The relationship between student motivation and learning achievements from a sociocultural perspective a case study of the police university

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AMTB: Attitudinal/ Motivational Test Battery EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis EFL: English as a foreign language ESP: English for Specific Purposes GE: General Engl

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITYHANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES

& INTERNATIONAL STUDIES



LE HUONG HOA

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT MOTIVATION

AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS FROM

A SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE:

A CASE STUDY OF THE POLICE UNIVERSITY

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN TOTAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

HANOI- 2015

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES

& INTERNATIONAL STUDIES



LE HUONG HOA

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT MOTIVATION

AND LEARNING ACHIEVEMENTS FROM

A SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVE:

A CASE STUDY OF THE POLICE UNIVERSITY

(Mối quan hệ giữa động cơ và kết quả học tập của sinh viên dựa trên quan điểm về lý thuyết văn hóa xã hội qua kết quả nghiên cứu tại

trường Đại học CSND)

Field: Language Teaching Methodolody

Supervisors

1 Dr Vu Thi Phuong Anh

2 Assoc Prof Dr Le Hung Tien

HANOI- 2015

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the submitted thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENT MOTIVATION AND LEARNING

ACHIEVEMENTS FROM A SOCIOCULTURAL 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, I would like to express deep gratitude to my two supervisors Dr Vu Thi Phuong Anh and Assoc Prof Dr Le 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 knowledgeable suggestions, support, understanding and kindness without which I 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 not least, I 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 encouragement, 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 out the students' levels of motivation to study English, (ii) to identify the sociocultural factors influencing that motivation and (iii)

to investigate the relationship between students' motivation and their achievement The subjects were 509 first-year students at the People’s Police University (PPU) The instruments used for data collection were questionnaires and focus group interviews The data from the returned questionnaires was statistically analyzed using the SPSS program to derive percentages, frequencies, means, standard deviations, as well as to perform exploratory factor analysis and multiple linear regression Findings from this study indicated that the majority of the students were motivated and had a positive attitude toward learning English; however, their 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 their knowledge Students' motivation and their English learning achievement were strongly and positively correlated with each other (p=.000<.05) If we want to improve achievement, we should influence motivation, especially with regard to two of the most important motivational factors: Attitudes towards the learning situation and group cohesion The findings could be useful for researchers and teachers in improving students’ achievement by devising effective teaching and learning strategies to increase students’ motivation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY……… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……… ii

ABSTRACT……… iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……… vii

LIST OF TABLES……… viii

LIST OF FIGURES……… x

PART 1: INTRODUCTION……… 1

1.1 Rationale for the study……… 1

1.2 Research aims ……… 2

1.3 Research questions……… 2

1.4 The scope of the study……… 3

1.5 The significance of the study……… 3

1.6 Organization of the study ……… 4

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT……… 5

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW……… 5

1.1 Definition of terminology ……… 5

1.1.1 Motivation……… 5

1.1.2 Components of L2 motivation……… 6

1.1.2.1 Motivation components by Gardner and his associates……… 6

1.1.2.2 Motivation components by Crookes and Schmidt………… 7

1.1.2.3 Motivation components by Dornyei……… 7

1.1.3 Academic achievement……… 7

1.2 Theoretical perspectives on language learning motivation……… 8

1.2.1 Language learning motivation from psychological perspective… 8

1.2.2 Language learning motivation from cognitive perspective……… 12

1.2.3 Language learning motivation from a process-oriented perspective… 15 1.2.4 Language learning motivation from socio-dynamic perspective 19

