The Myers-Briggs test revived the work of Carl Jung of a half-century earlier. Jung (1923) said that people are different in fundamental ways, andthat an individual has preferences for "functioning" in ways that are characteristic, or "typical," of that particular individual. Jung's work was all but, forgotten with the boom of behavioristic psychology in the middle pin the century, but we have now returned to a recognition of the acute importance of individual variation, especially in the realm of education. Borrowing from some of Jung's "types," the Myers-Briggs team tested four dichotomous styles of functioning in the Myers-Briggs test: (1) introversion versus extroversion, (2) sensing versus intuition, (3) thinking versus feeling, and (4) judging versus perceiving. Table 6.1 on page 158 defines the four categories (Keirsey & Bates 1984: 25-26) in simple words and phrases.
The Extroversion-Introversion (E/I) category relates to an aspect of personality already discussed in this chapter, the way we either "turn inward" or 'turn outward" for our sense of wholeness and self-esteem. The Sensing-Intuition (S/N) category has to do with the way we perceive and "take in" the world around us. Sensing types are data-oriented and empirically inclined to stick to observable, measurable facts, while intuitive types are more willing to rely on hunches, inspiration, and imagination for perceiving reality. The Thinking-Feeling (T/F) category describes ways of arriving at conclusions and of storing reality in memory. Thinking types are generally cognitive, objective, impartial, and logical. Feeling involves more affectivity, a desire for harmony, a capacity for warmth, empathy, and compassion. Myers and Briggs extended beyond Jung's types to add the Judging-Perceiving (J/P) dichotomy, which has to do with one's attitude toward the "outer world." "Js" want closure, planning, organization, while "Ps" are spontaneous, flexible, and comfortable with open-ended contexts.
With four two-dimensional categories, sixteen personality profiles, or combinations, are possible. Disciples of the Myers-Briggs research (Keirsey & Bates 1984, for example) describe the implications of being an "ENFJ" or an "ISTP," and all the fourteen other combinations of types. Managers are aided in their understanding of employees by understanding their character type. ISTJs, for example, make better behind-the-scenes workers on jobs that require meticulous precision, while ENFPs might be better at dealing with the public. Young people seeking a career can understand better how certain occupations might be more or less suited to them by knowing their own character type. Lawrence (1984) stressed the importance of a teacher's understanding the individual differences of learners in a classroom: Es will excel in group work; Is will prefer individual work; SJs are "linear learners with a strong need for structure" (p. 52); NTs are good at paper-and-pencil tests. The generalizations are many.
What might all this have to do with the second language learner? A few studies (Carrell, Prince, & Astika 1996; Ehrman 1989, 1990; Ehrman & Oxford 1989, 1990, 1995; Moody 1988; Oxford & Ehrman 1988) have sought to discover a link between Myers-Briggs types and second language learning. Notable among these is Ehrman and Oxford's (1990) study of seventy-nine foreign language learners at the Foreign Service Institute. They found that their subjects exhibited some differences in strategy use, depending on their Myers-Briggs type. For example, extroverts (E) used social strategies consistently and easily, while introverts (I) rejected them.
Table 6.1. Myers-Briggs character types
| Extroversion (E) | Introversion (I) |
| SociabilityInteractionInterest in external eventsBreadthExtensiveMultiplicity of relationshipsExpenditure of energiesInterest in external events | TerritoriallyConcentrationInternalDepthIntensiveLimited relationshipsConservation of energiesInterest in internal reaction |
| Sensing (s) | Intuition (N) |
| SensiblePastRealisticPerspiration ActualDown-to-earthUtilityFactPracticalitySensible | Hunches FutureSpeculativeInspiration PossibleHead-in-cloudsFantasyFictionIngenuityImaginative |
| Thinking (T) | Feeling (F) |
| ObjectivePrinciplesPolicyLawsCriterionFirmnessImpersonalJusticeCategoriesStandardsCritiqueAnalysisAllocation | SubjectiveValuesSocial valuesExtenuating circumstancesIntimacyPersuasionPersonalHumaneHarmonyGood or badAppreciativeSympathyDevotion |
| Judging (J) | Perceiving (P) |
| SettledDecidedFixedPlan aheadRun one's lifeClosureDecision-makingPlannedCompletedDecisiveWrap it upUrgencyDeadline!Get the show on the road | PendingGather more dataFlexibleAdapt as you goLet fife happenOpen optionsTreasure huntingOpen endedEmergentTentativeSomething will turn upThere's plenty of timeWhat deadline?Let's wait and see . . . |
Sensing (S) students displayed a strong liking for memory strategies; intuitives (N) were better at compensation strategies. The T/F distinction yielded the most dramatic contrast: thinkers (T) commonly used metacognitive strategies and analysis, while feelers (F) rejected such strategies; and feelers used social strategies while thinkers did not. And judgers 0) rarely used the affective strategies that the perceivers (P) found so useful. These findings notwithstanding, we should not be too quick to conclude that psychological type can predict successful and unsuccessful learning, as the authors readily admit. In another study, Ehrman (1989) outlined both the assets and the liabilities of each side of the Myers-Briggs continuum (see Table 6.2).
