Introduction

Second language (L2) learning is influenced by a host of individual variables from personality and aptitude to learning styles, beliefs, and emotional factors. Motivation as a key contributor in mastering L2 is believed to encompass all other factors involved in L2 learning. According to Dörnyei (2005), a distinguishing figure in L2 motivation studies, motivation as one of the major individual difference (ID) variables not only stimulates language learners to initiate L2 learning, but it also equips them with the subsequent driving force to uphold the demanding and laborious learning process.

The thread of motivation research weaves through all of second language acquisition research from 1959 through today. To provide a concise overview of the field, Dörnyei (2005) divided its history into three phases:

  1. (a)

    The social psychological period (1959–1990): It is characterized by the work of Gardner and his students and associates in Canada. Indeed, they were the first in this field and their study in 1959 showed what they called the importance of the ‘motivational factor’ (Gardner and Lambert 1959). Later, the result of a series of studies by Gardner and his colleagues (Gardner 1985) revealed that individuals with higher integrative motivation tend to accomplish the complex task of L2 learning with more success. Moreover, Gardner (1985) clearly defined motivation as the extent to which the individual exerts effort to learn a language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction derived from this activity.

  2. (b)

    The cognitive-situated period (during the 1990s): It is characterized by work drawing on cognitive theories in educational psychology. In this phase, Gardner’s theory of L2 motivation was challenged especially for learners who were not attempting to integrate into a particular community and accordingly research turned to the ‘situational’ and focused instead on the classroom environment.

  3. (c)

    The process-oriented period: It is characterized by an interest in motivational change, initiated by the work of Dörnyei, Ushioda, and their colleagues in Europe. Criticisms of Gardner’s works led to a new reinterpretation of integrative motivation within a broader scope known as the “L2 Motivational Self System”. In this paradigm, integrativeness was conceptualized as integration with the global community rather than assimilation with native speakers (McClelland 2000).

Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System model suggests that motivation is based on three main considerations: the Ideal L2 self, the Ought-to L2 self, and the L2 learning experience (Dörnyei 2005). The Ideal L2 Self refers to the characteristics that someone would ideally like to possess (Dörnyei 2010). The ought-to L2 self refers to the attributes that a person believes ought to possess as a result of various duties, obligations, or responsibilities in order to meet expectations or avoid negative outcomes. In this framework, Ideal L2 self and Ought-to L2 self contain the possible selves in the L2 Motivational Self System. L2 learning experience refers to the situational and environmental aspects of the language learning process as well as one’s subjective learning experience (Dörnyei 2005). The model comprises ten factors as follows (Taguchi et al. 2009):

  1. (1)

    Criterion measures assessing the learners’ intended efforts toward learning English.

  2. (2)

    Ideal L2 self referring to the “L2-specific facet of one’s ideal self” (Dörnyei 2005, p. 106).

  3. (3)

    Ought-to L2 self measuring “the attributes that one believes one ought to possess (i.e., various duties, obligations, or responsibilities) in order to avoid possible negative outcomes” (Dörnyei 2005, p. 106).

  4. (4)

    Family influence examining active and passive parental roles.

  5. (5)

    Instrumentality-promotion measuring the regulation of personal goals to become successful such as attaining high proficiency in English in order to make more money or find a better job.

  6. (6)

    Instrumentality-prevention measuring the regulation of duties and obligations such as studying English in order to pass an examination.

  7. (7)

    Attitudes to learning English measuring situation-specific motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience.

  8. (8)

    Attitudes to L2 community investigating the learner’s attitudes toward the community of the target language.

  9. (9)

    Cultural interest measuring the learner’s interest in the cultural products of the L2 culture, such as TV, magazines, music and movies.

  10. (10)

    Integrativeness measuring attitudes toward the second language, its culture and the native speakers of that language.

In essence, a major theoretical shift has been taking place within the field of L2 motivation research: the move from the traditional conceptualization of motivation by Gardner (1979) in terms of an integrative/instrumental dichotomy to the recent conceptualization of motivation by Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System theory (2005). Since Dörnyei’s model is comprehensive and opens up a novel avenue for motivating language learners, it is used in different countries for L2 motivational studies. Taguchi et al. (2009) in their study in three important Asian contexts, Japan, China and Iran, confirmed the validity of the entire tripartite L2 motivational Self System and also found certain cross-cultural differences in different educational contexts. One of remarkable cross-cultural difference concerns the influence of ‘attitudes to L2 culture and community’ and ‘instrumentality-promotion’ on the ‘ideal L2 self’. In the Japanese model, the impact from ‘attitudes to L2 culture and community’ on the ‘ideal L2 self’ is nearly twice as large as from ‘instrumentality-promotion’, whereas in the Chinese and the Iranian data the contribution of the two aspects is roughly equal.