1.3 Motivation in relation to achievement……… 23

1.4 Review of previous empirical studies……… 25

1.4.1 Surveys……… 25

1.4.2 Factor analytical studies……… 27

1.4.3 Correlational studies……… 29

1.4.4 Studies using structural equation modeling (LISREL)………… 30

1.5 Issues identified in the literature review……… 32

1.5.1 Conceptual limitations……… 32

1.5.1.1 Integrative and instrumental orientation of motivation…… 32

1.5.1.2 Neglect of the dynamic feature of language learning motivation 33

1.5.1.3 Cultural aspects of motivation……….……… 33

1.5.2 Methodological limitations……… … 33

1.6 Theoretical framework for the study ……… 35

1.6.1 Sociocultural perspective on L2 motivation……… 35

1.6.2 Dornyei’s framework of second language motivation………….… 40

1.7 Chapter summary ……… 46

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……… 47

2.1 The research site……… 47

2.2 The research design for the study ……… 48

2.2.1 Quantitative versus qualitative research……… 49

2.2.2 Longitudinal versus cross-sectional……… 50

2.2.3 Mixed method approach……… 52

2.3 The research methods for this study ……….………… 57

2.3.1 Questionnaire for the investigation of language learning motivation at the macro-level……… 58

2.3.1.1 The construction of the questionnaires……… ……… 59

2.3.1.2 Selection of participants ……… 60

2.3.2 Focus group interviews………… … 60

2.3.2.1 The structure of focus group interviews……… 62

2.3.2.2 Selection of interviewees……… 62

2.3.3 Tests.……… 63

2.3.3.1 The construction of the tests……… 64

2.3.3.2 Assessment process ……… ………… 65

2.4 The procedures……… 65

2.5 Data analysis……… 69

2.5.1 Quantitative analysis……… 69

2.5.2 Qualitative analysis……… 70

2.6 Ethical issues ……… 73

2.7 Chapter summary ……… 74

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION……… 75

3.1 Population information ……… 75

3.2 Motivation to learn English among police students ……… 77

3.2.1 Motivation to learn English among police students for Semester 1 78

3.2.1.1 Analysis of the questionnaires.……… 78

3.2.1.2 Analysis of focus group interviews ……… ……… 80

3.2.2 Motivation to learn English among police students for Semester 2 in

comparison with Semester 1……… 89

3.3 The relationship between students’ motivation and English achievement …… 95

3.3.1 Semester 1……….…… 95

3.3.1.1 Factors identified as underlying components of the motivation to learn English ……… 95

3.3.1.2 Interpretation of the factors……….……… 99

3.3.1.3 The internal structure of the motivation to learn English of this study 101 3.3.1.4 The effect of students' motivation on their academic achievement 103

3.3.2 Semester 2……….107

3.3.2.1 Factors identified as underlying components of the motivation to learn English ……… 107

3.3.2.2 The effect of students' motivation on their academic performance 112

3.4 Changes in academic performance and motivation over the two semesters 114

3.4.1 Changes in academic performance……… 114

3.4.2 Changes in motivation ……… 116

3.4.2.1 Changes in motivation at the Language level……… 119

3.4.2.2 Changes in motivation at the Learner level……… 121

3.4.2.3 Changes in motivation at the Learning situation level……… 122

3.4.3 Changes in the motivation of high and low achievers over the two semesters 123

3.5 Chapter summary……… 126

PART 3: CONCLUSION……… 128

3.1 Main findings of the study… .……… 128

3.1.1 Students’ motivation to learn English at PPU……… 128

3.1.2 The relationship between motivation and academic achievement…….… 131

3.2 Implication of the study ……… 132

3.2.1 Theoretical implication ……… 132

3.2.2 Pedagogical implication……… 133

3.2.3 Policy implication……….…… 137

3.3 Limitation of the study ……….……… 138

3.4 Recommendation for future research ……… ……… 138

REFERENCES……… 140

APPENDICES……… 156

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMTB: Attitudinal/ Motivational Test Battery

EFA: Exploratory Factor Analysis

EFL: English as a foreign language

ESP: English for Specific Purposes

GE: General English

L2: Second Language

LLM: Language learning motivation

MLR: Multiple Linear Regressions

PPU: The People’s Police University

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

STD: Self-determination Theory

LIST OF TABLES

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

(Williams & Burden, 1997)……… 16

Table 1.2: Dornyei’s framework of L2 motivation (Dornyei, 1994a: 280)……… 42

Table 2.1: Advantages and disadvantages of using questionnaires and interviews (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000; Dornyei, 2001, 2007)……… 57

Table 2.2: Matrix for collecting feedback during focus group interviews……… 71

Table 3.1: Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of the motivation to learn English……… 80

Table 3.2: The coding of focus group interview data……… 82

Table 3.3: Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of the motivation to learn English for semester 1 and semester ………91

Table 3.4: KMO and Bartlett's Test……… 95

Table 3.5: Rotated Component Matrix for the first EFA result……… 96

Table 3.6: Rotated Component Matrix for the thirteenth EFA result ……… 98

Table 3.7: Total Variance Explained……… 99

Table 3.8: Comparison of factors identified in five studies involving the investigation of language learning motivation……… 101

Table 3.9: The Cronbach’s Alpha of factors……… 103

Table 3.10: Variables Entered/Removed (b)……… 104

Table 3.11: Model Summary……… 105

Table 3.12: ANOVA(b)……… 105

Table 3.13: Coefficients (a)……… 106

Table 3.14: KMO and Bartlett's Test……… 108

Table 3.15: Rotated Component Matrix for the first EFA result……… 109

Table 3.16: Rotated Component Matrix for the thirteenth EFA result ………… 110

Table 3.17: Total Variance Explained……… 111

Table 3.18: Regression loading table……… 112

Table 3.19: Descriptive Statistics of Average score for Semester 1 and Semester 2 ……… 114

Table 3.20: Descriptive Statistics of Average score for Semester 1……… 114

Table 3.21: Descriptive Statistics of Average score for Semester 2……… 115

Table 3.22: Paired Samples Statistics……… 115

Table 3.23: Paired Samples Correlations……… 115

Table 3.24: Paired Samples Test……… 116

Table 3.25: Paired Samples Test……… 117

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

Table 3.27: Independent sample test for motivation among low and high achievers in semester 1……….124

