{"id":20263,"date":"2023-07-16T03:23:47","date_gmt":"2023-07-16T11:23:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/?page_id=20263"},"modified":"2023-07-22T20:40:55","modified_gmt":"2023-07-23T04:40:55","slug":"ej106a7","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/wordpress\/issues\/volume27\/ej106\/ej106a7\/","title":{"rendered":"Teachers\u2019 Selection and Enactment of Context-Appropriate Pedagogies: Re-Conceptualising Motivational Strategies in the English Language Classroom"},"content":{"rendered":"

August 2023 – Volume 27, Number 2<\/h2>\n

https:\/\/doi.org\/10.55593\/ej.27106a7<\/strong><\/p>\n

Zening Yang<\/strong>
\nUniversity of Warwick, UK
\n<zeningyang\"atmark\"outlook.com><\/p>\n

Hugo Santiago Sanchez<\/strong>
\nUniversity of Bath, UK
\n<H.S.Sanchez\"atmark\"bath.ac.uk><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Over the decades, extensive research efforts have been directed towards classifying and evaluating motivational teaching behaviours. Recent calls in motivational research, however, have emphasised the need to investigate teachers\u2019 perspectives on how they develop effective motivational strategies so that implications for motivational teaching are firmly grounded in real-life practices. This paper reports on a qualitative case study which explored how two IELTS teachers in a private language school in China selected and enacted motivational strategies that they perceived as context-appropriate. Background interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson stimulated recall interviews were used to gain insight into the participants\u2019 motivational practices and rationales. The findings indicate that, despite the close correspondence between the teachers\u2019 enacted practices and theory-based motivational strategies defined by researchers, the teachers exhibited agentic capacities in managing a range internal and external mediators which enabled them to develop strategies that served concurrent pedagogical purposes and responded to the perceived multidimensional particularities and exigencies of their teaching contexts. Thus, The study moves beyond restricted analyses of the motivational implications of teaching techniques; rather, it argues for the need to appreciate the full complexity of teaching practices and re-conceptualise motivational strategies as multi-purpose and the study of them as pedagogically holistic.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: Motivational strategies; Context-appropriate pedagogies; IELTS; China<\/p>\n

Motivational teaching strategies, generally defined as instructional techniques that teachers deploy to generate, enhance, and maintain student motivation (Do\u0308rnyei & Ushioda, 2011), have been found to have effects on students\u2019 overall motivation (Moskovky et al., 2012), specific motivated language learning behaviours (Papi & Abdollahzadeh, 2012), and language learning achievement (Alrabai, 2016). Extensive research efforts have been directed over several decades towards classifying and evaluating motivational teaching behaviours (see review by Lamb, 2017). Recent calls in motivational research, however, have emphasised the need to investigate teachers\u2019 perspectives on how they develop effective motivational strategies (Lamb, 2017, 2019) so that recommendations and teacher development programmes for motivational teaching are \u201cfirmly rooted in and scrutinised by front-line experience\u201d (Hennebry-Leung, 2020, p. 195). Drawing upon research on motivational teaching and context-appropriate pedagogies, the present study aimed to explore the process of selecting and enacting appropriate motivational strategies by tracing the motivational practices and rationales of two IELTS (International English Language Testing System) teachers in a private language school in China. The findings offer insights into the complex process of developing appropriate pedagogies in language classrooms.<\/p>\n

Literature Review<\/h3>\n

Motivational Strategies<\/h4>\n

In the second language acquisition literature, motivation is generally used to refer to what drives a learner to initiate and sustain efforts in L2 learning (Do\u0308rnyei & Ushioda, 2011). As synthesised by Do\u0308rnyei and Ushioda (2011), existing motivational theories and frameworks can be categorised into four main types: social psychological, cognitive-situated, process-oriented, and social-dynamic. Collectively, they describe motivation as a complex and multifaced construct that is open to the influence of teachers\u2019 practices. For example, Keller’s (2010) Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction, and Volition (ARCS-V) theory states that five dimensions in the classroom have a positive influence on student motivation: engaging students\u2019 attention (Attention), relevant to students\u2019 interests and styles (Relevance), promoting students\u2019 confidence regarding success (Confidence), stimulating students\u2019 sense of satisfaction (Satisfaction), and supporting students in acquiring self-regulatory skills (Volition).<\/p>\n

Decades of research on student motivation have left teachers with an extensive range of motivational instructional practices to refer to (see Lamb, 2017 for a comprehensive review). For example, D\u00f6rnyei (2001) developed a taxonomy of 102 motivational strategies, organised according to when in the teaching process they would be deployed. Similarly, Keller (2010) presented 63 instructional techniques grouped under the categories of the ARCS-V theory.<\/p>\n