Moreover, the results of a study conducted by Papi (2010) in Iran in a formal context, revealed that all the variables in the model significantly contributed to intended effort; furthermore, while the ideal L2 self and L2 learning experience reduced students’ English anxiety, the ought-to L2 self significantly made them more anxious. Another study in Iran in a public context was conducted by Rajab et al. (2012). The results indicated a strong relationship between the ideal L2 self and the intended effort to learn a second language.

Watabe (2010) investigated motivational influences affecting female long-term learners of English in Japan. The participants were 11 female students in an informal context. It was concluded that the Ideal L2 self changed for these women as they moved through the different life stages but it was the Ideal L2 self that was able to sustain their interest in studying English despite negative and frustrating learning experiences. In addition, Brander (2013) conducted a study at a Swedish upper-secondary school to explore the L2 classroom environment and find any potential relationship to the ideal and ought-to selves of the students. The results were analyzed to establish a picture of the students’ general level of motivation, their possible selves, their classroom environment, and how they felt the former was affected by the latter. The results indicated that, for the majority, four components of the classroom environment impacted significantly on the ideal and ought-to selves of the students, namely, the teacher, the group cohesiveness and orientedness and finally, the facilities. However, course material did not demonstrate such a noteworthy influence. In the same year, Takahashi (2013) conducted an interview study to gain a rich understanding of the development of ideal L2 selves in a formal context in Japan. In this study six non-English major university students were interviewed and the results indicated that the interviewees’ ideal L2 selves varied in terms of their contents and specificity, and revealed some types of ideal L2 selves which were not included in many questionnaire studies.

Purpose of the Study

The literature presented in the previous section clearly demonstrated that studies on the Dörnyei’s model of motivation involve a host of dimensions and encompass diverse contexts and settings. Indeed, Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self system and his seminal work on individual differences in language learning (2005) initiated lines on research seeking to validate the model in different countries and cultures. The EFL contexts include Japan, China and Iran (Taguchi et al. 2009), Hungary (Csizér and Kormos 2009), Chile (Kormos et al. 2011), Indonesia (Lamb 2012), and Pakistan (Islam et al. 2013). The results conclusively verified the model in virtually every context. Nevertheless, within each context, there are various milieus and environments which may differ in the conceptualization and extent of motivation for EFL learning. A possible variability can reside in formal and informal learning environments within a single EFL context. In particular, the present study seeks to look into EFL learning motivation in Iran across public and private sectors, namely, high schools and language institutes. In Iran, EFL learning can typically be pursued via these above-mentioned channels. Notwithstanding the shared objectives − English learning – they deviate in various respects such as learning objectives, teaching approaches and methods, the extent of volition over attendance, age of attendants, and the teacher and learner roles. The English learning curriculum in high schools is derived from the traditional grammar translation approaches and is presented by the Ministry of Education. Furthermore, the English courses are mandatory to pass in order to graduate and ultimately get diploma. They admit all students regardless of their economical, social and personal background; the only requirement is age which should be within the specified constraints. Language institutes, on the other hand, are private non-profitable organizations which are financially dependent on the tuition fees they charge from the attendants. There are no age limits or other restrictions in attending these institutes. They typically present courses aligned with the most recent language learning methods and approaches. A host of inspirations underlie attending language institutes, including, opening up better educational opportunities inside and outside the country, offering the prospect of living abroad, facilitating access to technology-based information resources, comprehending western movies, music, and scientific texts.

These striking differences − not only in learning objectives but also in implemented methods − between high schools and language institutes inspired the researchers of the present study to scrutinize L2 motivation in each context. The Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System was employed to inform the present research. The structural model which formed the basis of Dörnyei’s (2005) study in Hungary as well as Taguchi et al.’s (2009) study in Japan China, and Iran comprised eight of the afore-mentioned factors, discussed earlier. In these studies, the last two factors were not taken into account.

Method

Participants

Two different samples comprised the participants of the present study. The first sample was selected from high school students and the second sample consisted of EFL learners studying at language institutes. The profile of participants of each setting is as follows:

  1. 1)

    Setting 1

    The first group of participants comprised 413 high school and secondary school EFL learners. They were 211 females and 202 males whose age varied from 15 to 18 (M = 16.33, SD = 1.83) and came from different schools of Mashhad with different socioeconomic backgrounds. Their language proficiency varied from elementary to advanced level.

