LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

D E V E L O P I N G A M O T I VAT I O N A L
L E A R N I N G ENV I RONM ENT
Steven Paydon
In this paper, I propose that, by fostering interpersonal relationships in the classroom,
we can help to create a productive learning environment and, consequently, enhance theconditions for personal growth in our students. Drawing on theories of motivation andgroup dynamics, I present a new hierarchical model representing classroom motivation,and describe each of its successive levels in turn. My workshop at the Realizing
Autonomy Conference sought to demonstrate the practicability of the model bysimulating a classroom with the participants. The paper concludes with a reflection onthat experience and a discussion of the relationship between productive groupformation and autonomous learning.
本論は教室内の対人関係の育成が生産的な学習環境の構築につながり、結果として学習者一人一人の成長を促すことを訴える。動機付け理論、及びグループダイナミクス理論に基づき、教室におけるモチベーションの新しい階層モデルと各ステップを説明する。 ２０１１年に開催のRealizing Autonomy 学会で参加者と一緒に行った模擬クラ
スワークショップでこのモデルの実用性を探求した。このワークショップを振り返り、生産性の高いグループの構築と自律学習の関係について考察する。

Introduction
A common concern among foreign language teachers in Japan is student motivation. This
paper aims to address this concern by introducing a model of motivation that can help us
better understand and create conditions for enhancing group performance, student motivation,
personal growth, and learning.
Group performance refers to the quantity and quality of classroom interaction. This is an
important idea in the context of communicative language teaching, where emphasis is upondeveloping the learners’ communicative skills through participation in authentic
communicative tasks (Ehrman & Dörnyei, p. 141, 1998). Motivation, here, refers to the driving
force behind human endeavor. Motivation is responsible for why people decide to dosomething, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going topursue it (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 8). By looking at a group’s dynamics, we can strengthen theinterpersonal relationships and optimize group processes, thus dismantling barriers tocommunication and freeing up interaction. By looking at individual student needs, we canSpecial Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

46

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

appeal to the motivational drives that will both further enhance classroom task performanceand, ultimately, lead to personal growth. This paper attempts to blend theories from the fieldsof group dynamics and motivation to provide a basic, unified model of motivation that applies
to teaching and learning in a communicative and collaborative classroom context.
This paper grew out of the workshop titled Developing a Collaborative (and Productive)
Learning Environment that was held at the Realizing Autonomy Conference, Nagoya, 2011. In
this workshop, I introduced an original model of motivation, and then invited the participants
to become students in a mock classroom exercise, enacting the steps towards developing a
motivational group environment. As in the workshop, I start by explaining the theories
supporting this model, and discussing the significance of its successive levels, along with ideas
for practical applications in the classroom. This is followed by an account of the Nagoya
workshop and my reflections upon that experience. Finally, I clarify the link between thismodel and other theories of autonomous learning.

Motivation Theories
The Classroom Motivation Model oﬀers a simple construct that explains classroom motivationand justifies a special focus on the facilitation of a productive group learning environment. It
draws mainly from the fields of sports psychology, group psychotherapy, education, andpersonal teaching experience. The model is also influenced by various motivation and groupdynamics theories. First is Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), a subtheory of Self
Determination Theory (SDT). By focusing on the social environment of the classroom, CET
facilitates intrinsic motivation by supporting the students’ innate psychological needs (Ryan &Deci, 2000).
The Classroom Motivation Model also draws from sequential stage theories of groupdevelopment As the name suggests, sequential stage group development theories assume thatgroups move through stages of development. Ehrman and Dornyei (1998) have developed afour-stage model of this theory relating to the second language classroom (see Figure 1). Thesestages are formation, transition, performing, and dissolution. The formation stage starts whengroups first come together and is a period of orientation and ice-breaking. The transition stage
is characterized by conflict and resolution, or “storming and norming” (Tuckman, 1965, p. 396),
where group members work through conflicts and diﬀerences before accepted behavior
patterns emerge and the group matures into a unified, organized and cooperative unit. At thisstage, the group has developed into a cohesive, performing unit. Dissolution begins when thesequence of developmental stages ends and the group breaks up. Awareness of these stages ofgroup development helps us to predict how a group might behave at any given time in its
development. This awareness is also particularly important when developing groupperformance, because a group will not be able to perform to its potential until it has reached
the phase of development that supports it.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

47

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

Figure 1. Ehrman and Dörnyei’s Group Development model (based on Ehrman & Dörnyei,
1998).

