Csizér and Dörnyei’s article described learner’s motivational profiles through the cluster statistical procedure. Distributing questionnaires, their study applied the cluster method which is mainly used in differentiating learners’ profiles. The analysis helped in identifying “within a given sample certain subgroups—or clusters—of participants who share similar combinations of characteristics.” In their defense of the cluster evaluation, Csizér and Dörnyei argued that despite the large factors that shape the success of second language learning, there seems to be a lesser number of diverse subcommunities that exhibit common cognitive and motivational patterns.
Although the authors claimed that their research was extensive, however, the limitations of the study are major drawbacks. They examined only young Hungarian teenagers studying foreign languages as a school subject limiting their results. Nonetheless, I am wondering if there are no immigrants in the same school in Hungary since the migrants might also be learning a foreign language and their motivation could also be worthy of research. Again, in their need to focus on generalized motivational variables across learning situations, Csizér and Dörnyei did not include “situation-specific motives that are rooted in the L2 learners’ immediate learning environment” which I am suggesting would have been an addendum to learners’ motivational profiles. These shortcomings open up further research on the area of second language learners’ motivation.
This article is relevant to my work because it asserts that motivation plays an essential role in second language learning. Also, motivation in the language classroom helps the learner to achieve integrativeness which “reflects a general positive outlook on the L2 and its culture.” I am convinced of the authors’ stand on integrativeness which I see as the learner’s desire to achieve proficiency in the L2. It embodies the student’s contact and immersion with the second language and culture.