Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

From Demotivation to Remotivation: A Mixed-Methods Investigation:

From Demotivation to Remotivation: A Mixed-Methods Investigation: Research into language learning demotivation has tended to focus on the identification of discrete factors resulting in demotivation. In this article, we report an investigation into the interrelationship among factors eventually leading to demotivation using a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design. In Study 1, 13 participants were interviewed about their demotivation experiences and what factors, they perceived, had led to demotivation over a period of 12 months. We then used these results to formulate a demotivation model. In Study 2, we tested the generalizability of this model on a larger sample (N = 2044). Using structural equation modeling, our results showed that the model fit the data, and most of its paths were statistically significant. This model showed that having a fixed mindset had one direct and two indirect paths to demotivation. The two indirect paths were through lowering the learner’s ideal L2 self and through feeling disappointed by setbacks. We discuss the implication of our findings for language learning and teaching. Keywords demotivation, remotivation, mindset, ideal self, disappointment Demotivation is a gloomy topic to which many classroom different coping strategies in preventing this trend or revers- teachers readily, and cheerlessly, relate. Along with teaching ing it. This line of research has recommended a number of strategies, teachers are also expected to devise and imple- remotivational strategies, mostly related to what learners can ment various motivational strategies to keep reluctant learn- do to self-regulate their learning such as improving study ers motivated over time (Dörnyei, 2001a). In many contexts, skills and competing with friends for fun (for a review, see it would be very rare to find a class of highly and consistently Kikuchi, 2015). motivated learners—a situation that would certainly be the Because remotivation is still an under-researched area, envy of fellow teachers. the goal of this study was to shed light on what factors learn- Another worrying concern is that research has repeatedly ers perceive as contributing to demotivation and subsequent shown that learner motivation tends to decrease over time. remotivation, and how these factors are interrelated. We first For example, in a study by R. C. Gardner et al. (2004), the interviewed a group of learners to formulate a demotivation researchers documented a decline in a number of motiva- model and then tested the generalizability of this model on a tional variables over a period of 1 year. The variables that larger group of participants. were most susceptible to this declining trend were those directly related to what was happening within the learning From Demotivation to Remotivation situation, such as daily motivational intensity and evaluation of the teacher and the course. Similar results were obtained Demotivation refers to the gradual loss of motivation over a in other contexts as well (e.g., Al-Hoorie, 2019; Inbar et al., relatively long period of time (e.g., over the course of weeks, 2001; Williams et al., 2002). This declining motivation adds months, or semesters, as opposed to within a single lesson). a further burden on teachers. Originally, demotivation was attributed primarily to external Attempts to remedy this situation and help learners factors that lower motivation (Dörnyei, 2001b) such as the recover from demotivation have led to the emergence of a relatively new area of research called remotivation (Carpenter King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia et al., 2009; Falout, 2012). Remotivation refers to the process 2 Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia of recovery from demotivation as facilitated by positive Corresponding Author: internal or external factors. The primary aim of remotivation Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Jubail English Language and Preparatory Year Institute, Royal research, therefore, is to understand factors contributing to Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Jubail Industrial City 31961, Saudi Arabia. motivational decline and to investigate the effectiveness of Email: hoorie_a@jic.edu.sa Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open classroom atmosphere and the teaching method, though sub- tion to intelligence, but a growth mindset in relation to per- sequent demotivation research has highlighted the impor- sonality, social relationships, and sports. tance of internal factors as well (Kikuchi, 2015), such as Although it was initially suggested that language beliefs self-confidence and negative attitudes. Considering that indi- may be a fixed system of knowledge formed at an early age viduals vary in how they perceive and react to demotivators, and thus cannot be easily changed (Peacock, 2001; Wenden, Kikuchi (2015) also called for research exploring demotiva- 1998), recent research has demonstrated that language beliefs tional mechanisms to better understand how individual learn- are dynamic and can change under certain contingencies ers process demotivating factors and why learners may react (Yeager et al., 2016). For example, after experiencing suc- differently to the same factors. cess or failure, directing praise or criticism to intelligence, Nakata (2006) proposed three stages describing the feel- personality, talent, or a God-given ability can promote a ing of discouragement that students may go through. The fixed mindset. In contrast, when feedback is specific, con- first stage is the initial demotivation that the learner may structive, and genuine, and when it is directed to effort, strat- experience as a result of negative experiences, such as poor egies and skills, a growth mindset can be cultivated. Teachers’ grades or an ineffective teaching approach. This initial demo- own mindsets, therefore, play a key role in creating and tivation can be passing, and the learner may recover from it developing different mindsets through how teachers interpret after some time. However, if this demotivation is not mistakes and failures during the learning process (e.g., addressed, the learner may transition to amotivation, which Cimpian et al., 2007; Rattan et al., 2012, 2015). refers to a lack of motivation, passivity, and a feeling of pur- Most initial research into mindsets was conducted in lab poselessness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). If this amotivation status settings. Interventions conducted outside lab settings pro- also remains unaddressed, the learner may descend into vided mixed results. A meta-analysis of such field interven- learned helplessness (see below). tions showed that changing mindsets led only to a minor Reversing this trajectory and regaining interest in learn- improvement in academic achievement (Sisk et al., 2018) or ing is remotivation. Remotivating learners requires more none at all (Foliano et al., 2019). Nevertheless, mindset inter- than listing a number of creative remotivational strategies, ventions seem particularly helpful to learners who are aca- however. It would be more effective to tap into the source of demically at risk and who come from a low socioeconomic demotivation and address it. Furthermore, rather than identi- background. Furthermore, a recent, nationally representative fying discrete demotivation factors, it is also essential to rec- intervention involving secondary school students in the ognize the subjective interconnections among these factors United States showed that the mindset intervention was as perceived by the learner (Kim & Kim, 2013) as well as the effective when peer norms aligned with the messages of the adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies (Falout, 2012) intervention (Yeager et al., 2019). that learners utilize to deal with their demotivation (see also Within language learning, Mercer (2011) similarly argued Al-Hoorie, 2017). In other words, it is crucial to uncover the that possessing a fixed language learning mindset (LLM) subjective reality of the demotivation process. In the next leads the learner to avoid challenges and to set lower goals, sections, we, therefore, review major factors associated with thus risking becoming demotivated over time (see also Lou & demotivation before presenting our study, which attempts to Noels, 2017, 2019). Along the same lines, research by Lou and draw connections among them. Noels (2020) additionally showed that migrants with a growth LLM reported less anxiety, more language use, and higher proficiency, even after controlling baseline proficiency. Language Learning Mindset One potential internal factor is the learner’s implicit theories Ideal L2 Self (i.e., mindsets) about their own abilities (Dweck, 1999). In this context, a mindset refers to whether one believes that Another potential factor has to do with the strength of the qualities such as intelligence and talent are fixed or change- learner’s ideal L2 self (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009). The ideal L2 able traits. Mindsets have been shown to shape individuals’ self represents an ideal end-state that the learner wishes to thoughts, behaviors, and feelings, and consequently make reach. The ideal L2 self is assumed to derive its motivational them think, feel and act differently in identical situations effect from the discrepancy between current and ideal self- (Dweck & Molden, 2005). Learners with a growth mindset states. The ideal L2 self has been studied extensively during believe that their ability is malleable, and so failures and set- the past two decades, though most research has examined backs are construed as an integral part of the learning pro- correlation with other self-report measures rather than more cess. In contrast, learners with a fixed mindset consider their meaningful language learning outcomes (see Al-Hoorie, ability as inborn, and therefore failure constitutes a threat to 2018, for a meta-analysis). their confidence and self-esteem (Lou & Noels, 2019; Yeager Although the ideal L2 self has shown a strong association et al., 2019). Research has also shown that individuals can with self-reported intended effort, correlation with other, hold distinct mindsets in relation to different areas (Dweck, more tangible learning outcomes was not as strong (e.g., 1999). For example, one may have a fixed mindset in rela- Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020a; Lamb, 2012; Moskovsky et al., Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 3 2016). The standard instrument used to measure the ideal L2 been argued to play an important role in motivation and self primarily focuses on “imagination” and whether the achievement, empirical results have not always shown strong learner can imagine him/herself learning the language suc- support as reviewed above. One possible explanation for cessfully at some point in the future, rather than the discrep- such findings is that a better understanding of these factors is ancy between actual states and ideal self-guides. This needed. A second, though not mutually exclusive explana- measurement focus led some researchers to suggest relabel- tion, is the need to consider these factors in tandem. ing this instrument as the imagined self (Al-Hoorie, 2018). Motivational factors are commonly treated as discrete vari- Nevertheless, Dörnyei et al. (2016, p. 22) have argued that ables examined in isolation (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020b; future self-guides have evolved into a specific form of vision, Hiver et al., 2020; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), but conceptualized as the vivid mental image of successfully integrative investigations can shed important light not cap- achieving the desired goal. Without such a future-directed tured when motivational factors are studied separately (Joe end goal, it is likely that the learner will be prone to demoti- et al., 2017; Kikuchi, 2015; Yun et al., 2018). vation over time (Kikuchi, 2019). It has also been argued that In the present investigation, we, therefore, set out to such future-directed vision is essential for directed motiva- understand demotivation through the lens of learners them- tional currents (Muir, 2020) or sustained flow (Ibrahim & selves. Our aim was to investigate how learners’ individual Al-Hoorie, 2019), though close examination shows that experiences were related to language learning demotivation vision and goal are not clearly distinct constructs (Al-Hoorie and how their demotivation changed and interacted with & Al Shlowiy, 2020). their environments (Kim & Kim, 2013). To this end, in Study 1, we conducted a small-scale qualitative study of 13 partici- pants who provided personal accounts of their demotivation. Learning Disappointments This study, therefore, allowed us to formulate a model of Motivation and demotivation are not completely parallel con- demotivational dynamics. Our three-part research question structs. Factors relevant to motivation may not be relevant to for Study 1 was: demotivation, and vice versa. For example, language learners may feel disappointed by their proficiency level, relative to the Research Question 1a (RQ1a): What factors are perceived amount of time and effort they have put into learning. This dis- to have contributed to the participants’ demotivation? appointment may be demotivating, but lack of disappointment Research Question 1b (RQ1b): How are these factors per se may not necessarily be a motivating factor. This is why perceived to interact with each other? demotivation factors need to be investigated in their own right, Research Question 1c (RQ1c): To what do learners attri- rather than treating them as the flip side of motivating factors. bute their ability to recover and rebuild their motivation, Although the inevitable disappointments that take place or lack thereof? in academic settings can be an important factor contributing to demotivation, little research has examined how language Acknowledging the limitations of qualitative methodol- learners navigate these disappointments. Testing and evalua- ogy, Study 2 involved a large-scale survey involving more tion are part and parcel of academic life, and the average than 2,000 learners. Study 2 allowed us, first, to test the gen- learner is bound to encounter setbacks from time to time. For eralizability of the model we obtained in Study 1 and, sec- some learners, such setbacks are an indication that success ond, to quantify the relationships between the different and failure are governed by factors beyond one’s control, variables in the model. This approach has been described as ultimately leading to disillusionment and learned helpless- a sequential exploratory mixed methods design that gener- ness (Abramson et al., 1978; Noels et al., 2000) and even ates and tests a model (e.g., Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008). impostorism (Clance & Imes, 1978; R. G. Gardner et al., More specifically, Study 2 used structural equation modeling 2019). Other learners, in contrast, exhibit learned resource- (SEM) to answer the following research question: fulness (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003; Rosenbaum, 1989), which allows the learner to access a behavioral repertoire of Research Question 2 (RQ2): Does the model obtained emotional and cognitive reactions to ameliorate stressful sit- from Study 1 fit the data obtained from a larger sample of uations and to sustain resilient functioning (Yun et al., 2018). participants? Nevertheless, a 4-year longitudinal study reported that learned resourcefulness does not improve over time (Ceyhan In combination, thus, Studies 1 and 2 enabled us to propose & Ceyhan, 2011), thus making learners vulnerable to demo- a demotivation model and then test this model with a large tivation with increasing academic pressure. sample of participants from the same population. As Study 2 used SEM, we recognize that, ultimately, SEM is used to test causal relationships, and not just correla- The Present Study tions. In our case, we extracted the directionality of the Although these three factors; growth mindset, ideal L2 self, hypothesized causal relationships from the results of Study 1 and resourcefulness toward academic disappointments; have and built a model representing the causal paths perceived by 4 SAGE Open the participants. In Study 2, we then tested the generalizabil- and then these themes were classified into higher level con- ity of these perceptions. Our goal from this procedure was to ceptual themes. As an illustration, responses related to what identity the subjective reality underpinning demotivation. made the participants feel vulnerable or resilient were Furthermore, researchers using SEM are expected to test grouped under vulnerability and resilience themes, and then competing models to avoid confirmation bias (e.g., see Hiver these themes were linked via higher order themes (e.g., deal- & Al-Hoorie, 2020a). However, as only one model emerged ing with failure). This approach facilitated drawing a mean- from Study 1, it was the only model we tested. We, therefore, ingful and coherent picture of the patterns emerging from the acknowledge that the possibility of other models to represent data. demotivation. We elaborate on this limitation later. To understand the interconnections among themes, the themes were analyzed following a process coding approach (Saldaña, 2016). Process coding is an analytical strategy that Study 1 permits the researcher to uncover a sequence of events lead- ing to an outcome as perceived by interviewees. Special Participants attention was paid to how the different demotivating factors Thirteen female Saudi language learners (aged 18–20) vol- related to and interacted with each other, and common unteered to participate in this study. They were studying themes were grouped until final codes clearly emerged from English as part of a foundation year requirement in prepara- the data. Using particular instances in the qualitative data, a tion for their majors, attending classes 20 hours a week. bigger map of possible relationships between variables was These learners were recruited from a larger group of learners developed. Finally, for the purpose of respondent validation, who responded to a public call for participants who had the resulting demotivation model was presented to the par- experienced demotivation and who were willing to discuss ticipants, who confirmed that it reflected their demotivation their experiences candidly. The participants had studied dynamics (for more details, see Albalawi, 2018). English as a school subject for at least 8 years, though they rated themselves as having low competence. Generally, there Results is little opportunity for learners to practice their English out- side of the language class in this context. Language learning mindsets. The qualitative analysis revealed that demotivation occurred when internal or external factors broke some of the constituents of the learner’s expectations Data Collection about the learning process and its outcomes. However, the Three semi-structured interviews were conducted with each diverse ways by which learners perceived different internal participant over the course of 12 months. To explore the fac- and external factors seemed to a large extent a function of the tors and conditions that explained variation in learners’ LLM held by each learner. Different LLMs had demotiva- demotivation and remotivation, the participants were asked tional or remotivational power. In other words, the way they to share their beliefs, thoughts, feeling, explanations, attribu- perceived factors such as the teacher’s role, their language tions, and dreams about their English learning experience as learning ability, and their effort had an important impact on a long journey involving a combination of halts, obstacles, their motivation, demotivation, and remotivation processes. challenges, boredom, enjoyment, rewards, and discovery. In A major finding of this study was that it was not only each of the three interviews, conducted a few months apart, merely the identification of the demotivating factors that the participants were encouraged to reflect on and articulate mattered but also the way these factors were perceived by their demotivational processes, elaborate on the factors per- individual language learners. A recurring finding in the qual- ceived to have caused their demotivation, and the interaction itative analysis was that learners did not perceive demotivat- among different motivational factors. The interviews were ing events similarly across the board even in seemingly conducted in Arabic, the participant s’ native language. identical situations. Instead, the learner’s LLM, as fixed or malleable, shaped how one perceived these demotivators. The ability to learn a second language was perceived by Data Analysis language learners possessing a fixed mindset as being limited The interviews were recorded, translated into English, and and naturally gifted, while growth mindset learners believed transcribed. The accuracy of the translation was then checked that this ability could be increased through effort and practice. by a native speaker of Arabic who is fluent in English. The Therefore, when language learners attributed their own or oth- scripts were then read carefully to explore diverse accounts, ers’ past failures and successes to “ability,” their motivation to find frequent patterns, identify differences among these pat- learn the language was influenced differently according to terns, and extract common demotivation-related themes whether they believed that this ability was fixed or not. using NVivo 9. Following the principles of applied thematic Those learners who believed that their language learning analysis (Guest et al., 2012), initial codes were inductively ability was fixed also emphasized that having a natural abil- identified. The emerging codes were grouped into themes, ity, or a knack, was essential for success. They consequently Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 5 reported avoiding challenges and potentially embarrassing speaks only English. I even imagine myself studying abroad. These are all dreams. I wish I can achieve all these dreams. situations to look confident and save face if the task seemed However, I realized that it is not easy to learn English. Every difficult. They also felt threatened by the successful experi- time I fail in the English test, I lower my expectations because I ences of others and questioned their own ability when they lose hope and feel that I am helpless to change my situation. I encountered high achievers. They additionally devalued hard feel like I do not have the ability to be the person I always work and effort, perceiving them as fruitless. All these fac- imagine myself to be. It feels like if you really are a good person tors apparently made them more sensitive to demotivating who would like to help poor people, but you do not have the factors. Consider the following learner who emphasized the money to help them. (ID104) power of a natural language learning ability: During my first years of English learning, I knew that I would learn the alphabet, vocabulary, grammar and the basic Not everyone can learn a second language. Some people are expressions in English. . . however, when it comes to speaking talented; they have something special that helps them to learn and pronunciation, peoples’ abilities vary. I always knew that languages fast; they are naturally gifted. They pass the language there was nothing I could do to improve it. . . I could only courses easily without studying hard. I wish I was one of them. imagine passing the course but never imagined myself being a Unfortunately, I feel that without having that natural ability, fluent speaker of English. (ID105) studying English is like wasting my time. I would rather spend my time studying something I am good at. (ID101) These learners could not create a vision of themselves Contrary to these learners, other interviewees made state- speaking English fluently in the future, attributing it to their ments that indicated their tendency to endorse a growth belief in the immutability of their language learning ability. mindset. These learners believed that the ability to learn a As a result, their motivation to develop their language skills second language could be enhanced through effort and hard decreased over time as they put in less and less effort. In work. When they failed, these learners blamed their lack of other words, the learners with a fixed mindset reported fail- effort or “carelessness.” In fact, all interviewees who reported ure to create a clear and vivid image of an ideal L2 self, con- having successful language learning experiences valued hard sequently demotivating them. work and effort and believed in the malleability of ability. Disappointment. Disappointment appeared to be a major fac- They reported being more determined, autonomous, resil- tor contributing to demotivation. Learners with a fixed mind- ient, and more committed to overcoming learning challenges. set expressed a lot of disappointment about their low They embraced challenges and felt inspired by others’ suc- (particularly oral) proficiency level and their failure to cessful experiences. According to one of these learners, improve it, despite studying the language for several years at Everyone can learn a second language. It just needs time, school. When they did not achieve the oral proficiency level patience, and effort. If I fail, I mainly blame myself for being they expected, they became helpless, blamed their own abil- careless and not trying harder using different strategies to ity, and quit trying even when they were encouraged to do so increase my language ability. Learning English is like learning by people around them. A commonly invoked reason for this how to drive and cook. You start weak but the more you practice, disappointment is the ineffective teaching approaches used the stronger you become. (ID102) in their learning contexts. The following two examples illus- trate this point: Ideal L2 self. Interestingly, the qualitative analysis also revealed that LLMs seemed to influence the construction of When I started learning English. . . I was shocked. . . an ideal L2 self. The data also showed that the remotivational disappointed. . . confused. . . it was different from what I power of the ideal L2 self might be obstructed by the demo- expected. . . I expected to be able to speak as well as my cousins did. . . of course I was learning but not what I expected. . . it tivational power of a fixed LLM. Learners with a fixed LLM was all about grammar, books, exams and memorization. . . reported that they did not possess a strong sense of an ideal (ID106) L2 self. They specifically attributed this weak ideal L2 self to their belief in the unchangeability of language learning abil- When I was a child, my dream was to speak English fluently as ity. In fact, several interviewees used the expression “I can’t well as my father did. However, after trying hard and failing to imagine myself” as a successful learner. This pattern some- make a conversation several times in different situations, I times emerged in the context of using the language fluently, started to feel disappointed about the outcome of learning while in other times, it emerged after failures and setbacks. English at school. I gradually felt helpless and felt that I would Some learners reported “lowering their expectations” of the never be able to achieve my goals. The situation now is worse type of learner they would like to be. As two learners than before. I hate being in an English class or listening to explained, someone speaking English and try to escape the English class whenever I can. Even when my father told me that there was a good private English institution that he was willing to afford if I I always imagine myself when I am older, speaking English would like to enroll in an intensive English course, I refused fluently with foreigners, or working in a career where everybody 6 SAGE Open because I felt that I would definitely fail to improve my English gets more difficult, but I feel bored when the teachers repeat and waste his money. (ID109) information that I already know. (ID100) When they found that the educational system was memo- In contrast, learners who had a fixed LLM perceived set- rization- and exam-oriented, these learners just gave up and backs as more threatening than challenging and consequently did not try to put in extra effort to remedy their language were more likely to withdraw from stressful academic situa- deficiencies. It seems that the fixed mindset of these learners tions. They, therefore, remained demotivated for extended had led them to expect quick proficiency gains without expe- periods as they applied maladaptive coping strategies in the riencing setbacks in the process. This expectation, first, led hope of reducing the negative emotional impact of demotiva- to being disappointed when their proficiency did not develop tion, rather than changing their learning strategies to facili- as fast as they had hoped and, second, led them to lower their tate recovery. Examples of their statements included: expectations and goals. In combination, these factors appar- I felt that I was wasting my time. I stopped attending the English ently contributed to their demotivation. classes because I felt helpless. I could not see the point of attending In contrast to these demotivated accounts, learners with a the English class if I could not understand anything. (ID109) growth mindset actually perceived their slow progress as a reassuring sign of a normal developmental trajectory. They Gradually, English class became like a 45-minute break where I believed that all proficient speakers of English must have ate, drank and secretly chatted with my friends. I even escaped been beginners at one point and experienced similar difficul- the English class whenever I could. (ID105) ties in their language learning journey. Therefore, they did not feel disappointed or lower their expectations. As one learner I became neglectful and did not touch the book if I had an stated, English test. I stopped feeling anxious or worried before the English test. (ID107) I know that I am not a fluent speaker of English. I also know that I will not achieve fluency soon. I consider myself a beginner who I used to say, “I’ll be fine.” Although I felt that I would never can only make simple sentences, not a conversation. However, succeed in learning English, I never hated English. I always told when I listen to the Saudi teacher who speaks English fluently or myself that failing English did not mean that I am a failure encounter other Saudi girls who are fluent speakers of English, because I was good at other subjects. (ID107) I imagine them when they were beginners like me and how they remained committed to learning English until they achieved Mindset change leading to remotivation. The data showed, curi- their goal. Being a beginner who speaks broken English is the ously, that the LLM might change over time and that the first step of a long learning journey that will definitely lead to mindset gradual change can influence the language learner’s achieving fluency one day. (ID102) motivational level. In cases where learners recovered from demotivation, some fixed-mindset learners gradually adopted Coping with failure. The data showed that even when lan- a growth LLM for various reasons including: (a) encountering guage learners encountered setbacks and failure and per- high achievers or hardworking learners, (b) observing their ceived certain factors as being potential demotivators, the own growth and progress after trying new strategies and skills, ensuing diverse responses were to a large extent the function and (c) experiencing the positive outcome of hard work. The of coping mechanisms they used to respond to demotivation. LLM turned out to be key to success in recovery from demoti- The LLM seemed to be the major factor that significantly vation in our data. influenced the learner’s responses to potential demotivators Indeed, growth LLM was key to success in every recov- and their diverse applications and choice of adaptive (e.g., ery case in our data. All demotivated learners who success- autonomous learning, increasing effort, or seeking for help fully bounced back and rebuilt their motivation after and guidance) or maladaptive (e.g., denial, escaping, or experiencing demotivation have associated recovery with cheating) coping mechanisms. changing their maladaptive beliefs about the malleability of Learners who had a growth LLM perceived setbacks, fail- their language learning ability. Consider the following exam- ures, and mistakes as an opportunity for growth and a valu- ple of a participant who held a fixed LLM before she encoun- able source for learning and development. They demonstrated tered a proficient classmate who spoke English fluently. more resilience by applying adaptive strategies that helped Contrary to others who questioned their own ability when them to remain motivated or to remotivate themselves. encountering high achievers, this learner explained how her Examples of their statements included: discussion with that successful classmate gradually changed her perception of her own language learning ability, and When learning English, I wish if I make a mistake every day, so thereby remotivated her. Encountering a proficient learner at I learn something new every day. (ID105) the same learning setting inspired her and changed her fixed My motivation and my concentration increase when the LLM from “I lacked the ability” into a growth mindset char- grammar lesson becomes more complicated or the vocabulary acterized by the statement “It was too hard; I needed too Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 7 Figure 1. The hypothesized model emerging from Study 1. much time and effort.” Even though, at that point, this learner the primary factor contributing to demotivation is the learn- still thought that language learning was “too hard,” this new er’s LLM. A fixed LLM seems to have both direct and indi- perception represented a major shift from a complete lack of rect effects on demotivation. One indirect effect appears to ability (impossible endeavor) to too much time and effort be through lowering one’s ideal L2 self, and the other through required (but still at least possible). This perception was trig- causing disappointment about low (particularly oral) profi- gered by the recognition that that proficient classmate ciency. Both holding a fixed LLM and being disappointed achieved her goal through sustained effort rather than an about proficiency seem to have further led to a lower ideal innate language ability or a natural talent: L2 self and thereby demotivated the learners. These findings, in turn, might help explain recent results showing a weak I have always thought of majoring in English but thought that I effect of mindset training interventions on academic achieve- lacked the ability and talent. I even believed that you cannot learn ment (e.g., Sisk et al., 2018). Our results suggest that the a second language if you are not smart and talented enough. relationship between a fixed mindset and low academic However, I met a friend in high school who had better grades in achievement is not direct but partly mediated by demotiva- English than I did. She told me that she never travelled abroad, she tion, indicating that the impact might not be noticeable in the attended state schools, and she studied English hard. I decided to short term. Instead, the effect might be incremental and buy a book to learn English in one week. I admired her and had a cumulative over a more extended period of time. strong desire to be like her, but it was too hard; I needed too much Since Study 1 adopted a qualitative design, we were able to time and effort. Now, I believe that the harder I work and the formulate the model shown in Figure 1 based on the learners’ longer hours I spend, the better English learner I will be. (ID110) perceptions. At the same time, the small sample of Study 1 allows neither confident inference to a larger population nor This and other similar examples in our data indicated that does it allow estimation of the magnitude of the relationships LLMs can change over time. Thus, it seems possible for learn- between these variables. Study 2 attempted to address these ers to modify their fixed LLM, to generate a growth mindset limitations by administering a survey to a larger sample and that facilitates recovery from demotivation, and to consciously then testing the hypothesized model through SEM. reflect on this process. If the newly generated growth mindset is enhanced and maintained, long-term goals may be achieved. Study 2 Discussion Participants Study 1 involved interviewing a group of language learners about the factors that they perceived as contributing to their A total of 2,044 participants (aged 18–24) volunteered to take demotivation. The analysis revealed three factors as well as part in this study. The participants (almost 90% female) were their interrelationships. As shown in Figure 1, it seems that studying at the foundation year at a major Saudi university. The 8 SAGE Open university in question accepts students from all over the coun- Table 1. Standardized and Unstandardized Factor Loadings, Standard Errors, and z Ratios of Scales in the Measurement try, thus its students represent different backgrounds. Around Model. 