The Motivation of Libyan University English Majors

Abstract

This study explores the type of motivation (integrative, instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic) Libyan university English majors have and how motivated they are. It is an attempt to determine the type of motivational orientation (integrative, instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic) that Libyan university English majors have, and to find out the magnitude of their motivation. The study also aims to measure the effort they exert when studying English, to explore their attitudes toward studying English and to find out whether their parents encourage them to study English or not. Data were collected from seventy six university English majors’  (n=76) using a closed questionnaire to measure motivation. The findings indicated that Libyan university English majors are both intrinsically (M= 3.52) and extrinsically (M= 3.59) moderately motivated. The results also showed that Libyan English majors seem to try their best and exert sufficient effort to learn English (M= 4.12, SD= 0.571). Students’ views of their parents’ opinions indicated that the participants of this study have encouraging parents (M=3.89, SD= 0.831).

Keywords: Motivation; Attitudes; Effort;  Integrative; Instrumental

1. Introduction

Many believe motivation to learn is the key to successful language learning. However, if we take a look at research on motivation, it is hard to say what motivation is. This section begins with a brief introduction to the field followed by a discussion of the definitions of motivation proposed by various scholars. After posing the research questions, the researcher discusses the studies related to the Libyan context. Then the methodology to carry out this research is explained. Finally, results and their discussion are presented and conclusions drawn..

It is the researcher’s belief that English language teaching and learning will not succeed only by explaining and investigating the nature and structures of the language. Success, the researcher believes, is dependent on the extent to which we comprehend the workings of the human mind and what manipulates the human behaviour or what drives human action. The researcher also believes that a closer look at the socio-psychological considerations of learning English in Libya could help improve English language teaching and learning in the country.

There is a widely shared misapprehension among Libyan language teachers that Libyan university students are somehow only a little bit instrumentally motivated, and that they do not make the required effort to learn. Libyan teachers believe that Libyan learners are passive and need to be instructed to learn a language (even with doing homework, they usually plagiarise what is at hand). This view emanates from teachers’ observation and not from studies of the learners themselves. In fact, language teaching in Libya is still teacher centred and students have been forced to follow formal instruction in language learning. This tight disciplinary control over learners has led to less motivated learners.

Because motivation is one of the main factors which determine learning success (Dörnyei, 2006: vii), researchers have focused on exploring L2 motivation and studying the characteristics of motivated learners.

Gardner (2001b: 2) has stated his interest in motivation because he believes “that many of these other variables are dependent on motivation for their effects to be realized”. He argues that language learning strategies are useless if the learner is not motivated to learn the language. Thus, he concludes that for him, “motivation is a central element along with language aptitude in determining success in learning another language in the classroom setting”.

The research done on the role of motivation in language learning, specifically that was conducted by Gardner and Lambert (1972), Gardner and MacIntyre (1993), Ushioda (1996) and Dörnyei (2001) shows that motivation is one of the most influential variables in language learning. Ellis (1985: 119) maintains that it is almost certain that motivation is a significant factor in second language acquisition. Oxford and Shearin (1994: 12) too, support the view that motivation is one of the major determining factors of success in acquiring a second or foreign language.

Dörnyei (2006) argues that L2 motivation research have undergone three stages of development: the social psychological period (1959-1990, the cognitive situated period (during the 1990s), and other new approaches in the past decade characterised by an interest in motivational change and the relationship between motivation and identity/self. The social psychological period (1959-1990) began with the studies which were conducted by the social psychologist Robert Gardner and his students and colleagues in Canada. Gardner was interested in L2 motivation because he believed that the motivation to learn the other community’s language might be the key to the reconciliation of the Francophone and Anglophone communities. The main idea of Gardner’s theory is that success in language learning depends on the learner’s attitudes towards the community of the target language. The most important motivational dimension in Gardner’s theory is the interpersonal/affective dimension. Language learning is motivated by the positive attitudes towards the target language community and by the desire to communicate with its members, and maybe even to become like them. This dimension is described by other terms as ‘integrative orientation’, ‘integrativeness’ or ‘integrative motivation’.

During the 1990’s researchers such as Dörnyei realised that there is more to motivation than what is defined by Gardner’s theory. The L2 motivation research mainly focused on motives related to the classroom, and it also concentrated on the main components of the learning situation such as the teacher, the curriculum and the learner group.

With the emergence of the ‘process-oriented’ approach which attempts to explain the variation of the degree of motivation over time, motivation came to be not seen as a static characteristic but rather as a dynamic factor that exhibits continuous fluctuation, (Dörnyei, 2001).

Dörnyei (2005) has proposed an alternative approach to the understanding of L2 motivation which attempts to integrate a number of influential L2 theories with findings of self research in psychology. In this approach ‘integrativeness/integrative motivation’ is associated with the ‘Ideal L2 Self’ which refers to the L2-specific feature of one’s ‘ideal self’, represented by all the characteristics that a person would like to possess, for example, hopes, aspirations, desires and so on. If one’s ideal self is seen as proficient in the L2, he/she can be described as having an ‘integrative’ disposition. If the person we would like to become speaks an L2, the ‘ideal L2 self’ is a powerful motivator to learn the L2 because we would like to reduce the difference between our actual and ideal selves. Here integrativeness/integrative motivation is equated with the ideal L2 self.

The expansion of the model of motivation developed by Gardner and associates in Canada in the 1960s as well as the proposal of several cognitive psychological theories of motivation has motivated language researchers to expand Gardner’s model according to these theories so as to enhance our understanding of L2 motivation.

2. Definitions of Motivation

A definition of the term motivation seems rather difficult, because it is not a clearly given object but a scientific construct upon which there is disagreement among researchers about the precise nature of its meaning (Dörnyei, 2001). When looking for more precise scientific definitions, however, one finds a large variety. Some definitions offered by several scholars are discussed below with the aim of reaching a working definition of motivation for the purpose of this study.

According to Gardner (1985: 10) the term motivation refers “to the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity”. Here motivation encompasses four aspects: a goal, an effort, a desire to achieve the goal, and a favourable attitude towards the activity in question.

Likewise, Gardner and Tremblay (1994: 361) stated that motivation “refers to the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favourable attitudes towards the language”. They contend that these three elements are indivisible because in total they will provide an explanation for second language achievement.

Brown (1987: 114) defines motivation “as an inner drive, impulse, emotion, or desire that moves one to a particular action. More specifically, human beings universally have needs or drives that are more or less innate, yet their intensity is environmentally conditioned”. Thus, motivation is seen as consisting of a desire to perform an activity, but the strength of this desire or drive is dependent on external circumstances (environmentally conditioned).  In fact, Brown’s (1987) definition resembles the previous one’s in that it replicates the same elements mentioned in the preceding definitions in a synonymous way. The only different element added to Gardner’s (1985) and Gardner and Tremblay’s (1994) definitions is the condition that desire to perform an action is innate and that its strength is contingent on external circumstances.

Keller (1983, cited by Crookes and Schmidt, 1991:481) gives a simple definition of what motivation is by saying: “the choices people make as to what experiences or goals they will approach or avoid and the degree of effort they will exert in that respect”. Motivation in this way is a matter of choice and effort.