Another motivational theory that underlies the Classroom Motivation Model is Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs (1943) (see Figure 2). Maslow maintains that we all have varying levels ofneeds, and that the lower-level needs must be met before we can progress to the next higher
level. For example, our most basic needs are physiological. We need things like food, shelter,and sleep, and these needs must be mostly satisfied before we become interested in the nextlevel: safety. The key point that relates to classroom motivation is that higher needs, such as
language learning and personal growth, are unlikely to be met if a basic need for security has
not been satisfied first.

Figure 2. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (based on Maslow, 1943).

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

48

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

The Classroom Motivation Model
The model I introduce here has five levels (see Figure 3). The bottom four levels—structure,
trust, cohesion and performance—can be seen as steps leading to group development, while
the fifth level represents personal growth. The levels are not mutually exclusive; however, eachlevel is built on the one that precedes it. Performance is the primary aim of the model in theclassroom, and the stages leading to performance focus on what the group needs to realize thisaim. At the performance stage, which is similar to Erhman and Dörnyei’s (1998) performing
stage, the group has matured into a unified, organized, and cooperative unit in action. The
group’s interpersonal relationships and group processes have been enhanced, the group has
become important to its members, and students are interacting freely and willingly to achieve
their group aims. In other words, the quality and quantity of interaction has been optimized
and the performance goal has been reached. Once the students have reached the stage where
they have matured as a group, and are achieving optimal performance as part of their group,
they are ready to progress as individuals to the final stage. Here sits the ultimate goal of
personal growth. In the context of a communicative classroom, this ultimate aim provides
further potential to extend student performance and maintain motivation. Let’s take a look at
the steps in detail.

Figure 3. The Classroom Motivation Model.
Structure
The Classroom Motivation Model begins by focusing on structure. Structure refers to both
physical and the social structure, and is the basic foundation upon which all progressive levelsof the model are built. Physical structure refers to the tangible environment the students study
in: the room size, seating arrangements, and lighting, for example. Social structure refers to“the pattern of relationships that emerges among its members” (Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998, p.
76). Whether we recognize it or not, right from the very first time students are assembled into
Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

49

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedingsa group, a structure begins to develop. During this time, peer relations, status hierarchies, roleand norm systems are developing that will prevail for a long time (Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998, p.
110; Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003, p. 12, pp. 14-15). Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) emphasize that
this is a very important period in a group’s life (p. 12). While on the surface things might seemsmooth and harmonious during the initial classes, under the surface, plenty of structuring andinternal organization is going on (p. 12, pp. 14-15). With a little input in the right places at theright times, the teacher can influence the way that structure develops, and encourage a positive
group environment to evolve.
According to MacLennon and Dies (1992), the physical environment of the classroom aﬀects
not only the climate and quality of interaction, but also how the group will evolve. In order for
students to develop into one cohesive group, they need to look and feel like one group. If there
is too much space between students, they can experience feelings of insignificance, emptiness,isolation, and anxiety (p. 22). These feelings can encourage subgroups and cliques to develop,
and will result in a fractured group. As Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998) suggest, “Physical closenesstends to lead to psychological closeness” (p. 143). Students should not be seated so close
together that they feel crowded or confined, but neither should they be seated too far apart(MacLennon & Dies, 1992, p. 22). One practical idea is to provide an organized seating plan. A
grid system usually works best. Bring the students in together and give each a designated seat.
This immediately alleviates student anxiety over where they should sit. This organization will
provide three important elements for developing a group: proximity, contact, and interaction(Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998, pp. 142-144).
Once the class physically resembles a group, it is time to start working on the social structure.
One way to encourage a positive social structure is by working on a set of class rules with thestudents. Let them know that this is their class, and that they should have their own rules.
Give them examples, and then together discuss what kinds of rules they might like for theirclass. Next, brainstorm the rules on the board, and then, go through a process of negotiation.
Negotiation is important because students will likely come up with some untenable ideas.
However, through a process of negotiation the teacher and students can come to an agreementthat suits both parties. Some common examples of class rules from in my own classes include:·

We can drink in class.

