Content uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali H. Al-Hoorie on Jun 16, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221102686
Language Teaching Research
1 –36
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13621688221102686
journals.sagepub.com/home/ltr
LANGUAGE
TEACHING
RESEARCH
Self-determination mini-
theories in second language
learning: A systematic review
of three decades of research
Ali H. Al-Hoorie
Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu, Saudi Arabia
W.L. Quint Oga-Baldwin
Waseda University, Japan
Phil Hiver
Florida State University, USA
Joseph P. Vitta
Kyushu University, Japan
Abstract
Self-determination theory is one of the most established motivational theories both within second
language learning and beyond. This theory has generated several mini-theories, namely: organismic
integration theory, cognitive evaluation theory, basic psychological needs theory, goal contents
theory, causality orientations theory, and relationships motivation theory. After providing an up-
to-date account of these mini-theories, we present the results of a systematic review of empirical
second language research into self-determination theory over a 30-year period (k = 111). Our
analysis of studies in this report pool showed that some mini-theories were well-represented
while others were underrepresented or absent from the literature. We also examined this
report pool to note trends in research design, operationalization, measurement, and application
of self-determination theory constructs. Based on our results, we highlight directions for future
research in relation to theory and practice.
Keywords
autonomous, controlled, extrinsic, intrinsic, self-determined, systematic review
Corresponding author:
Joseph P. Vitta, Faculty of Languages and Cultures, Kyushu University – Ito Campus, Fukuoka, 819-0395,
Japan.
Email: vittajp@flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp
1102686LTR0010.1177/13621688221102686Language Teaching ResearchAl-Hoorie et al.
research-article2022
Article
2 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
I Introduction
Since its inception in the 1970s and early 1980s, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci &
Ryan, 1985a) has become a major feature of empirical research in diverse fields, begin-
ning with psychology (Deci, 1972) and expanding over the decades into fields like sports
(Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009), business (Cerasoli et al., 2014), education (Skinner
et al., 2008), and foreign language learning (Noels et al., 2000; Sugita-McEown & Oga-
Baldwin, 2019). This reach into multiple domains and across cultural bounds (Chirkov,
2009) presents instruments, hypotheses, and theoretical principles for practice, with
similar principles from one field providing potential insight, information, and validation
to the same theory in another. Existing at the intersection of a philosophy of personal
well-being and empirical measurement, this theory aims to offer a robust framework for
creating interrelated hypotheses on optimal motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
SDT has been a mainstay of second language (L2) education since the late 1990s,
with work introducing the theory by Kimberly Noels and colleagues (e.g. Noels et al.,
2000) extended by subsequent work with her students in the following decades (Noels
et al., 2019; Sugita-McEown et al., 2014). Though SDT has been eclipsed, numerically,
by other theories in the intervening years (Boo et al., 2015), its impact has remained
strong – perhaps due to its theoretical and empirical consistency. That is, SDT research
in the interim has indicated its robust applicability in multiple language learning con-
texts, including elementary school (Carreira, 2012), secondary school (Fryer & Oga-
Baldwin, 2019), university (Joe et al., 2017), online learning (K.C. Chen & Jang, 2010),
and independent language learning (Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2022), with studies rep-
resenting each of these contexts in multiple cultural settings, including China (C. Chen
et al., 2021), Iran (Karbakhsh & Safa, 2020), Malaysia (Khong & Kabilan, 2020) and
Saudi Arabia (Alamer & Lee, 2021), in addition to the more commonly represented sam-
ples found in the United States (Davis, 2020), the UK (Parrish, 2020), Belgium (Rogiers
et al., 2020), and Canada (Noels et al., 2019).
Given the scope, breadth, and depth of the broader theory and its interrelated mini-
theories (Ryan & Deci, 2017), L2 research has primarily focused on only a portion of the
facets and explanations that SDT can offer (Sugita-McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019). In
this review, we present an updated explanation of SDT based on current literature (Ryan
& Deci, 2020; Ryan et al., 2021), offer evidence for the over-representation of certain
aspects of SDT and under-representation of others, and describe specific ways that lan-
guage researchers can explore self-determined motivation using up-to-date methods and
fresh theoretical questions.
1 Literature review: The SDT mini-theories
a Organismic integration theory. The most popular SDT mini-theory is organismic inte-
gration theory. This mini-theory posits that the diverse motives that arise from outside of
a learner exist on a continuum from lack of motivation to forms of extrinsic motivation
and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Having no motivation for a task or topic,
amotivation, indicates lack of value, excessive difficulty, or burdensome time costs
(Fryer et al., 2014; Legault et al., 2006). Fully external regulation of motivation is the
Al-Hoorie et al. 3
desire to avoid punishments or gain short-term rewards. Motives that come from guilt,
shame, or a desire to please significant others (e.g. teachers, parents, or peers) with per-
formance fall under ‘introjected regulation’. More internalized motives, titled ‘identified
regulation’, may come from a desire to do well, such as being able to use a foreign lan-
guage effectively. When learners feel a sense of congruence with their conception of self,
this is labeled ‘integrated regulation’. Finally, ‘intrinsic regulation’ is representative of
intrinsic motivation, a desire to do the task for the feelings of achievement, enjoyment,
or value that they bring to the learner. In numerous studies, these regulations are grouped
into ‘autonomous motivation’, comprised of identified and intrinsic regulations, and
‘controlled motivation’, comprised of introjected and extrinsic regulations (see Oga-
Baldwin & Fryer, 2018; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009;). Recent meta-analytic work cor-
roborates the link between autonomous motives and the promotion of learning,
well-being, and persistence in school, as well as the prevention of negative outcomes
such as anxiety, depression, and dropout (Howard et al., 2021).
When discussing self-determined motivation, the topic of intrinsic motivation and the
continuum of motives/orientations/regulations that connects with it is perhaps the most
recognizable. Multiple instruments have been developed to measure this continuum,
including the Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989), which is freely
available through the Center for Self-Determination Theory website (www.selfdetermi-
nationtheory.org) with translations into multiple languages. Other instruments include
the Academic Motivation scale (Chanal & Guay, 2015; Guay et al., 2014) and the
Language Learning Orientations Scale (Noels et al., 2000).
These instruments are recognizable in language education from work in the late 1990s
(Noels et al., 1999; Noels et al., 2000) and remain widely used (Alamer, 2021; Oga-
Baldwin & Fryer, 2020). Recent uses of these instruments have also involved methodo-
logical improvements. Latent variable modeling has increased the detail and understanding
using growth-curve modeling to show how students’ motivation develops and changes
over the course of a semester (Noels et al., 2019). New methods such as exploratory
structural equation modeling have supported the factor structure of the instruments with
new populations (Alamer, 2021). Person-centered profiling studies which track the
movement of students’ motivational quality over time and across different languages
(Liu & Oga-Baldwin, 2022; Oga-Baldwin & Fryer, 2018, 2020) have expanded the dis-
cussions on the idiographic nature of students’ motivational profiles (see Gillet et al.,
2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2008). These studies are useful for understanding the dynamic
nature of how learners’ motives change over time, while also offering insight into how
other covariates, such as the quality of engagement, self-efficacy, emotions, and other
environmental factors, may predict both individual- and group-level changes. Recent
results (Oga-Baldwin & Fryer, 2020) also align with Vallerand’s (1997) hypothesis that
motivation in schools is hierarchical, with school subjects nested within a more general-
ized motivation for schooling (Guay et al., 2014), further disconfirming aspects of the
Fundamental Difference Hypothesis that language motivation is somehow distinct from
other forms of motivation (see Al-Hoorie & Hiver, 2020).
b Cognitive evaluation theory. In promoting learners to move toward better quality motiva-
tion, interpersonal interactions can help learners develop internally regulated, sustainable
4 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
motives. Often applied to education (Reeve & Cheon, 2021), need support – especially
autonomy support – forms a crucial part of cognitive evaluation theory. In educational set-
tings, teachers can help students develop a sense of ownership for their learning by helping
nurture their inner motivational resources (Reeve & Jang, 2006). Through autonomy sup-
port, teachers work with learners to build feelings of investment and agency (Jang, Reeve,
et al., 2016). Similar to the idea of scaffolding, structure provides the guidance that learners
need to succeed in class, keeping them on task and providing clarity (Oga-Baldwin &
Nakata, 2015; Sugita-McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019). Involvement describes how indi-
viduals develop quality relationships in classroom settings, both teacher–pupil and peer-to-
peer (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). All three elements together promote need satisfaction and
engagement (Skinner et al., 2008), with the sum being greater than any single part (Jang
et al., 2010). Finally, external control illustrates how teachers, parents, and others in the
environment can thwart student motivation not through encouragement and nurturing, but
rather through coercion, unilateral authority, and resource control (Reeve & Jang, 2006).
Instruments to measure and interventions to test individuals’ cognitive evaluations are
well-established. The earliest studies contributing to SDT indicated the negative effects
of contingent rewards, a form of external control, on subsequent motivation and behavior
(Deci, 1972); these results have shown robust validity over time (Deci et al., 1999).
Applications in educational settings have made use of several survey instruments, includ-
ing the Learning Climate questionnaire (Black & Deci, 2000) and the Teacher as Social
Context questionnaire (Skinner, 1996). Most recently, the Situations in Schools instru-
ment (Aelterman et al., 2019) has been used to assess the social environment that teach-
ers create on four broad categories of autonomy support, structure, control, and chaos.
The theoretical map created by this circumplex model (Aelterman et al., 2019) with its
corresponding descriptions of the quality of teaching environments may further offer
novel directions for exploration. Studies involving these instruments and constructs in
general education consistently demonstrate the power of this theory to predict positive
motivational outcomes across contexts and samples (Bureau et al., 2022).
Research using the above instruments and modified forms also have sustained history
in language education (Fryer & Oga-Baldwin, 2019; Noels et al., 1999). Cross-sectional
studies indicate that learners benefit from increased autonomy support in the classroom
environment (Dincer et al., 2019; Joe et al., 2017; Khajavy et al., 2016). More commu-
nicative language classes in a Korean university showed greater relevance of intrinsic
motivation to learning outcomes, while more traditional classes were associated with a
more externally regulated source of motives (Pae & Shin, 2011). Parental support for
foreign language learning has similarly shown positive outcomes (Butler, 2015; Sugita-
McEown & McEown, 2019). Experimental results similarly indicate that increased con-
trol, in the form of extrinsic monetary rewards, can have a negative effect on students’
performance on vocabulary tests (Kuhbandner et al., 2016). In German secondary
schools, English as a foreign language classes where teachers provided increased support
were perceived as more motivating and interesting (Vieluf & Göbel, 2019).
