Practitioner notes

Introduction

Knowledge of foreign languages (FL) is not just an educational complement but a requisite to achieve full professional and personal development. In this vein, (Randstad, 2017) reveals that knowledge of English increases the possibilities of getting a job and that 70% of executive jobs demand mastery of a second language (L2), generally English. Indeed, knowledge of a L2 has become a key distinguishing factor in the selection procedure, exponentially increasing the possibility of getting a job for all kinds of profiles all over the world. In particular, studies such as the one by (Chávez-Zambano, Saltos-Vivas, & Saltos-Dueñas, 2017) recognise the vital importance of learning English at the university stage, considering the international context in which we work.

Furthermore, the European Union itself imposes an educational model based on competences, noticeably communication in a FL (EC, 2009). This factor is considered so important for overcoming international barriers that in 2001 said institution unified FL learning levels via the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages in order to streamline mobility and recognition of certain linguistic skills without the need for validations in different countries. Hence, in 2015, experts of the European Commission, published a report on the link between languages and employability (de-Sousa, Costa, Flisi, & Calvo, 2015) and in 2018 the Council of the EU launched a recommendation insisting on the importance for all students of “multilingual competence” for employment, so that young people would be able to “contribute to cross-border communication and mobility” (EU, 2018). Apart from the standard of the Common Framework, it underlined the concept of “raising awareness of language” in education and training, the need for mobility for FL teaching staff and encouragement of innovative, inclusive and multilingual pedagogies. Nevertheless, many authors (see (Gal, 2012; Moore, 2011; Moore, 2015)) claim that the concept of “normatively promoted multilingualism” hides a strong commitment to the teaching of English as the only demanded foreign language as previously shown by (Randstad, 2017) and (Chávez-Zambano et al., 2017). In fact, some researchers such as (Kubota, 2020) show that the discussion on translingualism and plurality does not correspond to the practice of real multilingualism and the fact that English is a symbol of prestige and professional status hinders the multilingual richness of multicultural societies such as the United States. That can also be applied to the European Union.

Moreover, it can be seen that the European education system has become “commercialised” and aims to “adapt the supply of competences to the needs of the job market” (Nowicka, 2009, as quoted in Santos Ortega & Muñoz-Rodríguez, 2015). Furthermore, the idea of “employability” puts the burden of job creation on young people: it is no longer about getting into an external job market, but taking up a role in the market and creating the conditions for employment. To do so, young people have to be “cosmopolitan”(Nowicka, 2009, as quoted in Santos Ortega & Muñoz- Rodríguez, 2015), open to contact, try out new things and emigrate to foster their cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986) as the idea of “multilinguism” and “linguistic diversity” promoted by the Council of Europe (2018) is very much linked to employability. Beyond the structural plans that the European policy sets out for fostering FL learning, especially in English, and beyond the characteristics typical of the global economy that make cross-border movement of labour necessary, it is the citizen’s view of acquiring a new language and their motivation to do so that is of paramount importance.

So, in order to identify the type of motivation shown by university students in learning foreign languages and adapt didactic methodologies to enhance this vital competence linked to employability, a quantitative study on motivation in KU Leuven was conducted.

Theoretical framework and rationale of the study

One way of making European foreign language policies and recommendations connected to employability effective is to increase young citizens’ motivation (Dörnyei, 1998; Gilakjani et al., 2012). In fact, numerous studies show that personal factors “that affect students to a greater or lesser extent” affect their learning (Dörnyei, 2005), such as personality, aptitude, attitude, motivation, and learning styles and strategies (Fielden-Burns & Rico-Garcia, 2017). In fact, motivation itself can be broken down into cognitive, affective, conative and evaluative components (Uribe, Gutierrez, & Madrid, 2008). Moreover, the literature points to the affective aspect favouring acquisition of cognitive skills in FL learning (Saito, Dewaele, & Hanzawa, 2017; Saito, Dewaele, Abe, & In’nami, 2018). Although new qualitative proposals have appeared, motivation has been one of the most fertile areas in quantitative research (Boo, Dörnyei, & Ryan, 2015). Moreover, the opposite negative motivational force is known as demotivation. This phenomenon has shown strong enough to difficult and even prevent students from learning a foreign languages as shown by authors such as (Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009) and (Santos, 2019; Santos, 2020) . So, to promote motivation and avoid demotivation it is a legitime interest.

