Research Digest
7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWVRI&RQWHQW
Dominic G. Edsall
Institute of Education, University of London
Yukiko Saito
Kyoto Seika University
Content-based instruction has long been recognized as an effective method of teaching
language and recent developments in CBLT have brought content back to the focus oflanguage teachers. This review analyzes the motivational benefits of content in light ofrecent developments in motivational theory and to suggest how language teachers can best
apply knowledge of interest, relevance and authenticity to motivate university students inJapan.
&RQWHQWEDVHG LQVWUXFWLRQࡀゝㄒᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿຠᯝⓗ࡞ᡭẁ࡜ㄆ㆑ࡉࢀ࡚
ஂࡋ࠸ࡀࠊ㏆ᖺࡢ &%/7 ศ㔝࡟࠾ࡅࡿⓎᒎⓗ࡞◊✲ᡂᯝࡣࠊ࠶ࡽࡓࡵ࡚ゝㄒᩍ⫱⪅ࡢ╔║Ⅼࢆෆᐜࡸᩥ⬦ࢆ㔜どࡋࡓᏛ⩦࡬࡜ᡠࡋࡘࡘ࠶ࡿࠋᮏㄽᩥ࡛
ࡣࠊ᭱㏆ࡢ⌮ㄽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ௜ࡅ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ&%/7ࡢ᭷ຠᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚
ࡢศᯒࢆ⾜࠺ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ኱Ꮫᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊゝㄒᩍ⫱⪅ࡀᏛ⏕ࡢᩍᮦෆᐜ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㛵ᚰࡸ㛵㐃ᛶࠊಙ㢗ᛶ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ▱㆑ࢆࠊᐇ㝿࡟Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢពḧྥୖ࡟ᛂ⏝ࡋ࡚࠸ࡃ᪉ἲࢆᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋ

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWVRI&RQWHQWThis paper aims to investigate how educators at the tertiary level in Japan canbest use content in order to increase learner’s motivation. Current research thatspecifically addresses the motivational impact of content-based approaches inJapan is at an early stage of development. However, the study on content, which isan ongoing development in Second Language Acquisition (SLA), has long beenrecognized as an important vehicle for language learning (Korn, 1978). Most
66

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

teachers would accept the idea that learners should be aware of the relevance tothe content and its utility while they are learning, as well as the importance of thelanguage skills (Tomlinson, 2011). As Cook states, “the information content of
the lesson...should correspond to the motivations of the students” (p. 39; see also
Korn, 1978; Papalia & Zampogna, 1974), the relevancy of content to learners’
language learning is approved as a significant motivational factor. Therefore, inthis paper, reviewing four major motivational theories, we examine how educators
could recognize and handle content-based teaching for learners, and offer ourviewpoint on what is the best applicable factor to motivate students.
The Evolution of SLA Motivation
Before we analyze the motivational benefits of content, it would be better toconsider what motivational concepts and models have been used. There are
two motivational concepts that SLA provides for educators at the tertiary level:
integrative and instrumental motivations.
The concepts of integrative and instrumental motivations have been
controversial since they were first introduced to second language teaching byLambert and Gardner in the 1960s and 1970s (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011).
Integrative motivation results in the learning of language in order to take part inthe culture of its people (Cook, 2008; Gardner, 1960, 2010), while instrumental
motivation results in language learning to achieve a career goal or for some
practical reason. Hence, we can recognize integrative motivation as more cultureoriented and instrumental motivation as career-oriented.
These two concepts are yet quite clearly seen in mainstream materials in Japanand around the world. However, although these concepts have obvious utility inthe development of SLA materials, the motivational model has been questioned
in recent years. For example, Dörnyei (2001) argued against its relevance in
EFL contexts, where a second language does not mediate between two different
ethno-linguistic groups as in Canada, because English is increasingly seen as
being an international communication tool that is not specifically associatedwith one ethno-linguistic group (see also Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, pp. 7173). Irie (2003) also pointed out its specific relevance to Japan in that neither
67

Edsall & Saito

an instrumental nor an integrative orientation in Japanese university students
has been found to clearly correlate with proficiency without other mediating
factors. Irie suggests that other related factors, such as mastery or an interest ininternational communication, could be more influential in motivating Japanese
students.
Further, Gardner has recently argued in a defense of his own work that themodel includes a generalized factor within instrumental motivation, but is in fact
primarily concerned with integrative motivation (Gardner, 2010; Tomlinson,2011). Some studies in Japan also concluded that instrumental motivation
actually remained “multifaceted” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Kimura, Nakata,& Okumura, 2001), which shows that such motivation involves so many different
factors for individual students, such as intrinsic-instrumental-integrative motive,
extrinsic instrumental motive, language use anxiety, preference for teachercentered lectures, and negative learning experiences (Kimura et al., 2001, Nakata,& Okumura, 2001), that it becomes extremely complex to analyze, and manystudies use their own specific factors or derivations of factors in order to makeanalysis possible (Irie, 2003). Dörnyei (2001, p. 260) sees such local modificationof factors as a natural consequence of attempting to apply a model in a different
social context from that in which it was developed.
Thus, modern SLA motivation research would seem to have moved on fromthe simplistic concepts of integrative and instrumental motivation (Cook, 2008;
Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; MacIntyre, Noels, & Moore, 2010). Nevertheless,
Gardner’s model and his extensive use of quantitative survey techniques remain
highly influential in the study of motivation in Japan (Dörnyei, 2001; Stout,2008) and many teaching materials in use today still follow his model.
Self Determination Theory, Internalization and the L2
Motivational Self System
Another competing motivational theory is Self Determination Theory (SDT)(Black & Deci, 2000; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Irie, 2003; Ryan & Deci,
2000), where the concepts of extrinsic motivation are placed on a continuum
between the level of external control by the educator and the level of internal
68

