College EFL teachers’ demotivation to conduct research: A dynamic and ecological view

Abstract

Competences for conducting research is vitally important for college EFL teachers’ career development, but many college English teachers are demotivated in academic research. To investigate teachers’ motivation on academic activities, this study firstly explored motivational changes of college EFL teachers (mean age 37.39, SD 9.77) for conducting research in their teaching career, and then delved into the factors underlying their demotivation by sending questionnaires. In the end, several English teachers and officers managing research projects were interviewed to elicit solutions to overcome EFL teachers’ demotivation to conduct research. This study found that college EFL teachers had large possibilities to suffer from demotivation to conduct research. Exploratory factor analysis indicated five factors causing their demotivation, including weak research ability, negative emotions and attitudes, poor research surroundings, research management problems and insufficient resources. Thematic analysis demonstrated that ecological solutions should be taken by different stakeholders in EFL teachers’ working ecology, including universities, research communities, government, and publishers. This study problematized the static view on teachers’ demotivation to conduct research and provided some insights and implications for reasons and solutions for demotivation.

1. Introduction

In the fierce competition of higher education in the world, academic research intensity is one of the essential indicators of the overall educational quality of universities (Mägi and Beerkens, 2016). To improve the competitive edge in the university rankings, many universities encourage their teaching staff to conduct academic research. For example, numerous universities in China tend to link teachers’ promotions and incentives with their research output and hence urge college teachers to pursue scholarship (Zhao, 2015; Peng and Gao, 2019). From the perspective of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers, conducting research could deepen their understanding of EFL learners, teachers, teaching practice and other crucial elements in their career (Gao and Chow, 2011; Borg and Liu, 2013). Therefore, college EFL teachers, an important group in college teachers, should conduct academic research for the sake of themselves, their students and the universities they are working in. However, it is not uncommon to find that many college EFL teachers spend fairly limited time on academic research (e.g., see Chen and Wang, 2013) even though encouraged by universities with various benefits. Consequently, many college EFL teachers’ research capacities and publications were rather limited (Bai and Hudson, 2011; Wang and Han, 2011). Considering the importance of research to EFL teachers, the scant investments, competences, and publications might hinder their career development and their students’ English learning.

Currently, English teachers’ demotivation in their teaching career has been noticed among several researchers in different countries (e.g., Yaghoubinejad et al., 2017; Nagamine, 2018; Khanal et al., 2021; Kim and Kim, 2022), but a paucity of studies distinguished their (de)motivation of English teaching from that of conducting academic research or even shift their focus to EFL teachers’ research intensity (Yuan et al., 2016). Indeed, several studies investigated English teachers’ motivation to conduct research (e.g., Borg and Liu, 2013), but the dark side of motivation (i.e., demotivation) was neglected, and hence the factors underlying EFL teachers’ demotivation to conducted research (hereinafter, DTCR) and corresponding solutions were rarely explored. Besides, although there exist little research focusing on EFL teachers’ research behaviors, few researchers investigated the dynamic and flexible process of (de) motivation in their long teaching career path.

Based on these considerations, this study explored the dynamic processes of college EFL teachers’ (de)motivation to conduct research, investigated the factors underlying their DTCR, and delved into the solutions to overcome it. This study could help to understand EFL teachers’ DTCR better and provide suggestions for stakeholders to overcome DTCR.

2. Literature review

2.1. Motivation, amotivation, and demotivation

Studies on motivation increased gradually after Gardner and Lambert (1972) proposed their classic concepts of integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. However, there is no universally accepted definition on motivation until now because of its complexity (Han and Yin, 2016). For example, Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981) classified existing motivation definitions into nine categories in light of their focuses. By drawing upon various definitions, Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) concluded that direction and magnitude of human behavior were the two dimensions most researchers agreed for defining motivation. In other words, motivation stipulated the reasons why individuals are determined to do an activity, the length they will sustain the activity and the efforts they are going to make for this activity.

Apart from motivation, its dark sides were also frequently investigated in related studies. Currently, amotivation and demotivation were often applied to express the meaning that people work or study with decreased motivation in existing studies (e.g., Balkis, 2018; Wu et al., 2020; Albalawi and Al-Hoorie, 2021). Amotivation was firstly used in self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985), where it was defined as the relative absence of motivation that is caused by an individual’s feelings of incompetence and helplessness when faced with an activity. For example, when encountered with unmasterable situations, people would suffer from helplessness, depression, listlessness, and self-disparagement, which would lead to the decrease of motivation. Compared with amotivation, demotivation was more frequently used by researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) field (Ren, 2022). Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, p. 139) once defined demotivation as “specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action.” They compared the two terms of amotivation and demotivation, and thought amotivation is related to some unrealistic expectations, while demotivation is linked with specific external reasons. In fact, neither the definitions of the two terms could cover the complex phenomenon of motivation decrease among college EFL teachers. For example, several researchers (e.g., Sakai and Kikuchi, 2009; Clare et al., 2019) disagreed with Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011)’s definition of demotivation and included both internal and external factors when they were investigating demotivation. In this demotivational study, both the scopes of “demotivation” and “amotivation” were included. However, considering the terminology of “demotivation” was more frequently used in L2-related research articles than “amotivation” (see Table 1), this paper applied the term “demotivation,” though the definition was slightly different from that in the great book of Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011).