Regarding motivation, different types have been identified such as intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic (Brown, 2000; Matsuzaki-Carreira, 2005), and the instrumental as opposed to integrative kinds. Both pairs of concepts obey a social psychological model that has inspired numerous studies on motivation throughout the 20th century (Boo et al., 2015) and set out the basis for more sophisticated motivation approaches in the 21st century such as the Directed Motivational Current (DCM) (, 2014; Dörnyei, Muir, & Ibrahim, 2014; Muir, 2020) that includes positive emotionality (linked to integrative motivation) among the 4 dimensions composing this motivation framework.

The intrinsic (integrative) and extrinsic (instrumental) motivations are defined in different ways. (Kruglanski, 1975) considers them to be similar to “endogenous or exogenous motivation”, in other words, the kind for learning a foreign language as an end in itself or to achieve a different objective. (Heider, 1958), on the other hand, defined a “scale of the perceived locus of causality” or PLOC), referring to the actions or results that may be perceived as being produced by one’s own free will (intrinsic motivation) or as a result of impersonal causes (extrinsic motivation). Put another way, intrinsic motivation is the natural tendency to overcome challenges to achieve personal interests using our capacities (Woolfolk, 2007).

Many studies underline the importance of intrinsic motivation for success in learning a foreign language, since intrinsically motivated students tend to choose creative tasks that involve a greater challenge. They experience more pleasure and are more actively involved in the learning both in and outside the university (Ryan & Powelson 1991 quoted inMerlin 2003;Merlin, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Stipek, 2002, quoted in Merlin, 2003; Del-Castillo, 2010; Gilakjani, Leong, & Sabouri, 2012)).

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, also known as “instrumental” since it is a “means” to achieve a social or occupational end, depends on external rewards such as gaining access to certain study materials, passing an exam, attaining an academic level or job promotion. This type of motivation is consubstantial with university study itself, since the skills obtained will allow for a better professional and personal future (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, quoted in Williams & Burden 1997;Bañuelos-Márquez 1990). Once the end is achieved, this motivation ceases, though the importance of the motivation per se in a student will help them persevere in studying languages: a motivated student learns better than one without motivation (Harmer, 2007).

Revisiting methodologies of study

Many experiments have been carried out on the importance of motivation and the kinds of motivation in FL teaching via different materials such as surveys, semantic differential questionnaires, interviews, cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, mixed questionnaires with closed questions and a Likert scale, questionnaires before and after an intervention, complementary quantitative and qualitative tests (e.g. questionnaire and diary or interview).

Surveys, for example, have been carried out with university students (Kaneko & Kawaguchi, 2010; Kouritzin, Piquemal, & Renaud, 2009; Santos-Ortega & Muñoz-Rodríguez, 2015; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009), secondary school students (Gonzalez, 2010; Huguet & Janés, 2008; Hussain & Masum, 2016), primary school students (Adachi, 2015; Matsuzaki-Carreira, 2005), students of English for specific purposes (Cotterall, 1999; McEown, Sawaki, & Harada, 2017; Trinder, 2013) and even with the teachers themselves (Pourfeiz, 2016; Ruesch, Bown, & Dewey, 2012), but with different bases and focuses. It should be noted that the one by (Buyse, Barrientos-Báez, & Sánchez-Verdejo, 2019) was carried out in the institution that is the subject of our study, researching the effect of motivational matters on students on a course on mastering internal communication in a FL to measure the impact of their “future me” (adopted by KU Leuven in its 2014-2017 strategic plan) to motivate the students.

