Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 37 (2009) 403–417

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes

Joseph Falout a,*, James Elwood b, Michael Hood c
a
Nihon University, College of Science and Technology, 7-24-1 Narashinodai, Funabashi, Chiba 274-8501, Japan
b
Tsukuba University, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukaba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan
c
Nihon University, College of Commerce, 5-2-1 Kinuta, Setagaya, Tokyo 157-8570, Japan

Received 20 May 2008; received in revised form 23 February 2009; accepted 2 March 2009

Abstract

Demotivation can negatively influence the learner’s attitudes and behaviors, degrade classroom group dynamics and
teacher’s motivation, and result in long-term and widespread negative learning outcomes. 900 university EFL learners were
surveyed to investigate the demotivating factors in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in Japan, and the rela-
tionship between past demotivating experiences and present proficiencies. Affective states and capacity to self-regulate
learning were compared among learners with varying academic interests, experiences, and proficiencies. Demotivating fac-
tors were grouped into three categories: external conditions of the learning environment, internal conditions of the learner,
and reactive behaviors to demotivating experiences. Internal and reactive factors were shown to correlate with long-term
EFL learning outcomes. Findings from this study indicated that beginning, less-proficient learners in non-English majors
were least likely to control their affective states to cope with demotivating experiences. Finally, this paper discusses steps
that might prevent or minimize demotivation and facilitate remotivation.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Motivation; Demotivation; Remotivation; Self-regulation; Grammar-translation

1. Introduction

‘‘Motivation to tackle assignments voluntarily and willingly is lacking,” responded 85% of the 362 deans
surveyed at ninety-five national universities in Japan, accounting for the nationally-perceived drop in aca-
demic performance at the tertiary level (Suzuki et al., 1999, p. 51). In a follow-up survey of 33,432 learners
from 335 public and private universities, the average respondent reported a lack in motivation to study across
all academic subjects (Yanai et al., 2003).
Demotivated learners are a recurring topic in academic conferences and teachers’ rooms across Japan, par-
ticularly regarding the learning of English as a foreign language (EFL). Teachers recognize that motivation is
co-regulated among all the people in the classroom. They realize how one highly motivated learner can pos-

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: falout.joseph.j@nihon-u.ac.jp (J. Falout), elwood.jim@gmail.com (J. Elwood), hood.michael@nihon-u.ac.jp
(M. Hood).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.004
404 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

itively influence the classroom experience and how one demotivated learner can have an opposite effect.
Through the interpersonal processes of group dynamics, one subgroup affects another, efficiency decreases,
and the purpose of lessons becomes obscured (e.g., Dörnyei and Ehrman, 1998; Dörnyei and Murphey,
2003). Soon the motivation of the entire class is at stake, including the teacher’s motivation to persist in such
an adverse environment (e.g., Ames and Ames, 1984; Grayson and Alvarez, 2007; Skaalvik and Skaalvik,
2009). Consequently, the quality of education deteriorates.
Learning environments that require high-stakes testing and provide inappropriate level of courses may fur-
ther exacerbate motivational problems. Secondary and tertiary school entrance exams generate a washback
effect of exam-centered syllabi and curricula. The term ‘‘exam hell” (Amano, 1995) commonly describes the
period when learners struggle to pass these exams. High-stakes, performance-based testing continues into
adulthood as scores from the standardized Test of English for International Communication (TOEICÒ) play
a key role in job placement and promotion. Students are not usually streamed by ability level in Japan, with
just 12% of public junior high schools and 60% of universities streaming students for EFL courses (MEXT,
2007). Compulsory EFL education begins in the first year of junior high school. Most lower proficiency learn-
ers are demotivated by their second year in junior high school, with their motivation continuing to drop
throughout high school and into university (Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004). Match-
ing student abilities by class levels would especially benefit the motivation of lower ability students by provid-
ing them a better chance to experience competency and thus improve their self-confidence toward learning
EFL.
The Japanese Ministry of Education (MEXT) has announced that English classes will become compulsory
for younger students, starting in primary schools in 2011 (MEXT, 2008), mirroring a trend worldwide (e.g.,
Honna, 2002; Nunan, 2003; Otani et al., 2004). Thus learners who become demotivated earlier in formal
schooling might suffer a longer term of negative affect, low proficiency, loss of self-confidence, self-blame,
and a more difficult struggle to remotivate while learning EFL (Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruy-
ama, 2004; Ushioda, 1998, 2001). While this scenario is somber, a positive note is that teachers can make a
difference in the motivation of their learners through motivational practices (Dörnyei, 2001a; Guilloteaux
and Dörnyei, 2008). The purpose of the present study is to investigate the underlying processes involved in
demotivation to help guide policymakers, administrators, and teachers toward preventing or minimizing its
harmful effects on learning.

2. Literature review

Demotivation, as defined by Dörnyei (2001b), is a decrease or drop in level of motivation. It does not result
from (a) distractions of a more attractive option, (b) a gradual loss of interest across a period of time, or (c)
internal triggers. Demotivation starts from an external locus, a demotivating trigger, before it becomes an
internalized process, and motivation must exist before there can be a subsequent decrease. Absence of any
motivation is the state of amotivation, marked by passivity. Amotivated people feel a lack of competence
or control over their external environments, a feeling of helplessness caused by lack of contingency between
behaviors and outcomes (Vallerand and Ratelle, 2002). They ‘‘go through the motions with no sense of intend-
ing to do what they are doing” until they quit the activity (Ryan and Deci, 2002, p. 17).
Gorham and Christophel (1992) cataloged what learners perceived as causes of their demotivation in uni-
versity classrooms in a variety of academic subjects. In comparing learner attributions of demotivation and
motivation, they found that the absence of demotivators in the classroom—such as unenthusiastic teaching,
dissatisfaction with grading, and boring subject—had a more positive influence on motivation than the pres-
ence of motivators such as an enthusiastic and inspiring teacher. The researchers concluded that teachers
could promote learner motivation simply by preventing demotivation.
Second language (L2) researchers have sought to identify attributions of demotivation specific to L2 learn-
ing across wide contexts—learning English in Japan (Falout and Falout, 2005), Hungary (Dörnyei, 1998), and
Vietnam (Trang and Baldauf, 2007), and learning French in Ireland (Ushioda, 1998, 2001)—yet the results are
remarkably similar, with external attributions most often found to influence internal conditions of the learner
in the demotivational process. For instance, one consistently top-ranking attribution was a boring teacher due
to monotonous instruction. Demotivators identified in Japan include a heavy focus on translation, grammar,
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 405

