Luận văn mối quan hệ giữa Động cơ và kết quả học tập của sinh viên dựa trên quan Điểm lý thuyết văn hóa xã hội qua kết qủa

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AMTR: Attitudinal/ Mativational Test Battery FPA: Exploratory Pacter Analysi EFL: English as a foreign language ESP: English for Specific Purposes GE: General E

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT MOTIVATION

AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS FROM

1 Dr Vu Thi Phuong Anh

2 Assoc, Prof Dr Le Hung Tien

HANOI- 2015

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

{ certify my authorship of the submitted thesis entitled

‘THE RELATIONSIOP BETWEEN STUDENT MOTIVATION AND LEARNING

ACHIEVEMENTS FROM A SOCIOCULTURAI, PERSPECTIVE

A CASE STUDY OF THE POLICE UNIVERSITY

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used

without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

Hanoi, 2015

Le Huong Hoa

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, 1 would Tike to express deep gratitude 10 my two

supervisors Dr Vu Thi Phuong Anh and Assoe Prof Dr Tc Hung Tien, for their

valuable suggestions, guidance and encouragement throughout the course of this

work, for their generosity in giving their time and their constant willingness to help

me with my thesis

I am also extremely thankful to Assoc Prof Dr Le Van Canh for his

Imowledgeable suggestions, support, understanding and kindness without which 1

would not have finished this thesis

I am greatly indebted to my colleagues in the English Department of the People’s Police University for their ceaseless support and patience, and for creating favorable conditions for me to do my research

Last but nat least, 1 owe my deepest gratitude to my parents, my husband and

my daughter who helped me endure many difficult times during the process of this study Without their constant Love and eneouragcrtenl, the completion of this study

would not have been possible.

ABSTRACT

Among the factors influencing students’ studies, motivation is considered

to be one of the most important reasons for different achievement levels The

purposes of this study were (i} to find ont the students’ levels of motivation to study

Bry

ish, (Fi) to identify the sociocultural factors influencing that motivation and (ii)

to investigate the tolationship between students! thotivation and their achievernent

‘The subjects were 309 first-ycar students at the People’s Police University (PPU)

‘The instruments used for data collection were questionnaires and focus group interviews The data fiom the retuned questionnaires was statistically analyzed using the SPSS program to derive percentages, frequencies, means, standard deviations, as well as to perform exploratory factor analy:

and multiple Finca reg

‘ion Findings from this study indicated that the majority of the students

were motivated and had a positive altitude toward learning English, however, heir

reasons for learning English were task-oriented and more instrumental in nature

with utilitarian purposes such as passing the exams rather than studying for pleasure

or simply to broaden then knowledge Students' motivation and their English

leaming achievement were strongly and positively correlated with each other

(p=.000<.05), Lf we want to improve achievement, we should influence motivation, especially with regard ta two of the most important motivational factors: Attitudes

towds the learning silualion and group cohesion The findings could be useful

for rescarchers and teachers in improving students’ achievement by devising effective teaching and leaming strategies to increase students’ motivation

1.4 The scope of the study

1.1 Definition of terminology cv nh nhe we 3

1.1.2.1 Molivation comportents by Gardner and his ale

1.1.2.2 Motivation components by Crookes and Schmidt

1.1.2.3 Motivation components by Domyei

1.2 Theoretical perspectives or language leamming motivation 8

1.2.1 Language learning motivation from psychological perspective sen 8 1.2.2 Language learning motivation fiom cognitive perspective 12

1.2.3 Language lcaming motivation from a proccss-oricnted perspective 15

1.2.4, Language learning motivation fiom socio-dynamic perspective 19

1.4 Review of previons empirical studies 28

1.44, Studies using structural equation ‘modeling (LISREL) 30

1.5 Issues identified in the literature review 32

1.3.1.1 Integrative and mstrumental orientation of motivation 32

1.5.1.2 Neglect ofthe dysanic Gealure of language leasing motivation 33

1.6.1 Sociocultural perspective on L2 motivation - 35 1.6.3 Dornyei”s framework of second language motivation ven 40 1.7 Chapter summary’

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

2.1, The rescarch site

2.2.1 Quantitalive versus qualitative research, - - 48

2.3.1 Questiomaire for the invesigatilon of langnage leaming metivatiem at

23.11 The ‘construction of ‘the “questionnaires 39

3.3.1.2 8elecfiont of participanfs 60

3.2.1 The structure of focus group interviews 62 2.3.2.2 Scluction of lcrviewbes - 62

3.2.1.2 Analysis of focus group infervieWS ve BỘ

3.2.2 Motivation fo loan English among police students for Semester 2 in

3.3.1.2 Interpretation of the factors

3.31.3, The infernal stricture of the motivation to leam English of his study 101 3.3.1.4, The etféct of students' motivation on their academic achievernent 103

3.42.1 Changes in motvation atthe Language levdl 119

3.4.2.2, Changes in motrvation at the Leamer level

3.4.2.3 Changes in motrvation at the Leaming situation leva

3.43, Clungesin the motivation of high and low acthi

3.1.1 Students* motivation to lea Tnglish al PUL cone 128

3.1.2 The relationship between motivation and academic achievement 13L

3.2.3, Policy implication

3.3, Limitation of the study see

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMTR: Attitudinal/ Mativational Test Battery

FPA: Exploratory Pacter Analysi

EFL: English as a foreign language

ESP: English for Specific Purposes

GE: General English

L2: Second Language

LLM: Language leaming motivation

MLB: Multiple I inear Regressions

PPUF The Poople’s Police Universily

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

STD: Sclf-determination Theory

Table 1.1 William and Burden’s framework of motivation in language leaming

Table 1.2: Domyei’s ñamcwork of L2 motivation (Domtyci, 1994a: 280 142

Table 2.1: Advanlages and disadvantages of using quesiioumanes and inlervi

(Cohen, Manien and Monisen, 2000, Domyci, 2001, 2007) 437

Table 2.2: Matix for collecting feedback during focus group infarv 7

Table 3.1: Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of the motivation to learn

Table 3.2: The cođing of foeus grong inlervicw data 82

Tahle 3.3: Treqmencies and I2escriptivs Statisiics of the motivation to learn

Table 3.5: Rotated Component Matrix for the first EFA result - 96 Table 3.6: Rotated Component Matrix tor the thirteenth EFA result .] 98 Table 3.7: Total Varlance Explained cc-c«cc e| Đ9

