348 Mother Tongue Education: Standard Language
should read for pleasure and a full range of other
functions. They should learn to write confidently
and develop their own voices; and they should ex-
pand on their ability to speak and understand spoken
language(s). In school, learners should feel free to
take risks in language and experiment with new
forms, words and styles. None of this translates into
the rigidity of traditional school standards.
Supporting Language Development
Whether they teach in the mother tongue or in a
national language, school language curricula should
support expansion of language, building on the moth-
er tongue of the learners. In language development at
all levels, there is constant disequilibrium between
the inventions of the learner and the conventions of
the language. Learners should be encouraged to take
risks as they learn a new language or as they use
new forms of their first language or a new genre. In
this push and pull they move toward the conven-
tions of the language form and use it successfully.
Language learners should be encouraged to study lan-
guage variation in their own communities. Students
take on the role of linguists as they inquire into
language processes and their uses.
Schools have tended to suppress linguistic inven-
tion pushing learners toward an oversimplified or
misrepresented version of the conventional language.
Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning
R C Gardner, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario, Canada
ß 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The concepts of motivation and attitudes have been
associated with individual differences in second lan-
guage learning since at least the 1950s, and over the
years numerous perspectives and issues have devel-
oped. The corresponding research has been intensive
and varied, and today there exist many different con-
structs and theoretical models seeking to explain in-
dividual differences in second language learning and
use. The intent of this article is to consider the area in
general, to discuss some of the more dominant per-
spectives and theoretical models, and to review some
of the issues that are of interest to researchers and
educators in this field.
Rather, pupils should be invited to participate in
authentic speech acts and literacy events in which
they encounter socially constructed conventions.
Teachers can play a powerful role in demonstrating
the conventions in their own authentic language use
and in mediating the students as they experience
the richness of language in its multiple forms and
functions.
See also: Educational Linguistics; Language Policies: Po-
licies on Language in Europe; Language Policy in Multi-
lingual Educational Contexts.
Bibliography
Ferreiro E, Pontecorvo C, Ribeiro N & y Garcia-Hidalgo I
(1996). Caperucita Roja aprende a escribir: estudios psi-
colingüı́sticos comparativos en tres lenguas. Barcelona
(Coleccion LEA): Gedisa.
Read C (1975). Children’s categorization of speech sounds
in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
English.
Read C (1986). Children’s creative spelling. London, Bos-
ton: Routledge & Kegan.
UNESCO (1953). The use of vernacular languages in
education. Paris: UNESCO, 1953.
UNESCO (2004). International mother language day 2004
press release. No. 2004-12.
http://www.unesco.org
Motivation Defined
The term motivation is used in the area of language
learning with many definitions, processes, and
measures proposed, and this variety is shared with
the general area of psychology. In the early history
of psychology, motivation was considered variously
in terms of reinforcement, instincts, expectancy, va-
lence, needs, and drive reduction. Recently, there has
been more of a focus on process-oriented concep-
tualizations, including but not limited to curiosity,
self-determination, causal attributions, and goal
setting.
Some of the conceptualizations referred to above
are represented in one form or another in the area of
motivation in second language learning, and there
have been calls for more attention to be given to
others (see, for example, Crookes and Schmidt,
 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning 349
1991; Oxford and Shearin, 1994). Dörnyei and Ottó
provided a formal definition of motivation as ‘‘the
dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person
that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, termi-
nates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor process-
es whereby initial wishes and desires are selected,
prioritised, operationalised, and (successfully or un-
successfully) acted out’’ (1998: 65). This is a very
comprehensive definition but it might not be accepted
by all researchers. In fact, in his excellent book on
motivation and second language acquisition, Dörnyei
pointed out that most agreement would be obtained
from researchers that motivation concerns the direc-
tion and magnitude of behavior, and that it is ‘‘re-
sponsible 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’’ (2001: 8;
italics in the original). This latter characterization is
closer to that proposed by Gardner, who defined
motivation in second language acquisition as ‘‘the
combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal
of learning the language plus favourable attitudes
toward learning the language’’ (1985: 10).