In just this vein, other work has shown how the in-situ learning environment can sup-
port and thwart learners’ motivation. Examples illustrating the dynamic interaction
between the environment and intrinsic motivation have been mixed-methods studies
looking at how said motivation decreases over time (Busse, 2013; Busse & Walter, 2013;
Al-Hoorie et al. 5
Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2020). In a series of longitudinal studies on students studying
German in the UK, researchers showed that students lost intrinsic motivation to learn the
language when classes lacked intellectual challenge, when there was less interpersonal
communication in the language, and when teachers failed to teach students in a desired
fashion (Busse & Walter, 2013). Among elementary school children first exposed to
English classes, teachers who provided optimal autonomy support and structure through
appropriate classroom routines and language use were more able to engage students,
thereby increasing intrinsic motivation over the course of a year of study (Oga-Baldwin
& Nakata, 2020). These findings offer insight into the mechanisms for how interpersonal
environmental factors can help to nurture students, and how failing to meet desires and
expectations can negate their desire to learn and grow.
c Basic psychological needs theory. Following from the notion that the environment can
nurture or impair motivation arises the question of exactly what is being nurtured or
impaired. According to basic psychological needs theory, just as people have basic phys-
iological needs for health, such as nutritious food and adequate sleep, individuals’ opti-
mal intrinsic motivation has a basic need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). This mini-theory states that when learners feel competent at
a task, this can nurture their intrinsic motives (Ryan & Deci, 2017). When they feel con-
nected with the people around them, this is satisfaction of the need for relatedness (Fur-
rer & Skinner, 2003). When they feel a sense of autonomy – that is, a sense of purpose,
relevance, and volition in their behavior – they are likely to engage and feel right doing
so (Jang et al., 2009). Interrelated with cognitive evaluation theory, this mini-theory
indicates that these needs are met (or thwarted) in moment-to-moment interactions, suc-
cesses, failures, interpretations, and assessments, just as day-to-day life prompts indi-
viduals to feel a need for food, water, sleep, or exercise (Skinner, 1995). In the same way
that optimal physical well-being requires all of the physiological needs to be met, all
three needs are expected to be met in order to create intrinsic motivation. When these
needs are not met, optimal functioning becomes more difficult, and motivation may be
damaged when the needs are actively thwarted (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
The instrumentation supplying evidence for this mini-theory has been well-developed
and applied across a multitude of domains (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Studies in education and
language (Jang et al., 2012; Jang, Kim, et al., 2016; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015; Oga-
Baldwin et al., 2017) have made use of the Activity Feeling Scales (Reeve & Sickenius,
1994), and validated them as a measure of strongly interrelated needs. The most recent
cross-national, cross-cultural validations of the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction
and Frustration Scales (B. Chen et al., 2015) has indicated that the mini-theory can be
measured appropriately in a variety of contexts and languages.
Most research in education and other settings has treated psychological needs as a
mediating influence between external or environmental predictors and motivational or
behavioral outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Applications of basic psychological needs
theory to language learning are no exception to this (Joe et al., 2017; Oga-Baldwin et al.,
2017). Theoretically, the concept of need satisfaction and thwarting stands as the lens for
interpreting classroom events, prompting action based on whether the environment nur-
tures internal resources or frustrates them by exerting unwanted control (Jang, Kim,
6 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
et al., 2016). Empirical results have shown that the basic needs correlate with and predict
the different forms of motivational regulation (Agawa & Takeuchi, 2017; Carreira, 2012;
Hiromori, 2003; Noels, 2013). Additional research provides evidence for the mediating
role of the basic needs among international students for promoting well-being and pre-
venting depression (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). Recent work has shown that the three
basic needs mediate teachers’ belief in language learners’ potential for change onto stu-
dents’ self-confidence and failure avoidance strategies (Lou & Noels, 2020).
Consequently, these basic needs provide a clear mechanism for understanding what fuels
autonomous motivation both for school and language learning.
d Goal contents theory. According to goal contents theory, the intrinsic or extrinsic
quality of a goal can determine how long learners will persist at a task. Learners’ ‘intrin-
sic goals’ satisfy their basic needs which will improve their well-being and guide intrin-
sic motives. Intrinsic goals might be to make deep fulfilling friendships characterized by
trust and love; create and enjoy music, food or art; open new avenues for learning; and
build a sense of sustainable value (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006). ‘Extrinsic goals’ might be
comparable to the reasons shown by the often parodied shallow online influencer: These
goals push individuals to follow peer pressure; seek to make quick money; or want praise
from myriad family, friends, or strangers. While these goals can motivate in the short
term, they can also limit learners’ ability to express themselves in the long term. These
goals are an outgrowth of the organismic integration process described in the mini-the-
ory of the same name and nurtured by the other mini-theories (Ryan & Deci, 2017), but
should be distinguished in their temporal framing. Where the ‘why’ of organismic inte-
gration theory is representative of current feelings and internalized experiences, goal
contents theory is always oriented toward future outcomes.
This theory has seen significant attention in the field of general education, but intrin-
sic and extrinsic goals have generally been underrepresented in the literature on language
education (Lee & Bong, 2019). One notable study by Alamer and Lee (2019) made use
of SDT variables to build a model to predict basic needs, motivation, achievement goals,
and course learning. Need satisfaction predicted achievement goals, which in turn were
used to predict positive emotions and the different motivational regulations. Though the
study did not use intrinsic and extrinsic goals as such, it replicates work relating SDT,
achievement goals, and learning outcomes (Michou et al., 2014).
Methods from other fields such as psychology and educational psychology for assess-
ing and testing the quality of goals include both surveys (Kasser & Ryan, 1996), as well
as experimental studies on goal framing (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004; Vansteenkiste et al.,
2005; Vansteenkiste et al., 2008). The main survey instrument to assess the quality of
individuals’ life-goals with regard to vectors such as wealth, learning, and interpersonal
relationships is the Aspirations Index (Kasser & Ryan, 1996). This questionnaire meas-
ures individuals’ attitudes to these goals’ importance, likelihood, and current degree of
attainment. The questionnaire has been used in a variety of cultural settings (Nishimura
et al., 2020). Experimental treatments (e.g. Vansteenkiste et al., 2004) involve providing
participants with reasons for participation in the study that include helping communities
and benefiting future generations through the use of inclusive language such as ‘we ask’,
‘if you choose to participate’, and ‘if you are interested, more information can be found
Al-Hoorie et al. 7
. . .’ In contrast, controlling treatments justify the participation in terms of saving money
and beating competitors, using language such as ‘you must’, ‘you’d better’, and ‘you
should learn more about this topic at . . .’ Both of these main methods used in SDT stud-
ies have yet to be systematically used and applied to language learning research.
e Causality orientations theory. The framework of causality orientations theory (Ryan &
Deci, 2017; Weinstein et al., 2012) takes a personality-centered approach to motivation
(McAdams & Pals, 2006), with an eye toward using motivational orientations to deter-
mine generalized and systemic psychological functioning (Duriez, 2011). ‘Autono-
mously oriented’ individuals prefer to be self-starters, seeking their own path and
self-regulating their learning processes (Ryan & Deci, 2017). At the opposite, those with
a ‘controlled orientation’ are more comfortable in a passive role, preferring to take out-
side direction and respond to social pressure or external rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
These two alignments are somewhat contiguous with the dichotomies represented by
independence and interdependence (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), with key differences in
that they make no statement about how the self is defined, but rather represent a malle-
able personal orientation for how to act. Finally, an ‘impersonal orientation’ may indicate
that the learner does not believe any aspect of learning a language is within their control,
perhaps because they feel failure is likely (Amoura et al., 2013; Kwan et al., 2011). As
with organismic integrations theory, these orientations appear to exist simultaneously
within individuals, with each orientation represented at some level to form profiles (Hag-
ger & Hamilton, 2020).
Causality orientations have most often been measured by the General Causality Scale
(Deci & Ryan, 1985b). The scales are represented by a series of vignettes, and measure
individuals’ responses in line with an autonomous, controlled, or impersonal orientation
for each of the situations presented. More recently, Weinstein and colleagues (2012)
developed the Index of Autonomous Functioning, a survey instrument designed to meas-
ure individuals’ self-congruence, interest taking in their environment, and susceptibility
to external control. According to a recent meta-analysis by Hagger and Hamilton (2020),
studies employing causality orientations have consistently indicated the positive predic-
tive effect of autonomous orientation on autonomous motivation, with direct predictive
effects on behavior. Controlled orientations similarly predicted more controlled motiva-
tions, with weak negative effects on behavioral outcomes. Impersonal orientations nega-
tively predicted autonomous motivation and positively correlated with controlled
orientations, but had no effects on behaviors. Though results from this comprehensive
meta-analysis (Hagger & Hamilton, 2020) using samples from multiple countries and
cultures has shown the scope of these orientations, the question of whether the effects of
this personality-based approach to motivation are a clear fit with language learning
remains an open one.
Although the Language Learning Orientation Scale (Noels et al., 2000) uses the ter-
minology of orientations in line with that employed by Gardner (1985), it is theoretically
and practically much closer to organismic integrations theory in operation. As a theory
of personality rather than a theory of situational motives or reasons for action, existing
instruments and research (e.g. Sugita-McEown et al., 2014; Noels et al., 2000) can and
do show some inferential implications regarding autonomous, controlled, and
8 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
impersonal orientations based on proximity to certain cultural values and profiling
approaches, but the deeper personality theory has not been explored in the field of lan-
guage education. As indicated by the Hagger and Hamilton (2020) meta-analysis, causal-
ity orientations predict and correlate with autonomous and controlled motivations, but
key differences are also present.
f Relationships motivation theory. Relationships motivation theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017)
indicates that the relationships that meaningfully satisfy basic needs will develop strong,
lasting motivation. The quality of relationships with significant others will change the
way that individuals are motivated (Guay et al., 2013; Ratelle et al., 2012). High-quality
autonomy supportive interpersonal relationships nurture individuals’ basic needs for
autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Here, people feel that they are meaningfully
connected to others, that they are capable in the eyes of the people around them, and that
the values of the group are the values they themselves espouse. When these social ele-
ments are not met, individuals will feel their motivation and well-being diminish. On the
negative side, significant others may withhold affection when individuals do not perform
in a specified or desired manner in what is labeled ‘conditional regard’, in essence ostra-
cizing the person for failure to perform. This may prompt an individual toward feelings
of shame, poor coping skills, low self-worth and loss of self-esteem, and resentment
toward said others (Assor et al., 2004). Conditional regard from teachers and parents
associates negatively with perceived psychological need satisfaction (Assor et al., 2004;
Kaplan, 2018). At the same time, providing support and care to others can often have a
positive reciprocal benefit to the self, where individuals who give care feel better about
themselves (Deci et al., 2006).
