ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EFL TEACHERS` INTERACTION STYLE AND L2 LEARNING MOTIVATION

Saeedeh Javidkar¹⁺ ---Hassan Soleimani²

^1,2Department of Applied Linguistics, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, Iran

Keywords:L2 learning, Motivation, Teacher-student communication, Teacher classroom behavior.

Contribution/ Originality:This study contributes in the existing literature by depicting the relationship between the motivation for learning English as an L2 and teacher interaction style in the English as a foreign language classroom. Although the relationship between teacher interaction style and learning motivation has been documented in mainstream educational research, in the EFL contexts, the relationship between these constructs has remained relatively unexplored.

1. INTRODUCTION

Motivation to learn a foreign language has been highlighted as a major factor in the success of language learning in the existing literature. It has been described as the key factor in initiating the primary reason for second language (L2) learning and sustaining the learning process (Dörnyei, 2009). Without being adequately motivated, even the most talented learners will not be able to achieve success in L2 learning. In general, educational literature as well as L2 acquisition literature, learner motivation has been highlighted as one of the major factors influencing the success of learning. Although it has been referred to extensively in literature on L2 acquisition, there are still many facets thereof which have remained relatively unexplored. In addition, there is a dearth of research investigating how teacher classroom behavior can affect students' motivation. One such area is the effect of teacher' variables on learners' L2 motivation. To shed light on this, under-researched area the present study attempts to identify any possible impact of teacher interpersonal style on students' L2 learning motivation. This can be illuminating as it will give teachers some insights into one of the factors which may increase or decrease learners' motivation to learn an L2.

2. LITRETURE REVWIE

2.1. Motivation

Motivation denotes “the reasons underlying behavior” (Guay et al., 2010). According to Gredler et al. (2004) motivation refers to “the attribute that moves us to do or not to do something”. As stated by Deci et al. (1999) “intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action. It is evident in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenges seeking that people often do for external rewards”. Scholars frequently compare intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation, which is motivation directed by reinforcement events. Usually, researchers reflect on intrinsic motivation as being more desirable and leading to better learning results than extrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).

From the above definitions, it could be argued motivation encompasses a group of perceptions, beliefs, interests, standards, and activities that are all strictly connected. Therefore, a number of approaches to motivation can emphasize on cognitive activities (e.g. strategy use and monitoring), non-cognitive features (e.g. beliefs and perceptions), or both. For instance, according to Gottfried (1990) academic motivation is defined as “enjoyment of school learning characterized by a mastery orientation; curiosity; persistence; task-endogeny; and the learning of challenging, difficult, and novel tasks”. Alternatively, Turner (1995) studied motivation as a synonym for cognitive involvement, and defined as “voluntary uses of high-level self-regulated learning strategies, such as paying attention, connection, planning, and monitoring”.

2.2. Language Learning Motivation

Gardner and Lalonde (1985) defined language learning motivation as “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes toward learning the language”. Therefore, motivation is a multifaceted set of elements, including the exertion or energy consumed in learning the language, as well as the cause for L2 learning, which functions as an objective to adjust this energy (Noels, 2001). In this regard, a number approaches to motivation have been suggested; however two have been highly verified empirically. The first one is the instrumental approach, referring to motives for language learning that highlight the pragmatic outcomes of L2 learning, such as employment or improvement in education. The second one is the integrative approach, which denotes motives connected with relationship, communication or interaction with the L2 learner members (Belmechri and Hummel, 1998). In the present study, the second approach to motivation has been adopted, i.e. the integrative approach. Regarding the difference between the two approaches to motivation, in a primary interpretation made by Gardner and Lambert (1972) it was proposed that the integrative approach could likely more strongly predict ultimate L2 proficiency and competence, since it was associated with positive opinions and perspective of the L2 stakeholders. Nevertheless, as Noels (2001) stated, later it was revealed that, there is not essentially a clear-cut distinction between the two variables; partly due to wavering operational definitions proposed by some scholars such as Au (1988) and Gardner (1988) and partly owning to the diverse contexts wherein the researchers such as Belmechri and Hummel (1998); C Clément and Kruidenier (1983); Dornyei (1990); Noels and Clement (1989) and Moise et al. (1990) carried out their studies.

