. Finally, it fosters not just academic skills but also personal growth
and social awareness.

Whereas the L2 Motivational Self-System is often more focused on theory, Deep Active Learning
highlights classroom practice. The obvious drawback of its application is the increased burden on the
instructor, who needs to spend a significant amount of time with each student to make a meaningful
change. Paradoxically, implementing Deep Active Learning methods within a classroom of unmotivated
students, where it is most needed, is also most challenging, as active engagement is difficult to achieve.

6. Conclusion
The survey results of freshman students at Kyoto Tachibana University confirmed the reasonable
hypothesis that while non-English major students have little interest in studying English beyond the
instrumental motivation of passing tests or career advancement, the situation is quite different for
English-major students. The latter group is primarily driven by the enjoyment of studying another
language and their desire to connect with other cultures, indicating a much higher level of integrative
motivation.

This paper analyzed different motivations for studying English among Japanese undergraduate students.
Whereas English-major students demonstrated a high level of integrative motivation, non-English major
students are driven primarily by instrumental motivation. Indeed, in many classrooms, it is not easy to
instill a passion for learning among students who seem indifferent to any motives beyond obtaining class
credits and tend to display cases of “extreme apathy” (Ryan, 2009, p. 120).

For any teacher, being able to ignite enthusiasm for learning in students that is driven by their curiosity
rather than the fear of failing the class is the most rewarding achievement. The question of how to
facilitate such internalization is naturally an important research subject in many different contexts (Deci
et al., 1994), and this paper aims to contribute by applying the L2 Motivational Self-System to English
instruction at Japanese universities. The core message is the importance of aligning the ideal and ought-to
selves for effective motivation. In practice, this means that English teachers should first analyze the
differences in motivations and encourage their students to strive for their ideal selves by utilizing Deep
Active Learning methods, such as in-class interviews or self-reflection activities.

The challenges to success are numerous. First of all, time constraints and class size often dictate what is
practically possible. Second, integrative and instrumental motivation are often difficult to separate, as
different types of motivation lie on a continuum from amotivation through extrinsic motivation to
intrinsic motivation (Dörnyei, 2005). Finally, language teachers need a lot of expertise to be able to
deeply connect with their students, especially in settings that are culturally unique, such as Japan, or
where students show a high degree of apathy, such as non-English major students.

Needless to say, the practical applications of the above methods require further experimentation and
analysis. The author intends to continue the current research with the same student groups in the
upcoming school semester. Possible pathways might include encouraging students to create visions of
their ideal selves, conducting individual and group interviews, or designing self-reflection activities in
order to harmonize students’ ideal selves with their ought-to selves.

References
1. Aizawa, et al. (2023). Beyond the threshold: Exploring English language proficiency, linguistic
challenges, and academic language skills of Japanese students in an English medium instruction
programme. Language Teaching Research, 27(4), 837–861.
2. Alisoy, H. (2023). Exploring the Types of Motivation in Second Language Learning: Implications for
Instruction And Learner Success. The Scientific Heritage, (115).
3. Chapman, & Shinya. (2019). Motivating Factors in Japanese University EFL Students: Integrative or
Instrumental? Bulletin of Hijiyama University, (26).
4. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior.
New York: Plenum. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7.
5. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.
6. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
7. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese
learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 120-143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
9. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
10. Dörnyei, Z. (2016). From English language teaching to psycholinguistics: A story of three decades. In
R. Ellis (Ed.), Becoming and being an applied linguist: The life histories of some applied linguists
(pp. 119-135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. EF EPI. (2023). Retrieved from https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/regions/asia/japan/
12. Frey, B. S. (1994). How intrinsic motivation is crowded out and in. Rationality and Society, 6,
334–352.
13. Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition.
 Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.
14. Hock, M. F., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006). Enhancing student motivation through the
pursuit of possible selves. In C. Dunkel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible Selves: Theory, Research
and Application (pp. 205-221). New York: Nova Science.
15. Kitayama, S., & Uchida, Y. (2003). Explicit self-criticism and implicit self-regard: Evaluating self
and friend in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 476-482.
16. Lambert, W. E. (1974). Culture and language as factors in learning and education. Paper presented at
the Annual Learning Symposium on “Cultural Factors in Learning" (5th, Western Washington State
College, Bellingham, Washington, November, 1973). Retrieved August 20, 2024, from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED096820.pdf
17. Lambert, W. E., Mallea, J., & Young, J. C. (1973). Culture and language as factors in learning and
education. Cultural Diversity and Canadian Education: Issues and Innovations, 5, 130-233.
18. Matsushita, K. (2018). Deep Active Learning: Toward Greater Depth in University Education.
Springer.
19. McVeigh, B. J. (2002). Japanese Higher Education as Myth. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
20. Moritani, H., & Manning, C. (2017). Motivational Profiles of Japanese University Learners of
English: A longitudinal study. 総合政策論叢, 33.
21. Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and
when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 188-204.
22. Pintrich, P. R., & Others. (1991). A Manual for the Use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire (MSLQ). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122
23. Pizzolato, J. E. (2006). Achieving college student possible selves: Navigating the space between
commitment and achievement of long-term identity goals. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority
Psychology, 12(1), 57-69.
24. Rost, M. (2006). Generating student motivation. Retrieved January, 2012, from
www.pearsonlongman.com/ae/worldview/motivation.pdf
25. Ryan, R. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality, 63(3), 397–427.
26. Ryan, R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
27. Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners
of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.
120-143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
28. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination
theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 61.
29. Sheldon, K. M., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2006). How to increase and sustain positive emotion: The
effects of expressing gratitude and visualizing best possible selves. Journal of Positive Psychology,
1(2), 73-82.
30. Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context.
Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-66.
31. Yashima, T. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese
learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 144-163). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
32. Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ: General
Learning Press.
33. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Japanese cultural scripts: Cultural psychology and “cultural grammar”. Ethos,
24(3), 527-555. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/640483
34. Zareian, G., & Jodaei, H. (2015). Motivation in second language acquisition: A state of the art article.
International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 5(2).