Table 3.8: Camparison of factors identified in five studics mvolving the

investigation of language learning mnotivaien -| LOL

Table 3.13: Coefficienfs (4) à cành nnnheeeeoereereeoseel TÔỐ Table 3.14: KMO and Bartletts Tesi àc cà bo «¡| TÔ Table 3.15: Rotated Component Matrix for the first FFA result 109 Table 3.16: Rotated Component Matrix for the thitleenth EFA result 110

‘Table 3.19: Descriptive Statisties of Average score for Semester 1 and Semester 2 114

Table 3.20: Descriptive Statistics of Average score for Semester 1 T4 Table 3.21, Descriptive Statistios of Average sore for Semester 2 115

‘Table 3.26: Loadings comparison between 2 functions over 2 semesters 119

‘Table 3.27, Independent sample test for motivation among low and high

‘Table 3.28; Independent sample test for motivation among low and high

LIST OF FIGLRES

Figure |.1; Conceptualizing of Integrate Motivation (Gardner, 2001, pp 5-7) 5 Figure 1.2: Interactive model of motivation (Williams & Burden, 1997) 17 Figure 1.3: Learner conceptions of motivation (Ushiods, 2001) 18 Figure 1.4: A process model of L2 leaming motivation (Domyei & Otto, 1908) 19

Figure 2.2: Features of QuaHtative & Quanhtative Research (Milss & Huberman | 50

1994, p.40)

Figure 2.3: Overview of the data collection process 66

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale for the study

As an English lecturer at the PPU for more than 10 years, 1 have been

disappoinied by my students many times As I always prepared careful lesson plans with many activities, including educational games, pair work, and group work, I did not know why many students showed little or no interest in these activities One

class would be excited about those activities, but others would nol Even within one

class, sone students would be interested but others would not share thal cnthusiasi

Imtally, most students were usually enthusiastic aboul studying English but this excitement gradually seemed to decrease and, even worse, their academic results

appeared to slump until the only thing they wanted to do was simply pass the exam

At that time, I blamed myself for not preparing better activities and sometimes

blamed the laziness of the students Year after year, I encountered the same

problems with my students, thereby conlinuously suffering disappointment with my teaching performance T agonived over qnestions like, ‘Why do the students not ike

to study English? And why did their results gct worse?” These problems inspired

me to choose this topic for my reseaich project

From the literature review, I realized that learning a language is a complex

activity Firstly, it is closely related to linguistics, Secondly, language is social as it

occurs within certain social contexts and finally, it is individual in terms of personal

identity Personal characteristics such as experience, gender and age, attitude and

aptitude, rnotivation, belicls, self-confidence and amdcty greatly influence tanguage

Icaming Among, these variables, motivation is considered to be ons of the most important factors affecting success in leaming a second or foreign language However, the relationship between motivation and academic achievement is not completely clear In the evarent literature, motivation 1s regarded as socially constructed, therefore as dynamic rather than static

Little research has becn conducted on the motivation of Vietnamese students studying English as a compulsory curriculum component rather than as a major tom a socio-cultural perspective

Understanding the relationship between students’ motivation and their academic achievement as well as the sociocultural factors influencing that motivation will make an important contibution to motivation theory Therefine, the issue requiras longitudinal ane in-depth rescarch into student motivation by using mixcd methods, the factors affecting it during the leaning process, and the relationship between students’ motivation and their academic achievement It is believed that insights in these areas will help address the issue of motivation at the PPU

1.2 Research aims

‘This study aims to

(1) To determine the students’ motivation level to study English at the PPU

(2) To identify the socio-cultural factors influencing students’ motivation

@) To investigate the relationship betweun students” motivation and theh asadornia

(To derive the theoretical implications of the relationship between students’ motivation and their academic achievement

1.3 Research questions

‘This sindy addresses the following research questions:

1 Tn what ways i tudenis* motivation socially constructed?

students’ motivation and their acaderc

2 What is the relationsiip betwee:

avhievemen!?

Sccondary rescarch questions also addressed are:

1, How motivated are PPU students to leam English?

2 What socio - cultural factors affect their motivation?

3 To what extent does motivation attect academic performance?

4, Why does motivation affect academic achievement that way?

5 What are the theoretical implications of the relationship between students’

motivation and their academic achicvement which can be derived from this study?

1.4 The scape of the study

This study focuses on investigating the relationship between students!

motivation and their academic achievement from the sociocultural perspective with

all first-year students during the two sernesters of Rnglish study and identifying the

sociocultural factors influcneing that ruotivation al the Pouple’s Police University

1.5 The significance of the study

This study is cxpected to contribute to our understanding of the role of

motivation im the foreign language acquisition of English in the educational context

of the armed forces for many reasons

Firstly, the proposed research represents the first attempt, to my knowledge, to investigate the dynamic and temporal nature of the motivation to leam English for a whole group of learners

Secondly, as Domyei’s (1994a) three-level language learning motivation

framework is used in this tescarch in order to explore the issue of lmguage learning

inotivation among th Jeanets, the study will also provide am opportunity to evaluate the framework and its value for studies of this nature

Thirdly, this study is anticipated to identity the obstacles and difficulties that

police students faced in leaming English It also ties to examine motivational changes, looking for the roots of problems in leaning linglish at the PPL

Finally, this study is significant for lecturers, luo, making them aware of the underlying motivation of forcign layguage learners Also, they will be able to adapt

their teaching styles m accordance to the students’ motivation in order to create a better cnvironment of language acquisition for the students, so that undergraduates

can learn mote ettectively when the instructional delivery matches their motivation

towards the target language

1.6 Organization of the study

This thesis is organized into three parts Part 1 introduces the context of the

research which led to the researcher's interest m the topic of the study and presents the research aims, scope, significance and questions of the study

Part 2 covers three chapters Chapter 1 reviews the literature on different definitions of motivation and language learning motivation, avademtic achievernent,

the components of L2 motivation, the most influcntial 1.2 language learning

motivalion models and frameworks, previous research on the motivation to Team a

language and the theorctical framework for the study Chapter 2 describes the

methodology of this study, including the research design, procedures tor sample selection and procedures used to collect and analyze the data Chapter 3 presents the

findings of the study and reveals how the two research methods support each other

Part 3 concludes the thesis by summarizing the results, discussing the theoretical contributions of the study, suggesting pedagogical implications, noting

the limitations, and suggesting potential avenmes for further research.