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

self-regulation by the student (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). In effect, the more asocial environment, such as a classroom, supports the human needs for autonomy,competence and relatedness, the more determined the students within thatenvironment will be (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci et al., 2001; Dörnyei & Ushioda,
2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000;). It has been argued (Carver & Scheier, 2000; Reeve,
Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Tomlinson, 2011), that a theory based on autonomy may
not apply to collectivistic orientated societies, such as Korea and Japan. However,Jang, Reeve, Ryan, and Kim (2009) have found that there is statistical evidence
that SDT is equally applicable amongst Korean students with their collectivistic
cultural orientation, and Fukuda, Sakata, and Takeuchi (2011) present evidence
from a study of Japanese university students that interventions based on SDTand SDT’s relatedness aspect have a positive motivational influence.
The interwoven nature of feelings of competence and feelings of relatedness
to peers in SDT also seems to relate well with sociological and educational
discussions of the Japanese self (Dörnyei, 2001; Greer, 2000; Law, 1995; Weiner,2009), where students may avoid situations that cause anxiety due to lack ofsupport for or a perceived conflict between competence and relatedness (Andrade& Williams, 2009; Graham-Marr, 2011; Irie, 2003). This also matches data on
the impact of directly controlling behavior exerted by Israeli teachers on students,
such as controlling the pace of student learning, not allowing different opinions
or giving non-negotiable directives, that suggests anxiety is a good predictor ofpoor motivation according to SDT (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon, & Roth,
2005; Gardner, 2010).
There is quantitative evidence from a questionnaire survey of Japanese
university students suggesting that studying abroad has an intrinsically motivating
effect on Japanese students as interpreted using SDT (Kimura et al., 2001),
and Sasaki (2011) argues that using Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) process of L2
motivation as a research base line, more motivated students in the later phasesof that temporal model may have internalized motivations as per SDT to study
L2 writing more. This mixing of theories is not unusual and Dörnyei (2005)
proposed the L2 Motivational Self System as a comprehensive synthesis of past
research including the graded internalization of external motives as described by69

Edsall & Saito

SDT, although there are differences in where the boundaries are drawn (Dörnyei& Ushioda, 2011, pp. 79-82).
The L2 Motivational Self System comprises three main components. These
are the Ideal L2 Self encompassing integrative and internalized instrumental
motives, the Ought-to L2 Self encompassing less internalized forms of
instrumental motivation, and the L2 Learning experience encompassing situatedmotives related to the immediate environment, such as the impacts of the teacher
and peer group (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Ryan (2009) shows how SDT’s
intrinsic and extrinsic motivational continuum relate to the L2 motivationalself in the context of his experiences teaching in Japan, and Taguchi, Magid, andPapi (2009) have shown that this system is applicable to Japanese students at thequantitative scale. In Taguchi et al.’s (2009) study, it was found that Japanese
students are most influenced by the preventative influence of instrumentality in
the Ought-to L2 Self. Japanese students in the study were negatively influenced
by extrinsic motivations that defined the person they thought they ought to be.
This matches evidence of the negative impact of anxiety resulting from external
regulation on Japanese students as discussed previously (see Andrade & Williams,
2009; Graham-Marr, 2011; Irie, 2003).
Therefore, the question remains whether anxiety can be reduced through theuse of content that is related to the choices that Japanese university students makein their choice of degree. Is it possible to reduce student anxiety and improve
motivation in language lessons by using content that is derived from or directly
related to their major? Does the student’s choice of major correlate with theirideal L2 self or their ought-to L2 self ?
Edsall and Saito (2011) found that Japanese students studying for an art
degree showed a significant increase in instrumental motivation after taking
a content-based EFL course that derived its content from art and art history;
however, the study’s aim was to investigate the use of questionnaires and relied on
Gardner’s (1960, 2010) model of integrative and instrumental motivation. It was
not intended to test the correlation of content-based instruction with SDT or
the L2 self motivation system. There is some evidence from China that language
lesson content that directly relates to students may promote both listening skills
70

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

and motivation (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; MacIntyre et al., 2010; Ren, 2011).
Lutes (2009) found that content directly related to the majors of his Japanese
students had a noticeable motivational benefit, while Kember, Ho and Hong(2008) found that establishing various links between students and lesson material
improved motivation in university classes across disciplines. In addition, theintervention protocol successfully used by Fukuda et al. (2011) requires material
that is directly linked to the students (Stout, 2008).
Material that is intended to directly link with students is often aimed at the
future professions or jobs of those students, and Taguchi et al. (2009) suggest thatthe usefulness of English proficiency in finding a job in Japan is a factor in how
L2 motivational factors correlate. However, they also suggest that the Japanese
ideal L2 self is not strongly linked to a professionally successful self image, andthat a personally agreeable L2 self is more important because English proficiency
is viewed as only one qualification for a job after graduation.
Taguchi et al. (2009) also found that the motivation of Japanese students
majoring in English correlated less with the ideal L2 self, which is usuallyassociated with greater L2 acquisition, than those Japanese students not majoringin English. Given SDT and the L2 self motivation system, more motivatedstudents might be expected to show the opposite correlation with the ideal L2 selfcorrelating more with the motivations of English majors than with non-English
majors. This suggests that there is a very weak link that needs to be addressed
between what motivates students to study a particular degree and the English
courses that those Japanese university students take, as those students have notinternalized their L2 motivations.
This is a complex area of research, but teaching methodology and the content
therein have potential roles in the immediate learning environment of the L2
self motivation system and in the internalization central to SDT despite thepaucity of research in this specific area. Further research is also needed given theincreasingly complex picture of motivation that has emerged as psycholinguistics
have adopted the principles of dynamic systems theory from mathematics andthe physical sciences (Black & Deci, 2000; De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007;
Deci et al., 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
71