Deci and Ryan (1985) differentiate between two kinds of motivation, namely, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and they (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 54) argue that “To be motivated means to be moved to do something. A person who feels no impetus or inspiration to act is thus unmotivated, whereas someone who is energized or activated toward an end is considered motivated”. Ryan and Deci (2000: 56) define intrinsic motivation as “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence”. Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, “refers to doing something because it leads to a separable outcome” (Ryan and Deci, 2000: 55). Intrinsically motivated learners are those who willingly engage in an activity because that activity is enjoyable and satisfying to do. In contrast, extrinsically motivated students are those who perform actions to achieve some instrumental end, such as earning a reward, good grades or avoiding a punishment. Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000) claim that learners who are interested in learning tasks and outcomes for their own sake (Intrinsic motivation) rather than for rewards (Extrinsic motivation) are likely to become more effective learners.

In fact, Deci’s and Ryan’s (1985, 2000) account of motivation is comparable to Gardner’s. Their explication of what motivation is includes certain elements which are also found in Gardner’ definition. For example ‘feeling an impetus or inspiration to act’ is parallel to ‘desire to learn the language’ repeatedly mentioned in Gardner’s explanations. Moreover, the terms ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ in Ryan’s and Deci’s (2000) account are related to the terms ‘integrative and ‘instrumental” in Gardner’s descriptions of motivation. Here the integrative orientation resembles intrinsic motivation because both are a result of a desire or an impetus to do an activity, but the source of the desire or impetus initiating the performance is different. Intrinsically motivated individuals learn a language because they are satisfied by doing the activity of learning that language and are enjoyed by doing so (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In contrast, learners with integrative orientation are interested in learning a certain language because they want to integrate with the target language community (Gardner, 2001a: 5). Thus, the goals of exercising the same action (learning a language) are distinct. Finally, it seems that extrinsically and instrumentally motivated students are more or less the same because both are individuals who perform certain actions according to external regulations or in order to achieve some instrumental end such as earning a reward or avoiding a punishment.

Similarly, Daft (1997: 526) defined motivation as “the forces either within or external to a person that arouse enthusiasm and persistence to pursue a certain course of action”. Daft’s (1997) definition of motivation highlights the internal-external drives which make an individual choose to perform a particular action as well as how long he/she will sustain it.

Ames and Ames (1989) regard motivation as the impetus to create and sustain intentions and goal-seeking acts. Motivation in this respect is the drive generating a certain action which is dependent on a previously set goal and the effort exerted to achieve that goal.

Dörnyei and Otto (1998: 64) defined motivation

“as the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalized and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out”.

What makes Dörnyei and Otto’s (1998) definition different is the dynamic changing aspect of motivation. Here motivation is not seen as static state, but rather as dynamic and it changes according to circumstances and over time.

In fact, the shift in the study of motivation during the last half of the twentieth century from a behaviourist perspective to a cognitive one made it difficult for researchers to reach an agreement on what motivation precisely is. Accordingly, researchers have investigated motivation from different points of view, which, in turn, led to the formulation of various definitions of motivation. Regardless of the disagreement among scholars (such as Gardner, 1985; Deci and Ryan, 1985 and Dörnyei and Otto’s, 1998) about what motivation is, Dörnyei (2001: 8) argues that

Perhaps the only thing about motivation most researchers agree on is that it, by definition, concerns the direction and magnitude of human behaviour, that is: the choice of a particular action, the persistence with it, the effort expended on it. In other words, motivation is responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it.

From the discussion above, one can conclude that almost all the definitions agree that motivation involves the following: a desire, a goal, a favourable attitude towards the activity, favourable attitudes towards the language, choice, effort, persistence.  Moreover, motivation is dependent on the environment, it changes over time, and that it can arise from within the individual or from outside (i.e. intrinsic or extrinsic) or both as place on a continuum.

According to the purpose of the current study, the researcher will exclude motivational change over time, persistence and the influence of environment on motivation.

The current study explores the type of motivation (integrative, instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic) Libyan university English majors have and how motivated they are. It is an attempt to determine the type of motivational orientation (integrative, instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic) that Libyan university English majors have, and to find out the magnitude of their motivation. The study also aims to measure the effort they exert when studying English, to explore their attitudes toward studying English and to find out whether their parents encourage them to study English or not.

3. Studies Related to the Libyan Context

Using a quantitative-qualitative approach, Ghenghesh (2005) examined the motivation of students (grades 6 – 10) of Arabic and English at the International School in Tripoli (Libya) to see whether the factors related to the learning context would have the greatest effect on their language learning due to the lack of exposure to the target language. Another main aim of Ghenghesh was to look into the temporal dimension of L2 motivation to see if the students’ motivation changes as they enter the senior high school. The results showed that L2 motivation decreases with age. After applying one-way analysis of variance across the five age groups investigated (grades 6 – 10), the results showed that the older students tend to score significantly lower on the motivational scales and the qualitative data confirmed this finding. The older learners’ motivation towards both languages was significantly influenced by external factors such as the role of the teacher which was considered vital in determining attitudes toward the language and supplying motivation. Other factors for English included: the disorganisation within the school, syllabus related aspects, the textbooks and the course marks. With regard to the Arabic language, the older learners reported certain aspects related to the lessons, lack of progress, the textbooks and attitudes towards the school.

Using a questionnaire, Shaaban and Ghaith (2000) examined the motivation of 180 university-bound Lebanese students (level II and III) to learn English as a foreign language (EFL) and found that integrative motivation, effort, valence (perception of the attractiveness of the goals), expectancy (perception of the probability of attaining the goals), and self-estimation of ability were internally related determinants of motivation for learning EFL. Instrumental motivation was found to be related to integrative motivation and valence only. They also found that level II proficiency students were more motivated than were level III students.

Investigating the components of motivation for adult EFL learners in Egypt,

Schmidt et al. (1996) found that affect, goal orientation and expectancy were basic dimensions of motivation for those learners.

Salem (2006) has surveyed 147 Lebanese undergraduates to explore the role of motivation, gender and language learning strategies in English as a foreign language proficiency. She found that although motivation in general did not correlate with EFL proficiency, effort did in favour of the high proficient.

It should be noted that Ghenghesh’s (2005) study mentioned above was carried out in Libya where the current study will take place, but the participants’ level and age were different from those intended for investigation in this research (i.e. Libyan university English majors). However, the researcher believes that modifying and adopting certain items from the instruments used by Ghenghesh (2005) will assist in designing the instruments for measuring motivation in this study.

It is also worth mentioning that the other reported studies were conducted in two Arabic countries (Lebanon and Egypt). The subjects surveyed in the two Lebanese studies were university students and those targeted in the Egyptian study were also adults. Thus, the participants in these studies resemble those intended for investigation in this thesis, because all are Arabic. For this reason, it is logical to benefit from the instruments used in these studies when preparing the instruments of the current research.

4. Materials and Method

Having made corroborative use of qualitative information in the preliminary study, the methodology employed in the main study is exclusively quantitative to measure the study variables. The quantitative analysis involved asking closed-ended questions via the distribution of one questionnaire (Appendix 1) which was piloted and modified as required before being distributed to a total of 76 students. Data generated in this way arguably affords ‘‘a good deal of precision and clarity’’ (McDonough and McDonough, 2004, p. 171) and allows quick and simple answers (Oppenheim, 2001).

4.1The  Motivation Questionnaire

The participants’ motivation to study English as a foreign language was measured by a questionnaire (see appendix 1) designed by the researcher drawn from a pool of questionnaires used in similar contexts. The questionnaire was mainly based on the literature review and three tried questionnaires used previously by others to measure the motivation of Arabic students, namely a questionnaire originally developed by Wen & Johnson (1997) and modified by Shaaban and Gaith (2000), a questionnaire designed by Schmidt et al (1996), and a questionnaire designed by Ghenghesh (2005). All three questionnaires had been used previously by others to measure the motivation of subjects similar to those intended for study in this research.