Instruments for measuring the effects of parental relationships include the Perceived
Parental Autonomy Support Scale (Mageau et al., 2015), which measures supportive and
controlling parenting. These scales include items to measure how parents offer explana-
tion of reasons and choice within limits, and take the child’s perspective on the autonomy
supportive side of parenting, with threats of punishment, inducement of guilt, and
encouragement of performance goals representing more controlling parenting. Earlier
scales include the Perceptions of Parents Scales (Grolnick et al., 1991), which measure
autonomy support and involvement for both mothers and fathers.
Very little if any empirical work has investigated this mini-theory in language educa-
tion, though there have been theoretical inroads (see Oga-Baldwin, 2022). Some cursory
interpretations related to the theory can be taken from studies on parental influence on
language learning (Butler, 2015; Sugita-McEown & McEown, 2019). According to
Butler (2015), Chinese children showed some personal relatedness to the foreign lan-
guage if parents showed interest, but whether the quality of the relationship had an influ-
ence on motivation remains yet unclear. More direct evidence for the theory can be seen
in work by Sugita-McEown and McEown (2019), who showed that parental support
positively predicted a sense of enjoyment and benefit to the family for learning the for-
eign language, which in turn had positive indirect effects on effort and ability. Though
these language learning studies were not explicitly interpreted in light of relationships
motivation theory, they provide some initial evidence for the applicability of this
mini-theory.
Al-Hoorie et al. 9
2 The mini-theories and their key covariates
As shown above, each of the interrelated mini-theories offers can offer insight into dif-
ferent aspects of the intrapersonal and interpersonal nature of motivation for learning
languages. At the same time, aspects of the theory remain unexplored or underexplored.
Wider integration with the methods and instrumentation employed in fields such as gen-
eral education, psychology, and physical education can help improve the generalizability
and replicability of findings for language education and for SDT more generally. This
integration naturally involves the use of cross-theoretical covariates with shared con-
cepts and constructs.
a Choice, individualism, and collectivism. Important to note are studies whose results, on
the surface, question the notion that providing autonomy increases motivation. One
study indicated that requiring regular vocabulary quizzes did not negatively affect stu-
dents, but rather showed a more positive outcome than making these quizzes optional
(Lee & Harris, 2018). Another study showed that providing choices regarding the subject
of a short writing project did not meaningfully change the task motivation, and may have
negatively affected task outcomes (Mozgalina, 2015). While these two noted studies
seem to challenge the notion and applicability of cognitive evaluation theory for measur-
ing motivation, it may also be inappropriate to equate providing autonomy with provid-
ing choices.
Meaningful autonomy support can involve providing meaningful choices, but just as
often it means creating a sense that tasks are relevant (Assor et al., 2002) and interacting
with students in a fashion they feel is appropriate, supportive, and non-coercive (Cheon
et al., 2020). These supportive interactions can be found even within societies using
hierarchical and collectivistic relationships (Reeve, 2015). As such, the simple dichot-
omy of choice/no choice is one which will likely provide limited outcomes and applica-
bility (Katz & Assor, 2006). Given the complex nature of teaching and the realities of
classroom life, a focus on simply injecting more choice into the learning environment
may have negligible effects on motivation. Instead, an array of classroom antecedents
and features, such as autonomy support through improving interest and taking students’
perspectives or providing additional structure through improved pacing and clarity
(Reeve & Jang, 2006), can offer a more nuanced picture of how to influence learners’
motivation over time (Skinner et al., 2008).
While there have previously been questions and contentions regarding the nature of
the three basic needs across varying contexts (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991), these needs have again shown validity across cultures, indicating their
universal nature in promoting intrinsic motivation and well-being (B. Chen et al., 2015;
Chirkov, 2009; Reeve et al., 2013). Research within language education (Agawa &
Takeuchi, 2017; Carreira, 2012; Noels, 2013; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015) has simi-
larly indicated that the basic needs function in many interdependent, collectivist cultures
where they have been previously questioned (see Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). As noted
previously, while autonomy support is often equated with a sense of choice, it is more
accurately recognized as a sense of agreement, endorsement, and alignment with a pro-
posed direction of action (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, to achieve sustainable motives for
10 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
learning a language, in some sense students need to be convinced that learning the lan-
guage is the right thing for them, that they are capable of the tasks at hand, and that they
are surrounded by caring individuals.
Indeed, SDT research into the cultural norms of individualism and collectivism shows
that collectivist individuals autonomously endorse direction from in-group members
without the perception that it is controlling (Deci & Ryan, 2000). According to the tenets
of the theory, people living in collectivist societies may autonomously endorse in-group
decisions, processing them in similar fashion to their own goals and values (Hagger
et al., 2013). A recent study in Japan (Nishimura et al., 2020) has shown that fathers’
autonomous aspirations influence their children’s own goals in this same direction, pro-
viding some evidence for how in-group models may influence individuals’ proclivities.
Ultimately, this process of cultural normalization works with the organismic integration
theory of external events and occurrences (Ryan & Deci, 2017), utilizing emic, culture-
specific localizations for how those affinity mechanisms work in context (King &
McInerney, 2014). This allows for the universal application of the theory without uni-
formity across all cultures (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).
b Competence constructs. While multiple studies show that all three needs correlate
with and theoretically contribute to adaptive motivation, the basic needs may also have
important differential functions in predicting proficiency and learning outcomes. Com-
petence need satisfaction specifically has shown direct effects on both motivation and
achievement among Korean university learners (Joe et al., 2017). Other studies have
shown that competence has a particularly strong relationship with the different aspects of
the organismic integration continuum of motivation (Agawa & Takeuchi, 2017; Hiro-
mori, 2003). Of the three basic needs, competence offered the strongest positive predic-
tion for autonomous motives and negative prediction for controlled motives. In
longitudinal studies, competence need satisfaction has also shown the strongest autore-
gressive predictive ability, indicating that it may be more stable than other needs over
time (Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2015). When looked at more broadly in conjunction with
other constructs such as self-efficacy (Fryer & Oga-Baldwin, 2019), self-concept (Cha-
nal & Guay, 2015), and perceived control (Skinner, 1995), competence appears to play a
particularly important role in the development of motivation in educational settings, as
shown by a recent meta-analysis (Bureau et al., 2022). In their review of over 144 reports
sampling just over 79,000 participants in educational settings, Bureau and colleagues
(2022) reported that competence need satisfaction was the best predictor of both intrinsic
motivation and identified regulation. There, thus, remains room for empirical explora-
tion regarding the role of the different basic needs for language learning, especially in
school settings.
c Engagement. Engagement has become a construct of particular interest over the past
two decades in education (Fredricks et al., 2004), with recent theoretical reviews (Oga-
Baldwin, 2019, 2022) and edited books (Hiver et al., 2021b) bringing this key variable
into the field of language learning. Self-determination theorists have employed the dif-
ferent aspects of engagement as a key outcome variable (Skinner et al., 2008); others
have expanded the potential ways that engagement as a form of agency can improve
Al-Hoorie et al. 11
learning environments for students (Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Lee, 2014; Reeve et al.,
2020).
Working with the SDT model for predicting motivational changes in alignment with
autonomy supportive and controlling features of the environment (Jang et al., 2012;
Jang, Kim, et al., 2016; Skinner et al., 2008), this variable can then be used to predict
how learners themselves will influence the environment to change again in truly dynamic
fashion (Papi & Hiver, 2020; Zhou et al., under review). Given the continued interest in
engagement as a key function of education in both the SDT and L2 literatures (Hiver
et al., 2021c; Oga-Baldwin & Nakata, 2017) this variable may be recognized as a key-
stone in the learning process.
II The present study
Having outlined the theory, including discussions of instrumentation and the most recent
findings in language learning and the broader educational field, we set out to investigate
the current state of SDT research applied to language education. We therefore conducted
a systematic synthesis of empirical SDT research to answer the following research
questions:
• Research question 1: What is the prevalence of the six SDT mini-theories in
empirical L2 literature?
• Research question 2: What are the characteristics of this literature in relation to
sampling, context, design, and analytic strategy?
• Research question 3: What are the most common measurement and application
practices?
III Method
1 Report pool creation
The PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) were utilized to construct the report pool
through a sequential three-stage process (identification, screening, and inclusion). Each
is discussed in turn (see Figure 1).
2 Identification
An automated index search was conducted on the Web of Science (WoS) Social Science
Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) using SDT- and
L2-related keywords (see Table 1). The AHCI was included as some relevant journals
such as Language Awareness are also AHCI-indexed. This search strategy is in line with
the recent trend in L2 systematic reviews and research syntheses that have likewise
focused on WoS’ most prestigious indexes (i.e. those with impact factors) to capture the
research published in well-known journals in second language acquisition (e.g. Hiver
et al., 2021c; Jiang et al., 2020; Nicklin & Plonsky, 2020; Vitta et al., 2021; Zhang,
2020). For systematic reviews such as the current study where scoping trends of the field
12 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
are of interest, it is sensible to focus on journals upon which the field places its trust.
Zhang (2020; citing Al-Hoorie & Vitta, 2019) for instance highlighted that reports in
SSCI journals demonstrated higher research quality than those in non-SSCI journals to
defend excluding the latter from its bibliometric-focused L2 research synthesis. As with
Records screened:
(k= 1554)
Reports sought for retrieval:
(k= 163)
Reports assessed for eligibility:
(k= 163)
Reports included in review:
(k = 111)
bona fide SDT (k= 94)
ambiguous SDT (k= 17)
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Two databases were searched: SSCI
& AHCI. Because the search was
constrained to two professionally
maintained indexes, no identified
reports were excluded at this stage.
Identification
Records excludedfor not meeting all
three criteria (L2, SDT, & empirical):
(k= 1391)
Screening
Reports not retrieved:
(k= 0)
Reports excluded for non-SDT focus:
(k= 52)
Included
Records identified:
(k= 1554)
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Source. Page etal. (2021).
Al-Hoorie et al. 13
Zhang (2020), we acknowledge the contributions that local and non-journal L2 research
(e.g. book chapters) make to the field despite our excluding them.
