EFL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO LEARN ENGLISH By Ghulam Rasool A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages—Master of Arts 2018 ABSTRACT EFL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO LEARN ENGLISH By Ghulam Rasool In this study, EFL undergraduate students’ motivation to learn English in the context of Pakistan was investigated by using Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System as the theoretical framework. This study also investigated the attitudes of the participants about the status of English as the official language of Pakistan and as the medium of competitive examinations. The participants of this study were undergraduate students in three public universities of Balochistan, Pakistan. This study was a mixed method study and data were collected by using a 54-item structured questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. The quantitative data were analyzed by using descriptive as well as inferential statistics, and qualitative data were analyzed by thematic analysis of the interviews. The findings of the study suggest that the participants reported Attitudes to Learning English, Ought-to L2 self, International Posture, Instrumentality-promotion, Milieu, Ideal L2 Self, and Instrumentality- prevention as the most important motivational factors for learning English. The results also indicate that Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System is valid in the EFL context of Pakistan. The participants also mostly favored English as the official language of Pakistan and as the medium of competitive examinations. To my parents iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all the people who helped and supported me in the writing of this thesis. First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Paula Winke, who guided and helped me at every step of this project. In fact, I would not have been able to write and complete this thesis without her kind patronage. I am also grateful to the Director of the Michigan State University MA TESOL Program and the second reader of this thesis, Dr. Debra Hardison, for her valuable feedback and suggestions. I would also like to thank the College of Arts and Letters for providing me Summer College Research Abroad Monies (SCRAM) fellowship, which enabled me to travel to my country for the purpose of data collection for this project. I am also thankful to all the participants in Pakistan who willingly participated in this study. I would also like to express my gratitude to all the faculty members of MA TESOL Program and my classmates in Michigan State University for their help and support during the course of this project. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Abida, my daughter Breshna, and son Azlan for their patience and for always being there for me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 3 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 10 3.1 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Instruments .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 Pilot Study and Data Collection .......................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 15 4. 1 Reliability Analysis of the Scales....................................................................................... 15 4.2 Mean Values and Standard Deviations of Scales ................................................................ 16 4.3 Results of the T-Test Analysis based on the Gender of the Participants ............................ 18 4.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Based on the Institutions of the Participants .................. 21 4.5 Correlation Analysis of the Scales ...................................................................................... 27 4.5.1 Correlations between the Intended Learning Efforts (Criterion Measure) and other Scales ..................................................................................................................................... 27 4.5.2 Important Correlations among Other Scales ................................................................ 28 4.5.3 Multiple Regression Analysis ....................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 33 5.1 Research Question 1: What are the important motivational factors that are responsible for the learners’ L2 motivation? ..................................................................................................... 33 5.2 Research Question 2: Is Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System valid in the context of this study? ............................................................................................................................. 42 5.3 Research Question 3: How do learners see English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations? .................................................................... 44 5.4 Research Question 4: Are there any differences in the motivation of learners on the basis of Gender and Institutions?............................................................................................................ 46 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 49 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 53 APPENDIX A: ENGLISH VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE...................................... 54 APPENDIX B: ENGLISH VERSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW GUIDE ...... 59 APPENDIX C: URDU VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................... 60 APPENDIX D: URDU VERSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW GUIDE............ 66 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 67 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Institution-wise Distribution of the Participants ............................................................. 10 Table 2: Degree Programs of the Participants ............................................................................. 11 Table 3: Age of the Participants (in years)………….. ................................................................. 11 Table 4: Number of Languages Spoken by Participants ............................................................... 12 Table 5: Number of Languages Spoken by the Participants (Including English) ........................ 12 Table 6: Reliability of Scales in the Questionnaire ..................................................................... 16 Table 7: Mean Values and Standard Deviations of Scales .......................................................... 17 Table 8: T-test Analysis ............................................................................................................... 20 Table 9: Analysis of Variance Based on Institutions ................................................................... 23 Table 10: Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests ......................................................................................... 25 Table 11: Correlations among Scales .......................................................................................... 30 Table 12: Multiple Regression Analysis – Intended Learning Efforts as the Criterion Measure.. 31 vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In this study, I investigated EFL undergraduate students’ motivation to learn English in the Pakistani context by using L2 Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2009) as the theoretical framework. The L2 Motivational Self System is “a theoretical framework for describing people’s motivation to learn modern languages” (Lamb, 2012, p. 998). According to the constitution of Pakistan, English is the official language of the country and, therefore, is used as the medium of communication and written correspondence in government departments and offices (Coleman, 2010; Malik, 1996; Mansoor, 2005; Mehboob, 2002; Rahman, 2004). In recent years, as a result of globalization, the concept of “deterritorialization”(boundary breaking) of language has emerged (Blommaert, 2010, p. 46), which means that English is not the property of just native- English-speaking countries: it is a world language (a lingua franca), and as such, anyone can adopt and use it. Accordingly, there has been a major re-conceptualization in L2 motivation research (Islam et al., 2013). People’s motivation to learn English is no longer strictly tied to Integrativeness: that is, a desire to integrate into a native-English-speaking population. Rather, people are learning English to use it with other non-native speakers for various reasons, such as for business purposes, for education, and for communication. Despite the fact that Pakistan is the 6th most populous country in the world (with a population of around 200 million), few studies (e.g., Islam, et al., 2013; Norton & Kamal, 2003; Pathan, et al., 2010) have been carried out on the L2 motivation in the Pakistani context, but these were mostly done in the urban context of Punjab or Sindh provinces of Pakistan. The significance of a study on Pakistani EFL learners’ motivation to learn English has increased greatly, particularly because of a recent order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan to adopt Urdu as the official language of the country, and another order passed by the Lahore High Court 1 (Pakistan) to conduct the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination (an examination held every year for induction in civil service/bureaucracy, previously administered in English) in Urdu instead of English. Although, neither of these decisions has been practically implemented, it is imperative to understand what young learners think about these developments and how it is going to affect their motivation to learn English. Moreover, Pakistan is a multicultural and multilingual country where 6 major and more than 59 minor languages are spoken (Rahman, 2002; Pathan, et al., 2010). In different parts of the country, various regional languages are spoken along with Urdu, the national language of the country. Balochistan is the largest province in size (but not in population) within the country, and the province has a vast diversity of languages spoken, including, Balochi, Brahui, Pashto, Saraiki, Sindhi, Persian, and Urdu. Such diversity of languages does not exist in any other province of the country. Data for this study were collected in Quetta which is the capital of the Balochistan province. Being the capital and most developed city of the province, people from all of the above linguistic backgrounds live, work and study in it. The main reason for selecting Pakistan for this study was the paucity of research on EFL learners’ motivation in the Pakistani context. Also, I selected Quetta, Balochistan, as the site of data collection for this study owing to the fact that, as far as I know, no study on the learners’ motivation to learn English has been carried out in the context of the Balochistan province. Therefore, I believe the results of this study, in a multilingual setting of the Balochistan province, will contribute significantly to the existing knowledge of EFL motivation. 2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW During the last decade or so a major shift has taken place in L2 motivation research. Integrativeness, the main construct of a conventional socio-psychological model of L2 motivation, has lost its significance to a great extent (Dörnyei, 2005). Dörnyei (1990) challenged the relevance of integrativeness in the EFL contexts where learners do not have any direct contact with the L2 community. Instead, owing to globalization, the concept of English as a lingua franca has become stronger in recent years. Consequently, the strict association of English with the Anglophone nations is no more widely accepted in the present era (Lamb 2004; Coetzee-Van Rooy, 2006). Dörnyei (2005) replaced the traditional socio-psychological model of L2 motivation with his L2 Motivational Self System, which consists of three main constructs, namely, the Ideal L2 self, Ought-to L2 self and L2 learning experience (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 29). This shift in L2 motivation research corresponds to an overall shift from a focus on psycholinguistic approaches within Second Language Acquisition (SLA), to a more diverse approach with a predominant emphasis on sociological and anthropological aspects of language acquisition (Block, 2007). Various studies have been conducted regarding second language (L2) motivation in the contexts of different countries. Ryan (2009) conducted a mixed-methods study in the Japanese context on a nationwide scale with 2,397 participants. The quantitative data were collected by using an attitudinal questionnaire, and the qualitative data were collected by conducting semi- structured interviews with 23 participants. Ryan (2009) argued that the majority of the secondary level students in Japan learn English as a L2 for instrumental reasons owing to English’s great significance for the students’ future academic and professional careers (p. 125). Therefore, Ryan conducted this study with two major goals; first, to empirically test the ideal L2 self proposed by 3 Dörnyei and his colleagues in the context of Hungary (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005a, 2005b; Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Dörnyei et al., 2006), and second, to analyze this concept within the educational system of Japan (p. 126). The results showed some striking similarities between the Japanese and Hungarian contexts, and demonstrated the significance of the ideal L2 self as a better predictor of motivated behaviors than integrativeness, especially for the university English majors. The findings support Ryan’s (2009) argument that “an interpretation of language learning motivation based on the concept of integrativeness is fundamentally flawed in this respect as it is based on the representation of a culture specific variable as generalisable construct” (p. 137). In another study conducted in the Japanese context, Yashima, Lori and Shimizu (2004) investigated the relevance of the model of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) (MacIntyre, et al., 1998).Yashima et al. (2004) introduced a new construct, International Posture, which includes in its definition an “interest in foreign or international affairs, willingness to go overseas to stay or work, and a readiness to interact with intercultural partners” (p. 125). The findings of their study revealed that international posture was more important than integrativeness and instrumentality and was the most significant reason for Japanese learners’ motivation to learn English. Taguchi, Magid and Papi (2009), conducted a comparative study on the L2 motivational self system with 5,000 L2 learners from China, Japan, and Iran. They used three versions of a questionnaire, designed for the learners belonging to the three countries included in the study. The aim of the study was “to validate Dörnyei’s L2 motivation theory by replicating the Hungarian studies in the framework of his [Dörnyei’s] L2 Motivational Self System” (Taguchi et al., 2009, p. 74). The findings of this study, like Ryan’s (2009) study, indicated that the ideal L2 4 self proved to be the better predictor of the learning efforts of the L2 learners than the concept of integrativeness, thus, supporting Dörnyei’s L2 motivation theory. Lamb (2012), in his study on the motivation of young language learners in