Table 3.28: Independent sample test for motivation among low and high achievers in semester 2……….125

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Conceptualizing of Integrative Motivation (Gardner, 2001, pp 5-7)…… 9 Figure 1.2: Interactive model of motivation (Williams & Burden, 1997)………… 17 Figure 1.3: Learner conceptions of motivation (Ushioda, 2001)………18

Figure 2.1: The research format of this study……… 49 Figure 2.2: Features of Qualitative & Quantitative Research (Miles & Huberman

1994, p.40)………

50

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, I have been disappointed 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 not Even within one class, some students would be interested but others would not share that enthusiasm Initially, most students were usually enthusiastic about 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 continuously suffering disappointment with my teaching performance I agonized over questions like, ‘Why do the students not like

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

me to choose this topic for my research 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, motivation, beliefs, self-confidence and anxiety greatly influence language learning Among these variables, motivation is considered to be one of the most important factors affecting success in learning a second or foreign language However, the relationship between motivation and academic achievement is not completely clear In the current literature, motivation is regarded as socially constructed, therefore as dynamic rather than static

Little research has been conducted on the motivation of Vietnamese students studying English as a compulsory curriculum component rather than as a major from 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 contribution to motivation theory Therefore, the issue requires longitudinal and in-depth research into student motivation by using mixed methods, the factors affecting it during the learning 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

(3) To investigate the relationship between students’ motivation and their academic achievement

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

1.3 Research questions

This study addresses the following research questions:

1 In what ways is students’ motivation socially constructed?

2 What is the relationship between students’ motivation and their academic achievement?

Secondary research questions also addressed are:

1 How motivated are PPU students to learn English?

2 What socio - cultural factors affect their motivation?

3 To what extent does motivation affect 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 achievement which can be derived from this study? 1.4 The scope 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 semesters of English study and identifying the sociocultural factors influencing that motivation at the People’s Police University 1.5 The significance of the study

This study is expected to contribute to our understanding of the role of motivation in 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 learn English for a whole group of learners

Secondly, as Dornyei’s (1994a) three-level language learning motivation framework is used in this research in order to explore the issue of language learning motivation among these learners, the study will also provide an opportunity to evaluate the framework and its value for studies of this nature

Thirdly, this study is anticipated to identify the obstacles and difficulties that police students faced in learning English It also tries to examine motivational changes, looking for the roots of problems in learning English at the PPU

Finally, this study is significant for lecturers, too, making them aware of the underlying motivation of foreign language learners Also, they will be able to adapt their teaching styles in accordance to the students’ motivation in order to create a better environment of language acquisition for the students, so that undergraduates can learn more effectively 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 in 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, academic achievement, the components of L2 motivation, the most influential L2 language learning motivation models and frameworks, previous research on the motivation to learn a language and the theoretical framework for the study Chapter 2 describes the methodology of this study, including the research design, procedures for 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 avenues for further research

PART 2: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

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

1.1.Definition of terminology

1.1.1 Motivation

Even though motivation is difficult to define, the term is used widely in situations 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 learn a second language is seen as the extent to which the individual strives to learn 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 (Li, 2001)

Oxford and Shearin (1994) characterize motivation as a desire to achieve a goal, combined with the energy to work towards that goal Many researchers consider motivation to be one of the main determiners for success in acquiring a second or foreign language It determines the extent of active, personal involvement

in L2 learning (Oxford & Shearin, 1994)

In an attempt to synthesize the static and dynamic conceptions of motivation, Dornyei (1998, p.118) defined motivation as “a process whereby a certain amount

of instigating force which initiates an action, and persists as long as no other forces 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 “learning is

constructive rather than reproductive,” and “learning is a social, cultural and interpersonal as well as intrapersonal process” (p.91), Ushioda posited:

If learning is a process of constructing knowledge, the active contribution of the learner as agent in this process is critical By implication, the motivation to be actively involved must come from within the learner Put simply, the learner must want to learn … [If learning] is a culturally rooted, socially mediated process that takes place through the interaction between the child (or learner) and more competent others in meaningful activities, and entails the shared construction of meaning and understanding… the motivation to learn is also in this 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 with motivated and motivationally supportive others (pp 91-92)

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

is common to all the above definitions is that motivation consists of goals, effort, desire, persistence, energy and active involvement The implication is that learning

a second or foreign language involves a multifaceted learning process including not only a linguistic aspect, but also psychological, personal, and educational aspects and that an individual's motivation to learn a foreign language is derived from the social, historical, and cultural influences on the individual him/herself

1.1.2 Components of L2 motivation

L2 motivation is a multifaceted construct and this has resulted in vastly different components of L2 learning motivation being proposed by different researchers 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 commonly uses an Integrative Motive, which is comprised of integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, and motivation