Attitudes Defined
The term attitude is also used quite extensively in the
language-learning literature, and it too has a very
large number of associated linkages. An early defini-
tion proposed by Allport in 1935 characterized
attitude as ‘‘a mental and neural state of readiness,
organized through experience, exerting a directive or
dynamic influence upon the individual’s response to
all objects and situations with which it is related’’
(Allport, 1954: 45). Attitudes are considered to have
cognitive, affective, and conative components and
can be further characterized in terms of their direc-
tion, magnitude, intensity, ambivalence, cognitive
complexity, embeddedness, flexibility, salience, and
consciousness (cf., Scott, 1968). In terms of standard
attitude measurement techniques, however, the as-
sessment of attitudes tends to make use of question-
naires that focus on evaluative reactions to the
attitude object. Thus, Gardner proposed that ‘‘an
individual’s attitude is an evaluative reaction to
some referent or attitude object, inferred on the
basis of the individual’s beliefs or opinions about the
referent’’ (1985: 9); reference to beliefs and opinions
is made because of the way in which they are typically
measured, though obviously attitudes also can be
inferred on the basis of other aspects of behavior as
well. Consideration of the two concepts, attitude and
motivation, makes it very clear that they are closely
interrelated. Motivation has attitudinal components,
and attitudes have motivational implications, and
the bulk of studies in the area of second language
acquisition tend to recognize this interrelationship.
Theoretical Conceptualizations of
Motivation in Second Language Learning
The definition of motivation proposed by Dörnyei
and Ottó (1998) is important because it highlights the
many features of motivation in terms of its dynamic
nature, its continuity over time, and its implications
for the task at hand. Similarly, Allport’s (1954) defi-
nition of attitude provided a clear insight into its
dynamic nature, notwithstanding its overall continu-
ity as well. It is clear that both constructs are com-
plex, interrelated, and implicated in most behavioral
activities, and this is reflected in the research on indi-
vidual differences in second language acquisition.
A close inspection of the literature will reveal that
although many researchers are concerned with the
role played by attitudes and motivation, there are a
number of different trails that have been followed.
That is, there are conceivably a very large number of
possible attitudes (in terms of attitude objects) and
motives (in terms of reasons for doing an activity)
that might be investigated. Moreover, each of these
can be considered in terms of at least three different
and distinct levels of analysis and generalization. In
the area of motivation to learn another language,
these can be classified in terms of three perspectives,
societal, activity-centered, and individual.
Perspective I
The societal perspective of motivation focuses on
community-level reasons for learning a second lan-
guage. Because of different social and political exi-
gencies or historical precedents, different cultures or
national groups have different pressures on them to
learn other languages or to attempt to revive or main-
tain their own language. In fact, the societal level was
perhaps one of the first approaches to the concept of
motivation in second language acquisition. In the lead
article of the inaugural issue of Language Learning,
Marckwardt identified five motives for learning an-
other language, and at least four of them focus more
on societal reasons than on individual ones. The pri-
mary one, and clearly the more individualistic, is for
self-cultural development, viz., ‘‘a knowledge of mod-
ern languages is one of the accomplishments of a
cultivated man’’ (1948: 3). The others refer to such
societal reasons as maintaining the ethnic identity of a
minority group, assimilation of an ethnic minority,
promotion of trade and commerce, and scientific and
technical usefulness. The actual descriptions of the
motives clearly place emphasis on why individuals
should learn other languages for the good of the
350 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning
community. In all five cases, these motives can be seen
as pressures placed by society on individuals to learn
another language.
Societal motives are sometimes mistaken for in-
dividual ones, either by the researcher or by the indi-
vidual student. Thus, when students state that their
reason for studying a language is to obtain a degree,
or to meet an academic requirement, etc., they are not
really reporting on a motive of their own, but rather
are voicing pressures exerted by society. In some of
the literature, these types are described as extrinsic
motives, but they are really pressures imposed by
society. They could be considered motives that have
been internalized by the individual if they are linked
to other aspects of motivation; otherwise they are best
characterized as reflecting external pressures. The
important point is that motives are named on the
basis of the reason for engaging in the particular
activity, but motivation involves a series of related
consequences such as effort, persistence, interest,
and enjoyment. Without these, a reason is just a
reason, not a motive.
