1. IN TH NAME OF ALLAH
THE COMPASSIONATE THE MERCIFUL
MOTIVATION,
INTEGRATIVENESS,
ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCE,
ANXIETY,
AND ENGLISH ACHIVEMENT
Presented By: Hojat Jodai
EnglishResearch.ir
info@englishresearch.ir
1
2. Outline
Introduction
-Definition of motivation
-Motivation theories in SLA
-Integrativeness
-Studies in the related literature
Method
-Participants
-Instrumentation
-Design
-Procedures
Findings
-Factor Analysis
-Reliability
-Path Analysis
Conclusion
2
4. MOTIVATION
One of the most widely accepted affective
factors
The “neglected heart of language
teaching” (Rost, 2006)
The most used concept for explaining the
failure or success of a language learner.
4
5. Definition of Motivation
Gardner (1985): Combination of
efforts, desire to achieve the goal of
learning, and favorable attitudes toward
learning the language.
(Dörnyei, 2005):A cumulative force of
motives that is “on a continuum from zero
to strong.”
5
6. Motivation Theories in SLA
Early models: Macro-perspective, Product
oriented, Social context based
1990s: Macro /Micro-perspective, Process
oriented, immediate context based
The shift from “what” to “how”
6
8. Integrativeness
The key construct of the Gardner’s socio-
educational model
Gardner (1985) : It includes
Orientation, Motivation, and a number of
other attitudinal variables
Dörnyei (2005): A positive interpersonal
and affective disposition toward the L2
group.
8
9. Related Studies(World)
Masgoret & Gardner (2003) Meta Analysis
Motivation: The highest correlate of
achievement followed by Integrativeness and
Attitude toward the Learning Situation.
Bernaus and Gardner (2008)
INT, ATT, INS : Positive predictors of MOT
MOT: Positive Predictor of Eng Ach.
ATT & Anx: Negative predictor of Eng Ach.
9
10. Related Studies (Iran)
Following Gardner socio-educational model of
L2 learning.
Sadighi and Maghsudi (2000): Integratively
motivated students were better than
instrumentally motivated ones.
Fazel and Ahmadi (2011): No statistically
significant differences between integratively
oriented students and instrumentally oriented
ones as far as their writing performance exam
were concerned, were found.
10
12. Design
An ex post-facto , cross sectional
, hierarchal research
Independent variables:
Motivation, Integrativeness, Organization
al influence and Anxiety
Dependent variable: English Achievement
12
13. Research questions
1. Is Motivation a positive predictor of Eng.
achievement?
2. Is Integrativeness a positive predictor of
Eng. achievement?
3. Is Organizational Influence a null predictor
of Eng. achievement?
4. Is language learning Anxiety a null
predictor of Eng. achievement?
13
16. Procedures
A written permission from designer of the
AMTB
Selection of participants
Informing participants
Background questionnaire/AMTB and
Mini-AMTB)
Measuring English Achievement
Hypothesis testing
16
17. Data Analysis
Validity : Factor analysis
Reliability: Cronbach Alpha internal
consistency
Cause and effect statistical analysis
17
29. Summary of the Findings
*Motivation: The single best predictor of
English achievement, all other things being
equal.
* A test of Gardner’s socio-educational
model of L2 motivation .
29
30. Summary of the Findings
Integrativeness Motivation English
Achievement
30
31. Pedagogical Implications
to convince the military organization to be
more supportive
the importance of Integrativeness
enhancement of students’ motivation=
higher English Achievement
31
32. Suggestions for Further Research
1- Consideration of the role of teacher and
learner
2-Operational definitions of motivation and
Integrativeness
3-longitudinal- qualitative studies
32