Several models of motivation have combined some features of integrativeness (e.g., (Gardner, 1988; Dörnyei and Ottó, 1998; Dörnyei, 2001)) identifying the exclusive and distinctive features of language learning as an instructional activity fixed inside a specific sociopolitical setting. Further, the changing aspects among groups with different linguistic background outside of the classroom setting might be as significant for motivation as atmosphere within the classroom (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Gardner and Lalonde (1985) and Gardner and Tremblay (1994) argue against the beliefs of some scholars (e.g., (Jakobovits, 1970); (Kelly, 1969); see also (Dickinson, 1995)) that consider the instrumental and integrative approaches and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as corresponding constructs. Gardner and Lalonde (1985) contends that both approaches are extrinsic because the language learning occurs as a response to fulfillment of certain objectives in addition to the joy obtained by solving the task for itself.

2.3. Experimental Studies on L2 Motivation

A large number of studies have investigated L2 motivation One line of this research has focused on various factors which can decrease or increase learners' language learning motivation (Williams and Burden, 1997; Dörnyei, 2001; Do¨rnyei, 2006). In one such study, Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) investigated 200 Hungarian teachers' strategies for motivating their students. Teachers were given a list of 51 motivational strategies and were requested to indicate how frequently they employed them in the classroom. Based on the findings, Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) came up with 10 strategies which were the most frequently mentioned ones by teachers. To see whether the employment of these strategies is culture-specific, Cheng and Dörnyei (2007) conducted a similar study in a different context. They found that there was a coherent pattern in using the most important motivational strategies in the two contexts. As such, they concluded that certain motivational strategies are not culture bound and can be considered as universal.

2.4. Model for Learner Perception of Teacher–Student Interaction

Learners' perceptions about their interactions with their instructor have been with few models, among which the most widely used is the Model for Interpersonal Teacher Behavior (MITB). This model is grounded on Leary’s research study on the interpersonal analysis of personality and its use in teaching (Wubbels et al., 1985). The MITB has been examined widely in psychology and psychotherapy and has indicated its effectiveness in unfolding human interaction (Lonner, 1980). Although the model is not considered responsive in every cultural milieu, there are signs that it could be generalized in different cultures (Segall et al., 1990).

As stated, Leary (1957) proposed a two-dimensional model of interaction styles. According to this model, parties in a communication interact along two dimensions:

1. A Dominance-Submission dimension, and
2. A Cooperation-Opposition dimension

While the former deals with such questions as who controls the interaction, the latter is concerned with the degree of cooperation between interlocutors. To apply the model to the classroom environment, Wubbels et al. (1988) subdivided Leary's model into eight sectors within a proximity dimension (Cooperation-Opposition) and an influence dimension (Dominance-Submission) (Figure 1). Each sector is labeled with the initial letters of one member of each dimension with one of them being more dominant. For example, SC and CS styles are both characterized by Submission and Cooperation. In SC, however, Submission is the dominant style while, in CS, Cooperation is the dominant one. In the present study, this model was adopted to describe teacher interactional styles.

2.5. Empirical Studies on the Relationship of Teacher Interaction and Motivation

Studies exploring links between the teacher–student interactions and affective consequences show a much more constant array than studies examining the association with cognitive consequences. All studies find a constructive association of both influence and proximity with affective achievement scales, typically assessed in terms of motivation in a specific subject matter. In general, special effects of proximity are rather robust than effects of influence. The higher the opinion of proximity, the higher the motivation of the learners is. With more detailed scales of learners’ subject-specific motivation, other examinations found positive associations for cooperative/welcoming and sympathetic behavior with pleasure, sureness, exertion and germaneness of learners (Derksen, 1994; Amelsvoort, 1999).

Figure-1. The MITB Network (Den Brok et al., 2002)

In a similar vein, Amelsvoort (1999) revealed that the effect of teacher–student interaction on learners’ subject-specific motivation is both straightforward as well as indirect through learner motivation and regulation procedures. In the study, he verified a causal model that related learners’ perceptions on the QTI to learners’ pleasure, sureness, and exertion. He reported two statistically substantial underlying paths moving from proximity to learners’ pleasure. One path connected the two variables straightforwardly, the other path connected proximity to learner regulation of affect, which sequentially influenced exertion, with exertion influencing pleasure. Instructor proximity as perceived by learners may accordingly both directly mark learners 'mental state, but indirectly through learning activities completed by learners as well.

3. METHOD

3.1. Research Questions

1. Is there a significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers` interactional style as perceived by teachers themselves and their students` L2 learning motivation?

