7 Sheng

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, 2007--2008

INTEGRATIVITY AND INSTRUMENTALITY IN ESL WRITING ACQUISITION Zhaohui Sheng Western Illinois University ABSTRACT The study utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the pattern of motivational constructs that underlie the second language writing acquisition for learners of English as a second language (ESL) in postsecondary school settings. A motivational questionnaire were developed and administered to a sample of 187 ESL college students. Student responses to the questionnaire were factor analyzed and results indicated a lack of distinction between integrative and instrumental orientations. A follow-up interview also questioned a dichotomy of integrativity and instrumentality in ESL writing acquisition. Additionally, requirement motivation was recognized as a distinct motivational construct associated with educational settings but was a negative source of motivational strength.

G

ardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) conceptualization of integrative and instrumental orientations laid the theoretical foundation of the second language (L2) learning 1motivation from a social psychological perspective. Integrative orientation is defined in Gardner and Lambert (1972) as “a willingness to become a member of another ethnolinguistic group” (p. 12) and instrumental orientation as “a desire to gain social recognition or economic advantages through knowledge of a foreign language” (p. 14). Second language acquisition (SLA) research framed in this perspective has investigated the role of integrative and instrumental orientations in a number of contexts and languages and has generally agreed upon a 1

Though Krashen (1982) regarded acquisition and learning as two different concepts, the two terms were used interchangeably in the study. 91

92

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

dichotomy of integrativity and instrumentality in SLA (Dörnyei, 1994; Wen, 1997) despite a few research findings to the contrary (e.g. Clément & Kruidenier, 1983; Ely, 1986). Though considerable motivation research has been carried out in SLA and this line of inquiry has recently undergone significant developments by incorporating theories from general motivational psychology into the L2 field, little attention has been directed to L2 writing motivation. Although individual differences in writers’ motivation toward L2 learning affect the development of L2 writing abilities, L2 writing maintains a distinct research agenda because the qualitative differences exist between L2 writing and SLA. Carson (2001) recognized the interesting interaction between SLA and L2 writing acquisition: L2 competence underlies the acquisition of L2 writing in a fundamental way, but L2 writing acquisition is qualitatively different from SLA. She asserts that one of the essential differences between L2 writing and SLA is in the central foci: the former focuses on learners’ performance while SLA theory aims to describe and explain learners’ competence. She further attributes the difference to the fact that writing is an ability that is “typically developed in formal instructional settings, and a skill most closely tied to educational practices” (p. 191). The present researcher believes that this interaction between SLA and L2 writing acquisition will be implicated in the motivation of L2 writing acquisition. Prior studies in SLA motivation indicate that requirement motivation is a type of motivation associated with educational settings representing compliance with academic requirements (Ely, 1986; Wen, 1997). Ely’s (1986) study explored L2 learning motivation configuration developed from a descriptive survey rather than constructed from a propri theoretical framework. In addition to two motivational clusters corresponding to the integrative and instrumental orientations, his findings recognized a third motivational cluster, which he named requirement motivation, as a salient motivation variable in language learning. Wen (1997) researched on what motivated university students to learning foreign languages and

Zhaohui Sheng 93

verified requirement motivation as a distinct motivation construct in educational settings. Compared to SLA, L2 writing ability is more often acquired and developed in educational settings; therefore, requirement motivation was investigated along with integrative and instrumental orientations in this study.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate if the qualitative differences between SLA and L2 writing acquisition would be implicated in L2 writing motivation. Specifically, the study explores whether or not integrative and instrumental orientations constitute two distinct motivation constructs that underlie second language writing acquisition. Additionally, the study examines the role of requirement motivation in L2 writing acquisition and the interplay between requirement motivation and the integrative and instrumental orientations. Methodology The study utilized quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate the pattern of motivational constructs that underlie the second language writing acquisition for learners of English as a second language (ESL) in postsecondary school settings. Motivational questionnaire that consisted of items in integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, and requirement motivation were developed based on previous research on motivation in second language acquisition and administered to a sample of ESL college students. A follow-up 30-minute semi-structured interview was conducted with each of the selected ESL students who was categorized as either high- or low- motivation students based on their scores

94

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

obtained from the motivation questionnaire. The interview transcripts were content analyzed in terms of L2 writing motives. Participants Students who took the ESL Writing and Grammar classes or the ESL Comp I classes at a mid-western university participated in the study. The ESL Writing & Grammar course, focusing chiefly on grammar and basic writing skills (e.g. introduction, paragraph development, and conclusion), and the ESL Comp I course, aiming at advanced academic writing (e.g. summary-response paper, research paper, etc.), represented the lower and higher writing levels. The sample for this study consisted of 187 undergraduate ESL students enrolled in the two levels of writing classes. Measures An L2 writing motivational questionnaire modeled on AMTB (the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery) (Gardner, 1985) and components of foreign language learning motivation (Dörnyei, 1990) but adapted to address second language writing was designed that consisted of items in three categories: integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, and requirement motivation. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement. Some items were negatively worded. Cronbach alpha coefficient was obtained for each scale to examine item homogeneity and to decide item selection in a pilot study. The final questionnaire contained three integrative orientation items, five instrumental orientation items, and three requirement motivation items. Table 1 listed the eleven items and item numbers in the questionnaire.