53% of the participants were aiming for science-related majors whereas 46% opted for an arts-related major. Only 12% started Path β B SE z learning English as early as Grade 1 or earlier, 52% from Grade Language Learning → Fixed1 .68 — 0.025 27.43 4, and 36% from intermediate school (Grade 7). Their profi- Mindset Fixed2 .83 1.23 0.027 30.90 ciency self-ratings ranged from beginner (18%), elementary Ideal L2 Self → Ideal1 .83 — 0.013 63.75 (21%), lower intermediate (22%), intermediate (28%), to upper Ideal2 .77 0.93 0.014 55.78 intermediate (11%). The participants had diverse backgrounds, Ideal3 .84 1.01 0.013 63.12 rural and urban, and graduated from different types of schools L2 Disappointment → Disap1 .69 — 0.022 30.96 including public, private, and international. Disap2 .85 1.23 0.024 35.82 L2 Demotivation → Demot1 .71 — 0.013 52.68 Instrument Demot2 .80 1.13 0.010 76.28 Demot3 .85 1.21 0.010 87.75 This study used four questionnaire scales, all adopting a 6-point Demot4 .88 1.25 0.008 110.46 Likert-type response format (Albalawi, 2018; see Appendix). Demot5 .71 1.01 0.013 53.88 Two scales were adapted from existing scales. The first was the LLM (Dweck, 1999), where a higher score indicated stronger Note. All coefficients are significant at the p < .001 level. endorsement of a fixed mindset. The second scale was the Ideal L2 Self (Taguchi et al., 2009), where a higher score indicated a Table 2. Reliability, Validity, and Inter-Construct Correlations stronger ideal L2 self. Two further scales were constructed for the Scales of the Measurement Model. based on the qualitative analysis in Study 1: L2 Disappointment and L2 Demotivation. To design two reliable scales, we adapted Scale CR AVE 1 2 3 4 original statements and quotes that the participating students 1. Language Learning Mindset .73 .57 .76 used to report symptoms of their disappointment and demoti- 2. Ideal L2 Self .85 .66 −.28 .81 vation. In both scales, a higher score indicated higher levels of 3. L2 Disappointment .74 .59 .25 −.03 .77 demotivation and of disappointment about oral proficiency. 4. L2 Demotivation .89 .63 .48 −.58 .55 .79 These scales were first piloted on a sample of 60 learners to verify comprehensibility. All scales were administered in Note. Values in the diagonal are the square roots of their respective AVE. Arabic to avoid language interference. (See “Results” section CR = construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. for reliability and validity of these scales.) approximation (RMSEA) = .037, 90% CI [0.031, 0.043]. All Data Analysis standardized factor loadings were significant, and most were over .70, with the lowest being .68 (see Table 1). Most residu- SEM was used to test the hypothesized model (Figure 1) als were within ±2.0, with the smallest being −2.26. As Table emerging from Study 1. The first step was examining the mea- 2 shows, the construct reliabilities were all above .70 while all surement model. After the scree plot showed that there were average variance extracted values were over .50. The square indeed four factors underlying the data, we conducted a con- roots of the average variance extracted values (shown in the firmatory factor analysis with weighted least square mean and diagonal of Table 2) were also larger than their respective variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation method using Mplus inter-construct correlations, indicating adequate discriminant 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). We used WLSMV because validity (see Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020a, for details on SEM it is suitable for ordinal data, makes no distributional assump- considerations). tions about observed variables, and is less biased and more We then conducted the structural model. The results are accurate than robust maximum likelihood (MLR) especially presented in Figure 2 and Tables 3 and 4. Although having a with large samples (Li, 2016). The measurement model part of fixed mindset had a direct effect on L2 Demotivation (β = the analysis also involved examining construct reliability and .23), it also had an indirect effect of β = .25. In combination, validity. The second step was the structural model, testing the having fixed mindset had a total effect of β = .48 on L2 fit of the model and estimating the structural paths. Missing Demotivation. In other words, learners with a fixed mindset data were handled using the default Mplus function, which may lower their Ideal L2 Selves, which subsequently leads to estimates the model under missing data theory using all avail- L2 Demotivation. Similarly, learners who endorse a fixed able data, and no paths were dropped due to nonsignificance. mindset might perceive their low oral proficiency with higher levels of disappointment, resulting in further L2 Results Demotivation. An interesting finding in the results is that L2 The measurement model showed adequate fit, χ (48) = Disappointment did not significantly predict the Ideal L2 165.717, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .994, Self, suggesting that the effect of L2 Disappointment is not Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .992, root mean square error of mediated by lowering the Ideal L2 Self. Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 9 Figure 2. Results of the structural model. All coefficients are significant at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated. Table 3. Standardized and Unstandardized Structural Coefficients, Standard Errors, and z Ratios for the Structural Model. Path β B SE z Language Learning Mindset → Ideal L2 Self −.25 −0.33 0.030 −9.11 L2 Demotivation .23 0.24 0.024 9.67 L2 Disappointment .25 0.25 0.030 8.37 L2 Disappointment → Ideal L2 Self −.02 −0.02 0.023 −0.50 L2 Demotivation .46 0.47 0.022 20.76 Ideal L2 Self → L2 Demotivation −.48 −0.42 0.021 −23.22 Note. All coefficients are significant at the p < .001 level. deficiencies will feel disappointed and then demotivated. In Discussion contrast, those who see these same setbacks as a normal part In this study, we conducted a large-scale quantitative study to of the learning process are unlikely to feel as disappointed. test the demotivation model emerging from Study 1. Our results showed that the model was generalizable and showed adequate statistical fit. The model also estimated the strength General Discussion of the associations among the variables, showing that having In this article, our ultimate aim was to rethink language a fixed mindset, a weak ideal L2 self and feeling disap- learning demotivation by exploring its complexity and the pointed about one’s proficiency contributes to demotivation. interrelationship among factors leading to it. Most research The results additionally showed that having a fixed mindset into language demotivation to date has focused on discrete contributed both directly and indirectly to demotivation. At demotivators and on equipping learners with strategies, or the same time, our results did not provide support to a demo- tricks, to overcome these demotivators. However, remotivat- tivation path of language learning disappointments through ing learners requires more than a list of strategies that might lowering the learner’s ideal L2 self. This finding supports the view that what matters is how the learner perceives setbacks address the “symptoms” of demotivation. It requires identi- and their competence to overcome them (e.g., Bandura, fying the root of this demotivation. 1997; Dweck & Molden, 2005; Lou & Noels, 2019). Those In response to recent calls (e.g., Kikuchi, 2015) to expand who view lower oral proficiency as revealing their inherent the focus of demotivation research, to take into account 10 SAGE Open Table 4. Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects From Language Learning Mindset to L2 Demotivation. Path β B SE z Total effect .48 0.50 0.024 20.14*** Direct effect .23 0.24 0.024 9.67*** Indirect effect (total) .25 0.26 0.020 12.28*** Mindset → Ideal → Demotivation .13 0.14 0.015 8.44*** Mindset → Disappointment → Demotivation .11 0.12 0.014 7.96*** Mindset → Disappointment → Ideal → Demotivation .002 0.002 0.004 0.51 Note. Mindset = Language Learning Mindset; Ideal = Ideal L2 Self; Demotivation = L2 Demotivation; Disappointment = L2 Disappointment. ***p < .001. learners’ unique histories and backgrounds, and to investi- bringing about disappointment. This suggests that feeling gate why learners react differently to seemingly the same disappointed per se does not have as strong of an impact on demotivators, this article attempted to uncover the subjective the ideal L2 self as does having a fixed mindset. reality of language learners who had experienced demotiva- Contributing to the recent developing interest among lan- tion and remotivation. Our results revealed that demotivation guage learning researchers in LLM (e.g., Lou & Noels, 2017, experiences, perceptions, and explanations are highly indi- 2019, 2020), our findings suggest that LLM plays a signifi- vidual, personalized, and unique. Crucially, LLM appeared cant role within demotivation and remotivation. Possessing a to be the root cause of demotivation—at least among the fixed LLM leads to avoiding challenges and setting lower other factors emerging from this investigation. goals, thus risking becoming demotivated over time (Mercer, We conducted two studies. In Study 1, we interviewed a 2011). LLM seems to influence demotivation by guiding group of learners who recounted their experiences with learners’ interpretations and shaping their responses to per- demotivation and the factors they perceived as contributing ceived demotivators. A fixed LLM can, therefore, cast a to it. We analyzed the factors that made them behave and shadow on the language learning experience, resilience, and react differently and then proposed a model that explains the motivation, standing out as the key to failure in coping with variation in their demotivational, motivational, and remoti- and overcoming demotivation. vational trajectories. However, the design of Study 1 did not In other words, LLM may explain to a large extent why permit generalizing this model or estimating the strength of some learners remain demotivated for extended periods or the associations among its variables. To address these limita- even develop learned helplessness. Conversely, LLM may tions, Study 2 tested the model on a larger sample. The help explain why other learners use personal resources and results from Study 2 supported the model overall and most of effective coping strategies to positively adapt to potentially its hypothesized paths. stressful demotivators or successfully recover from demoti- The qualitative and quantitative results complemented vation. Although Akgun and Ciarrochi (2003) and Yun et al. each other by establishing a clear empirical link between (2018) found that learned resourcefulness is essential for LLMs and demotivation. The results revealed five paths overcoming academic stress, sustaining resilient functioning leading to demotivation, as follows: and improving academic performance, Ceyhan and Ceyhan (2011) reported that learned resourcefulness does not 1. Believing that one’s language learning ability is fixed improve over time. However, our results suggest that a fixed and inborn makes the learner susceptible to LLM can change over time and, when it does, learners’ resil- demotivation. ience and resourcefulness may improve. 2. Belief in a fixed language learning ability also weak- Our results additionally shed light on the adaptive and ens one’s ideal L2 self. maladaptive coping strategies that learners used to deal with 3. Having a weak ideal L2 self can set off demotivation. LLM seems to have been a major influence on demotivation. the selection of these strategies. LLM constituted a primary 4. Belief in a fixed language learning ability also mag- factor facilitating recovery from demotivation and helping nifies the impact of inevitable language-related previously demotivated students with different motivational disappointments. needs to overcome setbacks and rebuild their motivation. 5. Experiencing language disappointments (e.g., related Recognizing the subjective interconnections among the fac- to low oral proficient or teaching method) can con- tors leading to demotivation and tapping into the source of tribute to demotivation. demotivation (Kim & Kim, 2013) was vital for remotivating language learners. In contrast, our results did not support the path involving lan- It has been argued that a future-directed end goal is essen- guage disappointments lowering the ideal L2 self and then tial for motivation (Dörnyei, 2009; Kikuchi, 2019). Our Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 11 results suggest that a fixed LLM can prevent the construction criticism can directly shape, create, and change learners’ of an ideal L2 self. A weak ideal L2 self can consequently mindsets. Therefore, we suggest promoting a growth LLM demotivate the language learner. Even if a positive ideal L2 by (a) creating a growth learning environment that allows for self is successfully created, a fixed LLM could obstruct its making mistakes and embracing failures as a natural part of motivational power due to the learner’s core belief that their the learning journey; (b) discussing language learning beliefs future-directed end goal cannot be achieved without having with learners and stressing the superiority of effort as the key the natural God-given ability. Although little research has to success in language learning; (c) appreciating and reward- addressed how learners construct their ideal L2 selves in the ing the learner’s continuous effort to create an environment first place, our results suggest that LLM is a key factor facili- where hard work and gradual growth are valued; (d) select- tating or preventing the construction of an ideal L2 self. ing tasks, materials, and feedback tools that include positive Our results may also help explain why learners with a implicit messages emphasizing the importance of effort; (e) growth LLM in Lou and Noels (2020) reported less anxiety, praising the process (i.e., effort or strategy) rather than prais- more language use, and higher perceived proficiency, even ing natural language learning ability; and (f) highlighting the after controlling baseline proficiency. Low oral proficiency, importance of making mistakes and failures in improvement, on its own, is not necessarily viewed as a demotivating fac- growth, and learning new things. Thus, setbacks should be tor. Disappointment about low oral proficiency, in our study, seen as representing situational difficulties and not inherent only demotivated learners who held a fixed LLM, while personal limitations, which will hopefully “prompt redou- growth mindset language learners were satisfied with the bling of efforts rather than provoking self-discouraging slow progress they made in the classroom and perceived it as doubts about one’s coping capabilities” (Bandura, 1997, a natural part of the learning process, and thereby remained p. 288). motivated. It is worth noting here that the L2 disappoint- Another implication is addressing teachers’ own mind- ment-related results add further evidence that motivation and sets. As reviewed above, learners can implicitly detect even demotivation are not completely parallel constructs. Our subtle linguistic messages (e.g., Cimpian et al., 2007). results suggest that demotivational factors need to be inves- Language teachers’ beliefs about the nature of language tigated in their own right, rather than treating them as the flip learning and their students’ potential to master a new lan- side of motivational factors. Although L2 disappointment guage can significantly influence their teaching strategies, appeared