Edsall & Saito

A Dynamic System of Motivation
Recent developments in SLA motivation research have been examined by
MacIntyre et al. (2010) who list fifteen key motivational concepts in SLA, such asacculturation, action control, complex dynamic systems, integrative motivation,international posture, L2 motivational, learner autonomy, task motivation, selfdetermination and willingness to communicate, etc. However, they recognizethat there are a large number of gaps in our knowledge that lie between theseconcepts, thus leading them to recommend a multi-paradigm approach tomotivation research (MacIntyre et al., 2010), or, in other words, a combinationof approaches that best addresses the needs of the research. This follows on
from Dörnyei’s suggestion that there need not be one solution to the problemof analyzing motivation (Dörnyei, 1998; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), whilesuggesting that these concepts should be considered more holistically. Dörnyei
and Ushioda (2011) go on to evaluate that historical and current perspectives
on motivation, particularly process-oriented perspectives, are evolving into amuch more complex dynamic system involving a conglomerate of interconnectedfactors rather than single uniform factors (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci et al., 2001;
Dörnyei, 1998; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). De Bot
et al. (2007) take this argument further, arguing that a dynamic system theory
characterized by complete interconnectedness be applied to the whole of SLA.
Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) consider this to be an inevitable extension ofcurrent motivational theories. From a teaching perspective, this may be somewhat
confusing as it moves away from traditional cause-effect relationships, suchas the carrot and stick approach. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) categorize thismore holistic approach as one system with the three sub-systems of motivation,
cognition and affect (emotions). Dynamic system models of motivation are often
envisaged as a continually changing network of goals that interact by conflicting,converging with, and compensating for each other as students actively manage
those goals (Dowson & McInerney, 2003). In other words, it is a complex dance
where the preferred moves (the attractor states) are continually negotiated andwhere the starting position on the dance floor (the initial state) has a large impact
on where it finishes (De Bot et al., 2007, citing Shanker & King, 2002).
72

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

How Content Interest Plays a Role in Motivation
If both SLA motivation and SLA are to be characterized as possessing complete
interconnectedness where the strength of these connections continually changes
and the initial state has a large impact, then lesson content must have some partto play in determining attractor states for Japanese EFL students. However, thislevel of complexity can only be explored through the examination of a small
conglomerated part of the whole system or one small sequence of the dance (DeBot et al., 2007; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). One example of such a motivational
conglomerate that appears to be related to content is the broad concept of“interest” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 93).
As teachers, we often take the definition of interest for granted. Our students
are interested in this or that, and, unfortunately, the list of things that students
are not interested in can sometimes be somewhat long. However, to really address
this issue, we need a firmer definition. In the educational psychology literature,
one definition of interest is as referring to “a learner’s predisposition to reengage
particular disciplinary content...over time and the psychological state that
accompanies this engagement” (Renninger, 2009, p. 106). While a distinction
can be drawn between generalized interest in an educational subject and interestin learning a second language, this distinction is often connected with Gardner’s
integrative model of motivation (Dörnyei, 1998; Gardner, 2010) that has beenchallenged as being too narrow in focus (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei,
1998; Gardner, 2010). Given the idea of total interconnectedness (De Bot et al.,1997) then, a broader definition informed by the wider educational sphere bettersuits the purposes of this discussion.
Hidi and Renninger (2006) more explicitly define interest as “the outcomeof an interaction between a person and a particular content” (p. 112), but we,the authors, would view interest as the predisposition to actively engage with
content and exploit that content in achieving goals. How can we as teachers saythat lesson material has interest for our students if the students do not consider
putting that material to some use? As discussed below, students may actively
engage with material in order to minimize that engagement and reduce the timethat they have to spend on it. In such a situation, the only interest present might73

Edsall & Saito

be an interest in bringing the lesson to an early end.
The students must choose to do something with the material other thansimply endure it, and using SDT as a model for analysis, Katz and Assor (2006)
found that choice can be a positive influence on motivation when those choices
are relevant to student interests and goals (see also de Sousa & Oakhill, 1996).
Moreover, Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) state that “the primary task of theteacher is to try to understand their students’ authentic interests and goals” (p.
273). This complements data from Fukushima University where teachers weremore successful in motivating student autonomy by following a guided autonomy
syllabus that required a direct link between the students’ own immediate goals
and interests with relatedness, modifying how successful each individual teacher
was (Fukuda et al., 2011). Thus, to understand how to more easily align our
teaching with student interests, we must have some element of choice, but this is
not the only factor that we need to consider.
Renninger (2009) describes the advantages of well-developed interest in a listof attributes that learners with such a psychological state display. Such learners(1) independently re-engage with content, (2) raise curiosity questions, (3) selfregulate to obtain both questions and answers, (4) possess positive feelings, (5)persevere through frustration and challenge, and (6) recognize the contributionof others. These are attributes that we as language teachers would like to see in ourown students. They are also attributes of positive motivation that both SDT anddynamic systems models would recognize.
However, data suggests that very few students, both outside and within
Japan, have well-developed interest in the language being taught (Fukuda etal., 2011; Hiromori, 2003; Irie, 2003; Lipstein & Renninger, 2006) and thatteachers often misidentify students at a low stage of interest as having welldeveloped interest because such students ask a lot of questions, seek feedback, andcomplete assignments in order to end engagement with the content more quickly(Renninger, 2009). Thus, if we are to consider motivation in SLA, teachers shouldattempt to develop a broad state of interest in their students towards using English
with non-language topics, and not just cater to an “interest in foreign languages”
as narrowly defined by Gardner (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Enforcing activities
74

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

aimed primarily at such a narrow interest would suppress autonomy according to
SDT and have a highly negative impact on student motivation (Assor et al., 2002),
and attempting to stimulate one type of motivation over another may even havea negative impact given the complete interconnectedness of a dynamic systems
view. So, we as teachers need to recognize and carefully deal with a multitude offactors involved in motivation and interest towards content topics.
Here is the gap that Hiromori (2003; see also Stout, 2008) identifies between
the focus of research in Japan and what teachers want to know about motivation:
how to actually motivate students. This is where content-based teaching methods
may have a part to play in motivating students, by taking advantage of an alreadyexisting psychological state of interest. There are students at the tertiary levelstudying languages who have a well-developed “interest in foreign languages”,
but the vast majority of students are probably at much lower levels of interest,
as shown by some researchers (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Irie, 2003; Lipstein& Renninger, 2006; Renninger, 2009; Stout, 2008), and may only be studying
a language, such as English, as a compulsory subject in their degree program(Fukuda et al., 2011).
For example, Life, Falout, and Murphey (2009) found that science majors
were less motivated than English majors to study English; however, they did
not attempt to explain this difference at the university level and instead argued
for improved teaching of English at junior and senior high schools. Assumingthat Japanese university students studying science are likely to have a different
ought-to L2 self (see discussion of L2 self motivation system above) from English
majors, it seems that this may have been an opportunity to utilize content interest,and Life et al. (2009) do indeed conclude that students should be more involvedin negotiating the design of curricula and syllabi. Given that such non-English
majors are possibly unmotivated by traditional university English courses,
it seems more advantageous to exploit student interest in the content of theirdegree program, where such student interest is more likely to be at a higher stageof development, in order to motivate their language studies.