The motivation questionnaire which was piloted and amended in the preliminary study includes 45 items in total distributed over 7 subscales measuring Integrative Motivation (3 items), Instrumental Motivation (12 items), Attitudes towards studying English (6 items), Parental Encouragement (4 items), Intrinsic Motivation (7items), Extrinsic Motivation (5 items), and Effort (8 items).

The researcher translated the questionnaire into Arabic to avoid misunderstanding the meaning of the instrument’s items by the participants. The translation of the questionnaire into Arabic was approved by two Arabic PhD holders of applied linguistics at Tripoli University.

4.2 Participants

Seventy six Libyan students (n=76) majoring in English at the department of English, Faculty of Arts in the University of Tripoli participated in the study. All participants were native speakers of Arabic. Of these 22 students were third year English majors and 54 students were fourth year English majors. There were 26 males and 50 females. Data were collected on the  22nd of February 2010 and subjects received no monetary compensation for their participation. All students surveyed in this study are native Arabic Libyan university English majors who are either in their third (n=22) or fourth (n= 54) year of study. All the participants have spent their lives in Libya and had more or less the same normal Libyan state education. Only two female students were found to have stayed in English speaking countries for more than 10 years. The responses obtained from these two subjects will be treated with caution during the analyses of the data.

The participants had an overall proficiency mean score of 49 with a standard deviation of 11.79 which places them in the elementary level, but according to frequency analysis, the results indicated that the majority of students are within the intermediate level (53.9 % and Mean = 55.37). Only 2.6 % (Mean= 92.00) of the subjects are within the advanced proficiency category (these were the two females who had stayed in English speaking countries for more than 10 years).  Others are either within the beginners level (21.1%, Mean= 34.00) or within the elementary level (22.4%, Mean= 43.47). Thus, according to these results, the proficiency of the majority of Libyan university English majors can be considered intermediate.

4.3 Procedure

The researcher obtained the consent of the Dean of Faculty of Arts to use a lecture on the  22nd  of February 2010 for the administration of the instrument.  The aims of the instrument, its structure and content, and how it was to be completed were explained to the subjects. The researcher asked the participants to give their answers as truly as possible and emphasized that he had no predetermined expectations and that no response would be deemed as better than another. The subjects were also assured that all the information collected will be confidential and will only be used for research purposes. Moreover, they were assured that their identities will be anonymous and that their personal information will be treated in strict confidence and will not be revealed. It should be noted that in Libya, unlike other Arabic countries, mixed gender classes are normal, so males and females study together in the same classroom.

The questionnaire was read aloud to the participants before they started to record their responses to ensure that they understood each item accurately. The researcher was assured that students understood all the instructions and items because students did not ask questions about any of them.

On the 22nd  of February 2010, participants responded to the questionnaire measuring motivation. The administration and the completion of the questionnaire took 50 minutes. The responses to the questionnaire were reviewed separately during their collection to insure that each student has responded to all the items. If a response was not provided, the participant was encouraged to helpfully give his/her answer. Since the instrument was completed in class, the return rate was 100%.

4.4 Analyses of Reliability

Although reliability had already been checked in the preliminary study, we thought it advisable to confirm it. This section presents and explains the analyses of reliability of the subjects’ responses on various five point Likert-scales, for the questionnaire measuring motivation (see Appendices  1). Using SPSS 16, these analyses were conducted as it is believed indispensable to prove the reliability of scores on which data description and analysis are based. As a consequence, the researcher precludes “the accumulation of results based on relatively invalid or unreliable measures” (Wilkinson et al., 1999: 6).

The next two subsections report on the overall reliability of the instrument in question following its administration to 76 participants, and then on the analyses of reliability of each of its component subscales.

4.5.1 Reliability of the Motivation Questionnaire

After the administration of the motivation questionnaire to the 76 subjects, the researcher entered the data into an SPSS data file and reversed the negative items (items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 3and 7).Then, investigator analysed the data to test the overall reliability of the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for internal consistency was therefore calculated for the 45 items in the motivation questionnaire. The overall reliability of the motivation scale appeared to have good internal consistency, α = 0.82.

After establishing the overall reliability of the motivation questionnaire analyses were made of the instrument subscales. The motivation questionnaire used in this study consisted of 45 items which are divided into seven subscales, as shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Subscales of the Motivation Questionnaire

 Number of Items Subscale
3 Integrative Motivation
12 Instrumental Motivation
6 Attitudes towards studying English
4 Parental Encouragement
7 Intrinsic Motivation
5 Extrinsic Motivation
8 Effort

It was these seven subscales on which analyses of reliability were carried out. The approach to analysis included the examination of the overall reliability index of each of the seven motivation subscales and discussion of those scales, the scores of which were considered to be unreliable.

It can be seen in Table 2 that the reliability index for the seven subscales ranged from a minimum of 0.25 for the Integrative Motivation subscale to 0.82 for the Instrumental Motivation subscale.

Table 2: Reliability Index of Motivation Subscales

Subscale Reliability Index
Integrative Motivation 0.25
Instrumental Motivation 0.82
Attitudes towards studying English 0.62
Parental Encouragement 0.72
Intrinsic Motivation 0.39
Extrinsic Motivation 0.57
Effort 0.73

As has been summarised in table 2 the scores on only four of the seven subscales of the motivation subscale when administered to the 76 participants in this study, can be considered reliable. Three of those four, Instrumental, Parental Influence, and Effort can be regarded straightforwardly as internally consistent as their corresponding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were above 0.72. The Attitudes towards studying English subscale however, while broadly satisfactory, should be treated cautiously as it just reached the level of 0.62 for overall reliability. Hence, the researcher inspected the values of Item Deleted statistics and found that the deletion of item 30 would increase alpha by .016 which improves the overall reliability of the subscale to reach 0.64.

The three remaining subscales, Integrative, Intrinsic and Extrinsic must be considered unreliable because they failed to reach a satisfactory level of reliability. However, the reliability of these subscales could be increased by the removal of certain items.

The inspection of the Item-Total Statistics for the Integrative Motivation subscale revealed that the deletion of item 2 ‘I study English because it will help me understand English art, literature and culture’ increases Cronbach’s alpha by 0.39. The researcher has also checked the subjects’ responses to this item to find out whether students gave a low rating for this item which might have affected its correlation with other items of the integrative subscale, but it was found that students’ scores varied according to the five point Likert scale. Thus, item 2 was removed to improve the subscale’s reliability α = 0.64.

The Intrinsic Motivation subscale has an internal consistency α = 0.39, but none of the items would substantially affect the overall reliability if they were deleted.  The worst offender is item 20, and removing this item would increase alpha by only 0.063 resulting in an unacceptable overall reliability of .45 (George and Mallery, 2003: 231).

Since the overall reliability index of the Intrinsic Motivation subscale did not reach an acceptable level of internal consistency even after the elimination of item 20, the researcher examined the internal consistency of the subscale at the item level to determine the overall satisfactoriness of the subscale. Hughes (1989) suggests an item-total correlation of 0.30 as the criterion necessary for an item to be regarded as relating satisfactorily to the subscale as a whole. However, only two of its seven items met the criterion of .30 item-total correlation (item 28 ‘I study English because I have a desire to learn it’ and item 31 ‘I like the English lectures’). Five items, with a minimum value of 0.001 did not meet that criterion (item 19 ‘I study English because the textbooks and the materials used in class are interesting’, item 20 ‘I study English because learning English is a challenge that I enjoy’, item 21 ‘I study English because the class tasks and activities are enjoyable’, item 27 ‘I study English because I feel superior when I speak it’, and item 36 ‘The English lectures are boring’). Thus, the researcher concludes that the participants have rather different attitudes to these intrinsic aspects of learning.