rote memorization of vocabulary, and a lack of practical application (e.g., Arai, 2004, 2005; Falout and Mar-
uyama, 2004; Miyata et al., 2004). These are the applications of the dominant pedagogy across secondary and
most tertiary English education in Japan, often referred to as grammar-translation (e.g., Gorsuch, 2000;
O’Donnell, 2005; Taguchi, 2005). Another common attribution of demotivation was an inappropriate level
of class activities and courses (Arai, 2004; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Miyata et al., 2004).
Disagreeable teacher behaviors and personalities also ranked among the highest in attributions of demoti-
vation in the US (Kearney et al., 2002; Millette and Gorham, 2002) and Japan (Potee, 2002). The interrela-
tionships between teachers and learners are important to the development of learner motivation and for
better learning outcomes (e.g., Chesebro and McCrosky, 2002; den Brok et al., 2005; Noels et al., 1999). How-
ever, teachers in various contexts are often unaware of how their behaviors and methodologies demotivate
learners (Arai, 2006; Gorham and Millette, 1997; Potee, 2002). Teachers and learners attribute learner demo-
tivation differently, with teachers underestimating their own influence on student demotivation. Teachers were
more likely to attribute student demotivation to factors other than the teacher (i.e., learner performance or
total curricular load) and give themselves credit for motivating learners (Gorham and Millette, 1997). How-
ever, learners perceived motivation as a learner-owned state and demotivation as a teacher-owned problem
(Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Gorham and Christophel, 1992).
Learners’ perceptions of their external environments are processed internally, where further psychological
factors contribute to the demotivational process. Reduced self-confidence was identified by Dörnyei as an
internal factor. He reasoned that it can be a factor of demotivation if it extends from the experience of failure
or lack of success in response to an external element, such as grades (1998; reported in Dörnyei, 2001b).
Reduced self-confidence showed the largest statistically significant difference in means in two studies that com-
pared lower and higher proficiency university EFL learners (Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Tsuchiya, 2006).
Christophel and Gorham (1995) identified antecedent conditions that learners bring into the classroom at
the start of a course. These internal conditions can negatively influence motivation, and they involve general
achievement orientation, self-concept, attitude toward the subject and learning environment, learning goal ori-
entation, and expectations of success.
Using data collected from of 164 university freshmen, Falout (2006) extracted antecedent conditions of the
learner, as well as the factors of teachers and course pace. Teachers contained items about personality and ped-
agogy, the latter of which consisted of demotivators particular to the grammar-translation methodology.
Course pace relates to whether learners found the pace or level of the course and materials inappropriate.
Teachers and course pace correlated (r = .350, p < .01) as did teachers and antecedent conditions of the learner
(r = .294, p < .01), showing that the personality and pedagogy of teachers are associated with learner percep-
tions of the course, the subject, and learner abilities.
Comparing eighty-six lower and seventy-eight higher proficiency learners, Falout and Maruyama (2004)
found a probability dependence (v2 = 52.33, df = 1, p < .001), meaning a likeliness of co-occurrence, between
past demotivation and present negative affect toward EFL learning, but only in the lower proficiency group.
The higher proficiency group showed a probability independence (v2 = 2.35, df = 1) and had fewer individuals
with present negative affect. In addition, the lower proficiency learners reported experiencing demotivation
earlier in their formal schooling than did higher proficiency learners, thus holding negative affect toward
EFL learning longer. Another distinction between the groups was that the higher proficiency learners were
more apt to attribute demotivation to external factors, especially teachers, while lower proficiency learners
were more apt to attribute their demotivation to internal factors, particularly disappointment in performance.
Falout and Falout (2005) found these observations comparable with those of Ushioda (1998), who found that
lower proficiency learners are unable to control their affective states regarding L2 learning, and thus are
caught in a cyclical pattern of reduced self-confidence, self-blame, and poor performance.
In comparing the self-regulatory strategies used by more and less successful learners, Arai (2005) found that
the less successful learners reported maladaptive self-regulatory strategies, such as sleeping in class, dropping
out of class, ignoring the teacher, and discontinuing study. Such maladaptive behaviors inhibit learning and
prolong the demotivated state (Falout and Falout, 2005).
Ushioda (1998, 2001) observed that demotivated learners can remotivate themselves in two ways: (a) by
dissociating experiences that demotivate, accomplished through placing blame on external factors, which pro-
tects learners’ beliefs of themselves, and (b) by believing in a capacity of self-motivation through a process of
406 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

affirmation, resourcefulness, goal-setting, initiative, and engagement in rewarding L2 activities. In other

words, students remotivate themselves by using adaptive self-regulatory strategies.

3. Research questions

To investigate the processes involved in demotivation, the research questions (RQ) for this study are:
(RQ 1) Which demotivating factor has the most negative influence on EFL learning in this context? (RQ 2)
To what degree do past demotivating experiences correlate with present proficiency? (RQ 3) Do lower
proficiency learners show less capacity to self-regulate when experiencing demotivation?
Our first hypothesis is that a perceived boring teaching method will be indicated as the most common dem-
otivating trigger, since such a method—grammar-translation—is a commonly reported demotivator, and is
practiced mono-methodically and ubiquitously, at the secondary level in this country. Our second hypothesis
is that if the reactive behaviors to demotivation debilitate learning, then a corresponding lower proficiency
would be evident. The hypothesized effect is that early and frequent maladaptive reactions to demotivation
will correlate with lower levels of proficiency. The third hypothesis is that if chronically demotivated learners
are less able to control their affective states, correspondingly they will show less capacity to self-regulate when
facing difficulties in L2 learning.

4. Methodology

4.1. Participants

Nine hundred EFL university learners comprised the sample, representing twenty-eight majors across
seven universities in four Tokyo-area prefectures. The percentages of demographic variables within this
population were: female 38.00%, male 61.56%, humanities majors 71.11% (including English majors
15.89%), science majors 28.88%, freshmen 51.33%, sophomores 25.67%, juniors 17.67%, seniors 4.78%,
graduate students .22%.