Table 6.2. Assets and liabilities of Myers-Briggs Types (Ehrman 1989)
| Major Assets Associated with Each Preference | |
| - Extraversion- Introversion- Perceiving- Intuition- Thinking- Feeling- judging- Sensing | - Willing to take conversational risks- Concentration, self-sufficiency- Hard, systematic work; attention to detail, close observation- Inferencing and guessing from context, structuring own training, conceptualizing and model-building- Analysis, self-discipline; instrumental motivation- Integrative motivation, bonding with teachers, good relations lead to good self-esteem- Systematic work, get the job (whatever it is) done- Open, flexible, adaptable to change and new experiences |
| Major Liabilities Associated with Each Preference (Note: Not all students showed these liabilities.) | |
| - Extraversion- Introversion- Perceiving- Intuition- Thinking- Feeling- Judging- Sensing | - Dependent on outside stimulation and interaction- Need to process ideas before speaking sometimes led to avoidance of linguistic risks in conversation- Hindered by lack of clear sequence, goals, syllabus, structure in language or course- Inaccuracy and missing important details, sought excessive complexity of discourse- Performance anxiety because self-esteem was attached to achievement, excessive need for control (language, process)- Discouraged if not appreciated, disrupted by lack of interpersonal harmony- Rigidity, intolerance of ambiguous stimuli- Laziness, inconsistent pacing over the long haul |
It would appear that success in a second language depends on the "mobilization of (a) the strategies associated with one's native learning style preferences (indicated by the four MBTI letters) and (b) the strategies associated with the less preferred functions that are the opposites of the four letters of a person's type" (Ehrman & Oxford 1990: 323). In other words, successful learners know their preferences, their strengths, and their weaknesses, and effectively utilize strengths and compensate for weaknesses regardless of their "natural" preferences.
Motivation is probably the most frequently used catch-all term for explaining the success or failure of virtually any complex task. It is easy toassume that success in any task is due simply to the fact that someone is "motivated." It is easy in second language learning to claim that a learner will be successful with the proper motivation. Such claims are of course not erroneous, for countless studies and experiments in human learning have shown that motivation is a key to learning (see Dornyei 1998). But these claims gloss over a detailed understanding of exactly what motivation is and what the subcomponents of motivation are. What does it mean to say that someone is motivated? How do you create, foster, and maintain motivation?
Various definitions of motivation have been proposed over the tours; of decades of research. Following the historical schools of thought described in Chapter 1, three different perspectives emerge:
1. From a behavioristic perspective, motivation is seen in very matter of fact terms. It is quite simply the anticipation of reward. Driven to acquire positive reinforcement, and driven by previous experiences of reward for behavior, we act accordingly to achieve further reinforcement. In this view, our acts are likely to be at the mercy of external forces.
2. In cognitive terms, motivation places much more emphasis on the individual's decisions, "the choices people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid, and the degree of effort they will exert in that respect" (Keller 1983:389). Some cognitive psychologists see underlying needs or drives as the compelling force behind our decisions. Ausubel (1968:368-379) for example, identified six needs undergirding the construct of
motivation:
a) the need for exploration, for seeing "the other side of the mountain," for probing the unknown;
b) the need for manipulation, for operating-to use Skinner's term—on the environment and causing change;
c) the need for activity, for movement and exercise, both physical and mental;
d) the need for stimulation, the need to be stimulated by the environment, by other people, or by ideas, thoughts, and feelings;
e) the need for knowledge, the need to process and internalize the results of exploration, manipulation, activity, and stimulation, to resolve contra dictions, to quest for solutions to problems and for self-consistent systems of knowledge;
f) finally, the need for ego enhancement, for the self to be known and to be accepted and approved of by others.