2. Is there a significant relationship between Iranian EFL teachers` interactional style as perceived by their students and students` L2 learning motivation?

3.2. Materials

Data for the present study were collected using three questionnaires:

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI)(Learner version)

To collect data about learners` perception of teacher interactional styles in the classroom, QTI was used (see Appendix A). The questionnaire includes 48 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=Never/ Not at all to 5=Always/ Very ) with eight sectors which can be categorized into two dimensions - a Dominance–Submission dimension (DS) and a Cooperation–Opposition dimension (CO). It was developed by Leary`s (1957) based on his model of interpersonal relation. The reliability of the questionnaire in the present study was 0.78 which is acceptable. The items on the questionnaire ask learners about their relationship between them and their teachers. Three sample items are presented below:

a. Our teacher gets angry unexpectedly.

b. Our teacher puts us down.

c. Our teacher is someone we can depend on.

To avoid any effect of English language proficiency on learners` understanding and answer to the items of the questionnaire, it was translated into Persian and participants answered the Persian version.

Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) (Teacher version)

To collect data about teachers` perception of their teacher interactional styles in the classroom, the teacher version of QTI was used (see Appendix B). Like the learner questionnaire, this questionnaire also includes 48 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=Never/ Not at all to 5=Always/ Very) with eight sectors which can be categorized into two dimensions - a Dominance–Submission dimension (DS) and a Cooperation–Opposition dimension (CO). The questionnaire asked teachers about the nature of their relationship with learners. The reliability of the questionnaire in the present study was 0.74 which is acceptable. Three sample questions are presented below:

a. I get angry quickly.

b. I put students down.

c. I am someone students can depend on.

The Student Motivational State Questionnaire

The questionnaire developed by Papi and Abdollahzadeh (2011) was used to collect data on students` L2 learning motivation (see Appendix C). This questionnaire was selected as it was designed to be used in the context of Iran. It includes items which focus on motivational factors for language learning and general motivational and characteristics. To prevent any possible effect of learners` English language proficiency on the findings, the Persian version of the questionnaire was used. In general, the questionnaire includes 28 items on a 6-point rating scale with 1 indicating strongly disagree and 6 indicating strongly agree. The reliability of the questionnaire in the present study was 0.75 which is acceptable.

3.3. Participants

Participants of the study were 97 intermediate and upper-intermediate EFL learners and 8 teachers. They were recruited from a private language teaching institute in Karaj, Iran. There were 58 female and 39male learners. Their` age ranged from 17 to 28 (M= 22.50, SD=2.01). There were 5 female and 3 male teachers who were between 26 to 39 years old (M=33.48, SD= 1.93).  Their teaching experience ranged from 5 to 12 years (M= 9). All the participants took part in the study on a voluntary basis. Data were collected during classroom time. Learners were informed that the data they provided was going to be kept confidential. Students received no extra score for taking part in the study.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

For the first stage of data collection, a private language institute in Karaj was selected.  After permission was granted by the institute, the researcher selected five male and female classes. The type of sampling was simple sampling because every class had an equal chance for being selected. We attended the classes to invite the learners to participate in the study. Some general explanations were given about the study and how to fill out the questionnaires. Participants filled out the questionnaires during the normal class time. First, participants answered the questionnaire on teacher interaction style in order to identify their perception of their teacher`s interactional behavior in the classroom. It took them about 15 minutes on average to complete it.

Learners were told that it was optional to write down their real names. But they were also told to write down a code if they did not want to reveal their real name and remember that code so that they could write it on the second questionnaire related to motivation next session. Because the institute did not allow to take more than 15 minutes of the class time each session, the second questionnaire, i.e. questionnaire on L2 learning motivation,was administered to learners next session. It took them about 10 minutes to complete this questionnaire on average. Teachers also answered the questionnaire on their perception of their interactional style in the classroom as learners were completing their questionnaires.

3.5. Data Analysis

After data collection was completed, data related to each teacher and student were entered into SPSS. The total score on the QTI (student version) was an indicator of students` perception of their teachers` interaction style, the total score on the QTI (teacher version) was an indicator of teachers` perception of their ` interaction style, and the score on the Student Motivational State Questionnaire was an indicator of students` L2 motivation. Higher scores on both versions of QTI showed that students` or teachers` perception of teacher interactional style was more positive and favorable. Also, higher scores on the Student Motivational State Questionnaire represented higher motivation for L2 learning.

