MOTIVATION,INTEGRATIVENESS, ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCE, ANXIETY, and ENGLISH ACHIEVEMENT Presented By: Hojat Jodai EnglishResearch.ir info@englishresearch.ir

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

3. Introduction
3

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

7. Gardner’s socio-educational model
7

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

11. Method
11

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

14. Participants
 Non-Probability Sampling
 Participants: 164 male student from Imam
Ali Military Academy-Tehran
14

15. Instrumentation
 Background information questionnaire
 A Placement test
 Contextualized AMTB & Mini-AMTB
(Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993)
15

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

18. Results and Findings
18

19. Factor Analysis
 (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test: .71
 Factors:
Motivation, Integrativeness, Organization
al Influence, and Anxiety.
 Sample size
◦ Communalities>.60
◦ Correlation coefficients >.80
◦ N: ρ> 10 (N= participants, ρ=variables)
19

20. The distribution of variance among the
components
20

21. Descriptive Statistics
21

22. Correlations
22

23. Path Analysis
23

24. Coefficients table for the first stage
24

25. The Path model for the first stage
25

26. Coefficients table for the second stage
26

27. Discussions
27

28. The Final path analytic model
28

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

33. Thank you
33