Abstract In this study the researcher adapted the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery proposed by Gardner (1985) in order to find out whether or not the integrative and instrumental motivations between the students taking the English Language and students taking the Spanish Language affect their achievement/performance in the examinations, and also to elicit which of these two groups of students' performance were influenced more by these two motivations. The result shows that the grades or results (their performance) obtained by these groups of students---the English Language and foreign languages' students---are indeed influenced by these two motivations; however, it is the students taking the Spanish Language who achieved better grades/performance than the students taking the English Language.
Keywords: Motivation; Performance; Achievement.
Introduction
Researchers in second language learning (SLL) have applied theories and frameworks explaining the role of motivation in language learning to determine the influential factors for learners' high, low or neutral performance in the target language, and to identify the causes for the positive and negative effects on the learners' performance in language learning. Many studies in human learning have shown that motivation is the key to learning (Dornyei, 2001). Motivation is usually defined as an internal state that stimulates, controls and maintains behaviour (Woolfolk, 2004). It explains "why learners decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity and how hard they are going to pursue it" (Dornyei, 2001:8). It also describes how learners work hard to score good grades, and how they participate actively in the learning process. Studies have shown that the proficiency level of a learner would strongly depend on his or her motivation to learn the target language. However, levels of motivation are often influenced by many factors, be it external or internal, that significantly show the roles of motivation on learners' performance in the target language. Therefore, it is undeniable that motivation has a significant effect on a learner's success or failure.
Theories on motivation have been discussed since the nineteenth century. Motivation became a popular topic in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) in 1959 through the work of Gardner and Lambert (cited in Gardner, 1985). They focused on two types of motivation in language learning, namely integrative (the desire to learn the language to integrate successfully into the target language community) and instrumental (the learner's desire to learn a language for utilitarian purposes such as educational requirements and employment) motivation. Gardner and Lambert (1959) also highlighted the importance of learners' attitude---must have an open, curious, unprejudiced attitude and a friendly stance--- towards various aspects of the behavior of the target community. Various studies have verified Gardner and Lambert's theories. For example, a study by Lukmani (1972) on 60 Marathi's speaking females in Bombay found that the subjects were instrumentally motivated to learn the target language. The learners were motivated to learn the target language for utilitarian purposes such as to get a good job or to meet educational requirements. Another, a study by Dornyei and Clement (2000, cited in Dornyei, 2001) found integrativeness to be the most prominent factor among a group of learners in Hungary. These Hungarian learners learnt the target language in order to integrate successfully with the target community. All of these studies show that motivations are among the factors that affect the degree of effort a language learner will undertake in learning the target language (Fewell, 2010).
Gardner (1985) also proposed a socio-educational model on motivation which includes three elements. The elements are:
i. learners' effort that relates to the amount of studying and learners' drive to learn the target language;
ii. learners' desire that involves the degree of proficiency in the language which learners want to accomplish; and
iii. the effect of learning the target language, which relates to learners' feelings and reactions to language study.
According to Gardner's socio-economic model, more than one factor influences learners' success in the learning of the target language. The factors include the social or cultural milieu, individual learner differences, the setting in which learning takes place, and linguistic outcomes. The social or cultural milieu refers to the context or environment in which an individual lives. This context determines how a person thinks and believes about other languages. Individual learner differences refer to the variables of intelligence, language aptitude, motivation and anxiety, while the setting or the context in which the learning takes place refers to the classroom. Linguistic outcomes refer to the actual language knowledge and skills.
In the 1990s, Tremblay and Gardner (cited in Dornyei, 2001) extended Gardner's (1985) socio-educational model by incorporating two new elements, namely expectancy-value and goal. Expectancy-value and goal build on "the belief that humans are innately active learners with an inborn curiosity and an urge to get to know their environment and meet challenges" (Dornyei, 2001:20). In other words, there are two additional important factors that motivate learners to perform various tasks. The factors are firstly, the learner's expectancy of success in the given task and secondly, the value the learner attaches to success on that task. If the learner has a high expectation of success in the task and the enticement value of the goal is also great, he or she will have a high degree of positive motivation to perform well in the task. In the contrary, if the learner is convinced that he or she cannot perform the task successfully no matter how hard he or she tries, or the task he or she does not lead to valued outcomes, he or she is not motivated to perform in the task. Based on this theory, researchers like Weiner (1992), Covington (1992) and Bandura (1993) have developed further theories which relate to factors determining the expectancy of success.