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT

CITAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will present the relevant theories and research conceming motivation to learn a foreign language

1.1.Definition of terminology

1.1.1 Motivation

Even though motivation is difficult to define, the tom is used widely in

siluations involving learning a foreign’ second language In a social psychological

context, motivation refers to “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the

goal of learning the language plus favorable attitudes toward learning the language That is, motivation to leam a second language is seen as the extent to which the

individual strives to leam the language because of a desire to do so and the

satisfaction experienced in this activity” (Gardner, 1985, p.10) In other words,

motivation is “desire to achieve a goal effort extended in this direction, and

satisfaction with task” (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993a, p.2) Implicit in the definition

is the link between a goal and motivation (14, 2001)

Oxford and Sheari (1994) characterize motivation as a desire to achieve a

goal, combined with the energy to work towards that goal Many rescarehcrs

consider motivation to bz one of the main determiners for success in acquiring a

second or foreign language It determines the extent of active, personal involvement

in L2 leaming (Oxford 4 Shearin, 1994)

In an atlempt lo synthesize the static and dynamic conceptions of motivation, Dornyci (1998, p.L18) defined motivation 3s “x_process whereby a corlain amount

of instigating foros which initiates an action, and persists ax Tong as no other forees comes into play to weaken it and thereby terminate the action, or until the planned outcome has been reached”

In this thesis, Ushioda’s (2003) conceptualization of motivation as a, “socially mediated process” (p.90} was adopted Based on the ideas that “leaming is

constructive rather than reproductive,” and “Tearing is a social, culuwal and

interpersonal as well as intrapcrsonal process” {p.91), Ushioda posited:

If learwing 1 a pracess of constructing knowledge, the active contribution of the learner as agent in this process is critical Ry implication, the motivation to he actively involved must come from withm the leamer Put simply, the leamer must want, to Jeam [If learning] is a culturally rooted, socially mediated process that takes place through the interaction between the child (or leamer) and mare competent others in meaningiul aclivitics, and cntails the shared construction of meaning and understanding (he motivation to leam is also in (his sense socially and culturally

‘mediated Although the impetus to learn comes from within the learner, it develops

as a function of the child’s (or learner's) engagement in a particular activity wilh

motivated and molivalionally supportive others (pp 91-92)

To sum up, there are many definitions of motivation and L2 motivation What

is comm to all the above defirntions is that motivation consisls of goals, efforl,

desine, p stunce, nergy and active involvement The implication that learning

a second or forcign language involves a multifaccted Icamning process including not only a linguistic aspect, but also psychological, personal, and educational aspects and that an individual's motivation to eam a foreign language is derived fiom the social, historical, and cultural influences on the individual hinvherself

1.1.2 Components of L2 motivation

L2 motivation is a multifaceted construct and this has resulted in vastly diffrent cormponcnts of 1.2 learning motivation being propused by different rescarchers Below are some of the components put forward in the different theoretical frameworks

1.1.2.1 Motivation components by Gardner and his associates

The socio-educational model cormmonly uses an Integrative Motive, which is comprised of integrativeness, attitudes toward the leaming situation, and motivation (Gardner, 1985) According to Gardnet, integrativeness refers to an individual's desire to interact with the L2 group and is determined by looking at three factors:

forcign languages in general Altitudes toward the learning situation involve the individual’s cstimation of the course and the teacher, while motivation refers to behavioral, cognitive, and affective components

1.1.2.2, Motivation components by Crookes and Schmidt

Crookes and Schmidt (1991) provided a well-researched review of both L2 and mainstream psychological Viterature on motivation, and introduced the following components: (1) Interest in the 1.2 based on sxisting attitudes, experienve, aud background knowledge on the earners’ part; (2) relevance, which involves the perception that personal nceds such as achicvement, affiliation, and power are being met by learning the L2; (3) expectancy of success or thilure; and (4) outcomes, the extrinsic or intrinsic rewards felt by the learner; (5) the decision to choose, pay

attention to, and engage in L2 learning; (6) persistence or perseverance in it over an

extended period of time and returning to it after interruptions; and (7) maintenance

of a high level of activity

1.1.2.3 Motivation components by Dornyei

i (1990)

(1) an instrumental motivational subsystem, consisting of instrumental language use and instrumentality involving the mdividual seeking better job opportunities; (2) a multi-faceted integrative motivational subsystem, consisting of an interest in foreign

Based on (he results of a survey carried out in Hungary, Domy

postulated four compunents of motivation for leaning a forcign Fagen

languages, cultures and people, the desire io broaden one’s view and avoid provincialism, the desire for new stimuli and challenges, and the desire lo integrate inlo a new community; (3) nacd for achievement, which is te individual's toudoney

to achive @ goal and his/her interest in success; (4) allribulions of past failures, which mvolve bad leaning cxpericnees in the leamer’s past

1.1.3 Acalemic achievement

Commonly, academic achievement is defined as bow successtully the leaner can master the course materials and achieve the prescribed goals, However, the precise definition of aademic achievement differs depending ơn the leamers

speeifie mofivation or goals, in that the sucess of the learning process is measured

by the knowledge and skills that the Icamer gains

In this study, the definition used for academic achievement will be the more concrete one, as used by Gbati (1988) and Howcroit (1991) Howcroft (1991) describes academic achievement in terms of the actual mark or score obtained in an examination In other words, it will be defined as how well a student accomplishes educational gouls in studying English in the school setting, in the form of a

numencal score as obtained int an cxandinalon or lest, as assessed by the sludent’s

teacher and represented by the student’s grades

1.2 Theoretical perspectives on language learning motivation

In a long-term learning process such as the mastery of a second language, leamers’ ultimate success always depends on their motivation level; therefore, the motivation to leam an L2 has been the subject of intensive research in SLA for over five decades

1.2.1, Language learning motivation from psychological perspective

Research into the ruotivation to loam a scvond language originated in Canada during the 1960s and 1970s through the work of a gronp of sociat psychologists, particularly Robert Gardner, Wallace Lambert, and Richard Clement, Gardner and Lambart’s (1959, 1972) seminal research introduced the idea that unlike the leaming of other subjects, language learning is a cultural pursuit, as language is embedded in culture; hence, factors such as one’s altitude towards the target speech conmmmity invariably influence linguistic success This was particularly salient int the Canadian social corfext in which they were working, where lcamers' altitudes to the Anglophone and Francophong communi