To eliminate the five poorly correlating items in an attempt to improve the reliability index would minimize the subscale to two items, thus rendering it impractical. Further, the overall reliability index was considered too low for the practical application of the Spearman Brown prophesy formula. Thus it was concluded that the Intrinsic Motivation subscale was not internally consistent.

The Extrinsic Motivation subscale appeared to have a poor internal consistency of α = 0.57, but considering Alpha if Item Deleted statistics reveals that the deletion of item 26 (I study English because it is my parents’ wish) increases alpha by .083, reflecting an acceptable degree of reliability α = 0.65. So this item was removed leaving the Extrinsic subscale with an internal consistency α = 0.65. It is worth mentioning that responses to item 26 differed from responses to the other subscale items because while item 26 asks about an extrinsic aspect before students enrolled at university to study English other items of the subscale are related to benefits after their graduation (item  22: ‘I study English because it is a requirement asked for by most well-known employers’, item 22: ‘I study English because it is a requirement asked for by most well-known employers’, item 24: ‘I study English because being able to speak English will add to my social status’ and item 25: ‘I study English because it will have financial benefits for me’). Item 23 (‘I study English because I need to pass the examinations’) is also related to the immediate benefit of passing exams.

As has been demonstrated here, and is summarized on Table 3, after revision the scores on only six of the seven subscales of the motivation questionnaire, when administered to the 76 subjects in this study, can be considered reliable. Four of those six, Instrumental Motivation, Parental Influence, Extrinsic Motivation and Effort, can be regarded straightforwardly as internally consistent as their Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are either 0.65 or above. The Integrative Motivation and Attitudes towards studying English subscales however, while broadly satisfactory, should be treated cautiously as they just met the criterion level of 0.64 for overall reliability.

Table 3: Reliability of Motivation Subscales After Removal of Items

Subscale Reliability Index
Integrative Motivation 0.64
Instrumental Motivation 0.82
Attitudes towards studying English 0.64
Parental Encouragement 0.72
Intrinsic Motivation 0.45
Extrinsic Motivation 0.65
Effort 0.73

The researcher has calculated mean ratings for each subscale across all the items that appeared to have an acceptable reliability. It should be mentioned that when calculating the overall mean for motivation as a whole, the researcher have left out the discarded items and all of the intrinsic subscale.

5 Results

What type of motivation (integrative, instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic) do Libyan university English majors have?  And how motivated are they? These two research questions were posed to determine the type of motivational orientation (integrative, instrumental, intrinsic or extrinsic) that Libyan university English majors have, and to find out the magnitude of their motivation. Another aim was also to measure the effort they exert when studying English, to explore their attitudes toward studying English and to find out whether their parents encourage them to study English or not.

5.1 Findings for the major categories of motivational orientation

To discover which type of motivational orientation the participants exhibit most (on the 1 to 5 scale employed), the researcher (using SPSS 16) reversed the negative items and averaged the scores of each subject across all the individual items of each subscale. Then, the researcher obtained the average of those averages for each subscale. Finally, the researcher divided these averages into four categories of degree for interpretation. Table 4 below shows the range of averages and their corresponding categories according to the scales used in the data collection instrument.

Table 4: Interpretation of Motivational Orientations in terms of Degree Categories

Range of Average Degree
1 – 2 Amotivated
2.1 – 3 Minimally Motivated
3.1 – 4 Moderately Motivated
4.1 – 5 Highly Motivated

Applying these categories to the scores obtained by the subjects on the six subscales of motivation that were found to be reliable in Method section  (integrative, instrumental, extrinsic, effort, attitudes towards studying English and parental encouragement), the researcher found that the participants were moderately motivated with regard to all three motivational orientation types, exert high effort, have positive attitudes towards studying English and have encouraging parents. The mean score for all the motivation questionnaire items (excluding the unreliable items and the discarded intrinsic motivation subscale) indicates that the participants were moderately motivated (mean= 3.95). The highest average for motivational orientation that the subjects of this study attained was for Instrumental Motivation (mean= 3.85). Integrative Motivation was second with a mean of 3.69, Extrinsic Motivation was third with a mean of 3.59 and finally Intrinsic Motivation (if considered) with a mean of 3.52.

It should be noted that the intrinsic motivation subscale (M=3.52, SD= .468) as a whole is not considered in this analysis due to its poor internal consistency as described above. However, the researcher believes that the discussion of the intrinsic subscale items individually may still be interesting; hence, the researcher will discuss them separately later.

Comparing the overall mean scores of the items for instrumental motivation (M=3.85) to those for integrative motivation (M=3.69) and extrinsic motivation (M=3.59), it can be concluded that the students are to a certain extent integratively and instrumentally motivated but they still have a higher degree of instrumental motivation toward English language learning. However, the results of a paired sample test indicated that the difference between the first two is not significant (t= -1.089, df=75, p= .280).

Table 5: Comparison of instrumental and integrative means

Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Integrative – Instrumental -.15241 1.22008 .13995 -.43121 .12639 -1.089 75 .280

5.2 Findings for the individual motivational orientation items

In addition to obtaining the overall means of students for both instrumental (M= 3.85) and integrative (M=3.69 ) orientations, the researcher also inspected individual items of the motivation questionnaire to identify which items led to the higher mean of instrumental orientation compared with the integrative one. Looking at Table (6) below, we find that nine of the 12 items targeting instrumental motivation in our sample have received relatively higher approval values compared with those targeting the integrative one.