3. A constructivist view of motivation places even further emphasis on social context as well as individual personal choices (Williams & Burden 1997:120). Each person is motivated differently, and will therefore act on his or her environment in ways that are unique. But these unique acts are always carried out within a cultural and social milieu and cannot be completely separated from that context. Several decades ago, Abraham Maslow (1970) viewed motivation as a construct in which ultimate attainment of goals was possible only by passing through a hierarchy of needs, three of which were solidly grounded in community, belonging, and social status. Maslow saw motivation as dependent on the satisfaction first of fundamental physical necessities (air, water, food), then of community, security, identity, and self-esteem, the fulfillment of which finally leads to self-actualization.
The "needs" concept of motivation in some ways belongs to all three schools of thought: the fulfillment of needs is rewarding, requires choices, and in many cases must be interpreted in a social context. Consider children who are motivated to learn to read. They are motivated because they perceive the value (reward) of reading, they meet the needs of exploration, stimulation, knowledge, self-esteem, and autonomy, and they do so in widely varying ways and schedules and in the context of a society that values literacy. On the other hand, you may be unmotivated to learn a foreign language because you fail to see the rewards, connect the learning only to superficial needs (e.g., fulfilling a requirement), and see no possibility of a social context in which this skill is useful. (See Table 6.3 for a schematic representation of views of motivation.)
Table 6.3. Three views of motivation
| Behavioristic- anticipation of reward- desire to receive positive reinforcement - external, individual forces in control | Cognitive- driven by basic human needs (exploration, manipulation, etc.)- degree of effort expended- internal, interactive forces in control | Constructivist- social context- community- social status and- security of group- internal, individual forcesin control |
Motivation is something that can, like self-esteem, be global, situational, or task-oriented. Learning a foreign language requires some of all three levels of motivation. For example, a learner may possess high “global” motivation but low "task" motivation to perform well on, say, the written mode of the language. Motivation is also typically examined in terms of the intrinsic and extrinsic motives of the learner. Those who learn for their own self-perceived needs and goals are intrinsically motivated, and (in who pursue a goal only to receive an external reward from someone else are extrinsically motivated. (We will return to this extremely important concept.) Finally, studies of motivation in second language acquisition often refer to the distinction between integrative and instrumental orientations of the learner, which we now consider in the next section.
One of the best-known and historically significant studies of motivation in second language learning was carried out by Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert (1972). Over a period of twelve years they extensively studied foreign language learners in Canada, several parts of the United States, and the Philippines in an effort to determine how attitudinal and motivational factors affected language learning success. Motivation was examined as a factor of a number of different kinds of attitudes. Two different clustered attitudes divided two basic types of what Gardner and Lambert at that time identified as "instrumental" and "integrative" motivation. The instrumentalside of the dichotomy referred to acquiring a language as a means for attaining instrumental goals: furthering a career, reading technical materials, translation, and so forth. The integrative side described learners who wished to integrate themselves into the culture of the second language group and become involved in social interchange in that group.
It is important to digress here for a moment to note that in 1972, instrumentality and integrativeness were referred to as types of motivation. Anumber of years later, Gardner and Maclntyre (1991) more appropriately referred to the dichotomy as a case of orientation. That is depending on whether a learner's context or orientation was (a) academic or career-related (instrumental), or (b) socially or culturally oriented (integrative), different needs might be fulfilled in learning a foreign language. The importance of distinguishing orientation from motivation is that within either orientation, one can have either high or low motivation. One learner may be only mildly motivated to learn within, say, a career context, while another learner with the same orientation may be highly driven to succeed.
Gardner and Lambert (1972) and Spolsky (1969) found that integrativeness generally accompanied higher scores on proficiency tests in a foreign language. The conclusion from these studies was that integrativeness was indeed an important requirement for successful language learning. But evidence quickly began to accumulate that challenged such a claim. Yasmeen Lukmani (1972) demonstrated that among Marathi-speaking Indian students learning English in India, those with instrumental orientations scored higher in tests of English proficiency. Braj Kachru (1977, 1992) noted that Indian English is but one example of a variety of Englishes, which, especially in countries where English has become an international language, can be acquired very successfully for instrumental purposes alone.
In the face of claims and counter-claims about integrative and instrumental orientations, Au (1988) reviewed twenty-seven different studies of the integrative-instrumental construct and concluded that both its theoretical underpinnings and the instruments used to measure motivation were suspect. Because the dichotomy was based on notions about cultural beliefs, numerous ambiguities had crept into the construct, making it difficult to attribute foreign language success to certain presumably integrative or instrumental causes. Gardner and Maclntyre (1993) disputed Au's claims with strong empirical support for the validity of their measures. Nevertheless, to further muddy the waters, even Gardner found that certain contexts point toward instrumental orientation as an effective context for language success (Gardner & Maclntyre 1991), and that others favor an integrative orientation (Gardner, Day, & Maclntyre 1992).