4.2. Materials

The EFL Demotivational Questionnaire (see Appendix A) comprised two sections. The first was a
demographic section that recorded major, gender, and self-reported proficiency levels based on results
from standardized tests. The second section comprised fifty-two Likert scale items that measured with
two 6-point semantic scales, one for reporting agreement with the affective items (1 = strongly disagree;
6 = strongly agree), and the other for reporting the frequency of the experiential items (1 = almost never
happened; 6 = almost always happened) relating to teacher and class experiences, and to reactive behav-
iors to demotivating experiences.
Items related to demotivating experiences and antecedent conditions were selected or modified from those
that best discriminated proficiency and that best grouped on a factor analysis (Falout, 2006) based on previous
research (Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004). Items related to reactive behaviors to demo-
tivation were derived from research in Japan (Arai, 2004, 2005) which reported the behaviors that most fre-
quently occurred, and that best discriminated ability using groups separated by major. Other items pertaining
to reactive behaviors that marked points of escape from demotivational processes were derived from the find-
ings in Ushioda’s qualitative research (1998, 2001).

4.3. Procedure

To obtain information about past experiences, and avoid the bias of participants basing their responses on
their immediate circumstances, questionnaires were administered in the first or second class session at the
beginning of the academic school year. Moreover, the participants were requested to reflect on their past expe-
riences when responding. They were told that the survey was for research purposes only, participation was
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 407

voluntary, their privacy would be protected, and that the information given would in no way affect their
grades. They completed the questionnaire within 20 minutes.
The collected questionnaires were checked for missing data or uniform answers marked across all items on
a page (at least sixteen out of fifty-two items). Of the 1010 surveys collected, twenty-seven had such insufficient
data and were eliminated from the final sample. Similarly, values that contained multivariate outliers were
checked with a p 6 0.001 criterion for Mahalanobis distance, (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007), an additional
eighty-three surveys were deleted, leaving a sample size of 900. Five items were not normally distributed—four
were transformed with a square root transformation, one with a log transformation, and the remaining item,
which was strongly leptokurtic, was discarded. Eleven cases of missing data were handled by mean
replacement.
First, to answer RQ 1, a principle component factor analysis was performed with SPSS Version 14.0 (2007)
using an oblique (oblimin) rotation. The cutoff point for loadings on factors was set at .45 and nine factors
emerged, each with at least three loadings (see Appendix B).
Second, 211 reported TOEICÒ scores and 201 reported grade levels on the Society for Testing English Pro-
ficiency (STEP) test, both standardized tests common in Japan, were used to divide the participants into
groups of high, middle, and low proficiency (see Table 1). To answer RQ 2, a stepwise multiple regression
was performed with the reported TOEICÒ scores as the dependent variables (n = 211) and the nine factors
as the independent variables.
Third, to answer RQ 3, three families of analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted to examine the
relationships between the nine factors and three independent variables: proficiency, year in school, and
whether learners were English majors or not. A Bonferroni post hoc, family-wise adjustment was made to pro-
tect against Type 1 error, resulting in an adjusted p value of .017.

5. Results

The factor analysis was performed to answer RQ 1: Which demotivating factor has the most negative influ-
ence on EFL learning in this context? This analysis produced nine factors that explained 57.41% of the var-
iance, without complex loadings (see Appendix A). Mean values indicate a tendency toward negative affect in
six factors and positive affect in three factors (Tables 2 and 3). The nine factors can be categorized as three
external factors (factors 1, 4, 8), three internal factors (factors 6, 7, 9), and three reactive factors (factors 2,
3, 5) of demotivation.
The external factors describe sources of demotivation in the classroom context. Items grouped in factor
1 related to perceptions and experiences with past teachers, specifying whether past teachers had been
approachable or friendly. Therefore this factor was named Teacher Immediacy, a common motivator when
perceived positively, and a demotivator when perceived negatively, affecting both motivation and learning
outcome (e.g., Christophel and Gorham, 1995; Gorham and Zakahi, 1990; Potee, 2002). The mean Likert
value of 4.12 indicates that these learners overall had positive interpersonal experiences with past English
teachers.
Factor 4 comprised items that measured learner affect related to a common demotivating factor (e.g., Arai,
2004, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004; Miyata et al., 2004) and previously described dominant pedagogy,
Grammar-translation. The mean Likert value of 3.01 indicates that these learners overall had negative experi-
ences with the grammar-translation method, the dominant pedagogy that defined much of their learning goals
and content, the ‘‘things (they) had to learn,” as represented in item A-8.

Table 1
Proficiency level parameters.
Proficiency level TOEICÒ score STEP grade level
High >630 Level 1
Middle 360–625 Level 2
Low <355 Levels 3–5
408 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Table 2
Results from the demotivating factor survey (N = 900).
Component name Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative (%) a
Teacher immediacy 10.84 21.26 21.26 .89
Help-seeking 4.37 8.57 29.83 .85
Enjoyment-seeking 3.21 6.29 36.12 .74
Grammar-translation 2.49 4.89 41.01 .71
Avoidance 1.97 3.86 44.87 .69
Self-denigration 1.85 3.63 48.50 .72
Value 1.69 3.31 51.81 .87
Course level 1.57 3.07 54.88 .85
Self-confidence 1.29 2.53 57.41 .72

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of the demotivating factors.
Component name Number of items Mean SD Skew SE skew
Teacher immediacy 8 4.12 0.92 0.22 .08
Help-seeking 4 2.89 1.24 0.09 .08
Enjoyment-seeking 5 2.31 0.99 0.12 .08
Grammar-translation 5 3.01 0.88 0.11 .08
Avoidance 4 2.65 1.10 0.01 .08
Self-denigration 3 3.65 1.25 0.39 .08
Value 6 3.60 0.49 0.13 .08
Course level 5 3.67 0.96 0.31 .08
Self-confidence 6 3.06 0.56 0.12 .08