While these lists provide valuable summaries of practical knowledge of motivational teaching (Hadfield & D\u00f6rnyei, 2013), there are growing concerns over the universality of researcher-developed strategies. A number of quantitative studies have revealed cross-cultural differences in teachers\u2019 perceived importance and frequency of using researcher-defined motivational strategies. Cheng and D\u00f6rnyei (2007) found that, compared to teachers in Hungary, teachers in Taiwan believed appreciating students\u2019 efforts to be more crucial in the learning process than creating interesting classes. Such differences were attributed to the Confucian culture which emphasises learning as being serious and involving hard work as well as to pressure from high-stake testing. Similarly, several mixed methods and qualitative studies which allowed teachers to report freely on their motivational practices cited teachers\u2019 adoption of motivational strategies beyond established frameworks. For example, Lamb et al. (2017) found that teachers in Indonesia regarded the strategic use of L1\/L2 as having motivational effects \u2013 a strategy that had not been documented in researcher-defined frameworks.<\/p>\n

The importance of context is further highlighted in studies that evaluated the effectiveness of motivational strategies (e.g., see review by Stroet et al., 2013). Wong (2014), for instance, found that among the 25 strategies from D\u00f6rnyei\u2019s (2001) taxonomy that were frequently used in secondary classrooms in China, only six were recognised by both teachers and students as being effective. Sugita and Takeuchi (2014) showed that even within the same Japanese university the perceived effectiveness of motivational strategies reported by students varied depending on when they were used during the academic semester and on students\u2019 pre-existing level of motivation and proficiency. More recently, Ucar & Kumtepe\u2019s (2019) quasi-experimental research in an online learning environment reported that, although the experiment group who used motivational strategies based on the ARCS-V model showed significantly higher gains in motivation, no significant differences were found for strategies used in the volitional competence dimension. One reason, Ucar & Kumtepe (2019) argue, is that, because learners are expected to play an active role in online learning environments, strategies on volition in this context become slightly redundant. All these findings thus caution against the uncritical acceptance of prescribed and decontextualised motivational strategies.<\/p>\n

Context-appropriate Pedagogies<\/h4>\n

Findings emerging from motivational research seem to concur with those in the general field of English language teaching. Theoretically-based teaching methodologies have been available for decades. However, it has been increasingly acknowledged that there is no one method of teaching English that is universally effective for diverse teaching contexts (Bax, 2003; Hu, 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2006, 2012).<\/p>\n

Rather than following prescribed practices, teachers need to develop appropriate pedagogies which are grounded in the realities of their distinct teaching contexts. Kramsch and Sullivan (1996) explain that the term \u2018appropriate\u2019 \u201cencompasses both a global, societal, and a local, individual meaning\u201d (p. 210). Appropriate pedagogies, therefore, must fit both the larger societal conditions and norms, and the specific learning situation and learners\u2019 needs. Kumaravadivelu (2006) expressed a similar view when he proposed the post-method principle of \u2018particularity\u2019, which states that the construction of meaningful pedagogy requires a critical understanding of \u201clocal linguistic, sociocultural, and political particularities\u201d and exigencies (p. 37). Similarly, Tikly and Barrett (2011) propose \u2018relevance\u2019 as one of the principles of quality education, advocating for pedagogical practices which aim to achieve learning outcomes that are \u201cmeaningful for all learners, valued by their communities and consistent with national development priorities in a changing global context\u201d (p. 10).<\/p>\n

Some recent studies have adopted this perspective and explored how teachers seek context-sensitive local pedagogies. For example, Liu\u2019s (2022) autobiographical study illustrated how the shifting societal and policy settings in China from the 1980s to 2010s influenced one teacher\u2019s adoption of different teaching methodologies. Slaughter and Cross\u2019s (2021) qualitative study showed how some Australian English language school teachers\u2019 use of translanguaging practices was responsive to changes in the classroom situation and their students\u2019 sociolinguistic profiles. Balchin and Wild\u2019s (2022) study, combining online survey and interview data with English language teachers in Malaysia, reported how the local context influenced teachers\u2019 choice and use of technology. For example, although several teachers viewed the learning platform Kahoot in a positive light, some teachers were less convinced of its suitability due to the slowness of the Internet connection in their context.<\/p>\n

Central to context-sensitive pedagogies is the conceptualisation of teachers as agentic decision makers who are capable of generating professional knowledge from their macro and micro contexts, and of adapting their pedagogical approaches accordingly. Teachers are no longer viewed as \u2018passive technicians\u2019 who merely learn and enact knowledge generated by theorists, but both as \u2018reflective practitioners\u2019 who are aware of and question their own beliefs about teaching and the multiple levels of teaching context, and as \u2018transformative intellectuals\u2019 who are socio-politically conscious and can connect pedagogical theory and practice to wider social issues (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). This paradigmatic shift in teachers\u2019 role forms the main premise of this study. Thus, rather than focusing on describing, categorising, or evaluating teachers\u2019 observable motivational behaviours, this study aims to understand motivational strategies from teachers\u2019 perspectives.<\/p>\n