Based on the above considerations, college EFL teachers’ DTCR was defined as low or decreased investment and engagement in conducting research because of both internal and external factors in this study. This definition was drawn upon and synthesized from the studies conducted by Clare et al. (2019), Sakai and Kikuchi (2009), Pishghadam et al. (2021), Deci and Ryan (1985), and Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011), etc.

2.2. Teacher demotivation

There were several studies conducted to explore EFL teachers’ demotivation in various educational stages. For example, Yaghoubinejad et al. (2017) found the major demotivating factors for Iranian junior high school English teachers included lack of social recognition and respect, few adequate rewards, lack of supports or understanding regarding English education, and a large number of students in a single English class. Kim et al. (2014) compared the differences of demotivating factors between English teachers (in elementary and junior high schools) in China and South Korea. Their study indicated that large English class size was the common detrimental factor for English teachers in the two countries. But there existed some different demotivating factors for English teachers in the two countries. For example, only English teachers in China perceived “excessive interference or expectations of school parents” was a demotivating factor, while “large amounts of administrative tasks and students’ lack of interest” were found to be the demotivating factors for English teachers in South Korea. Similarly, Baniasad-Azad and Ketabi (2013) compared the factors causing English teachers’ demotivation in Iran and Japan, and found some analogous and different underlying factors. In addition, Ozturk (2021) went even further and investigated only one ability of English teachers (i.e., assessment) in the teaching process and uncovered the reasons for EFL teachers’ demotivation to be more assessment literate in Turkey.

However, most of the existing research only focused on investigating the underlying factors or reasons causing EFL teachers’ demotivation in their language teaching, but few explored their DTCR. Therefore, research on EFL teachers’ DTCR should be strengthened. First, teachers’ teaching and research are distinct in several dimensions, though they are often interrelated with each other (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1990; Liu et al., 2010). Research on teachers’ demotivation to teach might not provide enough information for understanding their DTCR. Hence, the different properties between teaching and research require studies specifically on research demotivation. In addition, teaching and research are the two most fundamental functions of universities, and they are the two sides of college teachers’ identities (Liu et al., 2010). Therefore, both demotivation of teaching and research deserve attentions in studies. Third and practically, universities tend to encourage and press their teaching staff to conduct academic research to gain competitiveness in the world university rankings and other various evaluations (Mägi and Beerkens, 2016). These practical research policies, regulations or requirements need more attentions paid on EFL teachers’ DTCR. For example, the factors causing EFL teachers’ DTCR and the solutions to overcome this problem and remotivate them should be investigated.

People’s (de)motivation was a changeable and dynamic process (e.g., see Waninge et al., 2014; Song and Kim, 2016; Zheng et al., 2020; Wang and Littlewood, 2021), but current studies seldom considered the fluctuation of teachers’ motivation of conducting research. Most of the motivation studies were conducted to delve into the factors underlying their motivational behaviors (e.g., see Bai and Hudson, 2011; Borg and Liu, 2013; Yuan et al., 2016), but little research paid attention to the motivation tendency in EFL teachers’ long teaching career. Therefore, to have a better understanding of the overall characteristics of this dynamic phenomenon, studies should be conducted to investigate the changing process of EFL teachers’ (de)motivation.

2.3. Ecological systems theory

Ecological systems theory (EST) was proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), which has changed the approaches for conducting research on the relations between human beings and their surrounding environments among numerous behavioral scientists and sociologists (Ceci, 2006, p. 173). Ecological systems were composed of a set of homocentric and nested sub-systems, including microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystem based on the extent of closeness between a person and the corresponding systems. Microsystems refer to those activities, roles, and interpersonal relations sensed by the progressing human being in a particular setting. Mesosystems are founded on the microsystems, and for a mesosystem, it is composed of the interrelations among two or more settings where the progressing human being directly take part. Exosystems are the settings that are not directly related to the progressing human being. However, those indirect settings could still impact or be impacted by the progressing person through the connecting person or even systems. Macrosystem refers to the setting at the culture or sub-culture levels. The above three lower-order systems are embedded in macrosystem. Macrosystem could be the underlying belief or ideologies for the above three systems (for more details, see Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

