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

2
Eigenv alue

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Factor Number

Figure 1. The screen plot

 Zhaohui Sheng 99

Table 3

Exploratory Factor Analysis: Factor Loadings (N=187)

Factors
1 2 3
Integrativity
Item 3 .582
Item 5 .668
Item 8 .793
Instrumentality
Item 1 .690
Item 2 .920
Item 10 .608
Item 6 .584
Item 7 .567
Requirement
Item 4 .725
Item 9 .218
Item 11 .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 eIT3
.65
.92
.96
M_IT IT_5 eIT5
.57 .33

IT_8 eIT8
.48

.69 IS_1 eIS1

.69
IS_2 eIS2
.87
.75
.50
M_IS IS_6 eIS6
.52 .25

IS_7 eIS7
.61
.27

IS_10 eIS10
.38

Figure 2. Two-factor model (N=187)

Note. IT=Integrativity IS=Instrumentality
 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 America-
born 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
Quotes were from the interview transcriptions.

2
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 non-
significant 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’ self-
efficacy 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.