Our automated search had the following parameters: (1) journal article only (early
access included), (2) published in English, (3) searched using the ‘topic’ function which
in the WoS interface includes title, abstract, and multiple keyword categories, and (4) a
time constraint of 1-1-1990 to 31-7-2021. The beginning time constraint was due to WoS
cataloguing and corresponded well to the publication of Deci and Ryan’s (1985a) semi-
nal work that introduced SDT to most of academia.
3 Screening and inclusion
The abstracts of the 1,554 identified reports were screened by one author to judge
whether or not the report would be retrieved for further examination to include in the
report pool. Each abstract was assessed using the following criteria:
1. the study is within an L2 learning context;
2. the study presents empirical research (primary or secondary; quantitative, quali-
tative, or mixed methods); and
3. the study is related to self-determination theory and associated concepts.
Based on this process, 163 reports were initially judged as meeting all three criteria and
were retrieved for further review. To validate the abstract screening process, 200 ran-
domly selected abstracts (100 coded as meeting all three criteria, 100 as not) were inde-
pendently coded by a second expert. The observed agreement was 91% with good
reliability (κ = .82) (McHugh, 2012). The second screening process involved the full-
text review of the 163 reports retrieved. During this process, 52 reports were excluded
Table 1. Identification search parameters.
Feature Details and explanation
Time period 1 January 1990 to 31 July 2021
Indexes searched Web of Science SSCI & AHCI
SDT-focused search
terms
(self-determination theory OR intrinsic motivation OR basic
needs OR basic psychological needs OR autonomy support
OR autonomy supportive OR need support OR need
supportive OR need of autonomy OR need for autonomy
OR autonomy need OR self-determined motivation OR
autonomous motivation OR autonomous self-regulation
OR autonomous regulation OR need of competence OR
need for competence OR competence need OR need of
relatedness OR need for relatedness OR relatedness need)
L2-focused search terms
(from Vitta & Al-Hoorie,
2020)
(second language or foreign language or L2 or ELT or ESL
or EFL)
Notes. AHCI = Arts & Humanities Citation Index. SSCI = Science Social Citation Index.
14 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
for not actually having an SDT-focus. As with Hiver et al. (2021c), where some reports
were labeled as being ambiguous in their operationalization of student engagement con-
structs, the included reports in this pool were differentiated further in relation to ‘bona
fide’ (k = 94) and ‘ambiguous’ (k = 17). Bona fide SDT reports had explicit mention of
SDT sources (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 1985a) while reflecting SDT concepts in both the theo-
retical underpinnings and method of inquiry. Ambiguous reports cited seminal SDT
sources but lacked the consistent SDT-driven designs as exhibited by the bona fide
reports. These coding decisions were validated by two independent teams of researchers
who coded all 163 reports included after the abstract screening process. The resulting
inter-rater reliability was acceptable, (82.82%, κ = .70), especially since the nominal
judgment had 3 possible categories (see McHugh, 2012).
4 Coding
The 111 (bona fide + ambiguous) reports were then coded with nominal judgments
addressing the research questions presented in the preceding text (for report bibliometric
data and judgments, see Supplementary Material). In line with previous psychology in
L2 research syntheses (e.g. Hiver et al., 2021c), there were general or methodological
assessments (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods) coupled with theory-spe-
cific categories (e.g. utilization of the six mini-theories). All judgments were made by a
team of three trained coders under the supervision of one author and are presented in the
following section. To ensure coding reliability, joint judgments were made for each paper
by at least two of the three coders. This synchronous, consensus coding was intended to
reduce potential variation resulting from independent observations (i.e. a single coder)
when coding a high number of nominally defined categories.
IV Results
1 SDT mini-theories
As our earlier review shows, SDT comprises several substantive mini-theories, each of
which was developed to explain a set of motivationally based phenomena. These mini-
theories include the constructs and hypotheses which together form the empirical evi-
dence base for SDT research. With regard to the clarity of theoretical focus, Table 2
shows that 94 studies (84.6%) in the report pool were coded as clear and focused empir-
ical reports of SDT, while the 17 remaining studies (15.4%) were coded as ambiguous
reports and referred only to a generic, non-specific use of the notion intrinsic motiva-
tion. We then examined whether studies in this pool explicitly and consistently men-
tioned any of the six mini-theories. Of the six mini-theories, 46 reports (41.4%) focused
on organismic integration theory, 14 (12.6%) on basic psychological needs theory, and
5 (4.5%) on cognitive evaluation theory. Forty-two studies (37.8%) included multiple
mini-theories in their design, and in 4 (3.6%) remaining studies no specific information
related to any mini-theory was included. Our analysis showed that goal contents theory
was the focus of one study that also adopted multiple other mini-theories. No study in
the pool investigated causality orientations theory or relationships motivation theory,
Al-Hoorie et al. 15
but see Oga-Baldwin (2022), who argues for the use of relationships motivation theory
in independent learning. Together these results indicate that some facets of motivation
and personal functioning have been investigated with more clarity and in more compre-
hensive ways compared to others that remain relatively un-examined.
What remained unclear from our analysis of the 42 studies (37.8%) that included
multiple mini-theories, however, was the rationale for including those two or three mini-
theories within the design of a single study. For instance, the lack of specificity both
theoretically and methodologically as to why organismic integration theory and basic
psychological needs theory should be used in conjunction (the most common combina-
tion, 29 out of 42 reports) in a particular study, but not any other mini-theories, leaves
many questions unanswered. Studies in this category also appeared problematic due to
the level of ambiguity surrounding how these mini-theories informed the 42 studies. This
can be seen, for example, in studies where one mini-theory is reviewed exclusively in the
introduction and literature review, and then another mini-theory altogether is used to
interpret the results.
2 Study characteristics
The sampling characteristics reported included the sample size, age group, and study
context (Table 3) among other participant features. The 111 reports in our pool yielded a
total of 128 independent samples (teachers = 3 samples; students = 125 samples), with
a total sample size of N = 50,067. The sample range across all studies was 1 to 6,301
with a median sample of N = 194 (IQR = 362, M = 391.14, SD = 735.92). A large
number of studies sampled upwards of 100 participants (77 studies, 69.4%), while 15
reports (13.5%) included multiple samples in their study (e.g. Oga-Baldwin & Nakata,
2015: study 1 N = 479 [quantitative] and 39 [qualitative], study 2 N = 344 [quantita-
tive], study 3 N = 312 [qualitative]). Participant age was reported in all studies, though
Table 2. Definition and operationalization of self-determination theory (SDT).
kPercentage
SDT report:
yes (clear, focused) 94 84.6
maybe (generic, ambiguous) 17 15.4
Mini-theories:
organismic integration theory 46 41.4
basic psychological needs theory 14 12.6
cognitive evaluation theory 5 4.5
causality orientations theory 0 0
goal contents theory 0 0
relationships motivation theory 0 0
multiple mini-theories 42 37.8
not specified 4 3.6
16 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
often imprecisely (i.e. ‘teens’, ‘children’). Table 3 shows that the largest category of
participants recruited were adults (71 studies, 63.9%), and a sizeable number of studies
sampled teenagers (20 studies, 18%) and children (16 studies, 14.4%). Participants were
enrolled as language learners at a range of institutions including university (67 studies,
60.4%), secondary school (20 studies, 18%), and elementary school and below (16 stud-
ies, 14.4%). These demographic characteristics are at least partly in line with many other
recent reviews in the field (Hiver et al., 2021a, 2021c; Sudina, 2021).
Turning to the contextual aspects of study demographics (Table 4), participants were
studied most often in foreign language settings (83 studies, 74.7%) and bilingual and
multilingual contexts (14 studies, 12.6%). Only a handful of studies recruited participants
from second language or heritage language contexts (2 each). The instructional setting of
most studies was a generic classroom setting, including study abroad (79 studies, 71.1%),
with online, app-based, or a virtual language learning environment the second most fre-
quent (23 studies, 20.7%) instructional setting. Several other instructional settings were
featured in the report pool, including blended L2 learning environments, language for
specific purposes (e.g. English for academic purposes) classrooms, language immersion
settings, or content and language integrated learning (CLIL) and English medium instruc-
tion (EMI) classrooms. None of these settings were featured in more than 5 studies in the
entire pool. Participants’ first languages were most often Asian languages (53 studies,
47.7%) and European languages (34 studies, 30.6%). The largest L1 populations within
Table 3. Participant sampling characteristics.
kPercentage
Sample size:
1–5 6 5.4
5 < N ⩽ 20 8 7.2
20 < N ⩽ 50 10 9.0
50 < N ⩽ 100 12 10.8
100 < N ⩽ 500 50 45.0
N > 500 27 24.3
multiple samples 15 13.5
Age (years):
children (under 12) 16 14.4
teenagers (13–17) 20 18.0
adult (over 18) 71 63.9
multiple, mixed age groups 4 3.6
Institution:
pre-K & kindergarten 4 3.6
elementary school 12 10.8
secondary school 20 18.0
university 67 60.4
other 8 7.2
Notes. Sample size k sums to 128, the total number of independent samples. ‘Other’ institutions include
homeschool, informal instructed settings, and private language institutions.
Al-Hoorie et al. 17
these broad categories included Chinese (k = 21), Japanese (k = 18), English (k = 15),
Persian (k = 10), Korean (k = 8), and Spanish (k = 8). A small number of participants
were reported as having multiple or mixed L1s (10 studies, 9%). As many other reviews
have found, the target language for the vast majority of learners sampled was L2 English
(78 studies, 70.3%). Other target L2s included French (6 studies, 5.4%), Spanish and
Table 4. Contextual characteristics under study.
kPercentage
Context:
foreign language 83 74.7
bilingual/multilingual 14 12.6
first language 5 4.5
second language 2 1.8
heritage 2 1.8
mixed 3 2.7
not reported 2 1.8
Instructional setting:
generic classroom setting
(including study abroad)
79 71.1
online/app/virtual learning
environment
23 20.7
blended 5 4.5
language for specific purposes
(e.g. EAP)
5 4.5
immersion 4 3.6
CLIL/EMI 4 3.6
not reported 3 2.7
Participant first language (L1):
Asian languages 53 47.7
European languages 34 30.6
Middle Eastern languages 14 12.6
multiple/mixed 10 9.0
Target second language (L2):
English 78 70.3
French 6 5.4
Spanish 3 2.7
German 3 2.7
Mandarin Chinese 2 1.8
Japanese 2 1.8
Russian 1 0.9
multiple/mixed 10 9.0
not reported 6 5.4
Notes. Target L2s reported in the mixed category include combinations of the above languages as well as
Latin and Swahili. EAP = English for Academic Purposes. EMI = English Medium Instruction. CLIL = Con-
tent and Language Integrated Learning.