Zhaohui Sheng 95

Integrative motivation. The integrativity scale consisted of three items (Items 3, 5, 8). All the items indicated a desire to learn ESL writing out of interest in English culture and its people. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for this scale was .76.

96

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Instrumental motivation. Items 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10 comprised the instrumentality scale that conveyed the attitude of regarding ESL writing as a means to future employment. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .77. Requirement motivation. Items 4, 9 and 11 expressed a clear passive attitude toward taking ESL writing courses. These items illustrate that learning ESL writing is out of an externally exerted motive. The Cronbach alpha was .62. The correlations among the 11 items as well as means and standard deviations were presented in Table 2.

Zhaohui Sheng 97

Analysis Exploratory factor analyses were carried out in SPSS FACTOR to determine potential motivation constructs in the target ESL writing population. The responses to the eleven questionnaire items went through factor extraction. The number of factors was decided by the Kaiser-Guttman rule and the examination of the scree test. Categories of items were formed by assigning each item to the factor on which it loaded most highly. The SPSS FACTOR results were further examined in structural equation modeling to evaluate the relationship between integrative and instrumental motivation. Based upon scores on the motivation questionnaire, a high- and a low-motivation student from each writing level were contacted individually for a follow-up 30-minute semi-structured interview. Each interview started with an initial warm-up talk and a brief introduction of the general context and purpose of the study and proceeded with a list of loosely guided questions on students’ L2 writing motivation. The average interview lasted approximately twenty-five minutes. Their verbal interview data were content analyzed following the procedures developed by Colaizzi (1978). Significant statements were extracted from the transcriptions. Meanings were then formulated from these significant statements. Formulated meanings were aggregated into clusters of motives that represent students’ perspective of L2 writing motivation. Factor analyses results were compared with the motivation constructs emerged from the interview data.

98

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Results Findings from Quantitative Analyses Examination of Eigen values and the scree plot suggested the presence of three factors because changes from the third factor to the fourth factor became small compared with differences between the first three factors (Figure 1). Factor loadings from the SPSS FACTOR analysis were presented in Table 3. The three requirement motivation items converged on a single factor, though the loading for Item 9 was weak. The integrativity and instrumentality items failed to converge on the intended factors. Items 6 and 7 that should have loaded highly with the instrumentality factor loaded instead on the integrativity factor. The results indicate a salient requirement motivation construct in ESL writing motivation but failed to separate integrative and instrumental orientations. Scree Plot 5

4

3

Eigenv alue

2

1

0 1

2

3

Factor Number

Figure 1. The screen plot

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Zhaohui Sheng 99

Table 3 Exploratory Factor Analysis: Factor Loadings (N=187) 1 Integrativity Item 3 Item 5 Item 8 Instrumentality Item 1 Item 2 Item 10 Item 6 Item 7 Requirement Item 4 Item 9 Item 11

Factors 2

3

.582 .668 .793 .690 .920 .608 .584 .567 .725 .218 .926

Additional evaluation of integrativity and instrumentality motivation constructs was carried out in structural equation modeling. A two-factor model with separate integrativity and instrumentality factors (see Figure 2) was specified to assess the relationship between the two constructs. The magnitude of the correlation (r = .69) supported the SPSS FACTOR findings that integrativity and instrumentality are not distinct constructs in L2 writing motivation.

100

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

.42

IT_3

.65

.92

.96

M_IT

eIT3

IT_5

.57

eIT5 .33

IT_8

eIT8 .48

.69

IS_1

eIS1

IS_2

eIS2

.69 .87

M_IS

.75

.50 .52 .61

IS_6

eIS6

.25

IS_7

eIS7

.27

IS_10 .38

Figure 2. Two-factor model (N=187) Note. IT=Integrativity IS=Instrumentality

eIS10

Zhaohui Sheng 101

Interview Findings Results from the interviews with the selected four participants were presented in Table 4. Three interviewees except the unmotivated student from the lower writing level class expressed that their motivation to learn L2 writing was for the sake of communication. However, it was difficult to distinguish whether for them effective communication served the purpose of becoming a member of the target culture or meant some social-economic advantages such as a better opportunity of finding a job. A combination of integrativity and instrumentality seemed more likely and the latter seemed more salient than the former because among all those cited effective communication as a motive to learn L2 writing, one acknowledged the benefit of better job opportunities and another mentioned social recognition as a benefit that came with effective communication. None of the interviewees mentioned that learning L2 writing would benefit them in appreciating English culture, art, or literature. The two unmotivated students said that the main reason for them to learn L2 writing was to fulfill university requirement. They regarded writing as “not of much use” and “difficult” 2and therefore they were not interested in L2 writing at all. Only the motivated student from the lower level writing class expressed a genuine interest in L2 writing per se and his enjoyment of writing. He sought to write as well as or even better than his Americaborn cousins and said, “If you want to be at the top, you must be good at English, both spoken and written.”2 Coupled with his desire for social recognition was a need for achievement motivation.