Weiner (1992) postulated the attribution theory which is based on the processing's of one's past successes and failures. It focuses on the determinants for the successes and failures of the past and the effects of those determinants on future successes and failures. It has been found that the most common determinants affecting success or failure in the school environment are ability, effort, task difficulty, luck, mood, family background and help or problems from others (Graham, 1994).
Covington (1992) postulated the self-worth theory which relates to learners' attempt to maintain their self-esteem. He proposed that there is a direct relationship between learners' ability and effort, performance and self-worth (O'Keele, 1996). According to Covington (1992), there is a direct relationship between self-worth and learners' face-saving behaviours in school setting. Learners are highly motivated to maintain their self-esteem. "They would deliberately withhold their effort by not trying to perform any tasks in order to save face" (Dornyei, 2001:23). For learners, self-acceptance is the key element to be successful in any given tasks. They would rather not perform due to lack of effort rather than to low ability (Dornyei, 2001).
Bandura's (1993) self-efficacy theory deals with learners' opinion of their ability to carry out tasks and their sense of effectiveness which determines their choice of the activities they attempt. As with Weiner (1992), past experience is a significant factor for Bandura. He proposes that learners' self-efficacy is determined by their past performance, explicit learning (learning through observing models), verbal encouragement from others, and physiological reactions such as anxiety. According to Bandura (1993), learners with low self-efficacy will worry about their incompetence to perform in the task rather than focus on how to perform the task successfully. As a consequence, they lose faith and are likely to give up easily.
Goal theories are another element that has been incorporated into Gardner's (1985) socio-educational model for understanding the motivational process. The two influential goal theories are the goal-setting theory and goal-orientation theory. The goal-setting theory, proposed by Locke and Latham (1990), claims that human action is caused by purpose, and for action to take place, goals have to be set and pursued by choice. This theory states that commitment can be enhanced when learners believe that their goals are achievable. The goal-orientation theory, on the other hand, explains childhood learning and performance in a school setting (Dornyei, 2001). Ames (1992) stated that there are two goal orientations that learners demonstrate in their language learning. The orientations are firstly, the mastery orientation, which refers to the belief that effort will lead to success, and secondly, the performance orientation, which focuses on demonstrating ability, getting good grades, or outdoing other students in order to gain public recognition, which in this case would be the learner's peers.
Another motivation theory is the self-determination theory (SDT), which was made popular by Deci, Ryan and Noels (Dornyei, 2001). SDT involves intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and also amotivation. Intrinsic motivation describes the pleasure and interest one takes in a voluntarily chosen activity (Dornyei, 2001). Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, involves results from the accomplishment of the task, not pleasure from simply doing the task (Dornyei, 2001). Amotivation is the opposite of any other kind of motivation. Amotivated students feel that they are required to perform, for example, take a particular course as part of a school or degree requirement. Therefore, they do not value the activity and do not believe they will perform well in the activity (Dornyei, 2001). SDT allocates a central role to the individual who has preset goals that drive his or her motivation. The theory also stresses the vital role of the environment. In SDT, the source of motivation is both internal and external.
Dornyei (2001) also postulates a comprehensive construct on motivation which is appropriate to second language classroom motivation (see Table 2.1). He believes that motivation is composed of three levels which operate individually. The levels are:
i. the language level which focuses on motives and orientations or factors related to L2; it includes the culture it represents, the community in which it is spoken, and the motivational dimensions described by the types of motivation which the learner has, i.e. instrumental and integrative;
ii. the learner level which relates to the emotions and cognitions that form fairly stable personality features, and the need for achievement and self-confidence, or in other words, individual characteristics that a learner brings to the learning process; and
iii. the learning situation level which involves motivational elements such as the syllabus, the teaching materials, the teaching methods, the learning tasks, the teacher's personality, behavior, teaching style and the group dynamics of the learner group.
