Theorization related to language learning motivation can be traced at least as far back as the 1950s, stemming from the work of Gardner and Lambert (1959). In 1979, Gardner argued that language learning in the secondary school context should not be viewed as an educational phenomenon; instead, his primary interest was in understanding learners’ attitudes towards the language and its speakers, as well as their motives for learning it. However, the rise of social constructivist theory in the 1990s also saw the emergence of the cognitive-situated phase of motivation research, recognizing that ‘motivational sources closely related to the learners’ immediate classroom environment [had] a stronger impact on the overall language learning motivation complex than had been expected’ (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 47). During this period, evidence from longitudinal studies (e.g., Chambers, 1999; Nikolov, 1999) reinforced the view that teachers and teaching could play a central role in the development of language learning motivation. Pedagogical textbooks also began to emerge, focusing on how teachers could motivate their pupils to learn a language (e.g., Williams & Burden, 1997; Dörnyei, 2001).

In 2011, an authoritative review of language learning motivation by Dörnyei and Ushioda claimed that the amount of research focusing on the question of motivating learners was limited compared to the amount of research on language learning motivation. However, by 2015, Boo et al. reported that of 415 papers published in the period between 2005 and 2014, approximately one-third had a focus on ‘motivating’ rather than ‘motivation’, pointing to a significant shift towards considering the pedagogical dimensions of motivation in language education. This volume contributes to this growing body of research seeking to understand the ways in which characteristics of the learner, the teacher and the learning environment can impact on language learning motivation, with a view to identifying practical implications for practice and policy.

The focus of the present volume is to report the findings of a large-scale mixed methods study of language learning motivation among Hong Kong secondary school learners. The study provided unique and significant insights into the role of learner traits, teacher variables, and features of the learning context in shaping the degree and internal structure of language learning motivation. The discussion that unfolds draws on the Douglas Fir Group (DFG) (2016) framework, allowing the various motivational factors to be understood in relation to one another and the wider macro context. Built on work conducted over several decades across diverse disciplines for the purposes of progressing understandings of language teaching and learning, the DFG framework provides a helpful lens to conceptualize language learning motivation as both a psychological trait and subject to sociocultural influence. This more holistic perspective lends itself particularly well to understanding the macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors that impact on motivation, and the embedded nature of these context levels.

Two models have primarily dominated the field of language learning motivation in recent decades, namely Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model and Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self-System (L2MSS). However, in and of themselves neither model represents a sufficiently holistic approach that allows for understanding the micro level of the learner and their interactions within the broader contexts of the institutions and societies within which they learn and live. Indeed, Dörnyei (2019) acknowledges that while the L2MSS has led to a shift towards a self-based approach that accounts for the learner’s psychology in language learning motivation, little has been done to understand the third component of the model, namely the role of the language learning experience, which itself only extends to the immediate classroom context. On the other hand, Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model paid more attention to the socio-cultural context but neglected the psychology of the learner (Dörnyei, 2005). Adopting the DFG framework as a conceptual lens allows us to recognize language learning motivation as situated not only in the immediate classroom environment but also in the broader institutional and sociocultural contexts, while also acknowledging the individuality of the learner (see Figure 1.1). Language motivation can thus be understood as a psychological trait situated within learners’ diverse socio-emotional, sociocultural, sociopolitical and ideological contexts.

Within this conceptual framework, we narrow our focus to the specific learner, teacher, and language learning environment factors that can be situated within the micro, meso, and macro contexts of learning. At the micro level, we focus on the learner. We consider the motivational profiles that emerge across the full dataset and complement this with qualitative data gathered from focus group interviews, exploring students’ accounts of their motivations for language learning. This qualitative perspective gives a voice to the student participants, giving them greater representation than has typically been the case in studies of language learning motivation. It also allows for a richer understanding of the factors that students feel contribute to or detract from their motivation for language learning. Indeed, while recognizing the useful contribution of quantitative data to understanding motivational trends and enabling robust inferences, qualitative insights from both students and teachers was considered important in responding to the predominance of ‘the general rather than the particular’ (Ushioda, 2011, p. 11) in language motivation research. Some have argued that studies that rely on closed-ended questionnaires that are statistically analysed do not habitually lead to practical implications (e.g., Kim, 2006); while this is debatable, it is clear that qualitative data can make a significant contribution to this end, and indeed that a richer understanding of individuality in language motivation is essential. Our focus group data thus yielded insights into what makes students motivated or unmotivated in their language learning, an area that Doiz et al. (2014) argue remains under-researched.