Table 6: Mean and Standard deviations for the motivation questionnaire items

Item Subscale Rank Mean Std. Deviation
I want to learn as much as I can about the English language. Attitudes towards studying English 1st 4.83 .379
I study English because it will make me more knowledgeable person. Instrumental Motivation 2nd 4.70 .674
Do you try hard to understand the English lectures? Effort 3rd 4.66 .684
Do you prepare yourself for all the tests and examinations of the English subjects? Effort 4th 4.62 .923
Do you pay attention when the teacher is explaining the lesson in class? Effort 5th 4.61 .634
I study English because I have a desire to learn it Intrinsic Motivation 6th 4.59 .677
Do you complete your homework and assignments of the English subjects? Effort 7th 4.57 .838
I study English because it is necessary for my future education plans. Instrumental Motivation 8th 4.53 .774
I really enjoy studying English. Attitudes toward studying English 9th 4.47 .721
I study English because it will help me to communicate in English for practical needs if I travel to English-speaking countries. Instrumental Motivation 10th 4.37 .763
Studying English is a waste of time. Attitudes toward studying English (Reversed) 11th 4.34 1.014
I do not like studying English. Attitudes toward studying English (Reversed) 12th 4.33 .855
I study English to benefit my country and its students in the future for the scientific advancement. Instrumental Motivation 13th 4.28 .826
I study English because my parents encourage me to keep on studying English. Parental Encouragement 14th 4.21 1.111
I study English to diversify my linguistic culture Instrumental Motivation 15th 4.07 1.037
Do you question things you do not understand about the English lectures? Effort 16th 4.03 1.211
I would rather spend more time on studying other subjects than English. Attitudes towards studying English (Reversed) 17th 4.01 .774
I study English because being able to speak English will add to my social status. Extrinsic Motivation 18th 4.01 1.026
I study English because my parents think English is an important language to learn. Parental Encouragement 19th 4.00 1.166
My parents think it is not important for me to do well in English. Parental Encouragement (Reversed) 20th 3.99 1.183
I study English because it will help me if I ever need to live in English speaking countries. Instrumental Motivation 21st 3.97 1.200
I study English because it will help me to get a job. Instrumental Motivation 22nd 3.96 1.437
I study English to enlarge my cultural repertoire Instrumental Motivation 23rd 3.87 .789
I study English because it develops man. Instrumental Motivation 24th 3.86 1.055
I like the English lectures. Intrinsic Motivation 25th 3.84 .880
Do you review and correct your assignments when your teachers give them back to you? Effort 26th 3.80 1.178
I study English because it will help me to make friends with people from English-speaking countries Integrative Motivation 27th 3.79 1.204
The English lectures are boring. Intrinsic Motivation (Reversed) 28th 3.75 .981
I study English because I feel superior when I speak it Intrinsic Motivation 29th 3.68 1.309
I study English because it will have financial benefits for me. Extrinsic Motivation 30th 3.67 1.226
I study English because it will enable me to understand English films, videos, TV or songs Integrative Motivation 31st 3.62 1.423
I study English because it will help me understand English art, literature and culture Integrative Motivation 32nd 3.54 1.259
I study English because learning English is a challenge that I enjoy. Intrinsic Motivation 33rd 3.53 1.113
Do you try to use English outside the class? Effort 34th 3.50 1.114
Studying English as a major was not my first choice when I entered the university. Attitudes towards studying English 35th 3.47 1.400
I study English because it will enable me to know about international events and what is around us. Instrumental Motivation 36th 3.43 1.398
I study English because it is a requirement asked for by most well-known employers. Extrinsic Motivation 37th 3.36 1.614
I study English because my parents think I should spend more time studying English. Parental Encouragement 38th 3.36 1.055
I study English because I need to pass the examinations. Extrinsic Motivation 39th 3.32 1.169
Do you volunteer to answer questions in the class? Effort 40th 3.14 1.055
I study English to know about Western civilizations Instrumental Motivation 41st 3.07 1.268
I study English because the class tasks and activities are enjoyable. Intrinsic Motivation 42nd 2.72 .947
I study English because it is my parents’ wish. Extrinsic Motivation 43rd 2.51 1.260
I study English because the textbooks and the materials used in class are interesting. Intrinsic Motivation 44th 2.50 1.065
I study English because it is a fashion for girls. Instrumental Motivation 45th 2.11 1.281
N 76

Moreover, whereas students reported a moderate motivation with regard to all three items measuring integrative motivation, they expressed high instrumental motivation levels on five items including item ‘ I study English because it will make me more knowledgeable person’ (M= 4.70, SD= 0.674), ‘I study English because it is necessary for my future education plans’ (M= 4.53, SD= 0.774), ‘I study English because it will help me to communicate in English for practical needs if I travel to English-speaking countries’ (M= 4.37, SD= 0.763), ‘I study English to benefit my country and its students in the future for the scientific advancement’ (M= 4.28, SD= 0.826), and ‘I study English to diversify my linguistic culture’ (M= 4.07, SD= 1.037). Moreover, the participants reported a considerable agreement with six items of the instrumental subscale. However, they reported only moderate instrumental motivation with regard to four items and minimum instrumental motivation for the item ‘ I study English because it is a fashion for girls’ (M= 2.11, SD= 1.281) which might be due to the fact that this particular item targets females only. The researcher argues that instrumental motivation is closely related to students’ perceived practical needs for learning English, and the items cover quite a range of these, so it is not surprising that some turn out to be seen as more important than others. Indeed the top two relate apparently to ‘knowledge (of English presumably)’ and ‘educational needs’ which for English majors is hardly surprising.  It is therefore not surprising that the instrumental items are quite spread over the whole of the ranking table (see Table 4). For example, we find that instrumental motivation items like ‘ I study English because it will make me more knowledgeable person’ and I study English because it is necessary for my future education plans’ among the 10 highest ranked items, and at the same time we find items like ‘I study English because it will enable me to know about international events and what is around us’ and ‘I study English to know about Western civilizations’ considerably lower in the ranking table.  The quite even distribution of the instrumental items through the whole ranking table (see Table 4) indicate that some instrumental orientations may be more relevant to Libyan University English majors than others.

This line of argument is in harmony with Dörnyei’s (1996) claim that instrumental motivation plays an essential role in contexts where relatively utilitarian benefits are actually available for learners and that formal foreign language learning does not generate integrative orientations toward the target language community as contact with members of the L2 group is limited or nonexistent. The current results also give support to Lamb’s (2004) argument that integrative orientations and learners’ positive attitudes towards the English-speaking cultures might not be relevant in EFL contexts. Hence, Libyan university English majors scored higher on the instrumental motivation items as opposed to those of the integrative subscale because they learn English as a foreign language.

5.3 Interpretation of the motivational orientation findings

The results of this study are consistent with the findings of previous research conducted on similar subjects (e.g. Zughoul and Taminian, 1984; Al-Shalabi, 1982; Abdel-Hafez, 1994; Dhaif Allah, 2005; Al-Quyadi, 2000; Al-Tamimi and  Shuib, 2009; and Dwaik and Shehadeh, 2010). Dwaik and Shehadeh (2010), for instance, found that Palestinian undergraduates select instrumental reasons more frequently than integrative motives for learning English. Al-Quyadi’s (2000) study revealed that Yemeni EFL majors exhibited both highly instrumentally and integratively motivated. Moreover, according to Al-Tamimi and Shuib’s (2009) investigation Yemeni undergraduates reported greater support of instrumental motives for learning English including utilitarian and academic incentives which have also received high approval in the current study as reflected in items such as ‘ I study English because it will make me more knowledgeable person’ and ‘ I study English because it is necessary for my future education plans’. In Musa’s (1985) study too, more than 75% of the 357 UAE secondary school students that he surveyed, reported that they pursue English learning because of its valuable role as a language of wider communication and a medium of instruction in the majority of graduate programmes. Musa’s findings are similar to the results of this study as reflected in items such as ‘ I study English because it will help me to communicate in English for practical needs if I travel to English-speaking countries’, ‘ I study English because it will help me if I ever need to live in English speaking countries’ and ‘I study English because it will enable me to know about international events and what is around us’.

Furthermore, the moderate value which the current study participants attached to certain integrative items such as ‘I study English because it will enable me to understand English films, videos, TV or songs’ and  ‘I study English because it will help me understand English art, literature and culture’ are consistent with Al-Tamimi and  Shuib’s (2009) findings which also indicated a considerable interest of Yemeni undergraduates in the culture of the English-speaking world as represented by English-language films. The results also are consistent with Alam & Khan ‘s (1988) finding that most Saudi public school learners valued learning English because of its importance as a language of business and higher education which is evident in the instrumental items ‘ I study English because it is necessary for my future education plans’ and ‘I study English because it will help me to get a job’.

The results are also in harmony with the findings of previous studies conducted in other Arabic countries (e.g. Zughoul and Taminian, 1984; Abdel-Hafez, 1994; Obydat, 2006; Qashoa, 2006 and Moskovsky and Alrabai, 2009) which indicated that Arabic learners display both instrumental and integrative motivation. However, the participants surveyed in these studies were found to be significantly more instrumentally than integratively motivated. Likewise, Vaezi’s (2008) findings showed that Iranian undergraduate students had a significant higher degree of instrumental motivation than the integrative one (p < 0.001). However, although the result of the current study showed that Libyan university English majors participating in this study had a higher degree of instrumental motivation than the integrative one, the difference was not significant (p >.05).