Icaming outcomes (Domyci, 1994a, 2005) Gardner and Lambert (1959) hypothesized that a social motivation involving “a willingness to be valued members of the L2 commmnity” would result in high levels of L2 achievement (p.271)

wore sven as a significant fictor in

Gardner and Lambert divided motivation into two clusters: integrative and

Tanguage because of an aspiration to identify with, or even beeome a member of the

target language community (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) In contrast, instrumental

motivation which can be described as a desire to leam an L2 based upon pragmatic gains such as money, social standmg or a better job (Dornyei, 1998) The

researchers hypothesized that while both types of motivation are potentially

powerful, integralive motivation is “more likely to sustain the long-term effort

nooded to master a scound language ” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p.16)

CRITERIA

Motivatian

Figure 1.1: Conceptualizing of Integrative Motivation (Gardner, 2001, pp 5-7)

Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Acquisition

defined integrative motivation in move details, presenting it as a complex mix of three components: ifegrativeness encompassing integrative orientation, interest m

foreign languages and attitudes toward the L2 community, attindes toward the

Jearning situation, relating 10 the teacher and the course, and motivahon meaning

the intensity of the Icamer’s motivation as well as their attitude towards learning

the language These factors were assessed in leamers using a popular standardized questionnaire, the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985)

While other factors were also seen as important during the social-psychological period, the research focused on inlegralive motivation This makes sense considzring social psychological theory secs Ianguage as a enltural phenomenor thal sequites one to learn another culture to fully comprehend the language

(Gardner, 1979, p.193) Similarly, the integrative motive is concemed with one’s

interest and desired identification with the target language community, as well as one’s interest in the target language In contrast, the instrumental motivation is

presented as having less to do with culture, and more to do with utilitarian gains as a

result of language acquisition It is interesting to note that instrumental motivation

appears in Gardner's (1985b) Attitude/Motivation ‘lest Battery without any solid

theoretical clarification, while integrative motivation is discussed in depth (Dornyei,

2005) This is indicalive of the figher degree of immpentanee attached to integrative

motivation

There has been a great deal of ciiticism of several aspects of Gardner’s

motivation theory The first problem 1s Gardner’s use of the term integrative at three

different levels in the construct, which creates confusion and leads to ambiguity

(Domyei, 1994, 2005) Second, Gardner's model considered motivation to be a

subcomponent of inlegralive motivation, and Gardner offen uses this subcomponent

addressed by Domyei (2005) is Gardner's (2001, 2006) attempt to officially

ineorporate instrumentalily imto the socio-educational model Domyci (2003) pointed out that Gardner did not provide any cmpirical foundation for this incorporation and questioned the combination of “attitudes towards the learning situation” embedded in integrative motivation with instrumental motivation, especially in situations in which a leamer’s instrumental orientations are more prevalent than integrative ones (p.70)

Gardner (2006) claimed that the learning process in his socio-cducationat model was “a dynamic ongoing provess, capable of change al any point given in time” (p.241) However, Gardner ignored the impact of past cxpetionees on any variables in the model, stating that “influences back in time are not meaningfl” (p241) Because Gardner only considered motivation to be the cause of success, he underestimated the complexity of the motivational processes underlying the individual's language leaming process Other researchers (Ellis, 1994, Skchan, 1989) postulated that some learners expend more effort and show greater persistence after achieving snecesses From this perspective, motivation is considered both the

consequence and causc of success Furlhermore, the sociu-cducational model is

Moreover, Garner and his colleagues “established scienfific research procedures and introduced standard: cd assessment toelmiyucs and instruments, ths setting Tigh sesearch standards” (Damyci, 1994a, p-273) However, Gurdner’s (1985) theory focuses ơn the integrative aspects of the language leaming process in a bilingual context where the leamer can have real-life contact with L2 communities

In other second and foreign language learmung contexts, the language Jeamer mainly comes into contact with the target language 1n the classroom and 1s thus influenced

by factors and relationships within the classroom, Consequently, a new approach in

11

1.2 motivation rescerch was advanced by Crookes and Schmidt (1991), Skchan (1991), and Oxford and Shearin (1994)

1.2.2 Language learning motivation from cognitive perspective

The 1990s saw a shift from the social psychological emphasis on integrative motivation spurred on by a desize to incorporate theories from other areas of psychology, particnlurly those form education, with those in the SLA field (Oxford

& Shoarin, 1994) Crookes and Selmnidt (1991), who were the pioneers in callings for such an approadh, claimed that, “1.2 learning is an extended process, oflen taking place both inside and outside the classroom over a number of years; and above all,

as one in which the leamer takes an active role at many levels of the process” (p.483) Crookes and Schmidt (1991) questioned Gardner’s approach by pointing out that eazlier empirical studies could not provide enough evidence to prove the causality between integrative motivation and second language leaming achievement The overemphasis on social aspects also became a limitation, Because different studies produced different results, the empirical data nsed to validate these

oversy Thereforg, they called for approaches mors suited to 1.2 cduvation, They added that the now perspective shoulil take into account how teachers view students’ motivation Ievels in the classroom, Skehan (1991) stated that the new approach should account for the influences of “the instructional context” and “psychological influences within the individual” ¢p.281)

on student motivation Oxford and Shearin (1994) recommended that the new

approach addres: “complicated dhanges over tite” (p.14) and the “dividualistic

and ulti faceted” nature (p.16) of a student's motivation to learn an 1.2

Graham Crovkes and Richard Schmidt's (1991) influential article “Motivation: Reopeniny the Research Agenda” argued that the common conccptualization of motivation in SLA considered attitudinal and other social psychological aspects, but failed to take into account how the terms were actually used by second language teachers in the classroom environment, Furthermore, many key scholars began to realize that there was a need for a more user-ftiendly approach to motivational

models that teachers could usc in practice (Croukes & Sclrmiảl, 1991, Domyci,

1990, Julkunen, 1989; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Skchan, 1991) Thesc were coupled

in what Domyei describes as the desire to develop

1.8 moze pragmatic, educatioa-centered approach to motivation research, which would be consistent with the perceptions af practicing teachers and which would also be in line with the current resulie of mainstream educational psychological roscarch (1994, p.273)

