Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Attitudes-And-Motivation 👈

1. Attitudes and Motivation:
How Do They Contribute to the Success of Language Learning?
Aridah, Universitas Mulawarman
Abstract
Attitudes and motivation are two factors that have become the subject of a lot of
academic discussions either in language learning literatures or in language learning conferences
or seminars. These two variables are believed to have correlation with the success or failure in
language learning. However, the correlation between them does not mean a causal relationship,
meaning that motivation may not be the cause of the success but it may be that prior success
make learners motivated. This paper aims to discuss how attitudes and motivation actually
contribute to the success of language learning. The discussion focuses on the reactions against
motivational and attitudinal hypothesis proposed by Gardner. Gardner strongly believes that
attitudes and motivation influence the success or failure in FLL, but some research findings do
not support this hypothesis. Learners‟ attitudes and motivation may be influenced by the prior
success in learning and may also be influenced by other factors.
Keywords: attitudes, motivation, success, language learning
I. Introduction
In one language classroom or in one language community it can be found that some
students or some people are able to learn one or more foreign languages very easily while other
find it difficult or even impossible to learn the language. In one particular EFL classroom, for
example, it is found that the students have different levels of language achievement although
they were taught in the same way and they have the same opportunity to get exposure to the
language. Some questions may arise: How do the students have different levels of proficiency?
What makes some of them more successful than others? Do the more successful language
learners keep “mysteries or secrets” that make them different from the less successful learners?
Many studies have been implemented to investigate the „mysteries‟ that may affect the
more or less successful language learning (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 1999; Skehan, 1991, Cook,
1996, and Gardner, 1985). Lightbown & Spada stated that learners possess characteristics which
can determine more or less successful language learning. They point out characteristics such as
personality, intelligence, aptitudes, ages and attitudes and motivation that affect success of
language learning. Moreover, Skehan (1991) points out individual differences such as aptitude,
motivation, learner strategies and learner styles as the factors affecting language learning
achievement. Cook (1996) points other individual variation, such as sex, level of first language,
and empathy as determinant factors for successful language learning. Gardner (1985) focused his
attention on attitudes and motivation as the factors that influence language learning.
Of all those qualities, attitudes and motivation are two factors that have become the
subject of a lot of academic discussions either in language learning literatures or in language

2. learning conferences and seminars, especially since Gardner & Lambert (1972) did several
studies on the attitudes and motivation from 1959 to 1962. Motivation is the most frequently
used term for explaining the success or failure in language learning. Ellis (1994) present a
comprehensive discussion on motivation and attitudes, reviewing Gardner‟s work and other
research findings on how attitudes and motivation correlate with success in language learning.
Long and Larsen-Freeman (1991) also discussed attitudes and motivation fairly as
comprehensively as Ellis‟ discussion. They also provide numerous research findings from
different researchers, some of which support Gardner‟s motivational hypothesis and some do not.
More recent literatures in second language acquisition, Brown (2000), Brown (2001) and Ortega
(2009) discussed the same issue in a more elaborated way. The discussion on attitudes and
motivation in language learning tends to overcome the discussion on other individual differences
in language leaning.
In 1985 when Gardner‟s AMTB (Attitudes/Motivation Test Battery) was introduced and
showed that higher scores on attitudes and motivation resulted in higher score on language
proficiency tests, there were many reactions from other researchers. They questioned whether
attitudes and motivation were really the cause of the success. Skehan (1991), for example
proposed that motivation does not cause success, rather it just follows it and the goals that
students want to achieve do cause action and effort. Another argument is that success in learning
may precede the positive attitudes and motivation (Hermann, 1980). In addition, Lightbown &
Spada (1999) claim that it is difficult to conclude that attitudes and motivation correlate to the
success of language learning because the proficiency tests given to the students may be different
and only measure one particular aspect of language. They argued that there is no question that
attitude and motivation are correlated with success. However, this does not mean that they cause
it. The fact they are correlated does not even mean that they contribute to success.
If on one hand, attitudes and motivation are believed to the primary source of success and
may cause the success, and on the other hand, the reverse is also true, then to what extend do
attitudes and motivation contribute to the success of language learning? Are attitudes and
motivation really the most important factors in determining success in SLA as Gardner (1985)
assumed or are other factors equally important? Although most teachers believe that attitudes
and motivation are the most important factors in language learning and that attitudes and
motivation determine success of language learning, there is some other evidence that success is
also dependent on other factors and that success may precede positive attitudes and high
motivation. This paper, then, tries to review the relationship between attitudes and motivation
and success in SLA.
II. What Are Attitudes and Motivation?
A. What are Attitudes?
The terms “attitudes and motivation” usually go together because they have close
relationship. Gardner and Lambert (1972) and Lightbown and Spada (1999), for example, always
use these two terms simultaneously. However, in order to get clear understanding about the