Internal and External Factors Mediating Teachers\u2019 Practices<\/h4>\n

Within the language teaching literature, this shift to conceptualising teachers as knowledge producers and critical decision makers in their own teaching situations has given rise to burgeoning literature on teachers\u2019 development of appropriate pedagogical practices. One way of shedding light on teachers\u2019 decision-making processes while developing context sensitive pedagogies is through disentangling the multiple factors that influence these processes and pedagogies. These factors, as summarised by Ur (2013), include both external contextual factors, such as characteristics of the learner population (e.g., age, level, and relative heterogeneity) and expectations and\/or demands of stakeholders (e.g., parents, the local Ministry of Education), and psychological factors internal to the teachers, such as their own preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. In their literature review on the relationship between teachers\u2019 beliefs and practices, Buehl and Beck (2015) identified a range of internal and external supports and hindrances which influence the enactment of beliefs in practice. Internal factors include other beliefs, experience, knowledge, and self-awareness and self-reflection, while external factors operate at multiple contextual levels and comprise classroom factors (e.g., class size, time, student ability); school factors (e.g., school culture, administration, school resources, colleagues, and students\u2019 families); and district-, state-, and national-level factors (e.g., education-related policies, curriculum standards, testing and accountability). Within the field of assessment feedback in higher education, Evans (2013) classified the mediators shaping feedback practice into 15 categories, including personality, gender, culture\/ethnicity, social and cultural capital, previous experience and schema, cognitive style, knowledge of the students, and awareness of other contexts which learners engage in. These lists of factors, though valuable as heuristic tools for investigating the multiplicity of factors mediating practice, were developed from reviews of the literature rather than from empirical research.<\/p>\n

Within language education, empirical studies have confirmed the influence of internal and external factors on teachers\u2019 pedagogical decisions. These decisions concern, inter alia<\/em>, communicative language teaching (CLT) (Walsh & Wyatt, 2014), task-based language learning (Carless, 2004), and autonomy-oriented pedagogy (Kuchah & Smith, 2011). For example, Walsh and Wyatt (2014) found that, while teachers\u2019 implementation of CLT was influenced by their own beliefs of CLT principles, they also adjusted their approach based on the needs and learning styles of their specific group of learners and on the pressure of achievement tests. Sanchez et al. (2018) focused on pre-service language teachers\u2019 development of contextually appropriate pedagogies during their practicum in state sector schools located in peripheral urban areas. Their analysis revealed a complex interplay of internal and external factors facilitating or hindering teachers\u2019 pedagogical decisions and practices. While the student teachers\u2019 prior educational experiences, beliefs about learning, and pre-teaching observations and critical reflections facilitated the development of contextually appropriate pedagogies, other factors (e.g., their limited teaching experiences and fear of expressing their opinions) constituted obstacles in their efforts to create and enact innovative pedagogical practices which they perceived as suitable for their teaching contexts.<\/p>\n

Despite the increasing interest in how teachers develop socially situated and sensitive pedagogies, research specifically on how they select and enact context-appropriate motivational strategies appears to be limited. There are a few notable exceptions. Lee\u2019s (2015) interview study with three Hong Kong community college English teachers had a particular focus on factors other than understanding of motivation that impacted on the teachers\u2019 use of motivational strategies. Results indicate that students\u2019 proficiency level, the teachers\u2019 teaching experience and teaching style, and preparation time were among the most decisive factors that influenced the teachers\u2019 perceived appropriateness and feasibility of motivational strategies in their context. Likewise, Glas (2016) identified a range of internal and contextual factors mediating teachers\u2019 motivational teaching behaviours, but she also illustrated how these factors interact in the \u201cspace of manoeuvre\u201d (p. 442). For example, her findings show how a teacher with external freedom of choosing class materials and internal capacity of using her cultural repertoire to address her students\u2019 concerns was able to select and adapt songs as a motivating tool for her students. On the other hand, a teacher who had a static vision of motivation perceived her students\u2019 lack of interest as stemming from their low socio-economic background. This perception, together with an institutional culture that was hostile to innovation, restricted the teacher\u2019s use of motivational strategies. In a more recent paper, Nakata et al. (2021) used narrative inquiry to explore how one language teacher-researcher developed her agency as she strove to develop appropriate motivational strategies in her classroom. The narratives showed how the teacher\u2019s agency evolved as a result of her interaction with relevant theoretical knowledge and her dialogues with students, colleagues, and herself (her past, present, and future selves). These studies successfully delineate the complexities involved in developing appropriate motivational practices, and highlight that, as \u2018reflective practitioners\u2019 and \u2018transformative intellectuals\u2019, teachers need to deal with multiple internal and external factors that may both afford and constrain their pedagogical decisions.<\/p>\n

The present study aimed to contribute to this emerging body of studies on teachers\u2019 perspectives on using motivational strategies, with a focus on one-to-one classes in an online learning environment. Framed by previous research on teaching motivation and appropriate pedagogies, the research was guided by the following research questions:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. How do teachers select and enact motivational strategies which they perceive as contextually appropriate?<\/li>\n
  2. What contextual and cognitive factors influence teachers\u2019 selection and enactment of these strategies?<\/li>\n
  3. What role do these factors play in defining this selection and enactment?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Methodology<\/h3>\n