Libyan university English majors might preserve their identity by unconsciously selecting to be motivated instrumentally as a result of the fear to identify with English (western) cultural thought and values which they regard as distasteful because of the difference in religion and other historical and political factors. Moreover, since the West has long been negatively portrayed and misrepresented in the Libyan media, it is not surprising that Libyan English majors do not value its cultural values and norms highly and consequently do not display highly positive orientations towards the Western culture and its languages. Due to the above mentioned reasons, students might unconsciously become more instrumentally motivated than being integratively motivated. Furthermore, the latest American invasions of some Islamic countries might have influenced their orientation.

Fortunately, recently when there has been a change in the political relations between Libya and the West, and various international conferences on different political, cultural, social and economic issues are being held in Libya. In spite of all these, the important role that English plays in today’s world in establishing foreign relations is simply neglected in Libya. To the knowledge of the researcher, only few native English speakers are allowed to teach in Libya, therefore, Libyan students do not have the opportunity to benefit from native English teachers. Only a few English speaking foreigners are found in Libya who are either tourists or belong to the business sector with which students have little or no contact except for a few cases in tourist sites, hotels, and traditional markets or virtually while surfing the internet, sending emails and chatting online.

Since English is studied as a foreign language in Libya, the superiority of Libyan English majors’ instrumental motivation over the integrative one in this study is explicable because as Dörnyei (1990), Oxford and Shearin (1994) and Mihaljević (1998) argue, integrative motivation is more relevant for ESL learners rather than for EFL learners because students learning ESL usually can meet and communicate face to face with native speakers of the target language. The emergence of integrative motivation in this study might be due to the students need to use English for other aspirations such as understanding English films, videos, TV, songs, English art, literature and culture and maybe making friends with people from English-speaking countries via chatting online and using the internet social websites such as ‘Facebook’. This supports Lamb’s (2004: 15) claim that aims such as using computers, listening to English songs, studying or travelling abroad, improving a profession and the role English plays in the globalization era will deeply affect EFL learners.

Since research on L2 motivation is lacking in the Libyan context, particularly intrinsic motivation, the researcher decided to discuss responses to the items targeting intrinsic motivation individually (though the subscale as a whole proved to be unreliable, α = 0.45) hoping that it will reveal new findings which may be able to offer interesting insights about the role of intrinsic motivation for EFL learning in Libya.

As can be seen on Table 6, questionnaire items targeting intrinsic motivation were treated differently by the participants. Overall, the participants appeared to have a moderate degree of intrinsic motivation (M= 3.52). The results in this study indicate that students in this sample are intrinsically motivated because they have a high desire to learn English (M= 4.59, SD= .677), like the English lectures (M= 3.84, SD= .880), do not consider ‘the English lectures as boring’ (M=3.75, SD= .981), feel superior when they speak English (M=3.68, SD=1.309), and regard studying English as a challenge that that they enjoy (M=3.53, SD=1.113). However, they expressed a relatively low approval of the items describing the class tasks and activities as enjoyable (M= 2.72, SD= .947) and the textbooks and the materials used in class as interesting (M= 2.50, SD= 1.065).  From the researcher’s experience as both an English major and a lecturer, the reason for the low agreement participants ascribed to these two items might be due to the fact that most classroom tasks and activities are usually dull exercises which concentrate on form only and neglect interactivity which, sometimes make learners feel bored. In addition, the textbooks and materials used in classes are usually prescribed by the faculty’s administration and teachers without any negotiation with students which makes the students feel that they are controlled and consequently do not feel that they are interesting. Instead, students feel that they are forced to study them. The researcher believes that the students’ intrinsic motivation will increase if Libyan teachers of English offer learners options and varieties of interesting and enjoying learning tasks, challenging learning activities, and accept learners’ participation in making decisions about the process of learning.

It should be noted that the findings related to intrinsic motivation in this study should be treated with care because the intrinsic motivation subscale was found to be unreliable.

With regard to the participants’ extrinsic motivation, Table 6 indicates that the subjects exhibit a moderate extrinsic motivation (M= 3.59). The items targeting extrinsic motivation were neither among the top 10 items nor among the least 10 items. However, they highly approved that being able to speak English will add to their social status (M= 4.01, SD= 1.026) and they moderately valued studying English for financial benefits (M= 3.67, SD= 1.226), regarded English as a requirement asked for by most well-known employers (M= 3.36, SD= 1.614), and admitted that they study English to pass their examinations (M=3.32, SD= 1.169), but they minimally agreed that they study English because it is their parents’ wish (M=2.51, SD= 1.260). The researcher argues that the relatively low mean score for this item compared with the other subscale items might be due to the fact that while this item asks about an extrinsic aspect prior to students’ enrolment at university to study English other items of the subscale are linked to benefits after their graduation.

In general, Libyan university English majors’ mean scores for intrinsic (M= 3.52) and extrinsic motivation (M= 3.59) indicate that Libyan university English majors are both intrinsically and extrinsically moderately motivated. They have a high desire to learn English because of educational, social, financial and career opportunities, indicating that they are more extrinsically motivated, that is, they desire to learn English for pragmatic reasons such as passing examinations, finding work and adding to their social status. The results of a paired sample test revealed no significant difference between the students’ mean scores for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (see Table 7 below).

Table 7: Paired Samples Test. Difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Paired Differences
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Lower Upper
Pair 1 Intrinsic-Extrinsic -.07190 .92089 .10563 -.28233 .13853 -.681 75 .498

The researcher has not been able to find any studies which deal with the motivation of EFL Libyan learners and all the studies dealing with the role of motivation in other Arabic learners seem to be concerned almost exclusively with the integrative/instrumental motivation distinction. However the results of this study are consistent with Zubairi and Sarudin’s (2009) findings of their survey of 500 Malaysian university students which indicated that Malaysian students were both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to learn a foreign language. The current results are also consistent with Chalak and Kassaian’s (2010) study of 108 Iranian undergraduate students majoring in English translation which revealed that Iranian university students of English translation were both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated. However, the results are inconsistent with the findings of Dwaik and Shehadeh’s (2010:1) study of 127 Palestinian college learners majoring in English and Engineering at Hebron University in which they found that none of the participants displayed intrinsic motivation to learn the language.

5.2.4 Findings on motivational effort, attitude to learning English and parental encouragement

Students surveyed in the current study also reported exerting high effort to learn English (M= 4.12, SD= 0.571), indeed this is the second highest mean recorded for any of the seven subcategories of motivation that were measured. As can be seen in Table 8, five of the effort subscale items received high approval and four of them were among the top 10 high ranked items. Students claimed to exert high effort in trying hard to understand the English lectures (M= 4.66), preparing for English tests and examinations (M= 4.62), paying attention to teacher’s explanations of lessons (M= 4.61), and completing homework and assignments of the English subjects (M= 4.57). Students reported exerting medium effort in: questioning things they do not understand about the English lectures (M= 4.03), reviewing and correcting their assignments according to teachers’ feedback (M= 3.80), and trying to use English outside class (M= 3.50). The only aspect to which participants reported exerting relatively low effort is volunteering to answer questions in class (M= 3.14). This relatively low score might be due to the fact that Libyan classrooms are teacher-centred in which learners only answer questions if they were asked to do so. Moreover, volunteering to answer questions without being asked to is considered impolite by Libyan teachers. Thus, according to the results of the current study Libyan English majors seem to try their best and exert sufficient effort to learn English.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for the effort subscale.