Although EST was originally proposed to explain the influences of environment on children’s development (Graves and Sheldon, 2018), this theory has been gradually drawn upon as a theoretical framework to guide the studies of teacher education. For example, Hwang (2014) delved into how ecological contexts influence South Korean teacher educators’ professional development and found global, political, social and institutional contexts could exert impacts on their development. Price and McCallum (2015) applied this theoretical framework to investigate teachers’ well-being and “fitness” among 120 pre-service teachers and concluded that ecological influences were regarded to impact on their well-being and competence to be suitable for sustainable performance. Mohammadabadi et al. (2019) inspected the factors influencing cognition among EFL teachers at various levels and found ecological factors at microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem levels could be the causes underlying their cognition. Therefore, EST could be applied as an appropriate theoretical framework in the research of EFL teachers. In addition, people’s behaviors are usually influenced by different environment factors (e.g., see Rubenstein et al., 2018), indicating that ecological perspectives should be considered when the reasons and solutions for EFL teachers’ DTCR were investigated.

Based on the review of the current studies and theories, this study aims to answer the following research questions:

• How does college EFL teachers’ motivation for conducting research change in their career?

• What are the reasons causing college EFL teachers’ DTCR?

• How to help college EFL teachers overcome their DTCR or remotivate them?

3. Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative data were applied to answer the 3 research questions in this study. To collect data, this study applied two instruments among college EFL teachers, including questionnaires and interviews. Totally, 339 English teachers returned the questionnaires, and 15 English teachers or officers accepted the interviews. Exploratory factor analysis and thematic analysis were applied as the data analyzing method to analyze quantitative and qualitative data.

3.1. Instruments

Research instruments applied in this study include questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire included three sections, i.e., basic information (Section 1), identifying question and motivational change graph (Section 2), and 7-point Likert scales (Section 3). The first section aimed to induce the information of college English teachers’ basic information, including age, teaching experience, etc. In the second section, the participants were firstly asked to indicate whether they had experience of DTCR and then to draw lines or carves on the motivation change graph. The motivation change graph was firstly created by Jung (2011) in his investigation of students’ motivational changes and was adopted by Wang and Littlewood (2021) and Song and Kim (2017) when they were delving into the dynamics of students’ demotivation. In this study, this instrument was used to stimulate college EFL teachers to chart their motivation changes over their teaching career. They were guided to dot to indicate their motivational levels from very boring (−2) to very interesting (+2) at a particular year in their teaching experience and then to draw graphs by linking those separated dots. The teachers who had more than 20 years’ teaching experience were only required to display their first 20 years’ experience. In Figure 1, one EFL teacher’s motivational changing track for conducting research was demonstrated. As demonstrated in this curve, this teacher had 8 years’ teaching experience, during which her motivation levels of conducting research fluctuated. Specifically, she was quite demotivated in conducting research at the beginning of her career but increased her motivation sharply in the 2nd and 3rd years. However, her motivation decreased gradually from the 3rd to 7th years but were followed by a rapid increase during the 6th to 8th years.

Figure. 1

The last section was a scale with 20 factors that might underlie college EFL teachers’ DTCR. This scale was designed based on questionnaires and qualitative data in former related studies (e.g., Yang et al., 2001; Borg and Liu, 2013; Chen and Wang, 2013; Kim et al., 2014; Peng, 2019). The whole questionnaire was displayed in the Appendix. This questionnaire was firstly reviewed and checked by several EFL English teachers and questionnaire designing experts to ensure its appropriateness. The corrected version was then distributed to participants in this study.

The semi-structured interviews were used to induce solutions to overcome DTCR and remotivate college EFL teachers to conduct research. The interview questions were all revolving around how to motivate them and reduce their DTCR. Since all the interviewees were native Chinese, the interviews were conducted in Chinese to improve communication efficiency. Informed consent was given to each interviewee before the interviews, and the interviews lasted from 17 to 46 min.

3.2. Participants

This study adopted simple random sampling to select college EFL teachers in three types of universities¹ in a city of central China. The paper questionnaires were sent to college English teachers in 10 universities. A total of 400 questionnaires were sent and 339 English teachers returned the questionnaires, among which 318 questionnaires were valid. In valid samples, 216 teachers indicated they had experienced of DTCR, among which 163 (75.46%) participants were female and the other 53 (24.54%) were male teachers. With regards to their age, those teachers ranged from 25 to 66 (mean 37.39, SD 9.77). Specifically, 52 (24.07%) English teachers were in their 20s, 106 (49.07%) were in their 30s, and 58 (26.85%) were in their 40s or above. As for their teaching experience, 75 teachers taught English <5 years, 86 taught 6–10 years, and 55 taught more than 10 years. The majority of them (185 teachers, accounting for 85.65%) hold master’s degrees, and 25 (11.57%) were PhD holders, and the other 6 (2.78%) teachers only hold bachelor’s degrees. Although the participants were teaching English courses in universities, they graduated from different majors: 87 (40.28%) teachers majored in English education or teaching, 55 (25.46%) majored in translation, 39 (18.06%) majored in linguistics, and 29 (13.43%) majored in English literature. While the other 6 (2.78%) teachers were from non-English related majors, like international politics, food science and engineering, management, etc.

