Motivation in learning listening comprehension by first-year English major students = Động cơ học nghe hiểu của sinh viên chuyên Anh năm thứ nhất.PDF

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LISTS OF TABLES AND CHARTS vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale for the study 1
2. Aims of the study 1
3. Methods of the study 2
4. Scope of the study 2
5. Significance of the study 2
6. Organization of the study 2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 3
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 3
1.1 Motivation 3
1.1.1 Definition of motivation 3
1.1.2 Gardner’s motivation theory 4
1.1.3 Types of motivation 7
1.1.3.1 Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation 7
1.1.3.2 Resultative motivation 8
1.1.3.3 Instrumental vs. integrative motivation 8
1.1.4 The role of motivation in L2 learning 10
1.2 Theoretical basis of listening comprehension 10
1.2.1 Definition of listening 10
1.2.2 Significance of listening 11
1.2.3 Different views on listening comprehension 12
1.2.4 Listening process 13
1.3 The role of motivation in learning listening comprehension 14
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 16

2.1 Research questions 16
2.2 Informants 16
v

2.3 Data collection instrument 16
2.4 Data collection procedures 18
2.5 Data analysis and discussion 18
2.5.1 Integrative motivation 20
2.5.2 Instrumental motivation 22
2.5.3 Integrative versus instrumental motivation 23
PART C: CONCLUSION 24
3.1 Major findings 24
3.2 Conclusion 24
3.3 Implications 25
3.4 Suggestions for further study 25
REFERENCES 26
APPENDICES I
Appendix 1 I
Appendix 2 V

vi

LISTS OF TABLES AND CHARTS


1. List of tables
Table 1. Constructs and Scales of the AMTB from Gardener 7
Table 2.Descriptive statistics for integrative and instrumental motivation questionnaire 19
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for integrative motivation 20
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for instrumental motivation 22

2. List of figures
Figure 1 Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model of Motivation 6
Figure 2. Integrative and instrumental motivation 23
1


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study
Motivation, believed as one of the most important factors determining the rate and
success of second language (L2) attainment, provides the primary impetus to initiate
learning the L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning
process (Dornyei, 2001, cited in Ha 2009, p163). Research shows that motivation is crucial
for L2 learning (Dornyei, 1994). According to Oxford and Shearin (1994, cited in Ha 2009,
pp.163-164), motivation directly influences how much effort students make, how often
students use L2 learning strategies, how much students interact with native speakers, how
much input they receive in the language being learned, how well they do on curriculum
related achievement tests, how high their general proficiency level becomes, and how long
they preserve and maintain L2 skills after language study is over (Ely 1986, Oxford &
Shearin 1994). Particularly, toward learning listening comprehension, which is assuming a
more and more important place in foreign language teaching and learning process, and is
probably one of the most difficult tasks of language learners, motivation is one important
element directly influencing their achievement. “Motivation is the crucial force which
determines whether the listener embarks on a task at all. The primary motive for learning a
language is that it provides a means of communication” (Littlewood, 1984:53). Brown
(2000:143, 160) asserts, “It is easy in SLL to claim that a listener will be successful with
the proper motivation.”
Having recognized the importance of motivation on learning listening
comprehension, this study focuses on Motivation in learning listening comprehension by
first-year English major students. This study will examine the students‟ goals of learning
listening comprehension, in other words, their tendency towards the integrative and

instrumental motivation in learning listening comprehension.
2. Aims of the study
The study is to describe and examine the students‟ integrative and instrumental
motivation towards English language learning. In other words, the study aims to determine
their tendency toward the two types of motivation.
3. Methods of the study
In this study, quantitative method was used. The data were collected via questionnaire. The
modified questionnaire was based on Vaezi (2008)‟s 25-item survey questionnaire which
was adapted from Gardner (1985)‟s AMTB and Clement et al.‟s (1994).
2


4. Scope of the study
The study describes and examines the students‟ integrative and instrumental
motivation towards English language learning, in particular listening comprehension.
5. Significance of the study
First, the information about the students‟ integrative and instrumental motivation
towards listening comprehension learning, in other words, the information about their
goals of learning listening comprehension is useful for those who teach English, especially
listening comprehension to non-English major students in general and for those who teach
English to students majoring in English at HUI in particular. As a result, the study also
gives some suggestions and recommendations for all teachers when teaching listening
comprehension.
6. Organization of the study
The study consists of five chapters.
Part A – Introduction. This chapter discusses the rationale, aims, scope, methods,
significance and design of the study.
Part B – Development consists of two chapters:
Chapter 1 - Literature Review- this chapter is intended to give some theoretical
background related to motivation and listening comprehension.