2

2

Quotes were from the interview transcriptions.

102

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

Discussion Lack of Distinction in Integrative and Instrumental Motivations The quantitative analysis and interview results suggest lack of distinction between integrativity and instrumentality in L2 writing acquisition. This finding reinforces the intricacy of the integrative and instrumental orientations conceptualized by Gardner and his associates. Although Gardner & Lambert (1972) defined the two orientations and Gardner (1985) clarified the differences between the two orientations, there were divergent empirical findings regarding the two constructs even in SLA. Ely (1986), based on Clément & Kruidenier’s (1983) research on problems related to the definitions and operationalization of the two types of motivation, stated that “a particular reason for language study can be either integrative or instrumental, depending on the social and psychological factors involved” (p. 28). Additionally, lack of distinction in the two motivational orientations illustrates Carson’s (2001) claims of differences between second language acquisition and second language writing. Carson (2001) indicates that L2 writing acquisition is qualitatively different from SLA because writing is an ability that is “typically developed in formal instructional settings and a skill most closely tied to educational practices” (Carson, 2001, p. 191). Such characteristics of writing suggest that learning to write in English, unlike SLA, is less socially and culturally bound, especially in writing beyond the basic level. After all, pragmatic competence in academic writing is not an urgent requirement to be a member of another ethnolinguistic group; therefore, integrative motivation plays a less distinct role in L2 writing. This finding implies that while not neglecting the training of other language skills, language teachers need give special attention to the training of writing skills. The relative more salience in instrumentality as revealed from the interview suggests that language

Zhaohui Sheng 103

teachers may design strategies that enable students see the relevance of writing to themselves, especially to their majors and their future work. Requirement Motivation and Demotivation Prior studies in SLA motivation indicate that requirement motivation is a type of motivation associated with educational settings representing compliance with academic requirements and is a nonsignificant negative predicator of strength of motivation (Ely, 1986; Wen, 1997). Factor analysis recognizes requirement motivation as a motivation construct in the present research. The interviews reveal that only low-motivation students displayed this type of motivation and therefore reinforces that requirement motivation is a negative source of motivation. -Interviews with the low-motivation students suggest that demotivation can occur when an individual attaches little value to the task and he/she perceives little or low chance to accomplish the given task, corresponding to the tenets specified in the expectancy-value theories that motivation to perform a certain task is determined by two key factors: the individual’s expectancy of success in the given task and the value the individual attaches to success in that task. The implication for ESL writing instruction is to develop strategies to enhance the relevance of L2 writing and to promote students’ selfefficacy in L2 writing. Need for Achievement According to Atkinson’s achievement motivation theory (Atkinson & Raynor, 1974, cited in Dörnyei, 2001), “individuals with a high need for achievement are interested in excellence for its own sake (rather than for the extrinsic reward it can bring), tend to initiate

104

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

achievement activities, work with heightened intensity at these tasks, and persist in the face of failure. This need becomes part of an individual’s personality and affects the person’s behavior in every facet of life, including education” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 21). The motivated student from the lower writing level class demonstrated these attributes. Prior research in foreign language acquisition indicates need for achievement is a motivation factor (Dörnyei, 1990) because foreign language, unlike second language, is generally learned at educational settings, a characteristic shared by the acquisition of L2 writing that is chiefly classroom-based. Although interview findings are not conclusive, the present research indicates need for achievement is a potential motivation factor in L2 writing acquisition. Summary The study findings provide empirical support for the interaction between SLA and L2 writing in Carson (2001) as implicated in L2 writing motivation. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses questioned a dichotomy of integrativity and instrumentality in ESL writing acquisition. Additionally, motivation constructs relating to academic settings emerge in L2 writing acquisition such as requirement motivation and need for achievement motivation. These findings suggest that although second language acquisition includes second language writing acquisition, the configuration of L2 writing motivation could be different from that of SLA in that L2 writing acquisition is typically developed in formal instructional settings.

Zhaohui Sheng 105

The study used convenience sampling and was restrained in the number of ESL writing students that could be obtained. Additionally, interpretation of interview data could be biased by the researcher’s perspectives. These limitations would influence the generalizability of the findings. With a larger sample size, future studies could verify the current findings on other populations. Moreover, future studies may extend the current research and explore possible motivational changes with students in different levels of writing courses.

106

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

REFERENCES Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (Eds.). (1974). Motivation and Achievement. Washington, DC: Winston & Sons. Carson, J. (2001). Second language writing and second language acquisition. In T. Silva, & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp.191-99). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: I. The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33, 273-291. Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valie & M. King (Eds.), Existential Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language Learning, 40, 45-78. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching in motivation. London: Longman. Ely, C. M. (1986). Language learning motivation: A descriptive and causal analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 28-35. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Baltimore, MA: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272. Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. London: Pergamon. Wen, X. (1997). Motivation and language learning with students of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 235-251.