This study adopted purposive sampling (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) and interviewed 12 English teachers and 3 officers administering teachers’ academic research projects in universities. Those participants included ordinary EFL teachers who were fairly demotivated and motivated in research, a PhD supervisor in EFL field, and several research project managers. The basic information of those participants was demonstrated in Table 2.

3.3. Data analysis

In this study, 318 valid questionnaires were numbered firstly, and they were the foundation to draw the general motivation change track of EFL teachers. To this end, the motivation level of each teacher in every year was noted and the average motivation level in each year was calculated, and then those average values were dotted and linked on the chart.

In the valid questionnaires, 216 English teachers indicated that they suffered from DTCR in their career. The demotivational reasons in the 216 questionnaires were analyzed by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to figure out the factors underlying EFL teachers’ DTCR.

In addition, this study interviewed 15 English teachers and officers in charge of teachers’ academic research, and all the interviews were permitted be recorded. The recorded interviews were transcribed into texts by https://www.iflyrec.com/zhuanwenzi.html, and were proofread by the researcher. Those texts were then input into NVivo 12 Plus to analyze. Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) were applied to analyze the 15 files, and they were iteratively read coded, compared, categorized, and integrated.

4. Results

4.1. Motivation changes for conducting research

This study drew a general motivation fluctuation graph to demonstrate EFL teachers’ motivation changes of conducting academic research. Every teacher’s motivation value was noted down based on their teaching experience (years), and finally an average curve of those 318 EFL teachers’ motivation levels were drafted (see Figure 2).

Figure. 2

This curve demonstrated the general tendency of EFL teachers’ motivation to conduct academic research. It could be found from the curve that teachers’ overall motivation levels were not very high, and the average curve never surpassed 1 during teachers’ 20 years’ teaching experience (Clearly, there were 2 summits of motivation in the curve at the years of 3 and 8. But neither of them exceeded “interesting” level.). In addition, this curve even exhibited that EFL teachers generally had low motivation to conduct academic research in three periods (1st year, 4th to 5th years, and 10th to 12th years) in their career, with motivation level below 0. Apart from the overall motivation levels in each year, this curve also displayed some fluctuations in EFL teachers’ teaching career, especially before the year of 12. For example, there were 2 significant declines in the curve (3rd to 5th year, and 8th to 11th year). Since DTCR covers both low investment and interests in academic research and gradually decreased investment and interests in it, generally 9 years (i.e., 1st year, 3rd to 5th years, and 8th to 12th years) could be named as DTCR years in EFL teachers’ career. Therefore, it could be concluded from the curve that college EFL teachers in China were very likely to suffer from DTCR in their teaching career.

4.2. Factors underlying DTCR

Table 3 demonstrated the results of KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO value reached 0.908, and the Sig. ratio of Bartlett’s test was 0.000 < 0.05. indicating that it was suitable to run factor analysis.

This study applied the method of principal components to extract factors based on Eigenvalues greater than 1. In addition, varimax was chosen as the method in rotation. This study extracted 5 components, explaining 78.02% of the total variance. Therefore, the 5 components could reasonably represent the original data. The rotated component matrix was displayed in Table 4. The factors were named based on the contents of the items affiliated to them. For example, item 5, 9 and 20 indicated that EFL teachers’ DTCR was because of their insufficient time, academic resources and social connections. Therefore, the corresponding factors were named as “insufficient research resources.”

Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the reliability of the scale was 0.934. In addition, Cronbach Alpha and Omega coefficients for the five factors were displayed in Table 5.

These scores showed that Cronbach Alpha and Omega coefficients for each factor were quite high. These results could be regarded as an indicator that the scale was reliable.

The EFA results indicated that EFL teachers were demotivated by five factors for their DTCR, including weak research ability, negative emotions and attitudes, poor research surroundings, research management problems and insufficient resources. These findings demonstrated that, besides EFL teachers’ own factors (i.e., weak research abilities, negative emotions, and attitudes), external factors could also cause their DTCR.