Chapter 2 - The study – In this chapter, the collection instruments, data collection and
data analysis and discussion are presented.
Part C – Conclusion – this chapter presents the major findings, conclusion, implications,
and suggestions for further studies.
3



PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Motivation
1.1.1 Definition of motivation
“Motivation” is a term frequently used in both education and research fields.
Different interpretations of the definition of motivation depend on various psychological
perspectives of human behavior. However, Dornyei (1998:117) comments, “Although
„motivation‟ is a term frequently used in both educational and research contexts, it is rather
surprising how little agreement there is in the literature with regard to the exact meaning of
the concept”.
Williams and Burden (1997: 120) see motivation as “a state of cognitive and
emotional arousal, a state which leads to a conscious decision to act and gives rise to a
period of sustained intellectual and/or physical effort”.
Relating motivation to learning a second language (L2), in his word, Ellis stated
that „motivation involves the attitudes and effective states that influence the degree of
effort that learners make to learn an L2‟ (Ellis, 1997: 75). Brown (2000: 160) indicated that
„motivation is some kind of internal drive which pushes someone to do things in order to
achieve something‟.
Motivation, according to Dornyei (1998), was the “process whereby a certain amount
of instigation force arises, initiates action, and persists” as long as there is no other forces
weakening it until the planned goals were reached. In other words, motivation can be seen
as a force that made a person to initiate action, and to keep on until the goals were

achieved. He conceptualized language learning motivation as including three components:
motivational intensity, desire to learn the language and an attitude towards the act of
learning the language.
Furthermore, in Deci and Ryan‟s (1985) self-determination theory, motivation was
related to all aspects of “activation” and “intention”, including energy, direction,
persistence and equifinality.
According to Naiman et al (1978) (cited in Harmer, 1999: 42), "the most successful
learners are not necessarily those to whom a language comes very easily; they are those
who display typical characteristics, most of them clearly associated with motivation".
Below is the list:
4


- Positive task orientation: the learner has confidence in his or her success.
- Ego involvement: the learner finds it important to succeed in learning.
- Need for achievement: to overcome difficulties and succeed in what he or she sets
out to do.
- High aspirations: the learner goes for demanding challenges and high proficiency.
- Goal orientation: the learner is very aware of the goals of learning.
- Perseverance: the learner is not discouraged by setbacks or apparent lack of
progress.
- Tolerance of ambiguity: the learner is not frustrated by a temporary lack of
understanding; he or she thinks it will come later.
Literature shows that different researchers have different ways of defining
motivation. However, they all share the same point of view that motivation combines effort
and desire plus favorable attitudes and occurs as a result of a combination of internal and
external influences. This study follows the definition of motivation proposed by Gardner
(1985). According to Gardner (1985:50), motivation includes four aspects: goal, effortful
behavior to reach the goal, desire to attain the goal, positive attitudes towards the goal.
However, a goal is not necessary a measurable component of motivation, but a stimulus

that gave rise to motivation.
1.1.2 Gardner’s motivation theory
Gardner was one of the pioneering researchers in second language acquisition (SLA)
to focus on motivation (Root, 1999:2). In 1959, Gardner and Lambert approached
motivation that has influenced various studies in L2 motivation. They distinguished
between integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. Integrative motivation refers
to positive attitudes toward the target group and a willingness to integrate into the target
community, whereas instrumental motivation refers to practical reasons for learning a
language, such as to gain social recognition or to get a job (Hashimoto, 2002:30). In other
words, an integratively motivated learner is someone who shows his/her positive attitudes
toward culture and people of the target language. On the other hand, those who learn a
language with practical purposes such as for getting high marks in exams, travelling or
earning higher salaries are considered to have instrumental motivation.
In addition, Gardner (1985) defined motivation by specifying four aspects of
motivation:
 a goal
5


 effortful behavior to reach the goal
 a desire to attain the goal,
 positive attitudes toward the goal (Gardner, 1985, p. 50, cited in Root, 1999,
p.2)
However, a goal was not a measurable component of motivation but was a stimulus
giving rise to motivation. Actually, he focused on classifying reasons for second language
study, which he then identified as orientations (1985, p. 54). There were two orientations in
his research, integrative and instrumental orientation. He also made a clear distinction
between orientation and motivation. Motivation “refers to a complex of three
characteristics which may or may not be related to any particular orientation. These
characteristics are attitudes toward learning the language, desire to learn the language, and

motivational intensity” (Gardner, 1985, p. 54, cited in Root, 1999, p.2). Meanwhile,
orientation was a class of reasons suggesting why a person might study a language. For
example, an integrative orientation was a class of reasons suggesting why a person might
undertake language study, including a desire to integrate with a target language community
(Root, 1999, p.2). The main difference between orientation and motivation is that a student
might demonstrate a particular orientation, but not highly motivated to achieve that goal
(Gardner and Tremblay, 1994).
In 1985, Gardner established a model of motivation in second language learning, i.e.
the socio-educational model. His model concentrated on the integrative motive. The
integrative motive included integrative orientation, plus the motivation, which included
desire, motivational intensity, and a number of other attitudes involving the target
language community (Root, 1999:2). Motivation was the central concept of the socio-
educational model; however, integrativeness and attitudes were other factors which
affected individual differences and are said to contribute to the leaner‟ level of motivation.
And integrativeness, attitudes, together with motivation are said to form integrative
motivation. The relationship between integrativeness, attitudes and motivation was
explained as followed.
Figure 1 Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model of Motivation
(Adapted from Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Modern Language Journal, 78, p. 517, cited in Root, 1999, p.3)





Integrativeness
(can include an integrative orientation)
Attitudes
(can include an evaluation of a language teacher or course)
Motivation
 Desire to learn