Item Rank Mean Std. Deviation
Do you try hard to understand the English lectures? 3rd 4.66 .684
Do you prepare yourself for all the tests and examinations of the English subjects? 4th 4.62 .923
Do you pay attention when the teacher is explaining the lesson in class? 5th 4.61 .634
Do you complete your homework and assignments of the English subjects? 7th 4.57 .838
Do you question things you do not understand about the English lectures? 16th 4.03 1.211
Do you review and correct your assignments when your teachers give them back to you? 26th 3.80 1.178
Do you try to use English outside the class? 34th 3.50 1.114
Do you volunteer to answer questions in the class? 40th 3.14 1.055
Overall Mean 4.12 .571

The data depicted in Table 9 indicate that the participants have strong positive attitudes towards studying English (M= 4.19, SD= 0.604), the highest mean of all the subcategories of motivation. Five of the six items assessing the participants’ attitudes towards studying English received high approval and were among the top 20 ranked items to which students gave their agreement.

Table 9: Descriptive Statistics for the attitudes towards studying English subscale

Item Rank Mean Std. Deviation
I want to learn as much as I can about the English language. 1st 4.83 .379
I really enjoy studying English. 9th 4.47 .721
Studying English is a waste of time. (code-reversed) 11th 4.34 1.014
I do not like studying English.(code-reversed) 12th 4.33 .855
I would rather spend more time on studying other subjects than English. .(code-reversed) 17th 4.01 .774
Studying English as a major was not my first choice when I entered the university. 35th 3.47 1.400
Overall Mean 4.19 .604

These results are consistent with and support the findings of previous studies conducted on similar EFL Arab learners which indicated that Arab EFL students have positive attitudes towards studying English (Mahmoud, 1992; Malallah, 2000; Baniabdelrahman and Lincoln, 2005; Al-Bustan and Al-Bustan, 2009; Shaaban and Ghaith, 2003; Manasreh, 2010; Sinno, 2008; and Al-Zahrani, 2008).

The overall mean of the parental encouragement subscale (see Table 10 below) indicated that the students have encouraging parents (M=3.89, SD= 0.831).

Table 10: Parental Encouragement Descriptive Statistics

Item Rank Mean Std. Deviation
I study English because my parents encourage me to keep on studying English. 14th 4.21 1.111
I study English because my parents think English is an important language to learn. 19th 4.00 1.166
My parents think it is not important for me to do well in English. (code reversed) 20th 3.99 1.183
I study English because my parents think I should spend more time studying English. 38th 3.36 1.055
Overall mean 3.89 .831

These results indicate that students receive considerable parental encouragement to learn English. Results revealed that parents encourage students to keep studying English (M= 4.21, SD= 1.111), believe English is important (M= 4.00, SD= 1.166), urge them to do well in English (M= 3.99, SD= 1.183), and push their offspring to improve their English by persuading them to spend more time studying English (M= 3.36, SD= 1.055). Thus, according to the students’ views of their parents’ opinions, the researcher can safely conclude that the participants of this study have encouraging parents. However, one might wonder why students reported low agreement to the extrinsic item ‘I study English because it is my parents’ wish’. This extrinsic item involves obligation because it implies that students choose to major in English according to their parents wish.

6. References

Abdel-Hafez, M. 1994. “The Influence of Motivation and Attitudes on the Language Proficiency of English Majors at Yarmouk University.” Unpublished MA Thesis, Yarmouk University.

Alam, M. A. Hussein, S. M. & Khan, B. A. 1988. “A Study of the Attitudes of Students, Teachers and Parents towards English as a Foreign Language in Saudi Arabian Public Schools.” Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Education, Educational Development; the General Directorate of Research and Evaluation.

Al-Bustan, S. A. and Al-Bustan, L. 2009. “Investigating students attitudes and preferences towards learning English at Kuwait University.” College Student Journal, Vol. 43, (June, Part A), pp. 454-463.

Al-Quyadi, A. 2000. “Psycho-sociological variables in the learning of English in Yemen.” Ph.D thesis, Bhagalpur University.

Al-Shalabi, F. 1982. “Perceived Social Distance: a Reexamination of an Attitudinal Factor in an EFL Setting.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado University.

Al-Tamimi, A. and  Shuib, M. 2009. “Motivation And Attitudes Towards Learning English: A Study Of Petroleum Engineering Undergraduates At Hadhramout University Of Sciences And Technology.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, Volume 9(2).

Al-Zahrani, M. S. A. 2008. “Saudi Secondary School Male students’ Attitudes towards English: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of King Saud University, Vol. 20, Language and Translation, pp. 25-39.

Ames, C., and Ames, R. 1989. Research in Motivation in Education. San Diego: Academic Press.

Baniabdelrahman, A. and Lincoln, F. 2005. “Attitudes of Arab Students at the University of Arkansas in the USA towards the English Language and its Speakers in the Light of the Events of September 11, 2001.” Journal of Educational Sciences (JES), Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 164-133.

Brown, H. D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Chalak, A., & Kassaian, Z. 2010. “Motivation and Attitudes of Iranian Undergraduate EFL Students towards Learning English.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10, 37-56.

Crookes, G and Schmidt, R. W. 1991. “Motivation: Reopening the Research Agenda.” Language Learning, 41, 469-512.

Daft, Richard L. 1997. Management, 4th ed. Orlando, Fl.: Harcourt Brace.

Deci, E. L and Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour. Plenum, New York.

Dhaif-Allah, A. (2005). “An exploration of Saudi Students’ Integrative and Instrumental Motivation for Learning English.” Occasional Papers in the Development of English Language Education. 39. 55-113. Cairo: ASU.

Dörnyei, Z. (1990). “Conceptualising Motivation in Foreign Language Learning.” Language Learning, 40, 45-78.

Dornyei Z. 1996. “Moving Language Learning Motivation to a Longer Platform for Theory and Practice.” In Oxford, R. (ED.). Language Learning Motivation: The New Century, 71-80.

Dörnyei, Z. 2006.”Researching L2 Motivation: Towards Combined Quantitative-Qualitative Paradigms.” A presentation delivered at the Khalili Lecture Theatre, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of Nottingham, 11/10/2006.

Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Dörnyei, Z. 2001. Teaching and researching motivation. Longman Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow.

Dörnyei, Z. and Otto, I. 1998. “Motivation in Action: A process model for L2 motivation.” Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London) 4: 43-69.

Dwaik, R. and Shehadeh, A. 2010. “Motivation Types among EFL College Students: Insights from the Palestinian Context.” An-Najah Univ. J. of Res. Humanities, Vol. 24(1).

Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Gardner, R. C. 1985. Social Psychology and Language Learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R.C. and W. E. Lambert 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Newbury House Publishers, Rowley, Massachusetts.

Gardner, R. C. 2001a. “Integrative Motivation and Second Language Acquisition.” In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Technical Report No. 23, Honolulu, University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Centre, 1-19.

Gardner, R. C. 2001b. “Language Learning Motivation: The Student, the Teacher, and the Researcher.” A key-note address to the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, March 23, 2001.

Gardner, R. and MacIntyre, P. 1993. “A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables.” Language Teaching 26, 1-11.

Gardner, R. and Tremblay, P. 1994. “On Motivation, Research Agendas and Theoretical Frameworks.” The Modern Language Journal, 78, 359-368.