4.3. Solutions to overcome DTCR

This study interviewed 12 EFL teachers and 3 officers administrating college teachers’ research and academic projects. The 15 interviews were transcribed into Chinese texts and were analyzed through thematic analysis method (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Based on the steps of thematic analysis, the interview data was firstly coded with blank mind. Overall, 36 initial codes were generated, and those codes were further abstracted into 7 themes. Some examples of coding results and processes were displayed in Table 6.

From the themes generated from suggestions, it could be concluded that four stakeholders were involved to overcome EFL teachers’ DTCR, including universities, research communities, government, and publishers. After analyzing the underlying logic of the suggestions proposed for overcoming EFL teachers’ DTCR, this study drew a mind map (see Figure 3) to demonstrate the relations between different suggestions.

Figure. 3

Drawing upon ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), this study constructed an ecological model to demonstrate the relations among stakeholders who could make efforts for overcoming EFL teachers’ DTCR (Figure 4) based on the thematic analysis results.

Figure. 4

This model demonstrated that different stakeholders (including government, publishers, universities, and research communities) in EFL teachers’ working ecology could help them to overcome their DTCR. For example, universities could decrease teachers’ teaching loads to give them more time to conduct research; academic leaders could give advice to novice researchers on their academic activities. What was noteworthy was that measures could also be taken among those stakeholders (except EFL teachers per se) to promote teachers’ research behaviors. For instance, government could issue some regulations to prohibit some journals’ academic misconduct, such as selling publication qualification to teachers.

5. Discussion

This study investigated the dynamic processes of college EFL teachers’ (de)motivation, explored the factors underlying their DTCR and proposed the solutions to overcome it. It is found that EFL teachers’ motivation to conduct research fluctuated largely and they were very likely to suffer from DTCR in their career. Five factors were found underlying EFL teachers’ DTCR, including weak research ability, negative emotions and attitudes, poor research surroundings, research management problems, and insufficient resources. To help teachers overcome their DTCR, comprehensive measures should be taken by stakeholders in the ecology around EFL teachers, including universities, research communities, government, and publishers.

This study explored college EFL teachers’ motivation changes in their career and found teachers’ motivation levels were generally not high but with large fluctuations. Teachers’ motivation fluctuations in their career echoed with the regulations conferring of professional titles in China. Working period requirements for college teachers with different degrees (i.e., master’s and doctoral) to promote professional titles were almost the same. For example, master’s degree holders should work in universities or colleges for at least 2 years before they could be conferred the title of lecturer and then should work no <5 years to apply the title of associate professor. While PhD holders should work at least 2 years before they could be conferred the title of associate professor and then at least 5 years to be conferred professor title. Because EFL teachers need conduct academic research and publish papers to meet the requirements in the regulations in the specified time period, they tended to motivate themselves. This explained the first summit of the motivation change curve in the second and third years. The underlying reasons were the same for the second summit in the curve, when teachers were preparing for their second academic titles. For EFL teachers, achieving the academic title of professor is difficult and needs more time spent on research (Gao and Li, 2018), therefore their motivation remains comparatively high for long time after the 13th year. According to the motivation dynamic curve, EFL teachers demonstrated significant demotivation in their career in three periods, including 1st year, 3rd to 5th years, and 8th to 12th years. Most of the demotivated periods were just after they got new professional titles. This fluctuation curve of EFL teachers’ DTCR might underlie the “roller coaster” phenomenon in research output of college teachers before and after the title appraisal (Yang and Wang, 2015). Besides, the curve demonstrated that many EFL teachers’ experienced DTCR when they did not need to prepare for the professional titles in the near future, which supported Yuan et al. (2010)’s concern about current annual and tenure checking systems. They thought those systems might not motivate teachers when they are not eager to achieve higher academic titles.

The fluctuated curve of EFL teachers’ research motivation echoed many studies on EFL teachers’ motivation changes. For example, it shared similar findings with Kimura (2014)’s longitudinal case study to investigate EFL teachers’ teaching motivation in Beijing that teachers’ motivation of teaching was also fluctuated. Similar conclusions were also drawn in Song and Kim (2016)’s case studies on two South Korean experienced EFL teachers that EFL teachers’ teaching motivation changed over time. But those study only included quite limited participants in their case study, while the present study demonstrated fluctuations of research motivation were popular among EFL teachers. Though Kim and Kim (2022) investigated (de)motivation dynamics among 144 Korean English teachers and found English teachers with 4–6 years of teaching experience suffered more demotivation in their teaching than teachers in other stages, this study only paid attention to EFL teachers’ motivation fluctuation of conducting research rather than teaching as the other studies did. But overall, those studies (no matter about EFL teachers’ teaching or researching) indicated that a dynamic view should be considered when motivation was investigated.

