constructing an l2 motivational model of planned learning

國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所

博士論文

Doctoral Dissertation

Graduate Institute of English

National Taiwan Normal University

建構一個計畫學習行為的

外語動機模式

Constructing An

L2 Motivational Model

Of Planned Learning Behavior

指導教授: 曾文鐽博士

Advisor: Wen-Ta Tseng

研究生: 戴美霞

Student: Mei-Hsia Dai

中華民國一百零一年六月

June, 2012

i

中文摘要

第二外語學習動機的研究已顯示關於個別差異之情意變項對外語學習是重要

的，但是極少數外語動機研究是專門研究社會環境及行為意圖對學習者的影響。

此論文之主要目的是重新省視外語學習動機研究，運用更完整的概念理論及合併

外語學習者人與人的影響及個別差異因素，建構一個假設因果關係的外語動機學

習模型。本研究之結構模型主要以 Azjen (1991, 2005)的計畫行為理論為基礎，

輔以Gollwitzer (1993, 1999)的行動意圖和 Tseng 和 Schmitt (2008)的模式中之自

律能力與外語精熟因素。此研究模式一共含有九個潛在變項，包含：外語學習態

度，社會規範，自信，目標意圖，行動意圖，自律能力，外語學習行為，外語學

習精熟度以及外語成就。

此研究總共有 265位高中生參與主要研究，並使用結構方程模式檢測此模式

之適配度。結構方程模式分析分為測驗模式及結構模式。前者是界定指標變項並

檢測所界定之指標變項是否可以解釋所依據之理論概念，後者則檢驗所假設之結

構模式的因果關係。此研究之結果顯示測驗模式，除了極少的修正外，其適配度

良好，奠定結構模式之基礎。結構模式之結果顯示外語學習態度，社會規範及自

信在外語學習之初期階段有顯著重要的角色。外語學習態度與社會規範對目標意

圖與行動意圖尤其具有影響力。行動意圖對自律能力及外語學習行為是最為關鍵

的因素。自律能力能影響外語學習之精熟度，且後者是能直接影響外語學習成就

之效果。

此研究結果啟發重要的意涵：學生的學習態度及人際互動可以藉由老師在教

室的引導，訓練學生學習設計讀書計畫以完成他們設定的學習目標，教師在教學

計畫中亦可以訓練學生運用精熟學習策略以確定自己的學習效果。

關鍵字：第二外語動機模式，社會規範，目標意圖，行動意圖，自律能力，

第二外語學習精熟度

iii

CONSTRUCTING AN L2 MOTIVATIONAL MODEL

OF PLANNED LEARNING BEHAVIOR

ABSTRACT

Research on L2 learning motivation has shown that affective variables regarding

individual differences are important in second language learning, but few studies

incorporated a focus on the impact of social milieu and behavioral intention. The aim

of this study is to echo the call for a reconsideration of L2 motivation research with a

more complete reconceptualization and an expansion of combining both interpersonal

and intrapersonal factors with hypothesized causal relationships in a model of L2

learning motivation. The structural model in this study was mainly based on Ajzen’s

(1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior, reinforced by Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999)

implementation intention, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity

and mastery of L2 learning. There are nine latent variables in the model consisting of

Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms, Self-Confidence, Goal Intention,

Implementation Intention, Self-Regulatory Capacity, Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior,

Mastery of L2 Learning, and L2 Achievement.

The participants in the main study are 265 senior high-school students in

northern Taiwan. Structural Equation Modeling is utilized to estimate the

hypothesized model in terms of a range of goodness-of-fit indices. The results of the

structural equation model are analyzed with respect to the measurement model and

the structural model. The former identifies the indicator variables and tests how a

conceptual, grounded theory can be accounted for by the represented indicators. The

latter examines the causal relationships that represent the structural hypotheses.

The results show that the measurement model reveals an overall good fit with

minor modifications, which provides the basic support for the structural model. The

iv

results of the structural model show that attitudes toward L2 learning, social norms

and self-confidence play important roles in the initial stage during the second

language learning process. Attitudes toward L2 learning and social norms are

particularly influential to both goal and implementation intention. Implementation

intention is a critical factor on effective language learning behavior and volitional

control, and self-regulatory capacity and metacognitive mastery of L2 learning are

linked to influence the effect of L2 achievement. Findings of this study yield

important pedagogical implications: students’ attitudes and interpersonal interaction

can be directed by teachers in the classroom. With the guidance of teachers, students

learn to enact their study plans to achieve their goals via various learning behaviors

with volitional controls. Teachers in their pedagogical plans can demonstrate and train

the students to use metacognitive learning strategies in appropriate learning contexts

with explicit teaching mechanism to ensure that the students have acquired the

metacognitive operations through constant exercises.

Key words: L2 motivational model, social norms, goal intention, implementation

intention, self-regulatory capacity, and mastery of L2 learning

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many wonderful people have contributed greatly in various ways to the

development and completion of this dissertation. I am indebted to these people who

encouraged, supported and accompanied me through this long, and arduous, yet

enlightening academic journey. First of all, I am deeply indebted to my advisor, Dr.

Wen-Ta Tseng, for his introduction to the field of L2 motivational model and his

valuable insights and for all the time and energy he has spent on me and this work. I

owe him a great deal for his enlightening guidance and invaluable discussions and

supervision throughout the writing of this dissertation. I am also very grateful to Dr.

Yu-Show Cheng and Dr. Hsi-Chin Chu for their valuable and insightful comments and

suggestions at the proposal hearing, which have helped me improve and clarify my

understanding of this study. My sincere gratitude also goes to all the committee

members, including Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng, Dr. Yu-Show Cheng, Dr. Hsi-Chin Chu, Dr.

Chao-Chang Wang, Dr. Fang-Chuan Chang, and Dr. Yi-Ting Hwang, for their critical

reading and invaluable comments on the contents and insightful suggestions to this

study.

My cordial appreciation also goes to all the schools, teachers, and students who

provided me with much help and participation in this study. It would not have been

possible for me to complete this thesis without them sharing their precious time and

learning experience. I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Shi-Hwa Lin for his generosity

to give me opportunities to sit in his statistics classes and his kindness to provide

technical assistance in my time of need. In addition, I would like to thank Dr.

Chin-Yuan Chang for his constant encouragement and support along this arduous

journey. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Chiou-Lan Chern and

Dr. Hao-Jan Chen for always being supportive, and Roger Wang, Stan Chiu, and Ally

vi

Lin, my peers at Ph.D. program, for their trustworthy friendship.

My most heartfelt thanks go to my indispensable and considerate mother,

brothers and sister for their unconditional love and trust in me. I am deeply indebted

to my brothers and sister for taking good care of mom all these years. Finally, I

sincerely thank my Buddha, Earth-Store Bodhisattva, and two venerable masters,

Master Di-Jiao, and Master Zue-Guang. His Being has been accompanying me all the

time and come to my help in my depressed and difficult times. His Being has been

guiding me to reflect on myself and strengthening my belief of turning my way of

viewing things, people, and events positively and actively.

http://tw.dictionary.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=%E8%8F%A9%E8%96%A9

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chinese Abstract ............................................................................................................. i

English Abstract ............................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ v

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................... xiii

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xv

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Rationale ........................................................................................................................ 1

Social Norms ................................................................................................................ ..5

Behavioral Intention....................................................................................................... 7

Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................................... 8

Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 10

Contribution of this Study ............................................................................................ 11

Limitations of this Study .............................................................................................. 12

Organization of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 15

Motivational Theories with Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Constructs ..................... 17

Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model .................................................................... 18

Criticism of Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model ................................. 20

Criticism of Gardner’s AMTB ............................................................... 21

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory ....................................................................... 23

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................... 24

Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior ............................................................... 25

Dörnyei-Ottó Process Model of Motivation ...................................................... 29

Preactional Stage .................................................................................... 30

Actional Stage ........................................................................................ 30

Postactional Stage .................................................................................. 31

Rubicon Model................................................................................................... 33

The Predecisional Phase ........................................................................ 33

The Preactional Phase ............................................................................ 34

The Actional Phase ................................................................................ 35

The Postactional Phase .......................................................................... 35

viii

Model Review on Motivation and Second/Foreign Language Learning ..................... 36

Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) Model ............................................................. 36

Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret’s (1997) Model ............................................ 38

Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimiza’s (2004) WTC Model .......................... 40

Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) Model ................................................................... 41

Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) Model .................................................................... 43

Comments on the Five Models Reviewed ......................................................... 44

Overview of Theoretical Perspectives regarding Social Influences ............................ 50

Gardner’s Motivation Theory ............................................................................ 50

Social Motivation ............................................................................................... 52

Social Constructivism ........................................................................................ 52

Social Norms in the Theory of Planned Behavior ............................................. 53

Social Norms in L2 Learning ............................................................................. 55

Overview of Theories of Intention ............................................................................... 57

Theory of Intention ............................................................................................ 58

Implementation Intention ................................................................................... 59

Intention in Second Language Learning ............................................................ 60

Constructing an L2 Learning Motivation Model with a Social and Individual

Approach ............................................................................................................ 61

Other Measurements .................................................................................................... 66

Attitudes toward L2 Learning ............................................................................ 66

Self-Confidence ................................................................................................. 68

Self-Regulatory Capacity ................................................................................... 69

The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior .............................................................. 70

Mastery of L2 Learning ................................................................................... 71

CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOMETRIC

SCALES

The Hypothesized Model Integrating Interpersonal and Intrapersonal

Approaches ........................................................................................................ 73

Specific Hypothesized Relationships ........................................................................... 74

Research Design........................................................................................................... 75

Structural Equation Modeling ...................................................................................... 79

Introduction of Development of the Scales ................................................................. 81

Scale of Social Norms in Language Learning ............................................................. 82

Development of the Scale of Social Norms ....................................................... 82

Item Pool ............................................................................................................ 83

Participants and Procedures ............................................................................... 84

ix

Item Analysis ..................................................................................................... 85

Internal Consistency ........................................................................................... 86

Unidimensionality .............................................................................................. 86

Scales of Intention in Language Learning ................................................................... 88

Development of the Scales of Behavioral Intention .......................................... 88

Proposed Model ................................................................................................. 89

Item Pool ............................................................................................................ 90

Participants and Procedures ............................................................................... 91

Item Analysis ..................................................................................................... 91

Evaluation of the Scales of Intention in Language Learning ............................. 91

Estimate of Model Fit ........................................................................................ 92

Development and Pilot Study of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Self-confidence,

Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, and

Mastery of L2 Learning ..................................................................................... 94

Item Formation of Attitudes toward L2 Learning .............................................. 94

Pilot Study .......................................................................................................... 96

Participants ............................................................................................. 96

Data Collection Procedures .................................................................... 96

Item Analysis ......................................................................................... 97

Internal Consistency............................................................................... 97

Item Formation of Self-Confidence ................................................................... 98

Pilot Study .......................................................................................................... 99

Participants and Data Collection Procedures ......................................... 99

Item Analysis ......................................................................................... 99

Internal Consistency............................................................................... 99

Item Formation of Self-Regulatory Capacity .................................................. 100

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 101

Participants and Data Collection Procedures ....................................... 101

Item Analysis ....................................................................................... 101

Internal Consistency............................................................................. 101

Unidimensionality ................................................................................ 103

Item Formation of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ................................. 104

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 105


Item Analysis ....................................................................................... 105



x

Item Formation of Mastery of L2 Learning ..................................................... 108

Pilot Study ........................................................................................................ 110


Item Analysis ....................................................................................... 110



Achievement Measures .................................................................................. 114

Main Study ................................................................................................................. 115

The Hypothesized Model ................................................................................. 115

Research Questions .......................................................................................... 119

Participants ....................................................................................................... 120

Measurements .................................................................................................. 121

Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 122

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

Assessment of the Measurement Model .................................................................. 124

Estimate of the Model Fit of the Measurement Model .................................... 124

Modification of the Measurement Model ........................................................ 125

Convergent Validity ......................................................................................... 127

Discriminant Validity ....................................................................................... 132

Summary .......................................................................................................... 133

Assessment of the Structural Model .......................................................................... 133