Two key aspects of motivation were central to this new perspective Firstly,

cognitive psychological influences, such

what one thinks of one’s 1.2 ability and

potential duu to one"

perception of past experiences These reflect Keller's four

component inotivation system, whieh are Inlercsl (in the tupic and activity), Relevance (to the students’ lives), Expectancy (expectations of success and feelings

of being in control) and Satisfaction (in the outcome)

Secondly sitzation-specific influences, embodied in the classroom and other

leaming environments Based on Keller’s (1983) four-component motivation system, Crookes and Schmidt identified four areas of second language motivation directly relating to the classroom: the micro level, the classroom level, the syllabus

level and the cxtracumicular level The micro level involves dealing with the

motivation or attention interface with the effect on the cognitive processing of L2 input At the micro level, leamer motivation is evidenced by the amount of attention

given to the input The classroom level includes the techniques and activities employed in the classroom, the syllabus level refers to the choice of content presented and can influence motivation by the level of curiosity and interest aroused

in the students Finally, the extracurricular level considers factors from outside the classroom invelving infonnal interaction in the 12 and long term factors

The cognitive approach views motivation as a product of one’s thoughts, which are informed by clemments of a Iearner’s past experiences rather than some innate instinct or need (Domyei, 1994) The cognitive focus during the early 1990s

was based upon the belief that a leamer’s classroom environment influenced their

18

motivation more than had previously becr recognized (Domyei, 2001, 2005) Social psychological theory largely aimed to give a maero perspective on motivation in L2 Teaming,

The key assumption that drove this boom in research was that the classroom environment and more generally, the contextual surroundings of leaming, had a

mnch stronger motiv:

2003) One s

this poriod was Deci and Ryan's (1983) SelfDetermination Theory (SDT) Devi

‘onal influsuce than had previously beer proposed (Domyei, isting theory that helpel researchers 10 research motivation during

and Ryan (1985) classificd motivation as intrinsic or exirinsic Intrinsic motivation denotes the desire to leam a language purely for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from the leaming experience An intrinsically motivated leamer “ is considered to be highly self-determined in the sense that the reason for doing the activity is linked solely to the individual’s positive feelings while performing the

task” (Noels, Clement, & Pelletier, 1999, p.24) Conversely, extrinsic motivation is when learners perform activi 28 for instrumental reasons, such as rewards, rather than the pleasure of the leaning exparicnee itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985) Extinsic

motivalion bears so similarity to instrumental orientation as bath involve Icaming an L2 for instrumental gains, rather than for the inherent cnjoyment of the activity

Both types of motivation have important implications for L2 teaching and leaming, In fact, Noels, Clement and Pelletier (1994) suggest that “ the distinction between extrinsic and intinsic goals can be of service in predicting 1.2 tearing oulcomas” €p 25) Some rescarch suggests thal learners who are intrinsically motivated, and have # positive attitude 10 the target Jangnage eulturc, are mors likely to succeed in lcaming a language (Gardner, 1985) SDT may also account for changes in leamer motivation within the language-leaming classroom The theory suggests that a leamer’s motivation be influenced by environmental factors, such as the teacher or leamer group, which ean atfect their own competence and autonomy

(Noels, Clement & Pelletier, 1999)

Situalional studies of motivation, like all studics that involve attempts to

explain the causes of human behavior, arc not problem free (Gardner & Tremblay,

1994) However, studies into situational variables such as the influence of parents, teachers, classrooms, and schools have produced some usefull findings (Domyei,

20010) ‘This focus on learner cognition and the language-leaming environment

finther extended and refined the concept of motivation in the SLA Geld

Undoubtedly, Oxford and Shearin (1994) gave impetus to the 12 inotivation

vescarch, which was described as “Seforms movernent.” [his from that time thal an

expanded vision of L2 lcarning motivation began to attract much more attention

They offered the umpoutant beginnings of an expanded theory in the L2 field with contributions from different aspects ot psychology (general, industrial, educational,

sociocultural and cognitive developmental}

1.2.3 Language learning motivation from a process-oriented perspective

While the cognitive focus of the 1990s was useful in highlighting issnes

tegarding motivation that were most obvious in the classroom setting, the

observation of actual classes revealed that learner motivation is not static, bul

dynamic, oflen changing in the course of a single lesson (Dornyci, 2003a, 2005)

Even before the tum of the 21* century, there were calls to recognize this temporal

aspect of motivation

‘This temporal aspect is most salient in SLA when we consider the particularly lengthy process of language leaning, which often takes many years (Domyei, 20034; 2005) Over the years, there will be many changes for the leamer, both

internal and external, which are likely to change the way in which they view the

large! language The process-oriented approach sccks lo “ sccount for the “ups and downs” of motivation, that is, the ongoing changes of motivation over time” (Domyei, 2003, pp 17-18)

William and Burden’s (1997) three-stage model of motivation fiom a social constructive perspective includes stages they called “Reasons for doing something”,

“Deciding to do something” and “Sustaining the effort, or persisting” It is very

15

clear that “de ion” is the foval point in this definition, According ta them, cucl

individual has his/her own reasons for choosing an activity, Thesc reasons may be

influenced by internal and/or external factors

Tnizinsic interest of activity Significant others

# Optimal degree of challenge @ Teachers

# Peisonal relevance

# Anticipated value of outcomes

* Intrinsic value altribuled to the activity

» Awareness of developing skills and

‘mastery in a chosen area

+ Self-eVicacy

Self-concept

© Realistic awareness of personal

strengths and weaknesses in skills

required

# Personal definitions and judgments of

success and failure

© Self-worth concer

« Leamed helpleseness

Attitides:

& To language learning in general

© To the target Iangaage

»To the target Isnguage communily and

© Mediated leaming experiences

© Thenalure and amount of feedback

@ Rewards

= The namre and amount af

appropriate praise Punishments, sanctions

The learning, cuvironment

« Comfort

« Resources

@ Time af day, week, year

# Size of clase and school

© Class and school ethos

The broader cantext

4 Wider family networke

© The local education system

¢ Conflicting interests

¢ Cultural norms

© Societal expectation and attindes

William and Burden’ s framewark of motivation in language

learning(William & Burden, 1997)