Indonesia, compared the motivation of learners to learn English in urban and rural contexts with a view to understanding the general perception of less motivation of language learners in the rural areas. Another goal of the study was to test Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 motivational self system in the Indonesian context. Lamb conducted this quantitative study by collecting data from 527 participants by using a 50 item questionnaire. The findings of the study revealed that the learners strongly believed in the instrumentality (usefulness) of English, were concerned about the international posture (interest in the international affairs), and ideal L2 self. However, learning experience (i.e. how learners feel about their learning experience of a language) proved to be the most important motivating factor for learners to learn English in both urban as well as rural settings (p. 1014). This finding is in line with the findings of the studies in the Iranian and Japanese contexts (Taguchi et al., 2009) where, as a component of the L2 Motivational Self System, learning experience proved to be the most significant contributor to the intended learning efforts of the language learners. Kormos, Kiddle, and Csizér (2011) conducted a quantitative study on learners’ motivation in the Chilean context. They collected data from 518 young learners of three various age groups in the capital of Chili, Santiago. The reason for the selection of Chili for this study, according to the researchers, was the absence of research on this area of study in the South American settings. The study in the South American context was also important to investigate the impact of Spanish, the lingua franca in South American countries, on the EFL motivation of English language learners. In other words, it was also a study of the impact of one lingua franca 5 of the region (Spanish) on the learning motivation of the international lingua franca (English). According to the findings of the study, along with the internal and external influences on learners’ motivation, the most common goal of learning English was the concept of English as an international lingua franca. The researchers held the view that the results of their study might be influenced by the data that were collected only from learners belonging to “middle- and upper- class backgrounds” (p.513). L2 motivation in the Pakistani context, to the best of my knowledge, is quite under- researched, and most of the conducted studies have been done in the urban context of the Punjab province of the country. One of the recent studies in the context of Pakistani learners was conducted by Islam, Lamb, and Chambers (2013). Islam et al. (2013) investigated Pakistani learners’ motivation to learn English using the theoretical framework of Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System. In this study they introduced a new construct of “National Interest” (p. 234) to investigate the extent of the influence this construct might have on the motivation of the Pakistani learners, that is, motivation of the learners to learn English for the better future of the nation. Data were collected via questionnaires from around 1,000 undergraduate university students within the Punjab province. The findings of the study validated the L2 Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2009). The findings also suggested that some of the prominent factors that contributed to the motivation of the learners included Milieu, Cultural interest, international posture, and the national interest. The researchers acknowledged that there were limitations to their study. They opined that if a similar study had been conducted in some other part of the country, the findings might have been different. This is because in a different part of the country, the participants would have come from a different social and economic level, and they would 6 have included rural instead of just urban people, and they would have included lower and upper- class people, instead of predominately middle class people. Norton and Kamal (2003) conducted a study on the investment of Pakistani middle- school learners in English in the post 9/11 scenario in Karachi, Pakistan. By asking learners to reflect on their investment, they found that learners considered competence in English language to be important for progress at the local and international levels. The learners also expressed their views that it was important to learn English because it is the international lingua franca and also, by learning it, equality with the more developed countries could be achieved at the global level. Shahbaz and Liu (2015) in their quantitative study investigated the impact of various societal and contextual factors on first-year Pakistani college students’ motivation to learn English as a second language. They collected data from 547 students from the Punjab province. According to the findings of their study, students at private colleges demonstrated a higher level of motivation to learn English than students at public colleges. Similarly, the ideal L2 self among the students of the private colleges was higher than the students of the public colleges. However, the public colleges’ students had a stronger instrumental motivation to learn English as L2. The researchers of this study also investigated the influence of various subjects, such as arts versus science subjects, on the learners’ motivation to learn English, but they did not find any significant difference in motivation as both groups showed high levels of motivation. However, the reasons for the motivation to learn English between arts and science majors were different, as science students were found to be instrumentally motivated and arts students showed a tendency toward integrative motivation. Pathan, Shahriar, and Mari (2010) carried out a study to investigate various factors that motivate Pakistani public university learners to learn English. They conducted the study at an 7 engineering university of Sindh province of Pakistan. Their main goal was to find out which of the two, instrumental or integrative, motivations was mainly responsible for the learners’ motivation. They also investigated the role of various factors that had an impact on the learners’ motivation. The findings suggested that learners were motivated both instrumentally as well as integratively. The findings also indicated that learners’ motivation was affected by the environment and the teachers’ teaching methodology. All of the above studies explored the role of various motivational factors in learning English in the ESL or EFL contexts and the majority of them used Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System as the theoretical framework. Taking into consideration all of the above research studies on EFL motivation in the context of various countries, the aim of this study was to conduct an insightful and comprehensive study to investigate the L2 motivation of Pakistani learners of English and to assess whether Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System was valid in the context of this study. Another important goal of this study was to assess the views of learners about the status of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations. I was also interested in investigating the differences in the motivation of the participants of this study on the basis of gender and institutions. Keeping these objectives in mind, my research questions for this study were: 1. What are the important motivational factors that are responsible for the learners’ L2 motivation in the context of Pakistan? 2. Is Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System valid in the context of this study? 3. How do learners see English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examination? 8 4. Are there any differences in the motivation of learners on the basis of Gender and Institutions? 9 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Participants The participants of this study were undergraduate university students at three public universities in the capital of Balochistan province of Pakistan. I collected a total of 229 paper- based questionnaires from students and interviewed 11 students. Out of the 229 questionnaires, 73 were collected from the University of Balochistan (UoB) Quetta, 77 from Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering, and Management Sciences (BUITEMS) Quetta, and 79 from Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University (SBK) Quetta (Table 1). UoB is the largest general university of the province and one of the oldest universities of the country. BUITEMS is another large university situated in the capital city. SBK Women University is the first university for women of the province where there is no co-education .The participants were in 13 different degree programs and none of them had English as their major (Table 2). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 25 years with a mean of 20.83 years (Table 3). In terms of gender, the sample population was almost equally divided with 115 males and 114 female students. The majority of the students from UoB and BUITEMS were male students, whereas all the students from SBK Women University were females. An interesting fact about the participants is the number of languages they could speak including English (Table 4). There were only 11 participants who could speak only two languages, whereas all the remaining participants could speak more than two languages. The mean of the languages that participants could speak was 3.56 (Table 5). Table 1: Institution-wise Distribution of the Participants S.No Name of Institution 1 University of Balochistan Quetta 10 Number of Participants Percent 73 31.9 Table 1 (cont’d) 2 Balochistan University of Information Technology, 77 Engineering, and management Sciences Quetta Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University Quetta 3 Total 79 229 33.6 34.5 100.0 Table 2: Degree Programs of the Participants S.No Degree Program Number of Participants Percent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BBS (Bachelor of Business Studies) BBA (Bachelor of Business Administration) Bachelor of Science in Software Engineering Bachelor of Science in Mining Engineering Bachelor of Science in Economics Bachelor of Science in Commerce Bachelor of Science in Business Communication Bachelor of Science in Psychology Bachelor of Science in Botany Bachelor of Science in Zoology Bachelor of Science in Biotechnology Bachelor of Science in Computer Science Bachelor of Science in Geology Total Missing Total 48 17 29 48 20 8 1 8 14 25 2 2 6 228 1 229 21.0 7.4 12.7 21.0 8.7 3.5 .4 3.5 6.1 10.9 .9 .9 2.6 99.6 .4 100.0 Table 3: Age of the Participants (in years) Minimum Age 18 Years Maximum Age 25 Years Mean Age 20.83 Years 11 Table 4: Number of Languages Spoken by Participants N Minimum Maximum Mean Number of Languages Spoken by Participants 225 2 10 3.56 Table 5: Number of Languages Spoken by the Participants (Including English) Number of Languages Frequency Percent (Participants) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 Total Missing Total 11 128 57 17 6 4 1 1 225 4 229 4.8 55.9 24.9 7.4 2.6 1.7 .4 .4 98.3 1.7 100.0 3.2 Instruments This study was a mixed methods research study and the data collection process consisted of paper-based questionnaire surveys (Appendix A) and interviews (Appendix B). In order to collect data via questionnaires, I developed a motivational factors questionnaire (MFQ). I adapted the items in the instrument from the studies of Taguchi et al. (2009), Lamb (2012), Ryan (2009), Islam et al. (2013), and Dörnyei et al. (2006). However, keeping in mind the local context, I modified some of the individual items in the questionnaire. Moreover, to investigate 12 learners’ attitudes toward English as the official language of the country and the administration of national competitive examinations in English, I developed the scales of “Attitude to English as the Official Language” and “Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examinations”. The final questionnaire consisted of 54 seven-point Likert scale items. Keeping in mind a possibility of low-proficiency participants, to remain on the safe side, I translated the MFQ in Urdu as well (Appendix C). The final questionnaire had two parts: the first part consisted of background information about the participants, and the second part consisted of the items. 3.3 Pilot Study and Data Collection Before administering the questionnaire to the participants, I piloted the questionnaire through a “think aloud” activity. Though it would have been ideal to pilot the instruments of the study on a population that was similar to the sample population, owing to the unavailability of such a population in the USA it was not possible for me to do so. However, the “think aloud” activity proved to be quite fruitful as it helped me to refine the instruments to a great extent. In this activity, I requested my friends and colleagues at Michigan State University to read the individual items in the questionnaire and give their suggestions about the clarity and suitability of the language and items themselves. As a result of feedback from the participants of this activity, I made some changes in the questionnaire. For example, I reduced the total number of items from 56 to 54 because two items were pointed out to be similar to other items in the questionnaire. Similarly, I also changed the language of some individual items of the questionnaire. The final questionnaire measured 14 different constructs. After seeking consent from the concerned authorities of the three universities, I made multiple visits to these universities to collect data. I administered the questionnaire in the English language classrooms of the 13 participants with the help of the concerned teacher. While administering the questionnaires, I distributed the English as well as the Urdu versions to the participants and gave them the option to fill out the version they were more comfortable with. The questionnaire took approximately 25-30 minutes to complete. Having collected 229 questionnaires, I interviewed 11 participants to triangulate the results of my study. The interviews were semi-structured and interviewees were given the choice of giving their responses in either English, Urdu, or both. Like the questionnaires, I translated the consent form and preliminary guide for the interview in Urdu. Before starting the interview, I gave the interviewees a new consent form for the interview and once they gave their consent, I proceeded with the interview. The majority of the participants gave the complete interview in English, some used both English and Urdu, and some used only Urdu. 14 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS 4. 