In this framework, Dornyei (2001) focuses on the three levels separately. According to him, motivation is influenced either by the language level or the learner level or the learning situation level, and never a combination of these three levels because each of these levels invalidates the effects of the other levels on the overall motivation of a learner. For example, a learner who has a positive attitude would normally show high self-confidence (learner level) which affects his or her degree of motivation in the target language. However, human beings have very complex characters which at times change due to either internal or external drives or sometimes both. Thus, learners can become motivated due to their intrinsic motivation or according to the term used by Dornyei (2001), the learner level. At this level, the learner's motivation is influenced by either his/her self-confidence level or his/her needs for achievement. Learners can also become motivated due to extrinsic motivational factors such as the way the teacher teaches in class, the teacher's attitude towards them, the course offered, the setting of the class, and also the learning materials used in the class. These variables correspond to the learning situation level of Dornyei's framework. Besides that, learners can also become motivated due to their socio-cultural background, integrative and instrumental motivation, which corresponds to the language level of Dornyei's framework. Any of these levels can contribute to the different degrees of motivation of a learner. Each level plays a different role that will influence a learner's degree of motivation in second language learning. Therefore, it is important to analyze these three levels as interrelated factors.
All of the theories/frameworks discuss the influence of the internal and external factors on the second/foreign language learning. It is no doubt that the internal or integrative motivations and the external or the instrumental motivations play a role in determining ones' achievement or performance in the target language examinations. Therefore, it is important for researchers in the second language learning to elicit which of the factors---be it instrumental or integrativeness---play the significant role in influencing students' performance in the target language examinations.
The Background Of The Study
English is regarded as a second most important language in Malaysia (Omar, 1992) as it is used alongside the national language, the Malay Language, and has emerged as an important mode of communication in every aspect of the life of a Malaysian (Hanapiah, 2002). Also, its status as the official second language has made the learning of English important as it is widely used in various domains such as business, education and employment. If before its expansion was due to commerce and trading, now, it is due to its significance impact in the development and growth of certain major areas in Malaysia such as in tourism, law, politics, and the media and translation domains. In accordance with its major roles in various areas, it is important for learners to perform positively in the English Language in order for them to be easily employable and be competitive at the international level. Typically, successful graduates are those with a high level of mastery in the English Language. Therefore, graduates who have a better understanding and better writing skills in the English Language can expect better achievement in their academic efforts. In addition, English is recognized and accepted as an important medium of communication in Malaysia. It plays a significant role in many domains, especially in employment and business. Lack of proficiency and fluency in English will only impede one's opportunity to move forward in his or her career.
Besides English, there are other languages that are taught as foreign languages in higher learning institutions such as the Russian, Japanese, Arabic, and French languages (to name a few). These languages are considered as foreign languages as students have limited exposure to the culture of the host community since the languages are hardly or not at all spoken and used in the everyday life of a Malaysian. They are normally offered to students at the tertiary level as extra language knowledge that students choose either for utilitarian purposes or self-fulfilment. Unlike the English Language, which is already made as a compulsory subject in the education system in Malaysia (from primary to tertiary level), these foreign languages are only offered to students at the latter stage of their education level, and they are normally taken as electives by students. To determine the language that students need to take up during their study years at the varsity (only refer to public universities), students need to sit for a Malaysian University English Test (MUET). MUET is a language proficiency test consisting of four skills---listening, reading, speaking and writing---that students have to sit/take before entering university.
Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) is one of the public universities which offer these languages as the compulsory subjects for its undergraduates. Here in UMS, students who obtained MUET (Malaysian University English Test) Bands 1, 2 and 3 are required to take all the four levels (beginner to advanced level) in the English Language, and students who obtained MUET Bands 4, 5 and 6 are required to take all the three levels (beginner to advanced level) of a foreign language. There are eight foreign languages offered in UMS, namely the Spanish, Russian, French, Japanese, Mandarin, Tamil, Arabic and Kadazandusun Languages.