Perspective II
The second perspective treats motivation as a charac-
teristic of the individual that is tied directly to the task
at hand. Constructs associated with this type of model
are state motivation, which refers specifically to the
motivation to do well at a specific time (cf., Gardner
et al., 2004; Heckhausen, 1991), and ‘‘on-line moti-
vation’’ (Boekaerts, 2002), which focuses on the task
itself and includes emotions, appraisals, and inten-
tions before the task begins and emotions, attribu-
tions, and effort reported at the end of the task.
Elements of these constructs are represented in many
models, but one model that focuses directly on the
task of language learning is that proposed by Dörnyei
and Ottó (1998). It consists of three phases: preac-
tional, actional, and postactional. It is a model that
treats motivation in very conscious terms. Individuals
have objectives, set goals, perform acts, experience
their outcomes, appraise their success, and behave
accordingly. It is an informative analysis of what
takes place at specific stages of learning and as such
provides very useful perspectives for individuals
concerned with explaining specific behaviors in lan-
guage learning. It does not, however, deal with aspects
of motivation of which the individual is unaware
(unconscious features) or long-range motivation.
Perspective III
The third perspective has been characterized by
Dörnyei (2001) as comprising two different approa-
ches. One focuses on social motivation that treats
second language acquisition as a task closely linked
with self-identity and ethnic relations. The other is
described as ‘‘education-friendly’’ and focuses on the
individual and classroom interactions. Both treat the
motivation to learn the language in terms of relatively
stable affective characteristics. That is, motivation to
learn another language is seen as a general disposition
of the individual that nonetheless may be influenced
by a number of external factors.
One of the earliest studies based on the social mo-
tivation approach was conducted by Gardner and
Lambert (1959), based on Lambert’s seminal research
and theorizing on bilingualism (see, for example,
Lambert, 1955, 1967). In their study, Gardner
and Lambert demonstrated that two factors, lan-
guage aptitude and motivation, were associated with
achievement in French among a sample of English-
speaking high school students. The motivation factor
was characterized by a high level of motivational
intensity to learn French, favorable attitudes toward
French Canadians, and a preference for integrative
as opposed to instrumental reasons for learning
the language – the so-called integrative–instrumental
dichotomy, which subsequently became a topic of
much discussion (see below).
There have been a number of models that have
developed from this tradition. One of the earliest
was the socioeducational model of second language
acquisition (Gardner and Smythe, 1975; Gardner,
1985). The basic assumption underlying this model
is that language is a significant part of one’s self-
identity and that learning another language is much
more complex than learning another school subject
because it involves ‘‘the acquisition of skills or behav-
iour patterns which are characteristic of another cul-
tural community’’ (Gardner, 1985: 146). In the
socioeducational model, second language learning is
seen to take place in the context of a series of ante-
cedent experiential and biological factors (such as the
sociocultural milieu, and prior educational experi-
ences, gender, etc.) which act on a host of individual
variables. These individual difference variables in
turn act in conjunction with formal and informal
language acquisition contexts to yield linguistic and
nonlinguistic outcomes.
Although a number of individual difference vari-
ables, such as language aptitude, intelligence, lan-
guage anxiety, instrumental orientation, and
language learning strategies, are considered in the
socioeducational model, the major attention is direct-
ed toward the concept of integrative motivation. The
model proposes that two attitudinal factors, integra-
tiveness and attitudes toward the learning situation,
serve as supports for and influences on the motiva-
tion to learn another language and that motivation
and language aptitude are two primary variables
 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning 351
influencing achievement. It also allows that other af-
fective individual difference variables, such as lan-
guage anxiety and an instrumental orientation, may
influence second language learning. The constellation
of integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situ-
ation, and motivation has been described as reflecting
an integrative motive to learn another language in that
the integratively motivated individual is perceived as
one who has an open interest in the other language
community and other ethnic communities in general,
perceives the language learning context positively, and
expresses a high degree of motivation to learn the
language. Associated with this model is the Attitude
Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), which is designed
to measure various features of the integrative motive
as well as instrumental orientation and language anx-
iety, and has been used in many investigations in this
area (see, for example, Gardner, 1985, 2000).