George, D., & Mallery, P. 2003. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Ghenghesh, P. 2005. “The Motivation of Learners of English and Arabic at an International School in Tripoli, Libya.” Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham.

Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keller, J. M. 1983.”Motivational Design of Instruction.” In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Design Theories and Models (pp. 386-433). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Earlbaum.

Lamb, M. 2004. “Integrative Motivation in a Globalizing World.” System, 32, 3-19.

Mahmoud, M. 1992. “An Evaluation of the EFL Teachers’ Attitudes toward Teaching English at the Secondary Stage.” Unpublished MA Thesis, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan.

Malallah, S. 2000. “English in an Arabic Environment: Current Attitudes to English among Kuwait University Students.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3/1, 19-43.

Manasreh, M. 2010. “English in an Islamic Cultural Context: Students’ Attitudes to English and advised Practices.” 44th Annual International IatefI Conference, Harrogate, 2010.

McDonough, J., McDonough, S., 2004. Research Methods for English Language Teachers. Arnold, London.

Mihaljević, J. 1998. “Ethnic Stereotypes and English as a Foreign Language Learning.” Studia Romanica Et Anglica Zagrabiensia, 43, 51-60.

Moskovsky, C. and Alrabai, F. 2009. “Intrinsic Motivation in Saudi Learners of English as a Foreign Language.” The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2, 1-10.

Musa, M. 1985. “Why do not our students speak English fluently after eight years of study?”. Journal of Education (UAE). 38. 67-72.

Obydat, M. M. A. 2006. “Instrumental and Integrative Factors that Affect Students’ Decision in Choosing English as a specialization.” Magazine of Educational Sciences, Vol. 9.

Oppenheim, A.N., 2001. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Continuum, New York.

Oxford, R. and Shearin, J. 1994. “Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework.” The Modern Language Journal, 78, i, 12-25.

Qashoa, S. H. 2006. “Motivation among Learners of English in the Secondary Schools in the Eastern Coast of UAE”. Master Thesis, Institute of Education, British University in Dubai. Found at: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/thesis_Sulaiman_Hasan_Qashoa.pdf.  Retrieved 07/07/2010.

Ryan, M. R. and Edward L. D. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.

Salem, N. M. 2006. “The Role of Motivation, Gender, and Language Learning Strategies in EFL Proficiency.” Unpublished MA Thesis, American University of Beirut, Lebanon.

Schmidt, R., D. Boraie, and O. Kassabgy. 1996. “Foreign language motivations: Internal structure and external connections” in R. Oxford (ed.): Language Learning Motivation: Pathways to the New Century. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, (Technical Report #11), pp. 9–70.

Shaaban, K. A. and Gaith, G. 2000. “Student Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language.” Foreign Language Annals, 33, 6, pp. 632-644.

Shaaban, K. and Ghaith, G. 2003. “Effect of Religion, First Foreign Language, and Gender on the Perception of the Utility of Language.” Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2/1, 53–77.

Sinno, Zane Siraj 2008. “The Impact on Language Learning of Lebanese Students’ Attitude towards English in the Context of Globalization and Anti-Americanism.” PhD Thesis, University of Leicester. WWW document found at: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4234/1/2008SirajSinnoZedd.pdf.pdf

Ushioda, E. 1996. Learner autonomy 5: The role of motivation. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.

Vaezi, Z. 2008. “Language Learning Motivation among Iranian Undergraduate Students.” World Applied Sciences Journal, 5 (1): 54-61.

Wen, Q. & Johnson, R. K. 1997. “L2 learner variables and English achievement: a study of tertiary-level English majors in China.” Applied Linguistics, 18:1, 27-48.

Wilkinson, L. & Task Force on Statistical Inference 1999. “Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations.” American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. WWW document found at: http://www.personal.kent.edu/~dfresco/CRM_Readings/Wilkinson_1999.pdf

Zubairi, A. M. and Sarudin, I. H. 2009. “Motivation To Learn A Foreign Language In Malaysia.” GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 9(2), pp. 73-87.

Zughoul, M. and L. Taminian. 1984. “The linguistic attitude of Arab university students: factorial structure and intervening variables.” The International Journal of the Sociology of language. 50, pp. 155-179.

7. Appendix 1: Modified Version of the Motivation Questionnaire

Dear Participant, I would be very grateful if you would help me by providing some information about your English language learning. This is not a test of your knowledge, so there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. I would be interested to know how much you personally agree or disagree with the following statements. Please read the questions carefully and give your answers as truly as possible. Your personal information will be treated in strict confidence and will not be disclosed. Thank you for your cooperation.

Name:……………………………….………Gender:…………….….Year of Study:……………………….

 

  1. I would like you to answer the following statements by simply putting a tick (√) under the answer that suits you best.

5 = strongly agree       4 = agree        3 = neither agree nor disagree         2 = disagree                      1 = strongly disagree

Please choose only ONE answer and put a tick (√) in the box under your choice and check that you do not leave any of them.

1. I study English because it will help me to make friends with people from English-speaking countries.

2. I study English because it will help me understand English art, literature and culture.
3. I study English because it will enable me to understand English films, videos, TV or songs.
4. I study English because it will help me to communicate in English for practical needs if I travel to English-speaking countries.
5. I study English because it is necessary for my future education plans.
6. I study English because it will help me if I ever need to live in English speaking countries.
7. I study English because it will make me more knowledgeable person.
8. I study English because it will help me to get a job.
9. I study English to diversify my linguistic culture
10. I study English to enlarge my cultural repertoire
11. I study English to know about Western civilizations
12. I study English because it will enable me to know about international events and what is around us.
13. I study English to benefit my country and its students in the future for the scientific advancement.
14. I study English because it develops man.
15. I study English because it is a fashion for girls.
16. I study English because my parents encourage me to keep on studying English.
17. I study English because my parents think English is an important language to learn.
18. I study English because my parents think I should spend more time studying English.
19. I study English because the textbooks and the materials used in class are interesting.
20. I study English because learning English is a challenge that I enjoy.
21. I study English because the class tasks and activities are enjoyable.
22. I study English because it is a requirement asked for by most well-known employers.
23. I study English because I need to pass the examinations.
24. I study English because being able to speak English will add to my social status.
25. I study English because it will have financial benefits for me.
26. I study English because it is my parents’ wish.
27. I study English because I feel superior when I speak it
28. I study English because I have a desire to learn it
29. I want to learn as much as I can about the English language.
30. I really enjoy studying English.
31. I like the English lectures.
32. I would rather spend more time on studying other subjects than English.
33. Studying English as a major was not my first choice when I entered the university.
34. My parents think it is not important for me to do well in English.
35. Studying English is a waste of time.
36. The English lectures are boring.
37. I do not like studying English.
  1. I would like you to answer the following statements by simply putting a tick (√) under the statement that suits you best.

 

5 = Always            4 = Often               3 = Sometimes                  2 = Rarely                                  1 = Never  

 

Please choose only ONE answer and put a tick (√) in the box under your choice and check that you do not leave any of them.

38. Do you pay attention when the teacher is explaining the lesson in class?
39. Do you review and correct your assignments when your teachers give them back to you?
40. Do you try to use English outside the class?
41. Do you volunteer to answer questions in the class?
42. Do you question things you do not understand about the English lectures?
43. Do you try hard to understand the English lectures?
44. Do you complete your homework and assignments of the English subjects?

45. Do you prepare yourself for all the tests and examinations of the English subjects?

Thank you for your cooperation

الوسوم: