Instrumental Motivation

Instrumental motivation is the desire to learn a language for practical, utilitarian purposes — career advancement, academic requirements, higher salary, passing an exam, or gaining access to information. It was first distinguished from integrative motivation by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) within Gardner's Socio-Educational Model of second language acquisition.

Gardner's Socio-Educational Model

Gardner (1985) proposed that motivation in SLA comprises three components:

Component	Definition
Motivational intensity	Effort the learner expends
Desire to learn	Want to achieve the language learning goal
Attitudes toward learning	Positive or negative evaluation of the learning situation

Within this framework, orientation (the reason for learning) and motivation (the driving force) are distinct. A learner can have an instrumental orientation without necessarily being highly motivated, and vice versa. Gardner measured motivation primarily through the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), which includes subscales for both orientations.

Instrumental vs Integrative

Dimension	Instrumental	Integrative
Goal	External, practical benefit	Social identification with TL community
Driving force	Extrinsic reward	Desire for cultural connection
Typical context	EFL settings, exam preparation, professional requirements	ESL/immersion, heritage learners
Example	"I need English to get promoted"	"I want to understand British culture"

Gardner and Lambert (1972) initially hypothesized that integrative motivation was superior for long-term language achievement. This claim was subsequently challenged by research in EFL contexts (see below).

Research Evidence

Gardner & Lambert (1972) — Their foundational studies in Montreal found that integratively oriented francophone learners of English achieved higher proficiency than instrumentally oriented ones. However, in the Philippines, they found the reverse: instrumental motivation predicted success better where English was needed for socioeconomic advancement.

Lukmani (1972) — Studying non-westernized female learners of English in Bombay, found that instrumental motivation was a stronger predictor of proficiency than integrative motivation, challenging the primacy of integrativeness.

Dörnyei (1990) — In the Hungarian EFL context, found that instrumental motives (particularly related to pragmatic benefits) were more influential than integrative motives, partly because learners had little contact with English-speaking communities.

Warden & Lin (2000) — Studying Taiwanese university students, found that a required motivation orientation (studying English because it is compulsory) was distinct from both instrumental and integrative motivation and was the strongest predictor of effort in EFL settings.

Dörnyei & Ushioda (2011) argued that the instrumental/integrative distinction, while historically important, has been largely superseded by more nuanced models including the L2 Motivational Self System, where instrumental motivation maps onto the ought-to L2 self (obligations, expectations) and partly onto the ideal L2 self (desired future state requiring L2).

Why It Matters for ELT

Instrumental motivation is often the primary driver in EFL contexts where learners have limited contact with target language communities — precisely the context of most IELTS preparation, TOEIC courses, and professional English programs.

• Make instrumental goals explicit. Help learners articulate their practical goals (exam scores, job requirements) and connect each lesson to those goals.
• Instrumental motivation can be powerful but fragile. Once the exam is passed or the job secured, motivation may drop sharply. Building intrinsic interest alongside instrumental goals sustains learning.
• Don't dismiss instrumental motivation as inferior. Research in EFL contexts consistently shows it predicts effort and achievement, especially for exam-focused courses.
• Needs analysis connects directly. Needs Analysis identifies learners' instrumental goals, which then drive syllabus and materials decisions.
• Combine with autonomy. When instrumentally motivated learners also develop learner autonomy, they sustain effort beyond immediate external goals.

References

• Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language Learning, 40(1), 45–78.
• Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd ed.). Longman.
• Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Edward Arnold.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13(4), 266–272.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Newbury House.
• Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22(2), 261–273.
• Warden, C. A., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(5), 535–547.