 Intensity
 attitudes

6






The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) was developed by Gardner (1985) in
order to evaluate various individual difference variables based on the socio-educational
model. The AMTB includes over 130 items belonging to five categories: integrativeness,
attitude towards the language situation, motivation, integrativeness, attitude towards the
language situation, motivation, instrumental orientation, and anxiety toward the L2
(Gardner, 2001, p. 7, cited in Hashimoto, 2002, p.31).
Three of these categories, i.e. integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation
and motivation, have been mentioned above and included in Gardner‟s socio-educational
model. Instrumental orientation refers to an interest in learning the language for pragmatic
reasons that do not involve identification with the other language community. The other is
language anxiety, which involves anxiety reactions when called upon to use the second
language (Gardner, 2001, p. 8, cited in Hashimoto, 2002, p.31). The following table
presents the list of the constructs assessed in the AMTB from Gardner (2001, pp. 8-9,
cited in Hashimoto, 2002, p.21).
7



Table 1. Constructs and Scales of the AMTB from Gardner
(2001, pp. 8-9, cited in Hashimoto, 2002)

Construct 1:
Integrativeness
Subtest 1:
Integrative orientation (4 items)
Subtest 2:
Interest in foreign languages (10 items)
Subtest 3:
Attitudes toward the target language group (10 items)
Construct 2:
Attitudes toward the Learning Situation
Subtest 4:
Evaluation of the language instructor (10 items)
Subtest 5:
Evaluation of the language course (10items)
Construct 3:
Motivation
Subtest 6:
Motivation intensity (10 items)
Subtest 7:
Desire to learn the language (10 items)
Subtest 8:
Attitudes toward learning the language (10 items)
Construct 4:
Instrumental Orientation
Subtest 9:
Instrumental orientation (4 items)
Construct 5:
Language Anxiety
Subtest 10:
Language class anxiety (10 items)

Subtest 11:
Language use anxiety (10 items)

However, the study aimed to examine the students‟ tendency toward the two kinds of
motivation in learning listening comprehension; therefore, it only focused on integrative
and instrumental motivation aspects of the AMTB.
1.1.3 Types of motivation
Although students may be equally motivated, the source of their motivation may be
different and of course, their success in learning will be different. The source of motivation,
thus, turns to be a key point here.
1.1.3.1 Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation
According to the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), there were two
types of motivation there are two general types of motivation, one based on intrinsic
interest in the activity per se and the other based on rewards extrinsic to the activity itself
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, cited in Lucas, 2010, p.6). In other words, intrinsic motivation refers
to motivation to engage in activity because it is enjoyable and satisfying to do (Deci and
Ryan, 1985, cited in Lucas, 2010, p.6). In general, intrinsically motivated learners are those
8


who have personal interests in doing something and in helping to set their goals. They take
part in activities because doing the activities itself is a reward, but not because
accomplishing the activities brings a reward.
Ryan and Deci (1985) believe that intrinsic motivation is founded upon innate
needs for competence and self-determination (cited in Lucas, 2010, p.6), however, it is not
the only type of motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Another type of motivation mentioned
in self-determination theory is extrinsic motivation. It refers to the performance of an
activity in order to attain some separable outcome, and thus, contrasts with intrinsic
motivation, which refers to doing an activity for the inherent satisfaction of the activity
itself (Lucas, 2010, p.6). Accordingly, extrinsic motivated learners do the activity to

achieve some instrumental goals, such as praise, awards, prizes, evaluation and fear for
punishment. An extrinsically motivated student does the activity in order to obtain some
reward or avoid some punishment external to the activity itself, and this kind of motivation
refers to learning situations where the reason for doing a task is something other than an
interest in the task itself.
In short, intrinsic motivation produces more potential benefits than extrinsic
motivation. Intrinsically motivated students tend to try harder and think more deeply than
extrinsically motivated ones.
1.1.3.2 Resultative motivation
In some cases, motivation is the result of learning. Ellis (1997:76) claims,
"Motivation is the result of learning. Learners who experience success in learning may
become more, or in some contexts, less motivated to learn". Hermann (1980) stated, „it is
success that contributes to motivation rather than vice- versa‟ (cited in Ellis, 1997).
Ellis (1997, cited in Lan 2008, p.8) also concluded that „the relationship between
motivation and achievement is an interactive one. A high level of motivation does
stimulate learning, but perceived success in achieving L2 goals can help to maintain
existing motivation and even create new types. Conversely, a vicious circle of low
motivation = low achievement= low motivation can develop‟.
1.1.3.3 Instrumental vs. integrative motivation
Gardner and Lambert (1972) first made the most famous distinction between two
types of motivation: integrative and instrumental.
Integrative motivation is the desire to learn a language to integrate successfully
into the target language community. According to Garner and Lambert (1972, cited in Ellis,
9


1997:509), motivation is strongly influenced by integrative orientation to language
learning. In their words, "an integrative orientation involves an interest in learning an L2
because of a sincere and personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other
group". In addition, “the integratively motivated student”, wrote Masgoret and Gardner