In recognition of the fact that personality is ‘the most individual characteristic of a human being’ (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 15), we also examine the relationship between learner personality and the internal structure of language learning motivation. Understanding this relationship is fundamental in avoiding the construction of faceless individuals that Dewaele (2005) refers to when he argues against what he sees as the marginalization of psychological variables in SLA research. Furthermore, Dewaele (2005) also argues that personality traits have considerable potential to yield insights into the psychological and emotional dimensions of SLA, and thus to inform the development of pedagogy that equips learners with greater sociocultural competence (pp. 376–77). Indeed, Sakui and Cowie (2011) argue that language teachers have long recognized the influence of learners’ personalities in shaping their language learning behaviors and in-class participation. Nevertheless, the role of personality in language learning remains under-researched (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015), and the handful of studies that do exist have primarily focused on the relationship between personality and attainment. The fact that these studies point to a significant role played by personality traits in language attainment suggests possibilities for a similar role in motivation.

Within the meso context, we focus on a key characteristic of the institutional environment, namely the medium of instruction, and on teacher variables, specifically motivational practice and teachers’ cognitions on motivational practice. Recent decades have witnessed a proliferation of educational models that deliver content through learners’ second languages (del Pilar & Mayo, 2015). Content-based instruction (CBI), immersion programs and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) are examples of such models, which are typically promoted in the belief that this type of instruction results in a naturally motivating context for language learning and language use, facilitating students’ learning of ‘subject knowledge and competencies as well as skills and competencies in the foreign language’ (Georgiou, 2012, p. 495; Pérez Cañado, 2017).

CBI is a dominant feature of Hong Kong’s school system. Secondary schools in Hong Kong, a former British colony that reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, fall into three main medium of instruction (MoI) categories: Chinese medium of instruction (CMI), English medium of instruction (EMI), or mixed medium of instruction (MMI). Following the 1997 handover, MoI policy in Hong Kong shifted from a heavy emphasis on EMI to a heavy emphasis on CMI. Due mainly to political pressures (Tsui, 2004; Tollefson & Tsui, 2014), as well as the gate-keeping role of English in higher education and a competitive job market, a ‘fine-tuning’ policy was implemented in 2010. This policy allowed schools a degree of flexibility to adapt their MoI policy according to their needs and resources. It allowed CMI schools to deliver up to 25% of the curriculum through English, provided they offered evidence to the Education Bureau (EDB) that their students had the academic ability to learn through English. Such schools are considered to offer MMI.

Both English and Chinese are associated with strong sociopolitical and socioeconomic values, identities, histories, and cultures, which continue to exert significant influences on Hong Kong society. Decisions about MoI are typically deeply influenced by these sociopolitical and socio-economic features of the macro context, whether in Hong Kong or in other sociocultural contexts, pointing to a need to understand not only the ways in which features of the learning environment impact on learner motivation but also the ways in which these features themselves often result from forces at play in the macro context. However, the assumed motivational potential of CBI models for language learning remains largely under-researched. Indeed, the few studies exploring this relationship have typically adopted academic motivation frameworks that fail to account for the uniqueness of language learning, for instance as it relates to human interaction with a community and the place of language proficiency in wider society. Existing language learning motivation (LLM)-specific models represent the processes inherent to language learning and the ways in which these processes interact with social context (Gardner, 2010) and with the learner’s psychological traits (Dörnyei, 2009). Language learners have thus been dichotomized as motivated/unmotivated or less motivated/more motivated, but little light has been shed on the nature of their motivational orientations, which itself may have important implications for the development of learner agency. Furthermore, while the motivational potential of CBI has been extolled, little has been done to explore the motivational practices of the teachers working within such models, or to understand the affordances and constraints they face in motivating their students.

In recent years, the field of language learning motivation has shifted to exploring the impact of teachers’ motivational practice. A growing body of literature is translating the theoretical advances into pedagogical recommendations (e.g., Alison & Halliwell, 2002; Kubanyiova & Dörnyei, 2014; Teimouri, 2017). However, the majority of studies exploring motivational practice tend towards descriptive accounts of what teachers do to motivate their learners and of teacher and student perceptions of the effectiveness of these strategies (e.g., Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998; Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007; Ruesch et al., 2012), and often rely...