1 Reliability Analysis of the Scales After collecting paper-based questionnaires, I entered the quantitative data into SPSS (version 20) for further analysis. First of all, in order to test internal consistency of all the scales, I calculated Cronbach Alpha coefficient values which are presented in Table 6. According to Table 6, four of the scales- Instrumentality (Promotion), Attitudes to learning English, Attitudes to L2 Community, and Anxiety, have alpha values of more than .70 and nine scales- Intended Learning Efforts, Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, Instrumentality (prevention), Cultural Interest, International Posture, Milieu, Attitude to English as the official language, and Attitude to English as the medium of competitive examination have alpha values of more than .60 or close to .70. According to Dörnyei (2003), Cronbach Alpha value of .60 for scales having less than 10 items is acceptable. Similarly, according to Pallant (2007), for social sciences, alpha values above .60 are acceptable. Therefore, the Cronbach Alpha values of the above mentioned 13 scales can be considered highly acceptable and reliable. Only one scale, Integrativeness, has a very low Alpha value (.33), which is similar to the reliability findings of the study of Islam et al. (2013) where it had a very low value (.30). The low reliability of this scale could be because there were only three items in this scale or because of the language of the individual items. As Integrativeness is not one of the three components of L2 Motivational System and its presence for further analysis could not have impacted the other findings of this study, for my own understanding, I decided to keep it for further analysis to see how it would behave in subsequent analysis. The scales of Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, and Attitudes to Learning English- which represent three components of Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System, have shown high 15 reliability which is in line with the reliability of these scales conducted in the Asian contexts, such as the studies of Taguchi et al., (2009) and Ryan (2009). Table 6: Reliability of Scales in the Questionnaire Name of the Scale Number of Items Cronbach Alpha 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 Value .65 .62 .67 .71 .63 .79 .61 .71 .33 .66 .60 .81 .61 .65 S.No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Intended Learning Efforts Ideal L2 Self Ought-to L2 Self Instrumentality (Promotion) Instrumentality (prevention) Attitudes to learning English Cultural Interest Attitudes to L2 Community Integrativeness International Posture 11 Milieu 12 Anxiety 13 Attitude to English as the official language 14 Attitude to English as the medium of competitive examination 4.2 Mean Values and Standard Deviations of Scales Table 7 presents the mean values and standard deviations of all scales included in the MFQ of this study. 16 Table 7: Mean Values and Standard Deviations of Scales Scales Mean Std. Deviation International Posture Instrumentality (Promotion) Ideal L2 Self Attitudes to Learning English Instrumentality (Prevention) Attitudes to L2 Community Milieu Intended Learning Efforts Ought-to L2 Self Cultural Interest Attitude to English as the official language Anxiety Attitude to English as the medium of Competitive Examination Integrativeness 6.09 .97 5.91 1.04 5.79 1.09 5.63 1.17 5.43 1.19 5.16 1.48 5.15 1.18 5.14 1.17 4.98 1.35 4.57 1.35 4.45 1.31 4.40 1.53 4.39 1.47 4.36 1.23 The majority of the scales in Table 7 have high mean values, which indicates that the sample population of this study is overall highly motivated to learn English. Among these scales, International Posture has the highest mean value (6.09) which reflects the belief of learners in the importance of English as the international lingua franca. Similarly, the scales of 17 Instrumentality-promotion, Ideal L2 self, Attitudes to learning English, Instrumentality- prevention, Attitudes to L2 Community, Milieu, Intended Learning Efforts, and Ought-to L2 Self also have high mean values. It shows that the participants of this study are well aware of the significance of English for achieving success in their personal lives and are very positive about learning English. Moreover, the means of the scales of Attitude to English as the official language and Attitude to English as the medium of Competitive Examination are above 4, which indicates that the participants are mostly in favor of English as the official language and medium of competitive examinations, but relatively higher standard deviations of these scales indicate that some participants may be more in favor and some may be more against this idea. The mean value of Anxiety shows that despite their high motivation to learn English, the participants experience some anxiety while communicating in it. However, the scale of Anxiety has the highest standard deviation among all the scales which shows that some participants may have experienced more anxiety than others. The scale of Integrativeness has the lowest mean value (4.36) among all the scales which indicates that the sample population may not be very enthusiastic in becoming integrated into a foreign culture. Additionally, all the scales with relatively higher standard deviations need a more detailed analysis keeping in view the background information of the participants to determine which groups or sections of the sample are in favor of or experiencing more or less of a phenomenon. 4.3 Results of the T-Test Analysis based on the Gender of the Participants In order to find out differences in the motivation of the participants based on their gender, multiple independent samples t-tests were conducted (Table 8). Among the 14 scales investigated in the study, there was no statistically significant difference between the males and females in of 12 them. However, a statistically significant difference (2-tailed) was found for 18 Attitude to English as the Official Language, t (227) = -2.54, p = .012, r = -.16; and Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examination t (227) = -2.32, p= .021, r = -.15. However, the effect size of the difference was small; -0.16 and -0.15 respectively, which indicates that only 16 and 15 percent of variance respectively in both of these scales is explained by the gender of the participants. In both of these cases, mean scores for females (4.67 and 4.62 respectively) were higher than for males (4.23 and 4.17 respectively) which indicates that female learners of the sample held a more favorable opinion about English as the official language and the medium of competitive examination than male learners. It also implies growing interest among females in participating actively in public life by appearing in competitive examinations to become a part of civil bureaucracy in Pakistan and their confidence in their English language proficiency. Overall, the results of the t-tests also indicate that both male and female participants of the sample showed high motivation for learning English with some minor differences. 19 Scales Table 8: T-test Analysis Male Female Mean SD Mean SD Mean Diff. F t-value Df p.(2-tailed) Effect Intended Learning Effort 5.23 1.21 5.05 1.12 Ideal L2 Self Ought-to L2 Self 5.83 1.07 5.75 1.13 5.09 1.41 4.86 1.28 .18 .08 .23 Instrumentality (Promotion) 5.87 1.06 5.94 1.02 -.07 Instrumentality (Prevention) 5.29 1.22 5.57 1.14 -.28 Attitudes to Learning English 5.66 1.22 5.60 1.13 Cultural Interest 4.67 1.32 4.46 1.38 Attitudes to L2 Community 5.28 1.45 5.03 1.49 Integrativeness 4.45 1.31 4.27 1.14 International Posture 6.17 .96 6.0 .99 .06 .21 .25 .18 .17 Milieu Anxiety 5.09 1.29 5.19 1.05 -.10 4.31 1.64 4.49 1.41 -.18 .18 .70 .38 .13 .79 .00 .55 .93 1.19 227 .58 227 1.24 227 -.53 227 -1.79 227 .39 227 1.16 227 1.29 227 3.07 1.09 227 .79 1.33 227 3.78 4.28 -.68 227 -.88 222 Attitude to English as the Official 4.23 1.25 4.67 1.34 -.44 .59 -2.54 227 Language Size (r) ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -0.16 .234 .557 .215 .591 .074 .697 .244 .198 .276 .184 .497 .377 .012 Attitude to English as the medium of 4.17 1.47 4.62 1.45 -.45 .01 -2.32 227 .021 -0.15 Competitive Examination 20 4.4 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Based on the Institutions of the Participants One-way between-groups ANOVAs were conducted to test for statistically significant differences in the motivation of the participants based on their institutions (Table 9). A statistically significant difference (.002) was found in the scale of Attitudes to L2 Community between the participants of the three universities: University of Balochistan (UoB); Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering, and Management Sciences (BUITEMS); and Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University (SBK). Means (and standard deviations) for the participants of UoB, BUITEMS, and SBK were 4.66 (1.65), 5.45 (1.27), and 5.33 (1.40), respectively; 95% CIs were [4.27, 5.04], [5.17, 5.74], and [5.01, 5.64], respectively. Results of a one-way between groups ANOVA were statistically significant, F (2, 226) = 6.48, p = .002, ω2 = .04. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests (Table 10) revealed that group comparisons between UoB and BUITEMS, and UoB and SBK were statistically significant (p<.05) with the mean values of BUITEMS (M = 5.45, SD = 1.27) and SBK (M = 5.33, SD = 1.40) significantly higher than UoB (M = 4.66, SD = 1.65). However no significant difference was found between BUITEMS and SBK. These results indicate that the students of UoB showed less positive attitude to L2 community as compared to the students of BUITEMS and SBK. This finding may be indicative of the fact that the students of UoB, as student organizations are very active in UoB, are politically more active than the students of other two universities. That is why a substantial number of students at UoB may not have had a very positive attitude to the L2 community because they might perceive the L2 community as a threat to their identity. It could also be because of the colonial past of the region which had adversely affected the local cultures and languages. 21 A statistically significant difference (.01) was also found in the case of Anxiety among the participants of the three universities. Means for the participants of UoB, BUITEMS, and SBK were 3.95 (1.72), 4.55 (1.47), and 4.66 (1.30), respectively; 95% CIs were [3.56, 4.36], [4.21, 4.89], and [4.37, 4.95], respectively. Results of a one-way between-groups ANOVA were statistically significant, F (2, 226) = 4.73, p = .01, ω2 = .03. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests (Table 10) revealed that group comparisons between UoB and BUITEMS, and UoB and SBK were statistically significant (p<.05) with the mean values of SBK (M = 4.66, SD = 1.30) and BUITEMS (M = 4.55, SD = 1.47) significantly higher than UoB (M = 3.96, SD = 1.73). However no significant difference was found between BUITEMS and SBK. The relatively low mean values, especially among UoB’s students, suggest that overall the students of the three universities were not very anxious while speaking in English. However, relatively high standard deviations indicate variability in the responses of the participants. In the case of Attitude to English as the Official Language as well, a statistically significant difference (.015) was found. Means for the participants of UoB, BUITEMS, and SBK were 4.64 (1.41), 4.10 (1.18), and 4.61 (1.28), respectively; 95% CIs were [4.31, 4.97], [4.83, 4.37], and [4.33, 4.90], respectively. Results of a one-way between groups ANOVA were statistically significant, F (2, 226) = 4.30, p = .015, ω2 = .028. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests (Table 10) revealed that group comparisons between BUITEMS and UoB, and BUITEMS and SBK were statistically significant (p<.05) with the mean values of UoB (M = 4.64, SD = 1.41) and SBK (M = 4.61, SD = 1.28) significantly higher than BUITEMS (M = 4.10, SD = 1.18). However no significant difference was found between UoB and SBK. Another significant difference was found in the case of Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examination. Means for the participants of UoB, BUITEMS, and SBK 22 were 4.59 (1.59), 4.03 (1.36), and 4.55 (1.41), respectively; 95% CIs were [4.22, 4.96], [3.72, 4.34], and [4.24, 4.87], respectively. Results of a one-way between groups ANOVA were statistically significant, F (2, 226) = 3.51, p = .031, ω2 = .022. Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests (Table 10) revealed that group comparisons between BUITEMS and UoB, were statistically significant (p<.05) with the mean values of UoB (M = 4.59, SD = 1.59) significantly higher than BUITEMS (M = 4.03, SD = 1.36). However no significant difference was found between SBK and UoB, and SBK and BUITEMS. The results of ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests for this scale as well show that the students of BUITEMS showed significantly less positive attitude to English as the medium of competitive examination as compared to the students of UoB and SBK. According to Field (2013), the effect size (ω2) values of .01, .06, and .14 may be interpreted as small, medium, and large, respectively. Therefore, it is important to notice that in all of the four cases in the following table in which statistically significant differences exist; the effect size (ω2) implies a small to medium effect size. Table 9: Analysis of Variance Based on Institutions Scales Sample* Mean SD F P Sequence of Difference** (Tukey’s HSD) Effect Size (ω2) ----- .221 ----- 1.52 1.34 .265 ---- ---- .82 .440 ---- ---- .65 .524 ---- ---- Intended Learning Effort Ideal L2 Self Ought-to L2 Self Instrumentality (Promotion) UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK 5.24 5.23 4.95 5.63 5.81 5.92 5.11 4.99 4.83 5.93 5.80 5.99 1.22 1.17 1.09 1.17 1.09 1.02 1.43 1.40 1.20 1.12 1.03 .97 23 Table 9 (cont’d) Instrumentality (Prevention) Attitudes to Learning English Cultural Interest UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK Integrativeness Attitudes to L2 Community UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK International Posture UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK UoB BUITEMS SBK Milieu Anxiety Attitudes to English as the Official Language Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examination 2.28 .104 ---- ---- .68 .506 ---- ---- 1.72 .181 ---- ---- 6.48 .002 1 < 2, 3 0.045 1.38 .253 ---- ---- .360 .698 ---- ---- 1.69 .186 ---- ---- 4.72 .010 1 < 3, 2 0.030 4.29 .015 2 < 1, 3 0.028 3.52 .031 2 < 1 0.022 5.49 5.20 5.60 5.50 5.72 5.67 4.33 4.72 4.64 4.66 5.45 5.33 4.17 4.49 4.40 6.05 6.16 6.04 4.95 5.18 5.29 3.96 4.55 4.66 4.64 4.10 4.61 4.59 4.03 4.55 1.29 1.17 1.09 1.28 1.16 1.08 1.33 1.42 1.29 1.65 1.27 1.40 1.35 1.25 1.07 1.07 .93 .94 1.25 1.23 1.05 1.73 1.47 1.30 1.41 1.18 1.28 1.59 1.36 1.41 *In this column: UoB = University of Balochistan; BUITEMS = Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering, and Management Sciences; and SBK = Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University. **In this column, only those sub-samples have been mentioned in which statistically significant difference was found. Here, sub-samples have been represented by the following numbers: 1= UoB, 2= BUITEMS, and 3= SBK. Statistically significant difference was measured at P < .05. 24 Table 10: Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests Multiple Comparisons Scales (I) Institution (J) Institution Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence (I-J) Interval Attitudes to L2 Community BUITEMS UoB SBK UoB Anxiety BUITEMS SBK UoB Attitude to English as the official language BUITEMS SBK BUITEMS SBK UoB SBK UoB BUITEMS BUITEMS SBK UoB SBK UoB BUITEMS BUITEMS SBK UoB SBK UoB Buitems 25 Lower Bound -1.3490 -1.2201 .2359 -.4201 .1139 -.6710 -1.1755 -1.2792 .0150 -.6761 .1258 -.4615 .0469 -.4655 -1.0438 -1.0041 -.5253 Upper Bound -.2359 -.1139 1.3490 .6710 1.2201 .4201 -.0150 -.1258 1.1755 .4615 1.2792 .6761 1.0438 .5253 -.0469 -.0268 .4655 .0268 1.0041 .003 .013 .003 .850 .013 .850 .043 .012 .043 .897 .012 .897 .028 .989 .028 .036 .989 .036 .23589 .23443 .23589 .23125 .23443 .23125 .24595 .24443 .24595 .24110 .24443 .24110 .21129 .20999 .21129 .20713 .20999 .20713 -.79244* -.66701* .79244* .12543 .66701* -.12543 -.59521* -.70249* .59521* -.10728 .70249* .10728 .54535* .02991 -.54535* -.51544* -.02991 .51544* Table 10 (cont’d) Attitude to English as the medium of Competitive Examination UoB BUITEMS SBK BUITEMS SBK UoB SBK UoB BUITEMS .56000 .23818 .051 -.0019 1.1219 .03867 -.56000 -.52133 -.03867 .52133 .23671 .23818 .23349 .23671 .23349 .985 .051 .068 .985 .068 -.5198 -1.1219 -1.0722 -.5971 -.0295 .5971 .0019 .0295 .5198 1.0722 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. 