75

Edsall & Saito

Content, Content-Based Instruction, and ESP
Littlejohn and Windeatt (1989) (cited in McGrath, 2002) list eight forms ofcontent: (1) content from another academic subject, (2) student-contributed
content, (3) the language itself, (4) literature, (5) culture, (6) interesting facts(Cook, 1983), (7) learning to learn, and (8) specialist. All of these content types
can be used to address student learning, but how these content types can beused to address motivation will depend on how well-developed student interest
is in each area. For teachers at the tertiary level, the last category of “specialist,”
including content from the main degree subject of the students, seems the mostsuitable for content-based approaches, and many such approaches seem aimed at
this area of interest.
Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT) has been used in second
language teaching for some time to facilitate learning as well as motivate students.
Mehisto, Frigols, and Marsh (2008) claim that this may date back to around thethird millennium BC. For example, Fujiwara (1996) notes that experience has
proved the efficacy of content courses in encouraging language learning and that
CBLT can also be used to increase student attendance. In analyzing bilingual
education, Cummins (1984) drew a distinction between Basic InterpersonalCommunicative Skills (BICS) relating to basic, automatic language skills andCognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) relating to high levels of
linguistic ability specific to context and demanding higher cognitive skills, but
Cummins explicitly links the two concepts of interpersonal communication andcontent (Cummins, 1984; D’Angelo & Costa, 2011; Horn, 2011). In addition
to failing to address a broad range of other student motivations, the danger offocusing on integrative motivations is that this may result in courses only focusedon BICS and distanced from the skills of CALP, which might provide insufficientcognitive demand for the students, further resulting in student demotivation(Coyle, Hood, & Marsh, 2010; Cummins, 1984).
There are several forms of CBLT, comprising full immersion, shelteredinstruction, content and language-integrated learning (CLIL), and traditional
forms where content is used to illustrate modalities of a notional syllabus. There
are other models and approaches (Archibald et al., 2006; Snow & Brinton, 1988)
76

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

that are often envisaged along a spectrum from content-driven to languagedriven (Met, 1998) or from the mainstream classroom to the traditional language
classroom (Brinton, Snow, & Wesche, 1989). Lightbown and Spada (2006) define
CBLT from a language teacher’s perspective as “Second language programmes inwhich lessons are organized around subject matter rather than language points”(p. 197).
Often the objectives of CBLT are stated in terms of content, and achieving
these objectives is seen as sufficient evidence of language learning (Richards &Rodgers, 2001), but, in order to actually teach the target language, the different
forms of CBLT can have either a functional or notional underlying syllabus.
Evans, Hartshorn, and Anderson (2010) note that, when designing contentbased materials, it is important to link language and content, which is most easily
done with such an underlying syllabus. Linking the language with content thatis directly relevant to students’ degrees matches autonomy-enhancing behaviors(Assor et al., 2002) and has been found to have a positive impact upon student
motivation (Snow & Brinton, 1988; Snow, Met, & Genesee, 1989). For example,
Lutes (2009) found that content that was relevant to the major disciplines of his
Japanese university students had a noticeable motivational benefit in task-basedlearning where there is already a high degree of autonomy. Lasagabaster (2011)
also concluded that a content-based approach had a positive impact on Spanish
EFL students at the secondary level.
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has received a lot of
attention after being adopted by various bodies including the Council of Europe,
as well as numerous countries across Europe (Marsh, Mehisto, Wolff, & Frigols
Martín, 2010). It has been claimed that CLIL has a completely balanced dual
focus on both content and language that does not place more importance on one
or the other (Coyle, 2006; see also Coyle et al., 2010). However, the resultant
differences between CLIL and traditional CBLT are not so clear (Paran & Deller,2010) and, for example, Dalton-Puffer notes that the term CLIL has come todominate discourse in Europe (Dalton-Puffer, 2007). However, it could beargued that the terms CLIL and CBLT are not interchangeable: CLIL appears
to be a subset of CBLT, sharing many of the features of sheltered instruction in77

Edsall & Saito

both theory and application (Archibald et al., 2006; Echevarria & Graves, 1998;
Henao, 2011).
CLIL has received most attention from teachers and researchers at thesecondary level with a focus of research on CLIL models that involve cooperation
between subject (content) teachers and foreign language teachers (Hunt, 2011).
However, content teachers can more easily teach in their first language (L1),and one important reason for the adoption of CLIL in Europe appears to be
the intention of politicians to consolidate teaching resources rather than improvethem (Paran & Deller, 2010).
The importance of CLIL to a discussion of the motivational benefits of content
is that the approach explicitly recognizes the symbiosis or interconnectednessof different factors affecting teaching in applying the 4C’s approach, with theC’s being content, communication, cognition, and culture (Coyle et al., 2010;
D’Angelo & Costa, 2011). At the teaching level, the theory behind CLIL demands
that teachers think about the interaction of all of these factors and balance both
linguistic and cognitive demands in order to motivate their students and enhance
language learning (Coyle et al., 2010; Smith & Paterson, 1998). The recognitionof cognitive engagement has been implicit in materials design for some time
(Bowen, 1972), but explicit recognition of how interconnected methodology
and materials design are with cognitive engagement has taken longer to become
more widely discussed (Arnold & Brown, 1999; Tomlinson, 1998, 2010).
Although research into CLIL is at an early stage of development, there arepositive accounts of possible motivational benefits, including increased on-task
behavior and increased levels of student interest (Coyle, 2006; Hunt, 2011;
Inés Pistorio, 2009; Seikkula-Leino, 2007). Development of the approach has
also attempted to adopt modern motivational research, including a focus on theeffects of authenticity and relevance (Coyle et al., 2010). The claimed benefit ofauthenticity is in how CLIL attempts to address a broader spectrum of student
interests. Thus, as for the larger set of CBLT methodologies, the motivational
benefits are linked to relevance and interest (Dupuy, 2000; Snow et al., 1989).
Despite the fact that current empirical research presents an unclear picture(Taguchi et al., 2009; Life et al., 2009), it seems logical for students who have78

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

chosen to study biology at university level, for example, to study English thatis relevant to their chosen field of interest, and this is something that has beenrecognized for some time in English for Specific Purposes (Hutchinson &Waters, 1987).
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is another content focused approach,where the content area, usually a specific job or vocational area, is the basis fora syllabus that addresses needs identified within the specific content area andusually involves activities from that area. Thus, the content of ESP courses fits into
the “specialist” category of Littlejohn and Windeatt’s (1989) aforementioned
content types, and this approach has the obvious utility that it is easy to convince
learners of the relevance of the material (Tomlinson, 2011). From the perspectiveof SDT, enforcing a strict ESP program that is derived from a specific degree
specialization may reduce choice and the opportunities for criticism or voicing
a personal opinion different from those of the teacher, thus having a negative
impact on student autonomy and motivation (Assor et al., 2002; Black & Deci,
2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). ESP programs that only address a limited numberof linguistic registers, such as those only used for specific job situations, mayalso reduce the opportunities for students to experience feelings of competence
through optimal challenges (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, ESP requires
content that is more obviously relevant to the students than CBLT, as the specificvocation associated with the ESP course is often a long-term goal of the student,such as becoming a medical professional or a flight crew member, and as we havediscussed, relevance is a key point in addressing student motivation (Dupuy,
2000; Snow et al., 1989).
How Relevant is Relevance?
We have argued so far that addressing students’ authentic interests and goals is
important in motivating students, based on both SDT and dynamic system models
of motivation (Assor et al., 2002; Dowson & McInerney, 2003); however, to doso we must also address relevance of the content material. Keller (1983) defines
relevance as the extent to which a student feels that instruction is connected toimportant needs, values, or goals. Numerous studies have attempted to address79

Edsall & Saito

relevance across educational settings including Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Language (TESOL).
Frymier and Shulman (1995), in a statistical study addressing the relevanceof teacher communication as a motivational tool, found that relevance was a key
concept in reducing demotivation. Given the modern view of motivation as adynamic system (De Bot et al., 2007; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; MacIntyre, et al,2010), it would seem that relevance is just one aspect of the motivational system,
albeit an important one.
Kember at al. (2008) found in a small qualitative study that students at thetertiary level could become highly motivated if the relevance of the content of
their degrees was established more explicitly, and especially if made relevant to
the professional future of the students, with the most positive results seen in theinitial stages of a course. They found that abstract theory was demotivational andthat without being shown a context in which to apply theory, it became hardto grasp the meaning of that theory. Students who were shown where to apply
such theory could also test their own understanding as well as demonstrate how
relevant that theory is. As a result, those students were more motivated.
The study goes on to discuss the motivational benefits of different typesof relevance including local relevance, relevance to everyday applications,
relevance to current issues, and relevance to professional development and careerprospects. However, one of the most pertinent points to take from this study
is the importance of mapping the position and establishing the relevance of adiscrete subject, such as a compulsory English class, within a student’s university
and professional career. Given a course where such relevance was established,
students were found to become highly motivated and develop a more intenselevel of interest. Assignments that were both relevant and authentic to future
career paths also proved to be highly motivating in the study.
Kember et al.’s study covered a variety of disciplines with a small sample.
However, even given the shortcomings of this study, relevance appears to be an
extremely important motivational aspect at the tertiary level as students havechosen to take a specific degree at a university usually with a long-term viewto the future. This also fits with our discussion of relevance in relation to SDT,80

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

where relevance is seen to have a direct impact upon student autonomy (Assor etal., 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
James (2012) found in a study of motivation amongst L2 English students
taking an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course at a U.S. university that
their motivation to transfer the skills learned in the course was interconnectedwith their motivation to learn English. The students were more motivated to learn
when the skills learned were obviously relevant to their other courses. Although
the study was focused on the motivation to transfer skills outside the EAP course,
the relevance of the EAP course to the students’ other courses was a factor in theiroverall motivation (see also Lutes, 2009).
The impact of the relevance of English language courses in relation to
students’ degree focus can also be seen in a study by Crisfield and White (2012)that found that both usefulness and interest are important factors in motivating
students learning English as a second language at Canadian universities. The study
also found that English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses that are specificallymore relevant to the students are ranked more highly for usefulness and interest
than general ESL courses. In essence, ESP courses seen as more relevant by
the students were more motivating. This leaves at least one further question ofwhether material that is relevant and of interest also needs to be authentic if it is
to have a positive motivational impact.
Getting Real with Authenticity
Authenticity is pertinent to a discussion of motivation and content, becausesome proponents of content-based approaches (Snow et al., 1989), particularly
proponents of CLIL, claim this as one reason why a particular approach isbeneficial. Coyle et al. (2010) claim that authenticity and relevance are “keyto successful learning” and that CLIL provides an easier route than traditional
communicative language teaching to achieving that goal (Coyle et al., 2010),
though they stop short of drawing a direct line between authenticity andmotivation.
The effect of authenticity on motivation is a topic that has been discussed fora long time in both research and teaching circles (Gilmore, 2007). The effect of81Edsall & Saito