    Design and Participants<\/h4>\n

    The study was exploratory-interpretive and followed a within-site (i.e., within one language school), multiple-case design (Creswell, 2013). It involved two cases of individual IELTS teachers (Lydia and Susan, pseudonyms) working at a private language school in China (City Lights, fictitious name). At the time of this study, both teachers were teaching online one-on-one IELTS classes. Given the tight timeline to conduct this study and the study\u2019s aim for \u201cgeneralisable findings\u201d based on thick description rather than a \u201crepresentative sample\u201d (Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 38), the teachers were selected through convenience sampling \u2013 both responded timely to our research request made at the end of an online briefing meeting which involved interested teachers from City Lights. The teachers provided voluntary informed consent to participate and for their data to be used for and beyond the immediate purposes of the project.<\/p>\n

    Both teachers spoke Mandarin as their mother tongue and English as a second language; had obtained the Teacher’s Qualification Certificate, a qualification required for teaching at public schools in mainland China; and had taught at City Lights for over a year. Lydia was in her late 20s and had majored in English Education at a local university, a passion she had had since primary school. She had over four years of English teaching experience and currently taught beginner level IELTS listening and speaking. Susan was in her late 30s and, after majoring in Journalism, decided to pursue a teaching career. She now had seven years of English teaching experience and taught beginner and intermediate level IELTS writing and reading.<\/p>\n

    Data Collection and Analysis<\/h4>\n

    Part of a larger investigation into motivational strategies, the present study adopted multiple data collection methods in three distinct stages:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. A semi-structured individual background interview (40-45 minutes each) to establish a profile of the teachers\u2019 educational and professional background, and explore their perceptions of their institutional contexts and general reflections on their motivational practices. In preparation for the interview, each teacher completed an adapted version of Merrifield\u2019s (1993) Tree of Life activity, which encouraged them to reflect systematically on their personal, educational, and professional history using the diagram of a tree.<\/li>\n
    2. Four two-hour semi-structured online class observations per teacher (16 hours in total) to observe motivational practices in their natural contexts of occurrence (Lewis & McNaughton Nicholls, 2014), and to identify critical incidents illustrating the enactment of motivational strategies. To minimise impact on the naturally occurring events, the role of the researcher (first author) was that of non-participant observer (Curdt-Christiansen, 2019) and her camera and microphone were switched off at all times. The classes were video-recorded using the built-in recording function of Tencent meeting, the digital platform where the online classes took place.<\/li>\n
    3. A semi-structured stimulated recall interview with the teacher followed each observation (eight interviews in total, 30-65 minutes each) to elicit the teachers\u2019 rationales and their introspective and retrospective reflections. Most of the critical incidents explored had been selected by the teachers themselves, which helped to promote participant agency and empowerment (Sanchez & Grimshaw, 2020). Class audio recordings, generated specifically for this research, and materials, produced and\/or used naturally by the teachers in the research context (Sanchez & Grimshaw, 2020), were used in combination to strengthen the stimuli for recall (Gass & Mackey, 2017). To acknowledge and address issues concerning memory decay and post hoc rationalisations of lived experiences (Watson, 2015), the time gaps between class observations and simulated recall interviews were no longer than a day.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The data collected were analysed first within each case and then across the cases. Data analysis followed an abductive approach which involved moving back and forth between inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-driven) procedures (Tavory & Timmermans, 2014), thus facilitating \u201cparallel and equal engagement with empirical data and extant theoretical understanding\u201d and enabling the researcher to find \u201cuseful explanation for phenomena\u201d and to theorise the raw data and identify theoretical gaps when \u201cextant theoretical frameworks are unable to account for empirical findings.\u201d (Thompson, 2022, p. 1411). Analytic procedures included transcribing the observed critical incidents and interview data, developing a code manual based on published motivational strategy taxonomies and teacher cognition and agency research (deductive), summarising data and identifying codes inductively (inductive), applying the code manual and identifying further codes (deductive), connecting the codes and identifying themes, and corroborating and legitimising the coded themes (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The data collection and analysis were cyclical throughout the period of fieldwork and summative once the data collection had been completed.<\/p>\n

      The first author used to be an IELTS student at City Lights and thus assumed an emic role during the research process as she interacted with the participants and collected the data. The second author adopted an outsider\u2019s perspective and was involved in the co-analysis of data and theoretical and methodological discussions. Both researchers engaged in reflexivity as they formed theoretical, methodological, contextual, and empirical understandings and made decisions regarding the study. They acknowledge that findings are not objective accounts of reality, but social constructs that were shaped by their subjective positions and the process of discovery.<\/p>\n

      The study followed the standards of ethical practice in educational research suggested by the British Education Research Association, including seeking informed consent, explaining the right to withdraw, and using de-identified data and pseudonyms for participants. The broader project received ethical approval from [details removed for peer review process].<\/p>\n