Items loading on Factor 8 concern the appropriate level of the textbooks and courses, and pace of the
courses, therefore it was named Course Level, a common factor of demotivation found in Japan (Arai,
2004, 2005; Falout and Falout, 2005; Falout and Maruyama, 2004). Also, Course Level and Teacher
Immediacy showed a positive correlation (r = .411, p < .01), corroborating previous findings (Falout, 2006)
that the more learners perceive teachers as approachable, the more they perceive the level of the courses as
appropriate (see Appendix C). The mean Likert value of 3.67 indicates that these learners perceived the pace
of past courses as adequate.
The internal factors describe perceptions of affect that relate to EFL learning and demotivation. Factor 6
reflected the perceived frequency of past demotivation, and self-blame and loss of confidence when demotivat-
ed. This factor combined two previously identified triggers of a negative affective cycle: Reduced self-confidence
(Falout and Falout, 2005) and Self-blame (Ushioda, 1998). With this combination, the factor was named Self-
denigration. The mean Likert value of 3.65 indicates a tendency for these learners to have lost confidence after
past failures.
Items from Factor 7 were concerned with positive affect toward studying English, or the Value learners
place on the subject. Williams and Burden (1997) stressed the greater the value that learners place on the learn-
ing activity, the more motivated they will be. Meanwhile, Falout (2006) and Christophel and Gorham (1995)
described the negative effects on motivation of low value toward the subject of study. The mean Likert score of
3.60 indicates these learners have had a positive attitude toward English.
Factor 9 was composed of items describing confidence, expectations of success, embarrassment when using
English in class, and perceptions of comparative L2 ability. Central to this factor was self-confidence, hence
the name Self-confidence. The mean Likert value of 3.06 indicates these learners tended to have felt low self-
confidence, especially in relation to their expectations of success.
The reactive factors describe learners’ behaviors as they attempt to cope with demotivation. Factor 2 com-
prised items about seeking help from friends and teachers, common responses found by Arai (2004, 2005), and
can be considered a self-regulated learning strategy (e.g., Newman, 2008; Ryan et al., 1997; Zimmerman and
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 409

Martinez-Pons, 1988). This factor was named Help-seeking. The mean Likert value of 2.89 indicates that these
learners tended to have not sought help when demotivated.
Factor 3 was composed of items that describe a step toward self-motivation or remotivation following a
period of demotivation (Ushioda, 1998, 2001). This involves engaging in intrinsically motivating language
learning activities outside of institutional constraints, such as watching movies or listening to English songs
simply for the sake of enjoyment. This factor was named Enjoyment-seeking. It can be considered an affective
learning strategy (Dörnyei, 2005). The mean Likert value of 2.31 indicates these learners overall had not
engaged themselves with enjoyable English materials or activities when demotivated.
Factor 5 was composed of items whose central feature is avoidance of studying, such as sleeping in class,
and thus the factor was named Avoidance. These reactions to demotivation are seen to debilitate learning in
the Japanese EFL context (Arai, 2004, 2005). The mean Likert value of 2.65 indicates these learners tended to
have not sought escape from their EFL studies when demotivated. However, in other studies such as Ushioda
(2001), certain types of avoidance, specifically taking a break from studies as reflected in item RD-11 of the
present study, have been shown as a remotivating strategy, therefore these data should be interpreted with
caution.
A stepwise regression was performed to answer the RQ 2: To what degree do past demotivating experiences
correlate with present proficiency? Four demotivating factors correlated with proficiency in the stepwise
regression: Enjoyment-seeking, Self-denigration, Help-seeking, and Self-confidence (see Table 4).
The three families of ANOVA were performed to investigate the relationship between proficiency level and
capacity for self-regulation when demotivated. Across these ANOVAs, the factor which consistently incurred
the largest difference in means, with statistical significance at the p < .017 level, was Enjoyment-seeking. This
factor showed the largest difference at .85 between low and high proficiency learners (see Table 5), with large
differences relative to this study of .74 between senior and freshman learners (see Table 6), and .61 between
English majors and non-English majors (see Table 7).

Table 4
Stepwise regression on demotivating factors and proficiency.
Factor Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Significant
B SE b
Constant 271.28 82.47 3.29 .001
Enjoyment-seeking 63.58 11.17 .36 5.69 .000
Self-denigration 22.73 9.37 .16 2.43 .016
Help-seeking 34.72 9.43 .24 3.68 .000
Self-confidence 71.47 20.57 .22 3.47 .001
Note: Y = 271.28; R = .49; R-squared = .24; and adjusted R-squared = .23.

Table 5
ANOVA for proficiency.
Factor Proficiency group F Significant
Low (n = 184) Middle (n = 178) High (n = 54)
Teacher immediacy 4.03 4.41 4.63 13.54 .000*
Help-seeking 3.11 2.92 2.54 4.69 .010*
Enjoyment-seeking 2.30 2.48 3.15 15.53 .000*
Grammar-translation 2.97 3.28 3.12 5.76 .003*
Avoidance 2.75 2.51 2.39 3.55 .030
Self-denigration 3.63 3.57 3.07 4.51 .011*
Value 3.58 3.72 3.83 7.21 .001*
Course level 3.65 3.93 4.04 6.14 .002*
Self-confidence 3.01 3.22 3.35 12.86 .000*
*
Significant at p < .017.
410 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Table 6
ANOVA for year in university.
Factor Year in university F Significant
Fresh man (n = 462) Sopho more (n = 231) Junior (n = 159) Senior (n = 43)
Teacher immediacy 4.19 4.04 4.01 4.16 1.59 .159
Help-seeking 2.87 2.98 2.81 3.08 .65 .661
Enjoyment-seeking 2.09 2.48 2.56 2.83 11.25 .000*
Grammar-translation 3.03 3.03 2.99 2.90 .23 .948
Avoidance 2.53 2.70 2.81 3.01 3.33 .005*
Self-denigration 3.55 3.81 3.71 3.71 1.72 .128
Value 3.61 3.60 3.55 3.63 .68 .635
Course level 3.73 3.67 3.49 3.71 1.58 .163
Self-confidence 3.03 3.11 3.10 3.05 1.36 .238
*
Significant at p < .017.

Table 7
ANOVA for English major/non-English major groups.
Factor Major F Significant
Non-English (n = 757) English (n = 143)
Teacher immediacy 4.07 4.42 17.91 .000*
Help-seeking 2.91 2.81 .78 .377
Enjoyment-seeking 2.22 2.83 48.41 .000*
Grammar-translation 2.98 3.19 7.10 .008*
Avoidance 2.68 2.47 4.63 .032
Self-denigration 3.66 3.58 .52 .471
Value 3.57 3.76 17.13 .000*
Course level 3.62 3.97 16.11 .000*
Self-confidence 3.04 3.19 9.23 .002*
N.B. An earlier version of this study was presented at the 41st annual Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Convention and
Exhibit, Seattle, March 23, 2007.
*
Significant at p < .017.