3. difference between them, it will be better to define them separately. Allport (as cited in Gardner,
1985) defines attitudes as “a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience,
exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual‟s response to all objects and
situations with which is related” (p.8).
According to Gardner (1985), there are two types of attitudes in language learning:
attitude toward learning the language, which are relevant to educational attitudes, and attitudes
towards the language community, which are relevant to social attitudes. Educational attitudes
include attitudes toward the teacher, the course, and learning the language. Social attitudes, on
the other hand, focus on the cultural implication of SLA, such as attitudes toward French
Canadians and ethnocentrism. Gardner believes that these two types of attitudes influence the
achievement in second language learning. However, he claims that attitudes towards learning the
language are more closely related with achievement than attitudes toward the second language
community.
B. What is Motivation?
Motivation in language learning is the combination of effort and desire in achieving the goals of
learning a language. In addition, Ortega (2009) defines motivation in L2 learning as the desire to
learn a second language followed by the effort to sustain the initiation. Another definition is
given by Brown (2000) that motivation is “an inner drive, impulse, emotion or desire that moves
one to a particular action.”(p.152). Gardner (1985) distinguishes two types of motivation, which
he calls “integrative and instrumental orientation. Integrative orientation refers to the reasons
suggesting that the learners learn the language in order to learn about, to interact with or to get
involved to the community. Therefore, a learner can be said to be integratively motivated if the
learner wants to know another culture or language community. For example, someone may learn
Bahasa Indonesia because he or she wants to know Indonesian culture better. Instrumental
motivation, on the other hand, refers to the desire to learn the second language for a specific goal
or reason such as a reason to get a degree or a job, or to improve social status. Therefore, a
learner can be said to be instrumentally motivated when the learner studies the language because
of any of those reasons. Both instrumental and integrative motivations play roles in determining
success or failure in language learning, but Gardner and Lambert (1972) strongly believe that it
is the integrative orientation which is most influential to success in SLA.
C. How Are Attitudes, Motivation and Language Learning Measured?
Attitudes and motivation are measured by using questionnaires administered to the subjects.
One famous instrument used to measure attitudes and motivation of the learners is the
Attitudes/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB). This test was first introduced by Gardner (1985).
The test consists of statements that give an opportunity to the learners to respond by giving an
opinion that ranges from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The result of this test allows
researchers to give a description of what kind of attitudes a particular learner is likely to have
and what type of motivation a learner is likely to posses. Another instrument used to measure
attitudes and motivation is a questionnaire given by Schmidt, Boraie and Kassabgy (1996). This
instrument is used to measure some different dimensions of motivation (including intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, personal goals, expectancy, anxiety, and motivational strengths and

4. attitudes). Still another one is Affective Survey (AFF), used by Ehrman (1996). Affective Survey
measures attitudes and motivation in terms of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy,
and anxiety. From a number of instruments that may be used to measure attitudes and
motivation, AMTB is most widely used by researchers who are interested in investigating the
role of attitudes and motivation in language learning, especially those who write their
dissertations.
Measuring language proficiency or language achievement is still a problematic issue.
There is no standardized language proficiency test that can be used to cover all levels of
language proficiency and all aspects of language. Lightbown and Spada (1999) state that one
problem that make it difficult to reach conclusions about the relationship between motivation
and second language learning is the difficulty to define and measure language proficiency
because language proficiency tests do not all measure the same kind of knowledge. Some test
may measure oral communication skills, some others may focus on grammatical structure of the
language, and some others may measure written communication skills. Test such as TOEFL
IBT and IELT may be considered to represent most of the language aspects, but they may not
compatible with beginners and elementary level of learners. These tests are prepared for more
advanced learners.
III. How do Attitudes and Motivation Contribute to the Success of Language Learning?
In the previous discussion, it has been stated that generally most people believe that
attitudes and motivation have important roles in facilitating language learning. This is anecdotal
evidence about the effect of attitudes and motivation in language learning. One most prominent
work which strongly supports this argument is that of Gardner‟s (1985) stating that attitudes and
motivation account for significant and meaningful proportion of second language achievement.
He believes that attitudes and motivation are the most important factors in determining success
and failure in SLL. However, this argument has invited a lot of reactions which lead this issue to
be controversial over time. A number of studies have been conducted to show evidence that
challenge Gardner‟s hypothesis about attitudes and motivation.
First of all, Hermann (1980) argues that attitudes may determine the way of a foreign
language is acquired, but a reverse may be also convincing in their own right that success in
foreign language learning can cause and precede motivation and the formation of positive
attitudes and that success or failure also affects the learners‟ attitudes and motivation. This idea
is supported by Lightbown and Spada (1998) who state that the way motivation affects learning
cannot be precisely indicated by research because it is difficult to identify whether success in
SLA is the result of motivation or motivation is enhanced by successful learning.
Furthermore, Hermann (1980), with her “resultative hypothesis” argues against the
motivational hypothesis. According to the motivational hypothesis, lack of motivation or interest
in knowing any foreign culture will result in linguistic deficiency. This hypothesis may not
accept the interrelationship or interdependence between attitudes or motivation and the success
or the failure in the SLA process. According to Hermann‟s resultative hypothesis, failure or