Then two separate Pearson Product Moment Correlation tests were run to answer the two research questions of the study.

4. RESULTS

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relation between teachers` perceived   interaction style and students` L2 learning motivation. To this end, EFL learners and teachers from a private language institute responded to questionnaires on teachers` interaction style (QTI) and learners` L2 learning motivation. The total score on the QTI was an indicator of students` perception of their teachers` interaction style as well as teachers` perception of their own interaction style whereas the score on the Student Motivational State Questionnaire was an indicator of students` L2 motivation. Higher scores on the QTI showed that students` perception of their teacher`s interactional style was more positive and favorable. In the same way, higher scores on the Student Motivational State Questionnaire represented higher motivation for L2 learning.

Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates (coefficient α) for QTI (student version), QTI (teacher version), and the Student Motivational State Questionnaire are presented in Table 1. The results show that all the three instruments were reasonably reliable. The highest reliability belonged to the Student Motivational State Questionnaire (α=0.81), followed by QTI (student version) (α=0 .78), and QTI (teacher version) (α=0.76).

The mean scores for the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (student version), Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) (teacher version), and the Student Motivational State Questionnaire were 182.17, 201.72, 131.73, respectively.

Table-1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment Correlation for QTI and the Student Motivational State Questionnaire

Questionnaire Type	M	SD	N	α
Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) (student version)	182.17	10.14	97	.78
Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QTI) (teacher version)	201.72	13.76	97	.76
The Student Motivational State Questionnaire	131.73	13.11	97	.81

Testing normality (K-S test)-In order to test normality of the score distributions obtained from the three questionnaires, Shapiro test statistic was run.  In Table 2, the results of this statistic are presented. As shown in the table, for all the three test score distributions, Sig values are more than .05 which indicate normality of the distributions.

Table-2. Tests of Normality

Test	Shapiro-Wilk
	Statistic	df	Sig.
QTI (student version) QTI (teacher version) Student Motivational State	.98 .77 .99	97 8 97	.07 .05 .09

In addition, Q-Q plots were used to illustrate the normality of the data. A reasonably straight line suggests a normal distribution. For this research question, we can say that the plots for the observed values do not form a totally straight line. So we cannot say that the distribution is perfectly normal.

To answer the first research question of the study to examine whether there was a relationship between EFL learners` perception of their teacher`s interactional style and their ` L2 learning motivation, a Pearson Product-Moment correlation was run.

As shown in Table 2, EFL learners` perception of their teacher interactional style and their` L2 motivation have a strong positive correlation  (r=.59, p < .05). Put simply, learners who perceived their teacher to be dominant and less cooperative in interaction scored lower on the Motivational State Questionnaire whereas learners who perceived their teachers` interaction style as being less dominant and more cooperative scored higher the Motivational State Questionnaire.

Table-3. Inter-correlations between student motivational state and teacher interaction style as perceived by students

	(QTI)(student version)
The Student  Motivational State Questionnaire	.59*

* p< 0.05

To find the answer to the second research question of the study, i.e. whether there is a relationship between EFL teachers` perception of their interactional style and their students` L2 learning motivation, a Pearson Product-Moment correlation was run.

As shown in Table 2, EFL teachers` perception of their interactional style and students` L2 motivation had a strong positive correlation  (r=.59, p < .05). In other words, students of teachers who followed a less dominant and more cooperative  approach in their interaction in the classroom scored higher on the Motivational State Questionnaire while students of teachers who followed a  dominant and less cooperative interactional style inside the classroom scored lower on  the Motivational State Questionnaire.

Table-4. Inter-correlations between student motivational state and teacher interaction style as Perceived by teachers

	(QTI) (teacher version)
The Student  Motivational State Questionnaire	.51*

* p < 0.05

These results clearly indicate that interactional strategies used by teachers inside the classroom can have either a positive or a negative influence on learners` L2 learning motivational state.

5. DISCUSSION

The main purpose of the present thesis was to investigate whether there was a statistically significant relationship between teacher interaction style as perceived by themselves and their students and student L2 learning motivation. To this end, teachers` responses to QTI and learners` responses to student L2 learning motivation state and QTI were analyzed. The findings of the study uncovered statistically significant relationship between L2 learning motivation and teacher interactional style as perceived by teachers and learners. This part presents a discussion of the findings, implications of the findings and directions for further research.