On the other hand, questionnaires such as the one by (Franco, 2006) are more qualitative and serve to delve into the perception of the FL culture and community through each student’s own beliefs. Though it is based on the psychological test by (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957), it was taken up again by (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2009).

Finally, a mixed method allows the matter of motivation in the FL classroom to be tackled with an integrating approach. Hence, in (Busse & Walter, 2013) and (Öztürk & Gurbuz, 2013), the interview and the questionnaire are combined, whereas (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014) merge the questionnaire with a diary to measure FL students’ motivation and attitudes in Sweden.

Given this background, the fundamental goal in this work is to show the results of a study intended to determine the most important characteristics of university students in relation to FL learning. The intention is to identify clusters differentiated by the kind of motivation the students show as regards FL learning as the cornerstone in interpreting quantitative results and future curricular adaptations depending on the behaviour and real needs of different groups of students. To do so, a quantitative survey-based methodology was applied to use multivariate statistics to obtain a significative segmentation based on the different types of motivation identified in the foreign language classroom. The research was based on a case study conducted on students from KU Leuven (Belgium).

Research objectives

Given this background, the fundamental goal in this work is to show the results of a study intended to determine the most important characteristics of students in KU Leuven (Belgium) in relation to FL learning. The intention is to identify clusters differentiated by the kind of motivation the students show as regards FL learning as the cornerstone in interpreting quantitative results and future curricular adaptations depending on the behaviour and real needs of different groups of students.

Materials and methods

Analysis and results

Motives or reasons for studying a FL

A study was carried out using a total of 479 valid surveys. In order to analyse and characterise their reasons for studying a FL, the subjects in the sample were asked to evaluate their preferences regarding different reasons on a 5-point Likert scale.

Using the preferences given, a factor analysis was carried out to extract two motivational dimensions related to studying a language as measured in question 3 on the basis of the opposition between intrinsic-integrating motivation and extrinsic-instrumental one as described in section 2. The two factors extracted explain 57.35% of the total variance. The satisfactory percentage of total variance is not determined precisely, though in social sciences a minimum threshold is usually established of 60% (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010) or 70-80% (Rietveld & Hout, 1993). In our case, the percentage is near the minimum threshold. Although the interest lies in the factorial scores arising from the components as a tool to establish the strength of the different motives or reasons, it is useful to characterise each one of the factors extracted.

Table 3: Rotated component factor matrix: Motives for learning a foreign language. Source: authors

Motives for learning	Components		Motivational dimensions
	1	2
	0.814		Intrinsic - Integrating
	0.806
	0.730
		0.798	Extrinsic – Instrumental
		0.639
		0.536
Eigen values	2.800	1.161
% explained variance	33.585	23.769
% accumulated variance	33.585	57.354
KMO	0.696
	Chi-square = 453.446 sig < 0.001

Extraction method: Principal component method. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser

The first of the factors explains 33% of the total variance of the matrix of motives for studying a FL. This factor has been catalogued in the literature as an intrinsic and integrating dimension on grouping together reasons that encourage students to act of their own accord and to integrate the language into their way of being and thinking. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.722) for the three items in this dimension show the reliability of the subscale. The second factor shows greater preferences towards motives with the intention to achieve a skill that provides a practical benefit. This dimension has been called extrinsic-instrumental, and explains 23% of the total variance of the matrix of motivational preferences, also giving a reliable subscale—Cronbach's alpha (0.611).

The results obtained enable the university students’ motives for studying a FL to be elucidated, which are diverse and make it possible to segment the students. As it is advisable to use a hierarchical grouping method followed by a non-hierarchical method (Hair et al., 2010), the complete linkage and Ward method were used—both techniques are predominant in the literature on segmentation (Dolnicar, 2002) —initially using squared Euclidean distances to identify possible data clusters. The aim is to identify groups of students who are very similar in terms of the two motivational dimensions extracted. An examination of the resulting timeline clusters and dendrograms suggests up to five different cluster solutions (Figure 1). A more detailed examination of the group assignation and size of the group, in addition to the subsequent analysis via a non-hierarchical K-means clustering algorithm, confirmed that the solution of three clusters was the most suitable one.

