Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Student motivation to learn English

as a foreign language
Kassim Shaaban

Foreign Language Annals

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Mot ivat ion and gender in t he Japanese EFL classroom

Pet er Gobel

T he Effect of Mot ivat ion

Yaşar E . Kürüm

Saudi Undergraduat es' Mot ivat ional Orient at ions t owards English Language Learning along Gender an…
Muhammad U Farooq, Prof. Dr. Choudhary Z A H I D Javid
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229732738

Student Motivation to Learn English as a

Foreign Language

Article in Foreign Language Annals · December 2008

DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2000.tb00932.x

CITATIONS READS

30 4,307

2 authors:

Kassim A. Shaaban Ghazi Ghaith

American University of Beirut American University of Beirut
17 PUBLICATIONS 223 CITATIONS 29 PUBLICATIONS 621 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kassim A. Shaaban on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
632 zyx
zyxw
zyxwvutsrqpon NOVE MR E IUD EC E MR E R 2000

Student Motivation to Learn

English as a Foreign Language
Kassim A. Shaaban
American University of Beirut
Ghazi Ghaith
American Univevsity of Beirut zyxwvu
Abstract: This study examined the motivation of 180 university-bound Lebanese students to
learn English as aforeign language (EFL). Data were gathered through administering a modified
version of the motivation scale developed by Wen (1997). Thefindings revealed that integrative

zy
motivation, effort, valence, expectancy, and self-estimation of ability were internally related deter-
minants of motivation for learning EFL. Instrumental motivation was found to be related to inte-
grative motivation and valence only. The findings also revealed that female students were more
motivated than their male counterparts. Similarly, level 11 proficiency students were more moti-
vated than were level III students. Howevel; thefindings did not show a significant effect on moti-
vation related to either students’first foreign language or university majol:

Introduction
The role of learners’ motivation in the acquisition of languages other than their own has been a
subject of controversy in applied linguistics. Typically, second language acquisition (SLA) theo-
rists tend to group motivation together with various aspects of personality and emotion as “affec-
tive” factors that play a role in language acquisition (Dulay et al. 1982; Stern 1983; Ellis 1985).
One corollary of this orientation is a focus on order of acquisition, developmental sequences,
and the role of biologically specified determinants of acquisition (universal grammar) over
which learners have no control.
However, the SLA theorists’ understanding of the role of motivation is limited, and our
understanding of motivation is likely to change, given widespread calls for helping students
become autonomous learners, that is, students who are involved in and responsible for their own
learning. Furthermore, many aspects of language learning are subject to learners’ active choices,
such as taking a course or not, communicating with native speakers, allocating attention, and so
forth. These considerations, coupled with the fact that learners’ cognitive strategies constitute a
strong determinant of acquisition (O’Malley et al. 1985), suggest that it is important to re-exam-
ine the role of motivation in the light of contemporary conceptualizations of language learning.
In their classic study of the role of motivation in second language acquisition, Gardner and
Lambert (1959) identified two kinds of motivation: integrative and instrumental. These
researchers maintained that integrative motivation signifies the learners’ desire to identify with
the target culture, whereas instrumental motivation refers to the need to fulfill a practical objec-
tive - such as obtaining employment. Later on, Gardner and Lambert (1972) and Gardner
(1980, 1985, 1988) proposed a socioeducational model of motivation that emphasized the influ-