      Results<\/h4>\n

      The collective analysis of interview and observational data across the two cases reveals the teachers adopted an array of strategies to generate, enhance, and maintain the motivation of their learners, including using humour, authentic materials, chatting, enthusiastic voices, real-life anecdotes, praises, motivational messages, personalised goals, elicitation, teaching rationales, and test strategies. These strategies were similar to the micro- or macro-strategies described in Do\u0308rnyei\u2019s (2001) taxonomy. Furthermore, the analysis uncovered a wide range of internal and external factors influencing the teachers\u2019 decisions (see Table 1). While these mediating factors are presented here as discrete categories for analytical clarity, in the participants\u2019 rationales they were often intertwined in complex ways. To illustrate the complexities involved in the process of developing motivational strategies that the teachers perceived as appropriate, examples of motivational strategy enactment are discussed below within each case, along with the teachers\u2019 own analytic commentaries. The following conventions are used to locate participant quotes within the data set: background interviews (BI), class observation (CO), and stimulated recall interviews (SRI).<\/p>\n

      Table 1. Overview of Mediating Factors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
      Domains<\/strong><\/td>\nFactors<\/strong><\/td>\nSub-categories<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      External
      \nfactors<\/strong><\/td>\n      		Macro-level context<\/td>\n\u00b7 Broader socio-cultural context
      \n\u00b7 IELTS test requirements and regulations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Meso-level context<\/td>\n\u00b7 Institutional regulations and expectations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Micro-level context<\/td>\n\u00b7 Student characteristics, behaviours, needs, expectations, preferences, and circumstances
      \n\u00b7 Online medium
      \n\u00b7 Lesson objectives and procedures
      \n\u00b7 Class length<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Internal
      \nfactors<\/strong><\/td>\n      		Experience<\/td>\n\u00b7 Prior learning experiences
      \n\u00b7 Prior teaching experiences<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Perceptions<\/td>\n\u00b7 Perceptions of immediate and broader contexts
      \n\u00b7 Perceptions of self<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Beliefs<\/td>\n\u00b7 Beliefs about student motivation
      \n\u00b7 Beliefs about motivational strategies
      \n\u00b7 Beliefs about English language teaching and learning<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Knowledge<\/td>\n\u00b7 Knowledge of motivational strategies and their implications
      \n\u00b7 Knowledge of students
      \n\u00b7 Knowledge of institutional and broader contexts
      \n\u00b7 Knowledge of class objectives
      \n\u00b7 Knowledge of IELTS
      \n\u00b7 Knowledge of self<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Identities<\/td>\n\u00b7 Professional identity
      \n\u00b7 Personal identity<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
      Emotions<\/td>\n\u00b7 Positive emotions
      \n\u00b7 Negative emotions<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

      Lydia<\/h3>\n

      Stimulating learning experiences.<\/h4>\n

      Lydia believed that \u201cmotivation comes from interesting classes\u201d (BI). It was then not surprising to find that many of her practices were characterised by efforts to make learning experiences appealing to her student. For example, she used humour to \u201cmake the student feel that having English classes with me is fun\u201d (SRI2); she adopted authentic materials because they provided \u201cinteresting inputs that engage the student\u201d (BI); and she frequently chatted to the student about their everyday lives and personal interests because they could \u201cspice up\u201d her class (SRI1).<\/p>\n

      Lydia\u2019s rationale for specific class scenarios showed that the realisation of these strategies was influenced by her perception of contextual challenges in the classroom. For example, in CO1, after explaining the synonyms and collocations of \u2018heat\u2019, Lydia initiated a conversation about \u2018Miami Heat\u2019 (an American basketball team) which lasted 147 seconds and in which the student engaged actively. This conversation was, Lydia explained, not pre-planned, but a real-time response to the particular class situation:<\/p>\n

      Usually I spice up my lesson when I feel the student is not engaging well, which is a clear sign of not being motivated. […] He has been really quiet for a while. Even when he occasionally responded, it was meaningless … Apparently, his mind was not with me. So I had to do something interesting to pull him back to my class. (SRI1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Lydia\u2019s impromptu decision to \u201cdo something interesting to pull [the student] back to [her] class\u201d was motivated by her interpretation of the student\u2019s behaviour (\u201chad been really quiet for a while\u201d, gave \u201cmeaningless\u201d responses, \u201chis mind was not with me\u201d). Her choice of motivational strategy was also based on her knowledge of the specific student and her own preferences:<\/p>\n

      \u2018Heat\u2019 reminded me he likes basketball […]. We had chatted a lot in previous classes, so I know Miami Heat is his favourite team, so … [laughs] I always think I\u2019m more than a teacher to my students. To older students like him, I\u2019m like their big sister; and to younger ones, I\u2019m like their mother. I really enjoy chatting with my students. (SRI1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      However, motivation was not Lydia\u2019s only concern while enacting this strategy:<\/p>\n