18 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
German (3 studies each), Mandarin Chinese and Japanese (2 studies each), and Russian (1
study, 0.9%). Ten additional studies (9%) reported multiple mixed languages as the target
L2s, while 6 studies (5.4%) included no mention of the target L2.
Regarding the design characteristics shown in Table 5, the majority of studies were
quantitative (86 studies, 77.5%). Only 7 studies (6.3%) employed exclusively qualitative
methods, while 18 (12.2%) employed mixed methods. We note here that the balance of
quantitative studies is somewhat higher than L2 motivational studies more generally in
the most recent decades (compare with 37.5% purely quantitative engagement studies
over 20 years; Hiver et al., 2021c). Of the 104 studies involving some form of quantita-
tive design, most were observational (i.e. in the sense that they employed a non-experi-
mental design). This included correlational studies with cross-sectional (70 studies,
63%) and longitudinal designs (25 studies, 22.5%). Of the 9 studies in total that adopted
an experimental design of some sort, only 3 (2.7%) were fully experimental. Data collec-
tion procedures show a pattern in line with these design characteristics. A total of 105
studies (94.6%) elicited data using surveys or questionnaires, a point we look at in greater
Table 5. Design of study.
k Percentage
Method:
quantitative 86 77.5
qualitative 7 6.3
mixed 18 12.2
of which . . .
Quantitative approach:
correlational: cross-sectional 70 63
correlational: longitudinal 25 22.5
quasi-experimental 6 5.4
experimental 3 2.7
Qualitative approach:
interview 16 14.4
case study 5 4.5
focus group 4 3.6
of which . . .
Data collection procedures:
survey/questionnaire 105 94.6
interview 16 14.4
focus group 4 3.6
classroom observation 3 2.7
reflective journal/diary 1 0.9
stimulated recall 1 0.9
task 1 0.9
test 1 0.9
writing sample 1 0.9
Note. Data collection procedures do not sum to k = 111 because of the many studies reporting multiple
methods of data elicitation.
Al-Hoorie et al. 19
detail below when we examine study instrumentation. Other studies relied on interviews
(16 studies, 14.4%), focus groups (4 studies, 3.6%), or classroom observations (3 studies,
2.7%). Data were also elicited using reflective journals and diaries, stimulated recall,
classroom tasks, test batteries, and writing samples once each.
Related to these design and data elicitation details are authors’ choice of data analyti-
cal strategy. Table 6 shows that the techniques most frequently adopted were structural
equation modeling (25 studies, 22.5%), regression and bivariate correlation analyses (21
studies each), variations of ANOVA (20 studies, 18%), and t-tests (15 studies, 13.5%).
Other quantitative data analysis techniques here included analyses of group membership
and group comparison (e.g. MANOVA, cluster analysis, latent class/profile analysis),
analyses of change and development (e.g. longitudinal tests, growth curve models, panel
Table 6. Analytical strategy.
kPercentage
Quantitative data analysis:
SEM 25 22.5
regression 21 18.9
correlation 21 18.9
ANOVA/ANCOVA 20 18
t-test 15 13.5
path analysis 7 6.3
non-parametric tests 7 6.3
MANOVA 6 5.4
longitudinal analyses 3 2.7
descriptive statistics 2 1.8
hierarchical linear modeling 2 1.8
LGCM/panel models 2 1.8
multilevel models 2 1.8
ESEM 1 0.9
cluster analysis 1 0.9
latent class analysis 1 0.9
latent profile analysis/LPTA 1 0.9
PLS-SEM 1 0.9
Qualitative data analysis:
content/text analysis 4 3.6
sequential coding 4 3.6
thematic coding 3 2.7
conceptual coding 2 1.8
informal comparisons 2 1.8
categorization 1 0.9
grounded theory coding 1 0.9
not reported 3 2.7
Notes. ESEM = Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. LGCM = Latent Growth Curve Modeling.
LPTA = Latent Profile Transition Analysis. PLS-SEM = Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling.
SEM = Structural Equation Modeling.
20 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
designs), and other advanced regression-based analyses (path analysis, exploratory
structural equation modeling, partial least squares structural equation modeling, hierar-
chical linear modeling, multilevel models). Seven studies (6.3%) employed non-para-
metric analyses, and another 2 (1.8%) reported only descriptive statistics. From the
relatively smaller number of studies choosing a qualitative or mixed design and drawing
on qualitative data, some of the qualitative coding techniques used included content/text
analysis (4 studies, 3.6%), sequential coding (4 studies, 3.6%), thematic coding (2 stud-
ies, 1.8%), and conceptual coding (2 studies, 1.8%). Two studies (1.8%) relied only on
informal descriptive comparisons, and another 3 studies (2.7%) did not report the analy-
ses used for their qualitative data.
Finally, we were also interested specifically how these studies employed SDT in their
designs. Table 7 shows that 63 studies (56.7%) adopted SDT constructs as explicit pre-
dictors of various learning outcomes – analogous to using SDT as an independent vari-
able – and tested hypotheses related to this. In the analyses (see Table 6) conducted, SDT
was used most often as predictor of other non-SDT motivational variables such as goal
orientations, self-efficacy, and motivational intensity (19 studies, 17.1%), as well as
affective variables such as anxiety, satisfaction, or well-being (10 studies, 9%). The pre-
dictive value of SDT variables was also tested against some conventional outcomes such
as global measures of L2 achievement (9 studies, 8.1%), student engagement (8 studies,
7.2%), intended effort1 (6 studies, 5.4%), grades and grade point average (6 studies,
5.4%), willingness to communicate (5 studies, 4.5%) and skill-specific L2 performance
(5 studies, 4.5%). Several other non-language related outcomes were tested in a handful
of studies each such as cultural awareness/competence, technological competence,
developmental outcomes, and self-regulated strategy use.
Beyond its use as a predictor or independent variable, SDT variables were also tested
in simple associations with other variables or covariates in 89 studies (80.2%). Among
others, the variables tested in association with SDT constructs included non-SDT moti-
vational variables (29 studies, 26.1%), instructional characteristics or teaching practices
(15 studies, 13.5%), affective variables (12 studies, 10.8%), beliefs/attitudes (7 studies,
6.3%), student engagement (7 studies, 6.3%), and personality (3 studies, 2.7%). Several
measures commonly used as outcomes were also included here, albeit tested only through
simple associations, including L2 achievement (10 studies, 9%), skill-specific L2 perfor-
mance (8 studies, 7.2%), student engagement (7 studies, 6.3%), grades and grade point
average (5 studies, 4.5%), and intended effort (4 studies, 3.6%).
3 Measurement and application
Study quality is often a function of how well measurement and theory are integrated, and
we examined this in the current report pool (see Table 8). Ninety-eight studies (88.2%)
reported specific information about the data elicitation instruments used. Related to the
instrument origin, 94 (84.7%) studies reported using an existing instrument, while 17
(15.3%) employed a newly developed measure of their own (of these, 13 studies pro-
vided no further information). Over 25 different data elicitation instruments were
reported in the pool. The Language Learning Orientations Scale (Noels et al., 2001) was
the most commonly-used instrument (k = 24) followed by the Academic Motivation
Al-Hoorie et al. 21
Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992) (k = 8). Other established instruments used include the
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (Gardner, 1985); the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory
(Ryan, 1982), the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich et al., 1993),
Table 7. Study aim and use of self-determination theory (SDT).
kPercentage
SDT used as predictor or independent variable:
yes 63 56.7
no 48 43.3
SDT as predictor of:
(non-SDT) motivational variables 19 17.1
affective variables 10 9.0
second language (L2) achievement 9 8.1
engagement 8 7.2
intended effort 6 5.4
grades/grade point average 6 5.4
skill-specific performance 5 4.5
willingness to communicate 5 4.5
cultural awareness/competence 3 2.7
perceived usefulness of learning content 3 2.7
developmental outcomes 2 1.8
technological competence 2 1.8
self-regulated strategy use 2 1.8
SDT in association with variables/covariates of interest:
yes 89 80.2
no 22 19.8
SDT associated with:
(non-SDT) motivational variables 29 26.1
teaching practices/instructional characteristics 15 13.5
affective variables 12 10.8
L2 achievement 10 9.0
skill-specific performance 8 7.2
beliefs/attitudes 7 6.3
engagement 7 6.3
grades/grade point average 5 4.5
developmental outcomes 4 3.6
intended effort 4 3.6
cultural awareness/competence 3 2.7
personality 3 2.7
international posture/affiliation 3 2.7
non-L2 learning performance 2 1.8
self-regulated strategy use 2 1.8
willingness to communicate 2 1.8
Note. The detailed frequencies relate only to the studies coded as ‘yes’ for each broad category above.
22 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
the Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Deci et al., 2001), the Learning Climate
Questionnaire (Williams & Deci, 1996); and the Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire
(LSRQ also known as SRQ-A; Ryan & Connell, 1989). All but 6 studies elicited data
using indirect (i.e. subjective self-report) measures of SDT constructs. This not only
parallels the widespread use of such measures in general, non-language learning SDT
research, it dovetails with the data collection procedures reviewed earlier indicating that
95.5% of studies in the pool relied on survey or questionnaire data elicitation methods
(see also Al-Hoorie, 2018).
Related to psychometric testing of instruments, 52 studies (46.8%) reported tests of
validity or reliability, while 56 studies (50.4%) did not report having conducted any such
tests. This frequency corresponds to other applied linguistics syntheses such as Vitta &
Al-Hoorie (2021), who similarly found about 50% frequency of reliability reporting in
experimental L2 flipped classroom research. This indicates that L2 SDT quantitative
research appears to examine the psychometric properties of their instruments at the same
low rate as some other L2 subcamps.
Table 8. Measurement issues.
kPercentage
Data elicitation instrument reported:
yes 98 88.2
no 13 11.8
Instrument origin:
existing 94 84.7
new/own 17 15.3
Psychometric tests of validity or reliability:
yes 52 46.8
no 56 50.4
partial 4 3.6
Validity tests:
confirmatory factor analysis 29 26.1
exploratory factor analysis 25 22.5
average variance extracted 7 6.3
Rasch/IRT tests 4 3.6
heterotrait–monotrait ratios 1 0.9
measurement invariance 1 0.9
Reliability tests:
α coefficient 84 75.5
composite reliability 7 6.3
IRT estimates of reliability 2 1.8
Raykov’s ρ1 0.9
κ coefficient 1 0.9
ω coefficient 1 0.9
test–retest reliability 1 0.9
Note. IRT = item response theory.