Kassim A. Shaaban (Ph.D., University of Texas) is Associate Professor ofEnglish at the American
University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Ghazi Ghaith (Ph.D., Indiana University) is Associate Professor of Language Education at the
American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
 zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
FOKElGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOI,. 33, NO.6
ence of cultural beliefs on the development of the integra-
tive motive and suggested the presence of a positive causal
link between integrative motivation and second language
achievement, as opposed to learning a second language for
instrumental purposes only where no such link exists. A
basic premise in Gardner’s model is that successful learners
are active and integratively motivated and that integrative
motivation is independent of aptitude. In addition,
Gardner et al. (1979) and Gardner (1985) developed the
Attitudehlotivation Test Battery (AMTB), thus “setting
high research standards and bringing L2 motivation
research to maturity” (Dornyei 1994, p. 277).
Research evidence synthesized by Oller (1981),
Gardner (1985), and Au (1988) yielded mixed results
regarding some key assumptions in Gardner’s model. This
is especially so with respect to the integrative motive and
causality hypothesis. These studies did not clearly sup-
port the superiority of integrative motivation in different
contexts; Kruidenier and Clement (1986) and Belmechri
and Hummel (1998) even maintain that instrumental
motivation is generally more prominent in EFL contexts
than integrative motivation. These findings have led to
the conclusion that the relationship between motivation,
as conceptualized by Gardner, and language learning is
an “unstable non-linear function that varies greatly across
individuals, contexts, and learning tasks” (Oller 1981, p.
15). Consequently, researchers began to deal with moti-
vation in the second language classroom from the per-
spective of motivation structures and a broad yet context-
zyxwvuts
specific approach (Crookes and Schmidt 1991; Dornyei
1990; Wen 1997).
Dornyei (1990), in a study of adult learners of English
in Hungary, postulated a motivational construct “consist-
ing of (1) an Instrumental Motivational Subsystem, (2) an
Integrative Motivational Subsystem, ( 3 ) Need for
Achievement, and (4) Attribution about Past Failures” (p.
45). The second and third components were seen as essen-
tial for an intermediate level of proficiency in the target
language, whereas the desire for going further was associ-
ated with integrative motivation. Furthermore, Dornyei
identified three loosely related aspects of the integrative
motivational subsystem, namely, (1) interest in foreign lan-
guages, cultures, and people; (2) desire to broaden one’s
view and avoid provincialism; and ( 3 ) desire for new stim-
uli and challenges. Along similar lines, researchers such as
Crookes and Schmidt (1991) and Oxford and Shearin
(1994) questioned the validity of existing motivational
models and suggested that the notion of second language
learning motivation should be broadened to include the
general psychology theories of integrative motivation.
In 1994, Dornyei elaborated on his earlier model of
motivation and suggested that it functions at three levels:
(1) language level, which comprises integrative and
633
instrumental motivation subsystems; (2) learner level,
which comprises need for achievement and self-confi-
dence (as determined by language use anxiety, perceived
second language competence, causal attributions, and
self-efficacy); and (c) learning situation level, which
includes course-specific, teacher-specific, and group-spe-
cific components. Similarly, Wen (1997) incorporated
expectancy-value theories in his investigation of the
motivation of Asian and Asian-American students learn-
ing Chinese at American universities. Wen identified four
motivational factors that had a bearing on the enrollment
and continuation of students in Chinese language classes;
these were motivation of instrumentality, intrinsic moti-
vation, expected learning strategies and efforts, and pas-
sivity towards requirements.
In the present study, we used Gardner and Lambert’s
conceptualization of integrative and instrumental motiva-
tions as well as expectancy-value theories (suggested by
Wen, 1997) to investigate the motivation of university-
bound Lebanese students to learn EFL. The expectancy-
value theory was originally proposed by Lewin (1951).
This theory was further explicated by Vroom (1964),who
postulated that the effort exerted toward any action is
determined by the valence and expectancy that the action
would lead to the desired outcomes. Vroom (1964)
defined valence as “an affective orientation toward partic-
ular outcomes” (p. 14), and Lewin referred to it as “the
psychological value of particular outcomes” (cited in
Wen 1997, p. 236). Expectancy is defined as the “the
probability of attaining successful performance.” (Oxford
and Shearin 1994, p. 21). Thus, according to the
expectancy value theories, learners’ motivation to acquire
a second language is determined by their effort, percep-
tion of the degree of attractiveness of the goals (valence),
perception of the probability of attaining the goals
(expectancy), and appraisal of their ability to achieve the
goals.
The present study addressed the following questions.
1. To what extent are the determinants of learners’ moti-
vation to acquire a foreign language (integrative moti-
vation, instrumental motivation, effort, valence,
expectancy, ability) internally related?
2. Is there a difference between male and female learners
in their motivation to learn EFL?
3. Is there a difference among students with different lev-
els of proficiency in their motivation to learn EFL?
4. Is there a difference in the motivation to learn English
between students whose first foreign language is
French and those whose first foreign language is
English?
5. Is there a difference among students in various majors
at the university (Arts, Sciences, Engineering, and
other fields) in their motivation to learn English?
634 zy
zyxwvutsrqpon
The first question was prompted by our interest in
investigating the degree to which the motivational con-
structs identified in the literature (integrative and instru-
mental motivations, effort, valence, expectancy, ability) are
internally related. The second purpose was to determine
the specific motivational constructs on which students
may differ across the variables of gender, proficiency levels,
first foreign language, and university major.
Our review of the literature yielded mixed results
regarding the effect of gender on learners’ motivation to
learn a language other than their own. Several studies have
reported that females are more motivated and determined
to do academic work than males (e.g., Karsenti and
Thibert 1994; Zammit 1993; Zughoul and Taminian
1984). Conversely, Coleman (1995) maintained that the
gender-based differences in motivation are rather margin-
al, and Suleiman (1993) reported negative motivation atti-
tudes to studymg English as a foreign language among
female Arab students. Furthermore, Sung and Padilla
(1998) concluded that there is need for further research to
determine gender differences in motivation.
Similarly, the literature includes conflicting evidence
with regard to the effect of proficiency level on motivation
to learn a foreign language. For example, Coleman (1995)
reported a slight but measurable relationship between inte-
grative motivation and higher levels of foreign language
proficiency These findings are corroborated by those of
Boykin and Tmngamphai (1987), who maintained that
motivation and language proficiency are positively corre-
lated. Moreover, Sung and Padilla (1998) reported that
“advanced level students [studying Asian languages]
scored significantly higher in instrumentauintegrative
motivation to learn a foreign language than did beginning-
level students” (p. 215). But can these findings be general-
ized to university-bound students studymg EFL? This
question seems pertinent, especially in light of Tweles’
(1995) report that students’ level of motivation was not
shown to correlate highly with proficiency
The study also attempted to provide empirical evi-
dence regarding the intuitive assumptions in the Lebanese
multilingual context that students who study French as a
first foreign language and those who major in the “fields of
sciences” tend to be better motivated than those who study
English as a first foreign language and those who major in
the arts.
In light of the preceding discussion of the literature,