After that, the individual may or inay not decide lo undertake the activily as a

result of various considerations Once the decision is made, the person needs to

sustain his/her effort to complete the activity Williams and Burden also categorize

the first two stages as “initiating motivation” and the final stage as “sustaining motivation” and argue that the three stages occur within the framework of

sociocultural contexts Moreover, they believe that the model is not a one-way process and that the three stages are interrelated

Figure 1.2: Interactive model of motivation (Williams &Burden, 1997)

Apart from Williams and Burden’s motivation model, Ushioda (2001) also proposed a theoretical framework for motivation fiom a temporal perspective based

on her research findings In her research into the perceptions of motivational thought and motivational changes over time of students of French at Trinity College

Dublin, tretand, she identified eight motivational dimensions for learning French:

MOTIVATION DERIVING FROM EXPERIENCE

Positive L2-learning experience

Leamer B

Positive L2-reloted experience

Other experience

Personal goals Short-term goals/incentives Language-intrinsic goals Other gools/priorities MOTIVATION DIRECTED TOWARDS FUTURE GOALS

“L2 development overtime

Figure 1.3: Learner conceptions of motivation (Ushioda, 2001)

As can be seen from Figure 3, Learner A’s motivation for learning an L2 is derived from positive L2 learning and L2 related experience Gradually, Leamer A may transfer his/her motives to Leamer B over time Leamer B is mainly motivated

by various future goals while his/her personal experience plays a minor role This model depicts L2 motivation from past experience, current experience and future

perspectives, which is different from traditional L2 motivation theory which defines

motivation as a cause or an outcome of successful language learning Based on her findings, Ushioda (2001) claims that positive learning experiences are likely to

trigger intrinsic motivational factors; however, learners with less successful learning

experiences tend to emphasize their personal goals as primary motivation for

learning an L2

Another important process-orientated motivation model was developed by

Dornyei and Otto (1998) and it has undergone some modifications over the years

(Domyei, 2000; Domyei, 2001b) Domyei (2005) believes that this model

“describes how initial wishes and desires are first transformed into goals and then

(hopefully) lo the avcurnplistunent of the goal and eonhuded by the final evaluation

of the process” (p.84) Three stagcs of L2 motivation were identificd: Preactional Stage, Actional Stage and Postactional Stage

‘The motivational The mofivational The motivational

Motivation that execntion motivation determines what

generates the that sustains one’s Lug} kinds of activities motivation to pTreue efforls in what is one will engage

a specific goal or being cared ont with in the fanture

‘Figure 1.4: A process model of L2 learning motivation (Dornyel and Otto, 1998)

‘The preavtional stage is the initial phase of gencraling motivation, Williams and Burdens (1997) concept of “initiating motivation” is similar to this process During the actonal stage, it is crucial to “maintain” and “protect” the generated motivation while doing an activity, Tus is referred to as “executive motivation”, which is comperable with Williams and Burden’s notion of ‘sustaining motivation’ However, in Domyei’s model, there is a third stage: the postactional stage, which is referred to as “motivational retrospection” During this stage, the leamers evaluate what they have done and this normally has an impact on their motivation for doing other activities im the future The recognilion of time us an cssential component of

inotivation represents a new milestone in inotivation rescareh

1.2.4 Language learning motivation from socio-dynamic perspective

Motivation has been associated with and studied in connection with several

factors in language leaming over the years, among which the selfis a relatively new concept in second language education research ‘Che L2 Motivational Self System

theory originated from the results of two surveys of Itungarian pupils from 13 to 14

2003).Csizer and Domyci (2005) employed structural cquation modeling (SEM) that spceificd intcgrativencss as the most important factor influencing the language Teamer’s effort and language choice Instrumentality and attitudes toward L2 speakers were also found to impact language choice and effort indirectly via

integrativeness Csizer and Dornyei (2005) argued that the limited contact of the

Tanguage learner in a foreign language context necessitated the interpretation of the tera inlegrativeness in a broader sense than the meaning within which Gardner framed il (sec 1.3.1) Thus, they borrowed the terms “possible sclves” (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and “idcal sclf” (Higgins, 1987, 1998) to interpret and explain the roles of integrativeness and instrumentality mn the new model

Markus and Nurius (1986) defined possitle selves as a combination of three types of selves, namely “the ideal selves that we would very much like to become,”

“the selves we conld become,” and “the selves we are afraid of becoming” (p.954)

‘They argued that these possible selves were connected to the individual’s current selves but were still “different and separable” from these (p.954) These possible

selves represent the individual’s wi and motivate the

¢ behavior Markus and Nurius stated that possib

influenced by “the individual’s particular sociocultural and historical context and

from the models, images, and symbols provided by the media and by the

individual’s immediate social experiences” (p.954)

1ggins (1987) categorized three aspects of the self as follows

(@) the actual self, which is your representation of the attributes thal sormeons (yourself or another) belisves you actually possess; (b} the ideal self, which is your

Teprescnlation of the altributes (hat, son one (yourself or another) would like you,

ideally, to possess (i.c., a representation of someone’s hopes, aspirations, or wishes

for you); and (c) the ought self, which is your representation of the attributes that

someone (yourself or another) believes you should or ought to possess (e.2., a

representation of someone’s sense of your duty, obligations or responsibilities)

(p320)

Higgins believed that the ideal and ought sclves motivate an individual to

reduce the gap between one’s actual sclf and idcal or ought self A little over a

decade later, Higgins (1998) refined the definition of the ideal self as “the promotion focus [which| is concerned with accomplishments, hopes, and

aspirations” while the ought self means “the prevention focus [which] is concemed with safely, responsibilities, and obligations” (p.16) As such, the ideal sel is

associated with positive oulcomcs, whereas the ought sclfis cormected lo negative

oulcomes

Based on these definitions of possible, ideal, and ought selves, Csizer and

Domyei (2005) found that attitudes towards L2 speakers were directly related to integrativeness, which was similar to Gardner’s (1985) conceptualization of integrativeness Domyei (2005, 2009) further stated that L2 speakers represented

the ideal L2 self that a language learner would often like to achieve; therefore,

integrativeness could be interpreted as the ideal L2 self In terms of the direct

relationship between instrumentality and integrativensss (see Csizer & Domyei,

Dornyei (2005, 2009) proposed the following construct of the L2 motivational

- The idol 1.2 self this dinonsion suprosents tha 1.2 Teamer’s hopes, aspirations and goals in learning the 12