authentic materials on motivation has been studied, but empirical results that backup claims that authenticity of materials has motivational benefits are extremely
scarce (Gilmore, 2007; Peacock, 1997). While students with higher levels of
intrinsic motivation have been shown to display different learning behaviors
from those with lower levels of intrinsic motivation, such as increased explorative
curiosity, when interacting with more authentic e-learning material, they did
not significantly outperform students with lower levels of intrinsic motivation
using the same materials (Martens, Gulikers, & Bastiaens, 2004). Peacock (1997)
found that authentic materials had an observable, positive impact on classroom
behavior with a statistically significant increase in on-task behavior and a similarly
significant improvement in observed classroom motivation. However, students’
own feelings of motivation, as reported through questionnaires completed by thestudents, did not improve until the final stages of the research project. Students
also reported that the authentic materials used were actually less interesting thanartificial materials. This suggests that authenticity has very mixed results whenused to improve motivation and remains problematic. This is in contrast to thestudy by Kember et al. (2008) that found authentic assignments had a beneficial
impact on motivation.
Gilmore (2007) has pointed out that one of the problems of discussing
authenticity is that there is a wide range of definitions of the term, and mostdefinitions focus on authenticity as applied to materials in that they arederived from natural native language. There has been less research focus on task
authenticity, or whether the learning activities have some meaning in being usefuland relevant to the student (Guariento & Morley, 2001; Herrington, Oliver, &Reeves, 2003), and task-based learning has been identified as a suitable vehicle forboth CBLT and CLIL (Cendoya & Di Bin, 2010).
Guariento et al. (2001) suggest addressing the possible differences between
these two areas of authenticity research by sacrificing the authenticity of texts infavor of task authenticity (Guariento & Morley, 2001), and it is possible to inferfrom their work that task authenticity does have a motivational benefit. Authentic
tasks may be more likely than an authentic text to address student interests as
implied by Assor et al. (2002) (see also Lutes, 2009), given that an authentic
82

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

text does not provide as much freedom for students to try applying abstract
theory to check their understanding (Kember et al., 2008). As discussed above,
complementary data from Peacock (1997) suggests that levels of self-reported
student motivation and interest are reduced in the reverse situation where
authentic materials are given priority, so it would seem that task authenticity may
have a larger positive impact on motivation, but questions remain.
Further research has been conducted into task authenticity in the wider fieldof education. For example, Herrington et al. (2003) found in a review of several
studies that both authentic tasks and authentic settings can motivate students
to engage with online learning environments, including one study that focused
specifically on a TESOL setting (Herrington et al., 2003; cf. Martens et al.,2004). Thus, it would seem that, despite the paucity of specific SLA motivation
research, authenticity of content materials and tasks has a role to play in student
motivation and language learning (Lutes, 2009; Peacock, 1997). The question is
how can we as teachers combine relevance, interest, and authenticity in order tomotivate our students?
What Do Teachers Need to Know about Motivation?
Without more specific direction for teachers in how to motivate their students
with content, applying content seems difficult if teachers are to adopt motivationconscious teaching as advocated by Dörnyei (1998) and attempt to address the
specific motivations of their students. However, if content is aligned with an area
where student interest is known, or could be expected to be well developed, suchas the major subject of their degree, then it could be expected to yield positive
results. Why not teach art and design students the vocabulary and expressions
necessary to discuss their work in English? Why not teach science students how to
discuss experimental procedures and methods of analysis in the target language?
As we have discussed, there is a gap that both Hiromori (2003) and Stout(2008) have highlighted: currently little empirical evidence exists to conclusively
prove that one particular approach has a more significant impact on SLA
motivation than other approaches, though there is some evidence that contentbased approaches have motivational benefits. Although the question of which of83

Edsall & Saito

these approaches is better remains, there is evidence that relevance may be a more
important factor. In a recent empirical study of CLIL compared with traditional
immersion and ESP, Férnandez-Santiago (2011) found that EFL university
students following an immersion course were outperformed by those on a CLIL
course. However, those students following an ESP course outperformed everyone
else on most achievement measures, and the same study concluded that students
preferred the ESP course to CLIL. In that situation, language learning was moreeasily achieved through ESP rather than CLIL. It may be possible to argue that thegreater relevance of the ESP course encouraged students to be more determined(Deci et al., 2001; Ryan & Deci, 2000), but further research would be necessary
to conclusively prove such a statement.
Corrales and Maloof (2009), in a study looking at medical students following
a CBLT-based EFL course, conclude “content-based instruction appears to bean effective language-learning methodology for this context” (p. 21). Thus, itappears that using relevant content aligned towards student interest in context
will help students be more determined and motivated. However, given themulti-dimensional nature of motivation and the fact that many English classes
contain students from different disciplines, it may be best to maintain a postmethod condition or a post-method approach where one method is not enough.
An approach where we as teachers apply critical thinking to our application ofteaching methodologies, and use our professional judgment to mix methods
in order to fulfill the needs of their students, instead of uncritically following
one specific, narrow methodology as discussed by Canagarajah (2004) andRichards and Rodgers (2001). This area of mixing approaches and trying toaddress relevance and student interest remains a potentially fruitful topic for
future research, both at the peer-reviewed journal level and at the level of action
research (Burns, 2009; Legutke & Schocker-v Ditfurth, 2009) for teachers trying
to motivate their students.

Conclusion
In summary, current thinking on SLA motivation, and particularly Self
Determination Theory, suggests that content has an important role in providing
84

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

relevant lessons aligned with student interest in order to motivate students. In
university classes where students are drawn from the same or similar disciplines,
it would be difficult to argue against the use of content-based approaches given
the potential motivational benefits. Such approaches are intended to promotestudent autonomy and focus on relevance, interest and authenticity. Why notteach students language that is useful and relevant to one of the biggest choicesthat most young adults can make, their university degree subject? We cannot
assume as language teachers that what we are interested in is also interesting forour students.
While teacher enthusiasm for a subject can be highly motivational,
establishing relevance to a students’ chosen degree subject and future career areimportant in improving student motivation. Given the impact of globalizationon the ownership of English as an international language, moving away froman integrative cultural viewpoint to a more holistic and dynamic approach that
tailors the content of English courses so as to establish relevance and reduce
student anxiety may lead to noticeable improvements in student motivation.
Thus, content-based approaches are worth further investigation by teachers at
the tertiary level in Japan.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and the editor,
who provided a large amount of feedback that aided enormously in the revisingof this article.