Clément (1980) proposed an alternative model that
considered many of the same variables, but focused
more attention on the social context and the relative
vitality of the first- and second-language commu-
nities. Integrativeness and fear of assimilation were
seen to influence the motivation to learn a second
language in unilingual communities but to be
mediated by the frequency and quality of contact
and the resulting self-confidence in the language in
multicultural contexts. Individual differences in mo-
tivation resulted in competence in the language,
which in turn could influence the individual’s level
of acculturation. In subsequent research, this model
has been modified and extended to deal with accul-
turation of ethnic minority group members (cf.,
Clément, 1986; Noels et al., 1996).
MacIntyre et al. (1998) proposed a Willingness to
Communicate Model that is based on similar con-
structs as these models, but viewed the ultimate goal
as willingness to communicate rather than achieve-
ment itself. This is an important development in this
area in that it stresses that the ultimate goal is not to
learn the language but to develop the competence and
the confidence to use it in communication. Like the
other models discussed in this section, it includes
variables associated with integrative motivation.
Also, like Noel’s (2001) self-determination model
(see below), it includes some personality characteris-
tics, etc., but it places ultimate use of the language at
the pinnacle of a pyramid and actual learning further
down, whereas the other models treat ultimate
communication more or less as a given of learning
the language. As many language teachers will note,
however, this is not a foregone conclusion.
Noels (2001) has proposed a model of second
language acquisition based on Deci and Ryan’s
(1985) self-determination model. It considers both
intergroup and individual motivational processes and
links them to six classes of variables. These are imme-
diate social contact, fundamental needs, orientations,
intention and engagement, L2 use, and linguistic and
nonlinguistic outcomes. In this model, proficiency in
the other language is seen as a linguistic outcome
resulting from the interplay of contact with the lan-
guage with four fundamental needs, social identity,
relatedness, autonomy, and competence leading to
three orientations, integrative, intrinsic, and extrin-
sic. These in turn can influence the willingness to
communicate and the effort and persistence demon-
strated in learning the language, which in turn leads
to language use and ultimately proficiency and some
possible changes in identity. As can be seen, this
model is comparable to the others discussed above,
although, as with the willingness to communicate
model, it is perhaps more detailed in that it explicitly
identifies many variables that might be implicated in
language learning. The overlap is recognized by
Noels, who claimed that ‘‘The primary contribution
of this approach lies in that it figuratively takes a
magnifying glass to look more closely at the nature
of orientations, how they are affected by significant
others in different contexts, and how they may be
differentially related to L2 variables’’ (2001: 61).
These models vary in terms of parsimony, with the
socioeducational and the social context models being
the most parsimonious in that they involve fewer
variables and processes than the others. They are all
similar, however, in that each of them recognizes that
second language acquisition involves the acquisition
of features that are characteristic of a different cul-
ture. This in turn could have implications for feelings
of self-identity for some individuals.
The education-friendly models place more of an
emphasis on characteristics of the individual, and
the implications this can have for learning, and focus
on variables that could be appropriate to any learning
situation. Dörnyei (2001) described a number of such
models, some of which are drawn from other fields of
psychology, including educational psychology. One
example of such a model is Dörnyei’s (1994) ‘‘extend-
ed motivational framework.’’ This model considers
motivation in terms of three levels, the language
level, the learner level, and the learning situation
level, and proposes that each of them can supplement
or cancel the motivation generated at the other levels.
The language level focuses on motivation associated
with the language itself (i.e., the community, value of
knowing the language, etc.); the learner level refers to
characteristics of the student similar to the social
motivation models; and the learning situation level
focuses on motivation deriving from the curriculum,
the teacher, and the classroom.
352 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning
Another example of an education-friendly model is
the social constructivist model proposed by Williams
and Burden (1997). This model distinguishes between
internal factors, such as the individual’s intrinsic in-
terest, perceived value, feelings of competence, and
attitudes about the language, and external factors,
such as significant others, the learning environment,
and the social context. This model includes a large
number of variables that could be implicated in the
language learning situation that would be of particu-
lar interest to teachers and educators who wish to
consider various aspects that could influence an
individual’s level of achievement in the language.