Overall Model Fit of the Structural Model ...................................................... 136

Estimates of the Factor Loadings of the Indicators for the Structural Model .. 137

Estimates of the Coefficients of the Structural Paths for the Structural

Model ................................................................................................... 139

Standardized Total Effects and Standardized Indirect Effects ......................... 140

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 143

Discussion One: The Overall Importance of the Current Model ............................... 144

The Overall Structure and the Processes of the L2 Learning Motivation

Constructs Hypothesized in this Model ............................................... 144

Discussion Two: Effects of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms,

and Self-Confidence......................................................................................... 148

Effects of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms and

Self-Confidence on Goal Intention and Implementation Intention........ 149

Impact of Social Norms on Learners’ Self-Regulatory Capacity .................... 153

xi

Effects of Self-Confidence on Self-Regulatory Capacity and the

Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ........................................................... 155

Discussion Three: Effects of Goal Intention and Implementation Intention

on Learners’ Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2

Learning Behavior ........................................................................................... 158

Discussion Four: Effects of Self-Regulatory Capacity on the Tactics of

L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning ........................................ 166

Discussion Five: Effects of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and

Mastery of L2 Learning on L2 Achievement ................................................... 168

Overall Discussion ..................................................................................................... 172

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 176

Pedagogical Implications ........................................................................................... 179

Predecisional Phase .......................................................................................... 180

Preactional Phase ............................................................................................. 182

Actional Phase ................................................................................................. 183

Summary of Pedagogical Implications ............................................................ 185

Research Implications ................................................................................................ 186

Limitations ................................................................................................................. 188

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 189

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 219

Appendix 1: The Item Pool of Social Norms.......................................................... 219

Appendix 2: Pilot Study of the Items of Social Norms .......................................... 224

Appendix 3: Items of Social Norms in the Main Study .......................................... 232

Appendix 4: The Item Pool of Goal Intention ........................................................ 235

Appendix 5: Pilot Study of the Items of Goal Intention ......................................... 237

Appendix 6: Items of Goal Intention in the Main Study ........................................ 240

Appendix 7: The Item Pool of Implementation Intention ....................................... 242

Appendix 8: Pilot Study of the Items of Implementation Intention ........................ 244

Appendix 9: Items of Implementation Intention in the Main Study ....................... 247

Appendix 10: Pilot Study of the Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning ............... 249

Appendix 11: Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning in the Main Study .............. 250

Appendix 12: Pilot Study of the Items of Self-Confidence .................................... 251

Appendix 13: Items of Self-Confidence in the Main Study ................................... 253

xii

Appendix 14: Pilot Study of the Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity ...................... 254

Appendix 15: Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity in the Main Study ..................... 257

Appendix 16: Pilot Study of the Items of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior .... 259

Appendix 17: Items of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior in the Main Study .... 262

Appendix 18: Pilot Study of the Items of Mastery of L2 Learning ........................ 264

Appendix 19: Items of Mastery of L2 Learning in the Main Study ....................... 267

Appendix 20: Consent Form ................................................................................... 269

Appendix 21: Items of the Final Exam ................................................................... 271

Appendix 22: Syntax and Covariance of the Structural Model .............................. 279

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Dörnyei and Ottó’s Process Model of L2 Learning Motivation ............. 32

Table 3.1 Composition of the participants in each phase ........................................ 76

Table 3.2 Development and pilot study of the scales .............................................. 77

Table 3.3 Descriptions of the methods and the criteria for the item

determination ......................................................................................... 78

Table 3.4 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale

and the subscales of Social Norms, and Pearson correlations

among the subscales ............................................................................... 86

Table 3.5 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Social Norms ...... 87

Table 3.6 Factor loading on one unrotated factor of Social Norms ........................ 87

Table 3.7 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the

scales of Intention .................................................................................. 92

Table 3.8 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Intention .......................... 92

Table 3.9 Goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized model of Intention

and the modified model .......................................................................... 93


of Self-Regulatory Capacity ............................................................... 102

Table 3.11 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Self-Regulatory

Capacity ............................................................................................... 102

Table 3.12 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of

Self-Regulatory Capacity ................................................................... 103

Table 3.13 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Self-Regulatory

Capacity ............................................................................................. 104

Table 3.14 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the

scale of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior .................................... 106

Table 3.15 Pearson correlations among the indicators of the subscales

of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ........................................... 106

Table 3.16 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of the

Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ....................................................... 107

Table 3.17 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of the Tactics of L2

Learning Behavior ............................................................................. 108


of Mastery of L2 Learning ................................................................. 111

Table 3.19 Pearson correlations among the indicators of the subscales of Mastery

of L2 Learning ................................................................................... 111

xiv

Table 3.20 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Mastery

of L2 Learning ................................................................................... 112

Table 3.21 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Mastery of L2

Learning ............................................................................................. 112

Table 3.22 Summary of Cronbach’s alpha, scale mean and standard

deviations of the indicators of each scale .......................................... 113

Table 4.1 Two indicators with fairly high loading values suggested by

modification indices ........................................................................... 126

Table 4.2 Comparison of goodness-of-fit (GOF) measures between the original

hypothesized and the revised L2 learning motivation models ............. 127

Table 4.3 Estimates of the parameters of the modified model .............................. 129

Table 4.4 Cronbach’s α, scale mean and standard deviations of the

structural model ................................................................................... 131

Table 4.5 Correlations matrix of the structural constructs of the revised

measurement model (standardized) ..................................................... 133

Table 4.6 Goodness-of-fit for the structural model of the hypothesized

model.................................................................................................... 136

Table 4.7 Unstandardized and standardized factor loadings for the structural

model of L2 learning motivation model ............................................ 138

Table 4.8 Results of the unstandardized and standardized structural path

estimates of L2 learning motivation model .......................................... 140

Table 4.9 Standardized total effects and standardized indirect effects of

L2 learning motivation model .............................................................. 141

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Gardner’s conceptualization of integrative motives .............................. 19

Figure 2.2 Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action ..................... 25

Figure 2.3 Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior ......................................... 27

Figure 2.4 Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon Model of Action

Phases ..................................................................................................... 33

Figure 2.5 Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) study of motivation construct in

language learning ................................................................................... 37

Figure 2.6 Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret (1997) model of second

language learning ................................................................................... 39

Figure 2.7 Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide and Shimizu’s (2004) study of WTC

model...................................................................................................... 41

Figure 2.8 Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) study of internal structure of

second language learning on intended effort and language choice ........ 42

Figure 2.9 Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model of vocabulary learning ................... 44

Figure 3.1 The hypothesized model of nine latent variables .................................. 74

Figure 3.2 The hypothesized model of intention in language learning................... 90

Figure 3.3 Confirmatory factor analysis of the modified model of intention

in language learning ............................................................................... 93

Figure 3.4 The hypothesized L2 motivational model of planned learning

behavior................................................................................................ 117

Figure 4.1 Results of the hypothesized structural model of L2 learning

motivation ............................................................................................ 135

1

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

This chapter opens with a rationale of this current study and a brief introduction of

two important variables, social norms and behavioral intention, which have not been

sufficiently studied in L2 motivation research. These are followed by the statement of

purpose of this study, research questions, and a statement concerning the expected

contribution of this study. This chapter concludes with a brief introduction of the

organization of this thesis.

Rationale

For the past several decades, motivation has been acknowledged as playing a

prominent role in second/foreign language (L2) learning. Much of the research

focused on individual differences in foreign language acquisition, demonstrating the

importance of affective variables, including integrative motivation (Gardner, 1985,

2000, 2001), instrumental motivation (Warden & Lin, 2000), attitudes and beliefs

(Bell, 2005; Loewen et al., 2009; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Leone & Peru, 1999;

Rifkin, 2000), self-regulation (Tang & Neber, 2008; Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006;

Wolters, 2003), and willingness to communicate (Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003;

MacIntyre, 1994, 2007; MacIntyre, Babin, & Clément, 1999; MacIntyre, Baker,

Clément, & Conrod, 2001) on achievement. However, Firth and Wagner (1997) called

for a complete reconceptualization of second language acquisition, emphasizing social

and contextual orientation. More recently, Fulmer and Frijters (2009) have lamented

that motivation research has focused predominantly on cognitive, intrapsychological

aspects, downplaying the significance of other personal and contextual factors in the

relationship between motivation and academic achievement. Both researchers and

2

teachers agree that there are significant differences between motivated and

unmotivated students when it comes to learning a foreign language. Generally

speaking, learners with stronger motivation become more active, resourceful, and

effective in acquiring a second language. This suggests that, if learners can develop a

personal motivation for language learning, their intention to learn the subject matter is

more likely to be formed and implemented.

Since 1990s, several motivation researchers in the L2 field (Crookes & Schmidt

1991; Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) have reached an

agreement that research in motivation should be expanded to cover social milieus as

well as other important, personal factors in second language acquisition. To meet the

call for a consideration of research that includes more other important, motivational

factors in L2 motivation research, Gardner and his associates (Tremblay & Gardner,

1995; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997) designed two structural models,

grounded mainly on the Socio-educational model, in an attempt to investigate causal

relationships among the developed motivational factors with the intention of

explicating a more complete model of SLA. Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) also proposed

an L2 motivation model examining the internal structure of language learning

motivation and its relationship to language choice. Based on McCroskey’s (1992,

1997) construct of willingness to communicate (WTC), Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and

Shimizu (2004) explored the antecedents of students’ willingness to communicate and

its results in an international exchange program. In addition to these empirical studies,

there are some others: Gardner, Masgoret, and Tremblay, 1999; MacIntyre,

MacMaster, and Baker, 2001; Tseng and Schmitt, 2008; Yamashiro and McLaughlin,

2000. These researchers used structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate

causal relationships among the motivational variables involved.

3

However, few seemed to be based on a major, theoretical framework when the

modeling structure is examined. There is no doubt that motivation is a dynamic

concept and that there is no single, motivational theory that could comprehensively

explain all the factors involved (Landy & Becker, 1987). To fill in the gaps in

motivation research in second language acquisition and to be in line with the

conceptualized principles of dynamic motivation, this current model is grounded on

the theoretical framework of Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior from

social psychology. With the basis of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior, the current

structural model will further gain in strength by adopting Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999)

theory of implementation intention, and two constructs, the tactics of L2 learning

behavior and mastery of L2 learning, from Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model into

second language learning motivation. Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned

behavior was adopted because it encompasses not only the significant factors but also

the two important dimensions, social norms and behavioral intention, which have not

been thoroughly studied in L2 learning motivation. Furthermore, the current model

will be elaborated with Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) Implementation Intention, which

highlights the psychological processes concerning how learners develop particular

plans with respect to goal attainment and can therefore increase the commitment to

engaging in a specific behavior, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory

capacity and mastery, which are another two powerful factors in a temporal-processed

model. The elaborated network will be shown in a diagram which would be better

understood on one hand and which would display the causal relationships among

variables to interpret a concept and a sequential process on the other.

Further, despite the existing measures in L2 motivation research and the adopted

TPB model, the measures of two new constructs, social norms and implementation

4

intention, will be developed and tested under a theoretical framework to see whether

they meet the psychometric characteristics in that no validated scales in L2 motivation

research are available regarding these two constructs. Finally, the whole structural

model will be distinguished with three language learning phases, based on

Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon model. The ultimate goal of this study

is to include these two newly explored variables in order to establish a model of L2

learning motivation and then examine the effects of the structure in this model, which

is another under-examined area (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005).

Motivation in L2 learning not only means to set a goal to learn a second language

but also needs to include the effects of social context on individuals and learners’

intention to act on set, learning goals. Previous research has proposed several theories

affecting L2 motivation including expectancy values (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995;

Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000), achievement motivation (Atkinson & Raynor, 1974),

self-efficacy (Bandura, 1993, 1997a, 1997b; Zimmerman, 1989, 1990, 2008),

attribution (Weiner, 1992), self-worth (Covington, 1992), goal-setting (Locke &

Latham, 1990), goal-orientation (Ames, 1992), self-determination (Deci & Ryan,

1985), and social motivation (Weiner, 1994). These theories have particular points to

make and can be justified in empirical studies; however, none of them can fully and

properly account for the whole motivational process of learning an L2 (Dörnyei,

2001). To be more specific, these theories ignore each other and thus fail to achieve a

synthesis (Dörnyei, 2001). More importantly, most of the motivational theories appear

to focus narrowly on the antecedents or determinants of learning intention, largely

ignoring how the immediate social milieu affects learners’ willingness to continue the

learning act and how the individual intention of goal-directed behavior can be shaped,

formalized, and implemented. Further, although research on L2 motivation has shed

5

light on the relevance of these factors in acquiring a second language, this effort has

arguably failed to offer a clear, transparent, and full-scope lens through which the

mechanism of interpsychological and intrapsychological perspectives in L2 learning

motivation can be seen and understood thoroughly and deeply.