26 4.5 Correlation Analysis of the Scales I conducted the correlation analysis of all the scales included in the MFQ to determine the strength of the linear relationships among them, and between the individual scales and the reported learning efforts (Criterion Measure) of the learners who participated in this study. Table 11 shows the results of the correlation analysis. 4.5.1 Correlations between the Intended Learning Efforts (Criterion Measure) and other Scales First of all, I will discuss the relationship of all the other scales with the Intended Learning Efforts, which is the criterion measure. According to Table 11, the scale of Attitudes to Learning English has the strongest linear relationship (.752) with the Intended Learning Efforts (Criterion Measure). This high correlation between the intended learning efforts of the participants and their attitudes to learning English may be indicative of the fact that the participants of this study were overwhelmingly satisfied with their learning of English in their respective institutions which served as a motivating factor for their learning of English. The scale of Instrumentality-promotion also has a very strong relationship (.613) with the criterion measure. It may imply that the participants of this study were highly conscious or aware of the important role that English could play in achieving success in their lives. It highlights the importance of English in getting good jobs and a better social status. Another scale that has a relatively strong linear correlation (.580) with the intended learning efforts of the participants is International Posture. It may imply that the participants of this study were very well aware of the importance of English at the international level and they had a desire to participate in various activities outside their own country by learning it. The scale of Milieu too has a relatively strong correlation (.570) with the Intended Learning Efforts (criterion measure). It is somewhat similar to the study of Islam et al. (2013) where it was .588 and in contrast to the Hungarian (.33) and 27 Japanese contexts (.13) (Ryan, 2009, p. 130). It may be because of the fact that Pakistani society is basically a patriarchal society in which parents, family members, and friends etc. play an important role in influencing the views and career choices of the young learners to a large extent. The scale of Ought-to L2 Self also has a relatively strong relationship (.561) with the criterion measure. Like Milieu, it implies the importance of the influence of the other people, such as close relatives, friends and family members on the learners’ imagined future-selves. Similarly, the scale of Ideal L2 Self has a relatively high correlation (.556) with the criterion measure. Instrumentality-prevention also has a positive correlation (.517) with the criterion measure which implies that the participants invest in learning English to overcome deficiencies and shortcomings in their English proficiency to avoid failure in their practical life. The scales of Cultural Interest, Attitudes to L2 Community, Integrativeness, and Anxiety have very weak correlations with the criterion measure. The results of the correlation analysis indicate that the scales of Attitudes to Learning English, Instrumentality-promotion, International Posture, Milieu, Ought-to L2 Self, Ideal L2 Self, and Instrumentality-prevention, respectively, are strongly associated with the intended learning efforts of the participants. It implies that these scales are the most important motivational factors that appear to be responsible for the learners’ learning of English. 4.5.2 Important Correlations among Other Scales The scales of Attitudes to Learning English and Instrumentality-promotion which have the strongest linear relationship with the criterion measure respectively, are also strongly correlated (.686) with one another. It implies that participants’ positive experiences of learning English have a positive influence on their desires to achieve success in their lives. Similarly, it 28 also may imply that the positive aspirations of the participants are responsible for their positive attitudes towards learning English and their enjoyment of this process. Similarly, there is a strong correlation (.724) between the scales of International Posture and Ideal L2 Self. This high correlation between these two scales is similar to the study of Kormos and Csizer (2008). Both of these two scales have a high correlation with the criterion measure as well. The high correlation between the International Posture and Ideal L2 Self may be indicative of the fact that the participants idealize their future selves as having good interaction with the outside world. It also suggests that the participants of this study acknowledge the great importance of English as the international lingua franca. There is a relatively high correlation (.593) between Milieu and Ought-to L2 Self. This high correlation is according to expectations as both of these scales measure the influence of other people on the L2 motivation of the participants. There is also a strong correlation (.741) between the scales of Attitudes to English as the Official Language and Attitudes to English as the Medium of Competitive Examinations, which are the scales that I had developed to measure the attitudes of the young learners towards English as the official language of the country and the medium of competitive examinations. The high correlation is indicative of the similar nature of both of these scales. 29 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Scales 1. Intended Learning Effort 2. Ideal L2 Self 3. Ought-to L2 Self 4. Instrumentality (Promotion) 5. Instrumentality (Prevention) Table 11: Correlations among Scales 1 ----- 2 .556** ----- 3 .561** .579** ----- .613** .720** .631** ----- .517** .539** .593** .641** ----- 6. Attitudes to Learning English .752** .685** .596** .686** .530** ----- 7. Cultural Interest .292** .342** .250** .290** .191** .401** ----- 8. Attitudes to L2 Community .273** .408** .252** .341** .210** .427** .573** ----- 9. Integrativeness 10. International Posture 11. Milieu 12. Anxiety .313** .397** .364** .369** .293** .427** .481** .613** ----- .580** .724** .440** .728** .513** .647** .367** .409** .396** ----- .570** .657** .593** .626** .527** .672** .371** .424** .453** .545** ----- .260** .224** .281** .285** .232** .233** .141* .141* .201** .185** .314** ----- 13. Attitude to English as the official language .180** .189** -.019 .193** .065 .203** .223** .113 .069 .168* .197** -.209** ----- 14. Attitude to English as the medium of Competitive .122 .112 -.099 .115 .005 .148* .095 .076 .053 .075 .074 -.284** .741** --- Examination **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 30 4.5.3 Multiple Regression Analysis In order to see which motivational scales contribute most to the L2 motivation of the learners, I ran a stepwise multiple regression analysis with Intended Learning Efforts as the criterion measure. Before running the regression analysis, I tested the data to see if it fulfilled the required assumptions to conduct this analysis and found that the assumptions of normality, linearity, and multicollinearity were not violated and no outliers were found. Table 12 presents the results of the regression analysis. The final model of the predictors for the reported learning efforts (criterion measure) of the participants consists of three motivational scales. The value of the R2 (.598) indicates that around 60 percent of the variance in the criterion measure is explained by the final model. Table 12: Multiple Regression Analysis – Intended Learning Efforts as the Criterion Measure Scales Final Model Correlations B SE B β Zero-order Partial Part Attitudes to Learning English .559 .062 .561* .752 .515 .381 Ought-to L2 Self .142 .046 .163* .561 .201 .130 International Posture .175 .067 .146* .580 .172 .111 R2 .598 F Change 6.86* *P < .05 31 Table 12 shows that the scale of Attitudes to Learning English, Ought-to L2 self, and International Posture contributed significantly to predict the Intended Learning Efforts of the sample population. The contribution of all scales was significant at p < .05. 32 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION Different studies have been conducted in various second language and foreign language contexts on the L2 motivation of the learners (e.g., Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Dörnyei et al., 2006; Kormos et al., 2011; Lamb, 2012; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009; Yashima et al., 2004). For this purpose, many researchers have used Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System as the theoretical framework, but very few studies have been conducted in multilingual settings. The case of Pakistani EFL learners is quite different and unique owing to their multicultural and multilingual backgrounds (Pathan et al., 2010; Rahman, 2002). Especially, in the context of Quetta city of Balochistan, the site of data collection for this study, where there is more linguistic diversity than the other parts of the country, investigating the L2 motivation of the learners by using Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System may prove to be a significant contribution to the prior knowledge and research on L2 motivation in multilingual settings. Also, this study is the first attempt, to the best of my knowledge, to investigate the attitude of learners toward the status of English as the official language of the country and the medium of examinations. As this study is based on four research questions, in the following sections of this chapter I will discuss, one by one, the findings related to these research questions. 5.1 Research Question 1: What are the important motivational factors that are responsible for the learners’ L2 motivation? According to the correlation analysis (Table 11), the scale of Attitudes to Learning English has the strongest linear relationship (.752) with the Intended Learning Efforts (Criterion Measure). In Ryan’s (2008) study in the Japanese context, the correlation between these two scales was .86 and in another study conducted in the context of Punjab province of Pakistan (Islam et al., 2013) it was .633. This is in line with the high mean value (5.63) (Table 7) for the 33 scale which indicates that the positive experiences of learners while learning English is one of the most important motivational factors for learning English. In the regression analysis (Table 12) this scale emerged as the strongest predictor that contributed significantly to the Intended Learning Efforts of the sample. According to Dörnyei (2009a), there is a direct relationship between one’s learning experiences and the motivation to learn a second language. For example, “the impact of teacher, the curriculum, the peer group or the experience of success”, which are the main ingredients of L2 learning experience, directly affect the motivated behavior of the learners (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 86). It shows that the participants of this study hold a positive view of their immediate learning environment, such as the atmosphere of their English classes and their experiences in learning English. This finding might seem strange when viewed in the context of the overall unsatisfactory English learning environment in the government educational institutions because of various problems, such as a lack of resources and technology, and dearth of properly qualified teachers. But in the case of the participants of this study, there could be different reasons for learners’ positive attitudes toward learning English. The first could be a positive experience by attending various private English language academies as there are many of them in the Quetta city. Another reason could be because the participants of this study were students at three well respected universities situated in the capital city of the province. The overall environment of the universities in Pakistan is quite different from other colleges and schools. If the participants of this study were school or college students, their responses might have been different in this regard. Also, it could be because of positive experiences in their earlier education in private English-medium schools. As one of the students from BUITEMS said in the interview: 34 S1: “I feel very much comfortable and very much easy to learn English because from the basic (beginning) of my life when I joined the school since I was child, so my school was English medium and I was taught English after my mother-tongue, that’s why I feel very much easy to learn English….I enjoy it very much” The scale of Instrumentality-promotion had the 2nd highest mean value and also the 2nd strongest correlation (.613) with the Intended Learning Efforts. Both of these results, the strong correlation and high mean value, clearly reflect the great enthusiasm of the participants toward English in order to achieve success in their lives. According to De Costa, Park, and Wee (2016), language learning is part of the entrepreneurial spirit which motivates learners to learn a language for the sake of a better future and better job opportunities. In Pakistan, English is believed to be one of the most important means for learners, belonging to middle-class and lower middle-class, to achieve higher social status by securing good and lucrative jobs (Hafeez, 2004). For example, talking about the importance of English, one of the male students from BUITEMS said: S4: “If I want to get a good job, then I have to learn good English…If we want to become a good businessman, we have to learn English. If we go foreign countries, they don’t know our local language” The scale of International Posture had the highest mean value among all scales (6.09) and a relatively strong correlation (.580) with the criterion measure. Moreover, it also had the lowest standard deviation (.97) among all the scales, which indicates relatively less variability in the responses of the participants as compared to other scales. In the regression analysis as well, International Posture was the third strongest predictor to the reported learning efforts of the participants. It suggests that another important reason for learning English for the participants of 35 this study was International Posture. There could be different reasons for the importance of International Posture for the participants of this study. For example, millions of Pakistanis work abroad, where they have to use English as the medium of communication. English has become a precious commodity owing to its significance as a second language in the global economy (Li & De Costa, 2017). People who want to go abroad know very well that without learning English they cannot go to other countries of the world