Motivation as I said needs a proper environment. researchers in the civilized world do not see the problem because ,very simply, they do not have it. In a real democracy students are empowered to express themselves and get exposed to real authentic material. Whereas in theocracies everything has to pass through the filter of those who think they are custodians of religions. It is always good to theorize and feel that there is no difference but by the end of the day we know, in the heart of our hearts , that there is a big difference. Let me give an example. I taught in an Arab country for two years, I tried to use a mixture of communicative and task-based approach in my class and the result was that the class was highly motivated. Consequently it became noisy from the point of view of my colleagues and the headmaster of my school, I was accused that I did not have control over my class and consequently they thought im a second rate teacher etc..Before theorizing about motivation in Saudi Arabia or any country in the gulf I want everybody to imagine the following. In your class there will be always a student whose sole job is to report what you say and what you do in class. Colleagues love reporting too.  The headmaster will spend the whole day trying to hear and know what is happening in your class . Finally, add to this the potential reality of being visited every week or so by an inspector who does not even know how to speak English. Now I ask every honest person to tell me if it is logical to theorize about motivation before changing the very environment of the educational system..

Mr. Ahmad,

Great question.

It is a question that plagues EFL teachers and programs globally.

Unfortunately there is no easy answer. 

First I would suggest that it is not just how, but also what kind of motivation teachers aim to support that is important

I would suggest you look at Willy Lens and colleagues' work on instrumental goal research as a start, particularly their work with internal and external regulation of instrumental goals. If this interests you, you could then look at Vanstenkiste and colleagues' work with internal and external goal framing. Finally, if this line of thinking appeals to you, you could step back to the Self-Determination Theory Research from the late 1980s and early 1990's (e.g., Kasser and Sheldon). 

This entire field broadly suggests that students pursuing goals with a greater internal locus of causality are more likely to be motivated proximally for adaptive reasons, persist, process deeply and achieve.

Back to your question: How?

Well, research would suggest that framing courses and tasks with adaptive goal language (e.g, the English language skills you learn here will support your growth potential contribution as a local and global citizen, the English language skills you learn here will open a whole spectrum of opportunities for you in the future, etc) can have persistent positive effects on student learning. This takes some pretty serious and consistent work on the part of the teacher. On a larger scale, if institutions can create a culture which stresses the importance of English for students' lives in a broad sense, this too might support more adaptive motivation for learning English. This takes time and money of course

Any other suggestions? 

Dear Ahmed,

Thanks for this question.

one simple solution: change the educational policy. People in power have to be aware of this problem and have to issue laws that stimulate honest competition and real learning. This is the first major step that many ESL researchers seem to beat about without ever confronting.

As you well know education is politics at its basic background and if people in power do not have the will to improve the system then you can speak about motivation philosophy till the morning but at the end of every analysis the problem will be still there.

By criticizing the educational politics people in power will respect you because they need somebody to tell them the truth and not saying the usual refrain "everything is fine"

Dear Colleague:

Let me start by saying that, in the field of foreign language teaching, talking about motivation is a very challenging task since there is a myriad of perspectives. For example, from a socio-psychological approach, Garder (1985) defined motivation as the extent to which a learner strives to acquire a language as a result of his/her desire to do it and his/her level of satisfaction when doing it. Within this view, he identified two orientations for learning a language: integrative (a desire to increase the affiliation with the target community) and instrumental ( a desire to accomplish utilitarian purposes). On the other hand and from a self-deterministic approach, Deci and Ryan (1985) defined motivation in terms of how individuals move themselves or others to act. To them, one can talk about three types of motivation: intrinsic (doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable), extrinsic (doing something because it leads to achieving an expected outcome), and amotivation (feelings of incompetence and helplessness when doing something). Finally and from a language classroom level, Dörnyei (2001) defined motivation as a dynamic quality which changes over time in response to the different levels in the learning process: the linguistic level, the learner level, and the learning situation level. In the linguistic level, he discussed integrative and instrumental motivation, whereas in the learner level, he talked about need for achievement and self-confidence and in the learning situation level, he talked about motivation componentes derived from the course, the teacher, and the group.  The point I am tryin to make here is that we teachers need to be careful when talking about motivation since we may be assuming rather restricted or limited perspectives or approaches. Overall, we should read different theories and familiarize ourselves with different proposals so that we can make informed decisions about how to help our students feel more and better motivated towards learning a language. 

Anyway, trying to answer your question about promoting instrumental motivation, I think raising learners' awareness about the value of learning a foreign language is a useful alternative. This means explaining learners how English can help them achieve goals they value. Additionally, I believe teachers can promote instrumental motivation by getting learners to set goals and expectations for activities and exercises done in and out of class. Finally, I would suggest incorporating concrete rewards for participating in class activities and doing class assignments. 

I am sure you can find more solid strategies in the book Motivational strategies in the language classroom written by Dörnyei in 2001. See reference below.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I agree totally with Brahim Bouali. He has hit the nail on the head. I would go further, there is often no sociocultural pressure that motivates students to learn English successfully. No matter how hard you try, there is nothing you can do to motivate them. My students all state that they want to learn English but they are not willing to make the effort because society demands Maths, Physics, Chemistry etc. before English. They also associte English with Anglo-Saxon culture instead of as an instrument for global communication.