Al-Hoorie et al. 23
Four remaining studies reported partial tests of validity or reliability, that is, for some
constructs or variables included in the analysis but not all. Some type of factor analysis
was conducted in 54 studies (48.6%), with confirmatory factor analysis as the most com-
mon technique (29 studies, 26.1%) and exploratory factor analysis close behind (25 stud-
ies, 22.5%). Other tests of validity reported include average variance extracted (7 studies,
6.3%), Rasch tests (4 studies, 3.6%), and heterotrait–monotrait ratios and measurement
invariance (1 study each). Studies reporting an index of instrument reliability, not sur-
prisingly, relied most often on α coefficient (84 studies, 75.7%). Composite reliability (7
studies, 6.3%) and item response theory estimates of reliability (2 studies, 1.8%) also
featured in the report pool. Additional measures of reliability such as Raykov’s rho,
kappa coefficient, omega coefficient, and test–retest reliability were used in 1 study
each.
Cutting across operational and measurement concerns, we wondered about the meas-
urement granularity and whether SDT was being studied in relation to language learners’
general tendencies or momentary instances (Table 9). We also wanted to know about the
temporal congruency between the measures being used and the predictions being tested.
In our pool, 74 studies (66.6%) elicited data in a one-time snapshot related to general
tendencies. Other studies adopted a time window of years (19 studies, 17.1%), months
(10 studies, 9%), weeks (5 studies, 4.5%), or a time window measured in hours or less (3
studies, 2.7%). We coded for congruence between this temporal window and the meas-
ures of SDT being used for data elicitation as well as the congruence between the meas-
ures of SDT used and predictions being tested. In both cases we found 100%
congruence.
We also investigated whether the application of SDT was theoretical (i.e. testing con-
nections between constructs of SDT or refining understanding of the mini-theories for lan-
guage learning writ large) or practical (i.e. with applications to the language learner, their
language learning, or to the language instruction that takes place in a classroom). As Table
10 shows, the overwhelming majority of studies (90%) investigated SDT in ways that were
oriented to practice. The most frequent implications of these studies were conceptual appli-
cations (68 studies, 61.2%) demonstrating the applicability of SDT to a topical or thematic
area of research such as the need to promote intrinsic motivation in students, and applica-
tions to a specific classroom technique (45 studies, 40.5%), or a student learning activity
(17 studies, 15.3%). Implications for other stakeholders are apparent in instructional design
and planning (16 studies, 14.1%), policy or institutional practices (14 studies, 12.6%), and
teacher preparation or education (11 studies, 9.9%). Only the 10 studies (9%) applying
Table 9. Temporal measurement.
Temporal window kPercentage
one-time snapshot 74 66.6
years 19 17.1
months (e.g. a semester) 10 9.1
weeks 5 4.5
hours (e.g. a class) 3 2.7
24 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
SDT in a theoretical manner did not propose any applications based on the empirical data
presented. Here too, we noted the large number of studies (k = 68) with applications delib-
erately framed by study authors as being practical but which on closer scrutiny appeared
superficial and circular in nature. For example, in a study of basic psychological needs
theory, the authors argued that L2 classrooms should satisfy learners’ basic psychological
needs instead of frustrating them – indicating the need for greater clarity in study aims and
design. We return to this point in our discussion.
V Discussion
We now turn to a discussion of the main substantive lessons drawn from our review of
this study pool. Our findings highlight concerns related to conceptual and theoretical
clarity, applications from SDT to language teaching and learning, and methodological
choices.
First, in this pool of studies spanning 30 years, SDT appears to be applied to the
domain of language learning and teaching as a general motivational framework with lit-
tle specificity around the mini-theories themselves. SDT provides specific insight about
how the quality of motivation that stems from external incentives, ego involvement,
personal value, or intrinsic interest leads to qualitatively different outcomes in classroom
settings, as in other social settings (Howard et al., 2021). Language learning research,
too, has a clear interest in understanding how learner agency and proactivity are at the
core of learner behavior and functioning, closely mirroring SDT’s focus on individual
capabilities that allow for self-regulated behavior.
Table 10. Applications of self-determination theory (SDT).
kPercentage
SDT applied in ways that are:
practical 100 90
theoretical 10 9
both 1 0.9
Applications proposed based on empirical data:
conceptual 68
classroom techniques 45
students’ learning activity 17
instructional design and planning 16
policy/institutional practices 14
teacher preparation/education 11
research methods 10
culturally-responsive/community applications 9
skill-specific pedagogy 5
assessment 4
none 10
Note. Percentages in the applications are not listed due to the large number of studies proposing multiple
applications.
Al-Hoorie et al. 25
However, it is apparent from our analysis that certain aspects of SDT have saturated
the literature while others remain dormant and unexplored (see also Sugita-McEown &
Oga-Baldwin, 2019). Intrinsic motivation is not a concept exclusive to SDT, and indeed
most studies in the pool that purported to study intrinsic motivation provided no further
detail than motivation that comes from the learner. Such an imprecise description, based
on early atheoretical dichotomies of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motives, might apply equally
well to goals, value, self-concept, autonomy, agency, effort, or other motivational con-
structs. Such inattention to conceptual clarity no doubt precludes the field from building
a cumulative body of evidence that can inform practice.
Our analysis shows that, where mini-theories can be extrapolated from study instru-
ments and constructs, the lion’s share of studies adopted organismic integration theory,
with basic psychological needs theory and cognitive evaluation theory distant runners
up. The utility and contribution of the mini-theories causality orientations theory, goal
contents theory, and relationships motivation theory to language learning and teaching
are relatively uncharted given that they are not yet a part of the extant literature. It is
also interesting to note the large number of studies that combined two or three mini-
theories in a single study, though as we have noted, few of the studies that did so articu-
lated a clear rationale for this. Ryan et al. (2021) point to the growing number of
empirical studies on each of the mini-theories in both general and educational psychol-
ogy as evidence of an upward ‘trajectory of both basic research efforts and evidence-
supported applications’ (p. 97) leading to refinements and extensions in theory. Without
the requisite conceptual clarity and transparency, SDT research in the field of language
learning and teaching risks being left behind from these advances as SDT surges for-
ward. We would suggest that, going forward, best practice for SDT studies in this
domain would be to 1) explicitly describe the mini-theory being adopted, 2) specify
how the mini-theory’s constructs are thought to contribute to L2 learner and teacher
functioning (e.g. proximal influences, distal influences, mediators), and 3) articulate a
clear rationale for including the concepts or constructs of multiple mini-theories within
the design of a single study.
A second main takeaway from our analysis is the importance for many studies to
provide, or at least appear to provide, practical applications (i.e. applied takeaways based
on empirical data) for L2 learners and their teachers. We note that studies to date have
come from the ‘proof of concept’ phase of research; many studies have demonstrated the
validity and relevance of the theory and demonstrated aspects of the universality-with-
out-uniformity (Soenens et al., 2014) claims of the theory. Indeed, as our above review
indicates, the pioneers of this field (e.g. Noels et al., 1999) have admirably and robustly
demonstrated that SDT applies to the field of language learning. Likewise, given the
strong representation of Asian and European L1s (nearly 80% of the studies), studies in
these contexts have also shown that the constructs and instruments have validity in mul-
tiple diverse cultures. Moving the theory forward through the next phase of research now
requires deeper investigations beyond demonstrating the applicability to new contexts.
We welcome new contextual replications and instrument validations in underrepresented
samples; as with much of the research in the social sciences (Henrich et al., 2010),
African, South American, and South Asian populations have seen little attention. At the
same time, knowing that the theory works across cultures means that these replications
26 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
and expansions to new languages and cultural settings can go beyond simple construct
validation towards meaningful exploration of outcomes.
As an applied field, language education research is in constant pursuit of evidence for
what works, for whom, under what circumstances, how, and why. A large number of
insightful applications were part of the report pool, related specifically to L2 classroom
techniques, students’ learning activity/behavior, L2 instructional design and planning,
L2 policy and institutional practices, and L2 teacher preparation. However, the equally
large number of studies in the pool whose applications remained conceptual or theoreti-
cal in nature is cause for alarm. Research on language motivation, more broadly than
SDT-proper, has not adequately informed practice (Al-Hoorie et al., 2021a; Lamb, 2017).
An SDT-informed empirical study of language learning or teaching should be expected
to provide more than a glib confirmation that the theory holds in L2 classroom settings,
particularly since SDT is no newcomer in L2 motivation research. We would argue that
the superficial quality of such applications does not speak to substantive concerns and
issues in the field, and offers little insight into the core questions of concern to research-
ers of language learners and their learning. Instead, there is a need to probe how empiri-
cal findings can be applied based on a theoretical framework of instructed L2 learning
(Henry, 2021; Papi & Hiver, 2022), and how results from SDT research connect with
specific aspects of language development. For instance, what do findings from SDT
research say for L2 interaction and negotiation of meaning, learners’ deliberate and
selective attention to form and/or meaning in skill-specific task performance, their depth
of processing, mental elaboration, and retrieval of previously constructed L2 knowledge,
or their response to corrective feedback? These remain unanswered questions entirely.
Then too, there is the question of whether language learning and its motivational pro-
cesses are substantively different from the learning/instruction of other subjects
(Al-Hoorie et al., 2021a) and what empirical evidence there is that applications of SDT
would be L2-specific or unique from all other learning domains. We would suggest that
in the absence of such cross-domain evidence for fundamental differences (Al-Hoorie &
Hiver, 2020; Oga-Baldwin & Fryer, 2020), the principle of parsimony suggests that there
are superordinate motivational processes at play which may apply equally well across
many subjects and topical areas of focus (though for discussion of cultural localization,
see Soenens et al., 2014; Sugita-McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019). The parsimonious
view here mirrors Vallerand’s (1997) hypothesis of hierarchical school-based motives
which underlie domain specific motives, with confirmatory and meta-analytic evidence
mounting in its favor (Chanal & Guay, 2015; Guay et al., 2014; Howard et al., 2021).
In relation to this, recent meta-scientific commentary has pointed out the counterpro-
ductive nature of individual studies, which represent single data points, investing previ-
ous space on a full-length discussion section when the reality is that circumstances that
are part and parcel of everyday L2 classrooms act as constraints on applicability of
effects (Al-Hoorie et al., 2021b). Informing the teaching and learning of additional lan-
guages is a central mission of SDT research in the field, but it must be balanced with
guarding against pseudo-applications (Al-Hoorie et al., 2021a).