Table 4 shows the characterisation of the clusters based on the means of the students’ reasons for studying a language as indicated in question 3 (themed block “Motivation in studying a FL”). The F statistic from ANOVA shows compares the means and shows they are not equal—the critical level associated with this statistic is lower than 0.05—but does not clarify where the detected differences lie. In order to know which mean differs from another, a particular type of contrast was applied called “post-hoc multiple comparisons” or “a posteriori comparisons” (Bonferroni test). The F statistic from ANOVA is based on meeting two suppositions: normality and homoscedasticity; while the robust Levene homogeneity test allows for the assumption that population variances are the same for each of the motives for studying languages.

Table 4: Characterisation of clusters using the mean of items of motives for learning a foreign language. Source: authors

Motives for learning	Clusters of belonging			ANOVA
	Instrumental	Integrative Instrumental	Incidental	F	Sig.
	Mean	Mean	Mean
1. I want to know and speak other languages	3.72(*)	4.76(*)	3.08(*)	134.640	< 0.001
2. Hobby	1.89	3.48(*)	1.73	161.836	< 0.001
3. Converse and interact with people from other countries	4.15(*)	4.85(*)	3.58(*)	104.267	< 0.001
4. Requisite to obtain a university degree	4.30(*)	3.27(*)	2.97(*)	102.633	< 0.001
5. Useful for my future career	4.64	4.54	3.72(*)	84.355	< 0.001
6. Cope on travels abroad	4.35	4.35	3.45(*)	56.060	< 0.001

(*) The values show significant differences in two of the means of the three post-hoc analysis clusters from ANOVA. In order to compare the significant differences between the different means, the Bonferroni test was applied.

Table 5 was drawn up in order to help characterise the clusters. It summarises the information and the statistical analyses based on different dimensions.

Table 5: Characterisation of clusters using the mean of motivational dimensions for learning a foreign language. Source: authors

Motivational dimensions	Clusters of belonging			ANOVA
	Instrumental	Integrative Instrumental	Incidental
	Mean	Mean	Mean	F	Sig.
Intrinsic - Integrating	3.25(*)	4.37(*)	2.80(*)	271.977	< 0.001
Extrinsic – Instrumental	4.43(*)	4.05(*)	3.38(*)	205.296	< 0.001

(*) The values show significant differences in two of the means of the three post-hoc analysis clusters from ANOVA. In order to compare the significant differences between the different means, the Bonferroni test was applied. In order to compare the significant differences between the different means, the Games-Howell test was applied.

The first of the clusters is the most numerous one. It is characteristic for being linked to the extrinsic-instrumental dimension, which accounts for 46.8% of the sample size. As a result, this segment has been catalogued as “instrumental students”. The second cluster accounts for 28.4% and is characterised by showing high values for the items linked to the two dimensions. This group has been catalogued as “integrative-instrumental students”. The third cluster takes up 24.8% and shows medium or low scores in each of the motivational items. This group has been named “incidental students”, in other words, those with a “non-intentional” FL learning process.

Hence, the segments identified enable it to be determined that, taking into account the motives for learning a language, there are three types of student: instrumental, integrative-instrumental and “incidental”.

Discussion and conclusions

Taking into account the results arising from the analysis, we can conclude the following.

The students that participated in the present study from KU Leuven show an essentially instrumental motivation for learning a foreign language: the most numerous cluster (46.8%) is characteristic for a clear extrinsic-instrumental motivation; the second (28.4 %) for having both instrumental and intrinsic-integrating motivations; and the third (24.8%) for giving medium or low scores in each of the motivation dimensions. This group has been named “incidental” students: in other words, their FL learning process is non-intentional. Hence, the desire to acquire a L2 is limited to practical ends, whether using other the language as a tool for study or to get a better job. For this reason, the desire to know and speak other languages, converse and interact with other people or simply as a hobby are all minority motives for studying a FL among these students. These results are in line with the dominant neoliberal ideologies as established in studies described in section 1 such as (Shin & Park, 2015).