References
Andrade, M., & Williams, K. (2009). Foreign language learning anxiety inJapanese EFL university classes: Physical, emotional, expressive, and verbal
reactions. Sophia Junior College Faculty Journal, 29, 1-24.
Archibald, J., Roy, S., Harmel, S., Jesney, K., Dewey, E., Moisik, S., & Lessard,
P. (2006). A review of the literature on second language learning (2nd ed. pp.
1-85). Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Education.
85

Edsall & Saito

Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.),
Affect in language learning (1st ed., pp. 1-24). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is
excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours
predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261-278.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly
controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation andengagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning andInstruction, 15(5), 397-413. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy supportand students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A
self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756.
Bowen, J. D. (1972). Materials designs for intermediate and advanced secondlanguage classes. Workpapers: Teaching English as a Second Language, 6,
1-10.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M. A., & Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based second
language instruction. New York, NY: Newbury House.
Burns, A. (2009). Action research in second language education. In A. Burns& J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher
education. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2004). Globalization, methods and practice in peripheryclassrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalisation and language
teaching (pp. 134-150). London, England: Routledge.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Autonomy and self-regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 284-291.
Cendoya, A. M., & Di Bin, M. V. (2010). A CLIL experience based on the useof tasks and different genre types. Latin American Journal of Content andLanguage Integrated Learning, 3(1), 11-17.
Cook, V. (1983). What should language teaching be about? ELT Journal,
37(3), 229-234.
86

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th ed.).
London, England: Hodder Education.
Corrales, K., & Maloof, C. (2009). Evaluating the effects of CBI on an English
for medical students program. Latin American Journal of Content andLanguage Integrated Learning, 2(1), 15-23.
Coyle, D. (2006). Content and language integrated learning: Motivating
learners and teachers. Scottish Languages Review, 13, 1-18. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bayern-bilingual.de/realschule/userfiles/Bilingual_konkret/
SLR13_Coyle.pdf
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language
integrated learning (1st ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Crisfield, E., & White, J. (2012). Motivation research and SLA: Bringing it into
the classroom. In M. Pawlak (Ed.), New perspectives on individual differencesin language learning and teaching (pp. 217-231). Berlin, Germany:
Springer. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/
p6536236t1382617/
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research
agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment andpedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content-and-language-integrated learning(CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins PublishingGroup.
D’Angelo, L., & Costa, F. (2011). CLIL: A suit for all seasons. Latin American
Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 1-13.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory
approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language andCognition, 10(1), 7-21. doi:10.1017/S1366728906002732
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic
motivation: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research,
71(1), 1-27.
87

Edsall & Saito

de Sousa, I., & Oakhill, J. (1996). Do levels of interest have an effect onchildren’s comprehension monitoring performance? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 66(4), 471-482. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/9008425
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning.
Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation (1st ed.). Harlow,
England: Longman.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences
in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998) Motivation in action: A process model of L2
motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University,
London), 4, 43-69.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation. (2nded.). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about theirmotivational goals?: Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on
student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(1), 91-113.
Dupuy, B. C. (2000). Content-based instruction: Can it help ease the transition
from beginning to advanced foreign language classes? Foreign Language
Annals, 33(2), 205-223.
Echevarria, J., & Graves, A. (1998). Sheltered content instruction. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). A principledapproach to content-based materials development for reading. In J.
C. Richards (Ed.), English language teaching materials (pp. 131-156).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Fernández-Santiago, M. (2011). Integration or immersion? A comparative
study at the tertiary level. Latin American Journal of Content and Language
Integrated Learning, 4(1), 49-64.
Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?”: Increasing
content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication
88

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

Education, 44(1), 40-50. doi:10.1080/03634529509378996
Fujiwara, B. (1996). Planning an advanced listening comprehension elective
for Japanese college students. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Teachers as course
developers (pp. 151-175). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fukuda, S. T., Sakata, H., & Takeuchi, M. (2011). Facilitating autonomy toenhance motivation: Examining the effects of a guided-autonomy syllabus.
Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 8(1), 71-86. Retrieved
from http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v8n12011/fukuda.htm
Gardner, R. C. (1960, August 13). Motivational variables in second language
learning. (Doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal.
Gardner, R. C. (2010). Motivation and second language acquisition. The socioeducational model. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign
language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), 97-118. doi:10.1017/
S0261444807004144
Graham-Marr, A. J. (Ed.). (2011). Teaching in cultures averse to uncertainty.
Paper presented at the 37th Annual International Conference on Language
Teaching and Learning JALT 2011, Tokyo.
Greer, D. L. (2000). “The Eyes of Hito”: A Japanese cultural monitor of
behavior in the communicative language classroom. JALT Journal, 22(1),183-195.
Guariento, W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in the EFL
classroom. ELT Journal, 55(4), 347-353.
Henao, E. V. M. (2011). Lesson delivery: A key component to ensure maximum
benefit to the learner. Latin American Journal of Content and Language
Integrated Learning, 4(1), 14-26.
Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement inauthentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational
Technology, 19, 59-71.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest
development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep4102_4
89

Edsall & Saito

Hiromori, T. (2003). Ꮫ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡣఱ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㧗ࡲࡿࡢ࠿ −⮬ᕫ Ỵᐃ⌮ㄽ࡟ࡼࡿ㧗ᰯ⏕ⱥㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅࡢ᳨ウ [Whatenhances language learners’ motivation? High school English learners’
motivation from the perspective of self-determination theory]. JALT
Journal, 25(2), 173-186.
Horn, B. (2011). The future is now: Preparing a new generation of CBIteachers. English Teaching Forum, 49(3), 2-9.
Hunt, M. (2011). UK teachers’ and learners’ experiences of CLIL resulting
from the EU-funded project ECLILT. Latin American Journal of Content
and Language Integrated Learning, 4(1), 27-39.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for specific purposes. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Inés Pistorio, M. (2009). Teacher training and competences for effective CLIL
teaching in Argentina. Latin American Journal of Content and Language
Integrated Learning, 2(2), 1-7.
Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning motivation ofuniversity students in Japan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal,25(1), 86-100.
James, M. A. (2012). An investigation of motivation to transfer second language
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 96(1), 51-69. doi:10.1111/j.15404781.2012.01281.x
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination
theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning
experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644-661. doi:10.1037/a0014241
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2006). When choice motivates and when it does not.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 429-442. doi:10.1007/s10648-0069027-y
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigelruth(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current
status (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hong, C. (2008). The importance of establishing90