This study found five factors underlying EFL teachers’ DTCR, including weak research ability, negative emotions and attitudes, poor research surroundings, research management problems and insufficient resources. Those factors involved both internal and external factors. This finding echoed the opinions of Clare et al. (2019) and Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) on demotivation that both internal and external factors should be considered when exploring people’s demotivation. Among the five factors causing EFL teachers’ DTCR, an internal factor, i.e., weak ability, was frequently reported as one reason for demotivation among various groups of people. For example, weak ability (sometimes this factor was named as weak competence, lack of confidence, etc.) was often found to be a factor for students’ demotivation to learn English (e.g., Ghadirzadeh et al., 2012; Ren and Abhakorn, 2022) and teachers’ demotivation to teach English (e.g., Chireshe and Shumba, 2011; Nagamine, 2018). These similar findings supported Bandura (1977)’s self-efficacy theory that people’s subjective evaluation of their abilities could influence their motivation.

This study interviewed several teachers and officers for their suggestions to overcome DTCR, and constructed a model based on their various suggestions. This ecological model echoed Bronfenbrenner (1979)’s ecological systems theory that a person is influenced by different setting s/he lives in, the relations among the settings and even the larger contexts where those settings are included. Although Bronfenbrenner (1979)’s theory emphasizes the influences of ecological systems on children’s development, this study demonstrated that this theory could also be shifted and applied to explain the relations among the stakeholders as to overcome EFL teachers’ DTCR. However, there existed some differences between the model in this study and Bronfenbrenner (1979)’s ecological systems model. First, there are four systems in ecological systems model, including microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystem, while there were only three systems in the model of this study, without the most outside one (i.e., macrosystem). This is because the macrosystem in ecological systems model refers to dominant beliefs and ideologies. Considering the relative stability and consistency of it (Zwicker et al., 2020), the interviewees in this study might thought those invisible values and beliefs could not be changed shortly and largely and do much help to overcome DTCR. Second, ecological systems model exhibited that different settings and contexts could interact with each other, while the relations between different stakeholder in this study were unidirectional. This might be because the interviewees in this study were EFL teachers and officers, without university managers, journal editors or government officials. Those EFL teachers and officers could only unidirectionally sense the influences from the stakeholders in other systems, but their influences on other stakeholders could not be elicited.

6. Conclusions and prospects

This study found there existed fluctuations in motivation levels for conducting research among EFL teachers in China, and many of them were very likely to suffer from DTCR in their career. There were five factors causing EFL teachers’ DTCR, including weak research ability, negative emotions and attitudes, poor research surroundings, research management problems, and insufficient resources. To help teachers overcome their DTCR, comprehensive measures should be taken by stakeholders in the ecology around EFL teachers. Specifically, except for college EFL teachers themselves, this study also provided implications for other entities, including universities, research communities, government, and publishers that they could make their corresponding efforts to help EFL teachers to overcome their DTCR. For example, universities could decrease teachers’ teaching loads to give them more time to conduct research; government could issue some regulations to prohibit some journals’ academic misconduct, such as selling publication qualification to teachers.

A motivation change graph was demonstrated in this study to showcase the dynamicity of college EFL teachers’ motivation to conduct research. Although the method of drawing graphs was often applied in students’ motivational research, this method was seldom used in studies among other groups of people, e.g., EFL teachers. This study improved this method and exhibited its good validity. Therefore, future studies could utilize this method to explore motivational dynamicity among different groups of people.

This study found EFL teachers tended to suffer from DTCR in some periods of years (i.e., 1st year, 3rd to 5th years, and 8th to 12th years), and investigated the reasons underlying DTCR. However, the factors for DTCR in different periods might be differentiated. For example, the factors for EFL teachers’ DTCR in the first year were very likely different from those for 8th to 12th years. Therefore, future studies could be conducted to investigate and compare the factors for DTCR in particular periods and explore the reasons underlying the differences.

This study constructed a model to demonstrate the stakeholders who should make their efforts to help overcome college English teachers’ DTCR by interviewing college English teachers and officers managing college teachers’ research. Although the model involved universities, government, and publishers in different systems, this study did not interview people in those sectors and triangulate the model. Therefore, these people should be included, and the influences of the interactions between different stakeholders on EFL teachers’ motivation to conduct research should be investigated in future DTCR related research.

7. Limitations

To answer the questions in the questionnaire applied in this study, participants needed to retrospect their past research experience. Considering some teachers had long working experience (e.g., some had more than 10 years), they might not remember very clearly of their research motivation features in a specific year, especially in such a limited time for filling the questionnaire.