The results showed a statistically significant relationship between students` perception of their teachers` interpersonal behavior and their motivation for L2 learning. As such, the findings of the study rejects the first null hypothesis of the study which stated that there was not any relationship between learners` L2 learning motivation state and teacher interaction style as perceived by their students. The strong correlation between teacher interactional style and students` L2 motivation in the present study provides evidence for Gardner and Lalonde (1985) model of motivation which indicated a link between the learning context and students` motivation. Also, the results confirm the findings of previous study, like Eschenmann (1991) conclusion that learners` perceptions of their teachers, directly impact their learning behavior and achievement.

The findings also showed that there is a positive relationship between teachers` interactional style as perceived by themselves and learners` L2 learning motivation. Therefore, the results of this study rejects the second null hypothesis of the study which stated that there was not any relationship between learners` L2 learning motivation state and teacher interaction style as perceived by their teachers.

This finding is illuminating as it contributes insights into one of the important teacher variables which may increase or decrease learners` motivation to learn an L2. Teachers ` interactional style could be, in fact, categorized as an aspect of teachers` verbal behavior. Teachers who are perceived to be less dominant and more cooperative in interaction with learners are closer to learners as they can establish friendly relationship with learners more easily (Mehrabian, 1967; Mehrabian, 1981).

The findings of the present thesis provides support for previous studies which showed a  relationship between teacher classroom practice and students` motivation (e.g. (Dörnyei and Csizér, 1998; Bernaus and Gardner, 2008; Papi and Abdollahzadeh, 2011) . It should be mentioned that almost all previous research in this area confirms the relationship between teacher classroom behavior and student behavior, in general, and their motivation in particular. No study has been so far conducted documenting a lack of relationship between these two variables.

In fact, communication is bidirectional and behaviors of the speaker and hearer influence each other. Teacher and students' communication is no exception and they can influence each other.

It should be mentioned that in L2 learning classroom teacher and student relationship and the interaction between them is more important than classrooms related to other subject matters.  This is because of the fact that in L2 classrooms, language is not only the tool of the instruction as is the case in other classrooms, it is also the subject of instruction. Therefore, the development of a positive interaction between the teacher and learner can have a positive impact on the learning process. It is important, therefore, that teachers have a friendly relationship with students as it will facilitate the process of the teaching and learning. This requires suitable communication skills on the part of the teachers and the emotional support that they should provide students with.     

A point that is worth mentioning is the difference between the means of QTI (student version) and QTI (teacher version). As Table1.shows, students scored their teachers interactional strategies lower than the teachers themselves (M=  182 ;M=201). This seems natural for different reasons. First of all, it can be that teachers and students interpret the items differently. However, the more important reason underlying this difference can be that teachers` were self-reporting their communication strategies and therefore it is natural that they give higher scores to their communication strategies than the students.

To the researchers` knowledge, this study is among the few studies which have examined the relationship between Iranian EFL teachers` classroom behavior and   learners` behavior. As a result, the findings cannot be compared and contrasted with studies done in Iran in this area of research.

In general, the findings of the present thesis suggests that teachers wishing to promote  L2 learning motivation and achievement should display more rapport and understanding behaviors and less dominant and leadership  behavior in their classrooms. This study, in fact, has revealed the presence of a powerful factor underlying learners` L2 learning motivation that can have a great influence on their achievement.

The findings of the present thesis provide some implications for Iranian EFL teachers` classroom practice.  The findings can increase our understanding of the role of teachers` interpersonal behavior in the context of foreign language learning on their students` L2 learning motivation and can benefit teachers` practices to develop learners` L2 learning motivation. The findings help teachers pay more conscious attention to their interpersonal classroom behavior and try to plan and practice interactional styles which make a positive effect on students` L2 motivation. Teacher training courses should draw teachers` attention to the important effect that establishing a good relationship with students can have on their learning motivation.

EFL teachers should take into account  the effects of their classroom interaction style that they decide to use in their classrooms on learners’ L2 learning motivation and outcome. Because  that modern language pedagogy gives great  significance to the role of L2 learning motivation in learning, teachers need to think carefully about their classroom behavior such as their communication style and the ways in which their classroom behavior can increase or decrease learners` learning motivation and achievement.  They need to learn how to establish positive relationship with learners which paves the way for having a fruitful interaction with them which benefits their learning.