the present study proposed the following null hypotheses:
H01. There is no significant difference in motivation
to learn EFL between male and female students.
HO2. There is no significant difference in motivation
to learn EFL among students with different proficiency.
H03. There is no significant difference in motivation
to learn EFL between students who studied English as a
NOVEMRER/DECEMRER 2000
first foreign language and those who studied French as a
first foreign language.
H04. There is no significant difference in motivation
to learn EFL among students with various university
zyxw
majors.
Method
Participants
One-hundred-eighty students (n = 180) enrolled in the
University Orientation Program (UOP), which offers
intensive English classes at the American University of
Beirut (AUB), participated in the study. This program is
intended to help upgrade students’ English language profi-
ciency so that they may pursue their studies in the majors
that they have been accepted into at the University, where
English is the medium of instruction. The acceptance of
students into various majors at the University is normally
determined on the basis of their scholastic record and their
scores on SAT I and SAT 11. However, those students who
do not get the required score on English language admis-
sion tests (TOEFL, SAT Verbal, or AUB-EN) are asked to
join UOP
All the participants were native speakers of Arabic.
Of these, 41 students (23.8%) were enrolled in level I1
(Intermediate) and the remaining 139 (77.2%) were in
Level I11 (High Intermediate). There were 108 males
(60%) and 72 females (40%). Ninety-six students
(53.3%) had studied in French-medium schools where
French was the first foreign language and English was
taught as a second foreign language to make it possible
for them to attend English-medium universities. The
remaining 82 students (45.6%) had studied in English-
medium schools where English was the first foreign lan-
guage; only very few of these schools offer a second for-
eign language, normally French. Although students in
the latter group had studied English for over 10 years,
their proficiency remained low. This low proficiency may
be explained by the fact that they came from lower-mid-
dle-class families where the parents did not necessarily
speak any foreign language fluently; moreover, their
schools tend to stress “science” subjects at the expense of
foreign language programs.
Fifty-four students had been accepted into a major in
arts, 47 in sciences, 21 in engineering, and 54 in other
fields (education, health sciences, and agriculture); 4 stu-
dents did not report the major. The age of the participants
ranged from 17 to 24 years, with a mean average of 18.51
and a standard deviation of 1.15. However, as will be seen
later in the study, the number of participants was reduced
as a result of the introduction of pair-wise deletion of miss-
ing cases when applied to the statistical analyses adopted
in the study
 zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvuts
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL. 33, N O . 6
Instruments
The participants’ level of motivation to study English as a
foreign language was measured by a modified version of
the Wen (1997) scale (see Appendix). This version con-
sisted of 40 items divided into three parts and had a gener-
al internal consistency (alpha reliability) of .83 based on
estimations from the present study. Part 1 included demo-
graphic questions (6 items) regarding the participants’ age,
gender, intended field of study, level of English proficiency,
native language, and first foreign language. Part 2 consist-
ed of three subscales (16 items) measuring the factors of
integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, and
zyxw
effort. Part 3 consisted of three subscales (18 items) meas-
uring the factors of valence, expectancy, and ability.
The integrative motivation subscale consisted of five
Likert-type, 7-point items that focused on the appreciation
zyxwvutsrq
of the culture, art, and literature of English and had an
internal consistency of 3 9 . Similarly, the instrumental
motivation subscale consisted of five Likert-type, 7-point
items that focused on the importance of English for obtain-
ing employment or pursuing further education and had an
internal consistency of .60. Meanwhile, the effort subscale
consisted of six multiple-choice items that focused on the
degree of effort exerted in learning English and had an
internal consistency of .63. Responses ranged from “a” for
no effort to “d” for very high effort. Furthermore, the
valence subscale consisted of five Likert-type, 7-point
zyxwvu
items that focused on the participants’ views of the attrac-
tiveness of English for communication, completing school
assignments, and understanding English culture and cus-
toms and had an internal consistency of .72.
Finally, the expectancy and ability subscales consisted
of six items each and had internal consistencies of .78 and
3 0 , respectively. The expectancy subscale measured the
participants’ perceptions of the probability of achieving the
objectives of speaking English fluently, developing reading
comprehension, achieving good grades, and learning about
English culture and customs. Responses ranged from “0”
for no probability to “100” for very high probability. The
ability subscale measured students’ perceptions of their
ability to achieve the above objectives. Responses ranged
from “0” for very low ability to “100” for very high ability.
The internal consistencies of the six subscales were all
based on estimations from the present study.
Instrument Administration
The researchers obtained the permission of the UOP
administration to use a whole class period (40 minutes) for
the administration of the instrument. The purpose of the
questionnaire, its structure and content, and how it was to
be filled out were explained to the students. The
researchers asked the participants to be honest in their
answers and emphasized that they had no predetermined
635
expectations and that no answer would reflect better on the
respondent than another answer. The participants were
also informed that the findings would be used for research
purposes only and that their individual responses would
remain anonymous.
The questionnaire was read aloud to the participants
before they recorded their responses to ensure that they
understood each item on the scale. For example, the items
that made reference to English people, culture, and cus-
toms were explained as referring to people from all
English-speaking countries and not just to the British. The
reference to “Western culture” was explained as referring
not just to English-speaking people but to Europeans as
well. These concepts were not hard for the students to
grasp, as they are familiar with the West and the outside
world as a result of the multilingual and multicultural
nature of Lebanese society and its openness to western
ideas and cultures.
Data Analysis
Six composite scores of integrative motivation, instrumen-
tal motivation, effort, expectancy, valence, and perception
of ability were computed for each respondent by adding
the scores on the subscale items that measure these vari-
ables. A total motivation score was computed by adding
the scores on the 34 items of the scale for each respondent.
Descriptive statistics and product-moment correlation
coefficients were then computed for all variables in order
to determine the degree of interrelatedness among vari-
ables. In addition, we ran four multivariate analysis of vari-
ance (MANOVA) tests with the determinants of motivation
(integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, effort,
valence, expectancy, ability) as dependent variables in each
analysis and the variables of gender, proficiency level, first
foreign language, and university major as independent
variables (factors), to address the questions raised in the
study.
Results
All statistical tests used to address the questions in the pres-
ent study used .05 as the minimum alpha level. This part of
the study presents descriptive statistics about the variables
as well as highlights from the intercorrelation matrix and
the results of the MANOVA analyses run in the study. The
mean scores and standard deviations on the dependent vari-
ables across the variables of gender, level, first foreign lan-
guage, and university major are presented in Table 1, Table
2, Table 3, and Table 4, respectively.
Correlational Analysis
The results of the correlational analysis (summarized in
Table 5) reveal the following aspects of interest.
First, there is a very high, positive correlation between
 zyxwvutsrqpon
zy
zyxwvuts
636 N O V E M RER/DECEM KER 2000