and find good jobs. In fact, remittances sent by Pakistani immigrants in other countries of the world to their families in the country play an important role in the economy of Pakistan. Similarly, thousands of Pakistani students are studying in various countries of the world and it is usually the desire of every student to go to technologically developed countries including Anglophone countries for higher studies and research (Rahman, 2007). In this regard, the Pakistani government also encourages students to go to other countries for higher studies on various scholarships. As a female student from SBK said: S8: “What I have thought about my future plans, I want to continue my studies. I want to complete my M.Phil in foreign country at international level. So I need to learn English because English is international language”. Similarly, another female student from SBK said; S9: “In today’s world it has many advantages. As I told that many people using social media so they should learn English because we can’t communicate with any people of different countries without speaking English” Moreover, the prerequisites for most of the scholarships are various English proficiency tests like TOEFL and IELTS, or GRE which has a significant portion for English. In this way, by learning English, young learners can avail themselves of opportunities to study abroad and 36 become a part of the international multilingual citizenry which is a sort of imagined community for many of them. The scale of Milieu too had a high mean value (5.15) and a relatively strong correlation (.570) with the criterion measure. It indicates that another important motivational factor for learning English is the influence of close relatives, friends, and societal attitudes that is quite a common feature of Pakistani society (Norton & Kamal, 2003). Once again, it reminds us of the patriarchal nature of the Pakistani society where the institution of family is still very strong. The success or failure of one member of the family may be considered as the success or failure of the whole family in such a setup. Not only the immediate and distant family members exert a significant influence on the learners, but also the friends and other close acquaintances play their role in this regard. In particular, parents always motivate their children to work hard in their studies and learn English. During the interviews, most of the participants of this study revealed that their parents always expected them to excel in learning English owing to its importance for further studies and good jobs. As a female participant from BUITEMS said: S2: “My mother motivated me a lot to learn English because it is essential for us, and in our schools and in our colleges if we know English we can succeed in our life” Similarly, another female student from SBK said: S8: “My family do (support) because my father is not as educated person, so he better know about the importance of English. So, he motivate us to learn English because he know the importance, and plus my brother and sister, they also”. Another scale that had a relatively high mean value (4.98) and a relatively strong correlation (.561) with the criterion measure was Ought-to L2 Self. Moreover, the findings of the regression analysis showed that it was the second strongest contributor to the Intended Learning 37 Efforts of the participants. According to Dörnyei (2005), the Ought-to L2 Self is associated with the desire of an individual to preempt any possible failure in the future by acquiring certain characteristics. For example, in the field of L2 motivation, the learners of a second language try to learn an L2 in order to avoid any possible negative outcomes because of not learning it. The scale of Ought-to L2 Self is also related to the influence of other people on the imagined future- selves of the participants (Dörnyei et al., 2006). It is somewhat similar to Milieu because both of these scales are related to the influence of other people on the intended learning efforts of the learners. In Ought-to L2 Self, learners imagine where they should be in their future according to the expectations of others, and keeping in view this future-self they put their efforts to learning English. The findings about this scale suggest that learners are well aware about where they ought to be in their future. It might be because of some living examples around them who were just like them in the past but achieved success and earned respect owing to better proficiency in English. The scale of Ideal L2 Self also had a high mean value (5.79) and a relatively strong correlation (.556) with the criterion measure. In this study, the correlation of Ideal L2 Self with the criterion measure is very similar to the Chinese (.55) and Iranian (.58) contexts in Taguchi et al.’s (2009) study. The third highest mean value of this scale and its relatively high correlation with the Intended Learning Efforts of the participants imply learners’ good awareness of the importance of English for their better future selves. It also indicates that the participants consider English as an integral part of their future selves through which they can achieve success in their lives. This fact was also reflected in the views expressed by the participants of this study in the interviews in which they expressed their desire to fulfill their dreams by joining civil bureaucracy and going abroad for higher studies. 38 Another scale that had a high mean value (5.43) and a relatively strong correlation (.517) with the criterion measure was Instrumentality-Prevention. It indicates that the participants of this study fully understand the importance of English in order to achieve success and avoid failure in various aspects of their academic and practical life. For example, one of the female students from SBK speaking about the importance of English in her academic life said: S8: “We are students, our subjects are in English, the presentation which we deliver are mostly in English…when we approach to the articles in our research work we need to read those articles which are written in English…so English is important” The high mean score of this scale and its correlation with the criterion measure is also indicative of the competition that learners have to face to prove themselves better than others in various spheres of life. In Pakistan, where English is constitutionally the official language of the country (Coleman, 2010; Malik, 1996; Mansoor, 2005; Mehboob, 2002; Rahman, 2004) and medium of examinations, lack of proficiency in any aspect of English may have severe negative consequences for the future of learners. They may, for instance, lag behind other students in a competitive examination for induction to lucrative civil service or other important job positions. Therefore, to avoid any failure in their academic life and career, it becomes almost imperative for every learner to invest their full efforts to learning English. Relatively high mean scores of Attitudes to L2 Community and Cultural Interest (5.16 and 4.57 respectively) indicate that the participants of this study overall like the people of the Anglophone nations and their culture. However, it is important to notice that the scale of Integrativeness had the lowest mean score and reliability among all the scales. It suggests that the participants do not have any problem with the L2 community and its culture, but, at the same time, the participants do not want to adopt the L2 community’s values and culture to look like 39 them because of some fundamental differences between the two cultures and learners’ strong belief in their own identity and values. This is quite understandable keeping in view the colonial past of the Indo-Pak subcontinent in which English was used as a tool by the British to consolidate their control on the region (Boampong, 2005). The favorable views of the participants about the L2 community and its culture also indicate that the participants are not averse to English as a language because they consider it as an international lingua franca that is no more the property of just Anglophone nations. This interpretation is in line with Blommaert’s (2010) idea of “deterritorialization” owing to the influence of globalization (p. 46). However, one thing that is common among all of these three scales is that all of them have very weak correlations with the criterion measure. It implies that participants are interested in learning English (i.e. Intended Learning Efforts) because of some other motivational factors and they do not see any direct relationship between the Intended Learning Efforts (Criterion Measure) and these scales. For example, they might be learning English because of instrumental reasons or because of the importance of English as an international language, and not because the culture and the people of the L2 community attract them to such an extent that they feel obliged to learn their language. In this regard, the following comments from the interview with one of the female participants from SBK are quite insightful; S8: “They (L2 Community) are cool, nothing else…I think whatever they do is good for them, does not affect us. We should not be influenced by them because we have different ethics and culture and they have different ethics and culture…We are learning English because English is important for us, it is international language... So, getting their culture isn’t that important, but yes, learning English is important” 40 The scale of Anxiety has a relatively lower mean score (4.40) than the other scales but it is still above 4, which shows that the participants of this study are mostly anxious while communicating in English. Also, it has the highest standard deviation (1.53) among all scales which indicates that some participants may be more anxious than others. For example, following quotes from the students of BUITEMS, UoB, and SBK, respectively, reflect this tendency: S4: “Yes sir, I feel nervous, I don’t feel comfortable because our culture is…and in our family we use another language, and in our society and bazaar and shops we speak another language, but English is, we can say, it is on side language (not main language)…we don’t find opportunities to speak in it”. S11: “When I speak (in English) in the presence of other people, I feel confident, I can speak in it…I don’t feel any hesitation and I don’t feel any problem…the reason of this confidence is because I am interested in English as a language”. S9: “I am normal. Eighty percent I feel confidence, while not perfect, because no one is perfect”. Additionally, according to expectations, the scale of Anxiety has a very weak correlation (.260) with the criterion measure, but it is interesting to note that this correlation, like the studies of Ryan (2009, p. 128) and Papi (2010, p. 474), is positive. It implies that Anxiety is also playing a role, although very minor, in pushing learners to learn English because they might think that the best way to overcome the feelings of anxiety is by achieving good proficiency in the language. Keeping in view the mean scores of all the scales, correlations of various scales with the Intended Learning Efforts of the participants, and interviews, it may be concluded that the scales of Attitudes to Learning English, Instrumentality-promotion, International Posture, Milieu, 41 Ought-to L2 Self, Ideal L2 Self, and Instrumentality-prevention, account for the most important motivational factors to the intended learning efforts of the participants. In other words, these are the most important motivational scales that appear to be responsible for the learners’ learning of English. In the regression analysis, which I ran to see the strongest predictors to the reported learning efforts, the scale of Attitudes to Learning English emerged as the strongest one to the reported learning efforts of the participants followed by Ought-to L2 self, and International Posture. 5.2 Research Question 2: Is Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System valid in the context of this study? Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System has been empirically tested in the context of various countries such as Hungary (Csizér and Kormos, 2009); Japan (Ryan, 2009); China, Japan and Iran (Taguchi et al., 2009); Iran (Papi, 2010); Chile (Kormos et al., 2011); Indonesia (Lamb, 2012); and Ukraine (Henkel, 2010). In almost all of these EFL contexts the tri-partite nature of the L2 Motivational Self system was tested positively. In the present study, the correlation analysis shows that there is a relatively strong correlation among the Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, and Attitudes to Learning English- which represent three components of Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System. All of these three scales have a high correlation with the criterion measure as well. The correlation between Ideal L2 Self and Ought-to L2 Self is .579; the correlation between Ideal L2 Self and Attitudes to Learning English is .685; and between Attitudes to Learning English and Ought-to L2 Self, it is .596 (Table 11). However, none of these correlations is too strong, which implies that all of these three scales are measuring something different. This fact indicates that despite a strong relationship between the three components of the L2 Motivational Self System, each of the three 42 scales is a distinct and independent scale which measures a different dimension of L2 Motivation. In other words, the Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, and Attitudes to Learning English measure three significant aspects of L2 Motivation. Moreover, in some EFL contexts, especially where English is taught as a compulsory subject, L2 Learning Experience has emerged as the stronger predictor of motivated behavior than the other two components of L2 Motivational Self System (Lamb, 2012; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009). In the present study as well, regression analysis (Table 12) shows that L2 Learning Experience was the strongest predictor of the reported learning efforts. In Pakistan, English is taught as a compulsory subject in all educational institutions, and therefore this finding is in line with the findings of the previous research. The correlation analysis between the components of Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System is quite important to understand the relationship between these components which is one of the important aims of this study. Moreover, being the theoretical framework of this study, this analysis suggests that L2 Motivational Self System is quite valid in the context of this study and can be used to understand and elaborate Pakistani EFL learners’ motivation to learn English. Moreover, according to Dörnyei (2009), keeping in view Self Discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987; 1998), the future selves of ESL/EFL learners can be divided into promotion and prevention selves where ideal L2 Self correlates with the promotional self and Ought-to L2 Self correlates with the prevention self of the learners. Correlation analysis (Table 11) shows that Instrumentality-promotion has a slightly stronger relationship (.720) with Ideal L2 Self than its relationship (.631) with Ought-to L2 Self. On the other hand, Instrumentality-prevention has a stronger correlation (.593) with Ought-to L2 Self than its correlation (.539) with Ideal L2 Self. It implies that Instrumentality-promotion and Instrumentality-prevention are both real, and are 43 related to students’ two different types of future selves which is in line with Dörnyei’s theoretical proposals and the findings of the past studies on L2 motivation. 