(2003), “is one who is motivated to learn the second language, has openness to
identification with the other language community and has favourable attitude toward the
language situation.”
Instrumental motivation, on the contrary, is something which concerns the practical
value and advantages of learning a new language‟ (Lambert 1974: 98, cited in Ellis, 1997),
and which is characterized by „the wish to learn the language for purposes of study or
career promotion‟ (Ur, 1996: 276, cited in Lan, 2008) and the desire to obtain something
practical or concrete from the study of a second language (Hudson, 2000). In other words,
instrumental motivation is the learner‟s desire to learn a language for utilitarian purposes
(such as employment/travel/exam purposes) in the context of language learning.
Integrative versus instrumental motivation: while both kinds of motivation are
essential elements of success in learning a second language, it is integrative motivation
which has been found to sustain long-term success when learning a second language Ellis
(1997). In some of the early research by Gardner and Lambert (cited in Ellis, 1997),
integrative motivation was viewed more importance in a formal learning environment than
instrumental motivation. Integrative motivation was regarded as superior to instrumental
motivation for predicting the success of second language learning (Gass, 2001, cited in
Vaezi, 2008: 54). The reason is that if students respect the target culture, they may read
literature or practice the language and thereby be able to improve their language skills
(Cook, 2001, cited in Vaezi, 2008:54). However, from another perspective, instrumental
motivation is meaningful for the learner who has had limited access to the L2 culture, or
foreign language settings (Oxford, 1996, cited in Vaezi, 2008:55). Dornyei (1996, cited in
Vaezi, 2008:55) opposed Gardner by claiming that instrumental motivation is more
important than the integrative motivation. It is important to note that instrumental
motivation has only been acknowledged as a significant factor in some research, whereas
integrative motivation is continually linked to successful second language acquisition.
To sum up, there are many kinds of motivation. However, the study only focused on
integrative motivation (or integrativeness) and instrumental motivation (instrumentality).
10

1.1.4 The role of motivation in L2 learning
Though there are still other various controversies around L2 motivation and many
different theories about this phenomenon, all the researchers have come to a very important
conclusion that motivation has a crucial influence on a learner‟s success or failure of L2
acquisition. The followings are evidences from some studies conducted by well-known
researchers.
Reece and Walker (1997) express that motivation is a key factor in the second
language learning process. They stressed that a less able student who is highly motivated
can achieve greater success than the more intelligent student who is not well motivation.
Among the things that do clearly affected mastery of a second language is the kind of
motivation that a learner has (Finegan, 1994:466).
Students who are in some way “motivated” do significantly better than their peers
despite using methods which experts consider unsatisfactory and being in unfavorable
conditions. (Harmer, 1991:3)
It is undeniable that motivation is very crucial in schools because of its powerful
influence on learning. In other words, motivation is a key of learning. (Crookes and
Schmidt, 1991:56)
Nunan (1991, p.131) regards motivation as a key factor which determines “the
amount of effort a learner is ready to put into language learning.”
Dornyei (2001) states that a learner with enough motivation is likely to gain an
acceptable knowledge of an L2 despite his language aptitude or other cognitive
characteristics. Even the brightest student without enough motivation is unlikely to persist
long enough to achieve any really useful language.
1.2 Theoretical basis of listening comprehension
1.2.1 Definition of listening
According to Howatt and Dakin (1974), listening is the ability to identify and
understand what others are saying. This process involves understanding a speaker's accent
or pronunciation, the speaker‟s grammar and vocabulary, and comprehension of meaning.
An able listener is capable of doing these four things simultaneously.

Ronald and Roskelly (1985) define listening as an active process requiring the same
skills of prediction, hypothesizing, checking, revising, and generalizing that writing and
reading demand; and these authors present specific exercises to make students active
listeners who are aware of the "inner voice" one hears when writing.
11


Besides, according to Rost (1991), listening comprises some component skills such
as discriminating between sounds, recognizing words, identifying grammatical groupings
of words, identifying expressions and sets of utterances that act to create meaning,
connecting linguistic cues to non-linguistic and paralinguistic cues, using background
knowledge to predict and later to confirm meaning and recalling important words and ideas.
Saha and Talukdar (2008), two lecturers at Noakhali Science & Technology University,
Sonapur, Noakhali, Bangladesh explained that listening is a skill in a sense that it's a
related but distinct process than hearing which involves merely perceiving sound in a
passive way while listening occupies an active and immediate analysis of the streams of
sounds. What 'listening' really means is 'listening and understanding what we hear at the
same time'. So, two concurrent actions are demanded to take place in this process. The next
part will discuss the importance of listening in language learning.
1.2.2 Significance of listening
Language learning depends on listening since it provides the aural input that serves
as the basis for language acquisition and enables learners to interact in spoken
communication. Listening is the first language mode that children acquire. In fact, it
provides the foundation for all aspects of language and cognitive development, and it plays
a life-long role in the processes of communication. Students spend most of each school day
listening and much of what they learn is acquired by means of listening. A study by Wilt
(1950), found that people listen 45% of the time they spend communicating. Wilt found
that 30% of communication time was spent speaking, 16% reading, and 9% writing.
Listening is the language skill which usually develops faster than speaking and
which affects the development of reading and writing abilities in learning a new language

(Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Vandergrift, 1997). It is also the most frequently used skill in
the classroom and in daily life (Yang, 1996). Vandergrift (1997) claimed that listening
internalized not only the rules of language but also facilitated the emergence of other
language skills. Rost (1994) also pinpointed the importance of listening in the language
classroom as the supplier of supplied the input for students. More concisely, without
comprehensible input at the right level, learning cannot take place. Therefore, listening is a
fundamental and vital skill in the acquisition of languages (Nunan, 2002).
1.2.3 Different views on listening comprehension
What is the relationship between listening and listening comprehension?
“comprehension is often considered to be the first-order goal of listening, the highest
priority of the listener, and sometimes the sole purpose of listening” (Rost, 2002, p. 59).
12


Especially for L2 learners who are acquiring a new language, the term „listening
comprehension‟ typically refers to all aspects of listening since comprehension through
listening is considered to be a foundation for enabling learners to process the new
language, and since L2 listening research has focused exclusively on the comprehensive
aspect of academic listening (Long & Macian, 1994).
Listening comprehension can be defined as the ability to understand language used
by native speakers. This definition is proposed by Mendelssohn: “The ability to
understand the spoken language of native speakers.” (1984, p.64)
Listening as comprehension is the traditional way of thinking about the nature of
listening (Richards, 2006:2). Even, listening and listening comprehension are often
considered synonymous. According to Richards (2006), this view of listening is based on
the assumption that the main function of listening in second language learning is to
facilitate understanding of spoken discourse. However, Hasan (2000) distinguishes
between listening as a process of just listening to the message without interpreting and
responding to the text, and listening comprehension as a process that includes the
meaningful interactive activity to understand the text.

According to Vandergrift (1999:169), listening comprehension is anything but a
passive activity. It is a complex, active process in which the listener must discriminate
between sounds, understand vocabulary and grammatical structures, interpret stress and
intonation, retain what was gathered in all of the above, and interpret it within the
immediate as well as the larger socio-cultural context of the utterance.
Stressing on the role of listeners, Rubin (1995:7) see listening as an “active process
in which listeners select and interpret information which comes from auditory and visual
cues in order to define what is going on and what the speakers are trying to express”.
Brown (1994) defines listening comprehension as not only the process of sending
and receiving sounds, but also as the interactive and conscious process to send and
transmit the message to the brain which will influence in the process of communication.
1.2.4 Listening process
The research into listening (Rivers, 1992) suggests „listening involves active
cognitive processing – the construction of a message from phonic material‟. Three stages
in the aural reception of a message are distinguished: 1) „listeners must recognize in phonic
substance sound patterns in bounded segments related to phrase structure. At this stage
students are dependent on echoic memory, which is very fleeting; 2) listeners must
immediately begin processing, identifying the groupings detected according to the content
13


of our central information system; 3) listeners recycle the material they organized through
immediate memory, thus building up an auditory memory which helps to retain the
segments listeners are processing‟.
Anderson (1983) divided the listening comprehension process into three stages: the
perceptual, parsing, and utilization.
Researchers (e.g., Carroll, 1972; Anderson 1983; Chaudron & Richards, 1986;
O‟Malley, Chamot, & Kupper, 1989; Lund 1991; Tsui & Fullilove, 1998) have accepted
the notion that listening comprehension may be technically similar to reading
comprehension and have explained the processes of listening comprehension with the

principles derived from reading comprehension research. These studies have argued that
listening comprehension, like reading comprehension, involves two stages: (1)
apprehending linguistic information (text-based; low level) and (2) relating that
information to a wider communicative context (knowledge-based; high level). These
studies have also introduced two processing models for comprehension: (1) bottom-up and
(2) top-down. The terms top-down and bottom-up have been used to describe different
aspects of listening or the ways of processing the text while listening.
a. Bottom-up process in listening
Hedge (2000:230-231) states that the knowledge we have of bottom-up strategies
come from the work of three groups of researchers: psycholinguists interested in speech
perception (for example Bever 1970; Clark and Clark 1977, Conrad 1985; Marslen-Wilson
and Tyler 1980); the words of communications researchers (for example Cherry 1957), and
of those who interested in memory (for example, Neisser 1982). According to these
researchers, in bottom-up listening process, learners use their linguistic knowledge and
ability to process acoustic signals to make sense of the sounds that speech presents to them,
i.e. they use information in the speech itself to try to understand the meaning. They
segment speech into identifiable sounds and impose a structure on these in terms of words,
phrases, sentences, and intonation patterns. Specifically, they segment the stream of speech
into constituent sounds, link these together to form words, and chain the words together to
form clauses and sentences and so on (Nunan, 1995: 17).
Nunan (1997) called the process the bottom-up processing model. The bottom-up
processing model assumes that listening is a process of decoding the sounds that one hears
in a linear fashion, from the smallest meaningful units (phonemes) to complete texts. In
their introduction to listening, Anderson and Lynch (1988) call this the "listener as tape-
recorder" view of listening because it assumes that the listener takes in and stores
14


messages sequentially, in much the same way as a tape-recorder, one sound, word, phrase,
and utterance at a time.