  2. 2)

    Setting 2

    The second group of participants comprised 492 institute EFL learners. They were 337 females and 155 males whose age varied from 14 to 22 (M = 17.53, SD = 2.59) and came from different private Language Institutes of Mashhad with language proficiency varied from elementary to advanced level.

Measure

The current study employed an English learner questionnaire designed and validated by the School of English Studies of the University of Nottingham UK. The Persian version of the questionnaire translated and validated by Papi (2010) was utilized in the present study. This questionnaire is composed of two major parts: the first part consists of 76 items measuring the learners’ attitudes and motivation concerning English learning and the second part consists of 10 questions about the learners’ background information. Table 1 displays the reliability indices (measured via Cronbach’s alpha) of the questionnaire in the original study (Papi 2010) as well as in the two models of the present study, i.e., high schools and language institutes, respectively.

Table 1 The reliability indices of the scale
Full size table

Procedure

The first part of study was undertaken in several secondary and high schools in Mashhad, a city in Northeast of Iran, between April and May 2014. Their selection was based on convenience sampling and the participation was entirely voluntary. In order to make our results robust, we attempted to collect as large a sample as we could in each context. To achieve reliable data, the researchers explained the purpose of completing the questionnaire and asked them not to write a name on them. Moreover, all of them were received ice cream as an effort to provide a relaxing and cooperative atmosphere. During the regular class time, after explaining the purpose of study, students were asked if they would be willing to complete the questionnaires. Volunteer students completed the questionnaires with other students around them. All the data were analyzed with SPSS version 16.0 and Lisrel 8.5. Before proceeding to SEM analysis, listwise deletion was employed to handle missing data because Lisrel does not tolerate obtained missing data and needs complete dataset (Peugh and Enders 2004).

The second part of the study was undertaken in several private Language Institutes in Mashhad between May and July 2014. An identical data collection procedure was followed.

Results

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics of EFL learners’ motivational components in Model 1 (high schools) and Model 2 (language institutes).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics of different components of motivation in models 1 and 2
Full size table

As Table 2 demonstrates, among the components of motivation in model 1, instrumentality prevention receives the highest mean (M = 36.75, SD = 4.073) and integrativeness obtains the lowest mean (M = 13.61, SD = 2.65). The mean score of the other components ranges from 23.65 to 17.24. In model 2, instrumentality promotion receives the highest mean (M = 36.65, SD = 2.81) and integrativeness obtains the lowest mean (M = 16.48, SD = 1.30). The mean score of the other components ranges from 33.65 to 20.33.

To examine the structural relations, the proposed model was tested using the LISREL 8.50 statistical package. A number of fit indices were examined to evaluate the model fit: the chi-square magnitude which shouldn’t be significant, the chi-square/df ratio which should be lower than 2 or 3, the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the good fit index (GFI) with the cut value greater than .90, and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of about .06 or .07 (Schreiber et al. 2006).

The two models were tested separately. Figure 1 displays the schematic relations among different components of motivation among high school students. As demonstrated by Fig. 1, the chi-square value (1133), the chi-square/df ratio (7.45), and RMSEA (.12) did not reach the acceptable fit thresholds. The other three fit indices: GFI (.84), CFI (.85), and NFI (.81) did not meet the acceptable fit thresholds but are slightly below those thresholds. Overall, it can be concluded that the proposed model did not have a good fit with the empirical data.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The schematic representation of the relationships among the components of motivation in model 1

Full size image

Figure 2 represents model 2. As it can be seen, the chi-square value (1070) and the chi-square/df ratio (2.77) lie within the acceptable fit thresholds. The other fit indices also met the acceptable criteria: RMSEA (.080), GFI (.89), CFI (.91), and NFI (.90). Hence, it can be concluded that the proposed model had a good fit with the empirical data.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The schematic representation of the relationships among the components of motivation in model 2

Full size image

To check the strengths of the causal relationships among the components, the t-values and standardized estimates were examined. As indicated in Figs. 1 and 2, two estimates were displayed on the paths. The first one is the standardized coefficient (β) which explains the predictive power of the independent variable and presents an easily grasped picture of effect size. The closer the magnitude to 1.0, the higher the correlation and the greater the predictive power of the variable is. The second measure is the t-value (t); if t > 2 or t < −2, we call the result statistically significant.

To get a clear picture of the strength of associations across the two models, each path is examined separately in the followings:

  1. 1.

    Attitudes to L2 culture and community/ Ideal L2 self

    In Dörnyei’s model, it was assumed that attitudes to L2 culture has a positive role in shaping language learners’ ideal L2 self. This association was not confirmed in the first model (β = .09, t = 1.89); whereas in Model 2 the predictive role of attitudes to L2 culture in Ideal L2 self, albeit weak, was demonstrated (β = .15, t = 2.08).

  2. 2.

    Instrumentality promotion/ Ideal L2 self

    In model 1, it was found that instrumentality promotion has a weak impact on ideal L2 self (β = .11, t = 2.02). In model 2, on the other hand, the results indicated that instrumentality promotion is a strong predictor of ideal L2 self (β = .72, t = 15.16).

  3. 3.

    Ideal L2 self/ Attitudes to learning English

    In Dornyei’s model, it was hypothesized that ideal L2 self in turn influences attitudes to learning English. In both models, the positive role of ideal L2 self was demonstrated. The magnitude of this association, nevertheless, was higher in the second model: model 1 (β = .44, t = 12.93), model 2 (β = .77, t = 15.35).

  4. 4.

    Ideal L2 self/ Criterion measure

    The contribution of ideal L2 self in criterion measure was also revealed in both models. As with the previous association, the predictive power of ideal L2 self was found to be substantially higher in the second model than that of the first model: model 1 (β = .32, t = 6.25), model 2 (β = .76, t = 12.41).

  5. 5.

    Ought- to L2 self/ Criterion measure

    Ought to L2 self in turn was presumed to exert a positive impact on criterion measure. This association was also verified in both models. Unlike the previous paths, this association outweighed in the first model: model 1 (β = .34, t = 9.88), model 2 (β = .14, t = 4.22).

  6. 6.

    Instrumentality prevention/ Ought- to L2 self

    Another path studied in the model concerned the predictive role of instrumentality prevention in Ought- to L2 self. This association was verified in model 1 (β = .39, t = 10.22) but not in model 2 (β = .01, t = 0.24).

  7. 7.

    Family influence/ Ought-to L2 self

    The positive role of family influence in ought-to L2 self was substantiated in both models. This nexus outweighed drastically in the second model: model 1 (β = .43, t = 8.53), model 2 (β = .74, t = 14.44).

  8. 8.

    Attitudes to learning English/ Criterion measure

    The impact of attitudes to learning English on criterion measure was proportionately confirmed in the two models: model 1 (β = .12, t = 3.22), model 2 (β = .10, t = 2.25).

The correlation coefficients among different components of motivation in model 1 are presented in Table 3. As it can be seen, the highest correlations is observed between ought-to L2 self and criterion measure (r = 0.579, p < 0.05). It is followed by the relation between ought-to L2 self and attitudes to learning English (r = 0.559, p < 0.05).

Table 3 The correlation coefficients among different components of motivation in model 1
Full size table

Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients among different components of motivation in model 2. As Table 4 demonstrates, the highest correlations are observed between ideal L2 self and criterion measure (r = 0.878, p < 0.05), family influence and criterion measure (r = 0.874, p < 0.05), and family influence and criterion measure (r = 0.855, p < 0.05), respectively.

Table 4 The correlation coefficients among different components of motivation in model 2
Full size table

Discussion

The present study sought to examine and further validate the Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System in two strikingly different contexts of EFL learning in Iran, i.e., public high schools and private language institutes. In public context of English learning in Iran, English is a required course. Teacher has the central role and learners are considered as receivers of information, listeners, and imitators. As Keihaniyan (2011) stated in such traditional language learning contexts, learners do not play any active role in teaching process and they just repeat new structures and new words. In most schools of Iran, the only material is English textbook. This method of teaching involves a passive form of learning where students are not required to examine their own feelings, thoughts, and understandings in response to the subject material.

In contrast, in the private sectors, learners choose to learn English at private institutes. These classes are typically conducted based on CLT and TBLT. In classes conducted by these teaching methods, teachers and learners work together, and the boundaries between teachers and learners are not as formal and inflexible as classes conducted by traditional-oriented approaches. This in turn entails adopting more learner-centered and humanistic approaches in teaching. This is documented in Ghonsooly and Ghanizadeh’s (2013) contention that Iranian private language institutes aim to fulfill students’ communicative needs and teachers are expected to function as facilitators and participants in learning. Consequently, they require not just a solid base of content area knowledge, but a high level of interpersonal competence to encourage and sustain student interactions and rapport (Ghanizadeh and Ghonsooly 2014).

The above finding is in line with the Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009) contention that the outstanding merits of language learning in private centers, including their relatively up-to-date and more communicative approaches toward teaching English, the smaller size of their classes, and the competent teachers they recruit can be influential in formulating learners’ favorable attitudes and conceptions toward English learning as well as in generating the necessary L2 motivation. Empirical studies have also pointed to the cultural and contextual dependency of certain motivational strategies, such as, promoting learner autonomy, making classes interesting, and recognizing students’ efforts (Cheng and Dörnyei 2007; Matsumoto et al. 2013).

The discrepancies observed in the two motivation models in the present study clearly demonstrated the higher level of motivation among learners studying English in private context in comparison with their counterparts in public context. The salient differences residing in these two contexts which were discussed above can be responsible for such variations in learners’ L2 Motivational Self System. Put it simply, it appears the more interesting and satisfying the EFL learning context is, the more favorable attitudes to foreign language might evolve. Accordingly, we should expect to witness increase in L2 motivation in these positively perceived contexts.

To get a vivid picture of the yielded associations across the two models, each path is discussed consecutively in the followings:

  1. 1)

    Attitudes to L2 culture and community/ Ideal L2 self:

    In Dörnyei’s model, it was assumed that attitudes to L2 culture has a positive role in shaping language learners’ ideal L2 self. This association was not confirmed in the first model; whereas in model 2 the predictive role of attitude to L2 culture in Ideal L2 self was demonstrated. As in public contexts of Iran, learners do not have the chance to get familiar with the L2 culture and community, this association was not confirmed in the first model. Iran as a religious country avoids acculturation, perhaps because of the advent of culture shock in which individuals start feeling insecure and experience discomfort as they discover the differences that exist between their culture and the second culture. Besides, Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh (2013) in her study about differences of public and private contexts in learning a foreign language stated that culture is the missing part in Iranian public context. In fact neither in books, nor in teachers’ minds, there is a clear place for teaching the culture of the target language. Moreover, Iran contains few native speakers of English since political obstacles have inhibited the economic, professional and even academic relations between Iran and the English-speaking countries (Taguchi et al. 2009). So, learners do not have enough opportunity to get familiar with L2 community. This in turn can explain hindering the L2-specific facet of one’s ideal self. However, according to Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh (2013) in private contexts of Iran, learners are faced with realia such as movies, magazines, and music. So, they have the opportunity to get familiar with L2 community and thereby in a better position to develop L2 ideal self.

  2. 2)

    Instrumentality promotion/ Ideal L2 self

    In public context, it was found that instrumentality promotion has no impact on ideal L2 self. In private context, on the other hand, the results indicated that instrumentality promotion is a strong predictor of ideal L2 self. Instrumentality promotion measures the personal goal-setting to become successful in affairs associated with high proficiency in English. In public context of Iran, the main objective of learners is to pass the course with acceptable scores. Furthermore, the main part of teachers’ concern is to make learners ready to pass the course and to enter to universities not to get a good job or to be proficient for promotion in the future. So, it seems plausible that in this context, instrumentality promotion has no impact on ideal L2 self. Instead in private context, the emphasis is upon interacting with target community in order to work globally. In this context, learners themselves choose to learn English, and they are free to choose a language institute where the courses are designed and held in a diverse fashion so that everyone could have a chance of attending them during their desired time and according to their objectives. Thus, most of them are eager to learn the target language.

  3. 3)

    Ideal L2 self/ Attitudes to Learning English

    In Dörnyei’s model, it was hypothesized that ideal L2 self in turn influences attitudes to learning English. Attitudes to learning English is referred to situation-specific motives related to immediate learning environment and experience. In this study, the positive role of ideal L2 self was demonstrated in both contexts. The magnitude of this association, nevertheless, was higher in the private contexts. In public context of Iran the time is very limited, about 2 or 4 h a week. So, it is expected to dedicate this time to teach the course book. Moreover, school teachers are imposed to teach the course book and to foster learners’ competence in English structures and vocabularies via rote-learning and memorization. As Ostovar Namaghi (2006) stated, in Iran there are some sociopolitical forces which help determine teachers’ work. Thus in such an atmosphere, learners are not eager to learn the target language. Instead, in private context of Iran teachers provide a relaxed and free from anxiety situation for learners to express and to act what they want. So, learners enjoy learning English experience. The finding of the present study is consistent with previous research (Dastgheib 1996; Taguchi et al. 2009). Dastgheib (1996) investigated the relationship between the attitudes and motivation of university undergraduate students. The result indicated a significant positive correlation between the students’ attitudes toward learning English and their desire to learn English. Also, Taguchi et al. (2009) in their study found that in China, attitudes to learning English play a less important role than in Japan and Iran in influencing the amount of effort learners expend on learning English.