in our study as a factor that could lead to L2 demo- their own motivation, and their feedback and reaction to their tivation, there was no evidence that lack of disappointment students’ failures or weaknesses. Dealing with demotivated per se may be a motivating factor. learners should, therefore, be part of teacher training because Finally, our results highlighted the potential for LLM to of the possible long-term ramifications demotivation can change. This supports the malleability of mindsets across have on learners. LLM, its impact on motivation and resil- time due to interaction with contextual factors (Mercer, ience, and ways to promote a growth LLM should be included 2011; Yeager et al., 2016). A growth LLM was associated in language teachers’ pre- and in-service training programs. with remotivation and recovery from demotivation. In con- These programs should introduce both a theoretical back- trast, learners with a fixed mindset remained demotivated, ground on LLM and practical tips and strategies to deal with drawing from maladaptive coping strategies such as escap- fixed mindsets and to promote growth mindsets. ing from learning opportunities, not putting in the effort needed, and assuring themselves that they were better at Limitations and Future Directions other subjects. One limitation of our study was the sample. Our sample con- sisted of Saudi young adults (mostly female) studying foun- Pedagogical Implications dation-year English at one university. Nevertheless, we have As explained above, one possible explanation as to why little reason to expect the results to be considerably different mindset training interventions might have a weak effect on with male language learners, in other contexts, or when academic achievement (e.g., Sisk et al., 2018) is that the learning languages other than English (Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, effect on mindsets is not direct but partly mediated by demo- 2017). We encourage future research into diverse samples to tivation and how learners react to and cope with academic ascertain the applicability of our results to them. Another setbacks. Therefore, any effect of mindset change may not be limitation is that we did not compare our SEM model to other noticeable in the short term. competing models. We acknowledge that there may be other One implication of our findings is for teachers to under- models that could fit the data as well as or better than our stand that children are not born holding a particular mindset, model. However, we adopted this model because it was the but instead several internal and external factors can promote one that clearly emerged from the qualitative data in Study 1. the emergence and prevalence of particular mindsets over The direction of causality was based on the learners’ narra- time. Feedback is considered the primary factor promoting tives in Study 1, while Study 2 aimed to quantify these per- different mindsets. That is, different kinds of praise and ceived interrelationships. 12 SAGE Open Research into LLM is still very much in its initial phases, After each failure in an English test, I simply lose interest and we do not claim that the model we obtained is compre- and hate trying again. hensive or the final word in this matter. The findings have I easily lose interest in goals, which prove hard to reach generated new questions that are beyond the scope of this such as English homework that needs too much effort and study, and the potential for future studies in this emerging time. field seems considerable. For instance, future research I feel upset when I study English hard but fail the test, so should attempt to examine a larger network of factors and I save time and reduce the effort in future tests. how they interact with each other in a dynamic fashion. Observing other better successful proficient English Furthermore, the role of LLMs in remotivation needs to be learners makes me feel worse and lose interest, that it is further investigated, with attention directed toward a more about me not about English. fine-tuned understanding of the mechanisms involved in Acknowledgments remotivation. There is also a need for intervention research to examine the extent to which language learners can be We would like to thank Zoltán Dörnyei for his support and thought- remotivated through promoting a growth LLM. This requires ful feedback on the design and analysis of this study. longitudinal and experimental research to examine the effec- tiveness of different strategies for changing LLM and for Declaration of Conflicting Interests maintaining this change for longer periods. More research is The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect also needed to examine the factors that contribute to the for- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. mation of different LLMs and the role of the teachers and parents in promoting and shaping these LLMs. Finally, Funding exploring language teachers,’ not just learners,’ mindsets The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- may open doors to better understanding teachers’ (de)moti- ship, and/or publication of this article. vation and their responses to demotivated learners. Ethical Statement Appendix Institutional ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. Questionnaire items were used in this study (Albalawi, 2018). ORCID iD Ali H. Al-Hoorie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-5978 Language Learning Mindset References I believe that the natural ability to learn English is stable. It is a God-gifted talent. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Everyone is able to learn a second language, but this abil- Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. ity is individual, limited, and fixed. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–74. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49 Akgun, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2003). Learned resourcefulness mod- Ideal L2 Self erates the relationship between academic stress and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 287–294. https:// I can imagine a situation where I am hanging out and speaking doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000060129 English with my international friends who are foreigners. Albalawi, F. H. E. (2018). L2 demotivation among Saudi learners of I can imagine myself studying abroad and using English English: The role of language learning mindsets (Unpublished effectively to give a presentation in English. doctoral thesis). University of Nottingham. I can imagine myself speaking English as if I were a Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Sixty years of language motivation native speaker of English. research: Looking back and looking forward. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017701976 Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta- L2 Disappointment analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2 I am disappointed that spending long time studying English Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2019). Evolution of L2 motivation in higher at school was useless for speaking outside school. education. Scientific Journal of KFU (Humanities and I am not happy with the school English materials as they Management Sciences), 20(1), 249–263. lack promoting authentic English language use. Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Al Shlowiy, A. S. (2020). Vision theory vs. goal-setting theory: A critical analysis. Porta Linguarum, 33, 217–229. L2 Demotivation Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. When I have a bad teacher, I lose interest and reduce the time Carpenter, C., Falout, J., Fukuda, T., Trovela, M., & Murphey, T. I spend studying English. (2009). Helping students repack for remotivation and agency. Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 13 In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2008 conference proceedings (pp. Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020b). Research methods for com- 259–274). The Japan Association for Language Teaching. plexity theory in applied linguistics. Multilingual Matters. Ceyhan, A. A., & Ceyhan, E. (2011). Investigation of university Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Toward students’ self-acceptance and learned resourcefulness: A lon- a transdisciplinary integration of research purposes and meth- gitudinal study. Higher Education, 61(6), 649–661. https://doi. ods for Complex Dynamic Systems Theory: Beyond the quan- org/10.1007/s10734-010-9354-2 titative–qualitative divide. International Review of Applied Cimpian, A., Arce, H.-M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/ S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motiva- iral-2021-0022 tion. Psychological Science, 18(4), 314–316. https://doi. Ibrahim, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2019). Shared, sustained flow: org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x Triggering motivation with collaborative projects. ELT Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon Journal, 73(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy025 in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic inter- Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Shohamy, E. (2001). Students’ vention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), motivation as a function of language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006 R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisi- Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language class- tion (pp. 297–311, Technical Report #223). Second Language room. Cambridge University Press. Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and researching motivation. Mánoa. Longman. Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social cli- Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: mate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, Individual differences in second language acquisition. and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed Lawrence Erlbaum. second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei 53, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005 & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 Kikuchi, K. (2015). Demotivation in second language acquisition: self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. Insights from Japan. Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The motivational foun- Kikuchi, K. (2019). Motivation and demotivation over two years: dation of learning languages other than Global English. The A case study of English language learners in Japan. Studies Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 455–468. https://doi. in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 157–175. org/10.1111/modl.12408 https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.7 Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2013). English learning demotiva- in language learning: Frameworks for focused interventions. tion studies in the EFL contexts: State of the art. The Modern Routledge. English Education, 14(1), 77–102. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, per- Lamb, M. (2012). A self system perspective on young adoles- sonality, and development. Psychology Press. cents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact Language Learning, 62(4), 997–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/ on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & j.1467-9922.2012.00719.x C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and (pp. 122–140). Guilford Press. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. ecip055/2004029882.html Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Falout, J. (2012). Coping with demotivation: EFL learners’ remoti- Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally vation processes. TESL-EJ, 16(3), 1–29. weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), Foliano, F., Rolfe, H., Buzzeo, J., Runge, J., & Wilkinson, D. 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 (2019). Changing mindsets: Effectiveness trial. Education Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2017). Measuring language mind- Endowment Foundation. https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/ sets and modeling their relations with goal orientations and files/publications/Changing%20Mindsets_0.pdf emotional and behavioral responses in failure situations. The Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 214–243. https://doi. Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long interme- org/10.1111/modl.12380 diate-level language course. Language Learning, 54(1), 1–34. Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00247.x and second language education: A research agenda for mind- Gardner, R. G., Bednar, J. S., Stewart, B. W., Oldroyd, J. B., & sets in language learning and teaching. System, 86, Article Moore, J. (2019). “I must have slipped through the cracks 102126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102126 somehow”: An examination of coping with perceived Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2020). Mindsets matter for linguistic impostorism and the role of social support. Journal of minority students: Growth mindsets foster greater perceived Vocational Behavior, 115, 103337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. proficiency, especially for newcomers. The Modern Language jvb.2019.103337 Journal, 104(4), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12669 Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied the- Mercer, S. (2011). Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist. matic analysis. SAGE. ELT Journal, 66(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr022 Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020a). Reexamining the role of Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). vision in second language motivation: A preregistered concep- The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study tual replication of You, Dörnyei, and Csizér (2016). Language of Saudi EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), Learning, 70(1), 48–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340 14 SAGE Open Muir, C. (2020). Directed motivational currents and language educa- are growth mindsets important to academic achievement? Two tion: Exploring implications for pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. https:// Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704 (7th ed.). Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational Nakata, Y. (2006). Motivation and experience in foreign language self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of learning. Peter Lang. English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66– Why are you learning a second language? Motivational ori- 97). Multilingual Matters. entations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language 50(1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00111 learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. https://doi. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515 language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177– Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). “French is the 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00010-0 language of love and stuff”: Student perceptions of issues Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2008). The mixed meth- related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British ods reader. SAGE. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0720/ Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 503–528. https://doi. 2007023770.html org/10.1080/0141192022000005805 Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok: Not every- Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., one can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., Paunesku, D., Romero, C., Flint, K., Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Roberts, A., Trott, J., Iachan, R., Buontempo, J., Yang, S. M., jesp.2011.12.012 Carvalho, C. M., . . . Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experi- Rattan, A., Savani, K., Chugh, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). ment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Leveraging mindsets to promote academic achievement: Policy Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586- recommendations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 019-1466-y 10(6), 721–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615599383 Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Rosenbaum, M. (1989). Self-control under stress: The role of learned Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C. P., Lee, H. Y., O’Brien, J., Flint, resourcefulness. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, K., Roberts, A., Trott, J., Greene, D., Walton, G. M., & Dweck, 11(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(89)90028-3 C. S. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychologi- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic cal interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, Guilford Press. 108(3), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000098 Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers Yun, S., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). Academic buoy- (3rd ed.). SAGE. ancy: Exploring learners’ everyday resilience in the language Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(4), B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances 805–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000037 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

From Demotivation to Remotivation: A Mixed-Methods Investigation:

Albalawi, Fatemah H.; Al-Hoorie, Ali H.
SAGE Open , Volume 11 (3): 1 – Aug 25, 2021
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/from-demotivation-to-remotivation-a-mixed-methods-investigation-eQIjBFzwuV

References (67)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/21582440211041101
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Research into language learning demotivation has tended to focus on the identification of discrete factors resulting in demotivation. In this article, we report an investigation into the interrelationship among factors eventually leading to demotivation using a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design. In Study 1, 13 participants were interviewed about their demotivation experiences and what factors, they perceived, had led to demotivation over a period of 12 months. We then used these results to formulate a demotivation model. In Study 2, we tested the generalizability of this model on a larger sample (N = 2044). Using structural equation modeling, our results showed that the model fit the data, and most of its paths were statistically significant. This model showed that having a fixed mindset had one direct and two indirect paths to demotivation. The two indirect paths were through lowering the learner’s ideal L2 self and through feeling disappointed by setbacks. We discuss the implication of our findings for language learning and teaching. Keywords demotivation, remotivation, mindset, ideal self, disappointment Demotivation is a gloomy topic to which many classroom different coping strategies in preventing this trend or revers- teachers readily, and cheerlessly, relate. Along with teaching ing it. This line of research has recommended a number of strategies, teachers are also expected to devise and imple- remotivational strategies, mostly related to what learners can ment various motivational strategies to keep reluctant learn- do to self-regulate their learning such as improving study ers motivated over time (Dörnyei, 2001a). In many contexts, skills and competing with friends for fun (for a review, see it would be very rare to find a class of highly and consistently Kikuchi, 2015). motivated learners—a situation that would certainly be the Because remotivation is still an under-researched area, envy of fellow teachers. the goal of this study was to shed light on what factors learn- Another worrying concern is that research has repeatedly ers perceive as contributing to demotivation and subsequent shown that learner motivation tends to decrease over time. remotivation, and how these factors are interrelated. We first For example, in a study by R. C. Gardner et al. (2004), the interviewed a group of learners to formulate a demotivation researchers documented a decline in a number of motiva- model and then tested the generalizability of this model on a tional variables over a period of 1 year. The variables that larger group of participants. were most susceptible to this declining trend were those directly related to what was happening within the learning From Demotivation to Remotivation situation, such as daily motivational intensity and evaluation of the teacher and the course. Similar results were obtained Demotivation refers to the gradual loss of motivation over a in other contexts as well (e.g., Al-Hoorie, 2019; Inbar et al., relatively long period of time (e.g., over the course of weeks, 2001; Williams et al., 2002). This declining motivation adds months, or semesters, as opposed to within a single lesson). a further burden on teachers. Originally, demotivation was attributed primarily to external Attempts to remedy this situation and help learners factors that lower motivation (Dörnyei, 2001b) such as the recover from demotivation have led to the emergence of a relatively new area of research called remotivation (Carpenter King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia et al., 2009; Falout, 2012). Remotivation refers to the process 2 Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia of recovery from demotivation as facilitated by positive Corresponding Author: internal or external factors. The primary aim of remotivation Ali H. Al-Hoorie, Jubail English Language and Preparatory Year Institute, Royal research, therefore, is to understand factors contributing to Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Jubail Industrial City 31961, Saudi Arabia. motivational decline and to investigate the effectiveness of Email: hoorie_a@jic.edu.sa Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open classroom atmosphere and the teaching method, though sub- tion to intelligence, but a growth mindset in relation to per- sequent demotivation research has highlighted the impor- sonality, social relationships, and sports. tance of internal factors as well (Kikuchi, 2015), such as Although it was initially suggested that language beliefs self-confidence and negative attitudes. Considering that indi- may be a fixed system of knowledge formed at an early age viduals vary in how they perceive and react to demotivators, and thus cannot be easily changed (Peacock, 2001; Wenden, Kikuchi (2015) also called for research exploring demotiva- 1998), recent research has demonstrated that language beliefs tional mechanisms to better understand how individual learn- are dynamic and can change under certain contingencies ers process demotivating factors and why learners may react (Yeager et al., 2016). For example, after experiencing suc- differently to the same factors. cess or failure, directing praise or criticism to intelligence, Nakata (2006) proposed three stages describing the feel- personality, talent, or a God-given ability can promote a ing of discouragement that students may go through. The fixed mindset. In contrast, when feedback is specific, con- first stage is the initial demotivation that the learner may structive, and genuine, and when it is directed to effort, strat- experience as a result of negative experiences, such as poor egies and skills, a growth mindset can be cultivated. Teachers’ grades or an ineffective teaching approach. This initial demo- own mindsets, therefore, play a key role in creating and tivation can be passing, and the learner may recover from it developing different mindsets through how teachers interpret after some time. However, if this demotivation is not mistakes and failures during the learning process (e.g., addressed, the learner may transition to amotivation, which Cimpian et al., 2007; Rattan et al., 2012, 2015). refers to a lack of motivation, passivity, and a feeling of pur- Most initial research into mindsets was conducted in lab poselessness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). If this amotivation status settings. Interventions conducted outside lab settings pro- also remains unaddressed, the learner may descend into vided mixed results. A meta-analysis of such field interven- learned helplessness (see below). tions showed that changing mindsets led only to a minor Reversing this trajectory and regaining interest in learn- improvement in academic achievement (Sisk et al., 2018) or ing is remotivation. Remotivating learners requires more none at all (Foliano et al., 2019). Nevertheless, mindset inter- than listing a number of creative remotivational strategies, ventions seem particularly helpful to learners who are aca- however. It would be more effective to tap into the source of demically at risk and who come from a low socioeconomic demotivation and address it. Furthermore, rather than identi- background. Furthermore, a recent, nationally representative fying discrete demotivation factors, it is also essential to rec- intervention involving secondary school students in the ognize the subjective interconnections among these factors United States showed that the mindset intervention was as perceived by the learner (Kim & Kim, 2013) as well as the effective when peer norms aligned with the messages of the adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies (Falout, 2012) intervention (Yeager et al., 2019). that learners utilize to deal with their demotivation (see also Within language learning, Mercer (2011) similarly argued Al-Hoorie, 2017). In other words, it is crucial to uncover the that possessing a fixed language learning mindset (LLM) subjective reality of the demotivation process. In the next leads the learner to avoid challenges and to set lower goals, sections, we, therefore, review major factors associated with thus risking becoming demotivated over time (see also Lou & demotivation before presenting our study, which attempts to Noels, 2017, 2019). Along the same lines, research by Lou and draw connections among them. Noels (2020) additionally showed that migrants with a growth LLM reported less anxiety, more language use, and higher proficiency, even after controlling baseline proficiency. Language Learning Mindset One potential internal factor is the learner’s implicit theories Ideal L2 Self (i.e., mindsets) about their own abilities (Dweck, 1999). In this context, a mindset refers to whether one believes that Another potential factor has to do with the strength of the qualities such as intelligence and talent are fixed or change- learner’s ideal L2 self (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009). The ideal L2 able traits. Mindsets have been shown to shape individuals’ self represents an ideal end-state that the learner wishes to thoughts, behaviors, and feelings, and consequently make reach. The ideal L2 self is assumed to derive its motivational them think, feel and act differently in identical situations effect from the discrepancy between current and ideal self- (Dweck & Molden, 2005). Learners with a growth mindset states. The ideal L2 self has been studied extensively during believe that their ability is malleable, and so failures and set- the past two decades, though most research has examined backs are construed as an integral part of the learning pro- correlation with other self-report measures rather than more cess. In contrast, learners with a fixed mindset consider their meaningful language learning outcomes (see Al-Hoorie, ability as inborn, and therefore failure constitutes a threat to 2018, for a meta-analysis). their confidence and self-esteem (Lou & Noels, 2019; Yeager Although the ideal L2 self has shown a strong association et al., 2019). Research has also shown that individuals can with self-reported intended effort, correlation with other, hold distinct mindsets in relation to different areas (Dweck, more tangible learning outcomes was not as strong (e.g., 1999). For example, one may have a fixed mindset in rela- Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020a; Lamb, 2012; Moskovsky et al., Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 3 2016). The standard instrument used to measure the ideal L2 been argued to play an important role in motivation and self primarily focuses on “imagination” and whether the achievement, empirical results have not always shown strong learner can imagine him/herself learning the language suc- support as reviewed above. One possible explanation for cessfully at some point in the future, rather than the discrep- such findings is that a better understanding of these factors is ancy between actual states and ideal self-guides. This needed. A second, though not mutually exclusive explana- measurement focus led some researchers to suggest relabel- tion, is the need to consider these factors in tandem. ing this instrument as the imagined self (Al-Hoorie, 2018). Motivational factors are commonly treated as discrete vari- Nevertheless, Dörnyei et al. (2016, p. 22) have argued that ables examined in isolation (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020b; future self-guides have evolved into a specific form of vision, Hiver et al., 2020; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008), but conceptualized as the vivid mental image of successfully integrative investigations can shed important light not cap- achieving the desired goal. Without such a future-directed tured when motivational factors are studied separately (Joe end goal, it is likely that the learner will be prone to demoti- et al., 2017; Kikuchi, 2015; Yun et al., 2018). vation over time (Kikuchi, 2019). It has also been argued that In the present investigation, we, therefore, set out to such future-directed vision is essential for directed motiva- understand demotivation through the lens of learners them- tional currents (Muir, 2020) or sustained flow (Ibrahim & selves. Our aim was to investigate how learners’ individual Al-Hoorie, 2019), though close examination shows that experiences were related to language learning demotivation vision and goal are not clearly distinct constructs (Al-Hoorie and how their demotivation changed and interacted with & Al Shlowiy, 2020). their environments (Kim & Kim, 2013). To this end, in Study 1, we conducted a small-scale qualitative study of 13 partici- pants who provided personal accounts of their demotivation. Learning Disappointments This study, therefore, allowed us to formulate a model of Motivation and demotivation are not completely parallel con- demotivational dynamics. Our three-part research question structs. Factors relevant to motivation may not be relevant to for Study 1 was: demotivation, and vice versa. For example, language learners may feel disappointed by their proficiency level, relative to the Research Question 1a (RQ1a): What factors are perceived amount of time and effort they have put into learning. This dis- to have contributed to the participants’ demotivation? appointment may be demotivating, but lack of disappointment Research Question 1b (RQ1b): How are these factors per se may not necessarily be a motivating factor. This is why perceived to interact with each other? demotivation factors need to be investigated in their own right, Research Question 1c (RQ1c): To what do learners attri- rather than treating them as the flip side of motivating factors. bute their ability to recover and rebuild their motivation, Although the inevitable disappointments that take place or lack thereof? in academic settings can be an important factor contributing to demotivation, little research has examined how language Acknowledging the limitations of qualitative methodol- learners navigate these disappointments. Testing and evalua- ogy, Study 2 involved a large-scale survey involving more tion are part and parcel of academic life, and the average than 2,000 learners. Study 2 allowed us, first, to test the gen- learner is bound to encounter setbacks from time to time. For eralizability of the model we obtained in Study 1 and, sec- some learners, such setbacks are an indication that success ond, to quantify the relationships between the different and failure are governed by factors beyond one’s control, variables in the model. This approach has been described as ultimately leading to disillusionment and learned helpless- a sequential exploratory mixed methods design that gener- ness (Abramson et al., 1978; Noels et al., 2000) and even ates and tests a model (e.g., Plano Clark & Creswell, 2008). impostorism (Clance & Imes, 1978; R. G. Gardner et al., More specifically, Study 2 used structural equation modeling 2019). Other learners, in contrast, exhibit learned resource- (SEM) to answer the following research question: fulness (Akgun & Ciarrochi, 2003; Rosenbaum, 1989), which allows the learner to access a behavioral repertoire of Research Question 2 (RQ2): Does the model obtained emotional and cognitive reactions to ameliorate stressful sit- from Study 1 fit the data obtained from a larger sample of uations and to sustain resilient functioning (Yun et al., 2018). participants? Nevertheless, a 4-year longitudinal study reported that learned resourcefulness does not improve over time (Ceyhan In combination, thus, Studies 1 and 2 enabled us to propose & Ceyhan, 2011), thus making learners vulnerable to demo- a demotivation model and then test this model with a large tivation with increasing academic pressure. sample of participants from the same population. As Study 2 used SEM, we recognize that, ultimately, SEM is used to test causal relationships, and not just correla- The Present Study tions. In our case, we extracted the directionality of the Although these three factors; growth mindset, ideal L2 self, hypothesized causal relationships from the results of Study 1 and resourcefulness toward academic disappointments; have and built a model representing the causal paths perceived by 4 SAGE Open the participants. In Study 2, we then tested the generalizabil- and then these themes were classified into higher level con- ity of these perceptions. Our goal from this procedure was to ceptual themes. As an illustration, responses related to what identity the subjective reality underpinning demotivation. made the participants feel vulnerable or resilient were Furthermore, researchers using SEM are expected to test grouped under vulnerability and resilience themes, and then competing models to avoid confirmation bias (e.g., see Hiver these themes were linked via higher order themes (e.g., deal- & Al-Hoorie, 2020a). However, as only one model emerged ing with failure). This approach facilitated drawing a mean- from Study 1, it was the only model we tested. We, therefore, ingful and coherent picture of the patterns emerging from the acknowledge that the possibility of other models to represent data. demotivation. We elaborate on this limitation later. To understand the interconnections among themes, the themes were analyzed following a process coding approach (Saldaña, 2016). Process coding is an analytical strategy that Study 1 permits the researcher to uncover a sequence of events lead- ing to an outcome as perceived by interviewees. Special Participants attention was paid to how the different demotivating factors Thirteen female Saudi language learners (aged 18–20) vol- related to and interacted with each other, and common unteered to participate in this study. They were studying themes were grouped until final codes clearly emerged from English as part of a foundation year requirement in prepara- the data. Using particular instances in the qualitative data, a tion for their majors, attending classes 20 hours a week. bigger map of possible relationships between variables was These learners were recruited from a larger group of learners developed. Finally, for the purpose of respondent validation, who responded to a public call for participants who had the resulting demotivation model was presented to the par- experienced demotivation and who were willing to discuss ticipants, who confirmed that it reflected their demotivation their experiences candidly. The participants had studied dynamics (for more details, see Albalawi, 2018). English as a school subject for at least 8 years, though they rated themselves as having low competence. Generally, there Results is little opportunity for learners to practice their English out- side of the language class in this context. Language learning mindsets. The qualitative analysis revealed that demotivation occurred when internal or external factors broke some of the constituents of the learner’s expectations Data Collection about the learning process and its outcomes. However, the Three semi-structured interviews were conducted with each diverse ways by which learners perceived different internal participant over the course of 12 months. To explore the fac- and external factors seemed to a large extent a function of the tors and conditions that explained variation in learners’ LLM held by each learner. Different LLMs had demotiva- demotivation and remotivation, the participants were asked tional or remotivational power. In other words, the way they to share their beliefs, thoughts, feeling, explanations, attribu- perceived factors such as the teacher’s role, their language tions, and dreams about their English learning experience as learning ability, and their effort had an important impact on a long journey involving a combination of halts, obstacles, their motivation, demotivation, and remotivation processes. challenges, boredom, enjoyment, rewards, and discovery. In A major finding of this study was that it was not only each of the three interviews, conducted a few months apart, merely the identification of the demotivating factors that the participants were encouraged to reflect on and articulate mattered but also the way these factors were perceived by their demotivational processes, elaborate on the factors per- individual language learners. A recurring finding in the qual- ceived to have caused their demotivation, and the interaction itative analysis was that learners did not perceive demotivat- among different motivational factors. The interviews were ing events similarly across the board even in seemingly conducted in Arabic, the participant s’ native language. identical situations. Instead, the learner’s LLM, as fixed or malleable, shaped how one perceived these demotivators. The ability to learn a second language was perceived by Data Analysis language learners possessing a fixed mindset as being limited The interviews were recorded, translated into English, and and naturally gifted, while growth mindset learners believed transcribed. The accuracy of the translation was then checked that this ability could be increased through effort and practice. by a native speaker of Arabic who is fluent in English. The Therefore, when language learners attributed their own or oth- scripts were then read carefully to explore diverse accounts, ers’ past failures and successes to “ability,” their motivation to find frequent patterns, identify differences among these pat- learn the language was influenced differently according to terns, and extract common demotivation-related themes whether they believed that this ability was fixed or not. using NVivo 9. Following the principles of applied thematic Those learners who believed that their language learning analysis (Guest et al., 2012), initial codes were inductively ability was fixed also emphasized that having a natural abil- identified. The emerging codes were grouped into themes, ity, or a knack, was essential for success. They consequently Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 5 reported avoiding challenges and potentially embarrassing speaks only English. I even imagine myself studying abroad. These are all dreams. I wish I can achieve all these dreams. situations to look confident and save face if the task seemed However, I realized that it is not easy to learn English. Every difficult. They also felt threatened by the successful experi- time I fail in the English test, I lower my expectations because I ences of others and questioned their own ability when they lose hope and feel that I am helpless to change my situation. I encountered high achievers. They additionally devalued hard feel like I do not have the ability to be the person I always work and effort, perceiving them as fruitless. All these fac- imagine myself to be. It feels like if you really are a good person tors apparently made them more sensitive to demotivating who would like to help poor people, but you do not have the factors. Consider the following learner who emphasized the money to help them. (ID104) power of a natural language learning ability: During my first years of English learning, I knew that I would learn the alphabet, vocabulary, grammar and the basic Not everyone can learn a second language. Some people are expressions in English. . . however, when it comes to speaking talented; they have something special that helps them to learn and pronunciation, peoples’ abilities vary. I always knew that languages fast; they are naturally gifted. They pass the language there was nothing I could do to improve it. . . I could only courses easily without studying hard. I wish I was one of them. imagine passing the course but never imagined myself being a Unfortunately, I feel that without having that natural ability, fluent speaker of English. (ID105) studying English is like wasting my time. I would rather spend my time studying something I am good at. (ID101) These learners could not create a vision of themselves Contrary to these learners, other interviewees made state- speaking English fluently in the future, attributing it to their ments that indicated their tendency to endorse a growth belief in the immutability of their language learning ability. mindset. These learners believed that the ability to learn a As a result, their motivation to develop their language skills second language could be enhanced through effort and hard decreased over time as they put in less and less effort. In work. When they failed, these learners blamed their lack of other words, the learners with a fixed mindset reported fail- effort or “carelessness.” In fact, all interviewees who reported ure to create a clear and vivid image of an ideal L2 self, con- having successful language learning experiences valued hard sequently demotivating them. work and effort and believed in the malleability of ability. Disappointment. Disappointment appeared to be a major fac- They reported being more determined, autonomous, resil- tor contributing to demotivation. Learners with a fixed mind- ient, and more committed to overcoming learning challenges. set expressed a lot of disappointment about their low They embraced challenges and felt inspired by others’ suc- (particularly oral) proficiency level and their failure to cessful experiences. According to one of these learners, improve it, despite studying the language for several years at Everyone can learn a second language. It just needs time, school. When they did not achieve the oral proficiency level patience, and effort. If I fail, I mainly blame myself for being they expected, they became helpless, blamed their own abil- careless and not trying harder using different strategies to ity, and quit trying even when they were encouraged to do so increase my language ability. Learning English is like learning by people around them. A commonly invoked reason for this how to drive and cook. You start weak but the more you practice, disappointment is the ineffective teaching approaches used the stronger you become. (ID102) in their learning contexts. The following two examples illus- trate this point: Ideal L2 self. Interestingly, the qualitative analysis also revealed that LLMs seemed to influence the construction of When I started learning English. . . I was shocked. . . an ideal L2 self. The data also showed that the remotivational disappointed. . . confused. . . it was different from what I power of the ideal L2 self might be obstructed by the demo- expected. . . I expected to be able to speak as well as my cousins did. . . of course I was learning but not what I expected. . . it tivational power of a fixed LLM. Learners with a fixed LLM was all about grammar, books, exams and memorization. . . reported that they did not possess a strong sense of an ideal (ID106) L2 self. They specifically attributed this weak ideal L2 self to their belief in the unchangeability of language learning abil- When I was a child, my dream was to speak English fluently as ity. In fact, several interviewees used the expression “I can’t well as my father did. However, after trying hard and failing to imagine myself” as a successful learner. This pattern some- make a conversation several times in different situations, I times emerged in the context of using the language fluently, started to feel disappointed about the outcome of learning while in other times, it emerged after failures and setbacks. English at school. I gradually felt helpless and felt that I would Some learners reported “lowering their expectations” of the never be able to achieve my goals. The situation now is worse type of learner they would like to be. As two learners than before. I hate being in an English class or listening to explained, someone speaking English and try to escape the English class whenever I can. Even when my father told me that there was a good private English institution that he was willing to afford if I I always imagine myself when I am older, speaking English would like to enroll in an intensive English course, I refused fluently with foreigners, or working in a career where everybody 6 SAGE Open because I felt that I would definitely fail to improve my English gets more difficult, but I feel bored when the teachers repeat and waste his money. (ID109) information that I already know. (ID100) When they found that the educational system was memo- In contrast, learners who had a fixed LLM perceived set- rization- and exam-oriented, these learners just gave up and backs as more threatening than challenging and consequently did not try to put in extra effort to remedy their language were more likely to withdraw from stressful academic situa- deficiencies. It seems that the fixed mindset of these learners tions. They, therefore, remained demotivated for extended had led them to expect quick proficiency gains without expe- periods as they applied maladaptive coping strategies in the riencing setbacks in the process. This expectation, first, led hope of reducing the negative emotional impact of demotiva- to being disappointed when their proficiency did not develop tion, rather than changing their learning strategies to facili- as fast as they had hoped and, second, led them to lower their tate recovery. Examples of their statements included: expectations and goals. In combination, these factors appar- I felt that I was wasting my time. I stopped attending the English ently contributed to their demotivation. classes because I felt helpless. I could not see the point of attending In contrast to these demotivated accounts, learners with a the English class if I could not understand anything. (ID109) growth mindset actually perceived their slow progress as a reassuring sign of a normal developmental trajectory. They Gradually, English class became like a 45-minute break where I believed that all proficient speakers of English must have ate, drank and secretly chatted with my friends. I even escaped been beginners at one point and experienced similar difficul- the English class whenever I could. (ID105) ties in their language learning journey. Therefore, they did not feel disappointed or lower their expectations. As one learner I became neglectful and did not touch the book if I had an stated, English test. I stopped feeling anxious or worried before the English test. (ID107) I know that I am not a fluent speaker of English. I also know that I will not achieve fluency soon. I consider myself a beginner who I used to say, “I’ll be fine.” Although I felt that I would never can only make simple sentences, not a conversation. However, succeed in learning English, I never hated English. I always told when I listen to the Saudi teacher who speaks English fluently or myself that failing English did not mean that I am a failure encounter other Saudi girls who are fluent speakers of English, because I was good at other subjects. (ID107) I imagine them when they were beginners like me and how they remained committed to learning English until they achieved Mindset change leading to remotivation. The data showed, curi- their goal. Being a beginner who speaks broken English is the ously, that the LLM might change over time and that the first step of a long learning journey that will definitely lead to mindset gradual change can influence the language learner’s achieving fluency one day. (ID102) motivational level. In cases where learners recovered from demotivation, some fixed-mindset learners gradually adopted Coping with failure. The data showed that even when lan- a growth LLM for various reasons including: (a) encountering guage learners encountered setbacks and failure and per- high achievers or hardworking learners, (b) observing their ceived certain factors as being potential demotivators, the own growth and progress after trying new strategies and skills, ensuing diverse responses were to a large extent the function and (c) experiencing the positive outcome of hard work. The of coping mechanisms they used to respond to demotivation. LLM turned out to be key to success in recovery from demoti- The LLM seemed to be the major factor that significantly vation in our data. influenced the learner’s responses to potential demotivators Indeed, growth LLM was key to success in every recov- and their diverse applications and choice of adaptive (e.g., ery case in our data. All demotivated learners who success- autonomous learning, increasing effort, or seeking for help fully bounced back and rebuilt their motivation after and guidance) or maladaptive (e.g., denial, escaping, or experiencing demotivation have associated recovery with cheating) coping mechanisms. changing their maladaptive beliefs about the malleability of Learners who had a growth LLM perceived setbacks, fail- their language learning ability. Consider the following exam- ures, and mistakes as an opportunity for growth and a valu- ple of a participant who held a fixed LLM before she encoun- able source for learning and development. They demonstrated tered a proficient classmate who spoke English fluently. more resilience by applying adaptive strategies that helped Contrary to others who questioned their own ability when them to remain motivated or to remotivate themselves. encountering high achievers, this learner explained how her Examples of their statements included: discussion with that successful classmate gradually changed her perception of her own language learning ability, and When learning English, I wish if I make a mistake every day, so thereby remotivated her. Encountering a proficient learner at I learn something new every day. (ID105) the same learning setting inspired her and changed her fixed My motivation and my concentration increase when the LLM from “I lacked the ability” into a growth mindset char- grammar lesson becomes more complicated or the vocabulary acterized by the statement “It was too hard; I needed too Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 7 Figure 1. The hypothesized model emerging from Study 1. much time and effort.” Even though, at that point, this learner the primary factor contributing to demotivation is the learn- still thought that language learning was “too hard,” this new er’s LLM. A fixed LLM seems to have both direct and indi- perception represented a major shift from a complete lack of rect effects on demotivation. One indirect effect appears to ability (impossible endeavor) to too much time and effort be through lowering one’s ideal L2 self, and the other through required (but still at least possible). This perception was trig- causing disappointment about low (particularly oral) profi- gered by the recognition that that proficient classmate ciency. Both holding a fixed LLM and being disappointed achieved her goal through sustained effort rather than an about proficiency seem to have further led to a lower ideal innate language ability or a natural talent: L2 self and thereby demotivated the learners. These findings, in turn, might help explain recent results showing a weak I have always thought of majoring in English but thought that I effect of mindset training interventions on academic achieve- lacked the ability and talent. I even believed that you cannot learn ment (e.g., Sisk et al., 2018). Our results suggest that the a second language if you are not smart and talented enough. relationship between a fixed mindset and low academic However, I met a friend in high school who had better grades in achievement is not direct but partly mediated by demotiva- English than I did. She told me that she never travelled abroad, she tion, indicating that the impact might not be noticeable in the attended state schools, and she studied English hard. I decided to short term. Instead, the effect might be incremental and buy a book to learn English in one week. I admired her and had a cumulative over a more extended period of time. strong desire to be like her, but it was too hard; I needed too much Since Study 1 adopted a qualitative design, we were able to time and effort. Now, I believe that the harder I work and the formulate the model shown in Figure 1 based on the learners’ longer hours I spend, the better English learner I will be. (ID110) perceptions. At the same time, the small sample of Study 1 allows neither confident inference to a larger population nor This and other similar examples in our data indicated that does it allow estimation of the magnitude of the relationships LLMs can change over time. Thus, it seems possible for learn- between these variables. Study 2 attempted to address these ers to modify their fixed LLM, to generate a growth mindset limitations by administering a survey to a larger sample and that facilitates recovery from demotivation, and to consciously then testing the hypothesized model through SEM. reflect on this process. If the newly generated growth mindset is enhanced and maintained, long-term goals may be achieved. Study 2 Discussion Participants Study 1 involved interviewing a group of language learners about the factors that they perceived as contributing to their A total of 2,044 participants (aged 18–24) volunteered to take demotivation. The analysis revealed three factors as well as part in this study. The participants (almost 90% female) were their interrelationships. As shown in Figure 1, it seems that studying at the foundation year at a major Saudi university. The 8 SAGE Open university in question accepts students from all over the coun- Table 1. Standardized and Unstandardized Factor Loadings, Standard Errors, and z Ratios of Scales in the Measurement try, thus its students represent different backgrounds. Around Model. 