6. Discussion

6.1. Which demotivating factor has the most negative influence on EFL learning in this context?

Not all factors in this study were found to negatively influence EFL learning on the whole. Most respon-
dents had positive perceptions of their past teachers with a mean of 4.12 for Teacher Immediacy—the highest
averaged value of the nine factors—suggesting that poor teacher behaviors are not a substantial problem for
these learners in Japan, but the converse, that teachers seem quite inspiring. On the other hand, the lowest
averaged value of the demotivating triggers, the external factors, was Grammar-translation at 3.01, suggesting
that the dominant pedagogy poses the largest threat to student motivation, particularly since it is the sole
method of instruction for the first six years—all of secondary school—of most learners’ experience with
English.

6.2. To what degree do past demotivating experiences correlate with present proficiency?

Internal and reactive factors of demotivation may be more of a determinant in learning outcomes than
external factors. This is suggested by the absence of external factors in the results from the stepwise regression,
where only internal and reactive factors predominated. These factors formed two sets of interactions in the
regression that offer interpretable relationships with proficiency.
The internal factors that entered the regression were Self-confidence and Self-denigration; the former con-
tributes positively (.22) to the regression and the latter contributes negatively ( .16). More-proficient learners
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 411

tend to build self-confidence in L2 learning; less-proficient learners tend to respond with self-denigration when
experiencing a lack of success. Learners feeling a lack of success may be attributing their failures to internal
loci (Weiner, 1986), as demotivated learners reported in Falout and Maruyama (2004), which can lead to self-
denigration.
The reactive factors that fit the regression were Enjoyment-seeking and Help-seeking. The former contrib-
utes positively (.36) to the regression, and the latter contributes negatively ( .24). The higher the self-regula-
tion, the higher the proficiency, and more frequent help-seeking correlated with lower proficiency. When
demotivated, more highly proficient learners are less likely to rely on others, and more likely to regulate their
learning by involving themselves in intrinsically motivating activities related the learning. These results corrob-
orate previous hypotheses that an effective way to prevent or overcome demotivation is by controlling affective
states through emotion regulation (Falout and Falout, 2005; Ushioda, 2001), which positively influences moti-
vation and learning outcomes (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2004).

6.3. Do lower proficiency learners show less capacity to self-regulate when experiencing demotivation?

Learners most susceptible to demotivation are those with less L2 learning experience and those who are
less-proficient. They are the most susceptible because they are least able to self-regulate their affective states
in the presence of demotivators and when experiencing demotivation. This finding comes from the following
cross-sectional analysis and deduction.
As the learners progressed to successive years in school, or as they matured, they were more likely to learn
to self-regulate their affective states through engagement in intrinsically motivating activities. Therefore the
relationship suggested in this ANOVA yields some support to the idea that metacognitive and coping strate-
gies are developmental. Learners can incorporate these self-regulatory strategies into their learning behaviors.
According to the ANOVA on proficiency, higher proficiency learners are more likely to engage in
enjoyment-seeking than lower proficiency learners. Similarly, English majors are more likely to engage in
enjoyment-seeking than non-English majors. The pattern shows that beginning level, less-proficient, non-
English-majoring learners are least likely to engage in intrinsically motivating activities and are thus more
likely to fall into demotivation, and also the least likely to cope adaptively when demotivated. Therefore
learners most susceptible to demotivation are those who lack the capacity to regulate their affective states
in their EFL studies both in the presence of demotivators and in response to demotivation.

7. Conclusion

When faced with disagreeable teacher personalities or pedagogies, or inappropriate level of courses or
materials, learners are at risk of becoming demotivated. Especially susceptible are lower proficiency beginners.
In educational systems where English is compulsory, demotivated learners may struggle hopelessly for the
duration of their academic lives. This prospect is alarming when the official starting age of EFL education
is becoming younger worldwide (MEXT, 2008; Nunan, 2003; Otani et al., 2004).
Policymakers and administrators can identify and address problematic aspects of educational policies and
classroom practices. One such example is the loss of motivation due to the mismatch between policy and prac-
tice in Japan, where in junior high school some learners’ interest is caught with intrinsically enjoyable activities
in an environment with meaningful interaction (Falout et al., 2008). However, parents, administrators, and
teachers promote the grammar-translation approach in high school because they believe it prepares learners
for college entrance exams (Gorsuch, 2000). Consequently the interest caught in junior high school is lost by
high school, with learners sitting apart, passively, expected to put their full attention on the translations and
explanations of grammar drills provided by the teacher. Learners find this environment dry and depersonal-
ized, useful only for exam preparation (Falout et al., 2008). Teachers who wish to change such practices must
still face the ‘‘external constraints” of parents, colleagues, and administrators who enforce the practice of
‘‘exam English” to maintain positive evaluations of teachers and reputations of schools (Sakui, 2004; Taguchi,
2005). Educational policies that change the exam system can be enacted to repurpose teachers and lend
societal support to the transition toward classroom practices that are focused on learner interests and rich
social interaction, improving both learner affect and learning outcomes.
412 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Teachers can promote motivation in their learners now simply by avoiding practices that demotivate them,
such as mono-methodic teaching, and instead incorporating a variety of teaching methods, teacher non-verbal
and verbal behaviors that make a positive impression, and pique learners’ interest. Results from this study
suggest that learning outcomes could be improved by considering the affect of the learner—specifically the
protection from loss of self-confidence, and the development of adaptive self-regulatory skills. Ultimately
teachers have the greatest potential to influence the external contexts in the classroom and the internal con-
ditions of the learner, for better or worse.
Learners themselves provide teachers with high expectations and hope. From this study, the learners
reported on average a high positive regard for their past teachers. Furthermore, demotivated learners in Japan
have had negative experiences in their EFL education, but they have not given up on it. Research shows they
are interested in the L2 community (Falout and Maruyama, 2004) and hold positive attitudes toward native
speakers of English (Falout et al., 2008; Miyata et al., 2004; Potee, 2002). Although they have been demoti-
vated and continue experiencing poor EFL learning outcomes, they are still reaching out to enjoy English.
They are pleading for learner-centered, socially interactive classrooms where they can communicate with their
teachers and peers through English. They want to acquire practical abilities for communicating in English, not
just the kind of skills necessary for passing mark sheet exams (Murphey, 2002; Falout et al., 2008). Their val-
ues toward their own education are in line with the national policy issued by MEXT calling for ‘‘Japanese
people who can use English” (MEXT, 2002). Learners are envisioning the wonders of intercultural commu-
nication through their L2. This far-sighted learning goal that learners hold differs from the short-sighted goal
of cramming that is fostered by the high-stakes testing environment called ‘‘exam hell.” Disappointed learners
with negative affect and poor learning outcomes are the product. Learners have higher aspirations, but their
immediate environment obscures the possible multiple pathways to their ideal selves. Show them a more
socially motivating and humane environment rich in meaningful interaction, with a variety of learning meth-
ods and courses at appropriate levels, and learners will share their motivation with teachers and peers.