(Gardner, 1985) According to Gardner, integrativeness refers to an individual’s

desire to interact with the L2 group and is determined by looking at three factors: integrative orientation, attitudes toward the target language group, and interest in

foreign languages in general Attitudes toward the learning situation involve the individual’s estimation 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 literature on motivation, and introduced the following components: (1) Interest in the L2 based on existing attitudes, experience, and background knowledge on the learners' part; (2) relevance, which involves the perception that personal needs such as achievement, affiliation, and power are being met by learning the L2; (3) expectancy of success or failure; 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

Based on the results of a survey carried out in Hungary, Dornyei (1990) postulated four components of motivation for learning a foreign language: (1) an instrumental motivational subsystem, consisting of instrumental language use and instrumentality involving the individual seeking better job opportunities; (2) a multi-faceted integrative motivational subsystem, consisting of an interest in foreign languages, cultures and people, the desire to broaden one’s view and avoid provincialism, the desire for new stimuli and challenges, and the desire to integrate into a new community; (3) need for achievement, which is the individual’s tendency

to achieve a goal and his/her interest in success; (4) attributions of past failures, which involve bad learning experiences in the learner’s past

1.1.3 Academic achievement

Commonly, academic achievement is defined as how successfully the learner can master the course materials and achieve the prescribed goals However, the precise definition of aademic achievement differs depending on the learner's

specific motivation or goals, in that the success of the learning process is measured

by the knowledge and skills that the learner gains

In this study, the definition used for academic achievement will be the more concrete one, as used by Gbati (1988) and Howcroft (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 goals in studying English in the school setting, in the form of a numerical score as obtained in an examination or test, as assessed by the student’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, learners’ ultimate success always depends on their motivation level; therefore, the motivation to learn 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 motivation to learn a second language originated in Canada during the 1960s and 1970s through the work of a group of social psychologists, particularly Robert Gardner, Wallace Lambert, and Richard Clement Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) seminal research introduced the idea that unlike the learning of other subjects, language learning is a cultural pursuit, as language is embedded in culture; hence, factors such as one’s attitude towards the target speech community invariably influence linguistic success This was particularly salient in the Canadian social context in which they were working, where learners' attitudes to the Anglophone and Francophone communities were seen as a significant factor in learning outcomes (Dornyei, 1994a, 2005) Gardner and Lambert (1959) hypothesized that a social motivation involving “a willingness to be valued members of the L2 community” would result in high levels of L2 achievement (p.271)

Gardner and Lambert divided motivation into two clusters: integrative and

instrumental (Spolsky, 1989) Integrative motivation refers to the desire to learn a

language because of an aspiration to identify with, or even become a member of, the

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

motivation which can be described as a desire to learn an L2 based upon pragmatic

gains such as money, social standing or a better job (Dornyei, 1998) The researchers hypothesized that while both types of motivation are potentially powerful; integrative motivation is “more likely to sustain the long-term effort needed to master a second language ” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p.16)

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 more details, presenting it as a complex mix of

three components: integrativeness encompassing integrative orientation, interest in foreign languages and attitudes toward the L2 community; attitudes toward the

learning situation, relating to the teacher and the course; and motivation meaning

the intensity of the learner’s motivation as well as their attitude towards learning the language These factors were assessed in learners using a popular standardized questionnaire, the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985b) While other factors were also seen as important during the social-psychological period, the research focused on integrative motivation This makes sense considering social psychological theory sees language as a cultural phenomenon that requires one to learn another culture to fully comprehend the language (Gardner, 1979, p.193) Similarly, the integrative motive is concerned 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 Test Battery without any solid theoretical clarification, while integrative motivation is discussed in depth (Dornyei, 2005) This is indicative of the higher degree of importance attached to integrative motivation

There has been a great deal of criticism of several aspects of Gardner’s motivation theory The first problem is Gardner’s use of the term integrative at three different levels in the construct, which creates confusion and leads to ambiguity (Dornyei, 1994, 2005) Second, Gardner’s model considered motivation to be a subcomponent of integrative motivation, and Gardner often uses this subcomponent motivation in reference to L2 motivation rather than using the broader integrative motivation (Dornyei, 1994) However, most other researchers commonly use motivation as an umbrella term This discrepancy hinders the interpretation and applicability of Gardner’s motivation theory In addition, although Gardner differentiated between orientation and motivation, these terms are commonly used interchangeably in L2 literature (Dornyei, 1994) Another problematic issue addressed by Dornyei (2005) is Gardner’s (2001, 2006) attempt to officially

incorporate instrumentality into the socio-educational model Dornyei (2005) pointed out that Gardner did not provide any empirical 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 learner’s instrumental orientations are more prevalent than integrative ones (p.70)