Each of these models is useful in helping us under-
stand the learning process, in making us aware of
variables that can influence learning, and in suggest-
ing perspectives that we might embrace. It is impor-
tant to note, however, that the models are not
contradictory. None makes a prediction that is not
consistent with the others. The models do differ
somewhat in the specificity of the processes involved,
varying from statements about how variables in the
model influence or effect others to largely a descrip-
tion of variables or classes of variables that can be
involved. They also differ in terms of the amount of
research that has been devoted to testing specific pre-
dictions deriving from them. Clearly, there are a num-
ber of different ways of conceptualizing motivation in
second language acquisition and in the types of atti-
tude variables that might be implicated. An interest-
ing question, however, is whether or not they capture
different sources of variation in second language
achievement. That is, each of them postulates the
importance of somewhat different constructs and
processes, but to the extent that they all are concerned
with explaining the role of motivation in second lan-
guage learning, one might well ask whether any one
model would contribute to prediction over another or
whether the ultimate degree of prediction of achieve-
ment would be essentially the same regardless of the
model followed. If this is the case, the value in
the model rests not so much in accounting for varia-
tion in achievement but in the nature of the variables
to be emphasized.
Issues
There are many questions that have been raised by
researchers and educators about the role of motiva-
tion and attitudes in second language acquisition, and
at least five of these have become issues that are
relatively central to this area of research.
One very basic question deals with the direction of
causation between attitudes and motivation on the
one hand and language achievement on the other. It
is implied in many of the models that individual
differences in motivation are responsible in part
for differences in achievement, but it has been ques-
tioned whether this is the most meaningful cause–
effect sequence. One could equally argue that
achievement in the language promotes motivation
and favorable attitudes (cf., Ellis, 1994). When deal-
ing with the relationship between individual differ-
ences, however, it is not possible to demonstrate
simple causation of the nature that A causes B. The
only way to demonstrate such causation is to ran-
domly assign individuals to the various values of
A and to assess whether this results in variation in
B (cf., Gardner, 2000). The attempt to use procedures
such as structural equation modeling to demonstrate
the direction of causation is not a solution. Such
‘causal models’ are not tests of causation, but simply
tests of one way of explaining relationships in terms
of regression coefficients. This is a big difference!
With characteristics that individuals bring with
them to any situation, random assignment is not pos-
sible; hence, unequivocal conclusions about causa-
tion are not possible. Though this may seem like a
major problem, in point of fact, the direction of cau-
sality is immaterial. To the extent that there is a
correlation between motivation and achievement in
the population, this means that there are conditional
(Bayesian) probabilities linking the two variables. For
example, a positive correlation demonstrates that
there is an increased probability that an individual
with high levels of motivation will be more successful
in learning the language than an individual with low
levels and there is also an increased probability that
the individual who is successful in learning the lan-
guage will be more motivated to learn the language
than an individual who is less successful.
This can be demonstrated by an example from a
study we recently conducted in Spain (Gardner and
Bernaus, 2004). In that study, a correlation of 0.40
was obtained between motivation assessed in the
autumn and the following spring grades in English
among a sample of 166 Level 2 secondary school
students. Further analysis revealed that the probabil-
ity that individuals scoring above the median in moti-
vation would be in the top 30% on achievement was
0.40, whereas the probability was 0.19 for those
scoring below the median on motivation (i.e., twice
as great). Similarly, those above the median on
achievement were more likely to be in the top 30%
of motivation with a probability of 0.37, whereas
the probability of those below the median on
achievement being in the top 30% on motivation
was 0.23 (again close to twice (1.61) as great).
These are not certainties, of course, and could vary
from sample to sample, but they do indicate clearly
 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning 353
that a correlation as low as 0.40 has clear implica-
tions about the conditional probabilities that operate
when it is established that there is a correlation
between two variables.
A second, but related, issue involves the degree of
relationship between the two classes of variables. It is
true that a correlation of 0.40 between motivation
and achievement indicates that only 16% of the
variation of one of the variables is explained by
the other (cf., Ellis, 1994; Dörnyei, 2001), and as a
consequence, some researchers consider low correla-
tions to be trivial. The first part of this statement is
true; the last part is arguable. Cohen described a
correlation of 0.30 as reflecting a medium effect and
that such a relationship ‘‘would be perceptible to the
naked eye of a reasonably sensitive observer’’(1988:
80). He noted too that ‘‘many of the correlation
coefficients encountered in behavioral science are of
this magnitude’’ (1988: 80). Moreover, as indicated
above, such a correlation still implies a level of
conditional probabilities that are not trivial.