      I personally think, when we chatted, we used the word in context, I can help him better memorise the word \u2013 \u2018heat\u2019 is a high frequency word in IELTS so it\u2019s worthwhile spending time emphasising it. You see in the conversation I said \u201cMiami heat\u201d [in English] instead of \u201crehuodui\u201d [in Chinese]. But I did make sure the chat did not last for too long, because it would have interrupted my teaching of other things. (SRI1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Lydia\u2019s employment of social chatting, therefore, served more than a motivational purpose. She was aware of the pedagogical implications of social chatting for memorisation, which, together with her belief that high frequency words should be emphasised in an IELTS class, seems to explain why she used \u201cheat\u201d in English in the chat. The way the teacher used social chatting (e.g., the length of the conversation) was shaped, Lydia explained, by her lesson objectives (\u201cmy teaching of other things\u201d) and her perceived time constraints (\u201cI did make sure the chat did not last for too long\u201d). Overall, the combined influence of diverse factors account for the teacher\u2019s spontaneous decision to act as well as her choice and use of a motivational strategy which she considered appropriate for the specific class situation and student.<\/p>\n

      Fostering positive attitudes towards English and going abroad.<\/h4>\n

      Lydia used strategies which, she believed, had implications for promoting students\u2019 positive attitudes towards English and using English outside the classroom. For instance, she deliberately used an enthusiastic voice while teaching because she believed that she could \u201cinstil a positive feeling for English in my students by demonstrating that enthusiasm for English myself\u201d (SRI1). She also gave examples of using English in real-life situations because \u201cstudents are motivated to learn if they see how what they learn can actually be used in real life\u201d (BI), and shared her former students\u2019 positive experiences abroad because \u201creal life stories work best for getting students to understand the benefits of going abroad\u201d (SRI2).<\/p>\n

      Lydia\u2019s comments in the BI shows that it was based on her understanding of her students at City Lights and their needs that she deemed a positive attitude towards English and going abroad as a crucial motivating factor:<\/p>\n

      One might assume that because all students came here to improve their IETLS scores, to go abroad, […] they must love English, love foreign countries. But no. I have had students, so many of them, being forced by their parents to go abroad to get \u201cgold-plated\u201d while not seeing the value [of English\/going abroad] themselves. Students who failed their college entrance exam […] had no place to go but to seek opportunities abroad. […] It\u2019s for these students that promoting a positive attitude [towards English\/going abroad] becomes especially important. (BI)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Her rationale for some of these techniques revealed that her enactment of these techniques was also in response to the particular classroom situation. For example, in a speaking class about travel and holidays, Lydia shared a former student\u2019s travel experience in the UK, and then used examples from this story to illustrate how some model sentence structures can be applied (e.g. \u201cthe main activities we enjoyed on holiday were …\u201d, CO2). The teacher first explained that the choice of this motivational strategy had been prompted by this student\u2019s behaviour in previous classes, which reinforced her perception that City Lights students lacked a positive attitude towards travelling abroad:<\/p>\n

      He used to ask me strange questions. The other day he bought a new Thermos water bottle and asked me: \u201cI heard people in the UK do not drink hot water. Do you think I should take this bottle with me to the UK?\u201d […] So I can feel he was worried, and sort of, against going abroad. (SRI2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Her choice of story, in turn, was informed by her awareness of the repertoire of stories available to her.<\/p>\n

      I have never been to the UK, so I couldn\u2019t give him [my own] real-life examples at that time. […] Last week one of my former students came back from the UK to spend his summer holiday in China. We had a nice chat about his travelling experiences in the UK. This morning I thought, oh these experiences would be perfect examples for him! So I deliberately used these examples in today\u2019s class. (SRI2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Though Lydia would have possibly preferred to tell a personal anecdote, she knew she lacked relevant experiences and, therefore, made a resourceful use of one of the stories which she had recently learned from a former student. Lydia\u2019s selection and use of this motivational strategy additionally served a pedagogical purpose (\u201cI pre-planned to share this story […] to illustrate how some model sentences on the handout can be put into practice\u201d, SRI2) and was informed by her lesson objectives and her teaching style (using stories not as a stand-alone feature but as \u201can integral part of [her] teaching\u201d, SRI2).<\/p>\n

      Encouraging a positive sense of self.<\/h4>\n

      Lydia perceived some of her feedback practices as motivational strategies, arguing that they helped to promote or maintain students\u2019 positive sense of self. For example, she explained that she praised students to \u201cmake them feel good about themselves\u201d (BI) and that she softened her corrective feedback \u201cas a means of saving the student\u2019s face\u201d (SRI1).<\/p>\n

      Both strategies were realised in practice in different ways. In relation to praising, Lydia normally used short phrases (e.g., \u201cgood job\u201d, \u201cwell done\u201d) to praise her student for nearly every correct response. On one occasion, however, she was observed to praise the student only twice, and in both instances, she complimented the student for his efforts. For example, Lydia made the following comment when she observed that the student had not made any spelling mistakes in a listening exercise:<\/p>\n

      You are a little spelling expert now, aren\u2019t you? You see, if you make an effort, you can get what you want. [Name of another teacher] told me you were working really hard on the vocabulary list. Well done and keep going! (CO4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Lydia\u2019s rationale provided some possible reasons for her less frequent, yet more detailed, compliments for this particular student:<\/p>\n