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

relevance in motivating student learning. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 9(3), 249-263. doi:10.1177/1469787408095849
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivationof EFL learners in Japan a cross-sectional analysis of various learning
milieus. JALT Journal, 23(1), 47-58.
Korn, C. A. (1978). Teaching language through science. Paper presented at
the California Association of Teachers of English as a Second Language
Conference, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/
ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED165466
Lasagabaster, D. (2011). English achievement and student motivation in CLIL
and EFL settings. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1),3-18. doi:10.1080/17501229.2010.519030
Law, G. (1995). Ideologies of English language education in Japan. JALT
Journal, 17(2), 213-224.
Legutke, M., & Schocker-von Ditfurth, M. (2009). School-based experience. In
A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language
teacher education (pp. 209-217). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Life, J., Falout, J., & Murphey, T. (2009). EFL students’educational preferencesin Korea and Japan. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT 2008 Conference
Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lipstein, R., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). “Putting things into words”: The
development of 12-15-year old students’ interest for writing. In P. Boscolo& S. Hidi (Eds.), Motivation and writing: Research and school practice (pp.
113-140). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Littlejohn, A., & Windeatt, S. (1989). Beyond language learning: Perspectives
on materials design. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum(pp. 155-175). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lutes, P. (2009). Task based learning and motivation for science majors at
Japanese universities. Kanagawa University Education Journal, 6(4), 41-48.
91

Edsall & Saito

MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Moore, B. (2010). Perspectives on motivationin second language acquisition: Lessons from the Ryoanji Garden. In M.
T. Prior (Ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language Research
Forum (1-9), Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Marsh, D., Mehisto, P., Wolff, D., & Frigols Martín, M. J. (2010). European
framework for CLIL teacher education (pp. 1-39). Graz, Austria: The
European Centre for Modern Languages. Retrieved from http://clil-cd.
ecml.at/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=C0kUO%2BvEc6k%3D&tabid=2254&language=en-GB
Martens, R., Gulikers, J., & Bastiaens, T. (2004). The impact of intrinsic
motivation on e-learning in authentic computer tasks. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 20(5), 368-376. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00096.x
McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching in A.
Davies & K. Mitchell (Eds.), Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University
Press.
Mehisto, P., Frigols, M. J., & Marsh, D. (2008). Uncovering CLIL: Content
and language integrated learning in bilingual and multilingual education.
Oxford, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Met, M. (1998). Curriculum decision-making in content-based language
teaching. In J. Cenoz & F. Genesee (Eds.). Beyond bilingualism:
Multilingualism and multilingual education (pp. 35-63). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Paran, A., & Deller, S. (2010, April 2). ELT Journal Debate: CLIL- Content
and Language is an ILlusion. (K. Morrow, Ed.). Retrieved September 10,
2012, from http://iatefl.britishcouncil.org/2010/sessions/2010-04-10/eltjournal-debate-clil-content-and-language-illusion
Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL
learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144-156.
Reeve, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Self-determination theory: A
dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student
motivation. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited(p. 31-60). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
92

7KH0RWLYDWLRQDO%HQHÀWV2Q&8(-RXUQDO  SDJHV

Ren, J. (2011). Affective variables and listening comprehension in college
English classrooms. Education and Management, 210, 317-321.
Renninger, K. A. (2009). Interest and identity development in instruction:
An inductive model. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 105-118.
doi:10.1080/00461520902832392
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language
teaching (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1), 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, S. (2009) Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 selfand Japanese learners of English. In Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120-143). Bristol,England: Multilingual Matters.
Saito, Y., & Edsall, D. G. (2011, November). The use of questionnaires in second
language acquisition research. Paper presented at the JACET Kansai
Chapter 40th Anniversary Conference, New Horizons in English Language
Education: Based on 40 years of JACET Kansai, Osaka.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of varying lengths of study-abroad experience on
Japanese EFL students’ L2 writing ability and motivation: A longitudinal
study. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 81-105. doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240861
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: Achievement levels and affective
factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328-341. doi:10.2167/le635.0
Shanker, S. G., & King, B. (2002). The emergence of a new paradigm in ape
language research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(5), 639-640.
Smith, J., & Paterson, F. (1998). Positively bilingual: Classroom strategies topromote the achievement of bilingual learners. Nottingham, England:
Nottingham Education Authority.
Snow, M. A., & Brinton, D. (1988). Content-based language instruction:
Investigating the effectiveness of the adjunct model. TESOL Quarterly,
22(4), 553-574.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for93

Edsall & Saito

the integration of language and content in second/foreign language
instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 201-217.
Stout, M. (2008). Research into second language learning motivation in Japan.
Bulletin of Toyo Gakuen University, 16(1), 35-46.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M. & Papi, M. (2009) The L2 motivational self systemamong Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative
study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity andthe L2 self (pp. 66-97). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Affect and the coursebook. IATEFL Issues, 145, 20-21.
Tomlinson, B. (2010). Principles of effective materials development. In N.
Harwood & J. C. Richards (Eds.), English language teaching materials:
Theory and practice (pp. 81-108). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Tomlinson, B. (2011). Materials development in language teaching. (B.
Tomlinson, Ed.) (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Weiner, M. (Ed.) (2009). Japan’s minorities: The illusion of homogeneity. (2nded.). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

$XWKRUV·%LRV
Dominic Edsall has taught English in Japan and in the UK, where he is also a
qualified chemistry teacher, and recently completed an MA (TESOL) with theInstitute of Education, London. dominic.edsall@me.com
Yukiko Saito studied at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland, and has beenteaching at universities in Japan and is currently based in Kyoto. ysaito@kyotoseika.ac.jp
Received: September 14, 2011
Accepted: September 18, 201294