Maybe I misunderstand your intent, but would it not be better to increase the integrative motivation of the students?

My reaction is the same as that of  Michael. I think that sometimes students in the Arab world have negative feelings about the English language because it is the one predominantly used by Americans (who, in turn, are seen as a malign influence in the region, and as vastly biased towards the interests of one particular state). Some Saudi students may therefore have low levels of integrative motivation.

One possible way to break through this might be to organise student exchange programmes which would bring students from other countries into KSA - students from, for example, European countries like Germany, France and Italy, or Asian countries like South Korea or Japan. Communicating with those students (also learning English as a Foreign Language) would be in English. And it would allow Saudi students to see how useful English would be to them, for worldwide communication and not just for talking to Americans or the British. Seeing that acquiring English will help them to integrate into a worldwide community of English speakers might give a boost to motivation, perhaps.

Motivation as I said needs a proper environment. researchers in the civilized world do not see the problem because ,very simply, they do not have it. In a real democracy students are empowered to express themselves and get exposed to real authentic material. Whereas in theocracies everything has to pass through the filter of those who think they are custodians of religions. It is always good to theorize and feel that there is no difference but by the end of the day we know, in the heart of our hearts , that there is a big difference. Let me give an example. I taught in an Arab country for two years, I tried to use a mixture of communicative and task-based approach in my class and the result was that the class was highly motivated. Consequently it became noisy from the point of view of my colleagues and the headmaster of my school, I was accused that I did not have control over my class and consequently they thought im a second rate teacher etc..Before theorizing about motivation in Saudi Arabia or any country in the gulf I want everybody to imagine the following. In your class there will be always a student whose sole job is to report what you say and what you do in class. Colleagues love reporting too.  The headmaster will spend the whole day trying to hear and know what is happening in your class . Finally, add to this the potential reality of being visited every week or so by an inspector who does not even know how to speak English. Now I ask every honest person to tell me if it is logical to theorize about motivation before changing the very environment of the educational system..

Very good answers. I have the same problem in the setting I teach at. Students give minimal attention to their English language studies because they study in scientific faculties and that requires so much effort from them, So, they attend English classes for attandance only. They do the minimal tasks. Part of this is the university's policy of not calculating English in their GPA, so the grade they get wouldn't affect their grade. The only thing that matters to them is to pass. 

All these answers are fascinating and provide important insights into the problem areas of learning English particularly throughout the Middle East. My students arrive at the university with a BS degree either in engineering or the natural sciences--I think I have had only two students with degrees outside the sciences. But these students do have some strong motivation to nail down their English writing/reading skills--unfortunately very quickly.  Until this pressure to test successfully on the GRE or go back to Saudi (most of my students are from Saudi) without a graduate degree, they have not generally taken English too seriously, it seems. Their speaking, reading, and writing skills are generally quite low - judged in light of the graduate exam they will have to take.  And the government severely restricts the time they have to prepare for this test before they begin graduate school.  Literally, these students are thrown into the deep end of the pool with little instruction in how to swim. They do not mix with other students and tend to stay together; when their classes are over, they leave campus immediately.  As a result, they have little time to hear the language and develop the "ear" that can be so vital in developing fluency.  But I don't have time to create the classroom scenarios with real-world topics that can develop language awareness in other fields outside the sciences.  And the GRE will provide only perhaps one passage that is science-related.  They must be able to read well in social sciences, humanities, etc.  And the vocabulary on the GRE is outrageously difficult--by any standards.  I know plenty of American-born English majors whose scores in the verbal section are lower than expected.  This new verbal version (since 2011) makes the old test look easy--and it wasn't. Most of these students have studied English at least six years, but their skills don't match the time frame allotted to English studies.  Thus, it seems there is something going on in the schools of the home countries that limits their English learning. Some of the answers above explain that situation quite well.

I find Brahim's discussion of the situation he encountered in an Arab country quite enlightening and very similar to one I had in a Muslim school, chiefly populated by Arab Muslims and operated by Arab Muslims--from the Board through the principals, administration, and most of the staff.  There were only two American Muslim teachers in the entire school--I was head of the Department of Humanities; thus, I had to integrate Islamic Studies, English, History into a coherent program of some sort.  The problem was always English.  Nobody took the subject seriously, although parents certainly took the standardized tests quite seriously.  But the path to being successful in those tests was loaded with obstacles, not the least among them the disrespect for all things "American."  When I reminded some women that their discussion of "those Americans" included my mother, grandparents, not to mention "me," they always remarked, "But not you, Sister!"  And went back to the usual berating of American politics, etc.  Now I am not in favor of most of my country's politics, educational policies (they don't work), cultural celebrity obsessions, and a host of other matters too long to list.  Students missed class for a variety of reasons, none of which would "fly" in an American school.  But I did manage to get my students out into the world, at least, some of the time.