Finally, these issues all suggest the need for greater methodological diversity and
innovation in future studies. The number of studies relying, almost exclusively, on self-
report survey data is perhaps not surprising given the tradition of educational psychology
Al-Hoorie et al. 27
research that our field has drawn on. One sign that this conventional method of data elici-
tation has been applied rather uncritically, though, is the widespread use of self-report
measures for both predictors and outcome measures, introducing common-method bias
into study design. The consequences of common method bias – when both the independ-
ent and dependent variables are captured by the same response method – can be detri-
mental to a study’s validity unless appropriate procedural and statistical controls are
employed. As other scholars have noted (e.g. Al-Hoorie et al., 2021a; Lamb, 2017), inter-
vention studies on L2 motivation are scarce, and SDT research is no exception. This is
surprising considering that the most fundamental mandate of L2 motivation research
(indeed any educational research associated with motivation science) is to explore inno-
vations in instructional practices, systems, materials, and assessments that will address
the motivational challenges (e.g. related to effort, persistence, etc.) learners face.
This inattention to the heart of motivation research is exacerbated by the distracting
distinction made between research on motivation and research on motivating (see
Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2021). While studying L2 motivation itself (i.e. as a construct that
makes some learners unique) or how its dimensions cause variation among learners can
satisfy intellectual curiosity, applying motivational science to L2 research relates to
much more pressing concerns: uncovering, motivationally, why some learners are more
successful than others in their rates and routes of development and their levels of ulti-
mate attainment, and what can be done to level the playing field. In essence, all L2 moti-
vation research should be research on motivating (Henry, 2021; Lamb, 2017). As with
other domains, form (research design) follows function (purpose). From our report pool,
it is unclear why yet more studies on SDT would be necessary if they are to remain
merely descriptive and linked to a representational mindset (Al-Hoorie et al., 2021b).
Empirical research is needed on how SDT interventions, related to various mini-theories,
can have a direct or indirect impact on L2 learning processes and outcomes.
We would further propose that these studies need not narrowly follow the classic
experimental model (i.e. a linear pre-post design), as there are multiple appropriate
approaches that can be used to study the complex experimental effects of educational
interventions. Some of these include case-based research methods, design-based inter-
vention research, experimental ethnography, and single-case designs (see Hiver &
Al-Hoorie, 2020). The goal with such new approaches to SDT research would be to
adopt an explicit intervention mindset that examines the quantitative and qualitative
effects of various models, constructs, and techniques on the socio-cognitive processes
involved in learning an additional language. Such an SDT-learning interface can have
substantial implications for L2 pedagogy.
VI Conclusion
As demonstrated in this review, SDT has shown robust research power over the past
several decades in the domain of language education. Its staying power has largely
stemmed from its connection with a broader array of domains, its potential for strong
hypotheses, and the embrace of new methods for exploring these hypotheses on the part
of its research community. The theory is simultaneously one of well-being and personal
liberation, with an ethos of promoting and improving well-being in the lives of learners.
28 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
In this review, we have presented findings, tools, and ways to push these ideas forward
using newer hypotheses and methods. With feet planted solidly in both the inspirational
and the technically rigorous, future research can adopt these philosophical and methodo-
logical tools to offer actionable strategies for building classrooms that increase student
potential by nurturing basic needs and language proficiencies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Danya Jost for her assistance with the project.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID iDs
Ali H. Al-Hoorie https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3810-5978
Phil Hiver https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2004-7960
Joseph P. Vitta https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5711-969X
Supplemental material
Supplemental material and data for this article are available online.
Note
1. While intended effort is sometimes adopted as a measure of motivational intensity, here we
followed the studies’ own reporting practices and coded for ‘motivational intensity’ when
that specific term was adopted and ‘intended effort’ only when this specific term and its cor-
responding measurements were used.
References
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., et al. (2019). Toward a fine-grained understanding
of the components of need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching: The merits of a gradual
approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 497–521.
Agawa, T., & Takeuchi, O. (2017). Examining the validation of a newly developed motivation
questionnaire: Applying self-determination theory in the Japanese university EFL context.
JACET Journal, 61, 1–21.
Alamer, A. (2021). Basic psychological needs, motivational orientations, effort, and vocabulary
knowledge: A comprehensive model. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44, 164–184.
Alamer, A., & Lee, J. (2019). A motivational process model explaining L2 Saudi students’ achieve-
ment of English. System, 87, 102133.
Alamer, A., & Lee, J. (2021). Language achievement predicts anxiety and not the other way
around: A cross-lagged panel analysis approach. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead
of print 22 July 2021. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211033694.
Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 721–754.
Al-Hoorie, A.H., & Hiver, P. (2020). The fundamental difference hypothesis: Expanding the con-
versation in language learning motivation. SAGE Open, 10(3).
Al-Hoorie et al. 29
Al-Hoorie, A.H., & Vitta, J.P. (2019). The seven sins of L2 research: A review of 30 journals’
statistical quality and their citescore, SJR, snip, JCR Impact Factors. Language Teaching
Research, 23, 727–744.
Al-Hoorie, A.H., Hiver, P., Kim, T.-Y., & De Costa, P.I. (2021a). The identity crisis in language
motivation research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40, 136–153.
Al-Hoorie, A.H., Hiver, P., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Lowie, W. (2021b). From replication to sub-
stantiation: A complexity theory perspective. Language Teaching. Epub ahead of print 23
November 2021. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444821000409.
Amoura, C., Berjot, S., Gillet, N., & Altintas, E. (2013). Desire for control, perception of con-
trol: their impact on autonomous motivation and psychological adjustment. Motivation and
Emotion, 38, 323–335.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-
enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in school-
work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.
Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E.L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents’ conditional regard: A
self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72, 47–88.
Black, A.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspec-
tive. Science Education, 84, 740–756.
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a
publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157.
Bureau, J.S., Howard, J.L., Chong, J.X.Y., & Guay, F. (2022). Pathways to student motiva-
tion: A meta-analysis of antecedents of autonomous and controlled motivations. Review of
Educational Research, 92, 46–72.
Busse, V. (2013). Why do first-year students of German lose motivation during their first year at
university? Studies in Higher Education, 38, 951–971.
Busse, V., & Walter, C. (2013). Foreign language learning motivation in higher education: A
longitudinal study of motivational changes and their causes. The Modern Language Journal,
97, 435–456.
Butler, Y.G. (2015). Parental factors in children’s motivation for learning English: A case in
China. Research Papers in Education, 30, 166–193.
Carreira, J.M. (2012). Motivational orientations and psychological needs in EFL learning among
elementary school students in Japan. System, 40, 191–202.
Cerasoli, C.P., Nicklin, J.M., & Ford, M.T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives
jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980–1008.
Chanal, J., & Guay, F. (2015). Are autonomous and controlled motivations school-subjects-spe-
cific? PLoS ONE, 10, e0134660.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., et al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need
frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 216–236.
Chen, C., Gong, X., Wang, J., & Gao, S. (2021). Does need for relatedness matter more? The
dynamic mechanism between teacher support and need satisfaction in explaining Chinese
school children’s regulatory styles. Learning and Individual Differences, 92, 102083.
Chen, K.-C., & Jang, S.-J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of self-determi-
nation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 741–752.
Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). When teachers learn how to provide class-
room structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 90, 103004.
Chirkov, V.I. (2009). A cross-cultural analysis of autonomy in education: A self-determination
theory perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 253–262.
30 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Davis, W.S. (2020). Encouraging continued university foreign language study: A self-determina-
tion theory perspective on programme growth. The Language Learning Journal, 50, 29–44.
Deci, E.L. (1972). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 217–229.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
Plenum.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Gagné, M., et al. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being
in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-
determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.
Deci, E.L., La Guardia, J.G., Moller, A.C., Scheiner, M.J., & Ryan, R.M. (2006). On the benefits
of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313–327.
Dincer, A., Yesilyurt, S., Noels, K.A., & Vargas Lascano, D.I. (2019). Self-determination and
classroom engagement of EFL learners: A mixed-methods study of the self-system model of
motivational development. SAGE Open, 9(2).
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2021). Teaching and researching motivation. 3rd edition. Routledge.
Duriez, B. (2011). The social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits revisited: The
moderating role of general causality orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 50,
684–687.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the con-
cept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
Fryer, L.K., & Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019). Succeeding at junior high school: Students’ rea-
sons, their reach, and the teaching that h(inders)elps their grasp. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 59, 101778.
Fryer, L.K., Bovee, H.N., & Nakao, K. (2014). E-learning: Reasons students in language learning
courses don’t want to. Computers and Education, 74, 26–36.
Furrer, C.J., & Skinner, E.A. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. Edward Arnold.
Gillet, N., Morin, A.J.S., & Reeve, J. (2017). Stability, change, and implications of students’
motivation profiles: A latent transition analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51,
222–239.
Grolnick, W.S., Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement:
Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 508–517.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C., Larose, S., Vallerand, R.J., & Vitaro, F. (2013). The number of autonomy-
supportive relationships: Are more relationships better for motivation, perceived competence,
and achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 375–382.
Guay, F., Morin, A.J.S., Litalien, D., Valois, P., & Vallerand, R.J. (2014). Application of explora-
tory structural equation modeling to evaluate the academic motivation scale. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 83, 51–82.
Al-Hoorie et al. 31
Hagger, M.S., & Hamilton, K. (2020). General causality orientations in self-determination theory:
Meta-analysis and test of a process model. European Journal of Personality, 35, 710–735.
Hagger, M.S., Rentzelas, P., & Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. (2013). Effects of individualist and collec-
tivist group norms and choice on intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 215–223.
Henrich, J., Heine, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.
Henry, A. (2021). Motivational connections in language classrooms: A research agenda. Language
Teaching Research, 54, 221–235.
Hiromori, T. (2003). What enhances language learners’ motivation?: High school English learners’
motivation from the perspective of self-determination theory. JALT Journal, 25, 173–186.
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A.H., & Evans, R. (2021a). Complex dynamic systems theory in language
learning: A scoping review of 25 years of research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Epub ahead of print 31 August 2021. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263121000553.
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A.H., & S. Mercer (Eds.). (2021b). Student engagement in the language
classroom. Multilingual Matters.
Hiver, P., Al-Hoorie, A.H., Vitta, J.P., & Wu, J. (2021c). Engagement in language learning: A
systematic review of 20 years of research methods and definitions. Language Teaching
Research. Epub ahead of print 24 March 2021. DOI: 10.1177/13621688211001289.
Howard, J.L., Bureau, J.S., Guay, F., Chong, J.X.Y., & Ryan, R.M. (2021). Student motivation
and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 16, 1300–1323.