zyxwvuts
learners’ expectancy and total motivation ( r = .91, p < . O l )
and between learners’ estimation of ability and total moti-
vation ( r = .90, p < .01). The results also show a moderate
positive correlation between expectancy and estimation of
ability (r = .65, p < . O l ) .
tion ( r = .17, p < .Ol).
Finally, the results reveal that integrative motivation
has a low, positive correlation with instrumental motiva-
tion ( r = .36, p < . O l ) , with expectancy ( r = .37, p < . O l ) ,
and with total motivation (r =.37,p r: .Ol). The results also

zyxwvuts
Second, the results reveal that valence has a low posi- reveal little if any correlation between integrative motiva-

zyx
tive but measurable correlation with integrative motiva-
tion ( r = .46, p < . O l ) , with instrumental motivation ( r =
.30, p < . O l ) , with effort ( r = .36, p < . O l ) , with expectan-
cy (r = .49, p < . O l ) , with estimation of ability ( r = .34, p <
. O l ) , and with total motivation ( u = .49, p < . O l > .
Third, the results reveal that effort has little if any cor-
relation with estimation of ability ( r = .24, p < . O l ) , with
tion and estimation of ability ( r = .25, p < . O l ) . Meanwhile,
instrumental motivation was found to be unrelated to any
of the determinants of motivation except to integrative
motivation ( u = .36, p < . O l ) and to valence ( r = .30, p <
.Ol). This suggests that instrumental motivation may not
be perceived by learners as a strong motivating factor for
exerting exert more effort and developing high expectancy
expectancy ( r = .25, p < .Ol), and with integrative motiva- and the ability to acquire languages other than their own.

Variable
Instrumental
zyxwv
zyxw
DESCRlPTlVE STATISTICS FOR RATINGS OF MOTIVATION DETERMINANTS BY GENDER

M
30.21
Male
(n = 100)
SD
4.06
M
31.26
Female
(n = 65)
SD
3.16
Integrative 21.77 4.84 22.36 4.96
Effort 17.11 3.15 18.44 2.84
Expectancy 363.80 82.70 371.84 77.31
Valence 30.80 5.96 32.47 4.96
Ability 396.60 83.82 384.76 72.88
Total 860.29 155.29 861.16 144.74

zyxwvu
___________

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RATINGS OF MOTIVATION DETERMINANTS BY LEVEL

Level 11 Level 111

(n = 38) (n = 127)
Variable M SD M SD
Instrumental 31.34 4.10 30.40 3.64
Integrative 23.78 4.36 2 1.47 4.92
Effort 18.57 2.67 17.35 3.16
Expectancy 361.84 87.63 368.50 78.51
Valence 33.18 4.99 30.94 5.73
Ability 382.10 78.71 394.88 80.03
Total 850.84 154.05 863.56 150.82
 zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedc
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL.33, N O . 6 637