A third issue is long-standing and deals with the
distinction between integrative and instrumental
orientations. In their initial study, Gardner and
Lambert (1959) classified students as integrative or
instrumental in their orientation to studying French
as a second language based on the reason they ranked
as most applicable to themselves. The results demon-
strated that individuals who were integratively
orientated were more motivated, had more favorable
attitudes toward French Canadians, and had higher
levels of achievement in French than those who were
instrumentally oriented. In subsequent research (e.g.,
Gardner and Lambert, 1972; Gardner and Smythe,
1975), this dichotomous measure was dropped in
favor of separate measures of the applicability of
each type of orientation to language learning. Al-
though the results demonstrated that the two orienta-
tions were positively related to each other, many
other researchers and educators tended to emphasize
the relative superiority of one over the other (cf.,
Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Oxford and Shearin,
1994). A meta-analysis conducted by Masgoret and
Gardner (2003) demonstrated that achievement
tended to be more highly related to individual differ-
ences in an integrative orientation than in an instru-
mental one but the differences were not large. In fact,
the mean correlations were relatively low over all,
though in the various samples, correlations with
grades were as low as 0.21 and as high as 0.56.
For three different types of achievement measure
(grades, objective measures, and self-ratings), the
mean correlations ranged from 0.15 to 0.20 for inte-
grative orientation and 0.08 to 0.16 for instrumental
orientation.
Some of the questions concerning the lack of im-
portance of the role of attitudes and motivation in
second language acquisition derive from individuals
who focus only on the orientations (cf., Crookes and
Schmidt, 1991) rather than considering the other at-
titudinal and motivational variables. All of the social
motivation models include other attitude and motiva-
tion measures, however. In the socioeducational
model, for example, Gardner (1985, 2000) stressed
that motivation, not orientations, is the major
affective variable implicated in second language
learning, but that it is supported and maintained by
integrativeness (as distinct from simply an integrative
orientation) and evaluation of the learning situation.
He has proposed (Gardner, 2000) that many factors
might contribute to motivation, even though integra-
tiveness will always be important because of the link
between language, ethnicity, and self-identity.
A fourth issue has to do with the distinction between
second and foreign language learning. Inspection of the
literature reveals that there are at least two reasons for
making such a distinction, one based on the availability
of the language in the community (cf., Oxford and
Shearin, 1994) and the other on the sociopolitical im-
portance of the other language (cf., Dörnyei, 2001). It
has been proposed that motivational and attitudinal
variables would play slightly different roles in the case
of a second as opposed to a foreign language learning
context, but to date there has been little evidence to
support such a hypothesis. For example, a meta-analy-
sis of research conducted by Gardner and associates
failed to detect an effect of bilingual vs. monolingual
settings on the relationship between motivation and
language achievement (Masgoret and Gardner, 2003).
Furthermore, research conducted in Hungary, in which
English is clearly a foreign (as opposed to a second)
language, found significant relationships between inte-
grative motivational types of variables and achieve-
ment in English (Dörnyei and Clément, 2001).
Perhaps the most dominant issue currently is the
distinction between motivation and motivating and
the implications that the education-friendly vs. the
social motivational models have for this distinction.
Education-friendly models highlight features that
educators might use to motivate students. Close in-
spection of these models will reveal, however, that
many of the features discussed are common to virtu-
ally any subject from mathematics to history (i.e.,
interest, intrinsic motivation, teaching techniques,
course content, causal attributions, feedback, arousal
of curiosity, feelings of competence, age, and gender).
These are important attributes to be sure, but it
is important to determine whether these models con-
tribute anything to the prediction of achievement
or related behaviors such as the willingness to
354 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning
communicate that is not predicted by the social moti-
vation models. Clearly, there is nothing in the edu-
cation-friendly models that is inconsistent with
predictions from the social motivation models, or
vice versa, and the social motivation models could
incorporate the other features without changing
their basic assumptions or postulates.