Subjective norms and behavioral intention are two components in Ajzen’s (1985,

1991) theory of reasoned action (TRA) and theory of planned behavior (TPB).

Subjective norms are one of the three determinants of behavioral intention, which has

been presumed to be the major predictor of behavior. These two components, however,

have not received sufficient attention in the field of L2 learning. The following

sections will thus address the importance of social norms and behavioral intention.

Social Norms

Social norms are a component adopted from Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of

planned behavior, meaning an individual’s perception of social pressure to perform or

not to perform a particular behavior under consideration. Though most L2 motivation

research has focused on factors influencing individual differences, these factors have

tended to be antecedents of intentional behavior. Among the antecedents, the factor of

social context seemed to be downplayed and appeared to be a rather weak predictor. It

has been noted that social culture has an impact on human motivation (Bandura, 1986,

1999; Dörnyei, 2001; McGroarty, 1998; Terry, Hogg, & Duck, 1999). Chinese culture,

for example, is viewed as collectivist (Triandis, 1987, 1995; Triandis, Bontempo,

Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990) in that the

relationships between individuals and social groups tend to be stable and profound.

People in collectivist cultures often feel positive about accepting social norms and do

not even challenge whether or not to accept them. Acceptance of social norms

6

becomes an unstated assumption in such cultures. Like Chinese culture, various

researchers in western cultures view cultural and social contexts as important in

formatting students’ learning motivation since students are immersed in a social

context through interaction with others (Donato & McCormick, 1994; Lantolf, 1985,

1993; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1985a, 1985b, 1988a, 1988b). Dörnyei (2001),

for example, had the similar idea that the traditional emphasis on individualism in

motivational psychology is insufficient since humans are social beings and their

behavior is often a part of various physical and psychological contexts, which would

influence an individual’s cognition, behavior, and achievement. However, few

empirical studies on the effects of social context using SEM structural model

supported the role of sociocultural values mediating learning achievement cognition

and behavior (Dörnyei, 2001).

Social norms represent a type of standard that regulates the behavior of group

members who are expected to accomplish acceptable tasks (Ajzen, 2005). To extend

the study of motivation, it has therefore been argued that social contexts should be

taken into account, as should the degree of impact of social contexts in relation to the

individual’s learning experience (McGroarty, 1998). The importance of social

contexts in second language learning has been evidenced in Chang’s (2010) study on

group cohesiveness. The results showed that learners are affected by their class group

and that positive relationships among learners motivated them to study, whereas

indifferent/stolid relationships de-motivated their learning interest.

Social norms are still a fairly new dimension in the field of second language

research even though the impact of social norms on human behavior has been studied

for decades in the field of social psychology, particularly in Fishbein and Ajzen’s

(1975) and Ajzen’s (1985, 1988, 1991, 2005) theories of reasoned action (TRA) and

7

planned behavior (TPB). Subjective norms (as Ajzen calls them in the TRA and the

TPB) are considered to be one of the determinants of behavioral intention. In

language learning, McGroarty (1998) makes clear that researchers should pay more

attention to the degree of social factors that might facilitate or hinder the acquisition

of L2 proficiency. Thus, one of this study’s objectives is to bridge the gap by

conceptualizing social motivation from contemporary theories in social psychology

and then developing and validating a new conceptual model in which social norms are

a determinant of behavioral intention in L2 learning.

Behavioral Intention

Intention, in principle, refers to the formation of a cognitive representation of an

action schema (Kuhl and Kraska, 1989). The motivational mechanism underlying

intention is “primal, providing the mindfulness qualities and systemic perspectives

that should infuse attention” (Shapiro and Schwartz, 2000, p.254). The significance of

intention has been neatly pinpointed and theorized in the field of social psychology

and particularly underpinned by the study of attitudes. According to models posited by

Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Ajzen (1991, 2005), intention acts as a mediating role

between intentional antecedents and goal-directed behavior. Among the

intention-behavior relationships, many studies indicated that people had strong

intention but failed to put them into action (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998). People are likely

to make resolutions in some particular situations, but they will also find problems in

translating their goals into action, such as not knowing how to get started, becoming

distracted by external forces or having competing temptations. Gollwitzer’s (1993,

1999) theory of implementation intention then may complement the deficiency of

intention in Ajzen’s (1991) TPB model in that the application of implementation

8

intention highlights the psychological process of formulating intention regarding

learning behavior and can therefore increase the commitment to engage in a specific

behavior. According to the theory of intentional action control (Gollwitzer, 1993,

1999), implementation intention that concerns the initiation, execution, and

termination of actions helps people to overcome the difficulties that can be anticipated

as they progress toward their goals. Although L2 motivation researchers (Dörnyei &

Ottó, 1998; Dörnyei, 2001) have considered the relevance of intention in learning a

second language, their effort, arguably, is not sufficient for a clear understanding of

the mechanisms of underlying intention. This current study attempted to fill the gap

and to design a scale in language learning intention to investigate how implementation

intention can predict the effect of the goal-directed behaviors.

Statement of Purpose

The main purpose of this study is to adopt and modify the model of Ajzen’s (1991,

2005) theory of planned behavior and to test the effectiveness of this model in the

field of applied linguistics. Ajzen’s TPB model was chosen as the main model because

it has been studied extensively in social psychology, but not in education or language

learning applications. This implies that there are likely factors remaining to be

explored since learning, particularly second language learning, is a long-term process

with planned intention and volition. The present study was conducted to fill the gap

after Ajzen’s model was strengthened by Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation

intention and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and mastery

constructs. There were three main purposes in this thesis. First, due to the deficiency

of concrete measurements of social norms and behavioral intention, I reviewed the

appropriate theoretical considerations and developed structures and content of

9

possible measurements for these two dimensions in L2 learning. Specifically, drawing

on the contemporary theories of subjective norms and intention in social psychology

and applied linguistics, the construct for social norms emphasizes respondents’

perceived expectations from their “significant others” regarding their second language

learning. As regards intention, I will examine the distinction between goal intention

and implementation intention, with the former adopted from Gardner’s

socio-educational model and the latter designed based on the relevant literature.

Second, a new conceptual L2 learning motivation model in which social norms and

intention are presumed to be two influential factors will be developed and tested as

these two factors have been under-estimated in previous L2 motivation research.

Finally, these two new variables—social norms and behavioral intention—will be

examined for their effectiveness in the L2 learning model and for their causal

relationships with other relevant motivation variables. Thus, the ultimate goals of this

study are not only to design two reliable and valid L2 learning instruments, but also to

examine the effects of these two instruments in a newly constructed L2 learning

motivation model and to investigate the causal relationships among the relevant

motivational variables in L2 learning contexts. Further, learning a second language is

a long-term volitional behavior and concerns a sequence of various action formations;

thus, the constructs involved in the structural model will be divided into three

consecutive causal phases in this study. Each of the motivated actional phases

corresponds with different motivation factors during the learning process.

10

Research Questions

This study will address the following research questions as an attempt to shed light on

L2 learning motivation. The first question examines the overall structure and the

processes of the current model. The following three explore the explanatory effects of

variables investigated in each phase and their contributions to the model. The fifth

question investigates the correlated relationships among the three exogenous, latent

variables and the last explores the causal effect of social norms, using the newly

developed scale, with the emphasis on students’ self-regulatory capacity.

[research questions]

1. To what extent can the structure and processes of the constructs explain the model

of L2 learners’ motivation?

2. To what extent can the three antecedents—Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social

Norms, and Self-Confidence—contribute to the formation of Goal Intention and

Implementation Intention?

3. To what extent can Goal Intention and Implementation Intention lead to the

demonstration of Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior?

4. To what extent can Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior contribute to Mastery of L2 Learning?

5. To what extent can the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2

Learning contribute to Language Achievement?

6. [sub-question 1] To what extent can Social Norms affect students’ Self-

Regulatory Capacity?

7. [sub-question 2] To what extent can Self-Confidence affect students’

Self-Regulatory Capacity and their Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior?

11

Contribution of this Study

The contribution of this study is threefold. First, since there were no validated scales

with a solid theoretical foundation specifically designed to measure social norms and

behavioral intention for L2 learners, this study designed and tested two scales using

several criteria in order to examine whether the scales meet the psychometric

properties. The scale of intention in language learning was divided into two

subcategories, goal intention and implementation intention, as the latter was

developed particularly to facilitate realizing goals with effective and specified cues.

Second, most of the research associated with sociocultural theory was conducted

using qualitative methods and was rarely administered with concrete and specific

measures. This study intended to explore Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned

behavior in second language learning context using a quantitative survey on L2

learning motivation. Third, previous L2 motivation studies generally assessed by

using a quantitative approach, nevertheless placed emphases on individual differences.

This current study considers the effects of social environment to be indispensable and

thus takes into account learners’ complex social milieu and the interaction of

individuals’ perception of their L2 learning with their immediate social context. By

enlarging the focus of L2 motivation research, this study embodies the constituted

factors in causal relationships initiated from the macro social contexts toward the

micro individual factors within a model. By and large, the attempts demonstrated in

this study correspond with recent calls for reconceptualization in motivation research

highlighted by Dörnyei (2001), Firth and Wagner (1997), Fulmer and Frijters (2009),

and Volet (2001). In terms of the construction of an L2 learning motivation model,

this study is one of the few that deals with motivation research featuring perspectives

on both social environment and individual differences with a solid theoretical

12

framework from Ajzen’s TPB for empirical evidence. Results from this study should

be able to inform L2 teachers of ways to operationalize teaching principles, L2

learners on how to plan their studies, and researchers on possible topics for L2

motivation research.

Limitatons of the Study

The sampling of the data was drawn on one occasion to investigate the effects of

high-school students’ L2 learning motivation in terms of three phases. The nature of

the data, thus, posed some limitations: in order to evaluate a processed model from a

cohort population, motivational variables that represent different phases were

performed at a survey measure. Accordingly, the results reported in this study may not

generally represent L2 learners’ outcomes of different learning phases. It is suggested

that results of this study, therefore, can be extended and generalized from diverse

population such as respondents from individualistic cultural context. Future research

should assess the modification of Ajzen’s TPB model proposed in this study and its

effects on L2 learning motivation as across various learning phases in a longitudinal

study.

The Organization of the Thesis

The thesis will be displayed in six chapters. Chapter One opens with a brief

introduction of the rationale to this study and presents the conceptual framework of

the main constructs. It follows with the statement of purpose, the main research

questions and a statement concerning the anticipated contributions of this study.

Chapter Two provides an overview of motivational theories that embody both

interpersonal and intrapersonal perspectives, followed by a review of five important

13

model reviews on L2 learning motivation. These are followed by a review of

important theories with regard to the concepts of social norms and behavioral

intention and a delineation of other factors investigated in this thesis. Chapter Three

presents a detailed process for developing the scales of social norms and behavioral

intention and an analysis of whether they meet the psychometric characteristics. These

are followed by a description of the piloting processes of the other scales. It then

presents the reliability results for all the scales. Chapter Four first illustrates the

results of the construct validity of the measurement model and the modifications that

have been made in terms of theoretical review. It then presents the results of the

construct validity of the structural model in terms of several psychometric criteria.

Chapter Five is devoted to the discussion of the findings in response to the particular

research questions. It also presents pedagogical implications for teachers with respect

to the findings of the model. Chapter Six concludes the thesis with a summary of the

findings, limitations of the study and directions for future research.