MANOVA Analyses perception of the valence of learning English, F(1, 166) =

zyxwvu
Gender Scores. The results of the MANOVA scores for
male and female participants showed that the first hypoth-
esis is rejected (see Table 6).
The MANOVA analysis revealed a significant differ-
ence between males and females in their motivation to
acquire English as a foreign language, F(6, 161) = .91, p =
3.67, p = .05. The mean effort score for femaleswas 18.44
(SD = 2.84), whereas the mean effort score for males was
17.11 (SD = 3.15). Similarly, the mean valence score for
females was 32.47 (SD = 4.96), and the mean valence score
for males was 30.80 (SD = 5.96).
Level Scores. The results of the MANOVA scores for

zyxwvut
.01. Second, the univariate analysis of variance showed no
significant differences between males and females in their
integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, expectan-
cy, and estimation of ability. However, there was a signifi-
cant difference in their effort, F(1, 166) = 7.75, p = .OO, and
level 11 and level I11 participants showed that the second
hypothesis is also rejected (see Table 7).
The MANOVA analysis showed a significant difference
between level 11 and level 111 participants in their motiva-
tion to learn English, F (6, 161) = .90, p = .01. Second, the

zyxwvu
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RATINGS OF MOTIVATION DETERMINANTS
BY FIRST FOREIGN LANGUAGE

French English
(n = 90) (n = 73)
Variable M SD M SD
lnstrumental 30.72 3.89 30.43 3.64
Integrative 21.74 4.89 22.93 4.89
Effort 17.42 3.13 17.82 3.04
Expectancy 369.55 76.71 363.15 86.24
Valence 31.58 5.95 31.24 5.31
Ability 394.22 80.14 386.57 77.74
Total 865.25 147.16 851.63 155.92

Variable
Instrumental
M
Arts
(n = 50)

31.20
SD
3.38
M
30.02
(n = 45)
zy
zyxwvu
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR RATINGS OF MOTIVATION DETERMINANTS BY MAJOR AT UNIVERSITY
Sciences

SD
3.76
Engineering

M
29.36
(n = 19)
SD
5.09
~~ ~~

M
31.05
Other
(n = 51)
~~~~~~~

SD
3.46
Integrative 22.14 4.62 22.26 5.57 19.73 5.33 22.49 4.19

Effort 17.90 3.23 17.35 3.39 18.31 2.31 17.37 2.95

Expectancy 374.40 74.64 370.66 86.11 354.73 75.59 360.98 83.91
~~~~~~~~~

Valence 31.46 4.71 31.35 6.07 31.94 5.40 31.37 6.26

Ability '388.40 72.29 388.66 101.59 394.73 74.86 397.25 67.44
Total 865.50 141.25 860.33 185.98 848.84 130.83 860.52 135.41
638 zy
zyxwvutsrqpon NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2000

zyxwvutsr
univariate analysis showed no significant differences
between level I1 and level 111 participants in their instru-
mental motivation, expectancy, or estimation of ability.
However, there were significant differences with regard to

Variable
1. Integrative
2. Instrumental
INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION

.36**
2 3 4 5 zyx
zyxw 6 7

3. Effort .17** .09

4. Valence .46** .30** .36**
5. Expectancy .37** .ll .25** .49**
6. Ability .25** .03 .24** .34** .65**
7. Total .37 ** .12 .31** .49** .91** .90**
n 176 180 176 179 179 177 168
Mean 21.91 30.61 17.72 31.45 368.04 390.22 860.82
SD 4.89 3.73 3.03 5.66 80.06 80.96 152.08
** Significant ai p c . 01

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION BY GENDER

Multivariate ANOVAa Univariate AN OVA^

Source F Integrative Instrumental Effort Valence Expectation Ability
Gender .91** F .23 2.24 7.75** 3.67* .78 1.38
a

zyxwvutsrqponm
dk = (6, 161)
bdfs = (1,166)
*p c .05.
**p c .01

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION BY LEVEL

Multivariate ANOVAa Univariate AN OVA^

Source F Integrative Instrumental Effort Valence Expectation Ability
Level .90** F 7.16** 1.82 4.25* 4.27* .20 .73
1dfs = (6. 161)
hdfs = (1, 66)
*p < .05.
**p c .01
 zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsr
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOI,. 33, NO. 6 639

zyxwvuts
zyxwvuts z zyxwvu
integrative motivation, F(1, 166) = 7.16, p = .OO; the inte-
grative motivation mean score for level I1 was 23.78 (SD =
4.36) and for level 111was 21.47 (SD = 4.92). Furthermore,
there were significant differences with regard to effort, F (1,
166) = 4.25, p = .04; the effort mean score for level I1 was
Sciences, Engineering, and other fields of study, F(18,474)
= .89,p = .42. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis is accepted.