5.3 Research Question 3: How do learners see English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations? Besides exploring the important motivational factors, another important aim of this study was to investigate the views of the young learners about the status of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of important competitive examinations. Relatively high mean values for the scales of Attitude to English as the Official Language and Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examinations (4.45and 4.39 respectively) indicate that the participants of this study are mostly in favor of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations. This attitude was reflected in the interviews as well in which the majority of the participants expressed their views in favor of English both as the official language and as the medium of competitive examinations. For example, one of the female participants from BUITEMS expressing her views about the status of English as the official language said: S2: “We should continue with it (English) in future because as I have said that it is official language and we can’t go ahead without English”. Another female student from UoB, suggested that in competitive examinations, choice should be given to candidates to attempt question papers either in Urdu or English: S5: “If you are asking my views, I would recommend, that there should be multiple choices. For example, those who can continue it in Urdu, they must continue it in Urdu. But those who can do it in English there should not be any objection with this”. 44 However, on asking if she had to choose one of these languages which language she would prefer, she said: S5: “Surely, I will recommend and choose English language because I prefer this” One of the male participants from UoB, giving arguments against the use of English as the official language said: S10: “We have given too much unnecessary importance to English. For example, there are people who have been in government jobs for a long time but they don’t know even a single word of English but they have to do the written correspondence in English… English should be used only for communication with foreigners, and government should avoid English as official language in offices”. On the other hand, one of the female participants from BUITEMS speaking in favor of English said: S3: “Because in future it’s English that will work…..and in practical life as well it is English that supports and helps us in moving ahead”. However, in case of both of these scales, the standard deviation was relatively higher which shows that some participants or groups of participants might be more in favor of English than others, as reflected in the above excerpts from interviews as well. In both of these cases, the results of a t-test analysis showed that female participants held more positive opinions than male participants about the status of English as the official language of Pakistan and English as the medium of competitive examinations. According to Norton (2013), proficiency in English and doing a job can be a source of empowerment for women not only in their own households, but also, in the wider society. The findings of the present study too may imply that Pakistani women consider English as an 45 instrument that can give them freedom to participate in public life and do jobs in the government as well as private sectors. Participation in public life and doing a job means a lot in a patriarchal society like Pakistan for women. By favoring English as the medium of competitive examinations and as the official language of the country, female participants might want to portray a new identity for themselves that is distinctly different from the identity of those women who never get the opportunity to learn English by going to an educational institution. It may also indicate the confidence of female learners in learning English in a better way than their male counterparts and as a means to break the shackles of male dominance. 5.4 Research Question 4: Are there any differences in the motivation of learners on the basis of Gender and Institutions? In order to assess differences in the motivation of the participants on the basis of gender and institutions, t-test analyses and one-way between-groups ANOVAs were carried out. According to the results of the t tests, no significant differences were found in the 12 scales related to motivation between the male and female participants of this study. The results of the t- test analyses suggest that both male and female participants showed high motivation for learning English. This finding is important in the context of the patriarchal society of Pakistan where it is generally believed that males should be more motivated than females because of more job and education opportunities and expectations. It indicates that women are gradually breaking the myths that they are not supposed to get higher education and they should accept the male dominance silently. Although the vast majority of women do not get equal opportunities for education and encouragement from others and society in general, once they get the opportunity to go to a university, they fully understand its significance and want to avail themselves of any possibility of achieving success in life. This trend was reflected to some extent in case of the 46 scales of Attitude to English as the Official Language and Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examinations, which I had developed to assess participants’ views on these topics. For both of these scales, a significant difference was found between male and female participants and female students were found to be more in favor of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations. The results of one-way between-groups ANOVAs showed statistically significant differences between the three institutions for four scales: Attitude to L2 Community; Anxiety; Attitude to English as the Official Language; and Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examinations. Although the students of all three universities; University of Balochistan (UoB), Balochistan University of Information Technology, Engineering, and Management Sciences (BUITEMS), and Sardar Bahadur Khan Women University (SBK) showed an overall positive attitude toward the L2 community, but the students of UoB showed a relatively less positive attitude to L2 community as compared to the other two universities. It might be because of the fact that the students of UoB, because of the existence of student organizations/unions, are politically more active than the students of other two universities where student organizations are not allowed to function. It is generally believed that during the colonial era, English was used in the Indo-Pak subcontinent to suppress the local population and convert them into a population which was Indian in “blood and Color” only “but English in taste, in opinions and morals and intellect” (Hickey, 2004, p. 540). Therefore, some students of UoB might not have a very positive opinion of the L2 community owing to their political views and awareness of the colonial past of the region. They may also be apprehensive about the L2 community and may consider it as a threat to their cultural and linguistic identity. In case of Anxiety as well, the 47 students of UoB showed that they were less anxious than the students of the other two universities. The main reason for less anxiety could be the involvement of UoB students in political activities. In terms of the scales of Attitude to English as the Official Language, and Attitude to English as the Medium of Competitive Examinations, the results of one-way ANOVAs indicated that overall, students of the three institutions showed positive attitudes to English as the official language and medium of competitive examinations, which means they do not perceive it as a problem in their future careers and jobs, and they are comfortable with it in various examinations as well. However, students of BUITEMS showed a comparatively less positive attitude in this regard as compared to the students of other two universities. It could be because BUITEMS is basically an engineering university and the students of engineering might not be more interested in government jobs because of more lucrative opportunities in private sector. Also, as discussed above, the students of SBK, who are all females, may be more in favor of English because of their desire to have a new identity of educated English-speaking women who can compete in examinations and perform jobs in which English is used as the official language. However, it may be concluded that, by and large, the students of all three universities had almost uniform opinions about various motivational scales, and that is why, in the majority of cases, no significant differences were found among them. 48 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION This study investigated the second language motivation of EFL learners in the Pakistani context by using the theoretical framework of Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System. One of the main reasons for conducting this study was the paucity of research on L2 motivation in the context of Pakistan. Another important reason was the recent judgments by Pakistani courts about the status of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations. Keeping in view these reasons, this study was conducted to find out the answers of four research questions. In response to the first research question about important motivational factors that are responsible for the learners’ L2 motivation, the findings of this study suggest that the participants reported Attitudes to Learning English, Ought-to L2 self, International Posture, Instrumentality-promotion, Milieu, Ideal L2 Self, and Instrumentality- prevention as the most important motivational factors that are mainly responsible for their L2 motivation. With regard to the second research question, the results of this study indicate that Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System is valid in the context of Pakistan and can be used to understand the L2 motivation of the Pakistani learners. This finding is in line with the findings of another study in the Pakistani context (Islam, et al., 2013) in which the researchers found that this theoretical framework was valid in understanding the second language motivation of the participants in another part of the country. However, the present study was conducted in a setting that was, linguistically and ethnically, far more diverse than the settings of Islam et al.’s (2013) study. The findings related to the second research question also indicate that the L2 Motivational Self System can be used in other multicultural and multilingual EFL contexts to investigate the second language motivation of the learners. The findings regarding L2 Motivational Self System 49 are in line with the findings of the previous research in various EFL contexts in which this model was tested empirically and was found to be valid (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Henkel, 2010; Kormos et al., 2011; Lamb, 2012; Papi, 2010; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009). This study was the first attempt to investigate the views of Pakistani learners about the status of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations (third research question). The results indicate that the participants of this study are mostly in favor of English as the official language of the country and as the medium of competitive examinations. In particular, female participants expressed more favorable opinions in support of English than the male participants. These findings are important keeping in mind the debate about the status of English as the official language of Pakistan and as the medium of competitive examinations as some sections of the Pakistani society consider English as the colonial legacy. Considering the patriarchal society of Pakistan, the fourth research question explored any differences in the motivation of the participants on the basis of gender and institutions. However, the findings suggest that the students of all three institutions, and both male and female participants, overall, showed high motivation for learning English. It is important to mention here that the findings of this study might have been different if this study had been conducted in some other part of Pakistan where ethnic and linguistic background of the participants is different from the participants of this study. Also, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution owing to the general limitation of attitudinal studies in which the focus is on participants’ intended learning efforts as such studies are not conducted to assess the actual learning efforts of the participants (Visser et al., 2003). 50 There may be various implications of the findings of this study for English language teachers. For instance, keeping in mind the Ideal and Ought-to L2 selves of the learners, teachers can help their students to develop a clear vision of their future selves. According to Dörnyei and Kubanyiova (2013), teachers can help their students in achieving the goal of clear future selves by using various activities and motivational strategies in their classes. Teachers can also help relatively less confident learners to participate in various activities of the class to keep them motivated in the process of learning the second language. The findings of this study may also be important for the language policy of the country which has been a source of debate for decades. The findings of this study indicate that the participants are overall highly motivated to learn English and the majority of them are mostly in favor of English as the official language and as the medium of competitive examinations as well. The participants consider it as an international language which is necessary to achieve success both at the individual and at the national levels. There was also a realization in the sample population that without learning English the goal of national development could not be achieved. However, the field of L2 motivation in the Pakistani context is severely under-researched. Therefore, there is a strong need to conduct future research on the motivation of EFL Pakistani learners in different parts of the country including the rural areas to have more generalisable findings. Additionally, keeping in mind the label of colonial legacy attached to English, a comprehensive study on the issues of the official language of the country and the medium of instruction and examinations would be helpful in understanding the attitudes of the learners toward English in the present globalized era. Also, a thorough study in this area can be very useful considering the viewpoint that using English as the medium of instruction and examinations may be an obstacle in the way of advancement for the speakers of other local 51 languages (Coleman & Capstick, 2012). Therefore, it is very important to keep in mind the cultural and linguistic diversity of the country while discussing the pros and cons of English as the official language and as the medium of instruction and examinations. 