- The ought-to L2 self: this dimension rq

duties, obligations and responsibilities in leaming the L2

‘esents the L2 Icamer’s peresived

ý strength as follows:

First, the L2 motivational sclfsystem is derived fiom the results of empirical studies Second, 1t is connected to mainstream psychology, as it is based on the self- theory, as well as the previous L2 motivational constructs like Gardner's (1985,

2001, 2006) integrativeness, Norton's (2001) concept of “imagined communities,”

|, and Ustiods’s (2001) mot

Noels’ (2003) 1.2 motivation constr ration construct

(seo Domyoi, 2005)

Third, the 1.2 motivational self-syslem provides # broader cxplanation for the language Icamers’ motivation to leam English in various contexts than other theories of L2 motivation, especially in the context of English as a alobal language

in which the English leamer does not have any specific L2 reference groups

(Womyei, 2005; Macintyre, Mackinnon & Clement, 2009)

Last, utilizing the L2 motivational selfsystem helps address a variety of simultaneous motivational forces involving the L2 leaming process (Macintyre et al.,

2009)

However, the 1.2 motivational so

(2005) limself sdmitlcd thất the 1

the constiuet bụt not cmpirically tested Macintyze et al (2009) put forward several

system is nol without criticism, Dernyci

lsnming experience component was proposed in

cautions against using the L2 motivational self-system in L2 motivation research

‘They stated that the research results on possible selves might be biased due to the participants’ need to present themselves positively, and due to the inconsistency in research methods lo collect and analyze the data Furthermore, reconceptualiving intogrativenass as the ideal 1.2 sulf might canse difficully and confusion as, in the mainstrcarn psychology, there were a plethora of self-thcories The coneept of the self is culturally-determined, thereby differently conceptualized in different cultures and it needs to take into account the changing nature of possible selves over time

As such, more empirical studies are required to establish the validity of the L2 motivation self-system construct

1.3 Motivation in relation to achievement

In his model, Gardner (1985) considered motivation to be the independent variable and target language attainment the dependent variable The higher an individual's motivation was, the higher his or her achievements would be This meant that motivation led to improved performance Gardner (2000) attempting to establish statistical evidence through complicated statistical procedures contends, “it

scxms logical to conclude that the differences in integrative motivation are

ion observed, even though correlation docs nol mcarr

responsible for the vari

causation” (p 2l) This notion has been justifiably challenged by a number of

scholars and by a number of empirical findings Domyei (2001) expresses caution

as to the relationship between language leaming motivation and achievement for a

direct cause-effect cannot be assumed between the two The relationship can at best

be indirect since motivation is the antecedent of action rather than of achievement

itself Domyei and Otto's (1998) cyclic model assumes that the relationship

between motivation and achievement is not linear since the positive feedback that

ong gets aller achieving his or her goal might melivate tare or her to pursuc a ew

pp.78-79), presenting » constructivist approach, contends that it is impossible to

establish whether motivation Teads to successful achievement or whether suecess

Icads to higher motivation, or whether it is a mixture of both, or whether both are

affected by other factors In fact, motivation that results trom success in lenrning a

Tanguage is referred to as the resuliatve motivation (Ellis, 1997, p.75) However, a word of caution is necessary here since a leamer’s success alone does not guarantee increased motivation Leamers who strive toward leaming (¢.g., mastery) goals are

23

more likely lo bensfit from suecess than learners who aim for performance goals (Dwick, 1986) From an achievement theory perspective, (see a review in Oxford & Sheann, 1994) the need for achievement ean itvelf be the motive for choosing to do things In addition, the relationship between motivation and achievement can vary because of the different contexts in which the leaming process takes place (Csella,

1999)

IL is clearly sven that siuder achizvement problems are often highlighted in

avadernic liferalure and the mass media and therefore, iLis pertinent for cducatars to

be aware of the factors related to student achicvements and study them Motivation

is the driving force behind our actions and affects our needs, desires and ambitions

(Rabideau, 2005) Achievement motivation is one’s inner drive to achieve It almost

goes without saying that good language leamers are motivated Without motivation, success would be hard to come by, and the case of learning a second or foreign language is no different

In Tlendricks' (1997) study on predicting student success with the Learning

and Sindy Stralcgics Inventory (.ASS1 motivation and attitude were found to be

is’ academic

the best proitictors of academic performance, In this udy, stude

performance was mcasurcd by using students’ grade point averages In another

study, Lirias (2009) indicated that students achieved better ina caring environment,

and those who achieved more also attained high achievement motivation

Mahyuddin, Clias and Noordin (2009) also found a significant but low positive

corelation between students’ achievernent motivation and them academie

achie sment, Garduer and Lambert’s carly study (1959) indicated thal second langusge achieveriant is related not only lo bmgusge aptitude but also to motivation, In his 1988 defense of the theory, Gardner indicated that across a large number of studies, there have been significant cozrelations between integrative attitudes and language proficiency

A significant positive correlation between students’ attitude and academic

(1992) They lso reported a palh analysis for the Gral grades of 9th and 10r

graders and the students’ attitude The dircct effect of attitude on performance has

also been shown by Pajares and Miller (1994) Papanastasiou (2000) also found a positive relationship between mathematics achievement and students” attitudes

towards mathematics,

Studies carried oul in the West have widely investigaled academic motivation

In Vietnam, sume affention has also been paid 1o this phenurncnon, A few

vescarchers in (he acadernie ficld have studied the role of motivation in acaderoic

achievement but few of them have studied the relationship between motivation and

academic achievement trom a sociocultural perspective Considering the existing gap in research into the academic motivation of students, this study will examine

the relationship between motivation and academic achievement in students and determine the influence of several predictor variables on motivation and academic achievement

1.4 Review of previous empirical studies

Over the past four decades, a number of empirical studios have been carried

Surveys are one of the most popular research designs in the field of language

Tearing motivation (which is also tue of motivational research in general), The

purpose of surveys is to doseribe the characleristivs, altitudes or opinions of a population by examining a subset of that, group (which is culled a sample) al a single point in time (Cchen, Manion and Morrison, 2000, Domryci, 2001) Because they can provide descriptive, inferential, and explanatory infonnation ina relatively short time, surveys are very popular and have regularly been used in language leaming motivation research to assess L2 leamers! attitudes, preferences, motives or