18.75 (SD = 2.67) and for level I11 was 17.35 (SD = 3.16).
Finally, there were significant differences with regard to
valence of the outcomes of learning English, F(1,166) =
4.27, p = .04; the valence mean score for level I1 was 33.18
(SD = 4.99) and for level I11 was 30.94 (SD = 5.37). These
results indicate that students in this study with higher lev-
els of proficiency in English have lower levels of integrative
motivation.
First Foreign Language Scores. The results of the
MANOVA scores for first foreign language (presented in
Table 8) show no significant differences between partici-
pants who had studied French as a first foreign language
and those who had studied English, F(6, 159) = .97, p =
.71. Therefore, the third hypothesis is accepted.
University Major Scores. The MANOVA scores by
university major (see Table 9) show no significant differ-
ences in the motivations of students majoring in the Arts,
Discussion
This study set out to determine the interrelatedness of the
motivational factors identified in the literature, as well as
to examine the effects of gender, level of proficiency in
English, first foreign language learned at school, and major
of study on students’ motivation to learn EFL. The first
question was about whether the determinants of motiva-
tion (integrative motivation, instrumental motivation,
effort, valence, expectancy, and ability) are internally relat-
ed. The results of the correlational analysis (see Table 5)
indicate that students’ expectancy to achieve their goals
and their perception of their ability to achieve those goals
are strong determinants of their motivation. This finding
suggests that these two factors (estimation of ability and
expectancy) should be used as variables in future research
on motivation and second/foreign language learning.
Furthermore, these results indicate that learners need to
feel that their study program goals are attainable and that
they are capable of achieving them in order to increase

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION

BY FIRST FOREIGN LANGUAGE

Multivariate ANOVAO Univariate AN OVA^

Source F Integrative Instrumental Effort Valence Expectation Ability
First Foreign
Language .97 F 1.12 .06 .67 .14 .06 .12
adfs = (6, 159)
bdfs = (1,164)
* p c .05.
**p < .01

I
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY OF DETERMINANTS OF MOTIVATION
BY MAJOR AT UNIVERSITY
I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

Multivariate ANOVAa Univariate AN OVA^

Source F Integrative Instrumental Effort Valence Expectation Ability

zyxwvutsrqpon
Major .89 F 1.60 1.73 .66 .05 .40 .13
a dfs = (18,474)
bdk = (3,161)
*p c .05.
**p c .01
640 zyxwvutsrqpo
zy
their motivation. Along similar lines, the study goals
should be made attractive to students in order to motivate
them to learn a language other than their own. The peda-
gogical implications of these results underscore the impor-
tance of affective factors in language acquisition and the
need for setting up developmentally appropriate programs
and specifying interesting and relevant goals for these pro-
grams.
On the other hand, the results revealed a low but
measurable correlation among all the determinants of
motivation, except for instrumental motivation. This find-
ing sheds some light on the traditional dichotomy between
integrative and instrumental motivation and the role of
each one in learning a foreign language. It is clear, for
example, that integrative motivation correlates positively
with all the other variables, including instrumental moti-
vation, and with total motivation, a finding that could
explain why it is identified in the literature (Gardner and
Lambert 1959; Gardner 1985; Dornyei 1990) as a major
indicator of positive orientation towards the target lan-
guage that could lead to better achievement.
Instrumental motivation was found to correlate only
with integrative motivation and valence; it did not corre-
late with effort, expectancy, perception of ability, or total
motivation. In other words, the presence of instrumental
motivation in students may not mean that they will in fact
exert more effort or develop high expectancy or high abil-
ity with regard to EFL learning; however, instrumental
motivation may contribute to the enhancement of integra-
tive motivation and the development of positive affective
orientation towards particular learning outcomes. This
finding of the limited effect of instrumental motivation in
the Lebanese EFL context is in contrast to the findings of
Kruidenier and Clement (1986) and Belmechri and
Hummel (1998), who found instrumental motivation
determined by an instrumental orientation to be generally
prominent in foreign language contexts.
The second question related to gender differences in
motivation. Results of the MANOVA analysis indicated
that there were differences between males and females in
their motivation to learn English. More specifically, the
univariate analysis indicated that females were more likely
than males to report that they would exert effort in their
learning and to perceive the goals of learning English in a
positive manner. This corroborates the findings of Sung
and Padilla (1998), Karsenti and Thibert (1994), and
Zammit (1993), who reported similar results; however,
they contradict the findings of Suleiman (1993), who
reported negative attitudes to learning English among
female Arab EFL learners. One possible explanation for the
negative attitudes of females in Suleiman’s study towards
English is that these attitudes could be context-specific
and may vary due to sociocultural factors. In fact, Zughoul
NOVEMKEIUDECEMBER 2000
zyx
zyxw
and Taminian (1984), who conducted their study in a sim-
ilar context, found that Arab university students in gener-
al tended to have negative attitudes towards English,
which they perceived as a threat to Arabic - their native
language and the language of the Koran. In their study,
there were no statistically significant differences between
males and females in their attitudes towards the use of
English as a medium of instruction, towards the effect of
using English on Arab identity, and towards the utility of
English compared with Arabic. However, when comparing
means of responses, the authors concluded that females
tended to have a more open attitude towards English than
did males.
The third question raised in the present study dealt
with whether level of proficiency in English made a differ-
ence in motivation towards learning the language. Results
of the MANOVA analysis showed that level I1 students
were more motivated than those in level 111. This finding
contradicts those of Sung and Padilla (1998) and is in
agreement with the findings of Tweles (1995), who main-
tained that the more proficient students are not necessari-
ly more motivated than their less-proficient counterparts.
zyxw
The finding might be explained by the eagerness of low-
proficiency students to work hard so that they could enter
the university as soon as possible. Another pertinent
observation in the context of our study is that the majori-
ty of level I1 students came from French-medium schools
where English is a third language or from average schools
where the level of English is not up to the desired level.
This observation explains their low proficiency as well as
their desire to move fast into regular university studies,
that is, to save money by not staymg long in the intensive
English program.
The last two questions in the present study focused on
the effect of the variables of university major and first for-
eign language on learners’ motivation to learn EFL. The
findings showed no significant differences in motivation
based on these two variables. These results contradict the
prevailing impression in Lebanon that students who
choose to join science majors and professional schools
(e.g. Engineering and Agriculture) and those whose first
foreign language is French tend to be more disciplined and
better motivated to learn English than students whose first
foreign language is English and those who choose to major
in humanities and social sciences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the results of the study underscore the
importance of learner characteristics and affective orienta-
tion toward program of study in the development of moti-
vation to acquire another language. More specifically, if
students show integrative orientation toward the foreign
language and culture, work hard, have a positive orienta-
 zyxwvuts
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvut
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS * VOL.33, NO. 6
tion towards the outcomes of learning, and develop the
sense that the program goals are attainable, they will devel-
op the needed motivation to learn the language. In addi-
tion, the findings of the present study indicate that, con-
trary to the perceived prominence of instrumental motiva-
tion in foreign language contexts, learners do not perceive
it as a factor that will lead them to exert more effort and
zyxwvuts
develop the needed expectations and ability for learning
EFL. Finally, the results suggest that low-proficiency stu-
dents and females tend to be more willing to exert effort in
learning English. They also tend to perceive the goals of
learning English as more attractive than do their male and
higher-proficiency counterparts.
References
Au, S.Y. 1988. “A Critical Appraisal of Gardner’s Social-
Psychological Theory of Second Language (L2) Learning.”
Language Learning 38:75-100.
Belmechri, E, and K. Hummel. 1998. “Orientation and
Motivation in the Acquisition of English as a Second Language
Among High School Students in Quebec City” Language
Learning 48:2 19-44.
Boykin, A,, and A.Trungamphai. 1982. “Attitude and Attained
English Language Proficiency of University Students in
Thailand: A Sociolinguistic Study” (ED 219421).
Coleman, T. A. 1995. “Progress, Proficiency, and Motivation
among British University Language Learners” (ED 383221).
Crookes, G., and R. W. Schmidt. 1991. “Motivation:
Reopening the Research Agenda.” Language Learning
zyxwvutsr
41:469-5 12.
Dornyei, Z. 1990. “Conceptualizing Motivation in Foreign
Language Learning.” Language Learning 40:45-78.
. 1994. “Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign
Language Classroom.” Modern LanguageJournal3:273-84.
Dulay, H., M. Burt, and S. Krashen. 1982. Language Two. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. C., and W. E. Lambert. 1959. “Motivational
Variables in Second-Language Acquisition.” Canadian Journal
of Psychology 13:24-44.
Gardner, R. C., and W. E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and
Motivation in Second-Language Learning. Rowley, MA: New-
bury House.
Gardner, R. C. 1979. “Social Psychological Aspects of Second
Language Acquisition,” 193-220 in H. Giles and R. St. Clair,
eds., Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Gardner, R. C. 1980. “On the Validity of Affective Variables in
641
Second Language Acquisition: Conceptual, Contextual, and
Statistical Considerations.” Language Learning 30:255-70.
Gardner, R. C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language
Learning. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. 1988. “The Socio-EducationalModel of Second
Language Learning: Assumptions, Findings, and Issues.”
Language Learning 28:lOl-26.
Gardener, R. C., R. Clement, F! C. Smythe, and C. L. Smythe.
1979. AttitudelMotivation Test Battery-Revised Manual.
(Research Bulletin No. 15). London, Ontario: University of
Western Ontario, Language Research Group.
Karsenti, T.,
and G. Thibert. 1994. “The Influence of Gender
Differences on Within-Term Changes in Junior-College
Student Motivation” (ED 373537).
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York:
Harper and Row Publications
Oller, J. W 1981. “Can Affect be Measured?” International
Review of Applied Linguistics 19:227-35.
Kruidenier, B., and R. Clement. 1986. The Effect of Context on
the Composition and the Role of Orientations in Second Language
Acquisition. Quebec City: International Center for Research on
Bilingualism.
O’Malley, J. M., A. U. Chamot, G. Stewner-Manzaneres, R.
Russo, and L. Kupper. 1985. “Learning Strategy Applications
with Students of English as a Second Language.” TESOL
Quarterly 19557-84.
Oxford, R., and J. Shearin. 1994. “Language Learning
Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework.” The
Modern LanguageJournal 78:12-28.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Suleiman, M. E 1993. “A Study of Arab Students’ Motivation
and Attitudes for Learning English as a Foreign Language”
(ED 392279).
Sung, H. and A. M. Padilla. 1998. “Student Motivation,
Parental Attitudes, and Involvement in Learning of Asian
Languages in Elementary and Secondary Schools.” The Modern
Language Journal 82:205- 16.
Tweles, B. 1995. “Motivation as a Two-sided Coin:
Motivational Differences Between College-Level Chinese and
Japanese Learners of EFL” (ED 416704).
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley
Wen, X. 1997. “Motivation and Language Learning with
Chinese.” Foreign Language Annals 30:234-51.
Zammit, S. 1993. Motivation, Test Results, Gender Dgerences
and Foreign Languages (ED 362007).
Zughoul, M. R., and L. Taminian. 1984. “The Linguistic
Attitudes of Arab University Students: Factorial Structure and
Intervening Variables.” International Journal of the Sociology of
Language 50:155-79.
642 zy
zyxwvutsrqpon
zy NOVEMB ER'DECEMBER 2000