The Setting
The study was conducted in Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), which is situated in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. About 80 undergraduates, i.e. 40 undergraduates doing the foundation English proficiency course and another 40 undergraduates doing the Spanish Language (as a foreign language) were selected for the study. All of the respondents were selected based on convenience sampling as they are the only groups available at the time the study was conducted. In UMS, students with MUET Bands 1, 2 and 3 are required to take all four levels of the foundation English proficiency courses. The levels are Communicative English Grammar (Level 1), Oral Communication in English (Level 2), Reading and Writing in English (Level 3) and Academic Reading and Writing in English (Level 4). Level 1 provides a foundation for learners to apply later when they take Levels 2 and 3 of the English course, while Level 4 focuses more on the application of the English Language in a specific discourse. However, students with MUET Bands 4, 5 and 6 are no longer needed to take foundation or basics English proficiency courses; instead, they can choose a foreign language and one advanced English proficiency course of their preference. These foreign languages are also divided into two main levels of proficiency, i.e. foundation and advanced. The foundation course, which is compulsory for students to take, is further breakdown into three levels, i.e. Level 1 for beginners, Level 2 for pre-intermediate learners and Level 3 for intermediate learners. The advanced levels, however, are optional and so far, nobody has ever done these levels. The advanced English proficiency course, on the other hand, is more for specific purposes such as English for Research Purposes and English for Academic purposes (application skill). With their strong mastery in English, these two courses are normally scored well by these groups of students as they succeed to apply all the basic skills especially reading and writing into the assignments. Students take these courses during the first and second year of their study and the grades they obtain count towards their Grade Point Average (GPA) every semester. Students need to pass every level in order for them to graduate.
The Method
In this study, the researcher adapted Gardner's The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB). AMTB is a set of questionnaires that was developed by Gardner (1985) in order to assess various individual difference variables based on his socio-educational model. Many studies of L2 motivation have adapted AMTB (e.g. Gliksman, Gardner & Smythe, 1982; Gardner, Lalonde, Moorcroft & Evers, 1987; Gardner & Macintyre, 1991; Gardner, Day & Macintyre, 1992; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997; Baker & Macintyre, 2000). The AMTB has over 130 items, and its reliability and validity have been supported (Gardner & Gliksman, 1982).
Moreover, this study is both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Thus, a suitable instrument of data collection for such a study is the questionnaire. The questionnaire is an instrument used in survey research to get information directly from a group of individuals. Its advantage is that it can be administered simultaneously to many respondents and requires only one person for administration. As this study is a research survey involving many respondents, the use of a questionnaire as the instrument of data collection is appropriate. With the students' hectic schedule as well as the limited time allocated for them during the English Language class, the questionnaire was the ideal instrument to use. The English Language class was conducted once a week for three hours and the use of a questionnaire was a time and cost saving way of gathering information (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996). Also, the questionnaire is regarded by Dane (1990) as the most appropriate instrument for description and prediction. Genesse and Upshur (1996) described the questionnaire as an instrument that provides permanent and exact records of a respondent's answers. As such, the questionnaire was appropriate for this study because the researcher wanted to describe the relationship between the integrative and instrumental motivations of the studied groups and their achievement in the examinations.
The AMTB consists of 11 subtests that are grouped into five categories (Gardner, 2001, as cited in Hashimoto, 2002), namely integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation, motivation, instrumental motivation and language anxiety. The first three categories, i.e. integrativeness, attitudes towards the learning situation and motivation are the variables for Gardner's socio-educational model that concerns with the role of various individuals differences in learning a target language. Instrumental motivation refers to an individual's interest in learning the language for pragmatic reasons (such as to gain recognition or to get a better job) that do not involve identification with the other language community whereas language anxiety involves anxiety reactions towards the use of the target language (Gardner, 2001, as cited in Hashimoto, 2002). Table 1.0 shows the constructs assessed in the AMTB, the subtests that define construct, and the number of item typically used in each subset.
Table 1.0: Constructs and Scales of the AMTB (Hashimoto, 2002:31)
Constructs
Scales
Construct 1
Subtest 1:
Subtest 2:
Subtest 3:
Integrativeness
Integrative Motivation (4 items)
Interest in foreign languages (10 items)
Attitudes toward the target language group (10 items)
Construct 2
Subtest 4:
Subtest 5:
Attitudes toward the Learning Situation
Evaluation of the language instructor (10 items)
Evaluation of the language course (10 items)
Construct 3
Subtest 6:
Subtest 7:
Subtest 8:
Motivation
Motivation intensity (10 items)
Desire to learn the language (10 items)
Attitudes toward learning the language (10 items)
Construct 4
Subtest 9:
Instrumental Motivation
Instrumental motivation (4 items)
Construct 5
Subtest 10:
Subtest 11:
Language Anxiety
Language class anxiety (10 items)
Language use anxiety (10 items)
Nevertheless, for this study, the researcher only adapted Construct 1-Subtest 1 and Construct 4-Subtest 9-integrative and instrumental motivations toward learning the target language. The original AMTB has more than 50 questions and with the limited time allocated for a language class (time constraint), the researcher felt that it is best to focus only on questions that directly elicit data on students' integrative and instrumental motivations, namely Subtests 1 and 9 (see Table1.0).