  4. 4)

    Ideal L2 self/ Criterion measure

    In Dörnyei’s model, it was assumed that ideal L2 self has a positive role in criterion measures. Although in private context the predictive power of L2 self was substantially higher than public context, this association was revealed in both contexts of Iran. As mentioned before, in private context learners themselves choose to learn English and there is no compulsion. They do their best to learn English and to expend a lot of effort for it. So, it seems reasonable that the magnitude of this association was higher in the private context. The finding of the present study corroborates previous research (e.g., Taguchi et al. 2009; Rajab et al. 2012). Taguchi et al. (2009) reported that this association exists in all the contexts but both directly and indirectly through attitudes to learning English. In Japan and Iran, the indirect route is considerably stronger than the direct one, whereas in China both routes are quite balanced. Likewise, the results of Rajab et al. (2012) indicated that coefficient between criterion measure and the ideal L2 self was the highest. This verifies Dörnyei’s (2005) assumption that ideal L2 self can be viewed as a clearer and more powerful index to justify the relationship between L2 motivation and the second language acquisition.

  5. 5)

    Ought- to L2 self/ Criterion measure

    In Dörnyei’s model, it was presumed that ought to L2 self exerts a positive impact on criterion measure. This association was also revealed in both contexts of Iran but it was outweighed in the public context. Ought to L2 self is the attributes that one believes one ought to possess (i.e., various duties, obligations or responsibilities). This sense of duty is more visible in public context of Iran and affects the effort of students. However, in the study conducted by Rajab et al. (2012), ought- to L2 self did not show any significant correlation coefficient with the criterion measure.

  6. 6)

    Instrumentality prevention/ Ought- to L2 self

    It was presumed that instrumentality prevention influences Ought- to L2 self. In public context of Iran this association was verified but not in private context. As mentioned before, instrumentality prevention is referred to regulation of duties and obligations such as studying English in order to pass an examination. In public context of Iran, most of the learners have to learn English to pass the course or graduate. Moreover, getting high scores has positive effect on passing the university entrance exam. Papi and Teimouri (2012) in their cross-sectional study in the EFL context of Iran came to the conclusion that instrumental-prevention declined with age. So it is plausible to presume high school students who are typically younger than their counterparts in language institutes tend to regulate their efforts toward language learning on the grounds of performance-based goals.

  7. 7)

    Family influence/ Ought-to L2 self

    Although this association outweighed in private context, it was substantiated in both models. The higher magnitude of this association in private context can be traced back to the parents’ pressure on their children. Besides, as Taguchi et al. (2009) mentioned although private classes and language institutes are expensive, especially relative to the insufficient income of the majority of the people in Iran, many families accept all the costs based on the exception that their children will be successful. This may be due to the fact that English language teaching in the academic and formal education system in Iran lacks the capability to equip learners with the required level of English to pass the university entrance exam. Furthermore, parents in Iran view English learning as a venue opening up better educational opportunities inside and outside the country or offering the prospect of living abroad. It also implies that since in Iran family has a key role in decision making for their children, parents can readily motivate their children to learn English and bring honor to the family.

Conclusions

Taken together, the findings of the present research yielded a number of conclusions. First, in accounting for L2 motivation and attitudes, the volitional nature of learning endeavor should be taken into consideration. Second, the incongruities in public and private EFL sectors render remarkable variations in L2 motivation. These disparities reside in the learners’ approach to learning, the teachers’ teaching methods, as well as the contextual reality of these learning environments. Third, the results of the SEM analysis of the second model in the present study substantiated the potency and validity of L2 Motivational Self system. Forth, the present study can be taken as a further step to broaden our understanding of some context-specific factors in L2 motivation. Fifth, the influential role of ideal L2 self in shaping positive attitudes to L2 learning as well as in inducing learners’ intended efforts toward learning English should be highlighted. These conclusions can have important implications for language teachers and educational policy-makers to exploit positive context-specific features and make the learning environment an ally in the pursuit of personal L2 learning goals.

In this study, motivation was assessed through questionnaires. Future researchers are recommended to utilize qualitative longitudinal studies to see how L2 Motivational Self System develops in each context. These studies should use case studies, observations, and interviews to provide profound insight into the dynamic nature of L2 motivation.