25

orientations in different geographical, sucioculiural and instilufional contexts and to

compare the results of various subgroups ofa sample

Most of the abovementioned studies were quantitative surveys The sample sizes ranged from 49 to 8,593 Apart trom the studies that were camied out by Domyei & Csizer (2002) and Gardner, Masgoret, ‘Iennant & Mihic (2004), the

slufies were all cross-sectional All these studies clearly demomstiated the biggest advantage of surveys; they are quick, efliciont, and eost-efToelive

To test Clement's (1980) Social Context, model, a questionnaire with 37

orientation items choscn from previous studics, was delivered to 871 grade 11

students (Clement and Kruidenier, 1983) to assess the influence of ethnicity (French

vs English), milieu (unicultural vs multicultural), and target second language

(Erench or English ws Spanish) on the emergence of orientations ‘The results

showed that instrumental orientation, travel, friendship and knowledge orientations

were commen to all groups of subjects

Knuidenier and Clement (1986) compared the orientations and stated reasons

for studying a sccond language of 813 grade 11 students with data on threc

sociccultural factors: cllno lingnistic group (Anglophone and francophone), the

socio-political status of the targct language (official French or English vs minority"

Spanish), and the cultural composition of ther milieu Gnonocultural or

multicultural) The results also showed that four orientations: general instrumental,

travel, friendship, and knowledge were shared by all four groups li was also found

thal socio-cultural factors determined buth the composition of some orientations and the importance of certain orisnialions 1m the teaming process, which was not found

in the previous study

Schmidt, Boraic and Kassabgy (1996) studied dimensions of motivation for Teaming foreign languages in a population of 1,464 adult learners of English at the American Centre for Adult and Continuing Education at the University of Cairo- Egypt Participants completed a 100-item self-report questionnaire using a six-point

classroom activities and leaming strategies The resulls suggested that, there are

three basic dimensions to motivation for learning forcign languages, which are

‘Aftect, Goal Orientation, and Expectancy

Similar to Schmidt’s study (1996), Ely (1986) carried out research in which 75

first-year university students of Spanish in northem California were asked to complete a questionnaire that inchuled the type of motivation scale and the strength

of mnohvation scale The results indicated the existence of two types of motivation clusters similar lo integrative and instrumental ortentalion

Gardner and Maclntyre (1993b) used a survey to assess the validity of the

AMTB (1985) 92 students of university-level French participated in the study

Eleven measures of’ attitudes and motivation along with foreign language class

anxiety, orientation index, motivational intensity, and identification were tested in

three ways (7- point Likert scale, 7- point bipolar adjectival scales and single-item

Guilford (1954) scales The results indicated that the various subtests of AMTB

(1985) assess the attributes they are presumed to measure

1.4.2, Factor analytical studies

Factor analysis is a statistical data reduction tcelmique msed to explsir

variability among random variables By using factor analysis, the latent structure

that underlies large datasets can be revealed It reduces the number of variables submitted to the analysis to a few values that will still contain most of the

information found in the original variables (Domyei, 2001, 2007) It is very useful for managing large data sets Previous sludies produced strong evidence that factor analysis was useful in rescarch on langage learning motivation

By using factor analysis, Clement and Kruidenier (1983), Kruidznicr and

Clement (1986) and Ely (1986) uncovered different dimensions of

Tanguage learning motivation: instrumental and integrative motivation

Dornyei (1990) conducted a survey of a population of 134 young adult English Ieamers in Hungary using a motivation questionnaire with two sections: (1) items focusing on language use fieldand (2) Likert-type statements concerning intentions,

27

Teich, values, interests und attitudes Six-point scales were used, After facter analysis, a thcorctical construct of motivation in EFL learning was postulated, consisting of (1) an instrumental motivational subsystem; (2) a mult-taceted integrative motivational subsystem, (3) need for achievement and (4) attributions of past failures,

Another example of a factor analytical study was Belmechri and Mummels? (1998) study of 93 Francophone high school students learning Frglish as a second langusge An sdapicd form of Clement and Kruidenicr's (1986) Likert scalz questionnaire was uscd, the results of factor and a multiple regression analyses indicated that students’ orientations were: travel, undeistanding/school (for academic purposes-instrumental), friendship, understanding (for understanding English art), and career (instrumental), There was no integrative orientation because the subjects’ lacked the desire to become members of the Anglophone community

Factor analysis was the key technique used at the genesis of L2 motivation research, Gardner and his colleagues, pioneers in the field of motivation in second- Language acquisition, did all their investigations using this (c chiique (Gardner and Lambert, 1959, 1972, Gardner, 1985) Although ofher analytic teelmiques have inercasingly roplaeed or supplemented factor analysis (for example, structural equation modeling), some important studies in the 1990s still employed this technique including Gardner's series of studies (Gardner and Macintyre 1993b: Gardner, Tremblay and Masgoret 1997, Gardner, Masgoret, Tenmant 4 Mihic 2004), Dornyei's work (Domyei, 1990, Clement, Domyei & Nuels, 1994; Domyei and Kennos, 2000; Domydi & Csiver, 2002) and athe s (such as: Schinidt, Buraic

Maclntyre’s (1993b) survey of 92 students sindying French al university-level

utilized factor analysis which produced results that strongly supported the high

order constructs - integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, language

anxiety and motivation

1.4.3 Correlational studies

Conelational studies examine ths relations between variables observed in the

sample Conelational analysis is frequently used in 1.2 roativalion research, because

il can be performed with questiomaire dala to clarify the relationship between certain variables and identify important associations,

Numerous studies have investigated the comelations between integratve motivation and L2 achievement, mainly through quantitative research Most of the studies show that integrative motivation is positively related to L2 achievement

Schmidt, Boraie and Kassabgy (1996) studied the correlations between dimensions of motivation for learning foreign languages and other variables like age, gender, proficiency, learning strategies and preference The results revealed

three basic dime

In their study of university students lcaming French, Gardner and Maelntyre (1993b) included four additional variables: foreign language class anxiety, onentation index, motivational intensity and identification The results of factor analysis provided very strong support for the Ingher order constructs -

Integrativeness, Attitudes towards the Learning Situation, Language Anxiety and

2