Funding

This research was funded by Hubei Business College with the academic project name of “ A Study of Demotivation to Learn English among College Students in China’s Private Universities” (item code: KY202141). In addition, this study was supported by the fund of provincial first-class majors issued by Ministry of Education of China. Specifically, the provincial first-class major supporting this study was “English” undertaken by Hubei Business College.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  AlbalawiF. H.Al-HoorieA. H. (2021). From demotivation to Remotivation: a mixed-methods investigation. SAGE Open11, 215824402110411–215824402110414. doi: 10.1177/21582440211041101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  BaiL.HudsonP. (2011). Understanding Chinese TEFL academics’ capacity for research. J. Furth. High. Educ.35, 391–407. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2011.569014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  BalkisM. (2018). Academic amotivation and intention to school dropout: the mediation role of academic achievement and absenteeism. Asia Pac. J. Educ.38, 257–270. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1460258

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev.84, 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Baniasad-AzadS.KetabiS. (2013). A comparative study of Iranian and Japanese English Teachers' Demotivational factors. J. Pan-Pac. Assoc. Appl. Linguist.17, 39–55.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BorgS.LiuY. (2013). Chinese college English teachers' research engagement. TESOL Q.47, 270–299. doi: 10.1002/tesq.56

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  CeciS. J. (2006). Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005). Am. Psychol.61, 173–174. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.2.173

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  ChenH.WangH. (2013). Investigation and analysis on college English teachers' view on research. Foreign Lang. Teach., 25–29. doi: 10.13458/j.cnki.flatt.003910

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  ChiresheR.ShumbaA. (2011). Teaching as a profession in Zimbabwe: are teachers facing a motivation crisis?J. Soc. Sci.28, 113–118. doi: 10.1080/09718923.2011.11892935

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  ClareC. M. Y.RenandyaW. A.RongN. Q. (2019). Demotivation in L2 classrooms: teacher and learner factors. LEARN J.12, 64–75.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: the issues that divide. Educ. Res.19, 2–11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X019002002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation. 2nd Edn.Harlow, United Kingdom: Pearson.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  GaoX.ChowA. W. K. (2011). Primary school English teachers’ research engagement. ELT J.66, 224–232. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccr046

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  GaoS.LiM. (2018). A study on the relationship between the professional promotion and the innovation sluggishness of college teachers. Mod. Educ. Manag., 68–73. doi: 10.16697/j.cnki.xdjygl.2018.09.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  GardnerR. C.LambertW. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-language Learning. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  GhadirzadehR.HashtroudiF. P.ShokriO. (2012). Demotivating factors for English language learning among university students. J. Soc. Sci.8, 189–195. doi: 10.3844/jssp.2012.189.195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  GravesD.SheldonJ. P. (2018). Recruiting African American children for research: an ecological systems theory approach. West. J. Nurs. Res.40, 1489–1521. doi: 10.1177/0193945917704856

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  HanJ.YinH. (2016). Teacher motivation: definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent Educ.3, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1217819

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  HwangH. (2014). The influence of the ecological contexts of teacher education on south Korean teacher educators' professional development. Teach. Teach. Educ.43, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2014.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  JungS. K. (2011). Demotivating and Remotivating factors in learning English: a case of low level college students. Eng. Teach.66, 47–72. doi: 10.15858/engtea.66.2.201106.47

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  KhanalL. P.BidariS.NadifB. (2021). Teachers'(De) motivation during COVID-19 pandemic: a case study from Nepal. Int. J. Linguist. Lit. Transl.4, 82–88. doi: 10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.6.10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  KimT.-Y.KimY. (2022). “Dynamics of south Korean EFL teachers’ initial career motives and demotivation,” in Language Teacher Motivation, Autonomy and Development in East Asia. eds. KimuraY.YangL.KimT.-Y.NakataY. (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing), 95–110.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  KimT. Y.KimY. K.ZhangQ. M. (2014). Differences in demotivation between Chinese and Korean English teachers: a mixed-methods study. Asia Pac. Educ. Res.23, 299–310. doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0105-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  KimuraY. (2014). “ELT motivation from a complex dynamic systems theory perspective: a longitudinal case study of L2 teacher motivation in Beijing,” in The Impact of Self-concept on Language Learning. eds. KataC.MichaelM. (Bristol: Multilingual Matters), 310–330.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  KleinginnaP. R.KleinginnaA. M. (1981). A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motiv. Emot.5, 263–291. doi: 10.1007/bf00993889

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  LiuX.ZhangJ.WuH. (2010). A survey on the teachers′ understanding and management of the relationship between teaching and research. Res. High. Educ. Eng., 35–42.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  MägiE.BeerkensM. (2016). Linking research and teaching: are research-active staff members different teachers?High. Educ.72, 241–258. doi: 10.1007/s10734-015-9951-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2015). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Ministry-of-Education (2022). Announcement of the second round of “double first class” universities and disciplines Beijing, China. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A22/s7065/202202/t20220211_598710.html

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  MohammadabadiA. M.KetabiS.NejadansariD. (2019). Factors influencing language teacher cognition: an ecological systems study. Stud. Sec. Lang. Learn. Teach.9, 657–680. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.4.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  NagamineT. (2018). “L2 teachers’ professional burnout and emotional stress: facing frustration and demotivation toward one’s profession in a Japanese EFL context,” in Emotions in Second Language Teaching. ed. J. de Dios Martínez Agudo (Cham, Switzerland: Springer), 259–275.