b. Top-down process in listening
Hedge (2000:232) presents that top-down processing relates to knowledge that
listeners bring to a text, called prior knowledge or „inside the head’ information, as
opposed to the information that is available within the text itself. In other words, top-down
processing is evoked from “a bank of prior knowledge and global expectations” (Morley,
1991, p.87, cited in Brown, 2001, p.260) and other background informatics (schemata) that
the listener brings to the text (Brown, 2001:260).
Top-down listening infers meaning from contextual clues and from making links
between the spoken message and various types of prior knowledge that listeners hold
inside their head. Contextual clues to meaning come from knowledge of the particular
situation, i.e. the speaker or speakers, the setting, the topic, and the purpose of the spoken
text and from knowledge of what has been said earlier. Prior knowledge has been termed
schematic knowledge (de Beaugrande & Dressler 1981; Carrell & Eisterhold 1983). This
consists of the mental frameworks we hold in our memories for various topics.
1.3 The role of motivation in learning listening comprehension
There has been a correlated relationship between motivation and second language
acquisition in general and in listening comprehension in particular.
Brown (2000:143, 160) asserts that “It is easy in SLL to claim that a listener will be
successful with the proper motivation.”
Motivation is the crucial force which determines whether the listener embarks on a
task at all. The primary motive for learning a language is that it provides a means of
communication (Littlewood, 1984:53).
After conducting an ethnographic study on affective factors on listening
performance of thirty freshen English majors in Xinjiang Agricultural University, Chen
Ling (2008) found that subjective factors and objective factors influence listening
performance, and lack of motivation is among subjective factors (i.e. anxiety, lack of
motivation, fear, frustration, orientation of achievement and pressure) that is negatively
related to listening performance of students particularly 37% of learners lacking their
motivation while listening.
Yau Tsai (1993) also conducted a study of listening comprehension instruction for

Chinese Junior-College students in Taiwan in order to discover why Chinese students‟
listening ability is commonly low on standardized ESL/EFL tests or official international
15


occasions. He realized the students were prevented from achieving listening competence
due to lack of cultural learning, their attitudes and motivation towards listening, i.e.
motivation or some language attitudes correlated significantly to listening achievement,
habits and the environment.
Murjani (2010) did an action research at the second year of SMK Harapan Kartasura
on increasing student listening comprehension by using storytelling. A preliminary
observation in the second year of SMK Harapan Kartasura showed that mastery of English
listening test was also low. It happened because many problems often appear during the
teaching and learning process. They have less motivation to listen what the teacher says.
They think that listening makes them bored. In other word, the students have less
motivation and interests in listening, they do not like English listening lesson, and they are
bored with the teaching material.
16


CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
There are two parts in this chapter. The first part will analyze the situation of the
study with the description of research methods, the setting of the study, the subjects,
listening materials applied by the informants and instruments used to collect the data. The
second part is the analysis of data that were collected from the questionnaire.
2.1 Research questions
To what extent are the first-year English majors at HUI instrumentally or
integratively oriented towards learning listening comprehension?
2.2 Informants
The current research involved 30 English freshmen of DHAV6 at Faculty of Foreign

language at Ho Chi Minh University of Industry. The students, both male and female, aged
from 19-20 years old, have been learning English for at least 7 years. The total number of
students participated in the study was 30, 22 of which were females and eight were males.
Before starting their university education, all of them had to take the University Entrance
Exam (UEE), which consists of multiple choice test items mainly focusing on reading,
grammar and translation. The aural-oral skills are not the focus of attention in the UEE,
that is, speaking is tested indirectly and listening is not included at all. At the time the
study was conducted, they had been learning listening skills as a compulsory subject in the
syllabus for first-year students.
2.3 Data collection instrument
In order to collect data of the students‟ integrative and instrumental motivation
towards learning listening comprehension, the study used a modified 25-item survey
questionnaire by Vaezi (2008), which was adapted from Gardner (1985)‟s AMTB and
Clement et al.‟s (1994). Following is the sample questionnaire by Vaezi (2008). (Please see
Appendix 1)
17




Statements
1
2
3
4
5
1
Studying English can be important to me because it
will allow me to be more at ease with other people
who speak English.

2
Studying English, especially listening comprehension
can be important for me because it will allow me to
meet and converse with more and varied people.






Accordingly, the questionnaire about integrative and instrumental motivation of the
original 7-point Likert Scale format of Gardner (1985)‟s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
(AMTB) and Clement et al. (1994) was adapted to a 5-point scale, ranging from „Strongly
disagree‟ to „Strongly agree‟. These were coded as Strongly disagree = 1, Disagree = 2,
Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly agree = 5. The study investigated the students‟ integrative
and instrumental motivation towards learning listening comprehension as followed:
Integrative motivation: there are 12 items (items 1-12, see Appendix) that would show
integrative motivation toward learning listening comprehension.
Items 1-4 examine the students‟ integrative orientation
Items 9, 10, 11, 12 ask for the students‟ attitudes toward the target language group
Items 5, 6, 7, 8 ask for the students‟ attitudes toward the target language
Instrumental motivation: this scale includes 13 items (items 13-25) and the informants
are asked to measure their utilitarian purposes for learning listening comprehension.
Items 13-25 are to assess the students‟ other practical goals for learning listening
compression.