zyxwvutsrq
Appendix: Student Questionnaire

Student Name:
I. General Infomation
1. Give your age in years:
2. Indicate your sex: M F
3. What is your major?
4. Intensive English level: Level I Level 11 Level 111 Level IV
5. Native language
6. First foreign language

The following are statements with which some people will agree and others will disagree. There are no right or wrong

zyxwvuts
answers, since many people have different opinions. Please give your immediate reactions to each of the items. On the
other hand, please do not be careless, as it is important that we obtain your true feelings. Circle the number of the alter-
native below the statement that best indicates your feelings about that statement.
II. Motivation Infomation
Studymg English will help me.. .
1. better understand and appreciate English art and literature.

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvuts
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
2. meet and converse with more and different people.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
3. learn about other cultures and understand the world better.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
4. understand the Western cultural heritage
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
5. because I feel English is an important language in the economic development of the world.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
6. better understand the problems that English speakers face.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
7. in getting a job.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
8. converse and communicate with English-speaking friends.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
9. communicate in English when I travel to English-speaking countries.
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
10. because I need it for my university
Strongly Strongly
disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree
FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS. VOL. 33, N O . 6 zyxwvutsrq 643

zyxwvutsr
When I learn a foreign language, I expect that:
11. 1will ...
a. pass on the basis of sheer luck and intelligence
b. do just enough work to get along
c. try hard to learn the language
d. enjoy doing all the work
12. I will think about the words and ideas that 1 have learned in my classes.. .
a. hardly ever.
b. once or twice per week
c. several times during the week
d. daily
13. I will spend about the following amount of time to practice the language after class:
a. zero hours
b. one hour per week
c. four hours per week
d. more than six hours per week
14. I will.. .
a. not necessarily be active in speaking the language in class
b. answer the questions when I am called upon
c. volunteer answers to the questions that are easy
d. volunteer answers as much as possible
15. After I get my English assignments back, I will.. .
a. just throw them in my desk and forget them
b. look them over but won’t bother correcting mistakes
c. correct mistakes when I have time
d. always rewrite them, correcting my mistakes
16. I will try to speak English after class:
a. never
b. when I have to
c. when I am offered the opportunity to do so
d. in a wide variety of situations and as much as possible zyxwvu
III. Infomation on Learning Outcomes: Valency, Expectancy, and Ability
How significant are these outcomes of your English class to you?
Circle the number that best indicates your feelings about each statement.
1. To speak English fairly fluently

zyxwvut
very very
insig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sig.
2. To be able to communicate with English speakers in basic English
very very
insig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sig.
3 . To develop comprehension of reading assignments
Very very
insig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sig.
4. To receive the grade of “A” in course
Very very
insig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sig.
 644 zy
zyxwvutsrqpo NOVEMBEWDECEMBER 2000

5. To better understand English people and their way of thinking

very very
insig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sig.

6. To learn about English culture and customs

very Very
insig. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 sig.

zyxwvu
How probable is it that you will achieve the above outcomes from the English class that you are taking now? Circle the

zyxwvu
expected probability for each outcome.
1. To speak English fairly fluently.

zyxwvu
no probability 100% probability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2 . To communicate with English speakers in basic English .

no probability 100% probability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3. To develop reading comprehension of English.

no probability 100% probability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4. To receive the grade of “A” from the class.

no probability 100% probability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5. To better understand English people and their way of thinking.

no probability 100% probability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6. To learn more about English culture and customs.

no probability 100%probability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

What do you think of your own ability to achieve the above outcomes? Circle your estimated ability for each outcome.
1. To speak English fairly fluently
very low ability very high ability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2. To be able to communicate with English speakers in basic English.

very low ability very high ability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3. To develop comprehension of reading assignments.

very low ability very high ability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

4. To receive the grade of “A” in course.

very low ability very high ability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

5. To better understand English people and their way of thinking.

very low ability very high ability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

6. To learn more about English culture and customs.

very low ability very high ability
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

View publication stats