52 APPENDICES 53 APPENDIX A: ENGLISH VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Motivation of Pakistani learners to learn English Questionnaire Dear Participants, I would like to thank you for your participation in my research project on the L2 motivation of Pakistani learners of English. This project is part of my MA TESOL studies at Michigan State University, United States of America. By filling out and giving me back this survey, you agree that I may use your responses for my research. Your right of confidentiality and anonymity will be honored. First, please answer some background questions. Second, kindly give your responses to various statements in the questionnaire honestly and you may leave any statement unmarked or leave the questionnaire blank. Background Information i. Name of institution: _______________________________________________________ ii. Name of your Degree Program: ______________________________________________ iii. Semester: _______________________________________________________________ iv. Age: ____________ Years v. Gender: (a) Male (b) Female vi. Mother tongue: ___________________________________________________________ vii. How many languages can you speak including English? __________________________ viii. Which of the following languages can you speak? (a) Urdu (b) English (c) Pashto (d) Balochi (e) Brahui (f) Sindhi (g) Saraiki (h) Persian (i) Punjabi (j) Hindko (k) Other_________________ ix. Have you ever attended any private English language centre/academy? (a) Yes (b) No x. Please self assess your ability in English in the following areas (choose one option): (Excellent= Needs no improvement, Good= Needs some improvement, Fair= Needs a lot of improvement) Speaking: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair Reading: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair Writing: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair Listening: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair 54 Please circle one suitable option in response to each of the following statements. While choosing your option, kindly keep in mind the following: 1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Somewhat Disagree, 4= Neutral, 5= Somewhat Agree, 6= Agree, 7= Strongly Agree # 1 2 Please circle the best option for the following statements I study English because my close friends think it is important. I like the music of English speaking countries (e.g. pop music). 3 English is the most important language in the 4 5 world. I would like to spend lots of time studying English.… I have to learn English because without passing the English course/subject I cannot get my degree. 6 Work in government departments will be more on time if they use Urdu (instead of English) as the official language. 7 Learning English is one of the most important 8 9 aspects in my life. I would like to know more about people from English-speaking countries. Studying English is important to me because English proficiency is necessary for promotion in the future. S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D i s a g r e e 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S o m e w h a t D i s a g r e e 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N e u t r a l 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 S o m e w h a t A g r e e 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 A g r e e 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 S t r o n g l y A g r e e 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 10 Attempting all papers in competitive examinations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (CSS/PCS) in Urdu (instead of English) will increase my chances of success. 11 I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my English class. 12 Studying English is important to me in order to bring honor to my family. 13 I like meeting people from English-speaking countries. 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 55 # Statements 14 When I think about my future job, I feel, as compared to English, it would be easier to write official letters in Urdu. 15 Studying English is important to me because I don’t like to be considered a poorly educated person. 16 I would like to study English even if I were not required. 17 I am learning English because other people will respect me more if I have a good knowledge of English. 18 I like English films. 19 It is my dream to speak English with foreigners (people from other countries). 20 Studying English is important to me in order to attain a higher social status. 21 As compared to Urdu, I feel more comfortable when I write responses to written questions in English. 22 I like the atmosphere of my English classes. 23 Learning English is necessary because it is an international language. 24 I think it is important to learn English in order to learn more about the culture of its speakers. 25 Studying English is necessary for me because I don’t want to get bad marks in English proficiency tests (e.g. TOEFL, IELTS). 26 I am worried that other speakers of English would find my English strange. 27 I think the requirement of attempting papers in English is one of the biggest hurdles in passing CSS/PCS examinations. 28 Studying English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to speak English. S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 1 D i s a g r e e 2 S o m e w h a t D i s a g r e e 3 N e u t r a l S o m e w h a t A g r e e A g r e e S t r o n g l y A g r e e 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29 My family encourages me to learn English. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 56 S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D i s a g r e e 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S o m e w h a t D i s a g r e e 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N e u t r a l 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 S o m e w h a t A g r e e 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 A g r e e 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 S t r o n g l y A g r e e 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 # Statements 30 I think, as compared to Urdu, office work can be done more efficiently in English. 31 Studying English is important to me because I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job. 32 I want to be the kind of Pakistani who speaks English well. 33 I am interested in learning English to know what is happening outside of Pakistan 34 Compared to my classmates, I think I study English relatively hard. 35 I really enjoy learning English. 36 I like the way people dress in English speaking countries. 37 Whenever I meet a fluent speaker of English, I also wish to speak English fluently like him/her. 38 I would feel uneasy speaking English with foreigners (people from other countries). 39 I do not like the idea of conducting competitive examinations (CSS/PCS) in Urdu. 40 I would like to become similar to the people of English-speaking countries by adopting their culture. 41 I like to travel to English speaking countries. 42 I have to study English; otherwise, I think I cannot be successful in my future career. 43 It is my desire to speak English like people from English speaking countries. 44 I am working hard at learning English. 45 Learning English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do so. 46 I always look forward to my English classes. 57 # Statements 47 I like TV programmes made in English-speaking countries. 48 I want to use English to communicate with people in other countries. 49 My friends encourage me to learn English. 50 If I met an English speaker, I would feel nervous to speak with him/her. 51 In my future job, I will prefer written correspondence in English instead of Urdu. 52 I wish I could speak English fluently. 53 Studying English is important to me because I think I will need it for further studies. 54 I like the people who live in English-speaking countries. S t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D i s a g r e e 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 S o m e w h a t D i s a g r e e 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N e u t r a l 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 S o m e w h a t A g r e e 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 A g r e e 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 S t r o n g l y A g r e e 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 58 APPENDIX B: ENGLISH VERSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW GUIDE 1. How do you feel about learning English? 2. How much time do you spend on learning and improving your English daily? 3. Why are you learning English? Do you have a particular objective? 4. Does anyone in your family and friends motivate you to learn English? 5. What are the advantages of learning English in your opinion? 6. If you do not learn English, what will be its impact on your career and life? 7. What are your views about the people and culture of English speaking countries? 8. What is the importance of English in today’s world? 9. How much confident, in your opinion, you are when you speak English in front of other people? 10. English is the official language of Pakistan. What are your views about it? Do you think we should continue with it in future as well? 11. What are your views about the order of Lahore High court that CSS examination should be conducted in Urdu instead of English from 2018? 59 APPENDIX C: URDU VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Motivation of Pakistani learners to learn English ﮧﻣﺎﻨﻟاﻮﺳ ، ےﲑﻣ مﰷ ﮧﯾ - ںﻮ; راﺰﮔ ﺮﮑﺷ |ﺎﻨﻟاﻮﺳ MA TESOL _______________________________________________ ﰷ پٓ6 ’ﺮ% ﺖ%ﴍ *ﻣ مﰷ ﯽﻘ/ﻘﲢ سا 2ا ﺮ3 *ﻣ ﺮ3 U ﮧﺼﺣ ﰷ - ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ Y ﺮ% ﻞﳬﻣ ﻮ% ےوﴎ سا ﻮﯿﮭﺗﺎﺳ ﺰ(cid:14)ﺰﻋ تﺎﮨﻮﺟو ﰽ ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﰽ ءﺎﺒﻠﻃ ﱏﺎﺘ(cid:25)ﺴ%ﺎﭘ *ﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:14)ﺮﻣا فٓ6 ﺲ@/@ﺳا ﮉBCﺋEﻮﯾ ،F(cid:25)ﺳرﻮﯿﻧﻮﯾ ﭧCﭩ(cid:25)ﺳا ﻦﮔ ﯽﺸﻣ ت]اﻮﺟ Y پٓ6 *ﻣ ﮧﮐ *; Uر ﺮ% رﺎﮩﻇا ﰷ یﺪeﻣ ﺎﺿر ﺮ3 ت] سا پٓ6 ﮧﮐ U ﮧﯾ داﺮﻣ ‘ ’ﺮ% ﺲaاو ﮯﺌﻟ Y ﻖ/ﻘﲢ ﲎﭘا ﻮ% ﻮ% تﺎﻣﻮﻠﻌﻣ ﰽ پٓ6 ںﻮ; ﺎjﮑﺳ ﺮ% لﲈﻌﺘ(cid:25)ﺳا ﺎﮔ ﮯﺋﺎr ﺎﯿ% ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮐر ﮧ/ﻔﺧ tﭘ ﱏ ]ﺮﮩﻣ ﮯﺋاﺮs ﰷ ﻖﺣ Y ’ﺮ% *ﮩﻧ ﺮ;ﺎﻇ ﻮ% مE روا - - ماﱰqا ﻒﻠﺘﳐ *ﻣ ﮟ(cid:14)د باﻮﺟ ﰷ تwﻮﺳ ﮫﭽﮐ *ﻣ ےر] Y ﺮﻈeﻣ ﺲa ﺪﻌﺑ Y سا 2ا یراﺪﻧﺎﳝا باﻮﺟ Y ںﻮﻠﲨ ﮟ(cid:14)د ‘- - *; ﮯjﮑﺳ ڑﻮﮭﭼ ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﺑ ﱃﺎ(cid:133) ﻮ% |ﺎﻨﻟاﻮﺳ ےرﻮﭘ (cid:134) *; ﮯjﮑﺳ ڑﻮﮭﭼ Y نﺎﺸ(cid:136) ﲑﻐﺑ ﻮ% ﮯﻠﲨ ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﺑ ﴗ% پٓ6 - تﺎﻣﻮﻠﻌﻣ *ﻣ ےر] Y ﺮﻈeﻣ ﺲa I. II. III . IV. V. VI. VII . VIII . مE ﰷ ےرادا Y پٓ6 (cid:144)ﺴﲰ ________________ ﺮﲻ ﺲ(cid:148)r : (ب) __________________________________________________ ن]ز یردﺎﻣ ؟*; ﮯjﮑﺳ لﻮﺑ *ﻧ]ز ﲎﺘﮐ ﺖﯿﲰ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا پٓ6 __________________________________ نﻮ%‘ *ﻣ ںﻮﻧ]ز ﻞﯾذ ﮧﺟرﺪeﻣ پٓ6 ؟*; ﮯjﮑﺳ ﺮ% ت] *ﻣ ﳻ ںﻮﻧ]ز ) ﻮﺘ(cid:25)ﺸa ( ) ودرا ( b ) یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ( c d ) ﯽ(cid:159)ﻮﻠﺑ ( ) یﻮ;اﺮs ( e ___________ ﺮﮕ(cid:14)د ( Y ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﯽﳒ ﴗ% ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﺒ% ’ پٓ6 ﺎﯿ% ﱏ]ﺮﮩﻣ ەاﺮs )ﺖﮩﺑ یﱰﮩﺑ ________________________________________ مE ﰷ ماﺮﮔوﺮ3 یﺮﮔڈ __________________________________________________ *ﮩﻧ (ﻒﻟا) (ﻒﻟا) ؟U ﰽ (ﻒﻟا) (ﻒﻟا) :(ﮟ(cid:14)ﺮ% بﺎ†ﺘﻧا ﰷ ﻦﺸaٓ6 ﮏ(cid:14)ا) *ﺋﺎﮕﻟ ﴗ% تروﴐ ﰽ یﱰﮩﺑ ﻞﺻﺎq ﲓﻠﻌﺗ ەزاﺪﻧا ﰷ ﺖ/ﺣﻼﺻ , Good= ) ﯽﮬﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺳ ﯽﮑﯿﺋاﴎ( g *ﻣ ﯽﻣﮉﯿ%ا / (cid:144)(cid:148)ﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﲎﭘا *ﻣ ںﻮﺒﻌﺷ ﻞﯾذ ﮧﺟرﺪeﻣ ) ﰉﺎ¤ﻨﭘ ( ) ﳻرﺎﻓ ( i لﺎﺳ ترﻮﻋ Y ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا دﺮﻣ (ا) U تروﴐ ﰽ (ب) (ب) (ب) (ب) ںﺎﮨ ﻮ%ﺪﻨ; ( J )a )K IX. X. )h f ( : *ﮩﻧ (Excellent= U تروﴐ ﰽ یﱰﮩﺑ ﮫﭽﮐ Speaking: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair Reading: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair Writing: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair Listening: (A) Excellent (B) Good (C) Fair , Fair= 60 e e r g A ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق l a r t u e N (cid:201) ﲑ r ﺎ ﻧ ﺒ ﺪ ر ا e e r g A t a h w e m o S % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق e e r g a s i D t a h w e m o S % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف e e r g a s i D y l g n o r t S ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ ا j ﺧ ﻼ ف Please choose the best option for the following statements ﻦﺸaٓ6 ﻦ(cid:14)ﱰﮩﺑ ﮯﺌﻟ Y ںﻮﻠﲨ بﺎ†ﺘﻧاﰷ ﻞﯾذ ﮧﺟرﺪeﻣ ﮯ˚Xﯿ% e e r g a s i D ا j ﺧ ﻼ ف e e e e e e e e r r r r g g g g A A A A y y y y l l l l g g g g n n n n o o o o r r r r t t t t S S S S ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 61 . . . ﮯﻠﺳا Y (cid:210)r ﻮ; ﺮ3 ﺖﻗو ﺖﺳود ﱮﯾﺮﻗ ےﲑﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% ںﻮ; ﺎﺘﮬﮍ3 U ﻢ;ا ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﻮ% سا ﮧﮐ . ﯽﻘﯿ(cid:25)ﺳﻮﻣ ﰽ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ *; ﮯﺘ˛ﲰ ﮧﯾ ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ U ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa کزﻮ/ﻣ پﺎﭘ U ن]ز ﻢ;ا ‘ ﺐﺳ ﰽ ﺎﯿﻧد یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا . ﺖﻗو ﺎﺳ ﺖﮩﺑ ﺮ3 ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ Y ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮧﮐ ںﻮ; ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) *ﻣ ںوراﺰﮔ ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U ﯽ;ر ﮍ3 ﲎﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﮯﻠﺳا یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﯽﮔ (cid:214) *ﮩﻧ یﺮﮔڈ ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﲑﻐﺑ ﮯﺌﮐ سﺎﭘ نﻮﻤﻀﻣ یرﰷﴎ ودرا ﮧﮕﺟ ﰽ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ںﻮﳬﳏ یرﰷﴎ ﺮﮔا ن]ز ﺎﮔ . ﺮ3 رﻮﻃ Y ‘ *ﻣ ںؤﻮﻠﮩﭘ ﻦ(cid:14)ﺮ¨ ﻢ;ا Y ﯽﮔﺪﻧز یﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا U ﮏ(cid:14)ا *ﻣ ےر] Y ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﺪﯾﺬﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﻞ(cid:223)ﻘﺘ(cid:25)ﺴﻣ ترﺎﮩﻣ *ﻣ U یروﴐ ﮯﺌﻟ Y ’ﺮ% ﰵﺮ¨ *ﻣ . تEﺎ(cid:226)jﻣا Y ﮯﻠÆﺎﻘﻣ ودرا (CSS/PCS) ﮯﺋﺎﲜ ھﮍs تEﲀﻣا Y ﰉﺎ/ﻣﰷ یﲑﻣ ‘ ’ﺮ% ﻞq (cid:230)ﺮ3 مﺎﲤ *ﻣ Ø *ﺋﺎr . ﺎﺘﻟﻮﺑ *ﻣ سŒ ﰽ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﲎﭘا *ﻣ ﺐﺟ ºﺎr ﻼﮭﻛﻮﺑ روا نﺎﺸ(cid:237)ﺮ3 مﰷ ﻮﺗ ﻮ; لﲈﻌﺘ(cid:25)ﺳا *ﻣ ﻮﺗ ںﻮ; ﱴﻟﻮﺑ / / ﺎrﰏ ںﻮ; . ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) ﺎﻨﻧﺎr / . ںﻮ; ﱴ;ﺎ(cid:213) ﰽ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﺢﯿﲱ . ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق (cid:201) ﲑ r ﺎ ﻧ ﺒ ﺪ ر ا % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف ا j ﺧ ﻼ ف ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف Statements ﮯﻠﲨ . 