The problem of motivating students is one that can
be difficult in the context of second language learning
if one accepts that such learning involves a construct
such as integrativeness. In the socioeducational model
(Gardner, 1985), integrativeness involves more than
just an integrative orientation. It refers to the individ-
ual’s cultural openness and interest in other commu-
nities and languages and favorable attitudes toward
the target language group as well as an integrative
orientation. Integrativenss is a higher-order construct
with many levels. At one level, it can mean simply a
willingness or capacity to take on characteristics of
another cultural community. At another, it can reflect
a full desire to identify and integrate with the other
community. Most language learners do not study
languages in order to become members of another
cultural community (though some might), but at a
minimum they must be able to make features (i.e.,
language) of another community part of their own
behavioral repertoire, and there are individual
differences in the ability (or willingness) to do this.
Two examples from the literature illustrate possible
extremes of an integrativeness dimension. One, de-
scribed by Nida (1956), was the case of an individual,
the son of immigrants, who identified strongly with
the American way of life and hid his immigrant back-
ground while growing up. Despite a superior language
program and a strong motivation to learn a foreign
language to aid him in his life as a missionary, he was
unsuccessful in learning the language. Nida proffered
that his earlier rejection of his immigrant background
made him incapable of learning a foreign language. At
the other extreme, Lambert (1955) described an
American graduate student majoring in French who
measured dominant in French on measures of bilin-
gualism. This student had an extreme attachment with
France, read French newspapers, etc., and planned to
move there when he graduated. Although these are
extreme examples, they serve to define the potential
extremes of integrativeness from high negative to high
positive and also indicate that the effects of integra-
tiveness on motivation might well be unconscious.
That is, individuals might want to learn a language
but because of emotional issues associated with eth-
nicity simply may not be capable of doing so.
The construct of integrativeness has implications for
the issue of motivating students. Educators may use
procedures to motivate students, but these techniques
may well be ineffective for some students, and it is
important to conduct research to evaluate their effec-
tiveness in motivating students to actually learn and
use the language. Recently, we investigated attitudinal
and motivational changes over a year-long course, and
the results were instructive. Two studies were con-
ducted, one with Canadian university students of
French as a second language (Gardner et al., 2004)
and the other with EFL secondary school students in
Spain (Gardner and Bernaus, 2004). In both studies,
significant interactions were obtained between ulti-
mate achievement in the course and time of testing for
attitudes toward the learning situation but not for
other attitudinal and motivational characteristics
measured by the AMTB. In both studies, students
who were ultimately successful in the course evi-
denced relative increases in attitudes toward the
learning situation, whereas students who were least
successful showed declines and the middle students
showed virtually no change. That is, the degree of
success in the course had an effect only on reactions
to the course and/or the teacher. Admittedly, there
was no attempt to investigate specific motivation-
al techniques, but the teachers in the study, like
most teachers, were quite likely doing their best to
teach the students and to motivate them. In both
studies, there was also a tendency for the measures
of integrativeness and motivation to become less pos-
itive over the course of the year, but these changes
generally were not moderated by ultimate success in
the course. The implication is therefore that what
goes on in the course can influence learning and reac-
tions to the learning situation but not integrativeness
or motivation. It is possible, therefore, that educators’
attempts to motivate students could result in im-
proved reactions to the course but not in more general
attitudes, motivation, or the willingness to use the
language outside the classroom environment. Clearly,
much more research is required to investigate the
issue of motivating students in language classes to
determine whether or not it has the desired effect in
terms of achievement and willingness to use the lan-
guage. This is an important challenge for the future.
See also: Bilingualism and Second Language Learning;
Identity: Second Language; Intercultural Pragmatics and
Communication; Interlanguage; Language Attitudes; Sec-
ond and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching.
Bibliography
Allport G W (1954). ‘The historical background of modern
social psychology.’ In Lindsey G (ed.) Handbook of
social psychology, vol. 1, Theory and method. Cam-
bridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. 3–56.
 Motivation and Attitudes in Second Language Learning 355
Boekaerts M (2002). ‘The on-line motivation question-
naire: A self-report instrument to assess students’ context
sensitivity.’ In Pintrich P R & Maehr M L (eds.) New
directions in measures and methods, vol. 12, Advances in
motivation and achievement. Oxford: Elsevier Sciences
Ltd. 77–120.