      I always feel really happy whenever I see my student progress and … let\u2019s call it my instinct, to praise […]. [Name of another student] was a music teacher herself and she understood why I praised her. So it was fine simply praising her a lot. […] But he [the present student] doesn\u2019t understand. If I hadn\u2019t made my purpose clear to him, it would make him […] feel too good about himself. […] Last time his teaching assistant told me he refused to do after-class dictation. […] he said: \u201cLydia said I was already doing so well! […]\u201d […] If he doesn\u2019t revise these words, he would forget them quickly! You see how my praises actually backfired on his motivation? So, although I was really happy for him, I tried not to praise him too much. […] For him, explicitly explaining that I praised him for his effort is very important. (SRI4)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Lydia tailored her praising practices based on her perception of individual students\u2019 understandings of the purposes of praising. She experienced some tensions, however, when she was adjusting her praising practices for the student in CO4. Lydia was \u201creally happy\u201d and had the \u201cinstinct\u201d to praise, but at the same time, based on her knowledge of this student and information she had received from a colleague, she knew that too many unspecified praises would \u201cbackfire\u201d on the student\u2019s motivation and learning efforts. Lydia addressed this tension by prioritising the perceived need to maintain her student\u2019s learning efforts over her own habits of praising. It was through her management of this inner tension that Lydia adapted her motivational strategy in a way that she perceived to be effective for the learner.<\/p>\n

      Susan<\/h3>\n

      Promoting a sense of achievement.<\/h4>\n

      Promoting feelings of achievement was a recurrent theme in Susan\u2019s rationales for a range of motivational strategies that she adopted. For example, she presented specific and personalised goals at the beginning of each class to \u201cmake students feel the goals are achievable\u201d (SRI2); she deliberately selected materials of an appropriate level of difficulty to increase the student\u2019s chances of succeeding (BI, SRIs); she elicited student responses to give students \u201cmoments for making small achievements\u201d (BI); and she praised to \u201ccelebrate the student\u2019s achievement\u201d (SRI1). The episode below provides an example of how Susan elicited the word \u201cdebate\u201d from a student:<\/p>\n

      S [Susan]: It\u2019s something you see in American elections, […] it\u2019s something candidates do …
      \nSt [Student]: Election? I\u2019m not sure …
      \nS: It\u2019s also common in […] university societies? There are two groups of people, each group holds opposite opinions and they …<\/p>\n

      St: That … that is … debate [in English]! (CO2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Susan explained how she had made an intentional effort to increase the prospects of successfully eliciting the desired answer from the student:<\/p>\n

      Usually I try to elicit things that I know is within the student\u2019s knowledge range, so he\/she has a higher chance of success. […] We just talked about \u2018debate\u2019 in IELTS task 2 last week, […] it\u2019s such a crucial word in IELTS so I thought it\u2019s a good chance to check whether he remembers. […] Talking about things on the news, talking about things like university debates, things that the student is familiar with, that\u2019s important too, for the student to be able to give the desired answer. (SRI2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Susan\u2019s decision to elicit the word \u2018debate\u2019 was not random. This was mediated by her knowledge that \u2018debate\u2019 is a word that is likely to be \u201cwithin the student\u2019s knowledge range\u201d, which was informed by her previous teaching experience with this student (\u201cwe just talked about \u2018debate\u2019 in IELTS task 2 last week\u201d); and by her knowledge that \u2018debate\u2019 is \u201csuch a crucial word in IELTS\u201d. Her reference to American elections and university debate societies as prompts was a conscious choice driven by her knowledge of context (\u201cthings on the news\u201d, \u201cthings that the student is familiar with\u201d). Susan also recognised her use of elicitation in this situation as having a further pedagogical implication (\u201cto check whether he remembers\u201d). The combined influence of these mediating factors motivated Susan to use her preferred motivational strategy in a way that, she believed, had motivational and pedagogical implications for the target student.<\/p>\n

      Avoiding and addressing feelings of frustration.<\/h4>\n

      Susan favoured using direct error correction in her verbal and written feedback, and recognised this preference as a potential demotivating factor for her students (\u201cfrequent correction does mean feelings of frustration appear to be a typical problem\u201d, SRI4). In order to avoid or revert the possible demotivating effects of direct error correction, Susan was observed giving motivational messages following her corrections. Below is an example motivational message that the teacher used after her direct correction of grammar and spelling mistakes that the learner had made in a Chinese-English translation exercise:<\/p>\n

      Don\u2019t worry, this is a tough exercise, it\u2019s natural to make many mistakes. Many high school students like you also found this exercise difficult. When [name of former student] first studied with me, she did a lot worse than you in this exercise, but […] she achieved 7 in her IELTS writing in the end. So, don\u2019t be frightened by these red marks; let\u2019s revise these grammar structures again and see what we can do with them. (CO1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Susan uses two main strategies here: (1) naturalising the mistake by sharing the experience of other students with this exercise, and (2) telling a success story of English language learning. The teacher\u2019s rationale for the former strategy suggests that her choice was mediated by her perception of this type of student (\u201cusually young girls are thin-skinned\u201d), her belief about English language learning (\u201clearning English is a gradual process where mistakes are normal\u201d), and her own learning experiences (\u201cthe positive belief about mistakes kept me motivated to learn\u201d):<\/p>\n