·

If we finish our work, we can leave early.

·

We must have a class party.

Each of these student-generated class rules contributes to the development of a positive
learning environment. The negotiation of a rule to allow drinks in class, for example (acompromise on the usual ban on eating and drinking), helps students personalize theclassroom. The decision to leave once the work is done motivates them to work hard andrewards them for doing so. A class party always creates a great opportunity for the teacher toreward the students for their hard work with something they will not only all enjoy, but thatSpecial Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

50

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

will also contribute to developing a positive group dynamic. A party is also a helpful way tomotivate students for a final project or assessment. By encouraging them to work hard towards
a major goal, and scheduling a party to celebrate its completion, the two become associatedtogether and the students have something to look forward to, knowing that their hard work is
not solely for assessment purposes.
Student-generated class rules also influence the basis of the social structure, and help toestablish a norm system. A positive norm system is essential for a good class. As Forsyth (2010)
explains, “Norms are a fundamental element of a group’s structure, for they provide direction
and motivation, organize social interactions, and make other people’s responses predictable
and meaningful” (p. 145). In this way, the rules help to guide accepted norms of classroom
behavior. Consequently, as Cohen (1994) observes, an accepted norm system has the eﬀect oftransferring control from the teacher to the students:
Much of the work that teachers usually do is taken care of by the students themselves;the group helps to keep everyone on task; group members assist one another. Instead of
the teacher having to control everyone’s behavior, the students take charge ofthemselves and others. (p. 60)
A final advantage to involving students in developing a set of class rules is that these rules help
to personalize the class and give the students a sense of ownership and control—in otherwords, autonomy.
The emphasis on structure may seem somewhat restrictive. However, we can’t have freedom
without some constraint. Stewart and Irie (2011) point out that "… freedom and constraint areheld in direct dialectical relationship to each other, and that this tension between freedom andconstraint is particularly salient for teachers who base their classroom practices on theprinciple of learner autonomy" (p. 14). As they point out, one of the traditional roles of theteacher, and institutions, is to provide structure in order to manage and control the process oflearning (p. 15). Of course, there is a need for a balance between freedom and constraint.
However, establishing some structure provides the students with a basic stable framework
within which they can thrive. Structure in the form of classroom norms, for example, provides
the students with an ability to understand what is expected of them, and security comes fromthat understanding. This, in turn, makes it easier for students to interact freely. Once a
structure has been established, then the groundwork will have been laid from which trust can
grow.
Trust
As Lencioni (2002) observes, trust lies at the heart of any functioning, cohesive team (p. 195).
Trust is the confidence among a group’s members that their classmates’ intentions are good,
and that there is no need to be defensive or careful around them (Lencioni, 2002, p. 195).
According to MacLennon and Dies (1992), trust is a willingness to risk self-exposure:Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

51

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

Trust implies expectation. When two people trust each other, they make demands on
the other to respond in a particular way. One has confidence in the predictability of theother, and anticipation that the other will respond in terms of what is needed, an
expectation that the other will not inflict hurt, and a belief in the other’s consistency.
(p. 19)Trust is especially important in a language class. Learning to speak a second language,especially at the lower levels, requires students to constantly risk potential embarrassment.
They will avoid interaction if they feel they might lose face and, thus, energy will be wasted on
avoiding potentially negative interactions and staying safe. These dysfunctional interactions
divert energy and attention away from group tasks (Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998, p. 2; Lencioni,
2002, p. 196). When students don’t trust each other, their resources are focused on simply
keeping themselves out of trouble. However, when a group’s participants do trust each other,
they are more willing to take risks, and they can focus their energy on group tasks.
The first step to developing trust is to encourage interaction. The teacher now needs toimplement ways for the students to share information about themselves in order to discoversimilarities and develop interpersonal attraction. Set up activities that facilitate interaction,such as, “Find-someone-who …” exercises, random pairing/grouping, and information-exchange
activities. We are drawn to people we have something in common with, and feel empathy
towards people with whom we share similarities. One important point is to get all of thestudents in the class mixing with as many other students as possible. If they mix only withthose they already feel comfortable with, then there is a danger of cliques developing. Random
pairing is important because it encourages students to invest in the whole group, rather thanjust their friends, since they never know who their next partner will be. When students knowthat they might be partners with someone in the future, it positively aﬀects how they regard
the others in the group (Erhman & Dörnyei, 1998, p. 143). When a level of trust has developed,
and the participants are interacting freely, then it’s time to develop the cohesion.
Cohesion
Structure, trust, and cohesion are all closely related. Structure provides the basic proximity,
contact, interaction, and security that will facilitate the development of trust. Whereas trust
helps the group to function eﬀectively, interpersonal relationships build the cohesion that will
power the group’s performance. Without first establishing trust, cohesion would never havethe opportunity to develop. Cohesion grows out of the confidence to take the risks that trust
provides. Lind (1999) describes the relationship between trust and cohesion thus:… mutual trust must be built between group members before the group can becohesive. The mutual trust between group members then results in the group members
interacting with each other to a greater degree. When a high level of group trust exists,
the group members will feel more tightly bound and connected into the group
activities. Thus group cohesiveness emerges from group trust. (p. 859)