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 62 . ﮯﺋ *ﻣ ﮯﻠÆﺎﻘﻣ . ﱴﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ / ﺎﺘﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﺎr ﺎ˛ﲰ ﺎﮭﮑﻟ ﺎﮬﮍ3 ﰼ ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﮧﮐ ﱴ;ﺎ(cid:213) ﻂﺧ نﺎﺳٓ6 ەد(cid:134)ز *ﻣ ن]ز ودرا ﺎjﭼﻮﺳ *ﻣ ےر] Y یﺮ%ﻮﻧ ﰽ / / / / ﺖﺑﺎﺘﮐ و . . . . ﯽﮔﻮ; ﮯﺌﻟ Y ’ﺎﮬﮍs تﺰﻋ ﰽ ناﺪﻧﺎ(cid:133) 2ا U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa ﺎﻨﻠﻣ ‘ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ U. ﻞ(cid:223)ﻘﺘ(cid:25)ﺴﻣ 2ا *ﻣ ﺐﺟ یرﰷﴎ ﮧﮐ U ﺎjﮕﻟ ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﻮﺗ ںﻮ; ﱴﭼﻮﺳ Y یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﰷ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) *ﮩﻧ / Y سا ﻮﺗ ºﻮ; *ﮩﻧ یروﴐ ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮬﮍ3 ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﺮﮔا *ﻣ ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﺑ دﻮﺟو] یﲑﻣ ﺮﮔا ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% ںﻮ; ﯽ;ر /ﺎﮨر ﮫﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﮯﻠﺳا یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ تﺰﻋ ەد(cid:134)ز یﲑﻣ گﻮﻟ ﻮﺗ ﯽﮔﻮ; ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﭼا ترﺎﮩﻣ *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا Ø ﮟ(cid:14)ﺮ% *; ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa *ﻤﻠﻓ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ . ﮏﻟﺎﳑ ےﴎود . U باﻮﺧ ﮏ(cid:14)ا اﲑﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯﺌﻟ Y ’ﺮ% ﻞﺻﺎq ﲆ(cid:244)ا *ﻣ ےﴍﺎﻌﻣ مﺎﻘﻣ U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ . تwﻮﺳ ﺖıﺴ(cid:136) ﰽ ودرا *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ے یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا باﻮﺟ Y ﲑﻣ ﻮ; ﮯﺘ(cid:23)ﮑﻟ *ﻣ سﻮﺴﳏ ﱰﮩﺑ ەد(cid:134)ز *ﻣ ﮯﺋ ںﻮ; ºﺮ% U ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa لﻮﺣﺎﻣ ﰷ سŒ ﰽ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﲎﭘا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﲔﺑ ﮏ(cid:14)ا ﮧﯾ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U یروﴐ ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﯽﻣاﻮﻗw U ن]ز (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ Y سا ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ﰷ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ےﲑﻣ . ﺖﻓﺎﻘﺛ ﰽ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Eﺮ% ت] *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮫﺗﺎﺳ Y ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ Y ﮯﻨ˛ﲰ ﺮ3 رﻮﻃ ﱰﮩﺑ ﻮ% . . . . # 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق (cid:201) ﲑ r ﺎ ﻧ ﺒ ﺪ ر ا % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف ا j ﺧ ﻼ ف ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف Statements ﮯﻠﲨ ﮯ ﯽﮔ. # 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 63 *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا مﰷ ) ﺲ(cid:237)ا ﳻ ﯽ(cid:131)ﭘ روا ( CSS) ﺲ(cid:237)ا *ﺋٓ6 ﱪﳕ ےﺮs ےﲑﻣ *ﻣ ﴎود ﮧﮐ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا یﲑﻣ ﻮ% ںو *ﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U یروﴐ ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) *ﮩﻧ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨłﻧﺎr ترﺎﮩﻣ *ﻣ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮧﮐ ﱴ;ﺎ(cid:213) / تEﺎ(cid:226)jﻣا ) (TOEFL, IELTS . U ﱏﺎﺸ(cid:237)ﺮ3 ﰽ ت] سا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﮕﻟ ﺐﯿﲺ ﳻ طﴍ ﰽ ’ﺮ% ﻞq *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا (cid:230)ﺮ3 *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ےﲑﻣ نﺎ(cid:226)jﻣا ( PCS سﺎﭘ ﺲ(cid:237)ا . U ٹوﰷر یﮍs ‘ ﺐﺳ *ﻣ ەار ﰽ ’ﺮ% ﮧjﻓ(cid:134) ﲓﻠﻌﺗ ﮏ(cid:14)ا ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U ﻢ;ا ﮯﻠﺳا ﺎﻨﮬﮍ3 یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﮯﺌ(cid:254)ﺎ(cid:213) Eٓ6 Eﺮ% ت] *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﻮ% ﺺﴯ . ﮧﻠﺻﻮﺣ یﲑﻣ ﮯﺌﻟ Y ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا داﺮﻓا Y ناﺪﻧﺎ(cid:133) ےﲑﻣ *; (cid:3)ﺮ% ﰃاﺰﻓا . یﱰﻓد ﺖıﺴ(cid:136) ﰽ ودرا *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ےﲑﻣ U ﺎjﮑﺳ ﺎr ﺎﯿ% ﺮ3 رﻮﻃ ﱰﮩﺑ ەد(cid:134)ز . *ﻣ ﺮﻈﻧ یﲑﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮬﮍ3 یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﻞ(cid:223)ﻘﺘ(cid:25)ﺴﻣ ﺪ/ﻔﻣ ﺖﺑ(cid:5) ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) ﺎe(cid:148)ﺑ ﱏﺎﺘ(cid:25)ﺴ%ﺎﭘ ﺎﺴ(cid:237)ا ﮏ(cid:14)ا *ﻣ / ﺎﺘﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﮧﮐº U ﯽ(cid:131)ﭙ(cid:25)ﺴﭽﻟد ﮯﺌﻟ سا *ﻣ ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ U ﺎﮨر ﻮ; ﺎﯿ% ﺮ;] Y نﺎﺘ(cid:25)ﺴ%ﺎﭘ ﮧﮐ ﮯﻠ(cid:213) ﮧﺘﭘ . زﻮﻠ/ﻓ سŒ 2ا *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ےﲑﻣ ﮯ˚ﻠﯿ% ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ºﺮ% ﺖﻨﳏ ەد(cid:134)ز *ﻣ ﺖﮩﺑﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ *ﻣ ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ن]ز یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ *; ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa ﮯﻘ(cid:7)ﺮﻃ ﮧﯾ ﮯﺌﻟ Y ’ﺮ% ﻞﺻﺎq یﺮ%ﻮﻧ ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﭼا ﮏ(cid:14)ا *ﻣ . ﯽﮔﻮ; یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﺖıﺴ(cid:136) ﰽ / ﰏﺮ% . ںﻮ; U ºٓ6 اﺰﻣ Y ﮯﻨﻨﮩﭘ سﺎﺒﻟ Y ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﭼا ﻮﺟ ںﻮ; ﱴ;ﺎ(cid:213) ﻮ; ﱴﻟﻮﺑ / . . . ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق (cid:201) ﲑ r ﺎ ﻧ ﺒ ﺪ ر ا % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف ا j ﺧ ﻼ ف ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف Statements ﮯﻠﲨ 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ﮯﮕﻟ / ﱴﮑﺳ . ﺮ% ﺎﻨﭘا ﻮ% ﰽ ﺖﻓﺎﻘﺛ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y ت] *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮫﺗﺎﺳ ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ﰷ ’ﺮ% *ﻣ ودرا U ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa Eﺎr *ﻣ . ﻞ(cid:223)ﻘﺘ(cid:25)ﺴﻣ ﲑﻐﺑ *ﻣ *ﻣ ﯽﮔﻮ; ﱏﺎﺸ(cid:237)ﺮ3 ﮯﺋ . (CSS/PCS) (cid:9)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا . /ﺎﺘﻠﻣ ‘ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮫﺗﺎﺳ Y ﱏاور ﴗ% *ﻣ ﺐﺟ حﺮﻃ ﰽ سا ﮧﮐ ںﻮ; ﱴ;ﺎ(cid:213)/ ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﺑ *ﻣ ﻮﺗ ںﻮ; ﱴﻠﻣ ںوﺮ% ت] *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ‘ ﱏاور . Y ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y ںﻮﮑﻠﻣ ےﴎود ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﻮ; (cid:3)ﺮ% نﺎ(cid:226)jﻣا ﰷ ﮯﻠÆﺎﻘﻣ *ﮩﻧ ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa . ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﺎﮭﭼا ﺎe(cid:148)ﺑ حﺮﻃ ﰽ نا ﺎﮔ. ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ ےﲑﻣ ﺎjﮑﺳ ﻮ; *ﮩﻧ بﺎ/ﻣﰷ ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﮧﮐ U ﺶ;اﻮﺧ یﲑﻣ ںﻮﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا حﺮﻃ ﰽ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ ﺎﮨر ﺮ% ﺖﻨﳏ ﮯﺌﻟ Y ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ںﻮ; ﯽ;ر //// .... Y دﺮﮔ درا ےﲑﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U یروﴐ ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﺎﻨﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا U ﺪ/ﻣا ﯽ(cid:131)ﮩﯾ ‘ (cid:11)ﻣ ﻮ% ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ . U ﺎﺘ;ر رﺎﻈﺘﻧا ﰷ سŒ ﰽ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﲎﭘا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ . ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا TV ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ماﺮﮔوﺮ3 *; ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa . ﮯﻄﺑار ﮫﺗﺎﺳ Y ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ Y ﮏﻟﺎﳑ ےﴎود ﻮ% یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﺎﺘ;ﺎ(cid:213) Eﺮ% لﲈﻌﺘ(cid:25)ﺳا ﮯﺌﻟ ﮧﻠﺻﻮﺣ یﲑﻣ ﮯﺌﻟ Y ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا بﺎ(cid:223)ﺣا ﺖﺳود ےﲑﻣ *; (cid:3)ﺮ% ﰃاﺰﻓا . ﺮﮔا ﱏﺎﺸ(cid:237)ﺮ3 *ﻣ ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ ﻞ(cid:223)ﻘﺘ(cid:25)ﺴﻣ 2ا ﻂﺧ Y ﯽﮔ ﺎﮔ/ / ﲆﻣ ﮫﺗﺎﺳ Y سا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ ﻮﺗ ﯽﮔﻮ; ﭧ;ﺎ(cid:13)ﮑﭽ; و . یﺮ%ﻮﻧ ﰽ و ﺢ/ﺟﺮ¨ ﻮ% ت] سا *ﻣ *ﻣ ںود ﻮ; *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯﺋﺎﲜ ﰽ ودرا ﺖﺑﺎﺘﮐ . ﻼﻣ ‘ ﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﴗ% *ﻣ (cid:209)او ﮯe(cid:148)ﺑ *ﻣ ںﻮ; . / ﱴ;ﺎ(cid:213) Y Y # 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 64 # 52 53 54 ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ ا ﺗ ﻔ ﺎ ق (cid:201) ﲑ r ﺎ ﻧ ﺒ ﺪ ر ا % ﴗ q ﺪ ¨ ﮏ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف ا j ﺧ ﻼ ف ﻣ ﳬ ﻞ j ا ﺧ ﻼ ف Statements ﮯﻠﲨ 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 . ﱴﮑﺳ /ﺎjﮑﺳ لﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮫﺗﺎﺳ Y ﱏاور *ﻣ شﰷ لﺎ/ﺧ ےﲑﻣ ﮧﮑ(cid:29)ﻮﯿ% U ﻢ;ا ﮯﺌﻟ سا ﮯﺌﻟ ےﲑﻣ ﺎﻨﮬﮍ3 یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا Øٓ6 ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ *ﻣ ﯽﮔ ےﮍ3 تروﴐ ﰽ سا ﮯﺌﻟ Y . ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯ(cid:23)Xﻣ *;. ﮍ3 (cid:15) (cid:209)او (cid:15)ر *ﻣ ﺪﻨ(cid:25)ﺴa گﻮﻟ 65 APPENDIX D: URDU VERSION OF THE PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW GUIDE ؟*; (cid:3)ﺮ% سﻮﺴﳏ ﺎﺴCﮐ *ﻣ ےر] Y ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا پٓ6 1. ؟ *; (cid:3)ﺮ% فﴏ ﺖﻗو ﺎﻨﺘﮐ ﺮ3 ’ﺎﻨﺑ ﱰﮩﺑ ‘ا روا ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮧﻧازور پٓ6 2. ﰃﻮ% ﰷ پٓ6 ؟U ﺪﺼﻘﻣ صﺎ(cid:133) ﺎﯿ% ؟ *; Uر ﮫﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ ںﻮﯿ% یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا پٓ6 3. ؟U ºﺮ% ﰃاﺰﻓا ﮧﻠﺻﻮﺣ ﰽ پٓ6 ﮯﺌﻟ Y ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﰃﻮ% ﺎﯿ% *ﻣ ںﻮﺘ(cid:25)ﺳود روا ناﺪﻧﺎ(cid:133) 2ا 4. ؟*; ﺪﺋاﻮﻓ ﺎﯿ% Y ﮯﻨ(cid:23)ﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﮯﺋار ﰽ پٓ6 5. ؟Ø ںﻮ; تاﺮ(cid:25)ا ﺎﯿ% Y سا ﺮ 3 ﯽﮔﺪﻧز روا ﱤﯾﲑﮐ Y پٓ6 ،ﻮﺗ *ﮭﮑﯿ(cid:25)ﺳ *ﮩﻧ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا پٓ6 ﺮﮔا 6. ؟*; تﻻﺎ/ﺧ ﺎﯿ% Y پٓ6 *ﻣ ےر] Y ﺖﻓﺎﻘﺛ روا ماﻮﻋ Y ﮏﻟﺎﳑ (cid:209)او ﮯﻨﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا 7. ؟U ﺖﯿﻤ;ا ﺎﯿ% ﰽ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا *ﻣ ﺎﯿﻧد ﰽ جٓ6 8. ؟*; ﻮ;(cid:3) د(cid:31)ﻋا ﺮ3 ﮯﻨﺘﮐ پٓ6 ﻮﺗ *; ﮯﺘﻟﻮﺑ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯeﻣﺎﺳ Y ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ ےﴎود پٓ6 ﺐﺟ *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ Y پٓ6 9. یرﺎr ‘ا *ﻤ; ﯽ(cid:131)ﮭﺑ *ﻣ ﻞ(cid:223)ﻘﺘ(cid:25)ﺴﻣ ﺎﯿ% *ﻣ لﺎ/ﺧ Y پٓ6 ؟*; تﻻﺎ/ﺧ ﺎﯿ% Y پٓ6 *ﻣ ےر] سا .U ن]ز یرﰷﴎ ﰽ نﺎﺘ(cid:25)ﺴ%ﺎﭘ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ؟ ﮯﺌ(cid:254)ﺎ(cid:213) ﺎﻨﮭﮐر 10. *ﻣ ےر] Y ﲂﺣ سا Y ٹرﻮ% ﰃﺎﮨ رﻮ;ﻻ Y پٓ6 ؟*; 11. تﻻﺎ/ﺧ ﺎﯿ% ، ﮯﺋ ﺎr ﺎﯿ% ﺪﻘﻌeﻣ *ﻣ یﺰ(cid:14)ﺮﮕ(cid:29)ا ﮯﺋﺎﲜ ﰽ ودرا ‘ 2018 نﺎ(cid:226)jﻣا ﰷ CSS ﮧﮐ 66 REFERENCES 67 REFERENCES Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal, 91 (1), 863-876. Boampong, C. 2005. South Asian English. In: BOAMPONG, C. & PENOVA, G. (eds.) The Colonial Expansion of English - English as a Global Language: Varieties of English. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag GbR. Blommaert, J., 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Coleman. H., (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education. Islamabad: British Council. Coleman, H. & Capstick, T., 2012. Language in education in Pakistan: Recommendations for policy and practice. London: The British Council. Csizér, K., and Dörnyei, Z., (2005a). Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivated learning behavior. Language Learning 55 (4), 613-659. Csizér, K., and Dörnyei, Z., (2005b). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal 89 (1), 19-36. Csizér, K., Kormos, J., (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Dörnyei, Z., Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, pp. 98-117.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. De Costa, P.I., Park, J.S., & Wee, L. (2016). Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship: Implications for language education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5- 6),695-702. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Advances in theory, research, and applications. In: DORNYEI, Z. (ed.) Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language Identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 68 Dörnyei, Z. and Csizér, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics 23, 421-462. Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K. and Nemeth, N. (2006). Motivation, Language Attitudes and Globalisation: A Hungarian Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei and Kubanyiova, (2013). Motivating students, motivating teachers: Building vision in the language classroom. Cambridge: University Press (in press). Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation, Harlow, Pearson Education Limited. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Hafeez, A. (2004). The Need of Introducing Communicative Syllabus for Teaching English in Pakistan. Journal of Research (Faculty of Languages & Islamic Studies), 6, 27-32. Henkel, B. (2010). Ukrainian and English Motivational Self System of Minority Learners in Transcarpathia. WoPaLP, 4, 86 - 107. Hickey, R. (2004). South Asian Englishes. In: HICKEY, R. (ed.) Legacies of Colonial English: Studies in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46. Islam, M., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2013). The L2 motivational self system and national interest: A pakistani perspective. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 231-244. Kormos, J., Kiddle, T., Csizér, K., (2011). Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language-learning motivation. Applied Linguistics, 32(5), 495-516. Lamb, M. (2012). A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning, 62(4), 997-1023. Li, W., & De Costa, P.I. (2017). Professional survival in a neoliberal age: A case study of an EFL teacher in China. Asia TEFL Journal, 14(2), 277-291. MacIntyre, P. D., Dornyei, Z., Clement, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562. Mahboob, A. (2002). "No English, No Future!" : Language Policy in Pakistan. In SamuelGyasiObeng& Beverly Hartford(Eds.), Political independence with linguistic 69 servitude : the politics about languages in the developing world, (pp. 15- 40).United States: Nova Science Publishers. Malik, F.J. (1996). The Teaching of English in Pakistan: A study in Teacher Education. Lahore Vanguard Books. Mansoor, S. (2005). Language planning in higher education a case study of Pakistan. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.) Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Norton, B., & Kamal, F. (2003).The imagined communities of English language learners in a Pakistani school. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 2(4), 301-317. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows Third Edition, Berkshire, England, Open University Press. Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38, 467-479. Pathan, H., Shahriar, A., & Mari, M. A. (2010).Motivation for learning English in Pakistan. EFL Annual Research Journal, 12, 75-92. Rahman, T. (2002) Language Ideology And Power: Language-learning among the Muslims of Pakistan and North India. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Rahman, T. (2004).Language and Education: selected documents (1780- 2003). Islamabad: Quaid-i-Azam University. Rahman, T. (2007). The Role of English in Pakistan With Special Reference to Tolerance and Militancy. In: AMY B. M. TSUI & JAMES W. TOLLEFSON, E. (ed.) Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts. New York: Routledge. Ryan, S., (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Dörnyei, Z., Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, pp. 120-143.Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Shahbaz, M., & Liu, Y. (2012). Complexity of L2 motivation in an asian ESL setting. Porta Linguarum, 18, 115-131. Shahbaz, M., & Liu, Y. (2015). The role of societal and contextual factors in second language learning motivation: A perspective from tertiary students in Pakistan. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 38(4), 451-471. Taguchi, T., Magid, M., Papi, M., (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: a comparative study. In Dörnyei, Z., Ushioda, E. 70 (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, pp. 66-97. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A. & Simmons, J. P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: A new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 118 – 141. Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54(1), 119-152. 71