6. CONCLUSION

As a final remark on the teacher-student interaction literature, it should be argued that considering extensive research studies that have explored the significance of the effect of teachers' affective insight on their effectiveness (e.g. (Crosnoe et al., 2004; Hamre et al., 2012)) teacher-student interaction is, perhaps, the major affective concept in this specific domain. In recent decades, some researchers have partly acknowledged the claim. For instance, Marzano (2003) suggests, “an effective teacher-student relationship may be the keystone that allows the other aspects to work well” (p. 91). Hallinan (2008) also claims, “Learning is a process that involves cognitive and social psychological dimensions, and both processes should be considered if academic achievement is to be maximized” (p. 271). Further, Meyer and Turner (2002) state that “through studying student-teacher interactions, our conceptualization of what constitutes motivation to learn increasingly has involved emotions as essential to learning and teaching” (p.107). Mohrman et al. (2003) emphasize that “lasting change does not result from plans, blueprints, and events; rather change occurs through interaction of participants” (p. 321). In general, robust teacher-student interaction might be one of the major environmental dynamics contributing to changing a child’s learning track (Baker, 2006).

Regarding the concept of motivation, the literature review revealed that, subject areas might affect individuals' motivation. In addition, there may be demographic variables involved in motivation. Motivation is connected to many other significant instructional results, including CT. Overall, the literature review demonstrated a variety of disciplines that have examined the influence of motivation and establishing a robust teacher-student interaction on learning outcomes. There is sufficient proof to indicate that strong interaction between the instructor and the learner leads to fruitful learning and increases motivation. However, regarding the specific position of context-specific variables in recent language learning research, the growing emphasis on learner perception toward teacher characteristics, as well as a dearth of experimental studies on the relationship of teacher interactional styles and EFL learners' motivation, the present study aimed at 1) determining the presence or absence of such a relationship; and 2) if positive, assessing the magnitude and significance thereof.

7. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Like any study, the present research also suffered from some limitations which need to be avoided in future studies conducted on this area of research. First of all, in the present study, self-report surveys were used to collect data about participants` perception of teacher interpersonal style and also L2 motivation. Such data collection instruments can cause misleading information because participants may not be honest enough in responding the questions. As a result, using other data collection methods, including interviews and observation can help provide more accurate data. Second, the sample of teachers and learners in this study was not very large. Future studies can be conducted with larger sample size so that the findings of the study can be generalized.

Future research, however, is required to search deeper into the possible influences of L2 teacher-learner interpersonal behavior on L2 motivation. Moreover, the role of gender in mediating the relationship between teacher-student interpersonal behavior and learning, motivation was not addressed in the present study. A good topic for future research would be investigating whether the pattern of relationship between teacher-student interpersonal behavior and learning, motivation changes when student and teachers are from the same and opposite gender groups.

REFRENCES

Amelsvoort, J.V., 1999. Perspective on instruction, motivation and self-regulation. Dissertation [In Dutch]. Nijmegen: University Press.

Au, S.Y., 1988. A critical appraisal of Gardner's social-psychological theory of second-language (L2) learning. Language Learning, 38(1): 75-99.

Baker, J.A., 2006. Contributions of teacher-child relationships to positive school adjustment during elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 44(3): 211-229.

Belmechri, F. and K. Hummel, 1998. Orientations and motivation in the acquisition of english as a second language among high school students in Quebec city. Language Learning, 48(2): 219-244.

Bernaus, M. and R.C. Gardner, 2008. Teacher motivation strategies, student perceptions, student motivation, and english achievement. Modern Language Journal, 92(3): 387-401.

C Clément, R. and B.G. Kruidenier, 1983. Orientations in second language acquisition: I. The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33(3): 273-291.

Cheng, H.F. and Z. Dörnyei, 2007. The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. International Journal of Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1): 153-174.

Crosnoe, R., M.K. Johnson and G.H. Elder, 2004. Intergenerational bonding in school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology of Education, 77(1): 60-81.

Deci, E.L., R. Koestner and R.M. Ryan, 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6): 627-668.

Den Brok, P.J., J. Levy, R. Rodriguez and T. Wubbels, 2002. Perceptions of Asian-American and Hispanic-American teachers and their students on teacher interpersonal communication style. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(4): 447-467.

Derksen, K., 1994. Between taking over and activating instruction (in Dutch). Masters Thesis. Nijmegen: Vakgroep Onderwijskunde.

Dickinson, L., 1995. Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23(2): 165–174.