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

52

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

The cohesion level in this model also draws on the ideas from the field of social psychology.
Ryan and Deci (2000) maintain that we have three basic psychological needs that enhance
motivation and mental health—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—which, whenthwarted, lead to diminished motivation and well-being. The cohesion stage of the model
appeals to the need for relatedness by supplying the students with a social context within
which they can satisfy this need. Similarly, this stage also relates to Maslow’s (1943) love/
belonging level of needs, as well as to Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) Need to Belong Theory,
which maintains that human beings have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least aminimum number of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships. This need tobelong is considered a fundamental human motivator (p. 497).
To maintain the cohesiveness of the class as a whole, students must be given opportunities tointeract with all the other members of the group. Changing partners often, and with a sense of
randomness, remains important throughout the course. Cohesion is the glue that binds a groupof people together. That glue is made up of all the interpersonal relationships sharedthroughout the group. The strength of the bonds shared by the participants determines thedegree of cohesion of the group. As all these interpersonal relationships are woven throughout
the group, binding all the members together, the group starts to resemble a tapestry. If you pull
the corner of a tapestry in one direction, the rest will follow. Just like a tapestry, if you
encourage a cohesive group to move in one direction, they will move together.
Social structure, trust, and cohesion are all intangible elements. However, you can sense thecohesion in a class that has it. This is the class where students hang around after the bell andlook like they don’t want to leave. You can also recognize the absence of cohesion in a classthat doesn’t have it. This is the class where, after the bell has gone, they can’t wait to get out
the door!
Performance
Once structure, trust, and cohesion have been established, the group has matured. They should
now be a unified, organized, and cooperative unit. Up until this point, the focus has been on
removing barriers to group performance. Now it is time to focus on motivating the group to
optimize performance. Three areas of opportunity for increasing motivation at this level lie in
intensifying the interpersonal relationships, working on the group members’ social identity,and providing optimal challenge.
Referring again to the model, it is worth noting that Evans and Dion (1991) found groupcohesion and performance are positively related. When a group is high in cohesion, therelationships the students have with each other become the source of motivation. Maslow’s(1943) Hierarchy of Human Needs again oﬀers some insight into this idea. Once we haveprogressed up through the levels of physiological needs, safety, and need to belonging, we cometo the level of the need for esteem. At this level, we are looking for positive reinforcement, andhere is the connection between cohesion and motivation. The strong bonds that the students
have developed at the cohesion level will lead the students to seek respect and positive
Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