No noteworthy differences have been detected among the groups identified with the following variables: gender, insertion into employment (little), stated spending on language learning (low), preferential order in studying languages (the highest scored is English, followed by far by French and Spanish), and options for learning or perfecting the language (the preferred option being travel or periods abroad, followed by far by conversation with friends and acquaintances, and self-study). However, the students in the integrative-instrumental cluster are significantly older, which may be why they also give the highest scores for each of the languages considered (being significantly greater than the other two clusters for Spanish, Italian and German) and in hours of study (which are relatively few in general).

On the other hand, conversation and oral comprehension stand out among the most highly valued language components and skills, with grammar and writing being the least valued. The analysis by segments reveals that all of the components considered are significantly much less valued by the segment of incidental students, with no sharp differences between the other two segments.

The results back those obtained by other studies such as the one by (Bañuelos-Márquez, 1990) and Gardner & Lambert (1972 quoted in Williams & Burden, 1997), since they show a markedly extrinsic nature consubstantial with the university environment. On the other hand, the hypothesis at the outset based on the work by (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003) is refuted, which pointed to a predominance of intrinsic or integrative motivation in multilingual environments. The participants belong to bachelor’s degree study levels, so they are taught completely in Dutch in a monolingual environment. More than a vital necessity, languages respond to instrumental aspects such as attaining a university education level or access to jobs in the country’s capital city, with a heavy francophone component. Thus, multilinguism is not practised as a purpose in itself but as a key requirement to employability. Some author considers that this instrumentalization of a so-called multilingual society just serve to protect the linguistic statu quo as (Kubota, 2020) pointed out in his study on the notion of non-performativity of diversity work and “the tendency of discussing translingual practices without enacting them”.

Nevertheless, the rate of students that show both types of motivation is not to be disdained, coming to 28.4%, so endogenous factors also play a role in learning. As indicated by previous studies (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Stipek, 2002, quoted in Merlin, 2003; Ryan & Powelson,1991 quoted in Merlin,2003; Del Castillo, 2010; Gilakjani et al., 2012) intrinsically motivated students tend to choose more creative and complex activities, so linguistic growth is greater. This explains why students in this cluster, who are older, increase their range of languages, as well as the hours of study. This type of motivation is the most noteworthy in the FL classroom, so the policy of “future me” stated in KU Leuven and found in the study by (Buyse et al., 2019) should be developed with greater determination in that institution’s language classrooms so as to improve the results of the learning. One option would be to share the results of this survey with the teachers involved and draw up a coordinated strategic plan that includes a prior study on the affective relationship and prejudices held by the students regarding FL acquisition in order to adapt the curricular and extracurricular methods accordingly. For example, greater emphasis could be placed on aspects more highly valued by the students such as oral comprehension and expression (point 6.5 andTable 9 ) and the desire to acquire active communication skill in realistic situations, such as special days or trips that generate new, contextualised personal learning experiences.

It would also be worth carrying out a second, more cultural and qualitative study to complement this one such as the one by (Franco, 2006) to learn the reasons holding back the incidental group’s learning or the reasons that drain internal motivation from 46.8% of all those participants, in order to determine what negative aspects of the present me and prospective me hinder the involvement of the desire to learn languages.

Finally, we consider that future research should indicate if such relationships between attitude and motivation bear a direct relationship with linguistic competence and if they could be generalised to slightly different populations such as from other campuses, universities or even European countries. In this sense, by replicating this quantitative survey-based study in other contexts and triangulating it with a qualitative one could help to determine FL students’ needs and real motivational dimensions in a more precise form and adjust teaching interventions accordingly.