5. success in SLA is not merely because of lack of motivation and interest in foreign language
community or culture. A lot of learners who have high motivation and positive attitudes display
low language proficiency. In her research, Hermann found that children who have very low
achievement, in fact, show positive attitudes and high level of interest. This finding does not
support the motivational hypothesis. In this case, it is proven that those who have high level of
motivation and positive attitudes toward the language does not necessarily means that they will
have high level of proficiency in that language. It means that motivation is not the cause of the
success or the failure of language learning.
Skehan (1991) presents a model of relationship between attitudes and motivation and
success in language learning. The model suggests that positive attitudes work because of the
incorporation of more extensive framework, including the classroom events, materials, and
general educational reward framework. Skehan believes that attractiveness of teaching materials,
amount of variety in classroom works, the nature of the classroom organization, the nature of
teacher-students relationship influence the motivation of students. He claims that motivation may
be caused by the satisfaction of doing well. Therefore, like Herman, who says that success
precedes and causes motivation, Skehan also proposes that motivation does not cause success,
but motivation follows success.
Another interesting study concerning with whether the successful learning precedes
motivation or motivation causes successful learning is that of Strong (1984). He investigated the
relationship between integrative motivation and acquired language proficiency of Spanish-
speaking kindergarten students in a US classroom. He found that the attitudes of the children are
a result of second language acquisition rather than a cause. This finding is relevant to the
findings previously discussed, which are opposite to Gardner‟s motivational hypothesis.
Crookes and Schmidt (1991) also react to Gardner‟s motivational hypothesis. They find
some limitation regarding the integrative motive hypothesis and the causality hypothesis. First,
the hypothesis that integrative motivation is superior is not clearly supported by the empirical
evidence. Second, the correlation between attitudes and success in SLA tends to disappear when
other factors such as age are controlled statistically. Crookes and Schmidt consider that the
integrative hypothesis is no longer relevant to attitudes toward the second language group and is
not relevant to a score on the AMTB. They claim that AMTB seems to be “a poor measure of the
degree to which learners are actually motivated” (p.475). Therefore, they present another
approach to supplement the traditional approach and Gardner‟s approach to the attitudes and
motivation in SL learning. They called this approach “Speech Accommodation Theory” which
delineates theoretical scenarios for success of failure in second language learning.
There are some other researchers who are interested in investigating the role of attitudes
and motivation in second language learning. For example, Katesi (1993) studied some strategies
and processes which involved in learning Bulgarian as a foreign language. He found that
attitudes and motivation were significant factors in determining success and failure in language
learning. However, this significant influence of motivation on the success of the students was
caused by the fact that the students used familiar strategies from their native language to cope

6. with the difficult structure of Bulgarian. When the students were not using the familiar strategies,
their motivation did not significantly influence their success. This implies that success the
students achieved in learning Bulgarian was not simply dependent on their positive attitudes and
their high motivation in learning the language, but much more dependent on the strategies used
by the students in learning the language. This finding again proves that attitudes and motivation
are not the main factors that influence the success and failure of language learning.
Kim (1993) also did a research to investigate the role of attitudes and motivation of
Korean students who learned Korean as a second language. The evidence showed that the
students‟ perception of Korean language made them have positive attitudes and high motivation
in learning the language. In this case, it was the students‟ perception toward the Korean language
that affected their attitudes and motivation and led them to be successful. Attitudes and
motivation did not have power in predicting their Korean proficiency.
The two studies of a language other than English have shown that attitudes and
motivation may not be independent in predicting success or failure in language learning. Some
other variables may cause students to have positive attitudes and high motivation which may lead
them to achieve success in learning. This argument is also supported by Skehan (1991) who
suggests that positive attitudes work because of incorporation of more extensive framework,
including the classroom events, materials, and general educational reward framework. These
variables may precede motivation.
With respect to the orientation in motivation, Gardner (1985) hypothesizes that
integrative motivation is more powerful than instrumental motivation in determining successful
language learning. The most recent study which support this hypothesis is Hern‟andez (2010)
who studied The Relationship Among Motivation, Interaction, and the Development of Second
Language Oral Proficiency in a Study-Abroad Context. He found that there is a positive
relationship between students‟ integrative motivation and their interaction with the L2 culture.
Nevertheless, some studies did not support this argument. Cheng (1995) did a study to the cadets
in Chinese Military Academy, Taiwan. It was found that there was no significant difference in
English Achievement among those who were instrumentally motivated, integratively motivated
and those who were balanced between the two types of motivation. In addition, Kaylani (1995),
using Gardner‟s AMTB, found that males were integratively motivated while females were
instrumentally motivated. However, the result of the language test showed that females, who
were instrumentally motivated, were more successful in language learning because they had
greater use of memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategy. These two findings are also likely
to be contrary to Gardner‟s finding that the students who are integratively motivated were more
successful than those who are instrumentally motivated. These findings also suggest that
Gardner‟s integrative hypothesis should be supplemented by other variables to provide contexts
for his instrumental and integrative categories. Therefore, integrative motivation offered for
language learning does not have to be the case of all language learning conditions.
Another study that shows the importance of instrumental orientation in language learning
is the work of Dornyei (1996). He claims that instrumental motivation might be more important
than integrative motivation for foreign language learners. Instrumental motivation and the need