Acknowledgement

We express our deep appreciation to David Beglar for his invaluable guidance and support on this paper.

Appendix A

EFL Demotivational Questionnaire (items grouped by factor).

Item Mean
Teacher immediacy (TI)
TCE-8 My English teachers were approachable or friendly 4.46
TCE-5 My English teachers spent time on answering my questions carefully 4.12
TCE-2 My English teachers gave me good advice for studying English 3.96
TCE-3 My English teachers gave me positive comments on my English 3.75
TCE-1 I liked the personality of my English teachers 4.14
TCE-4 My English teachers taught me what I wanted to learn about English 3.69
TCE-7 My English teachers were enthusiastic 4.56
TCE-9 My English teachers were fair with all the students 4.30
Help-seeking (H-S)
RD-9 When demotivated in English, I asked my friends for help with English 2.89
RD-10 When demotivated in English, my friends gave me help with English 3.11
RD-8 When demotivated in English, the English teacher gave me help 2.99
RD-7 When demotivated in English, I asked the English teacher for help 2.59
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 413

Appendix A (continued)
Item Mean
Enjoyment-seeking (E-S)
RD-12 When demotivated in English, I watched movies in English 2.83
RD-13 When demotivated in English, I listened to music in English 3.43
RD-14 When demotivated in English, I read stories in English 2.23
RD-15 When demotivated in English, I spoke to a native English speaker 2.02
RD-16 When demotivated in English, I thought about the fun I could have if I knew English better 3.38
Grammar-translation (G-T)
A-12 I liked memorizing vocabulary by rote 2.61
A-13 I liked studying for English tests 2.68
A-11 I liked studying English grammar 3.16
A-16 I liked lecture-centered English classes 3.14
A-8 The things I had to learn in English intimidated me 3.49
Avoidance (AV)
RD-19 When demotivated in English, I did something else in English class other than study 3.07
English
RD-17 When demotivated in English, I slept in English class 3.43
RD-18 When demotivated in English, I skipped English class 1.82
RD-11 When demotivated in English, I took a break from my English studies 3.70
Self-denigration (S-D)
RD-5 When demotivated in learning English, I lost confidence 3.82
RD-3 When demotivated in learning English, I blamed myself 3.22
RD-2 I have been demotivated in learning English in the past 3.92
Value (VAL)
A-3 I like studying English now 4.15
A-5 Even if English had not been a compulsory subject, I would have chosen to study it 4.48
RD-1 (–) I am demotivated in learning English now 2.51
A-6 Learning English was an enjoyable activity 4.22
A-17 I liked communication-centered English classes 4.24
A-7 (–) Learning English was a painful task 2.97
Course level (CL)
TCE-15 The English textbooks I have used were at my level 3.71
TCE-13 The level of my English classes was adequate for me 3.86
TCE-12 My classes went at an appropriate speed for me 3.90
TCE-14 I liked the textbooks I used for my English classes 3.19
TCE-11 I could understand the purpose of activities in English class 3.72
Self-confidence (S-C)
A-10 (–) I felt inferior to my classmates for my English ability 3.99
A-2 I was confident in learning English before I started learning it 2.29
A-14 Before doing English tests, I thought I would do well 3.01
A-9 (–) I was embarrassed using English in my classes 3.52
A-1 I am confident in learning English now 2.63
A-15 After receiving grades for English tests, I thought I did well 2.94
Note: (–) denotes items which were reverse-coded. For item types: A, affect; TCE, teacher and class experi-
ences; and RD, responses to demotivation.
414 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Appendix B
Factor loadings.
Item TI H-S E-S G-T AV S-D VAL CL S-C
TCE-8 .751 .007 .080 .030 .014 .088 .003 .069 .036
TCE-5 .748 .098 .060 .066 .074 .072 .146 .006 .003
TCE-2 .731 .101 .101 .081 .018 .048 .084 .058 .027
TCE-3 .722 .012 .014 .127 .065 .054 .148 .028 .181
TCE-1 .684 .001 .101 .005 .000 .042 .092 .074 .017
TCE-4 .668 .022 .018 .115 .054 .055 .110 .129 .077
TCE-7 .656 .049 .004 .030 .067 .036 .004 .149 .036
TCE-9 .513 .054 .053 .089 .088 .085 .167 .173 .028
TCE-10 .406 .012 .064 .146 .315 .049 .067 .049 .063
TCE-6 .286 .053 .114 .171 .132 .218 .026 .131 .159
RD-9 .134 .888 .010 .046 .015 .061 .012 .061 .079
RD-10 .114 .876 .015 .040 .030 .066 .014 .116 .104
RD-8 .350 .734 .005 .035 .019 .046 .103 .082 .110
RD-7 .252 .718 .050 .102 .017 .073 .142 .106 .121
RD-6 .005 .385 .114 .056 .057 .343 .193 .107 .054
RD-12 .009 .039 .874 .102 .030 .010 .073 .006 .021
RD-13 .003 .038 .786 .067 .095 .006 .022 .097 .103
RD-14 .021 .022 .782 .102 .020 .047 .041 .037 .076
RD-15 .025 .086 .680 .013 .081 .045 .056 .029 .144
RD-16 .068 .110 .535 .050 .035 .201 .229 .024 .083
A-12 .023 .007 .069 .721 .004 .012 .057 .022 .040
A-13 .031 .118 .032 .692 .073 .026 .034 .099 .098
A-11 .084 .041 .063 .598 .007 .018 .276 .071 .032
A-16 .016 .036 .112 .536 .010 .075 .241 .158 .011
A-8 .133 .054 .107 .451 .096 .192 .218 .000 .084
RD-19 .001 .024 .016 .008 .834 .061 .012 .047 .027
RD-17 .035 .011 .013 .059 .814 .057 .032 .022 .092
RD-18 .010 .011 .168 .189 .598 .036 .045 .145 .094
RD-11 .118 .096 .101 .192 .466 .292 .176 .029 .005
RD-4 .219 .210 .147 .020 .364 .248 .131 .020 .013
RD-5 .062 .052 .006 .052 .036 .794 .035 .005 .127
RD-3 .019 .088 .093 .061 .069 .727 .105 .037 .108
RD-2 .007 .048 .026 .207 .319 .476 .272 .056 .062
A-3 .096 .019 .118 .102 .038 .066 .723 .058 .084
A-5 .083 .072 .034 .043 .034 .063 .718 .101 .039
RD-1 .030 .014 .034 .000 .076 .176 .709 .029 .042
A-6 .215 .058 .098 .181 .050 .013 .629 .070 .081
A-17 .106 .036 .109 .335 .023 .069 .610 .003 .196
A-7 .122 .070 .076 .188 .077 .198 .487 .024 .036
A-4 .031 .084 .063 .056 .150 .283 .407 .127 .148
TCE-15 .019 .013 .064 .006 .007 .059 .064 .833 .036
TCE-13 .042 .039 .019 .051 .041 .074 .117 .831 .016
TCE-12 .086 .021 .013 .013 .031 .075 .038 .799 .000
TCE-14 .070 .025 .105 .136 .133 .177 .114 .626 .096
TCE-11 .188 .068 .056 .138 .029 .048 .163 .454 .065
A-10 .028 .037 .022 .062 .067 .298 .049 .068 .665
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 415