Below is the questionnaire sample (please see Appendix 2 for the complete questionnaire)
No.
Statements
1
2
3
4
5
1
Studying English, especially listening
comprehension can be important to me because
it will allow me to be more at ease with other
people who speak English.





2
Studying English, especially listening
comprehension can be important for me because
it will allow me to meet and converse with more
and varied people.






18

2.4 Data collection procedures
Access to the subjects was made via the relevant class teachers. During the contact
with the participants, the nature of the study was explained: that is to investigate first-year
English majors‟ integrative and instrumental motivation in learning listening
comprehension. The students were ensured that all the information gained through their
answers would be kept confidential and only support for the study. For their satisfaction,
they were also informed that permission had been sought to contact them from the Faculty
of Foreign Languages of Ho Chi Minh City University of Industry. Each participant was
given a „Survey Questionnaire about Motivation in Learning Listening Comprehension‟.
Then, they were instructed that they simply tick the boxes which indicate best they
disagree or agree with such statements to show how important each reason was for learning
listening comprehension. The purpose was to give them a general view of their purposes in
learning listening comprehension.
2.5 Data analysis and discussion
The data were analysed by using SPSS 13.0. Descriptive statistics of all the
questionnaire items: frequency, mean and standard derivation are presented and discussed.
Firstly, the study presents the results of all questionnaires in the table 2. After that, based
on such results, it discusses the students‟ integrative motivation and instrumental
motivation. Finally, the study compares their integrative versus instrumental motivation
toward learning listening comprehension to examine whether they are integratively or
instrumentally motivated.
19



Table 2. Descriptive statistics for integrative and instrumental motivation questionnaire
(n = 30)
(Likert scale: Strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree

= 5
Items
1
2
3
4
5
M
SD
Frequency
%
frequency
%
frequency
%
frequency
%
frequency
%
Q1
0
0
0
0
3
10.0
13
43.3
14
46.7

4.36
0.668
Q2
0
0
2
6.7
5
16.7
13
43.3
10
33.3
4.03
0.889
Q3
3
10.0
10
33.3
8
26.7
7
23.3
2
6.7
2.83
1.116
Q4
2

6.7
7
23.3
8
26.7
11
36.7
2
6.7
3.13
1.074
Q5
2
6.7
4
13.3
14
46.7
8
26.7
2
6.7
3.13
0.973
Q6
2
6.7
1
3.3
7

23.3
12
40.0
8
26.7
3.76
1.104
Q7
2
6.7
7
23.3
14
46.7
6
20.0
1
3.3
2.90
0.922
Q8
0
0
6
20.0
13
43.3
11
36.7
0

0
3.16
0.746
Q9
1
3.3
2
6.7
7
23.3
17
56.7
3
10.0
3.63
0.889
Q10
1
3.3
8
26.7
10
33.3
11
36.7
0
0
3.03
0.889
Q11

3
10.0
2
6.7
16
53.3
8
26.7
1
3.3
3.06
0.944
Q12
2
6.7
3
10.0
15
50.0
9
30.0
1
3.3
3.13
0.899
Q13
0
0
1
3.3

2
6.7
8
26.7
19
63.3
4.5
0.776
Q14
1
3.3
3
10.0
4
13.3
11
36.7
11
36.7
3.93
1.112
Q15
0
0
0
0
2
6.7
7
23.3

21
70.0
4.63
0.614
Q16
3
10.0
2
6.7
9
30.0
13
43.3
3
10.0
3.36
1.098
Q17


3
10.0
8
26.7
16
53.3
3
10.0
3.63
0.808

Q18
2
6.7
3
10.0
11
36.7
11
36.7
3
10.0
3.33
1.028
Q19
1
3.3
9
30.0
7
23.3
11
36.7
2
6.7
3.13
1.041
Q20
1
3.3
3

10.0
17
56.7
6
20.0
3
10.0
3.23
0.897
Q21
5
16.7
9
30.0
11
36.7
5
16.7
0
0
2.53
0.973
Q22
0
0
2
6.7
4
13.3
20

66.7
4
13.3
3.86
0.730
Q23
1
3.3
4
13.3
5
16.7
16
53.3
4
13.3
3.6
1.003
Q24
1
3.3
6
20.0
6
20.0
15
50.0
2
6.7
3.36

0.999
Q25
4
13.3
5
16.7
6
20.0
13
43.3
2
6.7
3.13
1.195

20



2.5.1 Integrative motivation
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for integrative motivation
(n = 30)
(Likert scale: Strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree
= 5
Items: I study English, especially listening comprehension …
1
2
3
4
5

M
SD
Q1: to be more at ease with other people who speak English
0
0
3
13
14
4.36
0.668
Q2: to meet and converse with more and varied people
0
2
5
13
10
4.03
0.889
Q3: to better understand and appreciate English art and literature
3
10
8
7
2
2.83
1.116
Q4: to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural
groups
2
7

8
11
2
3.13
1.074
Q5: to know the life of English speaking nations
2
4
14
8
2
3.13
0.973
Q6: to understand English pop music
2
1
7
12
8
3.76
1.104
Q7: the more I get to know native English speaker, the more I
like them
2
7
14
6
1
2.90
0.922