7. for achievement are associated with each other, and these two dimension affect foreign language
learning. It is surprising that Gardner in his further study conducted in collaboration with
MacInntyre (1991) appears to support the idea that instrumental orientation also contributes to
successful language learning. They found that instrumentally motivated learners did better on
vocabulary test than non-instrumentally motivated students. Although they claim that there must
be a special condition for the instrumentally motivated students to be successful in language
learning, this instrumental orientation need to be taken into account because it has a powerful
effect in language learning.
IV. Conclusion
There may be a number of other studies on the relationship between attitudes and
motivation and success in language learning. The studies may reveal contradicting findings that
make the discussion of this issue never come to a fixed conclusion. The questions of whether
attitudes and motivation causes success or prior success makes learners motivated and have
positive attitudes and what attitudes and motivation facilitate what kinds or what aspects of
language proficiency or language achievement. Two “temporary” conclusions can be drawn in
this discussion. First is that certain variables in attitudes and motivation may cause success in
certain aspects, but not in other aspects of language learning. Second, it is very likely that
successful achievement in foreign language learning affects learners‟ attitudes and motivation to
some extent. In other words, the correlation between attitudes and motivation and successful
language learning cannot be taken as evidence of causal relationship.
In order to get a conclusive result on attitudinal and motivational study or to investigate
this issue more accurately, a longitudinal study should be conducted to tract the students‟
attitudes and motivation over time. In such a study, it would be helpful if “multifactoral” aspects
such as gender, learning strategies, and parents‟ roles were included. Thus, the same students
would show if there were any changes in their motivation and attitudes related to their
achievement in foreign language learning.
References:
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th
Ed.). New York:
Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd
Ed.). New York: Longman.
Cheng, H. (1995). Motivation, attitudes and achievement in English learning: A case study of
cadets in the Chinese Military Academy. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The
Humanities and Social Sciences, 56 (5), 1693 A.
Cook, V. (1996). Second language learning and language teaching. New York: Arnold.

8. Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language
Learning, 41 (4), 469-512.
Dornyei, Z. (1996). Moving language learning motivation to a larger platform. In Rebecca L.
Oxford (Ed.). Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century. Honolulu:
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Ellis, R. (1994). The studies of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes
and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Gardner, R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who
says it is not effective? Language Learning, 13 (1), 57-71.
Hermann, G. (1980). Attitudes and success in children‟s learning of English as a second
language: The motivational vs. the resultative hypothesis. English Language
Teaching Journal, 34 (4), 247-254.
Hern‟andez, T. A. (2010). The relationship among motivation, interaction, and the development
of second language oral proficiency in a study-abroad context. The Modern Language
Journal,94 (4), 600 -617.
Katesi, Y.Y.K. (1993). Some factors influencing language learning and their implication for
language teaching. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 101-102, 133-139.
Kaylani, C.T. (1995). The influence of gender and motivation on the language learning strategy
use of successful and unsuccessful English language learners in Jordan. Dissertation
Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 56 (5), 1694 A.
Kim, Y. (1993). The role of attitudes and motivation in learning a heritage language: A study of
Korean language maintenance in Toronto. Dissertation Abstracts International, A:
The Humanities and Social Sciences, 54 (5), 1708 -1709.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Long, M.H. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned (2nd
Ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D. & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure
and external connections. In Robecca L. Oxford (Ed.). Language learning motivation:
Pathway to the new century. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum
Center.

9. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 13, 275-298.
Strong, M. (1984). Integrative motivation: Cause or result of successful second language
acquisition? Language Learning, 34 (3), 1-14.