Iyengar, S.S., & Lepper, M.R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.
Jang, H., Kim, E.J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motiva-
tion mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104, 1175–1188.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E.L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy
support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology,
103, 588–600.
Jang, H., Kim, E.J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more disen-
gaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and
Instruction, 43, 27–38.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2016). A new autonomy-supportive way of teaching that
increases conceptual learning: Teaching in students’ preferred ways. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 84, 686–701.
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, 644–661.
Jiang, M.Y.-C., Jong, M.S.-Y., Lau, W.W.-F., et al. (2020). A scoping review on flipped
classroom approach in language education: Challenges, implications and an interaction
model. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Epub ahead of print 9 July 2020. DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2020.1789171.
Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined moti-
vation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in
instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 133–144.
Kaplan, H. (2018). Teachers’ autonomy support, autonomy suppression and conditional negative
regard as predictors of optimal learning experience among high-achieving Bedouin students.
Social Psychology of Education, 21, 223–255.
32 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Karbakhsh, R., & Safa, M.A. (2020). Basic psychological needs satisfaction, goal orientation,
willingness to communicate, self-efficacy, and learning strategy use as predictors of second
language achievement: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research, 49, 803–822.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R.M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates
of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2006). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational Psychology
Review, 19, 429–442.
Khajavy, G.H., Ghonsooly, B., Fatemi, A.H., & Choi, C.W. (2016). Willingness to communicate
in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context. TESOL Quarterly,
50, 154–180.
Khong, H.K., & Kabilan, M.K. (2020). A theoretical model of micro-learning for second language
instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning. Epub ahead of print 11 September 2020.
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2020.1818786.
King, R.B., & McInerney, D.M. (2014). Culture’s consequences on student motivation: Capturing
cross-cultural universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational
Psychologist, 49, 175–198.
Kuhbandner, C., Aslan, A., Emmerdinger, K., & Murayama, K. (2016). Providing extrinsic reward
for test performance undermines long-term memory acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 7,
00079.
Kwan, B.M., Hooper, A.E.C., Magnan, R.E., & Bryan, A.D. (2011). A longitudinal diary study of
the effects of causality orientations on exercise-related affect. Self and Identity, 10, 363–374.
Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50,
301–346.
Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2019). Relevance of goal theories to language learning research. System,
86, 102122.
Lee, E., & Harris, R.L.W. (2018). The effects of online glossary quizzes and student autonomy
on domain vocabulary learning in business law. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
30, 326–343.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L.G. (2006). Why do high school students lack moti-
vation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of
social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 567–582.
Liu, M., & Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2022). Motivational profiles of learners of multiple foreign
languages: A self-determination theory perspective. System, 106, 102762.
Lou, N.M., & Noels, K.A. (2020). ‘Does my teacher believe I can improve?’: The role of meta-lay
theories in ESL learners’ mindsets and need satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 01417.
Mageau, G.A., Ranger, F., Joussemet, M., et al. (2015). Validation of the perceived parental auton-
omy support scale (P-PASS). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47, 251–262.
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
McHugh, M.L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.
Michou, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2014). Enriching the hierarchical
model of achievement motivation: Autonomous and controlling reasons underlying achieve-
ment goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 650–666.
Mozgalina, A. (2015). More or less choice? The influence of choice on task motivation and task
engagement. System, 49, 120–132.
Mynard, J., & S. Shelton-Strong (Eds.). (2022). Autonomy support beyond the language learning
classroom: A self-determination theory perspective. Multilingual Matters.
Al-Hoorie et al. 33
Nicklin, C., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Outliers in L2 research in applied linguistics: A synthesis and
data re-analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 26–55.
Nishimura, T., Bradshaw, E.L., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2020). Satisfaction of basic psychologi-
cal needs in an interdependence model of fathers’ own aspirations and those of their adoles-
cent children. Social Development, 30, 293–310.
Noels, K.A. (2013). Learning Japanese; learning English: Promoting motivation through auton-
omy, competence and relatedness. In Apple, M., Da Silva, D., & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language
learning motivation in Japan (pp. 15–34). Multilingual Matters.
Noels, K.A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style
and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 23–34.
Noels, K.A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations
of French Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 424–442.
Noels, K.A., Vargas Lascano, D.I., & Saumure, K. (2019). The development of self-determination
across the language course: Trajectories of motivational change and the dynamic interplay of
psychological needs, orientations, and engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
41, 821–851.
Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R.L. (2000). Why are you learning a sec-
ond language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning,
50, 57–85.
Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2009). Motivation in physical education classes: A self-determi-
nation theory perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 194–202.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement
process in foreign language learning. System, 86, 102128.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2022). The quality of our connections matters: Relationships motiva-
tion theory in independent language learning. In Mynard, J., & S. Shelton-Strong (Eds.),
Autonomy support beyond the language learning classroom: A self-determination theory per-
spective (Chapter 8). Multilingual Matters.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., & Fryer, L.K. (2018). Schools can improve motivational quality: Profile
transitions across early foreign language learning experiences. Motivation and Emotion, 42,
527–545.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., & Fryer, L.K. (2020). Profiles of language learning motivation: Are new
and own languages different? Learning and Individual Differences, 79, 101852.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., & Nakata, Y. (2015). Structure also supports autonomy: Measuring and
defining autonomy-supportive teaching in Japanese elementary foreign language classes.
Japanese Psychological Research, 57, 167–179.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., & Nakata, Y. (2017). Engagement, gender, and motivation: A predictive
model for Japanese young language learners. System, 65, 151–163.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., & Nakata, Y. (2020). How teachers promote young language learners’
engagement: Lesson form and lesson quality. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2,
101–130.
Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., Nakata, Y., Parker, P.D., & Ryan, R.M. (2017). Motivating young lan-
guage learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school
foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 140–150.
Pae, T.-I., & Shin, S.-K. (2011). Learning and Individual Differences. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21, 215–222.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated
guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, n71.
Papi, M., & Hiver, P. (2020). Language learning motivation as a complex dynamic system: A
global perspective of truth, control, and value. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 209–232.
34 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
Papi, M., & Hiver, P. (2022). Motivation. In Li, S., Hiver, P., & M. Papi (Eds.), The Routledge hand-
book of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 113–127). Routledge.
Parrish, A. (2020). Modern foreign languages: Decision-making, motivation and 14–19 schools.
Cambridge Journal of Education, 50, 469–481.
Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. (1993). Predictive validity and reliability of
the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53, 801–813.
Ratelle, C.F., Simard, K., & Guay, F. (2012). University students’ subjective well-being: The role
of autonomy support from parents, friends, and the romantic partner. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 14, 893–910.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for them-
selves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 579–
595.
Reeve, J. (2015). Giving and summoning autonomy support in hierarchical relationships. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 9/8, 406–418.
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S.H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and
potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56, 54–77.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a
learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218.
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement produces longitudinal changes in
classroom motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 527–540.
Reeve, J., & Sickenius, B. (1994). Development and validation of a brief measure of the three
psychological needs underlying intrinsic motivation: The AFS scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 54, 506–515.
Reeve, J., Cheon, S.H., & Jang, H. (2020). How and why students make academic progress:
Reconceptualizing the student engagement construct to increase its explanatory power.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101899.
Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., et al. (2013). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-sup-
portive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38,
93–110.
Rogiers, A., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2020). The profile of the skilled reader: An investiga-
tion into the role of reading enjoyment and student characteristics. International Journal of
Educational Research, 99, 101512.
Ryan, R.M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining
reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–
761.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motiva-
tion, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination
theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2021). Building a science of motivated
persons: Self-determination theory’s empirical approach to human experience and the regula-
tion of behavior. Motivation Science, 7, 97–110.
Skinner, E.A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. SAGE.
Skinner, E.A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 549–570.
Al-Hoorie et al. 35
Skinner, E.A., Furrer, C.J., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T.A. (2008). Engagement and disaf-
fection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 765–781.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Van Petegem, S. (2014). Let us not throw out the baby with the
bathwater: Applying the principle of universalism without uniformity to autonomy-support-
ive and controlling parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 44–49.
Sudina, E. (2021). Study and scale quality in second language survey research, 2009–2019: The
case of anxiety and motivation. Language Learning, 71, 1149–1193.
Sugita-McEown, M., & McEown, K. (2019). The role of parental factors and the self in predict-
ing positive L2 outcomes among Japanese learners of English. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 40, 934–949.
Sugita-McEown, M., & Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019). Self-determination for all language learn-
ers: New applications for formal language education. System, 86, 102124.
Sugita-McEown, M., Noels, K.A., & Saumure, K.D. (2014). Self-determined and integrative ori-
entations and teachers. System, 45, 227–241.
Vallerand, R.J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Zanna,
M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271–360). Academic Press.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., et al. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A
measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 52, 1003–1017.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E.L. (2006). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic goal contents in self-
determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 19–31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the moti-
vational impact of intrinsic vs. extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive vs. inter-
nally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child
Development, 76, 483–501.
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R.M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory:
Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44, 1–31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational pro-
files from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 671–688.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., et al. (2004). Less is sometimes more: Goal content mat-
ters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 755–764.
Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008). Does
extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals’ learning and perfor-
mance? An experimental test of the match perspective vs. self-determination theory. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 100, 387–397.
Vieluf, S., & Göbel, K. (2019). Making intercultural learning in EFL lessons interesting: The role
of teaching processes and individual learning prerequisites and their interactions. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 79, 1–16.
Vitta, J.P., & Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2020). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A
meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print 24 December 2020. DOI:
10.1177/1362168820981403.
Vitta, J.P., & Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2021). Measurement and sampling recommendations for L2 flipped
learning experiments: A bottom-up methodological synthesis. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 18,
682–692.
Vitta, J., Nicklin, C., & McLean, S. (2021). Effect size-driven sample-size planning, randomiza-
tion, and multisite use in L2 instructed vocabulary acquisition experimental samples. Studies
36 Language Teaching Research 00(0)
in Second Language Acquisition. Epub ahead of print 6 September 2021. DOI: 10.1017/
S0272263121000541.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A.K., & Ryan, R.M. (2012). The index of autonomous functioning:
Development of a scale of human autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 397–
413.
Williams, G.C., & Deci, E.L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical stu-
dents: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
767–779.
Zhang, X. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of second language acquisition between 1997 and 2018.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 199–222.
Zhou, S., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A.H. (under review). Dynamic engagement: A longitudinal dual-
process, reciprocal-effects model of teacher motivational practice and student engagement.