As most women of my generation, I am a firm supporter of and believer in education for women--no matter the age.  I take seriously "from the cradle to the grave" for all educational endeavors. And education isn't always in a book.  If mothers are the child's first teachers (and they are), then women must be educated because children prepared at home for the events of school are much more likely to succeed than those that enter school with little literacy education behind them. I am speaking here of studies done in the United States that looked at children who attended pre-school and those that did not.  Those with pre-school education performed much better on all tasks than those that remained at home.  But in the school at which I taught, I was told point-blank, 'Your job is to keep these girls busy until their parents find them suitable husbands."  (This was in the 1990s).  I had girls that wanted to be doctors, lawyers, newspaper reporters; some wanted to teach and become professors. some did not want to marry at all.  Every single one of them wanted advanced degrees from American universities.  But few of them were encouraged to seek those degrees. Their greatest advantage as English learners was that they lived all the time in American surroundings.  They were forced to communicate in English nearly all the time, so they developed a great degree of speaking fluency. All these children were first-generation American-born of immigrant parents.  Even the children used to joke how their parents were "always going to go home" (back to the Middle East), despite their having spent 30 + years in the United States.  The tensions between these American-born children and their parents and grandparents were often quite stressful for the children especially.  They did not quite hold the overwhelmingly negative views of the United States that their parents held; they tended to separate American politics from America itself and from the things they enjoyed in the U.S. I tried to teach English and history from that vantage point--the children wanted to understand and to be competitive in this society.  And that requires learning things that parents and school administrators might not appreciate.  But kids often opened the discussion on topics I'm sure would have shocked their parents.  But because of the monitoring of views by children, faculty and staff alike, we often had to side-step these points or not develop them at all.

 The school closely monitored my class and my personal views. I tried to cooperate with the ranking of English as "not really quite necessary." But we were living in New Jersey, not Cairo.  English is absolutely necessary unless you happen to live in a bubble, totally isolated--and that isolation was often a great part of the problem encountered by Muslim students. They were isolated from the larger society and from the opportunities to spread out and succeed in that society.  Success does not mean assimilation (emphasis on "similar") but it some level of acculturation is needed (at least one must navigate this culture).  And if monitoring is so restrictive that one cannot teach appropriately, then, these students will remain on the fringes of the society, not taken seriously by the larger society. I do know Americans; they will adjust to people and ideas they find "strange."  In New York, for instance, nearly two million Muslims are in residence; wearing the hijab in public schools is no big deal to anybody (excepting the aftermath of terrorist activities).  But a teacher cannot be fired from her position or denied tenure for wearing the hijab.  Here in Alabama she can be dismissed, although the stated reason will not primarily focus on her clothes; it will focus on her teaching methods or as Brahim points out, the teacher may be rated as second-rate or a poor instructor; she violates pedagogy, etc. I was the victim of such "profiling" back in the 1990s in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.

The Muslim school and I parted company in less than five years--not because I wanted to leave but because I simply would not "go with the flow" regarding women and the severe restrictions put upon them in my country that encourages women to get an education, live independently, and become a part of the society in which they live. My views were not appropriate and my teaching methodology and inclusion of certain materials of which the administration disapproved led to our parting of the ways. To thrive in a multi-cultural society, one must learn a wide range of information about culture, politics, religion, not to mention the host of other intangible elements that go into becoming a productive member of the society.  But this close monitoring and refusal to accept anything "American" as remotely "good" is a huge obstacle to learning the culture, the language, and having the opportunities to impact the society in a good way, to offset the overwhelmingly negative views that Americans have of the Middle East, Muslims in particular. But the only time Americans hear from Muslims is in the event of a disaster--and then all we hear is "Islam means peace."  Well, that doesn't help much when certain supposed practitioners of that religion are slaughtering people.  And it is easy with the over-abundance of "terrorist experts" on every channel to believe that "they" [all Muslims] are members of this evil religion.  Few Americans have ever had a conversation with a Muslim from Kansas or Texas, just that average Muslim who tries to live the faith and practice in a country that does not adhere to that faith nor respect it.  The dialogue between the Middle East and the United States would be so much more productive if it took place among teachers, students, parents, and other interested parties--not politicians, whether theocratic or democratic or something else. This needed dialogue can't even begin until there is some level of respect and desire to know one another--and that must begin in the schools of all these nations. English is important as a global language; it is now the lingua franca just as Latin and French used to be.  Whether one hates the U.S. or loves it, American English dominates much of the global English language.  And formal English is quite rich in vocabulary and complex syntactic structures, although in many instances I don't find it as nuanced as I might like it to be. Sorry for the long discussion but this ongoing strain between the Middle East in general and the United States is heart-breaking to those of us who passionately disagree with our government's stand in the Middle East.  But the only way to alter that biased stand is for Muslims to become essential members of the American society with a voice to be heard and votes to be had.  Politicians don't understand much, but they do understand "get elected."  Until that voting bloc power exists among Muslims, and Muslims are an American entity with which to be reckoned, there will be no changes in this society.  That process demands education both in school and in the culture itself. Isolating oneself and trying to live within a theocratic school system in the U.S. cannot lead to success in the ways I have mentioned. As the old saying goes, "The last time Americans joined religion and politics, we hanged and burned witches."