Gardner (2006) claimed that the learning process in his socio-educational model was “a dynamic on-going process, capable of change at any point given in time” (p.241) However, Gardner ignored the impact of past experiences on any variables in the model, stating that “influences back in time are not meaningful” (p.241) Because Gardner only considered motivation to be the cause of success, he underestimated the complexity of the motivational processes underlying the individual's language learning process Other researchers (Ellis, 1994; Skehan, 1989) postulated that some learners expend more effort and show greater persistence after achieving successes From this perspective, motivation is considered both the consequence and cause of success Furthermore, the socio-educational model is unable to reflect the complex inter-relationships among the factors/variables that may influence the learner’s motivation and results

In conclusion, the influence of Gardner’s (1985) theory on L2 motivation research is evident in the widespread use of the AMTB in investigating the integrative and instrumental orientations of language learners around the world Moreover, Gardner and his colleagues “established scientific research procedures and introduced standardized assessment techniques and instruments, thus setting high research standards” (Dornyei, 1994a, p.273) However, Gardner’s (1985) theory focuses on the integrative aspects of the language learning process in a bilingual context where the learner can have real-life contact with L2 communities

In other second and foreign language learning contexts, the language learner mainly comes into contact with the target language in the classroom and is thus influenced

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

L2 motivation research was advanced by Crookes and Schmidt (1991), Skehan (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 desire to incorporate theories from other areas of psychology, particularly those from education, with those in the SLA field (Oxford

& Shearin, 1994) Crookes and Schmidt (1991), who were the pioneers in calling for such an approach, claimed that “L2 learning is an extended process, often taking place both inside and outside the classroom over a number of years; and above all,

as one in which the learner takes an active role at many levels of the process” (p.483) Crookes and Schmidt (1991) questioned Gardner’s approach by pointing out that earlier empirical studies could not provide enough evidence to prove the causality between integrative motivation and second language learning achievement The overemphasis on social aspects also became a limitation Because different studies produced different results, the empirical data used to validate these theories was likely to cause controversy Therefore, they called for approaches more suited to L2 education They added that the new perspective should take into account how teachers view students' motivation levels 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 address “complicated changes over time” (p.14) and the “individualistic and multifaceted” nature (p.16) of a student’s motivation to learn an L2

Graham Crookes and Richard Schmidt's (1991) influential article “Motivation:

Reopening the Research Agenda” argued that the common conceptualization 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-friendly approach to motivational

models that teachers could use in practice (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1990; Julkunen, 1989; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Skehan, 1991) These were coupled

in what Dornyei describes as the desire to develop:

. a more pragmatic, education-centered approach to motivation research, which would be consistent with the perceptions of practicing teachers and which would also be in line with the current results of mainstream educational psychological research (1994, p.273).

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

cognitive psychological influences, such as what one thinks of one’s L2 ability and

potential due to one’s perception of past experiences These reflect Keller’s component motivation system, which are Interest (in the topic and activity), Relevance (to the students’ lives); Expectancy (expectations of success and feelings

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

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

learning 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 extracurricular 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, learner 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 involving informal interaction in the L2 and long term factors

The cognitive approach views motivation as a product of one’s thoughts,

which are informed by elements of a learner’s past experiences rather than some

innate instinct or need (Dornyei, 1994) The cognitive focus during the early 1990s

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

motivation more than had previously been recognized (Dornyei, 2001, 2005) Social psychological theory largely aimed to give a macro perspective on motivation in L2 learning

The key assumption that drove this boom in research was that the classroom environment and more generally, the contextual surroundings of learning, had a much stronger motivational influence than had previously been proposed (Dornyei, 2003) One existing theory that helped researchers to research motivation during this period was Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) Deci

and Ryan (1985) classified motivation as intrinsic or extrinsic Intrinsic motivation

denotes the desire to learn a language purely for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from the learning experience An intrinsically motivated learner “ 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 activities for instrumental reasons, such as rewards, rather than the pleasure of the learning experience itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985) Extrinsic motivation bears some similarity to instrumental orientation as both involve learning an L2 for instrumental gains, rather than for the inherent enjoyment of the activity

Both types of motivation have important implications for L2 teaching and learning In fact, Noels, Clement and Pelletier (1999) suggest that “ the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic goals can be of service in predicting L2 learning outcomes” (p 25) Some research suggests that learners who are intrinsically motivated, and have a positive attitude to the target language culture, are more likely to succeed in learning a language (Gardner, 1985) SDT may also account for changes in learner motivation within the language-learning classroom The theory suggests that a learner’s motivation be influenced by environmental factors, such as the teacher or learner group, which can affect their own competence and autonomy (Noels, Clement & Pelletier, 1999)

Situational studies of motivation, like all studies that involve attempts to explain the causes of human behavior, are not problem free (Gardner & Tremblay, 1994) However, studies into situational variables such as the influence of parents, teachers, classrooms, and schools have produced some useful findings (Dornyei, 2001b) This focus on learner cognition and the language-learning environment further extended and refined the concept of motivation in the SLA field