  • Google Scholar

• 35

  OzturkE. O. (2021). Uncovering the reasons of EFL teachers’ unwillingness and demotivation towards being more assessment literate. Int. J. Assess. Tool. Educ.8, 596–612. doi: 10.21449/ijate.876714

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  PengJ. E. (2019). A Study on College Foreign Language Teachers' International Publications From the Perspective of Ecosystem. Guangzhou, China: Sun Yat-sen University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  PengJ.-E.GaoX. (2019). Understanding TEFL academics’ research motivation and its relations with research productivity. SAGE Open9, 215824401986629–215824401986613. doi: 10.1177/2158244019866295

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  PishghadamR.DerakhshanA.JajarmiH.Tabatabaee FaraniS.ShayestehS. (2021). Examining the role of teachers’ stroking behaviors in EFL learners’ active/passive motivation and teacher success. Front. Psychol.12, 1–17. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.707314

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  PriceD.McCallumF. (2015). Ecological influences on teachers’ well-being and “fitness”. Asia Pac. J. Teach. Educ.43, 195–209. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2014.932329

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  RenX. (2022). A study on EFL college Students' Demotivation to Learn English in China. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bangkok, Thailand: National Institute of Development Administration.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  RenX.AbhakornJ. (2022). The psychological and cognitive factors causing college students’ demotivation to learn English in China. Front. Psychol.13, 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890459

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  RubensteinL. D.RidgleyL. M.CallanG. L.KaramiS.EhlingerJ. (2018). How teachers perceive factors that influence creativity development: applying a social cognitive theory perspective. Teach. Teach. Educ.70, 100–110. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  SakaiH.KikuchiK. (2009). An analysis of demotivators in the EFL classroom. System37, 57–69. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.09.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  SongB.KimT.-Y. (2016). Teacher (de)motivation from an activity theory perspective: cases of two experienced EFL teachers in South Korea. System57, 134–145. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  SongB.KimT.-Y. (2017). The dynamics of demotivation and remotivation among Korean high school EFL students. System65, 90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2016.12.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  WangX.HanJ. (2011). The present situation and development bottleneck for foreign language teachers' research in Chinese colleges and universities: an empirical perspective. Foreign Lang. World, 44–51.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  WangS.LittlewoodW. (2021). Exploring students’ demotivation and remotivation in learning English. System103, 102617–102610. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2021.102617

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  WaningeF.DörnyeiZ.De BotK. (2014). Motivational dynamics in language learning: change, stability, and context. Mod. Lang. J.98, 704–723. doi: 10.1111/modl.12118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  WuW.-C. V.YangJ. C.Scott Chen HsiehJ.YamamotoT. (2020). Free from demotivation in EFL writing: the use of online flipped writing instruction. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn.33, 353–387. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  YaghoubinejadH.ZarrinabadiN.NejadansariD. (2017). Culture-specificity of teacher demotivation: Iranian junior high school teachers caught in the newly-introduced CLT trap!Teach. Teach.23, 127–140. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2016.1205015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  YangR.WangB. (2015). The "roller coaster" in ivory tower: an empiricial study of universiy teachers' academic output before and after the title appraisal. Higher Educ. Explor., 108–112.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  YangZ.ZhangS.XieJ. (2001). The analysis of current situation and problems of college English teachers' scientific research. Foreign Lang. Educ.22, 79–83.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  YuanS.LiY.ChenJ. (2010). Based on the perspective of human capital theory: factor analysis affecting the research development of teachers in the local colleges. Educ. Econ., 51–55.

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  YuanR.SunP.TengL. (2016). Understanding language teachers' motivations towards research. TESOL Q.50, 220–234. doi: 10.1002/tesq.279

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  ZhaoZ. (2015). Research on the Incentive Issue of College Teachers. Nanjing Normal University. Nanjing, China.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  ZhengY.LuX.RenW. (2020). Tracking the evolution of Chinese learners’ multilingual motivation through a longitudinal Q methodology. Mod. Lang. J.104, 781–803. doi: 10.1111/modl.12672

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  ZwickerM. V.van ProoijenJ.-W.KrouwelA. P. (2020). Persistent beliefs: political extremism predicts ideological stability over time. Group Process. Intergroup Relat.23, 1137–1149. doi: 10.1177/1368430220917753

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar