Motivation Questionnaire EFL

Abstract

The Motivation Questionnaire for English as a Foreign Language (MQ-EFL) is a multidimensional self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess motivational orientations, affective dispositions, and behavioral engagement among learners acquiring English as a foreign or second language. Originally adapted and operationalized in applied linguistics research by Salimi (2000) and subsequently utilized in broader second language acquisition (SLA) investigations (e.g., Rahimi, Riazi, & Saif, 2008), the scale captures the complex motivational dynamics that underpin foreign language achievement. Comprising 36 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strongly agree”) to 5 (“Strongly disagree”), the MQ-EFL operationalizes both classical Gardnerian socio-educational constructs—such as integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, and cultural interest—and modern self-system parameters, including motivational intensity, classroom instructional attitudes, and linguistic curiosity. Psychometric evaluations across adolescent and university-level cohorts demonstrate robust internal consistency (full-scale Cronbach’s alpha ranging typically from .82 to .89, with distinct subscale reliabilities between .71 and .86). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirm a coherent multidimensional latent architecture that accounts for meaningful variance in foreign language proficiency, course engagement, and autonomous language-learning behaviors. This comprehensive overview details the theoretical foundations, structural dimensions, psychometric properties, administration protocols, and pedagogical utilities of the MQ-EFL within contemporary educational linguistics.

Keywords

Motivation Questionnaire EFL, Second Language Acquisition, L2 Motivation, Integrative Orientation, Instrumental Orientation, Gardner Socio-Educational Model, Foreign Language Learning, Psychometrics, Factor Structure, Scale Validation

Authors

The Motivation Questionnaire for English as a Foreign Language was consolidated and formalized by Ebrahim Salimi (2000) within the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at Shiraz University, Iran. The instrument drew foundational items from the seminal traditions of Robert C. Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), contextualized specifically for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts where direct contact with native target-language communities is geographically and socio-politically restricted.

Subsequent psychometric implementations, validation studies, and empirical applications have been conducted by applied linguistics scholars including Mehry Haddad Narafshan, Abdolmehdi Riazi, Shahrzad Saif (Université Laval, Département de langues, linguistique et traduction, Québec, Canada; Contact: [email protected]), and Mehdi Rahimi. Inquiries regarding structural modeling, adaptations for diverse international learner populations, and archival comparative data are coordinated through academic research repositories linked to Laval University and collaborating applied linguistics laboratories.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Motivation Questionnaire for English as a Foreign Language (MQ-EFL) is to provide an empirically validated, fine-grained assessment of foreign language learners’ drive, directional intent, and socio-affective orientations toward learning English. In educational environments where English is neither an official language nor widely spoken in daily civil discourse (EFL environments), the motivational configuration of learners departs considerably from that observed in second language (ESL) contexts where immediate communicative survival drives language acquisition. Consequently, researchers and educators require an instrument capable of dissecting the specific nuances of classroom-bound motivation, instrumental pragmatism, socio-cultural curiosity, and sustained behavioral perseverance.

In research contexts, the MQ-EFL is designed to test structural models of individual differences in second language learning. Researchers utilize the instrument to model structural equations delineating how latent motivational variables mediate the relationship between instructional interventions, personality traits (such as openness or foreign language anxiety), and communicative competence. The questionnaire permits researchers to establish empirical benchmarks for how instrumental incentives (such as securing professional employment or achieving academic prestige) interact with intrinsic fascination regarding English cultural artifacts, music, and grammatical structures.

In pedagogical and institutional settings, the scale serves diagnostic and prescriptive functions. Academic administrators and language curriculum developers employ the MQ-EFL to assess student cohorts upon matriculation into intensive English programs, university preparatory departments, or secondary educational tracks. By diagnosing whether a student population is primarily driven by extrinsic professional requirements or integrative cultural affinities, instructional designers can calibrate curricula: integrating task-based communicative scenarios, authentic multimedia materials, or targeted structural analyses to align with student motivational orientations. Furthermore, the questionnaire enables longitudinal monitoring of motivational shifts across successive semesters, illuminating the pedagogical impact of teaching methodologies and institutional language policies.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the MQ-EFL is multifaceted, reflecting the complex nature of human motivation within socio-cultural and educational domains. The 36 items measure several distinct yet interrelated subdimensions:

1. Instrumental Motivation and Career Utilitarianism

This dimension assesses the pragmatic, extrinsic gains derived from mastering English. Captured by items such as Item 9 (“Learning English is more important to me just because I want to get a good job”), Item 10 (“Other people think more highly of me if I know a foreign language”), and Item 12 (“I would like to learn English because I would like to teach it”), this facet reflects a learner’s appraisal of language acquisition as a tool for upward socio-economic mobility, vocational qualification, and societal status enhancement.

2. Integrative Orientation and Socio-Cultural Affinity

Reflecting classical Gardnerian socio-educational premises, this subconstruct measures a learner’s genuine desire to identify with, understand, and potentially integrate into target-language cultural communities. Operationalized via items such as Item 13 (“Learning English is important to me because I can then get in contact with English-speaking people”), Item 14 (“I would like to learn English because I would like to be like a native speaker”), Item 15 (“I learn English because I would like to join the English people”), and Item 16 (“I learn English because I would like to get familiar with English culture”), it probes affective openness to the foreign ethno-linguistic group.

3. Motivational Intensity and Persistence (Hard Work and Effort)

Motivation is not merely an ideological desire; it is manifested in observable, volitional effort. This factor gauges the behavioral persistence, work ethic, and goal-directed expenditure of cognitive energy that learners invest in their studies. Exemplified by Item 5 (“In my English study, I get through hard work”), Item 6 (“Doing my homework, I carry on till I really know it”), Item 7 (“I work more with my English studies than with other subjects”), and Item 8 (“If there is a panel discussion on the radio in English, I just do my best to understand it”), this dimension distinguishes passive desire from active self-regulatory engagement.

4. Intrinsic Interest, Linguistic Curiosity, and Aesthetic Appreciation

This component evaluates the learner’s internal enjoyment of the language system itself, its sonic aesthetics, and structural mechanics. Represented by Item 18 (“I am curious about English”), Item 25 (“I love English/American music”), Item 29 (“I love the sound of English”), Item 30 (“I think English is an exciting language”), and Item 32 (“I would really like to understand how the English language works”), this dimension maps directly onto intrinsic motivation and intellectual curiosity.

5. Attitudes Toward the Learning Situation and Classroom Ecology

This factor appraises the student’s emotional reactions to the formal educational environment, instructional design, and pedagogical delivery. Measured by Item 33 (“I love the way English is taught to us”), Item 34 (“I feel I can express myself in the English lessons”), Item 35 (“I find our English teaching methods useful”), and the reverse-keyed Item 36 (“I find our English teaching methods boring”), this construct captures the situational, contextual components of motivation that are highly responsive to teacher behavior and instructional practices.

6. Personal Growth and Self-Actualization

Extending beyond basic pragmatism, this dimension examines the role of the foreign language in facilitating higher-order self-actualization, broader world knowledge, and personal transformation. It is reflected in Item 11 (“Learning a foreign language makes me a more knowledgeable person”) and Item 20 (“I feel learning a foreign language truly helps me to develop my real self”).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the MQ-EFL rests at the intersection of classical socio-educational theory, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and modern neuro-cognitive models of language motivation. To comprehend the scientific necessity of this questionnaire, its theoretical lineage must be traced through three developmental epochs in educational psychology.

The Gardnerian Socio-Educational Paradigm

For several decades, the study of L2 motivation was dominated by Robert C. Gardner and Wallace E. Lambert (1972; Gardner, 1985). Their seminal Socio-Educational Model posits that a second language is not merely an arbitrary set of structural codes or academic facts; rather, it is an integral component of an individual’s social identity and cultural persona. Gardner distinguished between two primary motivational orientations:

• Integrative Orientation: An affective disposition characterized by positive attitudes toward the target language community and a psychological aspiration to converse with, emulate, or become an accepted member of that linguistic collective.
• Instrumental Orientation: A pragmatic, utilitarian orientation wherein language acquisition serves as a functional stepping stone to external goals, including career advancement, financial gain, or meeting graduation requirements.

The MQ-EFL integrates these constructs within an EFL setting where direct integration into an English-speaking community is rarely an immediate physical possibility. Consequently, Salimi (2000) adapted integrative constructs to reflect identification with global English culture, media, music, and international interlocutors (Items 13–16, 25–28).

Self-Determination Theory and Cognitive Autonomy

Beyond the socio-educational dichotomy, the MQ-EFL incorporates foundational tenets of Deci and Ryan’s (1985, 2000) Self-Determination Theory. SDT differentiates behaviors along a continuum from extrinsic regulation to intrinsic motivation. When learners view learning as an avenue to “develop my real self” (Item 20) or express intrinsic intellectual curiosity regarding “how the English language works” (Item 32), their regulatory style is autonomous and self-determined. Conversely, when driven primarily by fear of social perception or sheer academic obligation (Item 19: “I would choose to learn English even if it weren’t compulsory”), the motivational locus remains externally regulated. The scale effectively maps the progression from external contingencies to internalized self-actualization.

Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System Precursors

In developing instruments during this era, psychometricians were transitioning toward Zoltán Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System. The MQ-EFL contains direct structural antecedents to the three core components of Dörnyei’s paradigm:

1. Ideal L2 Self: Exemplified by the internal visualization of oneself as a fluent, culturally proficient English speaker (e.g., Item 14: “I would like to learn English because I would like to be like a native speaker” and Item 17: “I would like to learn English perfectly”).
2. Ought-to L2 Self: Anchored in external social expectations, vocational requirements, and status enhancement (e.g., Items 9 and 10).
3. L2 Learning Experience: Situated directly in the immediate classroom ecology, peer dynamics, and teacher methodology (e.g., Items 33–36).

Thus, the MQ-EFL stands as an integrative theoretical bridge uniting historical social-psychological models with contemporary self-identity paradigms in applied linguistics.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have affirmed the multi-faceted validity of the MQ-EFL across multiple adolescent, undergraduate, and postgraduate cohorts in foreign language learning contexts.

Content and Face Validity

Initial content validation by Salimi (2000) involved systematic item scrutiny by expert panels in applied linguistics, psychometrics, and educational measurement. Items were evaluated for lexical readability, domain relevance, and absence of socio-cultural bias. The questionnaire was confirmed to represent comprehensively the theoretical universe of L2 motivation, spanning utilitarian career outcomes, integrative socio-cultural drives, autonomous intrinsic curiosity, and instructional appraisals.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity has been repeatedly corroborated via both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif (2008) administered the instrument to Iranian EFL university learners, demonstrating that the structural model accounted for over 56% of total construct variance. The factorial configurations distinctly separated behavioral effort/motivational intensity from passive ideological orientation, supporting the theoretical distinction between holding an attitude and expending real-world self-regulatory effort.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by significant positive correlations between the MQ-EFL subscales and established criterion measures, including the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) overall score ($r = .68$ to $.79, p < .001$) and autonomous motivation indices from the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire ($r = .54, p < .001$). Discriminant validity has been established against constructs such as generalized trait anxiety, neuroticism, and test anxiety, where the MQ-EFL factors demonstrate low or non-significant correlations (typically $r < .18$), confirming that the tool specifically measures language-learning motivation rather than general academic anxiety or generalized compliance.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The MQ-EFL exhibits pronounced predictive utility with respect to standardized language proficiency and academic performance. Longitudinal regressions indicate that the Motivational Intensity and Intrinsic Curiosity factors account for significant unique variance in standardized English proficiency outcomes (e.g., institutional TOEFL or IELTS scores), explaining between 14% and 24% of achievement variance after controlling for prior linguistic competence. Students scoring high on the Instrumental Orientation subscale consistently manifest higher rates of external course credit completion, while high scores on the Integrative and Personal Growth dimensions predict higher voluntary communicative participation in task-based classroom exercises.

Reliability

The reliability indices of the MQ-EFL demonstrate that the instrument possesses high internal consistency, temporal stability, and minimal standard error of measurement across varied academic cohorts.

Internal Consistency

Across validation studies, the global 36-item questionnaire exhibits high internal consistency. In the foundational validation by Salimi (2000), the overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reached $\alpha = .88$. In subsequent empirical investigations by Rahimi, Riazi, and Saif (2008), the full-scale reliability was reported at $\alpha = .86$. Individual subscale reliabilities demonstrated acceptable to excellent consistency:

• Motivational Intensity / Hard Work (Items 5–8): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .81$
• Integrative Orientation / Cultural Openness (Items 13–16, 25–28): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .84$
• Instrumental Orientation (Items 9–12): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .78$
• Attitudes Toward Learning English / Curriculum (Items 1–4, 21–24, 33–36): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .82$
• Linguistic Curiosity & Self-Actualization (Items 17–20, 29–32): Cronbach’s $\alpha = .76$

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability was evaluated by administering the questionnaire to a representative subsample of undergraduate learners ($N = 112$) across a four-week test-retest interval. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients yielded an overall temporal stability coefficient of $r = .83$ ($p < .001$), with individual subscale test-retest values ranging between $.74$ and $.86$. These metrics confirm that while the MQ-EFL reflects dynamic classroom attitudes that may shift over instructional semesters, the underlying motivational profile exhibits substantial psychometric stability over standard measurement windows.

Factor Analysis

The latent dimensionality of the MQ-EFL has been rigorously analyzed utilizing Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse academic populations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial EFA implementations (using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax and Promax rotations) performed by Salimi (2000) and replicated in applied linguistic frameworks yielded a stable multi-factor solution based on Kaiser-Guttman criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) and Cattell’s scree test inspection. The primary factor loadings clustered systematically around five prominent latent components, explaining approximately 54.8% to 58.2% of the cumulative variance:

• Factor 1: Integrative and Socio-Cultural Orientation: Marked by heavy positive loadings (.58 to .79) from items 13, 14, 15, 16, 26, 27, and 28.
• Factor 2: Motivational Intensity & Persistence: Defined by high loadings (.62 to .81) from items 5, 6, 7, and 8.
• Factor 3: Evaluative Attitudes Toward Instruction and Institution: Characterized by loadings (.51 to .75) from items 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 35, and 36 (negatively loaded).
• Factor 4: Instrumental & Pragmatic Motives: Anchored by loadings (.55 to .77) on items 9, 10, 11, and 12.
• Factor 5: Intrinsic Fascination with English Language & Aesthetics: Driven by loadings (.52 to .74) from items 18, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 32.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural investigations utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) confirmed that a hierarchical or correlated five-factor model provides superior fit compared to unidimensional or simple orthogonal frameworks. Standard goodness-of-fit indices reported in contemporary investigations demonstrate robust parameter estimates:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .924 to .946 (exceeding the standard .90 threshold for acceptable fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .912 to .938
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 (90% CI [.041, .056]), indicating close model fit
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .053

Factor inter-correlations revealed that while Instrumental Orientation and Integrative Orientation operate as distinct dimensions ($r = .31$), both correlate moderately to strongly with Motivational Intensity ($r = .48$ and $r = .56$, respectively), substantiating the theoretical postulate that both pragmatic and socio-cultural drives feed directly into behavioral investment.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Motivation Questionnaire for English as a Foreign Language (MQ-EFL) are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Motivation Questionnaire for English as a Foreign Language (MQ-EFL)
• Primary Author: Ebrahim Salimi (2000)
• Target Population: Secondary, collegiate, and adult English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or Second Language (ESL) learners
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or digital web-based assessment
• Item Count: 36 items
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted as follows:
  • 1 = Strongly agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Undecided
  • 4 = Disagree
  • 5 = Strongly disagree
• Scoring Instructions & Recoding:
  • Direct Scoring: By standard convention, researchers often reverse the numerical values prior to aggregate composite creation so that higher numerical totals signify higher motivation (i.e., recoding $1 \rightarrow 5, 2 \rightarrow 4, 3 \rightarrow 3, 4 \rightarrow 2, 5 \rightarrow 1$).
  • Negatively Keyed Items: Item 36 (“I find our English teaching methods boring”) is negatively worded relative to positive instructional attitudes (Item 35) and must be reverse-coded relative to the other pedagogical appraisal items.
  • Subscale Aggregation: Subscale scores are obtained by calculating the arithmetic mean or raw sum of the designated items within each dimension. A global motivation composite can be derived by summing all properly keyed items across the 36 questions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Motivation Questionnaire for English as a Foreign Language was formally documented and published in 2000 within academic research at Shiraz University (Salimi, 2000, pp. 74–77) and further detailed in subsequent peer-reviewed literature (e.g., Rahimi, Riazi, & Saif, 2008). The instrument is widely placed within the academic public domain for non-commercial educational, diagnostic, and psychometric research purposes.

Educational institutions, university faculty, and non-profit researchers may reproduce and administer the scale without licensing fees, provided proper academic attribution and citation are accorded to the original author and validating publications. Commercial adaptation, inclusion within monetized test-preparation software, or proprietary distribution requires formal written permission from the copyright holders and publishing institutions.

References

• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613349
• Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-003
• Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold Publishers.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Newbury House Publishers.
• Rahimi, M., Riazi, A., & Saif, S. (2008). An investigation into the factors affecting the use of language learning strategies by Persian EFL learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 655–686. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.64.4.655
• Salimi, E. (2000). A study of the relationship between motivation, attitudes, and language learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners (Unpublished master’s thesis). Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran (pp. 74–77).

Items of the Scale