53

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

reinforcement from the classmates with whom they share these bonds, motivating them to try
harder, do better, and achieve more.
Another idea for increasing motivation at the performance level is to increase students’
identification with the group. Social identity theory suggests that when individuals derive theirsense of self and identity from the group, they expend extra eﬀort for their group (Forsyth,2010, p. 298). Therefore, the more important the group is to them, the harder the students will
work because they will not want to let their fellow group members down.
One simple but eﬀective way to increase social identification is to take a group photo. The
group photograph establishes each student as part of the group. Combined with a positive
group experience, the group photo will reinforce a sense of belonging to a rewarding group,and this helps make the group more important. So, early on in the group’s life, take thestudents outside, or have a class party, and take a group photo of them having fun. Then usethat photo on some classroom worksheet, for example, so that they each get a copy of it tokeep and look back on.
The third motivational consideration is aiming for optimal challenge. Both the concepts of
SDT and flow are important here. CET, a subtheory of SDT, emphasizes the psychologicalneed for competence. Similarly, Csikszentmihalyi’s (2001) concept of flow also calls for clear
proximal goals (p. 90). This means that to activate intrinsic motivation, tasks need to be at alevel where the students are neither bored because the task is too easy, nor overloaded because
the task is too diﬃcult. What is needed is a Goldilocks factor of optimal challenges that will
foster competence. Recounting an interview with Csikszentmihalyi for the New York Times,
Goleman (1995) relates that Csikszentmihalyi told him:
People seem to concentrate best when the demands on them are a bit greater thanusual, and they are able to give more than usual. If there is too little demand on them,people are bored. If there is too much for them to handle, they get anxious. Flow occurs
in that delicate zone between boredom and anxiety (p. 92).
Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi (2001) further relate how people in a “flow” state experience
the activity itself as intrinsically rewarding, they lose track of time, their awareness merging
with their actions as they become intensely focused on what they are doing at the present
moment (p. 90). I believe this concept of flow resonates with the classroom motivation model
introduced here.
To increase investment in a relationship, students need to take more risk with regard to trust.
As suggested earlier, in the early stages of developing the students’ relationships, we might
facilitate ways for them to discover similarities they have with each other, because this leads tointerpersonal attraction. But to make those bonds grow stronger, they need to share
incrementally more intimate information about, for example, their strengths and weaknesses,or their greatest fears. By taking more interpersonal risk, and investing higher levels of trust,the interpersonal bonds grow stronger and the relationships intensify. The stronger theSpecial Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

54

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

relationships are, the harder the students will work for each other. Therefore, at this level, we
need to include activities that will strengthen those interpersonal relationships.
As for aiming for optimal challenge, this of course relies on the teacher’s judgment andautonomy. Teachers can also be challenged by institutional constraints here, for example.
However, with adequate course flexibility, a good project that works here is small group poster
presentations. Both the ideas of CET and flow also outline a need for feedback on progress(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70; Nakamura & Csikszenmihalyi, 2001, p. 90). Poster presentations
oﬀer an opportunity to break the project up into smaller steps that can be achieved moreeasily. These steps can then be aimed at the appropriate level of challenge. Poster presentation
projects also oﬀer an opportunity for students to work towards, and receive, positive
reinforcement from both their classmates and the teacher. Each step is rehearsed, and eachpresentation is given multiple times, allowing students to practice, improve, and impress.
Performance has been the primary aim of the model up to this point. For any course, this is agood initial aim. However, when teachers have adequate autonomy to tailor a course to theirstudents needs, then the ultimate goal of the model—personal growth—oﬀers significant
potential to extend performance and maintain motivation.
Personal Growth
Up until this point the focus has been on group needs. However, at the apex of the hierarchy,
the focus shifts to the individual. Personal growth sits at the top of the pyramid because, as
humanistic psychologists like Maslow and Rogers have pointed out, personal growth is an
inherent human need (Dörnyei, 2001, p.8). Once the group has reached the level of
performance, personal growth as a higher goal oﬀers the potential to maintain, or extend,
motivation.
In the context of a class, keeping students motivated after a major project has been completed
can be diﬃcult. A class that has high levels of cohesion may start to focus more on social
relationships for interpersonal reinforcement; thus, getting them back on task can bechallenging. I had this exact problem with a year-long course I had been teaching for a number
years. I seemed to be able to get the students motivated to perform in the first semester, but,in the second semester, it was diﬃcult to get the group refocused and on task. To make mattersworse, this particular class was taken in the students’ third year and many of the students werepreoccupied with job hunting. Their school days were coming to an end and they werethinking a lot more about what they were going to do after they finished school, rather thanwhat they were doing in school.
I thought about where they were in life and how I could tailor the classroom content aroundsomething that might hold significance in the next stage of their lives. If I could deliver
something that rewarded them in terms of personal growth, then maybe I could reengage
them. Following this thought process, and after having some success with using identity andvalues as content in previous courses, I came up with the idea of writing personal mission
statements. Much like a company writes a mission statement that clarifies its identity, its
Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