Appendix B (continued)
Item TI H-S E-S G-T AV S-D VAL CL S-C
A-2 .065 .015 .064 .046 .056 .135 .041 .081 .583
A-14 .127 .009 .053 .304 .014 .020 .014 .173 .556
A-9 .004 .037 .052 .322 .104 .072 .009 .017 .551
A-1 .069 .021 .001 .035 .008 .129 .310 .039 .550
A-15 .059 .030 .043 .260 .108 .132 .004 .193 .480
Note: For factors: TI, teacher immediacy; H-S, help-seeking; E-S, enjoyment-seeking; G-T, grammar-trans-
lation; AV, avoidance; S-D, self-denigration; VAL, value; CL, course level; and S-C, self-confidence. For item
types: A, affect; TCE, teacher and class experiences; and RD, responses to demotivation.

Appendix C

Correlations of factors.
Factor TI H-S E-S G-T AV S-D VAL CL
TI
H-S .084
E-S .139 .165
G-T .127 .040 .055
AV .246 .086 .031 .126
S-D .095 .239 .097 .001 .165
VAL .243 .019 .191 .166 .184 .089
CL .411 .086 .083 .235 .185 .076 .234
S-C .155 .048 .190 .164 .066 .086 .254 .149
Note: For factors: TI, teacher immediacy; H-S, help-seeking; E-S, enjoyment-seeking; G-T, grammar-trans-
lation; AV, avoidance; S-D, self-denigration; VAL, value; CL, course level; and S-C, self-confidence.

References

Amano, I., 1995. The dilemma of Japanese education today. In: Shields, J.J. (Ed.), Japanese Schooling: Patterns of Socialization, Equality,
and Political Control. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, pp. 111–123.
Ames, C., Ames, R., 1984. Systems of student and teacher motivation: toward a qualitative definition. Journal of Educational Psychology
76 (4), 535–556.
Arai, K., 2004. Naniga gaikokugo gakushusha no yaruki wo ushinawaserunoka? – Douki gentai no genin to sorenitaisuru gakushusha no
hannou ni taisuru shitsuteki chosa (what demotivates foreign language learners: qualitative study of causes for demotivation and
learners’ reactions to demotivating experiences). Toyo Gakuin Daigaku Kiyo 12, 39–47.
Arai, K., 2005. Why do learners lose their motivation? Paper presented at the 31st JALT International Conference on Language Teaching
and Learning, October 10, 2005, Shizuoka, Japan.
Arai, K., 2006. Do teachers really know what demotivates learners? In: Proceedings of the 32nd JALT International Conference on
Language Teaching and Learning, November 5, 2006, Fukuoka, Japan.
Chesebro, J.L., McCrosky, J.C. (Eds.), 2002. Communication for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Christophel, D.M., Gorham, J., 1995. A test–retest analysis of student motivation, teacher immediacy and perceived sources of motivation
and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 44, 292–306.
den Brok, P., Levy, J., Brekelmans, M., Wubbles, T., 2005. The effect of teacher interpersonal behavior on students’ subject-specific
motivation. Journal of Classroom Interaction 40 (2), 20–33.
Dörnyei, Z., 1998. Demotivation in foreign language learning. In: Proceedings of the TESOL’98 Congress, March 1998, Seattle.
Dörnyei, Z., 2001a. Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dörnyei, Z., 2001b. Teaching and Researching Motivation. Pearson Education, Harlow, England.
416 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417

Dörnyei, Z., 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
Dörnyei, Z., Ehrman, M.E., 1998. Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Dörnyei, Z., Murphey, T., 2003. Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Falout, J., 2006. What is demotivating Japanese learners? Paper presented at the JALT 2006 Pan-SIG Conference, May 14, 2006,
Shizuoka, Japan.
Falout, J., Falout, M., 2005. The other side of motivation: learner demotivation. In: Bradford-Watts, K., Ikeguchi, C., Swanson, M.
(Eds.), JALT2004 Conference Proceedings. JALT, Tokyo, pp. 280–289.
Falout, J., Maruyama, M., 2004. A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation. The Language Teacher 28 (8), 3–9.
Falout, J., Murphey, T., Elwood, J., Hood, M., 2008. Learner voices: reflections on secondary education. In: Bradford-Watts, K. (Ed.),
JALT2007 Conference Proceedings. JALT, Tokyo, pp. 231–243.
Gorham, J., Christophel, D.M., 1992. Learners’ perceptions of teacher behaviors as motivating and demotivating factors in college classes.
Communication Quarterly 40 (3), 239–252.
Gorham, J., Millette, D.M., 1997. A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of sources of motivation and demotivation in
college classes. Communication Education 46, 245–261.
Gorham, J., Zakahi, W.R., 1990. A comparison of teacher and student perceptions of immediacy and learning: monitoring process and
product. Communication Education 39, 354–368.
Gorsuch, G., 2000. EFL educational policies and educational cultures: influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities.
TESOL Quarterly 34 (4), 675–710.
Grayson, J.L., Alvarez, H.K., 2007. School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: a mediator model. Teaching and Teacher
Education 23, 1349–1363.
Guilloteaux, M.J., Dörnyei, Z., 2008. Motivating language learners: a classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational
strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly 42, 55–77.
Honna, N., 2002. Ajia no saishin eigo jijo (the encyclopedia of the situation of the English language in Asia). Taishukan, Tokyo.
Kearney, P., Plax, T.G., Allen, T.H., 2002. Understanding student reactions to teachers who misbehave. In: Chesebro, J.L., McCroskey,
J.C. (Eds.), Communication for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 127–140.
MEXT, 2002. Developing a strategic plant to cultivate ‘‘Japanese with English abilities”. Press release issued on July 12, 2002. <http://
www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm> (retrieved 14.02.08).
MEXT, 2007. Eigo ga tsukaeru nihonjin no ikusei: monbukagakusho no eigo kyoiku heno torikumi (Regarding the implementation of an
action plan to cultivate ‘‘Japanese citizens with a good command of English”: working toward global exchange). <http://
www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/houdou/18/01/06013100/003/001.pdf> (retrieved 12.03.07).
MEXT, 2008. Gengo katsudou ni kansuru gakushushido ryouyou kaiteian no kijutsurei (basui) (Summary of the new Course of Study
regarding language activities). <http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/news/080216/007.pdf> (retrieved 03.03.08).
Millette, D.M., Gorham, J., 2002. Teacher behavior and student motivation. In: Chesebro, J.L., McCroskey, J.C. (Eds.), Communication
for Teachers. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 141–153.
Miyata, M., Shikano, M., Ishida, T., Okabe, J., Uchida, M., 2004. Seito ga tsueketa eigo no tsushinbo (learners’ evaluation on teachers).
Eigo Kyoiku 53 (8), 58–65.
Murphey, T., 2002. From the horse’s mouth: advice from students to teachers. Learning Learning 9 (1), 2–10.
Newman, R.S., 2008. The motivational role of adaptive help seeking in self-regulated learning. In: Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B.J. (Eds.),
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, pp. 315–337.
Noels, K.A., Clément, R., Pelletier, L.G., 1999. Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. The Modern Language Journal 83 (1), 23–34.
Nunan, D., 2003. The impact of English as a global language on the educational policies and practices in the Asia–Pacific region. TESOL
Quarterly 37 (4), 589–613.
O’Donnell, K., 2005. Japanese secondary English teachers: negotiation of educational roles in the face of curricular reform. Language,
Culture and Curriculum 18 (3), 300–315.
Otani, Y., Hayashi, K., Aikawa, M., Azuma, M., Okihara, K., Kawai, T., et al., 2004. Sekai no gaikokugo kyoiku seisaku: nihon no
gaikokugo kyoiku no saikochiku ni mukete (Language Teaching Policy in the 21st Century). Toshinodo Publishing Company, Tokyo.
Potee, N., 2002. Teacher immediacy and student motivation. In: McInerney, D.M., Van Etten, S. (Eds.), Sociocultural Influences on
Motivation and Learning: An Historical Perspective. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, Connecticut, pp. 207–223.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2002. Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective. In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M.
(Eds.), Handbook of Self-determination Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, pp. 3–33.
Ryan, A.M., Hicks, L., Midgley, C., 1997. Social goals, academic goals, and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early
Adolescence 17 (2), 152–171.
Sakui, K., 2004. Wearing two pairs of shoes: language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal 58 (2), 155–163.
Skaalvik, E.M., Skaalvik, S., 2009. Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and
Teacher Education 25 (3), 518–524.
SPSS, 2007. SPSS Version 14.0, Computer Software. SPSS Inc, Chicago.
Suzuki, N., Arai, K., Yanai, H., 1999. Daigakusei no gakuryoku teika ni kansuru chosa kekka (Survey on the decline in college student
performance). Daigaku Nyushi Forum 22, 50–56.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, fifth ed. Pearson, Boston.
 J. Falout et al. / System 37 (2009) 403–417 417

Taguchi, N., 2005. The communicative approach in Japanese secondary schools: teachers’ perceptions and practice. The Language
Teacher 29 (3), 3–12.
Trang, T.T.T., Baldauf, R.B., 2007. Demotivation: understanding resistance to English language learning—The case of vietnamese
students. The Journal of Asia TEFL 4 (1), 79–105.
Tsuchiya, M., 2006. Factors in demotivation of lower proficiency English learners at college. English and English Teaching, Special Issue:
A Festschrift in Honor of Toshiaki Ozasa. Hiroshima Daigaku Gakko Kyoiku Gakubu Eigo Kenkyukai, Hiroshima, pp. 87–96.
Ushioda, E., 1998. Effective motivational thinking: a cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In:
Soler, E.A., Espurz, V.C. (Eds.), Current Issues in English Language Methodology. Universitat Jaume I, Catello de la Plana, Spain,
pp. 77–89.
Ushioda, E., 2001. Language learning at university: exploring the role of motivational thinking. In: Dörnyei, Z., Schmidt, R. (Eds.),
Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu, pp. 93–125.
Vallerand, R.J., Ratelle, C.F., 2002. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: a hierarchical model. In: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), Handbook
of Self-Determination Research. University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY, pp. 37–63.
Weiner, B., 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Williams, M., Burden, R.L., 1997. Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Yanai, H., Shiina, K., Ishii, H., Nozawa, T., 2003. Daigakusei no gakushuiyoku tou ni kansuru chousa kekka (An investigation into
learning motivation of university students). National Center for University Entrance Examinations 23, 57–126.
Zimmerman, B.J., Martinez-Pons, M., 1988. Construct validation of a strategy model of student self-regulated learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology 80 (3), 284–290.
Zimmerman, B.J., Schunk, D.H., 2004. Self-regulated processes and outcomes: a social cognitive perspective. In: Dai, D.Y., Sternberg,
R.J. (Eds.), Motivation, Emotion, and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 323–349.