15

CHAPER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter starts an overview of motivational theories, moving from Gardner’s

classic socio-educational model, to Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory and

Bandura’s (1988, 1989a) social cognitive theory, Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of

planned behavior, and finally to the more concretely modeled-construct of Dörnyei

and Ottó’s (1998) process model of motivation. This was followed by with an

overview of some empirical L2 motivation models that are pertinent to L2 motivation

learning and/or are related to the design of the study reported in this thesis and the

interpretation of its results. These are followed by a discussion of two important

constructs adopted from Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior into the

design of an L2 learning motivation model in applied linguistics. The chapter

concludes with an overview of the other constructs selected for the design of the

model used in the current study.

Introduction

The study of motivation in L2 learning was initiated by Gardner and Lambert (1959),

who highlighted the importance of aptitude and motivation in language learning. Over

40 years later, Clément and Gardner (in press) noticed that research keenness in the

study of aptitude has diminished in recent years; however, researchers’ enthusiasm on

learners’ motivation for second language learning is still vivacious. Motivation has

been acknowledged to be one of the most influential factors for learners seeking to

acquire a second or foreign language (L2). Previous studies have demonstrated a

significant relationship between attitudes, motivation, and second language learning

(Bell, 2005; Martinez, Aricak & Jewell, 2008; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Wang &

16

Guthrie, 2004), strategy use and language learning outcome (Guthrie et al., 2000;

Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’Malley et al., 1985), or

L2 learning variables and second language achievement (Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels,

1994; Gardner et al., 1997; Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2007; Hiromori, 2009; Tseng &

Schmitt, 2008; Wen & Johnson, 1997; Woodrow, 2006).

What is motivation? What is the relationship between motivation and

second/foreign language learning? What factors have been considered in the research

of previous L2 learning models? Are there any other factors that need to be taken into

account? Motivation, derived from the Latin root movere, refers to self-directed

movement (Pintrich, 2003) and “represents the predominant, intrapersonal dynamic

that orients an individual to a particular learning goal” (recited in Fulmer & Frijters,

2009, p. 220). However, this definition focuses more on individual differences of

self-directed learning goals, ignoring social impacts on learners’ intention in the

process of striving for their achievement. Researchers have discussed the definitions

of motivation. Nevertheless, there are fervent controversies with this concept in that it

has been grounded on different viewpoints. According to Brown (2001), motivation

refers to the determinant of the goals that a person wants to achieve and the amount of

effort one exerts to achieve these goals. That is, motivation is an internal drive,

stimulating power, wish, or desire. Williams and Burden (1997) define motivation as a

state of cognitive and emotional arousal, which leads to a conscious decision of action,

and which prompts the physical effort exerted to attain a previously set goal. Dörnyei

and Ottó (1998) describe motivation as a state of arousal determining the priority of

set goals and the positive or negative feelings further affecting his/her learning.

Dörnyei (2001) later argued that motivation generally implies two major

components—the direction and magnitude of human behavior.

17

Grounded on these definitions, most of the motivational research appears to

focus on the determinants of learning intention. Intention factor has not been studied

much but appears to be a critical step in a long-term process of language learning. In

addition, as most of the definition seems to be oriented towards the intrapsychological

perspectives, little attention has been devoted to the interpsychological dimension

given to the L2 learners. Motivation is a dynamic and a multifaceted construct; thus, it

is difficult to reach a consensus with respect to various challenges facing motivational

research (Dörnyei, 2001). More recently, researchers appear to account for social

influence as a partial determinant of motivation. Therefore, in this thesis, motivation

in L2 learning is not only determined by setting a goal to initiate learning a second or

foreign language but is also affected by the impact of social contexts on the individual

as well as the individual’s intention to act and self-regulatory capacity regarding the

fulfillment of his/her set learning goals.

Motivational Theories with Interpersonal and Intrapersonal

Constructs

In the following section, a selection of theories and constructs referring to

interpersonal and intrapersonal factors that affect an individual’s motivation will be

presented. They vary in the extent to which they are socially determined and/or a

product of individual considerations. Due to space limitation, a few tenets of each

theory of motivation will be selected for discussion on the basis of how supportive

they are to the relevance of studies associated with the research presented in the

thesis.

18

Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model

The earliest and most influential motivation research in the L2 field came from social

psychologists in Canada, Gardner, Lambert and their associates, working on

Anglophone Canadians learning French. In their initial study, Gardner and Lambert

(1959) found three motivational factors related to their students’ orientation to

learning French, including motivation to learn the language, attitudes toward

Canadian French, and proficiency in French. In their subsequent research (Gardner &

Lambert, 1972), attitudes and motivation were confirmed to be significant factors

associated with students’ achievement in second languages. The research further

proposed a more complex pattern of relationships. These two social-

psychological-based L2 motivation approaches were later expounded upon by

Gardner and his associates (Gardner, 1985, 1988; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) into the

socio-educational model of second language acquisition. This model posits that

individual’s motivation to learn an L2 will be affected by social-cultural values, and

the impact will lead to different degrees of effort an individual spends on the study of

a second language, which will result in further differences in the success of the study.

This model was developed more than three decades ago and the main concern of this

model is the role of various individual differences of learners associated with their

goal-directed, L2 learning approach. In addition, adopted from a social-psychological

approach, Gardner and his associates posited that student’s L2 learning motivation is

determined by “his attitudes and readiness to identify and by his orientation to the

whole process of learning a foreign language” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p. 132).

The individual’s attitudes towards the L2 and the L2 community influence his or her

motivation to learn the target language. With respect to this approach, L2 learning

motivation is attitude-oriented and goal-directed, with a focus on the intrapersonal,

19

psychological perspectives within inter-group contexts. Gardner’s theory doesn’t seem

to place any emphasis on the impact of immediate interpersonal interaction or social

environment in L2 learning.

Central to this model is the elaboration of the concept “Integrative Motive”

which is perhaps the most widely researched. Integrative Motive is defined as a

“motivation to learn a second language because of positive feelings toward the

community that speaks that language” (Gardner, 1985, p. 82-83). There are three

major components embodied in this complicated construct: Integrativeness, referring

to individual’s willingness and interest in social interaction with the L2 community;

Attitudes towards the Learning Situation, reflecting students’ attitudes toward the L2

teachers and the L2 courses, and Motivation, concerning a learner’s attitudes,

aspirations, and effort to learn the target language. Each component is made up of two

to three subcomponents (see Figure 2.1 for more details).

Interest in foreign

languages

Attitudes towards

L2 community

Integrative

orientation

Evaluation of the

L2 teacher

Evaluation of the

L2 course

Figure 2.1 Gardner’s conceptualization of integrative motives

INTEGRATIVESNESS

MOTIVATION

Attitudes towards

learning the L2

Desire to learn the

L2

Motivational

intensity (effort)ATTITUDES TOWARDS

THE LEARNING

SITUATION

20

Criticisms of Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model

From Figure 2.1, we can see Integrative Motive is composed of three main

components: Integrativeness and Attitudes towards the Learning Situation leading to

Motivation, which indicate motivation is the resultant of the two components, which

then serve as the determinants of the construct Motivation, which itself is composed

of three subcomponents. The relationships between the motivational components

(integrative motive, integrative orientation, motivation, and motivational intensity) do

not demonstrate clear distinctive definitions between them, and these terms thus

become confusing and misleading. Likewise, the term “integrative” in Integrative

Motive, Integrativeness, Integrative Orientation has by no means clarified anything

but misunderstandings (Dörnyei, 1994). In addition to this, the term “attitudes towards

learning the L2” is likely to be confused with the latent variable “attitudes towards the

learning situation”, with the former an indicator of motivation and the latter a variable

of two evaluative, attitude indicators. The distinctions between the terms were

difficult to define and it is easy to confuse them (Dörnyei, 2003)

Furthermore, in Gardner’s socio-educational model, learning a second language

was viewed as a mediating factor of inter-ethnic communication in multicultural

settings. This approach may be useful to capture the motivational patterns of whole

learning communities, and its findings may infer discussions on intercultural

communication, multiculturalism and language globalization (Dörnyei, 2005).

However, this macro-perspective of inter-ethnic communication cannot cater to the

possible motivational antecedents, i.e. the motivational influence of the actual

learning context. In other words, the microcontext of the immediate learning situation,

particularly for a large group of EFL learners, who are in a monolingual and

monocultural context, will have a strong impact on the learner’s motivation to learn a

21

second language. Learning a foreign language is a required school subject for most

EFL learners, and these learners have very limited opportunities to contact with L2

native speakers. Therefore the macro-perspective of inter-ethnic communication may

be less influential to EFL learners.

In addition, the term “integrative” motivation concerns L2 learner’s affective

disposition toward target community and the desire to identify with L2 group. As

discussed above, EFL learners have very limited opportunities to contact with L2

native speakers, let alone immersed in any L2 community environment. Thus, the

concept “integrative” motivation may not do justice to EFL learners since they are

different from learners in Canadian contexts, immersed in the L2 environment.

Accordingly, Gardner and his associates’ macro-perspective of L2 learning motivation

may not be appropriate to explain the motives associated with the more intricate

learning processes in EFL contexts on one hand, and the motivational scenarios in

contexts of factors in actual learning environments on the other. McGroarty (2001)

has characterized the situation which has emerged as follows:

Existing research on L2 motivation, like much research in educational psychology,

has begun to discover the multiple and mutually influential connections between

individuals and their many social contexts, contexts that can play a facilitative,

neutral, or inhibitory role with respect to further learning, including L2 learning. (p.

86)

Criticism of Gardner’s AMTB

As Dörnyei (2005) pointed out, Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery

(AMTB) is composed of all the main components of Gardner’s theory of the

22

Integrative Motive and other additional important components, such as language

anxiety and instrumental orientation. The AMTB is a very well-designed instrument

and has structure that follows the psychometric principles governing questionnaire

theory (Dörnyei, 2005). However, as research (Dörnyei, 1994) has pointed out, the

three subcomponents of Motivation (desire to learn the L2, motivational intensity, and

attitudes toward learning the L2) overlapped at the items level, and are therefore

likely to present high intercorrelations between the scales. The second problematic

issue concerns the content statements in operationalizing the “Motivation”

subcomponent, in which motivated behavior should be in relation to the consequences

of a series of motivation chained behavior.

In addition, a subcomponent of “Motivation,” motivation intensity, representing

the amount of effort that a learner exerted to their L2 learning, does not target the

unobservable mental phenomenon of motivation. The last two problems demonstrate

that the AMTB does not only assess motivation, but also the motivated behavior

(Dörnyei’s term, 2005), which seems to be reasonably categorized as motivated L2

strategic behavior. With the combination of items concerning the unobservable

motivation and the observable behavior, the instrument will then present higher

predictive validity. With regard to these three issues mentioned, the AMTB may thus

raise problems, such as content validity, high intercorrelation between scales, and

artificially high predictive validity of the instrument. Though the discussion of

Gardner’s AMTB elicits some item problems, it does not mean to diminish its

importance or impact in L2 motivation research because of the “pervasive use of the

battery of tests (Attitude/Motivation Test Battery) developed to measure it” (Jacques,

2001, p. 186). On the contrary, the problems raised by the instrument provide us an

opportunity to re-theorize the construct of L2 learning motivation, and due attention

23

should be paid to the distinction between phases in motivation formation and

behavioral engagement.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural theory is based on Vygotsky’s (1978) work, which has gained increasing

recognition in education, psychology and other diverse contexts. The power of

Vygotsky’s ideas lies in “his interpretation of the dynamic interdependence of social

and individual processes” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p.192). In contrast to social

motivation theory, which focuses on external, environmental influence; and

expectancy-value, self-efficacy, and attribution theories, which focus on the internal,

Vygotsky postulated his framework on the development of the transformation of

socially shared activities into individual, internalized processes. In other words, the

mental development of the individual accounts for the vast pool of interpersonal

activities. Sociocultural theory differs from other theories because it posits that the

social environment is the source of, rather than providing a context for, mental

development. Vygotsky (1978), in his well-known genetic law of development,

highlights the importance of social interaction in children’s learning development:

Every function in the cultural development of the child comes on the stage twice, in

two respects; first in the social, later in the psychological, first in relations between

people as an interpsychological category, afterwards within the child as an

intrapsychological category. … All higher psychological functions are internalized

relationships of the social kind, and constitute the social structure of personality. (as

cited in Valsiner, 1987, p. 67)

24

In order to explain the higher psychological functions of individual internalized

processes, Vygotsky (1978) developed the concept of the zone of proximal

development: with the assistance and guidance of, or collaboration with, more capable

others, the novice develops potential through problem solving. Through their

participation in social activities, learners develop various functions in ways that

nurture and scaffold them (p. 6-7). In other words, Vygotsky (1986) argued that a

child’s psychological development cannot be understood by studies of the individuals

since humans are social beings (Dörnyei, 2001). The external world, in which their

lives are embedded and their knowledge has been constructed through repeated and

varied experiences, should be taken into account in the L2 research.

Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory

Similar to sociocultural theory, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1999) posits

that human learning builds on a causal model of triadic reciprocal causation in terms

of personal factors, behavioral patterns, and social environment. The three factors

operate as determinants that affect each other bidirectionally. People learn by

observing others within the social context. Observers seek a close identification with

the model and estimate whether they [observers] have good self-efficacy, which is

presumed to function as a determinant of the role of human motivation, affect, and

action. Bandura (1988) proposed that learners’ perceived ability to accomplish a task

strongly influences their motivational commitment to the learning task. In this respect,

the social context provides an environment for the construction of knowledge and

competencies in that the social system represents the model and rules for building

behavioral patterns. In contrast with sociocultural theory, which considers social

contexts as the bases of knowledge construction, social cognitive theory considers the

25

social contexts as an interface for knowledge construction, which assumes learning is

performed through observing, instead of through personal experiences. However, it

has been argued that, even if a context may seem to be meaningful in the eyes of

others, it may not have any personal significance for the others unless the L2 learner

has come to understand it, considered it meaningful and is willing to accept it. This

theory has been used extensively in the field of mass media, in which social

environment becomes the proximal determinant of human behavior, with less

emphasis on the transformation in terms of individual differences.

Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) was an extension of the theory of reasoned

action (TRA) proposed by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) to predict and understand the

causes of behavior. Intention has been viewed as the direct predictor of behavior and

as a conative dimension of the attitude construct.

Intentions

Figure 2.2 Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action

Subjective

norms

Attitudes

Behavior

In the theory of reasoned action (TRA), intention is interpreted as a mediator

between the cognitive and evaluative components of attitude and behavior (Ajzen,

1988), and intention is predicted by both individual and socially related factors,

namely, attitudes toward the act, a personal evaluative response, and subjective norms,

the perceived social pressure to behave. Since no other direct paths were hypothesized

26

from attitudes and subjective norms toward behavior, this theory is defined as only

applicable to behavior under total volitional control. That is, the theory postulated that

no external or internal impediments can prevent performance of a behavior.

However, the TRA model has been criticized for its assumption of total volitional

control which Ajzen (1988) later acknowledged for its difficulties to apply to most

acts. Ajzen (1991) later proposed the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which is an

important social cognitive model that aims to explain long unsolved variances in

volitional behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Conner & Armitage, 1998). The TPB

postulates three types of beliefs (Ajzen, 1991): behavior beliefs, normative beliefs and

control beliefs. Behavior beliefs refer to a person’s beliefs about the consequences of

particular behaviors. Normative beliefs concern a person’s perception of social

pressure or relevant others’ beliefs that he/she should or should not perform a

particular behavior. Control beliefs are a person’s beliefs with respect to present

factors that may facilitate or hinder performance of a behavior. The three beliefs

further lead to a production of three conceptually independent determinants of

intention (Ajzen, 1991). In the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988), a person’s

intention is the chief predictor of an action, and the intention is determined by three

antecedents: attitudes toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived

behavioral control. Behavioral beliefs give rise to an individual’s favorable or

unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior, which is termed attitudes toward

the behavior. Normative beliefs give rise to an individual’s perceived social pressure

concerning whether or not to do an action, which is referred to as subjective norms.

Control beliefs lead to an individual’s perceived behavioral control, referring to the

perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior, and it is assumed to reflect

upon past experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles.

27

These three determinants: attitudes toward the behavior, the subjective norms,

and the perceived behavioral control lead to the formation of intention (Ajzen, 2001).

The effects of the antecedents are mediated by intention regarding behavior, as shown

in Figure 2.3. It should be noted that the additional component, perceived behavioral

control, could either be mediated by intention or have a direct effect on behavior. The

theory postulates that the more favorable an individual’s attitudes, subjective norms,

and perceived behavioral control, the stronger his or her intention would be to

perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Intentions

Figure 2.3 Ajzen (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior

Subjective

norms

Attitudes

Behavior

Perceived

behavioral

control

The major difference between TRA and TPB lies in the addition of a variable that

could complement the volitional part of behavior in the TRA structure. This variable

is “perceived behavioral control” which, according to the TPB, is hypothesized as

directly influencing both intention and behavior by assuming that the greater the

perceived behavioral control and the more positive the behavioral intention, and the

more likely the occurrence of the behavior being performed. As Ajzen (1988) pointed

out, perceived behavioral control is most compatible with Bandura’s (1977, 1982)

concept of self-efficacy, which “is concerned with judgment of how well one can

execute a course of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Bandura,

28

1982, p. 122). Research has indicated that people’s behavior is strongly affected by

their perception of their own ability (confidence) to perform it (i.e. perceived

behavioral control). The perception of one’s self-efficacy will influence choices of

activities, degree of preparation, and effort exerted to prepare for activities and in

performance, thought patterns and emotional reactions (see Bandura, 1982, 1991).

Ajzen’s TRA and TPB have been recognized to be highly successful in

investigating several types of social behavior in daily contexts but have not been

properly utilized in pedagogical training in an education context, particularly in the

study of L2 learning environments. After scrupulous examination, it is recognized that

there was a gap between the two theories and the immediate learning contexts.

Any attempt to adopt Ajzen’s TPB into L2 learning or teaching would be a

highly challenging task. In the first place, though there are some studies investigating

attitudes toward L2 learning (Gardner, 1985; Martinez et al., 2008; Masgoret &

Gardner, 2003; Raymond & Roberts, 1983), very few studies discuss attitudes from a

multidimensional perspective, i.e. the attitude construct comprises three dimensions in

Ajzen’s TPB: cognition, affect, and conation. Not until recently did Tseng (2009)

introduce the tripartite hierarchical model of attitude and established a validated

system of measurement of students’ attitudes related to English vocabulary learning.

Second, the impact of social contexts has earned increasing emphasis on the study of

motivation as well as research in L2 learning motivation. So far, there has not been a

comprehensive measurement of social influence on L2 learning motivation. Third,

behavioral intention has been generally recognized as the prominent factor in

prediction of the subsequent behavior in the field of social psychology. In the field of

L2 learning, though there was discussion of this dimension, motivation research

seems rarely to take this factor into account. Last but not least, as mentioned earlier,

29

Ajzen’s TPB has not been utilized in the L2 learning context, implying that there

should probably be some factors that remain unexplored. As a meta-analysis (e.g.

Armitage & Conner, 2001) indicates:

a substantial proportion of the variance intentions remains unexplained by the

core TPB variables of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral

control….conceptualization and measurement of the core predictors of intention

is open to question, and such inadequacies may mask the true nature of these

constructs and how they function in the TPB” (cited in Hagger & Chatzisarantis,

2005, p. 514).

Dörnyei-Ottó Process Model of Motivation

In response to the challenge of motivational process over time, Dörnyei and Ottó

(1998) proposed a process model of L2 motivation which intended to present the

influential motivation factors of L2 learning into a sequence of discrete, actional

phases of a chained behavior. According to the model, the L2 motivational processes

consist of two dimensions: Action Sequences and Motivational Influences. An action

sequence involves a series of behavioral processes that facilitate initial desires to

transform from a goal setting and intention, through action and accomplishment of

goals, to the final outcome evaluation. Motivational influences are involved in the

motivational factors that may initiate an action, fuel the action, and finally enact the

action. That is, motivational influences have impacts on action sequences which in

turn serve to accomplish the goals. Grounded on Heckhausen and Kuhl’s (1985) and

Heckhausen’s (1991) Action Control Theory, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) proposed a

motivated learning process model regarding three main phases: preactional, actional

30

and postactional, in order to achieve two aims. First, the process-oriented model of

motivation intends to present an alternative to the product-oriented paradigm, which

has dominated L2 motivation research for decades and to synthesize various lines of

L2 motivation theories into a unified framework. Second, in response to these aims,

each of the three phases of the motivated behavior corresponds to different motives

during the process of learning. Each of the motivated behavioral process will be

introduced in the following sections:

Preactional phase

In this phase, three subprocesses and motivational functions comprise the choice

motivation: goal setting, intention formation, and the initiation of intention enactment.

Setting a goal sits on several broad antecedents, such as wishes and hopes, desires and

opportunities, which will become a goal to be pursued when it meets an individual’s

needs. The choice of goals becomes the first decision which may not become an

action unless the goal has been translated into concrete implemented plans. Dörnyei

and Ottó argued that the states from intention formation to intention enactment

(launching of an action) should be equally weighted because intention enactment

relates to skilled deployment, utilizing appropriate situations with effective and

strategic responses for implementation, which will affect the magnitude of success in

achieving a goal. As evidenced in implementation intention studies, it makes

theoretical sense that the more relevant, specific and proximal the implemental

process is to an individual, the more likely will be the intention led to launch an

action.

Actional stage

Follwing Heckhausen (1991), action engagement is considered to be the major step to

cross the metaphorical “Rubicon.” Following the action plans enacted at the

31

preactional phase, an individual undergoes three processes in this phase: to initiate

actions from the subtasks, to evaluate the stimuli of the environment and the progress

an individual makes toward the outcome, and to regulate one’s action to protect them

from environmental distractions.

Postactional stage

The postactional stage occurs right after the goal has been achieved or an action has

come to an end. In this phase, an individual will review the initial expectancies, the

implemented plans, and the progress of the action. By comparing the actional

behavior in previous phases with the final outcome, the individual can modify his or

her goal and the implementing strategies in order to make themselves progress

towards becoming a successful learner.

Dörnyei and Ottó’s process model has laid the groundwork of intention in

relation to L2 learning motivation; however their model is still insufficient in

providing specific cues to launch the desired actions. In other words, without the cues,

learners would have difficulties initiating and implanting their goal-directed behavior.

This suggests that, besides setting a specific goal, learners must also strategically

switch their learning wishes with conscious and effortful control in their immediate

learning processes with specified, situational cues (i.e. implement the goal intention

successfully). To cover the aforementioned mental processes of intention formation, it

seems therefore to require that researchers should pay more attention to: temporal

schemes and local milieu in which learners conduct their learning tasks; the themes or

motifs learners consider most relevant in achieving their language proficiency; and the

actions learners have taken in order to effectively formulate their commitment in

response to their behavior. It is argued that this re-theorized approach to

understanding L2 learning intention helps to shift the focus from intention as a

32

product to intention as a process as well as the procedures underlying it.

Table 2.1 Dörnyei and Ottó’s Process Model of L2 Learning Motivation

Preactional Stage Actional Stage Postactional Stage

CHOICE MOTIVATION

Motivational functions:

Goal setting

Intention formation

Initiation of intention

enactment

Main motivational

influences:

Attitudes toward the

L2 and its speakers

Values associated with

L2 learning, with the

learning process itself,

and with its outcomes

and consequences

Expectancy of success,

and perceived coping

potential

Various goal properties

(e.g., goal relevance,

specificity and

proximity)

Learner beliefs and

strategies

Action vs. state

orientation

Environmental support

or hindrance

Perceived

consequences for not

acting

EXECUTIVE

MOTIVATION


Ongoing appraisal of

stimuli present in

environment and of own

progress

Generation of subtasks

and implementation

Action control (self-

regulation)

Main motivational

influences:

Quality of the learning

experience (pleasantness,

need significance, coping

potential, self and social

image)

Sense of autonomy

Teachers’ and parents’

influence

Classroom reward- and

goal structure (e.g.,

competitive or

cooperative)

Influence of the learner

group

Knowledge and use of

self-regulatory strategies

(e.g., goal setting, learning

and self-motivating

strategies)

MOTIVATIONAL

RETROSPECTION


Formation of causal

attributions

Elaboration of standards

and strategies

Dismissal of intention,

followed by further

planning

Main motivational

influences:

Attributional factors

(e.g., attributional styles

and biases)

Self-concept beliefs

(e.g., self-confidence

and self-worth)

Received feedback,

praise, grades

Note. Based on Dörnyei (2005, p. 85, and 2001c). For a full schematic representation and

discussion of the model, see Dörnyei (2001c).

33

Rubicon Model

This section focuses on introducing the course of action based on Heckhausen and

Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon model, shown in Figure 2.4. The Rubicon model of

action phases seeks to provide information regarding the initiation, execution, and

deactivation of motivation and is divided into four consecutive phases: the

predecisional phase, the postdecisional/preactional phase, the actional phase, and the

postactional phase. The first phases will later serve the temporal aspects within the

motivational process in the current hypothesized model.

Deliberation Planning

Figure 2.4 Heckhausen and Gollwitzer (1987) Rubicon Model of Action Phases

Action Evaluation

Motivation predecisional

volition acional

Volition preactional

Motivation postactional

Intention Formation

Intention Initiation

Intention Realization

Intention Deactivation

“R

ub

ico

n”

The Predecisional Phase

The first phase--the predecisional phase--is characterized by “deliberating the positive

and negative potential consequences of various nonbinding wishes and action

alternatives” (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008, p. 273). In this phase, an individual has

to determine which to pursue among his or her various wishes and desires. Before

they set their selected goal, people generally evaluate the “desirability and feasibility”

among their wishes. The desirability of a selected goal will be determined by the

positive or negative, short- and long-term consequences and the probability of

34

achieving the goal. The feasibility of a potential goal will be determined by the

individual’s personal competence and whether or not he or she is capable of achieving

the selected goal and their self-evaluation of the likelihood of success as well as the

chance factors governing the possibility of being situated in facilitating or inhibiting

contexts. The more precisely an individual can evaluate his or her ability to do the

actions and the expected outcome, the closer he or she will determine whether or not

the motivational task will be attained. Thus, the Rubicon model postulates predictions

of probability of completing the chosen goal. Toward the end of this phase, the initial

wishes and desires have been selected to a potential attainable goal under the

assessment of its desirability and feasibility.

The Preactional Phase

In this pre-actional phase, individuals contemplate strategies facilitating them to

pursue the chosen goal at the end of the pre-decisional phase. It is usually not the case

that a selected goal would be immediately taken into action because it can be

particularly difficult for people to get started (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). There are

problems to be overcome such as procrastination of engaging in the goal-directed

behavior or time spent overlooking suitable opportunities to initiate the behavior. The

translation of disjointed wishes into a concrete goal has been termed as crossing the

Rubicon (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008). It means the individual has shifted the

vagueness of doing something into a rather concrete sense of a goal-setting

commitment. In light of the Rubicon model, individuals in this phase are to transform

potential goal intention into concrete implementable plans with volition in order to

cross the Rubicon. By initiating the action, people enact their implementation

intention (Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999) by specifying when, where, and how to perform the

goal-directed behavior. Implementation intention concerns the initiation, execution

35

and termination of actions, which may facilitate people to overcome difficult

situations that may emerge as they progress toward the goal. The intensity of the

engagement was labeled “volitional strength” in Rubicon model, implying the

strength of motivation tendency required to pursue the target.

The Actional Phase

This action phase is designed to execute formulated plans in response to

implementation intention developed in the preactional phase. In this phase, people do

not consider the set goal, their ability or strategies to achieve their goals, or any plans

to be executed, because these should have been processed and evaluated in the

previous phases. Whether or not the efforts exerted to take actions depend on the

volitional strength toward the goal intention. Volitional strength can be considered as

the determinant of a course of action. In other words, the higher volitional strength an

individual has committed to the action, the higher probability of success he or she will

achieve the chosen goal. In the actional phase, the strength of the commitment may be

shifted as situational difficulties arise. However, the emerged difficulties will be easier

to manage when guided by the enacted implementation and the goals in the mental

representation.

The Postactional Phase

The post-actional phase is evaluated once the targeted actions have been completed.

Individuals assess how successfully the goal was achieved and whether or not the

consequences meet the initial expectations. People in this phase reflect on their action

outcome in terms of the evaluation of desirability and feasibility selected in the

pre-decisional phase, the implemented plans made in the preactional phase and the

volitional strength exerted and the actual behavior in the actional phase. These

evaluations of the goal achieved become the criteria whether or not to proceed, the

36

amount of effort to be exerted, and whether or not to modify the pursued goal.

Model Review on Motivation and Second/Foreign Language

Learning

In the 1990s, there were reviews (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford

& Shearin, 1994) that suggested L2 motivational research should be expanded from

other research areas with respect to the internal constructs. The following section

reviews five important empirical models on the basis of incorporating new constructs

into traditional measures in L2 learning motivation.

Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) Model

To echo previous calls for review (Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) to expand

the motivation constructs in language learning, Tremblay & Gardner’s (1995) study

was based on Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model, with other measures

derived from general psychology literature. The new measures of motivation include

persistence, attention, goal specificity, and causal attributions, in addition to

traditional measures of attitudes and motivation, as well as language achievement.

The proposed model hypothesized that language attitudes have direct influences on

goal salience, valence, and self-efficacy respectively, which have direct effects on

motivational behavior, which is one of the two determinants of language achievement.

French language dominance is another exogenous variable that has a direct influence

on both adaptive attributions and achievement. The sample consisted of 75 students

enrolled in a French language course in a secondary school which also offered a

bilingual context. The model was tested using the structural equation modeling

LISREL program, dividing the analyses into sections containing the measurement

37

model and the structural model. All coefficients of the final model of measurement

were statistically significant, but they differed from those in the initial hypothesized

model by having 7 modifications. The final structural model, shown in Figure 2.5,

also showed some modifications: one correlation between two exogenous variables,

an additional direct path from language dominance to self-efficacy, and four

correlations between the error variances. The results showed that, between language

attitudes and motivational behavior, there are three mediators, including goal salience,

valence, and self-efficacy, all shown to have influences on motivational behavior. The

model also showed that both motivational behavior and French language dominance

could significantly predict achievement. Regarding the model fit, only the chi-square

value showed a good fit, the other fit indices failed to meet the criteria or were not

reported.

Figure 2.5 Tremblay and Gardner (1995) study of motivation construct in language learning

ADAPTIVE

ATTRIBUTIONS

.29

.34

.33.35

SELF-EFFICACYACHIEVEMENT

MOTIVATIONAL

BEHAVIORGOAL SALIENCE

LANGUAGE

ATTITUDES

FR. LANGUAGE

DOMINANCE

.63

.36

.29

.67

.31

VALENCE

.29

.99

.44

38

Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret’s (1997) Model

This purpose of this study was to investigate some of the most frequently supported

measures of individual difference with three purposes: to determine the underlying

dimensions among various measures, to contrast their predictive validities, and to

evaluate the model fit and their contributions in a causal model of SLA. The sample

included 82 female and 20 male university students in an introductory French course

with an average of 11.37 (SD= 3.01) years of studying French. There are seven

constructs in the structural model including: language attitudes, motivation,

self-confidence, language aptitude, learning strategies, field independence, and

language achievement, with 34 individual difference measures. To determine the

structure of the relationships among the various measures, Pearson product-moment

correlations were calculated among the measures and the results were subject to a

principal components analysis, which yielded eight factors with eigenvalues greater

than 1.0. Five major factors were identified according to the loadings. The structure

suggested self-confidence (highest), language learning strategies, motivation to learn

French, language aptitude, and orientation to learn French. The factor analysis showed

how the various classes of individual difference variables relate to one another.

In the second section, the analysis was focused on the correlations of the

aggregate scores of the individual difference variables (motivation, language attitudes,

language anxiety, self-confidence, can do, learning strategies, language aptitude, and

field independence) to French achievement. The results indicated that all of the

correlations, except the language learning strategies and field independence measures,

involved in the objective measures, were significant. When French grades were taken

into account, all but three variables (language attitudes, learning strategies, and field

independence) were found to be significantly related. The authors inferred that some

39

of the variables indicated greater significant relationships than others to the two types

of French language learning achievement, suggesting that some specific skills were

utilized more or less at the time when these variables were measured.

Figure 2.6 Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret (1997) model of second language learning

Language Attitudes

.96

.48

-.29

.47

MotivationSelf-confidence

Language

AchievementLanguage Strategies

Language Aptitude

Field Independence

.31

.48

.38

.60

In the last section, the authors put the previous analyses together by proposing a

hypothesized causal model which allowed researcher to determine the causal

relationships between the indicator variables and the hypothesized latent variables

(the measurement model) as well as the relationships among the latent variables in the

structural model). The results, shown in Figure 2.6, indicated that all coefficients were

significant with respect to the measurement model. Similarly, all of the coefficients

defining the paths and correlations were significant with respect to the structural

model. The major finding lies in the correlation coefficients between language

learning strategies and language achievement, which were found significantly

negative in their study. The authors suggested that the use of language learning

strategies was associated with low levels of achievement since the students with

higher level might be used to strategies developed by their own, and these strategies

40

were not included in the scale. The goodness-of-fit indices were chi-square index,

465.18 at 268 degrees if freedom (χ2/df = 1.74), AGFI = .702, △22 = 0.853, and

P22= .832. The authors assumed/suggested that the model provided reasonable

presentation of the functional relationship among the variables and between the

variables and language achievement.

Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimiza’s (2004) WTC Model

This study investigated the influence of attitudes and their effect on willingness to

communicate (WTC), with an attempt to examine how learners’ perceived

environment (e.g. their host family’s receptiveness, colearners) made learners more or

less willing to communicate in an international student exchange program. The study

was conducted through two different investigations with young Japanese learners. In

the first investigation, 166 high school students in Kyoto participated in the study. The

correlation matrix shows that perceived communication competence is most strongly

related to L2 WTC. The SEM model also showed that self-confidence played a crucial

role in willingness to communicate. The second investigation studied 57 Japanese

high school students who participated in a student exchange program and stayed with

host families for three weeks in the U.S.A. The study focused on the initial intention

to participate in the program and the results of interpersonal relationships while

staying with host families. The second study did not provide SEM model results for

the sake of such small population size. The results indicate that those who received a

higher score in WTC before departure tended to initiate communication with host

families more frequently and for longer periods of time. Yashima’s (2002) study also

indicates that the receptivity of host family members provides a supporting function

and the interactions can help open up the exchange students to achieve satisfactory

41

interpersonal relationships.

Figure 2.7 Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide and Shimizu (2004) study of WTC model

Motivation to

Learn L2

.43

.59

Internal Posture

Communication

Confidence

WTC in L2Frequency of

Communication

.73

.33

.27.45

Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) Model

Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) used structural equation modeling to investigate and

evaluate L2 learning motivation with an emphasis on the internal structure of the

second language motivation complex and its impact on motivated behavior. The data

were collected from a two-phase (1993 and 1999) survey of 13 to 14 year-old students

who had to choose which to learn among five different foreign languages offered by

their schools in Hungary. With the diverse choice of foreign languages, the measured

motivational variables were generalizable across learning situations. In this study, the

causal links of eight constructs, including: linguistic self-confidence, milieu, cultural

interest, vitality of the L2 community, instrumentality, attitudes toward L2 speakers,

integrativeness, and language choice, were hypothesized. Integrativeness and

instrumentality, together with self-confidence, were first hypothesized to directly

influence the motivated behavior--the language choice. The final model turned out,

surprisingly, to be that language choice was directly and solely influenced by

integrativeness. The researchers argued that the results were in accordance with

42

Gardner’s motivation theory which postulated that integrativeness appeared to be the

central determinant of motivated behavior, yet instrumentality and self-confidence no

longer showed a direct influence on the behavior, as originally hypothesized. In the

modification model, shown in Figure 2.8, instrumentality becomes an antecedent of

integrativeness. Csizér and Dörnyei interpreted the results from self perspectives:

Integrativeness can be perceived as the L2 representation of one’s ideal self, whereas

instrumentality can be divided into either the ideal or the ought self. With respect to

the extent of internalization, instrumentality will be associated more with the ideal L2

self of integrativeness and will exert significant effort to L2 learning, while

noninternalized instrumentality is associated more with the ought self, and will initiate

efforts only on behalf of one’s sense of duty or avoidance of punishment. The

researchers suggest that integrativeness be relabeled as the Ideal L2 Self, which, they

think, is broader in scope.

Figure 2.8 Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) study of internal structure of second language learning on intended effort and language choice

Cultural Interest.37

.34

.67.50

Attitudes toward

L2 speakers

Language ChoiceIntegrativeness

InstrumentalityVitality of L2

Community

Milieu

Self-Confidence

.68

.25.74 .35

.44

.31

43

Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) Model

Tseng and Schmitt (2008) used structural equation modeling to investigate

vocabulary knowledge and motivation with six latent variables: the initial appraisal of

vocabulary learning experience, self-regulating capacity of vocabulary learning,

strategic vocabulary learning involvement, mastery of vocabulary learning tactics,

vocabulary knowledge, and postappraisal of the effectiveness of vocabulary learning

tactics. Participants were 49 university students in Taiwan and 210 from a university

in China. Research has shown that learners’ initial motivation to learn an L2 is

difficult to sustain and often declines over time (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Gardner,

Masgoret, Tennant, & Mihic, 2004; Inbar, Donitsa-Schmidt, & Shohamy, 2001;

Tachibana, Matsukawa, & Zhong, 1996). The authors hypothesized a structural model,

using a principle axis factoring analysis to examine the indicator loadings on the

expected variables, and the results support the original theoretical division of six

latent variables. A closer examination of the strengths of the causal relationships

among the six latent variables, however, suggested that some modifications were

necessary for the hypothesized model. Four nonsignificant paths (the initial appraisal

of the vocabulary learning experience over SVLI and MVLT; SVLI over vocabulary

knowledge, and SRCvoc on MVLT) inside the model did not contribute meaningful

effects to the process of motivated vocabulary learning and were deleted to generate a

more parsimonious model. After modification, the revised model, shown in Figure 2.9,

suggested the development of motivated vocabulary learning functions as a cyclic

process. That is, the model demonstrated that vocabulary learning strategies were

directly influenced by a learner’s self-regulating capacity which, in turn, would be

influenced by the initial motivation of the learner. The results showed that use of

learning strategies—both quantity and quality dimensions—were contingent on

44

learners’ self-regulation and initial motivational state. Mastery of the strategy use was

more critical to vocabulary learning tasks than frequency use of strategies in general.

IAVLE = initial appraisal of vocabulary learning experience; SRCvoc = self-regulating capacity in vocabulary learning; SVLI = strategic vocabulary learning involvement; MVLT = mastery of vocabulary learning tactics; VOCkno = vocabulary knowledge; PAVLT = postappraisal of vocabulary learning tactics.

Figure 2.9 Tseng and Schmitt (2008) model of vocabulary learning

SVLI

.48*

SRCvoc

IAVLE PAVLT

VOCkno

MVLT

.62*

.46*

.56*

.68*

.67*

Comments on the Five Models Reviewed

The strengths of Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) model lies in the addition of more

elaborate motivation factors in the L2 learning motivation model with a suggestion of

three mediators: goal setting, valence, and self-efficacy, between language attitudes

and motivational behavior. Also, the model hypothesized achievement would be

directly influenced by French language dominance and motivational behavior, and the

hypotheses were supported. The weaknesses of this model may be on the hypotheses

of language attitudes and French language dominance as the exogenous variables.

French language dominance, identified as the perceived performance and frequency of

French use, would probably be better specified as an endogenous variable and has a

45

direct influence on achievement in the initial hypothesized model. However, this

construct was hypothesized to have another indirect influence on achievement, with

adaptive attribution, self-confidence, and motivational behavior as the mediators. The

causal relationships seem not to reasonably present the learning process by

hypothesizing language dominance as the antecedent of these three mediators, which

should be presented conversely. Further, the model was discovered to have too many

modifications and the researchers did not provide sufficient theoretical support and

model fit indices. These two deficiencies may pose problematic challenges to the

theoretical hypotheses in the earlier stage.

The strengths of Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret’s (1997) model are that it

includes support for significant individual difference measures, such as language

attitudes, motivation, anxiety, self-confidence, language aptitude, learning strategies,

and field independence, all of which have been shown to correlate significantly with

language achievement. Further, the items in many variables are both positively and

negatively worded and measured. The weakness of this model may be attributed to the

identification of the latent variables with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

Structural equation modeling is an approach in which the researcher generally

specifies a priori knowledge based on theoretical grounds (Tremblay & Gardner,

1995). It is suggested that the researchers in this study use confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA), not exploratory factor analysis, to verify and validate the factors

investigated in the model because the researchers need to test the hypothesized causal

relationships in the measurement model as well as in the structural model. Particularly

when the factors have been disclosed to be important motivational components in

prior research, an EFA may not be the most appropriate manner in which to specify

the factors. The second flaw of the study is that the construct self-confidence,

46

including three indicators—language anxiety, self-confidence, and self-rated

proficiency (Can Do), with the latter two revealing similar affective information for

one problem and an identical variable name for both one indicator and the latent

variable for another.

The strengths of Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) model are that it consists of both

macro-perspective and micro-perspective social influences, i.e. cultural interest,

attitudes toward L2 speakers and language learning milieu. Further, most of the latent

variables concern the affective antecedents of motivation intention, providing more

comprehensive facets for the antecedents of motivation formation. The final results

seem to contradict with Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) earlier statement, “… both

Integrativeness and Instrumentality are hypothesized to be directly linked to the

motivated behavior (i.e. Language Choice) does not need much justification because

these variables have been the most often researched concepts in this field in this

respect” (p. 26). However, instrumentality in the final model becomes an antecedent

of integrativeness, which the authors use to link their interpretation from self

perspectives, depending on the extent of internalization of extrinsic motives:

internalized instrumental motives are associated with the ideal L2 of integrativeness,

whereas noninternalized instrumental motives are associated with the ought-self. The

distinction of a single construct into two types of selves may be problematic because

the modification of the construct, instrumentality, with respect to the causal

relationships, seriously opposed its original proposed causal hypotheses. Second, the

interpretation of instrumentality in terms of the two types of self does not have

empirical support from the current data; therefore, it may appear awkward to explain

instrumentality in this respect. The researchers seem to intentionally attribute the

impact of instrumentality on integrativeness, which may not do justice to the 13-14

47

year-old schoolchildren because they may not have an impending need to associate

their choice of learning a foreign language with utilitarian benefits or obligations

(Warden & Lin, 2000). Therefore, hypothesizing instrumentality as an antecedent or a

mediating factor of integrativeness in this model may be controversial.

The strengths of Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimiza’s (2004) study lie in the

small hypothesized model with a clear intentional behavior—willingness to

communicate in L2 and the addition of the new construct, “international posture,” in

the SEM model. Generally, the two studies show that learners’ perceived

communication competence is most strongly related to WTC, which, in turn, results in

the frequency and the amount of communication. Though this study takes contextual

variables into account, such as frequency and the amount of communication with host

nationals, the focus is concerned with the “intergroup” construct within a

multicultural setting rather than the “interpersonal” interactions within a monoculture.

The intergroup interactions may not be likely to motivate EFL learners who generally

do not have much L2 contact with native speakers of English. In addition, those who

could afford to participate in student exchange programs tend to have better economic

status and to have stronger motivation to learn the second language with respect to

having opportunities to join the community of the target language. It is indicated that

the higher parental social economic status was found to be associated with their

involvement in the students’ learning at home and at school (Ma, 2000; Phillipson,

2009). Thus, parents may likely provide more economic and social support to the

students in the exchange program. The factor, international posture, is an interesting

construct, but it may not be a motivational component to most common EFL learners.

Despite the rare interactive environment, the international posture has shown

significant effects on motivation to learn an L2, willingness to communicate, and

48

frequency of communication, which seems to indicate that some of the mediating

constructs are not necessary.

The strengths of Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) article lie in that they provide a

rather comprehensive design of a structural model of motivated vocabulary learning,

in contrast with previous studies focusing on the internal structure of motivation

constructs, such as integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, and integrative

motive (Gardner, 1985), the ideal L2 self, ought-to-L2 self, and L2 learning

experience (Dörnyei, 2005), and the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation (Noels, et al., 2001; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).

Most previous studies did not provide sequential causal links among variables, Tseng

and Schmitt’s study offers a model hypothesizing causal relations between the initial

appraisal of vocabulary learning experiences, strategic learning involvement, and

mastery of vocabulary learning tactics. The hypothesized model consists of six latent

variables which showed not only the initial motivational state influencing the process

of task performance, but also a retrospection of task performance which is likely to

influence in turn the initial appraisal. The most powerful strength of this model lies in

its cyclical design of causal links, indicating learners who perceived themselves as

achieving the learning goal and making proper attribution for their successful learning

are also more likely to sustain their high self-efficacy, positive attitudes, and a

favorable emotional climate for the subsequent task execution (Dörnyei, 2001;

Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1986 1992). This model seems to help learners

energize and upgrade themselves through the whole loop and its vitality may be sped

up and intensified once the learners become familiar with the task performance in the

loop. However, the model also has its flaws. First, a rather comprehensive model not

only should include constructs concerning on initial appraisal of learning experiences,

49

learning behavior, vocabulary knowledge and post-appraisal learning tactics, but also

should consist of constructs related to how students plan to execute their learning

behavior, which will help to tackle difficulties which may have emerged during the

process. Second, the initial appraisal of a student’s vocabulary learning experience

may need to include social influences as researchers recommended in the 1990s.

The common deficiency that the five models reviewed share lies in the fact that

none of them clearly specified learning processes in terms of discrete actional phases,

given a consideration of macro top-down methodological design. Though Tseng and

Schmitt (2008) delineates their model a process of vocabulary learning, the initial

appraisal of the vocabulary learning experiences doesn’t seem to cover sufficient

aspects of societal impacts on L2 learners’ motivation, neither do Tremblay and

Gardner’s (1995). Second, no model among these five placed an emphasis on the

intention construct, particularly on implementation intention, a construct that

facilitates learners to specify when, where, and how to plan their studies which make

their L2 learning behavior easier to execute and more effective in proceeding towards

their goals. Another important perspective that several researchers have maintained

(Landy & Becker, 1987; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Weiner, 1984) is that no single

theory can effectively explain the dynamic characteristics of L2 learning motivation.

However, a major theoretical framework should be grounded so that it will and should

provide an anchor to the constructs composed in the motivational model. In addition,

using a structural equation modeling design in essence specifies a priori the direction

of the causal relationships (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2005; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995),

based on theoretical review. Despite the addition of a specific theoretical grounded

construct into a designed model, the overall development of the whole model should

also be constructed on a major theoretical framework that would provide the proposed

50

model with a unified sense of unity, instead of putting all the significant factors

together into a model on one hand and hypothesizing the causal relationships without

consecutive sequential effects on the other. Keeping the rules of thumb in mind, the

current study will be grounded on Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior,

reinforced by Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of implementation, and Tseng and

Schmitt’s (2008) process model of vocabulary learning in an attempt to construct a

motivational model for second/foreign language learning.

Overview of Theoretical Perspectives regarding Social Influences

The initial review of motivation in the earlier sections provides a rationale for a

further review of motivation from perspectives based upon social context and

behavioral intention, with two constructions having been adopted from Ajzen’s TPB

into the L2 motivation research and introduced in the following. Discussion of each

dimension will be included with theoretical conceptualization and current theories

relevant to these two dimensions. Finally, reasons why these two dimensions should

be taken into account into the research of L2 learning motivation will be provided.