55

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

values, and its goals, we started a project that explored each of these elements in the context ofthe students’ own life. We explored the notion of identity, and the students then used it toclarify their own identities. This helped the students to discover what is important to them,
how people relate to them, and who they are. We also explored the notion of values and learnt
about how values influence our decisions. The last topic we explored was the importance ofgoals, and the students set some life goals. Finally, the students drafted and peer edited
personal mission statements. Their peers were people they respected, such as their parents,
brothers, sisters, teachers, or best friends. I supplied a worksheet prompting peers to commenton specific areas of the students’ mission statements. When the students brought their peer
feedback to the class, the comments were shared and used to redraft and improve theirstatements. By the end of the project the students had defined who they were, what was
important to them, what they wanted out of life, and all these things (their identity, values, andgoals) had been influenced and reinforced by their peers. Throughout the project, they learned
a lot about themselves and how others perceived them.
The group dynamic supported the conditions necessary for achieving personal growth. The
students had high levels of trust in each other, and their group members’ opinions were
important to them. These conditions helped the students to remain engaged and motivated in
the English class as they reached towards the ultimate level of the Classroom Motivation
Model; that of personal growth.

Conference Workshop Experience
The model presented above is a staged approach to developing motivation in the classroom. I
have found it an eﬀective basis for managing classes, and the Realizing Autonomy conference
provided a timely opportunity to share it with others. Aiming to show how classroom
performance can be enhanced, the workshop took a collection of casual acquaintances (theworkshop participants) and endeavored to turn them into a cohesive, performing group.
About 20 participants came to the workshop. The first step was to pair everyone up and seatthem all in a semicircle. In this way, a basic, physical group structure was initiated andparticipants started the workshop with proximity, contact and the ability to interact easily.
Next, I gave a brief overview of the Classroom Motivation Model and explained that the aimof the workshop was to develop our group in order to reach the Performance stage. We started
to build the group’s social structure by discussing a few basic rules along the lines of being
proactive, encouraging others, and participating equally. The rules helped the participants tounderstand what was expected of them and created an environment in which trust could grow.
Once friendly interpersonal relationships had been established throughout the group, and trust
had started to develop, we worked on developing group cohesion and then on intensifying
those relationships. We began by sharing non-intrusive information, but, gradually, through aseries of trust-building activities, the participants were challenged to share incrementally more
personal information as their levels of trust developed. I monitored their responsiveness orSpecial Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

56

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

resistance to the activities during this process, and these were used as indicators to determine
when the group was ready to advance to the next level of interpersonal risk-taking. In this way,
the participants were increasing interpersonal investment, sharing incrementally more personal
information, developing their interpersonal relationships, and these all resulted instrengthening the cohesive bonds.
The final task tested the proposition that we can increase performance by developing thegroup dynamics and combining these with individual motivational drives. The participants
were regrouped, given another short task to establish their new subgroup’s dynamic, and thenwere told a story. The story had five characters. Each character had a flaw, and the task for eachgroup was to retell the story, discuss the merits of each character, and, together, place thecharacters in order from best to worst. The real purpose of the task was to demonstrate how
the enhanced interpersonal relationships and group process facilitated reaching theperformance level as the participants discussed the story. Throughout the exercise, therelationships were enhanced, the participants were proactive, and communication flowed
freely. In the final summary and feedback segment of the workshop, the participants indicatedthat we had successfully demonstrated the eﬀectiveness of enhancing performance bydeveloping group dynamics.

Reflection
Although somewhat artificial, the workshop simulation seemed to be a success. Building astrongly bonded, highly productive group takes more time than the workshop really allowed.
However, the final task suggested that, by focusing on the diﬀerent steps in succession,building interpersonal relationships and developing the group, we were able to enhance
performance. The feedback at the end of the workshop, and informal discussions withparticipants afterward, reinforced this idea.
On a personal level, the workshop was rewarding for me, too. Discussing personal experienceswith participants, both about their classes and about the workshop, helped me to understandhow others grapple with the concepts I presented. These discussions gave me confidence inthe model as the stages I proposed were generally accepted by the participants.