53% of the participants were aiming for science-related majors whereas 46% opted for an arts-related major. Only 12% started Path β B SE z learning English as early as Grade 1 or earlier, 52% from Grade Language Learning → Fixed1 .68 — 0.025 27.43 4, and 36% from intermediate school (Grade 7). Their profi- Mindset Fixed2 .83 1.23 0.027 30.90 ciency self-ratings ranged from beginner (18%), elementary Ideal L2 Self → Ideal1 .83 — 0.013 63.75 (21%), lower intermediate (22%), intermediate (28%), to upper Ideal2 .77 0.93 0.014 55.78 intermediate (11%). The participants had diverse backgrounds, Ideal3 .84 1.01 0.013 63.12 rural and urban, and graduated from different types of schools L2 Disappointment → Disap1 .69 — 0.022 30.96 including public, private, and international. Disap2 .85 1.23 0.024 35.82 L2 Demotivation → Demot1 .71 — 0.013 52.68 Instrument Demot2 .80 1.13 0.010 76.28 Demot3 .85 1.21 0.010 87.75 This study used four questionnaire scales, all adopting a 6-point Demot4 .88 1.25 0.008 110.46 Likert-type response format (Albalawi, 2018; see Appendix). Demot5 .71 1.01 0.013 53.88 Two scales were adapted from existing scales. The first was the LLM (Dweck, 1999), where a higher score indicated stronger Note. All coefficients are significant at the p < .001 level. endorsement of a fixed mindset. The second scale was the Ideal L2 Self (Taguchi et al., 2009), where a higher score indicated a Table 2. Reliability, Validity, and Inter-Construct Correlations stronger ideal L2 self. Two further scales were constructed for the Scales of the Measurement Model. based on the qualitative analysis in Study 1: L2 Disappointment and L2 Demotivation. To design two reliable scales, we adapted Scale CR AVE 1 2 3 4 original statements and quotes that the participating students 1. Language Learning Mindset .73 .57 .76 used to report symptoms of their disappointment and demoti- 2. Ideal L2 Self .85 .66 −.28 .81 vation. In both scales, a higher score indicated higher levels of 3. L2 Disappointment .74 .59 .25 −.03 .77 demotivation and of disappointment about oral proficiency. 4. L2 Demotivation .89 .63 .48 −.58 .55 .79 These scales were first piloted on a sample of 60 learners to verify comprehensibility. All scales were administered in Note. Values in the diagonal are the square roots of their respective AVE. Arabic to avoid language interference. (See “Results” section CR = construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. for reliability and validity of these scales.) approximation (RMSEA) = .037, 90% CI [0.031, 0.043]. All Data Analysis standardized factor loadings were significant, and most were over .70, with the lowest being .68 (see Table 1). Most residu- SEM was used to test the hypothesized model (Figure 1) als were within ±2.0, with the smallest being −2.26. As Table emerging from Study 1. The first step was examining the mea- 2 shows, the construct reliabilities were all above .70 while all surement model. After the scree plot showed that there were average variance extracted values were over .50. The square indeed four factors underlying the data, we conducted a con- roots of the average variance extracted values (shown in the firmatory factor analysis with weighted least square mean and diagonal of Table 2) were also larger than their respective variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation method using Mplus inter-construct correlations, indicating adequate discriminant 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). We used WLSMV because validity (see Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020a, for details on SEM it is suitable for ordinal data, makes no distributional assump- considerations). tions about observed variables, and is less biased and more We then conducted the structural model. The results are accurate than robust maximum likelihood (MLR) especially presented in Figure 2 and Tables 3 and 4. Although having a with large samples (Li, 2016). The measurement model part of fixed mindset had a direct effect on L2 Demotivation (β = the analysis also involved examining construct reliability and .23), it also had an indirect effect of β = .25. In combination, validity. The second step was the structural model, testing the having fixed mindset had a total effect of β = .48 on L2 fit of the model and estimating the structural paths. Missing Demotivation. In other words, learners with a fixed mindset data were handled using the default Mplus function, which may lower their Ideal L2 Selves, which subsequently leads to estimates the model under missing data theory using all avail- L2 Demotivation. Similarly, learners who endorse a fixed able data, and no paths were dropped due to nonsignificance. mindset might perceive their low oral proficiency with higher levels of disappointment, resulting in further L2 Results Demotivation. An interesting finding in the results is that L2 The measurement model showed adequate fit, χ (48) = Disappointment did not significantly predict the Ideal L2 165.717, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .994, Self, suggesting that the effect of L2 Disappointment is not Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .992, root mean square error of mediated by lowering the Ideal L2 Self. Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 9 Figure 2. Results of the structural model. All coefficients are significant at p < .001 unless otherwise indicated. Table 3. Standardized and Unstandardized Structural Coefficients, Standard Errors, and z Ratios for the Structural Model. Path β B SE z Language Learning Mindset → Ideal L2 Self −.25 −0.33 0.030 −9.11 L2 Demotivation .23 0.24 0.024 9.67 L2 Disappointment .25 0.25 0.030 8.37 L2 Disappointment → Ideal L2 Self −.02 −0.02 0.023 −0.50 L2 Demotivation .46 0.47 0.022 20.76 Ideal L2 Self → L2 Demotivation −.48 −0.42 0.021 −23.22 Note. All coefficients are significant at the p < .001 level. deficiencies will feel disappointed and then demotivated. In Discussion contrast, those who see these same setbacks as a normal part In this study, we conducted a large-scale quantitative study to of the learning process are unlikely to feel as disappointed. test the demotivation model emerging from Study 1. Our results showed that the model was generalizable and showed adequate statistical fit. The model also estimated the strength General Discussion of the associations among the variables, showing that having In this article, our ultimate aim was to rethink language a fixed mindset, a weak ideal L2 self and feeling disap- learning demotivation by exploring its complexity and the pointed about one’s proficiency contributes to demotivation. interrelationship among factors leading to it. Most research The results additionally showed that having a fixed mindset into language demotivation to date has focused on discrete contributed both directly and indirectly to demotivation. At demotivators and on equipping learners with strategies, or the same time, our results did not provide support to a demo- tricks, to overcome these demotivators. However, remotivat- tivation path of language learning disappointments through ing learners requires more than a list of strategies that might lowering the learner’s ideal L2 self. This finding supports the view that what matters is how the learner perceives setbacks address the “symptoms” of demotivation. It requires identi- and their competence to overcome them (e.g., Bandura, fying the root of this demotivation. 1997; Dweck & Molden, 2005; Lou & Noels, 2019). Those In response to recent calls (e.g., Kikuchi, 2015) to expand who view lower oral proficiency as revealing their inherent the focus of demotivation research, to take into account 10 SAGE Open Table 4. Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects From Language Learning Mindset to L2 Demotivation. Path β B SE z Total effect .48 0.50 0.024 20.14*** Direct effect .23 0.24 0.024 9.67*** Indirect effect (total) .25 0.26 0.020 12.28*** Mindset → Ideal → Demotivation .13 0.14 0.015 8.44*** Mindset → Disappointment → Demotivation .11 0.12 0.014 7.96*** Mindset → Disappointment → Ideal → Demotivation .002 0.002 0.004 0.51 Note. Mindset = Language Learning Mindset; Ideal = Ideal L2 Self; Demotivation = L2 Demotivation; Disappointment = L2 Disappointment. ***p < .001. learners’ unique histories and backgrounds, and to investi- bringing about disappointment. This suggests that feeling gate why learners react differently to seemingly the same disappointed per se does not have as strong of an impact on demotivators, this article attempted to uncover the subjective the ideal L2 self as does having a fixed mindset. reality of language learners who had experienced demotiva- Contributing to the recent developing interest among lan- tion and remotivation. Our results revealed that demotivation guage learning researchers in LLM (e.g., Lou & Noels, 2017, experiences, perceptions, and explanations are highly indi- 2019, 2020), our findings suggest that LLM plays a signifi- vidual, personalized, and unique. Crucially, LLM appeared cant role within demotivation and remotivation. Possessing a to be the root cause of demotivation—at least among the fixed LLM leads to avoiding challenges and setting lower other factors emerging from this investigation. goals, thus risking becoming demotivated over time (Mercer, We conducted two studies. In Study 1, we interviewed a 2011). LLM seems to influence demotivation by guiding group of learners who recounted their experiences with learners’ interpretations and shaping their responses to per- demotivation and the factors they perceived as contributing ceived demotivators. A fixed LLM can, therefore, cast a to it. We analyzed the factors that made them behave and shadow on the language learning experience, resilience, and react differently and then proposed a model that explains the motivation, standing out as the key to failure in coping with variation in their demotivational, motivational, and remoti- and overcoming demotivation. vational trajectories. However, the design of Study 1 did not In other words, LLM may explain to a large extent why permit generalizing this model or estimating the strength of some learners remain demotivated for extended periods or the associations among its variables. To address these limita- even develop learned helplessness. Conversely, LLM may tions, Study 2 tested the model on a larger sample. The help explain why other learners use personal resources and results from Study 2 supported the model overall and most of effective coping strategies to positively adapt to potentially its hypothesized paths. stressful demotivators or successfully recover from demoti- The qualitative and quantitative results complemented vation. Although Akgun and Ciarrochi (2003) and Yun et al. each other by establishing a clear empirical link between (2018) found that learned resourcefulness is essential for LLMs and demotivation. The results revealed five paths overcoming academic stress, sustaining resilient functioning leading to demotivation, as follows: and improving academic performance, Ceyhan and Ceyhan (2011) reported that learned resourcefulness does not 1. Believing that one’s language learning ability is fixed improve over time. However, our results suggest that a fixed and inborn makes the learner susceptible to LLM can change over time and, when it does, learners’ resil- demotivation. ience and resourcefulness may improve. 2. Belief in a fixed language learning ability also weak- Our results additionally shed light on the adaptive and ens one’s ideal L2 self. maladaptive coping strategies that learners used to deal with 3. Having a weak ideal L2 self can set off demotivation. LLM seems to have been a major influence on demotivation. the selection of these strategies. LLM constituted a primary 4. Belief in a fixed language learning ability also mag- factor facilitating recovery from demotivation and helping nifies the impact of inevitable language-related previously demotivated students with different motivational disappointments. needs to overcome setbacks and rebuild their motivation. 5. Experiencing language disappointments (e.g., related Recognizing the subjective interconnections among the fac- to low oral proficient or teaching method) can con- tors leading to demotivation and tapping into the source of tribute to demotivation. demotivation (Kim & Kim, 2013) was vital for remotivating language learners. In contrast, our results did not support the path involving lan- It has been argued that a future-directed end goal is essen- guage disappointments lowering the ideal L2 self and then tial for motivation (Dörnyei, 2009; Kikuchi, 2019). Our Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 11 results suggest that a fixed LLM can prevent the construction criticism can directly shape, create, and change learners’ of an ideal L2 self. A weak ideal L2 self can consequently mindsets. Therefore, we suggest promoting a growth LLM demotivate the language learner. Even if a positive ideal L2 by (a) creating a growth learning environment that allows for self is successfully created, a fixed LLM could obstruct its making mistakes and embracing failures as a natural part of motivational power due to the learner’s core belief that their the learning journey; (b) discussing language learning beliefs future-directed end goal cannot be achieved without having with learners and stressing the superiority of effort as the key the natural God-given ability. Although little research has to success in language learning; (c) appreciating and reward- addressed how learners construct their ideal L2 selves in the ing the learner’s continuous effort to create an environment first place, our results suggest that LLM is a key factor facili- where hard work and gradual growth are valued; (d) select- tating or preventing the construction of an ideal L2 self. ing tasks, materials, and feedback tools that include positive Our results may also help explain why learners with a implicit messages emphasizing the importance of effort; (e) growth LLM in Lou and Noels (2020) reported less anxiety, praising the process (i.e., effort or strategy) rather than prais- more language use, and higher perceived proficiency, even ing natural language learning ability; and (f) highlighting the after controlling baseline proficiency. Low oral proficiency, importance of making mistakes and failures in improvement, on its own, is not necessarily viewed as a demotivating fac- growth, and learning new things. Thus, setbacks should be tor. Disappointment about low oral proficiency, in our study, seen as representing situational difficulties and not inherent only demotivated learners who held a fixed LLM, while personal limitations, which will hopefully “prompt redou- growth mindset language learners were satisfied with the bling of efforts rather than provoking self-discouraging slow progress they made in the classroom and perceived it as doubts about one’s coping capabilities” (Bandura, 1997, a natural part of the learning process, and thereby remained p. 288). motivated. It is worth noting here that the L2 disappoint- Another implication is addressing teachers’ own mind- ment-related results add further evidence that motivation and sets. As reviewed above, learners can implicitly detect even demotivation are not completely parallel constructs. Our subtle linguistic messages (e.g., Cimpian et al., 2007). results suggest that demotivational factors need to be inves- Language teachers’ beliefs about the nature of language tigated in their own right, rather than treating them as the flip learning and their students’ potential to master a new lan- side of motivational factors. Although L2 disappointment guage can significantly influence their teaching strategies, appeared in our study as a factor that could lead to L2 demo- their own motivation, and their feedback and reaction to their tivation, there was no evidence that lack of disappointment students’ failures or weaknesses. Dealing with demotivated per se may be a motivating factor. learners should, therefore, be part of teacher training because Finally, our results highlighted the potential for LLM to of the possible long-term ramifications demotivation can change. This supports the malleability of mindsets across have on learners. LLM, its impact on motivation and resil- time due to interaction with contextual factors (Mercer, ience, and ways to promote a growth LLM should be included 2011; Yeager et al., 2016). A growth LLM was associated in language teachers’ pre- and in-service training programs. with remotivation and recovery from demotivation. In con- These programs should introduce both a theoretical back- trast, learners with a fixed mindset remained demotivated, ground on LLM and practical tips and strategies to deal with drawing from maladaptive coping strategies such as escap- fixed mindsets and to promote growth mindsets. ing from learning opportunities, not putting in the effort needed, and assuring themselves that they were better at Limitations and Future Directions other subjects. One limitation of our study was the sample. Our sample con- sisted of Saudi young adults (mostly female) studying foun- Pedagogical Implications dation-year English at one university. Nevertheless, we have As explained above, one possible explanation as to why little reason to expect the results to be considerably different mindset training interventions might have a weak effect on with male language learners, in other contexts, or when academic achievement (e.g., Sisk et al., 2018) is that the learning languages other than English (Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, effect on mindsets is not direct but partly mediated by demo- 2017). We encourage future research into diverse samples to tivation and how learners react to and cope with academic ascertain the applicability of our results to them. Another setbacks. Therefore, any effect of mindset change may not be limitation is that we did not compare our SEM model to other noticeable in the short term. competing models. We acknowledge that there may be other One implication of our findings is for teachers to under- models that could fit the data as well as or better than our stand that children are not born holding a particular mindset, model. However, we adopted this model because it was the but instead several internal and external factors can promote one that clearly emerged from the qualitative data in Study 1. the emergence and prevalence of particular mindsets over The direction of causality was based on the learners’ narra- time. Feedback is considered the primary factor promoting tives in Study 1, while Study 2 aimed to quantify these per- different mindsets. That is, different kinds of praise and ceived interrelationships. 