Q8: to know various cultures and peoples
0
6
13
11
0
3.16
0.746
Q9: to keep in touch with foreign friends and acquaintances
1
2
7
17
3
3.63
0.889
Q10: to know more about native English speakers
1
8
10
11
0
3.03
0.889
Q11: The British are kind and friendly
3
2
16
8
1

3.06
0.944
Q12: the Americans are kind and cheerful
2
3
15
9
1
3.13
0.899
Overall mean score:3.35

From the table 2, the mean scores of the 12 questionnaire items on the integrative
motivation showed that first-year English major students were strongly motivated in
questions 1 - I study English, especially listening comprehension to be more at ease with
other people who speak English (Mean = 4.36), 2 - I study English, especially listening
comprehension to meat and converse with more and varied people (Mean = 4.03), 6 - to
understand English pop music (Mean = 3.76), and 9 - to keep in touch with foreign friends
and acquaintances (Mean = 3.63) because they realized the importance of listening
comprehension if they want to be able to be at ease with English-speaking people, to
comprehend what English songs are implied and to sustain their relationship with their
foreign friends.
Meanwhile, the students demonstrated their moderate integrative motivation in the
questions Q8 - I study English, especially listening comprehension to know various
cultures and peoples (Mean = 3.16), Q4 - I study English, especially listening
comprehension to participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups (Mean =
21


3.13 ), Q5 - I study English, especially listening comprehension to know the life of English

speaking nations (Mean = 3.13), Q12 - I the Americans are kind and cheerful (Mean =
3.13).
In addition, in comparison with other questions, in Q10 - I study English, especially
listening comprehension to know more about native English speakers (Mean = 3.03), Q11 -
The British are kind and friendly (Mean = 3.06) the students had low level of motivation.
Moreover, the two questions Q7 - the more I get to know English speaker, the more I
like them (Mean = 2.90), and Q3 - I study English, especially listening comprehension to
better understand and appreciate English art and literature (mean = 2.83), had the lowest
mean scores in integrative motivation. To sum up, with an overall mean score of 3.35, the
informants involved in the study have quite high integrative motivation.
In general, all of the students agree that learning English, especially listening
comprehension help them to meet and converse with more and varied people, to keep in
touch with foreign friends and acquaintances, to understand English pop music, and to
participate more freely in the activities of other cultural groups. However, the students
expressed their neutral opinion when viewing British and Americans are as kind and
friendly people due to their lack of contact with native speakers. In addition, when being
asked about their opinion in learning English, especially listening comprehension to know
about the life of English speaking nations, to get to know native English speakers, and to
know various cultures and peoples, the students showed their neutral opinions, i.e. neither
agree nor disagree on such statements. The reason is that they do not have a chance to
communicate with English native speakers in school, and their knowledge of English
speaking cultures is limited as well. Therefore, integrative motivation might be not an
important drive for the first-year English major students when learning listening
comprehension in particular.
22



2.5.2 Instrumental motivation
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for instrumental motivation

(n = 30)
Strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, agree = 4, strongly agree =
5

Items: I study English, especially listening comprehension
because …
1
2
3
4
5
M
SD
Q13: I need it for my future career.
0
1
2
8
19
4.50
0.776
Q14: it will make me a more knowledgeable person.
1
3
4
11
11
3.93
1.112
Q15: it will someday be useful in getting a job.

0
0
2
7
21
4.63
0.614
Q16: other people will respect me more if I know English.
3
2
9
13
3
3.36
1.098
Q17: I will be able to search for information and materials in
English on the Internet.
0
3
8
16
3
3.63
0.808
Q18: I will learn more about what is happening in the world.
2
3
11
11
3

3.33
1.028
Q19: Language learning often gives me a feeling of success.
1
9
7
11
2
3.13
1.041
Q20: Language learning often makes me happy.
1
3
17
6
3
3.23
0.897
Q21: an educated person is supposed to be able to listen to and
speak English.
5
9
11
5
0
2.53
0.973
Q22: I can understand English-speaking films, videos, TV or
radio.
0

2
4
20
4
3.86
0.730
Q23: I can read English books.
1
4
5
16
4
3.60
1.003
Q24: to know new people from different parts of the world.
1
6
6
15
2
3.36
0.999
Q25: Without it one cannot be successful in any field.
4
5
6
13
2
3.13
1.195

Overall mean score: 3.55

Based on the results presented in table 3, the process of examining the frequency
distribution and mean scores of the instrumental motivation items indicates that questions
13 - I need it for my future career (Mean = 4.50), 15 - it will someday be useful in getting a
job (Mean = 4.63) with the mean scores over 4.0, and questions 14 - it will make me a
more knowledgeable person (mean = 3.93), 22 - I can understand English-speaking films,
videos, TV or radio (mean = 3.86) with the mean scores nearly 4.0 demonstrate the
students‟ very high motivation. Especially, with the overall mean score of 3.55, it can
come to the conclusion that first-year English majors at HUI have high instrumental
motivation towards learning listening comprehension. Nevertheless, question Q21 (an
educated person is supposed to be able to listen to and speak English) has the lowest mean