Undoubtedly, Oxford and Shearin (1994) gave impetus to the L2 motivation research, which was described as “reform movement.” It is from that time that an expanded vision of L2 learning motivation began to attract much more attention They offered the important beginnings of an expanded theory in the L2 field with contributions from different aspects of 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 issues regarding motivation that were most obvious in the classroom setting, the observation of actual classes revealed that learner motivation is not static, but dynamic, often changing in the course of a single lesson (Dornyei, 2003a, 2005)

aspect of motivation

This temporal aspect is most salient in SLA when we consider the particularly lengthy process of language learning, which often takes many years (Dornyei, 2003a; 2005) Over the years, there will be many changes for the learner, both internal and external, which are likely to change the way in which they view the

target language The process-oriented approach seeks to “ account for the “ups and

downs” of motivation, that is, the ongoing changes of motivation over time” (Dornyei, 2003, pp 17-18)

William and Burden’s (1997) three-stage model of motivation from 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

clear that “decision” is the focal point in this definition According to them, each individual has his/her own reasons for choosing an activity These reasons may be influenced by internal and/or external factors

Intrinsic interest of activity

 Arousal of curiosity

 Optimal degree of challenge

Perceived value of activity

 Personal relevance

 Anticipated value of outcomes

 Intrinsic value attributed to the activity

 Awareness of developing skills and

mastery in a chosen area

 Self-efficacy

Self-concept

 Realistic awareness of personal

strengths and weaknesses in skills

required

 Personal definitions and judgments of

success and failure

 Self-worth concern

 Learned helplessness

Attitudes

 To language learning in general

 To the target language

 To the target language community and

 Mediated learning experiences

 The nature and amount of feedback

 Time of day, week, year

 Size of class and school

 Class and school ethos

The broader context

 Wider family networks

 The local education system

 Conflicting interests

 Cultural norms

 Societal expectation and attitudes

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

learning(William & Burden, 1997)

After that, the individual may or may not decide to undertake the activity 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”

motivation” and argue that the three stages occur within the framework of sociocultural contexts Moreover, they believe that the model is not a oneprocess 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) alsoproposed a theoretical framework for motivation from 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, Ireland, she identified eight motivational dimensions for learning French:

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

ntexts Moreover, they believe that the model is not a oneprocess and that the three stages are interrelated

: Interactive model of motivation (Williams &Burden, 1997)Apart from Williams and Burden’s motivation model, Ushioda (2001) alsoproposed a theoretical framework for motivation from 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

eland, she identified eight motivational dimensions for learning French:

related enjoyment/liking;

Desired levels of L2 competence;

Positive learning history;

Feelings about French-speaking countries or people;

External pressures/incentives

After that, the individual may or may not decide to undertake the activity as a result of various considerations Once the decision is made, the person needs to stain his/her effort to complete the activity Williams and Burden also categorize

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

ntexts Moreover, they believe that the model is not a one-way

: Interactive model of motivation (Williams &Burden, 1997) Apart from Williams and Burden’s motivation model, Ushioda (2001) also proposed a theoretical framework for motivation from 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

eland, she identified eight motivational dimensions for learning French:

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, Learner A may transfer his/her motives to Learner B over time Learner 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 (Dornyei, 2000; Dornyei, 2001b) Dornyei (2005) believes that this model

“describes how initial wishes and desires are first transformed into goals and then into operationalized intentions, and how these intentions are enacted, leading

(hopefully) to the accomplishment of the goal and concluded by the final evaluation

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

Figure 1.4: A process model of L2 learning motivation (Dornyei and Otto, 1998) The preactional stage is the initial phase of generating motivation Williams and Burdens (1997) concept of “initiating motivation” is similar to this process During the actional stage, it is crucial to “maintain” and “protect” the generated motivation while doing an activity This is referred to as “executive motivation”, which is comparable with Williams and Burden’s notion of ‘sustaining motivation’ However, in Dornyei’s model, there is a third stage: the postactional stage, which is referred to as “motivational retrospection” During this stage, the learners evaluate what they have done and this normally has an impact on their motivation for doing other activities in the future The recognition of time as an essential component of motivation represents a new milestone in motivation research

1.2.4 Language learning motivation from socio-dynamic perspective Motivation has been associated with and studied in connection with several factors in language learning over the years, among which the self is a relatively new concept in second language education research The L2 Motivational Self System theory originated from the results of two surveys of Hungarian pupils from 13 to 14 years of age conducted by Dornyei and his colleagues (Csizer &Dornyei,

PREACTIONAL

STAGE

ACTIONAL STAGE

POSTACTIONAL STAGE

The motivational retrospection that determines what kinds of activities one will engage with in the future