12 SAGE Open Research into LLM is still very much in its initial phases, After each failure in an English test, I simply lose interest and we do not claim that the model we obtained is compre- and hate trying again. hensive or the final word in this matter. The findings have I easily lose interest in goals, which prove hard to reach generated new questions that are beyond the scope of this such as English homework that needs too much effort and study, and the potential for future studies in this emerging time. field seems considerable. For instance, future research I feel upset when I study English hard but fail the test, so should attempt to examine a larger network of factors and I save time and reduce the effort in future tests. how they interact with each other in a dynamic fashion. Observing other better successful proficient English Furthermore, the role of LLMs in remotivation needs to be learners makes me feel worse and lose interest, that it is further investigated, with attention directed toward a more about me not about English. fine-tuned understanding of the mechanisms involved in Acknowledgments remotivation. There is also a need for intervention research to examine the extent to which language learners can be We would like to thank Zoltán Dörnyei for his support and thought- remotivated through promoting a growth LLM. This requires ful feedback on the design and analysis of this study. longitudinal and experimental research to examine the effec- tiveness of different strategies for changing LLM and for Declaration of Conflicting Interests maintaining this change for longer periods. More research is The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect also needed to examine the factors that contribute to the for- to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. mation of different LLMs and the role of the teachers and parents in promoting and shaping these LLMs. Finally, Funding exploring language teachers,’ not just learners,’ mindsets The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- may open doors to better understanding teachers’ (de)moti- ship, and/or publication of this article. vation and their responses to demotivated learners. Ethical Statement Appendix Institutional ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. Questionnaire items were used in this study (Albalawi, 2018). ORCID iD Ali H. Al-Hoorie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-5978 Language Learning Mindset References I believe that the natural ability to learn English is stable. It is a God-gifted talent. Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Everyone is able to learn a second language, but this abil- Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. ity is individual, limited, and fixed. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87(1), 49–74. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-843X.87.1.49 Akgun, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2003). Learned resourcefulness mod- Ideal L2 Self erates the relationship between academic stress and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 287–294. https:// I can imagine a situation where I am hanging out and speaking doi.org/10.1080/0144341032000060129 English with my international friends who are foreigners. Albalawi, F. H. E. (2018). L2 demotivation among Saudi learners of I can imagine myself studying abroad and using English English: The role of language learning mindsets (Unpublished effectively to give a presentation in English. doctoral thesis). University of Nottingham. I can imagine myself speaking English as if I were a Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Sixty years of language motivation native speaker of English. research: Looking back and looking forward. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017701976 Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta- L2 Disappointment analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2 I am disappointed that spending long time studying English Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2019). Evolution of L2 motivation in higher at school was useless for speaking outside school. education. Scientific Journal of KFU (Humanities and I am not happy with the school English materials as they Management Sciences), 20(1), 249–263. lack promoting authentic English language use. Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Al Shlowiy, A. S. (2020). Vision theory vs. goal-setting theory: A critical analysis. Porta Linguarum, 33, 217–229. L2 Demotivation Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. When I have a bad teacher, I lose interest and reduce the time Carpenter, C., Falout, J., Fukuda, T., Trovela, M., & Murphey, T. I spend studying English. (2009). Helping students repack for remotivation and agency. Albalawi and Al-Hoorie 13 In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2008 conference proceedings (pp. Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020b). Research methods for com- 259–274). The Japan Association for Language Teaching. plexity theory in applied linguistics. Multilingual Matters. Ceyhan, A. A., & Ceyhan, E. (2011). Investigation of university Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A. H., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2020). Toward students’ self-acceptance and learned resourcefulness: A lon- a transdisciplinary integration of research purposes and meth- gitudinal study. Higher Education, 61(6), 649–661. https://doi. ods for Complex Dynamic Systems Theory: Beyond the quan- org/10.1007/s10734-010-9354-2 titative–qualitative divide. International Review of Applied Cimpian, A., Arce, H.-M. C., Markman, E. M., & Dweck, C. Linguistics in Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1515/ S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motiva- iral-2021-0022 tion. Psychological Science, 18(4), 314–316. https://doi. Ibrahim, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2019). Shared, sustained flow: org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x Triggering motivation with collaborative projects. ELT Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon Journal, 73(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy025 in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic inter- Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Shohamy, E. (2001). Students’ vention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), motivation as a function of language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006 R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisi- Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Motivational strategies in the language class- tion (pp. 297–311, Technical Report #223). Second Language room. Cambridge University Press. Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). Teaching and researching motivation. Mánoa. Longman. Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social cli- Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: mate, self-determined motivation, willingness to communicate, Individual differences in second language acquisition. and achievement: A study of structural relationships in instructed Lawrence Erlbaum. second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei 53, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005 & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 Kikuchi, K. (2015). Demotivation in second language acquisition: self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. Insights from Japan. Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). The motivational foun- Kikuchi, K. (2019). Motivation and demotivation over two years: dation of learning languages other than Global English. The A case study of English language learners in Japan. Studies Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 455–468. https://doi. in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 157–175. org/10.1111/modl.12408 https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.7 Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A., & Muir, C. (2016). Motivational currents Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2013). English learning demotiva- in language learning: Frameworks for focused interventions. tion studies in the EFL contexts: State of the art. The Modern Routledge. English Education, 14(1), 77–102. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, per- Lamb, M. (2012). A self system perspective on young adoles- sonality, and development. Psychology Press. cents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact Language Learning, 62(4), 997–1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/ on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot & j.1467-9922.2012.00719.x C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and (pp. 122–140). Guilford Press. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. ecip055/2004029882.html Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Falout, J. (2012). Coping with demotivation: EFL learners’ remoti- Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally vation processes. TESL-EJ, 16(3), 1–29. weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), Foliano, F., Rolfe, H., Buzzeo, J., Runge, J., & Wilkinson, D. 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 (2019). Changing mindsets: Effectiveness trial. Education Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2017). Measuring language mind- Endowment Foundation. https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/ sets and modeling their relations with goal orientations and files/publications/Changing%20Mindsets_0.pdf emotional and behavioral responses in failure situations. The Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 214–243. https://doi. Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long interme- org/10.1111/modl.12380 diate-level language course. Language Learning, 54(1), 1–34. Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2019). Promoting growth in foreign https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00247.x and second language education: A research agenda for mind- Gardner, R. G., Bednar, J. S., Stewart, B. W., Oldroyd, J. B., & sets in language learning and teaching. System, 86, Article Moore, J. (2019). “I must have slipped through the cracks 102126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102126 somehow”: An examination of coping with perceived Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2020). Mindsets matter for linguistic impostorism and the role of social support. Journal of minority students: Growth mindsets foster greater perceived Vocational Behavior, 115, 103337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. proficiency, especially for newcomers. The Modern Language jvb.2019.103337 Journal, 104(4), 739–756. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12669 Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied the- Mercer, S. (2011). Dispelling the myth of the natural-born linguist. matic analysis. SAGE. ELT Journal, 66(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccr022 Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020a). Reexamining the role of Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). vision in second language motivation: A preregistered concep- The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study tual replication of You, Dörnyei, and Csizér (2016). Language of Saudi EFL learners. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), Learning, 70(1), 48–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340 14 SAGE Open Muir, C. (2020). Directed motivational currents and language educa- are growth mindsets important to academic achievement? Two tion: Exploring implications for pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571. https:// Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide doi.org/10.1177/0956797617739704 (7th ed.). Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational Nakata, Y. (2006). Motivation and experience in foreign language self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of learning. Peter Lang. English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66– Why are you learning a second language? Motivational ori- 97). Multilingual Matters. entations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language 50(1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00111 learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515–537. https://doi. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second org/10.1093/applin/19.4.515 language learning: A longitudinal study. System, 29(2), 177– Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). “French is the 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(01)00010-0 language of love and stuff”: Student perceptions of issues Plano Clark, V. L., & Creswell, J. W. (2008). The mixed meth- related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British ods reader. SAGE. http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0720/ Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 503–528. https://doi. 2007023770.html org/10.1080/0141192022000005805 Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It’s ok: Not every- Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., one can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., Paunesku, D., Romero, C., Flint, K., Social Psychology, 48(3), 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Roberts, A., Trott, J., Iachan, R., Buontempo, J., Yang, S. M., jesp.2011.12.012 Carvalho, C. M., . . . Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experi- Rattan, A., Savani, K., Chugh, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2015). ment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Leveraging mindsets to promote academic achievement: Policy Nature, 573(7774), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586- recommendations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 019-1466-y 10(6), 721–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615599383 Yeager, D. S., Romero, C., Paunesku, D., Hulleman, C. S., Rosenbaum, M. (1989). Self-control under stress: The role of learned Schneider, B., Hinojosa, C. P., Lee, H. Y., O’Brien, J., Flint, resourcefulness. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, K., Roberts, A., Trott, J., Greene, D., Walton, G. M., & Dweck, 11(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(89)90028-3 C. S. (2016). Using design thinking to improve psychologi- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic cal interventions: The case of the growth mindset during the psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. transition to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, Guilford Press. 108(3), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000098 Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers Yun, S., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). Academic buoy- (3rd ed.). SAGE. ancy: Exploring learners’ everyday resilience in the language Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(4), B. N. (2018). To what extent and under which circumstances 805–830. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263118000037

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Aug 25, 2021

Keywords: demotivation; remotivation; mindset; ideal self; disappointment

There are no references for this article.