Statement of Problem
With regards to the performance between students doing the foundation English proficiency courses and students doing the foreign languages, it is found that students doing foreign languages are generally performed better than students doing the foundation English proficiency courses. Yes, of course, there are students doing the English proficiency courses who did obtain an 'A' (a Distinction-see Table 2), but the percentage of getting an 'A' for this group of students is insignificant compared to those doing foreign languages. Most of the students, who are learning the English Language proficiency course, get a Pass in the examination. This means that the marks they obtain for the English Language examination is in the low range of 35 to 59 (see Table 5). Although the students doing the English Language are exposed to the language since primary school, some even at the pre-school level, all the way up to tertiary level, still they cannot perform in the language. Moreover, these students have the maximum exposure to the language since English is spoken alongside with the first language, i.e. the Malay Language. Studies have shown that environment or exposure to the target language is crucial in language learning (Gradman & Hanania, 1991; Littlewood et al., 1996; Sawhney, 1998; Jamali & Hasliza, 2001). Thus, with the exposure that they get, it is expected that they can perform well in the language. Surprisingly, the students doing the Spanish Language perform better than the English Language students although they are only exposed to the language in the classroom that they take during the semester. They have limited exposure because Spanish is considered as a foreign language taught at the tertiary level and is not spoken at all by Malaysians---even if they are people speaking the language, the number is far too small to enable them to get enough exposure to the language. In accordance to this, the researcher would like to investigate which of the investigated motivational factors, i.e. integrative and instrumental motivations, contribute to this performance and then compare the findings of these two groups of students, and in doing so, it is hoped that the findings can be used to enhance students' performance in the English Language.
Objectives
The objective of this study is to investigate the relationship between the investigated factors, i.e. students' integrative and instrumental motivations, and the students' grades in the second/foreign language examinations. It also intends to demonstrate which of the aforementioned factors contribute most noticeably towards students' performance in the second/foreign language examination.
Research Questions
The study attempts to answer the following research questions:
To what extent do integrative/instrumental motivations influence students' academic achievements in the second/foreign language examination?
To what extent do the investigated factors, i.e. students' instrumental and integrative motivations, contribute towards the different performance of these two studied groups?
Scope and Limitations
Although there are 11 variables investigated in the AMTB, the researcher only adapted two variables, namely integrative and instrumental motivations (see 2.2). The limitation of this study is that it only focuses on two specific groups, i.e. 40 Level 3 (Reading and Writing in English) for the English Language and 40 second year students who are doing their Level 2 (pre-intermediate level) for the Spanish Language. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to other groups.
Significance of the Study
Theories have shown the importance of both integrative and instrumental motivations on second/foreign language learning (see 1.0). Therefore, the researcher is interested on investigating which of the studied motivations affect students' performance in the examinations. It is hoped that the result will help the instructors of the target language proficiency course in UMS to understand the investigated factors contributing to the difference and also to provide necessary solutions to this situation.
THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY
A questionnaire was developed using these variables (i.e. AMTB, Subtests 1 and 4), and an additional section was added in order to elicit students' background. The questionnaire is then divided into two sections, i.e. Section A for eliciting students' background, and Section B for Motivational Variables (integrative and instrumental motivations). Also, the researcher included a combination of open-ended questions and multiple-choice items in the questionnaire. For the multiple-choice items, students need to indicate their responses by choosing a point along a Likert Scale that best corresponded to their feelings. This is used to gather qualitative data from the students.
The questionnaire was presented in the Malay language in order to optimize students' understanding of the text of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). It is divided into two sections, i.e. Section A elicits the background information of the students; and Section B elicits students' motivation (integrative and instrumental motivations). There are 14 items in this questionnaire, i.e. 2 items in Section A (Questions 1-2), and 14 items in Section B (Questions 3-14). A five-point Likert scale was employed in Section B, where students were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statements by choosing from among strongly disagree, disagree, not bothered/do not know, agree and strongly agree as variants for their answers for items 3-14. For each of these items, students were also asked to provide reasons for their choices in the provided spaces. This was used to gather qualitative data from the students.