      Usually young girls are thin-skinned and they would be easily shut down if I blame them harshly. […] In fact, usually I don\u2019t blame my students for their mistakes because I believe learning English is a gradual process where mistakes are normal. […] I made a lot of mistakes when I first started learning IELTS, but my positive belief about mistakes kept me motivated to learn. I thought it would be motivating for my student to understand this point too, so that in their future learning they will not be demotivated in the face of mistakes. (SRI1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Susan\u2019s rationale for telling a success story shows that her use of this strategy was informed by her prior teaching experience which, though she initially thought it was \u201cjust a random memory\u201d, had implications for making her motivational message \u201cpersuasive\u201d and \u201crelevant\u201d.<\/p>\n

      It was just a random memory but … [The student in CO1] was introduced to City Lights by [a formal student], who had done the same translation exercise with me before. […] By including the example […] my motivational message would be more persuasive and relevant for [the student in CO1]. (SRI1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Building a positive student-teacher relationship.<\/h4>\n

      Susan believed that \u201cstudents are motivated to learn from teachers that they have a good relationship with\u201d (SRI3). Her understanding of a good student-teacher relationship, though not strictly aligned with how student-teacher relationship is commonly depicted in the literature on motivational strategies (e.g., Do\u0308rnyei, 2001, pp. 36-39), seems to be framed by her perception of the learning needs and preferences of City Light\u2019s students:<\/p>\n

      [The students] are paying money to improve their IELTS scores here [at City Lights]. Most of them want the teacher to be the competent knowledge giver in the class \u2013 otherwise, they would have chosen to study at home on their own. […] To build a good relationship with these students, I always try to demonstrate that I have sufficient knowledge to help them improve their IELTS scores quickly. This is the first step for them to respect me and be motivated to learn from me. (SRI3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      In line with this perception, Susan claimed that she made deliberate efforts to demonstrate her professional knowledge of IELTS and English to her students by, for example, explaining her rationale for selecting specific topics or exercises, and teaching them learning and test strategies. These strategies were used in all observed classes.<\/p>\n

      On one occasion (CO3) Susan was observed to use another strategy which she recognised as having implications for building a student-teacher relationship: having informal chats with the learner on topics unrelated to the subject matter. One of these chats, for instance, was about an American TV series that the student had recently watched. The conversation was initiated by the student and Susan responded actively, engaging in a discussion of the programme\u2019s characters and plot. Susan\u2019s behaviour in this incident was influenced by her perception of this specific learner:<\/p>\n

      Sometimes there are students like him, really extroverted students. They prefer a more casual and personal relationship. […] I always try to accommodate to their needs in order to motivate. (SRI3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Susan thus adopted motivational practices which, she believed, responded to the learner\u2019s personality and preferred teacher-student relationship. However, further discussion with the teacher revealed that informal personal chatting was not a form of interaction which she felt comfortable with:<\/p>\n

      I have to admit, it [informal chatting with the student] doesn\u2019t go with my introverted personality. […] I think I\u2019m more comfortable with those who see me as \u201cthe teacher\u201d and just want to learn in the class. […] But it would be so awkward if I just ignored what he said. So I decided to make it a chance for personal relationship, a chance for motivation […] If I don\u2019t have a good relationship with him, he might ask the institution to change the teacher. That wouldn\u2019t look good on me as a teacher, would it? (SRI3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

      Susan thus experienced some tension between a perceived external factor (the student\u2019s preference for informal chatting) and her perception of self (\u201cintroverted personality\u201d, professional identity as \u201cthe teacher\u201d in the classroom). This was in turn accompanied by some emotional dissonance (\u201cmore comfortable with…\u201d, \u201cawkward\u201d). Susan eventually managed the tension by prioritising her students\u2019 preferences over her own. This decision was driven by her intention not only to motivate the student, but also to build her self-image (\u201cthat wouldn\u2019t look good on me as a teacher, would it?\u201d), which was informed by Susan\u2019s perceived institutional regulation that the student could switch teachers freely (\u201che might ask the institution to change the teacher\u201d). This shows how factors outside the immediate classroom can contribute to shaping teachers\u2019 enactments of motivational strategies.<\/p>\n

      Discussion<\/h3>\n

      The analysis of the teachers\u2019 rationales for actual classroom enactments of motivational strategies revealed the complex process which the two teachers underwent as they selected and used strategies which they perceived as appropriate for their contexts. The findings across the two cases shed light on the multidimensionality of appropriate motivational strategies and the ways in which the teachers managed multiple, sometimes conflicting, factors in order to achieve the intended appropriateness. These results offer several important insights into motivational strategies and context-appropriate pedagogies.<\/p>\n

      The rich descriptive and interpretive data generated by this study show that the teachers\u2019 choice and use of motivational strategies were intentional efforts to make the strategies appropriate for:<\/p>\n