2005).Csizer and Dornyei (2005) employed structural equation modeling (SEM) that specified integrativeness as the most important factor influencing the language learner’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 language learner in a foreign language context necessitated the interpretation of the term integrativeness in a broader sense than the meaning within which Gardner framed it (see 1.3.1) Thus, they borrowed the terms “possible selves” (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and “ideal self” (Higgins, 1987, 1998) to interpret and explain the roles of integrativeness and instrumentality in the new model

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

“the selves we could 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 wishes, fears and fantasies, and motivate the individual to initiate behavior Markus and Nurius stated that possible selves were 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)

Higgins (1987) categorized three aspects of the self as follows:

(a) the actual self, which is your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) believes you actually possess; (b) the ideal self, which is your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) would like you, ideally, to possess (i.e., 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.g., a representation of someone’s sense of your duty, obligations or responsibilities) (p.320)

Higgins believed that the ideal and ought selves motivate an individual to reduce the gap between one’s actual self and ideal 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 concerned with safety, responsibilities, and obligations” (p.16) As such, the ideal self is associated with positive outcomes, whereas the ought self is connected to negative outcomes

Based on these definitions of possible, ideal, and ought selves, Csizer and Dornyei (2005) found that attitudes towards L2 speakers were directly related to integrativeness, which was similar to Gardner’s (1985) conceptualization of integrativeness Dornyei (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 integrativeness (see Csizer & Dornyei, 2005), Dornyei said that instrumentality comprised two aspects, the promotion focus (see Higgins, 1998) in that learning English could help a person to earn privileges in one’s job and studies, and the prevention focus in that one could learn English simply to meet course requirements, for example The former aspect of instrumentality is linked to the ideal L2 self, and the latter to the ought L2 self Dornyei (2005, 2009) proposed the following construct of the L2 motivational self-system:

- The ideal L2 self: this dimension represents the L2 learner’s hopes, aspirations and goals in learning the L2

- The ought-to L2 self: this dimension represents the L2 learner’s perceived duties, obligations and responsibilities in learning the L2

- L2 learning experience: this dimension is associated with the L2 learner’s motivational goals derived from one’s failures and successes in learning the L2 in the past and the immediate learning environment

This system shows its strength as follows:

First, the L2 motivational self-system is derived from the results of empirical studies Second, it 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,” Noels’ (2003) L2 motivation construct, and Ushioda’s (2001) motivation construct (see Dornyei, 2005)

Third, the L2 motivational self-system provides a broader explanation for the language learners' motivation to learn English in various contexts than other theories of L2 motivation, especially in the context of English as a global language

in which the English learner does not have any specific L2 reference groups (Dornyei, 2005; MacIntyre, Mackinnon & Clement, 2009)

Last, utilizing the L2 motivational self-system helps address a variety of simultaneous motivational forces involving the L2 learning process (MacIntyre et al., 2009)

However, the L2 motivational self-system is not without criticism Dornyei (2005) himself admitted that the L2 learning experience component was proposed in the construct but not empirically tested MacIntyre et al (2009) put forward several 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 to collect and analyze the data Furthermore, reconceptualizing integrativeness as the ideal L2 self might cause difficulty and confusion as, in the mainstream psychology, there were a plethora of self-theories The concept 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 seems logical to conclude that the differences in integrative motivation are responsible for the variation observed, even though correlation does not mean causation” (p 21) This notion has been justifiably challenged by a number of scholars and by a number of empirical findings Dornyei (2001) expresses caution

as to the relationship between language learning 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 Dornyei and Otto’s (1998) cyclic model assumes that the relationship between motivation and achievement is not linear since the positive feedback that one gets after achieving his or her goal might motivate him or her to pursue a new goal There are, in addition, a host of other factors that affect motivation, such as the learners’ ability, learning opportunities, and the instructional quality of the learning task The dual relationship is also recognized by the self-determination theory Harter & Connell (1984) maintain that “improved learning will have the additional effect of further enhancing intrinsic motivation, thereby creating a kind

of positively synergistic effect” (cited in Dickinson, 1995, p.172) Williams (1994, pp.78-79), presenting a constructivist approach, contends that it is impossible to establish whether motivation leads to successful achievement or whether success leads to higher motivation, or whether it is a mixture of both, or whether both are affected by other factors In fact, motivation that results from success in learning a

language is referred to as the resultative motivation (Ellis, 1997, p.75) However, a

word of caution is necessary here since a learner's success alone does not guarantee increased motivation Learners who strive toward learning (e.g., mastery) goals are

more likely to benefit from success than learners who aim for performance goals (Dwick, 1986) From an achievement theory perspective, (see a review in Oxford &

Shearin, 1994) the need for achievement can itself 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 learning process takes place (Csella, 1999)