From Structure to Autonomy
Setting up the conditions in which students can achieve personal growth starts by establishinggroup structure. On the physical level, this means ensuring group proximity, contact, and theability to interact freely. Combined with social structure, it assists the establishment ofinterpersonal trust, and as trust develops throughout the group, it will lead to strong
interpersonal relationships. Developing these interpersonal relationships also assists thedevelopment of student autonomy. Little (2009) advocates that interdependence andautonomy are basic human needs, and elsewhere states that “learner autonomy, which implies
Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

57

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

freedom from the control of others, turns out to be the product of interactive processes thatare characterized not by independence but by interdependence” (Little, Ridley, & Ushioda, 2002,
p. 7, italics author’s own). This point fits in with the Classroom Motivation Model where thefocus, in the initial stages, is on developing interpersonal relationships within the group. The
model highlights the importance of building group structure as an essential precursor todeveloping constructive, interdependent relationships in which learners are encouraged topush themselves to excel, and from which they can achieve personal growth. Students cannot
operate in the group freely until they feel secure and trust the whole group. Only when thegroup has structure and trust will they feel relatively free to focus on their learning goals.
When a classroom group becomes cohesive, students act as one group, rather than as a
fragmented collection of individuals. At this level of development, the teacher can hand overincrementally more direction of the class to the students. This feeds the students’ need forautonomy, giving them input into their own learning goals and exploiting their own
motivations to design and facilitate new activities, allowing them to ultimately reach towards
personal growth.
The interpersonal relationships we share in a classroom are one of the most importantelements of teaching and learning. Palmer (1998) stated that “teachers possess the power tocreate conditions that can help students learn a great deal—or keep them from learning muchat all”, and that “teaching is the intentional act of creating those conditions” (p. 7). By
developing a positive, supportive learning environment, teachers can free students to focus on
their learning goals. Although, perhaps, not all classes may reach the performance level—letalone personal growth—the advantages of developing a strongly bonded, smoothly functioning
group will always yield some reward in enhanced performance. We cannot guarantee that all
students will learn or grow in our classes, but we can help create a motivating environment inwhich this is possible.

Steven Paydon has been teaching English in Australia, Taiwan, and Japan since 1993. He started
teaching with an undergraduate degree in Asian Studies, added a certification in TESOL, and then an
MA in Applied Linguistics. He has been teaching at the Tokai University Foreign Language Center since2001. His research interests genera#y revolve around motivation, in particular group dynamics, with a
specific focus on interpersonal relationships in the classroom.
To cite this article: Paydon, S. (2012). Developing a motivational learning environment. In K. Irie & A. Stewart(Eds.), Proceedings of the JALT Learner Development SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference, [Special issue]
Learning Learning, 19(2), 46-59. Retrieved from http://ld-sig.org/LL/19two/paydon.pdf

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

58

LD SIG Realizing Autonomy Conference Proceedings

References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bu#etin, 117(3), 497-529.
Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. E., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education: The
visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Sma#Group Research, 22, 175-186.
Forsyth, D. (2010). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional inte#igence. New York: Random House.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lind, M. (1999). The relationship between trust and cohesion in temporary knowledge work
teams. AMCIS 1999 Proceedings. Paper 301. Downloaded from http://aisel.aisnet.org/
amcis1999/301
Little, D. (2009). Learner autonomy, the European Language Portfolio and teacher
development. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.), Maintaining control:
Autonomy and language learning (pp. 147-173). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Little, D., Ridley, J., & Ushioda, E. (2002). Towards greater autonomy in the foreign language
classroom. Dublin: Authentik.
MacLennon, B., & Dies, K. (1992). Group counseling and psychotherapy with adolescents (2nd ed.).
New York: Colombia University Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M., (2001). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.
Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55(1) 68-78.
Stewart, A., & Irie, K. (2012). Realizing autonomy: Contradictions in practice and context. In
K. Irie & A. Stewart (Eds.), Realizing autonomy: Practice and reflection in language education
contexts (pp. 1-17). Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bu#etin, 62,384-399.

Special Issue of Learning Learning, Volume 19, Issue 2, July 2012（学習の学習特別号）!

59