Since the items/statements in Section B are translated from Gardner's AMTB, the researcher had conducted a pilot test with a group of ten students, i.e. six doing the foundation English proficiency courses and another six doing the Spanish Language. A discussion was held afterwards with the students, and their feedback on the design and wording of the questionnaire was used in the revision of the questionnaire.
Next, the questionnaires were given to 80 students, i.e. 40 to students who were doing Level 3 Reading and Writing in English and another 40 were given to students who were doing Level 2 Pre-intermediate Level of the Spanish Language. All 80 questionnaires were then collected to be analyzed.
Trudgill's (1974) method of measuring social class was used to analyze items 3-14 of Section B (see Appendix A). He conducted a study on language and social class in Norwich where he assigned a numerical index score to the variables' studied such as respondents' occupation and income. This numerical index score carried certain points which were then added up to determine the social class of the respondents. In this study, the students' instrumental and integrative motivations were identified by a five-point Likert scale, where each point on this Likert scale was given a score, i.e. 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for not bothered/do not know, 4 for agree and 5 for strongly agree. Students' scores for each item in the section were added up to determine each student's instrumental and integrative motivations. The results of the analysis were then compared to the results of the second/foreign language examinations---results of students doing Level 3 Reading and Writing in English and students doing Level 2 Spanish Language in order to see the relationship between students' motivation and their results. Qualitative data obtained through the open-ended question items will be analyzed to identify and categorize the reasons for the students' choices. Data collected from Section A, on the other hand, were analyzed according to the frequency count of each item.
Integrative and Instrumental Motivations
There are six items for integrative motivations (items 3-8) and another six items for instrumental motivations (items 9-14). The researcher will categorize the level of each motivation to two categories, namely low and high. Because there were six items for each motivation, the total cumulative score ranges from 6 to 60. This cumulative score was divided into two categories (60-6÷2) to determine the range of scores for each category of the students' level of integrative and instrumental motivation. The categories are high if the students score 32.1 to 60.0 and low if the students score 6.0 to 32.0 (see Table 3.1.0).
Table 3.1.0: Range of Scores for Level of Integrative and Instrumental Motivations
Category
Score
High
32.1 - 60.0
Low
6.0 - 32.0
The English Language and Spanish Language Grades
A test or an examination is one of the ways to measure a person's ability, knowledge or performance in a given field (Brown, 2004). In relation to this, the researcher used the overall results (ranging from 0 to 100) and grades (ranging from A to E) obtained by the students of both languages, i.e. Level 3 Reading and Writing in English for the students doing the English Language and Level 2 of the Spanish Language (pre-intermediate level). The overall results are obtained from the following assessments:
i. Test 1/Essay 1 (15 percent of the overall marks)
ii. Test 2/Essay 2 (15 percent of the overall marks)
iii. Mid-semester Test (20 percent of the overall marks)
iv. Oral Presentation (10 percent of the overall marks)
v. Final Examination (40 percent of the overall marks)
The marks from each type of assessment were added up to determine the students' total mark score. To determine the grade, the researcher used the UMS grading system (see Table 3.2.0).
Table 3.2.0: UMS Grading System
Grade
Percentage
Classification
A
A-
80-100
75-79
Distinction
B+
B
B-
70-74
65-69
60-64
Credit
C+
C
C-
D+
D
55-59
50-54
45-49
40-44
35-39
Pass
E
0-34
Fail
To answer the research questions, the researcher compared the English Language and Spanish Language grades of each student with their cumulative scores for the variables being studied--- instrumental and integrative motivations---to determine the relationship between the students' motivation and their achievement in the languages. Then the researcher compared the motivation and achievement of the English Language students with the motivation and achievement of the Spanish Language students to see whether or not there is a significant difference in performance of these two groups.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
Students' Background
Items 1-2 (Section A) in the questionnaire provided the background of the students. Item 1 of the questionnaire showed the students' ethnicity. Table 4.1.0 shows the breakdown of the ethnicity.