Clément R (1980). ‘Ethnicity, contact, and communicative
competence in a second language.’ In Giles H, Robinson
P & Smith P M (eds.) Language: Social psychological
perspectives. Pergamon: Oxford. 147–154.
Clément R (1986). ‘Second language proficiency and accul-
turation: An investigation of the effects of language status
and individual characteristics.’ Journal of Language and
Social Psychology 5, 271–290.
Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the be-
havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Crookes G & Schmidt R W (1991). ‘Motivation: Reopening
the research agenda.’ Language Learning 41, 469–512.
Deci E L & Ryan R M (1985). Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum Press.
Dörnyei Z (1994). ‘Motivation and motivating in the for-
eign language classroom.’ Modern Language Journal 78,
273–284.
Dörnyei Z (2001). Teaching and researching motivation.
Essex: Longman.
Dörnyei Z & Clement R (2001). ‘Motivational character-
istics of learning different target languages: Results of a
nationwide survey.’ In Dörnyei Z & Schmidt R (eds.)
Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu,
HI: The University of Hawai’i, Second Language
Teaching and Curriculum Center. 399–432.
Dörnyei Z & Otto I (1998). ‘Motivation in action:
A process model of L2 motivation.’ Working Papers
in Applied Linguistics. Vol. 4. Thames Valley University,
London. 43–69.
Ellis R (1994). The study of second language acquisition.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner R C (1985). Social psychology and second lan-
guage learning: The role of attitudes and motivation.
London: Edward Arnold Publishers.
Gardner R C (2000). ‘Correlation, causation, motivation,
and second language acquisition.’ Canadian Psychology
41, 10–24.
Gardner R C & Bernaus M (2004). The applicability of
the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery to EFL students
in Spain. Unpublished manuscript, The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Gardner R C & Lambert W E (1959). ‘Motivational vari-
ables in second language acquisition.’ Canadian Journal
of Psychology 13, 266–272.
Gardner R C & Lambert W E (1972). Attitudes and moti-
vation in second language learning. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Gardner R C & Smythe P C (1975). ‘Motivation and
second-language acquisition.’ The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 31, 218–230.
Gardner R C, Masgoret A-M, Tennant J & Mihic L (2004).
‘Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long in-
termediate-level language course.’ Language Learning
54, 1–34.
Heckhausen H (1991). Motivation and action. New York:
Springer.
Lambert W E (1955). ‘Measurement of the linguistic
dominance of bilinguals.’ Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 50, 197–200.
Lambert W E (1967). ‘A social psychology of bilingualism.’
Journal of Social Issues 23, 91–109.
MacIntyre P D, Clément R, Dörnyei Z & Noels K A (1998).
‘Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2:
A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation.’
Modern Language Journal 82, 545–562.
Marckwardt A H (1948). ‘Motives for the study of modern
languages.’ Language Learning 1, 1–11.
Masgoret A-M & Gardner R C (2003). ‘Attitudes, motiva-
tion, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of
studies conducted by Gardner and associates.’ Language
Learning 53, 123–163.
Nida E A (1956). ‘Motivation in second-language learning.’
Language Learning 7, 11–16.
Noels K A (2001). ‘New orientations in language learning
motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and
integrative orientations and motivation.’ In Dörnyei Z &
Schmidt R (eds.) Motivation and second language
acquisition. Honolulu, HI: The University of Hawai’i,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
43–68.
Noels K A, Pon G & Clément R (1996). ‘Language identity
and adjustment: The role of linguistic self-confidence in
the adjustment process.’ Journal of Language and Social
Psychology 15, 246–264.
Oxford R L & Shearin J (1994). ‘Language learning moti-
vation: Expanding the theoretical framework.’ Modern
Language Journal 78, 12–28.
Scott W A (1968). ‘Attitude measurement.’ In Lindzey G
& Aronson E (eds.) The handbook of social
psychology, vol. 2. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
204–273.
Williams M & Burden R L (1997). Psychology for
language teachers: A social constructive approach,
vol. 2, Research methods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.