Do¨rnyei, Z., 2006. Creating a motivating classroom environment. In J. Cummins and C. Davison (eds) The handbook of english language teaching. New York: Springer.

Dornyei, Z., 1990. Analysis of motivation components in foreign language learning. Paper Presented at the 9th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Tessaloniki, Greece. ERIC Document Reproduction System Service No. ED 323 810.

Dörnyei, Z., 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd.

Dörnyei, Z., 2009. The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dörnyei, Z. and K. Csizér, 1998. Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3): 203-229.

Dörnyei, Z. and I. Ottó, 1998. Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4: 43-69.

Eschenmann, K., 1991. Student perceptions of teaching style in the health occupation classroom. Journal of Health Occupations Education, 6(1): 13-21.

Gardner, R.C., 1988. Attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9: 135-148.

Gardner, R.C. and R.N. Lalonde, 1985. Second language acquisition: A social psychological perspective. London: Arnold.

Gardner, R.C. and W.E. Lambert, 1972. Attitudes and motivation in secondlanguage learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R.C. and P.F. Tremblay, 1994. On motivation, research agendas, and theoretical frameworks1. Modern Language Journal, 78(3): 359-368.

Gottfried, A.E., 1990. Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3): 525-538.

Gredler, M.E., S.C. Broussard and M.E.B. Garrison, 2004. The relationship between classroom motivation and academic achievement in elementary schoolaged children. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 33(2): 106–120.

Guay, F., J. Chanal, C.F. Ratelle, H.W. Marsh, S. Larose and M. Boivin, 2010. Intrinsic, identified, and controlled types of motivation for school subjects in young elementary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4): 711-735.

Hallinan, M.T., 2008. Teacher influences on students’ attachment to school. Sociology of Education, 81(3): 271-283.

Hamre, B.K., R.C. Pianta, M. Burchinal, S. Field, J.L. Crouch, J.T. Downer, C. Howes, K. LaParo and C.S. Little, 2012. A course on effective teacher-child interactions: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and observed practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1): 88-123.

Jakobovits, L.A., 1970. Foreign language learning: A psycholinguistic analysis of the issues. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Kelly, G.A., 1969. Humanistic methodology in psychological research, in B. Maher (ed.), Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly. New York: John Wiley. pp: 133-146.

Leary, T.F., 1957. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.

Lonner, W.J., 1980. The search for psychological universals. In H. C. Triandis and W. W. Lambert (eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1: 143-204.

MacIntyre, P.D., Z. Dörnyei, R. Clément and K.A. Noels, 1998. Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4): 545-562.

Marzano, R.J., 2003. What works in schools. Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Mehrabian, A., 1967. Evidence bearing on the affiliative tendency (MAFF) and sensitivity to rejection (MSR) scales. Current Psychology, 13(2): 97-116.

Mehrabian, A., 1981. Silent messages: Implicit communication or emotions and attitudes. 2nd Edn., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Meyer, D.K. and J.C. Turner, 2002. Discovering emotion in classroom motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2): 107-114.

Mohrman, S.A., R.V. Tenkasi and A.M. Mohrman, 2003. The role of networks in fundamental organizational change a grounded analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3): 301-323.

Moise, L.C., R. Clement and K.A. Noels, 1990. Aspects motivationnels de l'apprentissage de l'espagnol au niveau universitaire [Motivational Aspects of Learning Spanish at the University Level]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 46: 689-705.

Noels, K.A., 2001. New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i. pp: 43–68.

Noels, K.A. and R. Clement, 1989. Orientations to learning German: The effects of language heritage on second-language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 45(2): 245-257.

Papi, M. and E. Abdollahzadeh, 2011. Teacher motivational practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Language Learning, 62(2): 571-594.

Segall, M.H., P.R. Dasen, J.W. Berry and Y.H. Poortinga, 1990. Human behavior in global perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology. New York: Pergamon Press.

Turner, J.C., 1995. The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3): 410-441.

Williams, M. and R.L. Burden, 1997. Psychologyfor language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wubbels, T., H.A. Cre´ton and H.P. Hooymayers, 1985. Discipline problems of beginning teachers, interactional teacher behavior mapped out. Abstracted in Resources in Education, 20(12): 153, ERIC document 260040.

Wubbels, T., H. Créton and H. Hooymayers, 1988. Review of research on teacher communication styles with use of the leary model. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2): 1-11.