Table 4.1.0: Students' Ethnicity
Students Learning the English Language
Students Learning the Spanish Language
Ethnicity
No.
Ethnicity
No.
Malay
19
Malay
1
Chinese
7
Chinese
33
Indian
1
Indian
0
Kadazandusun
5
Kadazandusun
3
Bajau
2
Bajau
0
Murut
0
Murut
0
Others
6
Others
3
Total
40
Total
40
Table 4.1.0 shows that the majority of the Malay students are doing the English Language (19), whereas the majority of the Chinese students are doing the Spanish Language (33). Also, the table shows that nearly 50 percent of the students with various ethnic backgrounds are doing the English Language (Chinese 7, Indian 1, Kadazandusun 5, Bajau 2, Others 6). This is not the case with the Spanish Language group because only a small fraction of students with various ethnic backgrounds are doing the language (18 percent: Malay 1, Kadazandusun 3 and Others 3).
Item 2 of the questionnaire showed the students' grades for MUET. Table 4.1.1 shows the breakdown of the grades.
Table 4.1.1: Grades for MUET
The English Language Students
The Spanish Language Students
Grade
No.
Grade
No.
Band 1
10
Band 1
0
Band 2
20
Band 2
0
Band 3
10
Band 3
0
Band 4
0
Band 4
30
Band 5
0
Band 5
10
Band 6
0
Band 6
0
Total
40
Total
40
Based on Table 4.1.1, most of the English Language students obtained Band 2 for their MUET examination, and most of the Spanish Language students obtained Band 4 for their MUET examination. Here, it can be concluded that there is a significant different in the achievement of English Language examination (MUET) between the two groups. Students with Band 2 are described as limited users of the language, who are not fluent in the language, make a lot of grammatical errors, have limited understanding of the language and context, and have limited ability to function in the language (Anon., n.d), whereas students with Band 4 are described as satisfactory users of the language, who are generally fluent in the language, have satisfactory understanding of the language and context as well as have a satisfactory ability to function in the language (Anon., n.d.).
Integrative and Instrumental Motivations
Integrative motivation describes learners who are motivated to assimilate successfully into the target language community (Fewell, 2010). Instrumental motivation, on the other hand, refers to learners' goal driven reasons for pursuing second/foreign language study, such as enhancing career advancement, fulfilling educational requirement or increasing one's status in the community (Fewell, 2010). These two concepts are proposed by Gardner and Lambert (1972). There are six items for each motivation, and the cumulative score of each motivation will be divided into two levels, namely high and low. Table 4.2.0 (a) and (b) illustrates the findings of this study.
Table 4.2.0 (a): Students' Level of Integrative Motivations
No.
Category
The English Language Students
The Spanish Language Students
High
39
32
Low
1
8
Table 4.2.0 (b): Students' Level of Instrumental Motivations
No.
Category
The English Language Students
The Spanish Language Students
High
39
37
Low
1
3
Tables 4.2.0 (a) and (b) show that both groups of students have high level of integrative and instrumental motivations. These students are aware of the importance of learning the languages regardless of the reasons. Among the reasons given by the students with high level of instrumental and integrative motivations are that they want to be accepted by not only the target language community but also other community, be respected by people surrounding them, and to achieve good result in the examination. The reasons given by those with low level of integrative and instrumental motivation are totally opposite with the students with high level of instrumental and integrative motivations, especially the Spanish Language students. They do not think that mastering the Spanish Language will guarantee them a success in future. Therefore, the idea of being accepted or respected either by the people of the Spanish Language community or the people surrounding them does not interest them. For these students, it is about getting a good grade that matters.
To see whether or not the students' level of integrative and instrument motivations influence their grades in the languages examinations, the researcher analyzed the relationship between these two factors. The finding is shown in Tables 4.2.1 (a) and (b).
Table 4.2.1 (a): Students' Level of Integrative Motivation and Achievement in the Examinations
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
E
Total
The English Language Students
-
-
2
12
10
5
5
5
-
-
-
39
High
Low
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
The Spanish Language Students
-
2
6
12
8
2
2
-
-
-
32
High
Low
-
-
-
3
2
3
-
-
-
-
-
8
Total
80
Table 4.2.1 (b): Students' Level of Instrumental Motivation and Achievement in the Examinations
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
C-
D+
D
E
Total
The English Language Students
-
-
2
8
14
5
5
5
-
-
-
39
High
Low
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
1
The Spanish Language Students
-
2
8
15
8
2
2
-
-
-
37
High
Low
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
-
-
3
Total
80
Table 4.2.1 (a) shows that the best grade achieved by the English Language students with high level of integrative motivation was B+ (two students) and the poorest grade achieved by this group was C- (five students). There is only one English Language student with a low level of integrative motivation, who scored C- as the best as well as the poorest grade. The Spanish Language students, on the hand, obtained A- as the best grade (two students) and C as the poorest grade (two students), whereas the students with a low level of instrumental motivation scored C as the best and poorest grade (three students). The findings show that the level of integrative and instrumental motivation of these students does affect their achievement in the examination, i.e. two of the English Language students with high integrative and instrumental motivations scored B+ as the best grade, and two of the Spanish Language students with high integrative and instrumental motivations scored A- as the best grade. Although the best grades achieved between the groups of languages are different, still, the students who have a high level of both motivations scored far better than the students with a low level of integrative and instrumental motivations. The Spanish Language students with a low level of integrative motivation only managed to achieve B as the best grade compared to the Spanish Language students with a high level of integrative motivation who achieved A- as the best grade. Similar results were also achieved for instrumental motivation---the Spanish Language students with a high level of instrumental motivation achieved A- as the best grade, whereas the students of the same language group, who have achieved a low level of instrumental motivation, achieved C as the best grade. The best grade achieved by the English Language students, who have a high level of integrative motivation, was B+ and the poorest grade achieved by the same language group with a low level of integrative motivation was C-. The same results were also achieved for instrumental motivation. The English Language students with a high level of instrumental motivation obtained B+ for the best grade and the students of the same language group, who have a low level of instrumental motivation, achieved C as the best grade.
These findings show that the students' level of integrative and instrumental motivations does seem to have an effect on the students' achievements. However, it is the Spanish Language students' achievement that is significantly affected by these motivations. Tables 4.2.1 (a) and (b) illustrate that the Spanish Language students with a high level of integrative and instrumental motivation achieved A- as the best grade (two students), while the English Language students with a high level of integrative and instrumental motivation achieved B+ as the best grade (two students), which is obviously less good than A- (see Table 3.4.0.). Similar findings were also obtained for the students with a low level of both motivations, i.e. C- as the best grade. Unlike the Spanish Language students, who have a low level of integrative and instrumental motivations, yet still achieved B and C as the best grades, the English Language students with the same level of motivations only achieved C- as the best grade, which is also less better than B and C (see Table 3.4.0). Although the number of students scoring good grades (Credit and Distinction, see Table 3.2.0) from both languages is small, still the grades they achieved show that either instrumental or integrative motivations play a role in influencing their performance in the examinations. Thus, it can be said that students' levels of integrative and instrumental motivations do influence their performance in the second/foreign language.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study show that integrative and instrumental motivations, to some extent, do influence the students' achievement/performance in the examinations. However, between the two language-groups, it is clearly seen that the Spanish Language students achieved better than the English Language students regardless of the investigated factors. Therefore, it can be concluded that the integrative and instrumental motivations do not significantly contribute to the different performance of the two language groups. Perhaps the number of students taking the language plays a role in determining the percentage of high achievers in the foreign language. Currently, most of the students of Years 1 and 2 is learning the foundation English Language courses (i.e. Communicative English Grammar, Oral Communication and Reading and Writing) before they do the more advanced level that is the Academic Reading and Writing in English (the final level of the course) due to their MUET results, i.e. Bands 1, 2 and 3, while the other students, with Bands 4, 5 and 6, start with an advanced English course (Semester 1 Year 1) and then a foreign language in their second semester of the same year (Year 1). The number of students doing a foreign language is normally very small compared to the number of students doing the English Language. This is a significant gap that one should not ignore when comparing the level of achievement of these two groups of students, i.e. learning English (as a second language) and a foreign language. Perhaps the researcher should employ all the variables studied by Gardner in his AMTB for future study and a clearer conclusion can be drawn out based on the findings. As it is, the study only adopted two variables, namely integrative and instrumental motivations toward learning the target language that does not really show why these two groups performed differently in their examinations.