It is clearly seen that student achievement problems are often highlighted in academic literature and the mass media and therefore, it is pertinent for educators to

be aware of the factors related to student achievements 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 learners 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 Hendricks' (1997) study on predicting student success with the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) motivation and attitude were found to be the best predictors of academic performance In this study, students’ academic performance was measured by using students' grade point averages In another study, Lirias (2009) indicated that students achieved better in a caring environment, and those who achieved more also attained high achievement motivation Mahyuddin, Elias and Noordin (2009) also found a significant but low positive correlation between students’ achievement motivation and their academic achievement Gardner and Lambert’s early study (1959) indicated that second language achievement is related not only to language 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 correlations between integrative attitudes and language proficiency

A significant positive correlation between students’ attitude and academic achievement was observed in the work of Zimmerman, Bandura, and Martinez-Pons

(1992) They also reported a path analysis for the final grades of 9th and 10th graders and the students’ attitude The direct 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 out in the West have widely investigated academic motivation

In Vietnam, some attention has also been paid to this phenomenon A few researchers in the academic field have studied the role of motivation in academic achievement but few of them have studied the relationship between motivation and academic achievement from 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 studies have been carried out to investigate the role of motivation in the process of learning a language The following section will only discuss relevant empirical studies post-1980s in the field

of language learning motivation (see Appendix 1)

1.4.1 Surveys

Surveys are one of the most popular research designs in the field of language learning motivation (which is also true of motivational research in general) The purpose of surveys is to describe the characteristics, attitudes or opinions of a population by examining a subset of that group (which is called a sample) at a single point in time (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2000; Dornyei, 2001) Because they can provide descriptive, inferential, and explanatory information in a relatively short time, surveys are very popular and have regularly been used in language learning motivation research to assess L2 learners' attitudes, preferences, motives or

orientations in different geographical, sociocultural and institutional contexts and to compare the results of various subgroups of a sample

Most of the abovementioned studies were quantitative surveys The sample sizes ranged from 49 to 8,593 Apart from the studies that were carried out by Dornyei & Csizer (2002) and Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant & Mihic (2004), the studies were all cross-sectional All these studies clearly demonstrated the biggest advantage of surveys; they are quick, efficient, and cost-effective

To test Clement's (1980) Social Context model, a questionnaire with 37 orientation items chosen from previous studies, 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 (French or English vs Spanish) on the emergence of orientations The results showed that instrumental orientation, travel, friendship and knowledge orientations were common to all groups of subjects

Kruidenier and Clement (1986) compared the orientations and stated reasons for studying a second language of 813 grade 11 students with data on three sociocultural factors: ethno linguistic group (Anglophone and francophone), the socio-political status of the target language (official French or English vs minority' Spanish), and the cultural composition of their milieu (monocultural or multicultural) The results also showed that four orientations: general instrumental, travel, friendship, and knowledge were shared by all four groups It was also found that socio-cultural factors determined both the composition of some orientations and the importance of certain orientations in the learning process, which was not found

in the previous study

Schmidt, Boraie and Kassabgy (1996) studied dimensions of motivation for learning 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 Likert scale 50 items concerned motivation, the rest focused on preferences for

classroom activities and learning strategies The results suggested that there are three basic dimensions to motivation for learning foreign languages, which are Affect, 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 northern California were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the type of motivation scale and the strength

of motivation scale The results indicated the existence of two types of motivation clusters similar to integrative and instrumental orientation

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 technique used to explain 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 (Dornyei, 2001, 2007) It is very useful for managing large data sets Previous studies produced strong evidence that factor analysis was useful in research on language learning motivation

By using factor analysis, Clement and Kruidenier (1983), Kruidenier and Clement (1986) and Ely (1986) uncovered different dimensions of language learning motivation: instrumental and integrative motivation

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

beliefs, values, interests and attitudes Six-point scales were used After factor analysis, a theoretical construct of motivation in EFL learning was postulated, consisting of (1) an instrumental motivational subsystem; (2) a multi-faceted integrative motivational subsystem; (3) need for achievement and (4) attributions of past failures

Another example of a factor analytical study was Belmechri and Hummels’ (1998) study of 93 Francophone high school students learning English as a second language An adapted form of Clement and Kruidenier's (1986) Likert scale questionnaire was used, the results of factor and a multiple regression analyses indicated that students' orientations were: travel, understanding/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 technique (Gardner and Lambert 1959, 1972; Gardner, 1985) Although other analytic techniques have increasingly replaced 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 Maclntyre 1993b: Gardner, Tremblay and Masgoret 1997; Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant & Mihic 2004), Dornyei's work (Dornyei, 1990; Clement, Dornyei & Noels, 1994; Dornyei and Kormos, 2000; Dornyei & Csizer, 2002) and others (such as: Schmidt, Boraie and Kassabgy, 1996; Belmechri and Hummel, 1998; Noels, Pelletier and Vallerand, 2000; Kam, 2006)

After the development of the concept of “integrative orientation”, the standardized Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (1985), and the socio-educational modelusing factor analysis continued to play an important role in extending and validating the socio-educational model For instance, Gardner and