Gardner’s Motivation Theory

Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model has dominated L2 motivation research for

decades. The basic assumption of this model is that the study of a second language is

different from any other school subjects. It posits that the social and cultural values of

the learning environment will affect individual differences in motivation, and these

differences will lead to different degrees of efforts a learner exerts in the study of an

L2, leading to further differences in the results of the study. According to Gardner’s

(1985) motivation theory, the goal of learning a second language is to identify with

51

the target community and the learning act is viewed as a mediating role in interethnic

communication. The influence of the social context places a large emphasis on the

macro-oriented perspectives; that is, motivation conceptualization oriented by

multicultural or interethnic perspectives (Gardner, 1985). Such a macro-perspective

on motivation research was eventually found to be insufficient to address the

complexity of both individual behavior and actual classroom activities, particularly

for a large group of EFL learners in monolingual and monocultural contexts.

In the 1990s, the mainstream motivation psychology developed a few cognitive

constructs which seek to link human behavior to motives associated with mental

processes. As a results, a number of researchers (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei,

1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Ushioda, 1994; Williams, 1994; see also Modern

Language Journal, 1994) seek to modify and broaden the scope of motivational

psychology, particularly on Gardner’s (1985) powerful socio-educational model in

that the theories and constructs were viewed inadequately to explicate how motivation

works in actual learning contexts. For instance, Oxford and Shearin (1994)

highlighted explicitly the need for an expansion of the social-psychological approach.

More recently, Fulmer and Frijters (2009) have emphasized that motivation research

has focused predominantly on cognitive, intrapsychological aspects, downplaying the

significance of other personal and contextual factors in the relationship between

motivation and academic achievement. The proposed change is intended to enrich and

modify the models from a ‘macro’ interethnic perspective to a more ‘micro’

interpersonal perspective within a community or a classroom and further to have an

insight into individual differences.

52

Social Motivation

Research shows that social relationships influence learners’ motivation and

interest with respect to social adjustment and academic achievement (Hinshaw, 1992;

Ladd, 1989; Wentzel, 1998). Social Motivation Theory (Weiner, 1994) refers to

individuals’ motivation associated with their social environment with an emphasis on

the interpersonal rather than intrapersonal attribution. Weiner (1994) distinguishes

social motivation from personal motivation, with the former “the psychological

presence of another, and determines reactions to that person, dyad, or group,” (p. 557),

whereas intrapersonal motivation can be studied in the absence of significant others,

as is usually the case in the research of achievement motivation. The impact of social

factors may activate individuals’ perceptions which may lead them to reengage in

activities in relation to these perceptions with an attempt to attain satisfaction of

psychological needs (Vallerand, 1997).

In other words, learners who enjoy positive and supportive relationships with

their significant others, such as parents, teachers, or peers, generally tend to invest

time and effort to achieve their academic goals. Conversely, learners who do not

establish positive and supportive relationships often suffer from academic problems

(Goodenow, 1993; Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Phelan, Davidson, & Cao,

1991). This socio-normative perspective is in line with Deci’s (1992) proposal that

positive interpersonal relationships can offer learners a sense of belonging which

could in turn drastically motivate/orient their enthusiasm in school.

Social Constructivism

Social Constructivism refers to an individual’s learning taking place with respect to

their interactions in a group. It places an emphasis on children’s interaction with more

53

knowledgeable others, which in turn help them to construct world knowledge for

themselves. Otherwise it will not possible for novice learners to acquire the symbol

systems in society and to use them appropriately. Social constructivism is thus rather

macro-perspective in that it incorporates the other interactors and cultural factors in

child development as they learn to do, to create, to discover, and then solve problems

during the learning process. In this respect, social constructivism is contrasted with

social cognitive theory, which stresses observation. Williams and Burden’s (1997)

framework of L2 motivation based on the social constructivist tradition, argued that

though individuals may be motivated differently by various reasons and different

degrees, an individual’s motivation is also subject to social and contextual influences.

These will include the whole culture and context and the social situation, as well as

significant others and the individual’s interaction with these people. (Williams &

Burden, 1997).

Social Norms in the Theory of Planned Behavior

Subjective norms is a component in Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned

behavior. It means an individual’s perception of social pressure to perform or not to

perform a particular behavior under consideration. Social norms represent a type of

standard that regulates the behavior of group members who are expected to

accomplish acceptable behavior tasks (Ajzen, 2005). To extend the study of

motivation, it is therefore argued that social contexts should be taken into account, as

should the degree of impact of social contexts in relation to the individual’s learning

experience (McGroarty, 1998).

Several meta-analyses (Albarracin, Fishbein, Johnson & Muellerieile, 2001;

Armitage & Conner, 2001; Hagger, Chatzisarantis & Biddle, 2002; Sheeran & Taylor,

54

1999) on the application of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior indicate that, though

previous studies provide good support for the theory of planned behavior, they have

shown little evidence that social norms play a significant role in the attitude –

behavior relationship (see Armitage & Conner, 2001). Even Ajzen (2005)

acknowledged that subjective norms generally accounted for less variance than

attitude toward the behavior and perceived behavioral control. Some meta-analysis

(e.g. Sheppard, Harwick & Warshaw, 1988; Van den Putte, 1991) even uncovered that

subjective norms was the weakest predictor of intention.

Researchers disputed that the lack of influential evidence on normative behavior

may lie in the fact that this factor has been conceptualized as external pressures on

people which reflect others’ important expectations toward the respondents’ behavior

that seem to have little connection with the people’s internal psyche (Smith et al.,

2007, p.772). Armitage and Conner (2001), however, suggested that the weaker

predictor of subjective norms regarding intention may be “partly attributable to a

combination of poor measurement and the need for expansion of the normative

component” (p. 471). They found, in their meta-analysis, that many researchers use

single item measures, instead of applying more reliable multi-item scales, let alone a

multidimensional construct. A single indicator would reflect just one facet of the

construct in a social context, and some of the score variance may be specific to that

task, not to the general construct per se. Thus an approach employing a

multiple-indicator measurement which would reflect more aspects of the construct

would be preferred, and the reliability of factor measurement tends to be higher with

multiple indicators. Furthermore, Fulmer and Frijters (2009) raised another problem

in that poor construction and limited validation of measures could lead to several

psychometric weakness and thus result in misleading consequences and interpretation.

55

From the sociocultural perspective, measurements of social norms in many

previous studies fail to deliberate a clear and multi-dimensioned scope to capture the

respondents’ perceived pressure or expectations from their significant others

(interpersonal) and the respondents’ internal psyche in the way of their affective

interaction with their significant others (intrapersonal).

Social Norms in L2 Learning

As Dörnyei (2001) pointed out, the greatest contribution of the new development in

motivational psychology in the 1990s lay in its increasing emphasis on the impact of

the social context. It has been noted that social culture has an impact on human

motivation (Bandura, 1986, 1999; Dörnyei, 2001; McGroarty, 1998; Terry et al.,

1999). Human behaviors are often a part of various physical and psychological

contexts, which would influence an individual’s cognition, behavior, and achievement.

Social norms is still a fairly new dimension in the field of second language research

even though the impact of social norms on human behavior has been studied for

decades in the field of social psychology, particularly in Ajzen’s (1975, 1985, 1991,

2005) theories of reasoned action (TRA) and planned behavior (TPB). Vygotsky’s

(1978) sociocultural theory proposed that a child’s interactions with their social

environment are predominant to their psychological development. L2 motivation

research based on Vygotsky’s framework tends to be administered with qualitative

methodology through class observation or personal interviews. Few quantitative

studies on sociocultural influence in L2 learning motivation has been delivered with a

validated scale. Likewise, research showed that students interactions at home and at

school may affect their academic achievement (Dandy & Nettelbeck, 2002; Stevenson,

Lee, Stigler, et al., 1990). Other studies also found that parental expectations for their

56

children’s academic achievement, and parental involvement, are correlated with

children’s academic achievement (Chen & Lan, 1998; Hong & Ho, 2005; Phillipson

& Phillipson, 2007; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). Recently, Phillipson and Phillipson’s

(2007) study found that a “parental expected score”, instead of students’ overall

academic standards, predicted academic achievement.

Though the effects of individual differences upon language have been indicated

by several studies (see, for example, Cook, 1996; Ellis, 1994; Gardner, 1985; Gardner

et al., 1997; Skehan, 1989), the significance of social norms has earned concern with

sociocultural factors in early studies of motivation and achievement (Pintrich &

Maehr, 1995). Recently, societal effects on individual learning behavior were recently

underpinned by the study of attitudes. McGroarty (1998) makes it clear that

researchers should pay more attention to the degree of social environment in L2

motivation research because it might facilitate or hinder the acquisition of L2

proficiency. Thus, one of this study’s objectives is to fill in the gap by conceptualizing

social norms from contemporary theories in social psychology and then develop and

validate a newly developed scale on social influence in language learning and further

specify a new conceptual model in which social norms is a determinant of behavioral

intention in L2 research. To correspond with the complex and dynamic characteristics

in L2 learning, the processes that link the relationships between social norms and

other important motivational factors were not well understood. Social norms are

considered to be one of the determinants of behavioral intention in Ajzen’s TPB

model. Therefore, one of the purposes of this present study aims at examining the

extent that social norms relate to behavioral intention and whether this construct

presents distinctive relationships with goal intention and implementation intention.

57

Overview of Theories of Intention

The past few decades have witnessed a great deal of second language (L2)

research on motivation. The rationale behind these empirical studies is that

researchers agree that learners with stronger motivation become more active and

effective in acquiring a second language. This suggests that if learners can develop

personal motivation for language learning, the intention to learn the subject is more

likely to prevail over a number of other competing motivational tendencies such as the

desire to play or to defer learning (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008). However, most

previous motivational research appears to focus more on the antecedents of learning

intention, such as attitudes, motivation, and second language learning (Bell, 2005;

Martinez, Aricak & Jewell, 2008; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Wang & Guthrie, 2004),

strategy use and language learning outcome (Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008; Guthrie et

al., 2000; Liou, 2000; O’Malley et al., 1985), or L2 learning variables and second

language achievement (Gardner et al., 1997; Hiromori, 2009; Tseng et al., 2008; Wen

& Johnson, 1997; Woodrow, 2006), largely ignoring how the intention of the

goal-directed behaviors can be shaped, formalized, and implemented. Although L2

motivation researchers (Dörnyei, 2001; Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998) have considered the

relevance of intention in learning a second language, their effort, arguably, is not

sufficient for a clear understanding of the mechanisms of underlying intention. One of

the aims of this paper is hence to bridge this gap by designing a scale to measure the

construct of learners’ intention in L2 contexts. The new dimension, intention, drawn

from contemporary theories of intention in social psychology, distinguishes between

goal intention and implementation intention. This new scale is developed based on the

literature of intention and tested based on a series of standard psychometric

procedures.

58

Theory of Intention

Intention refers to the formation of a cognitive representation of an action

schema (Kuhl & Kraska, 1989). The significance of intention has been neatly

pinpointed, particularly in the study of attitudes. According to models by Ajzen and

Fishbein (1980) and Ajzen (2005), intention mediates between intention determinants

and goal-directed behaviors. Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action

(TRA) posited that humans act rationally; the authors argued that an individual’s

intention to act is based on attitudes toward the behavior and on subjective norms.

However, people often act habitually and spontaneously (Conner & Armitage, 1998),

while Azjen and Fishbein’s theory assumed that individuals have complete volitional

control over their behavior (Ajzen, 1985). In practice, however, behavior may be

affected by several non-motivational factors. To overcome this limitation, Ajzen (1991)

proposed a revised model, the theory of planned behavior (TPB), which also indicated

that the measure of intention will predict behavior or goal attainment only to the

extent that the behavior is under an individual’s complete volitional control.

Armitage and Conner’s (2001) meta-analysis showed that both TRA and TPB

have been used widely to predict many behaviors. Surveys measuring participants’

goal intention and their succeeding behavior at two different time points seem to

predict the result of goal intention (Sheeran, 2002), but a considerable proportion of

the variance in behavior is not explained by the use of correlations in the analyses of

goal intention. Further, correlations in some studies seem to overestimate the

consistency of intention and behavior. For instance, a meta-analysis of experimental

studies designed to translate goal intention among treatment versus control conditions

(Webb & Sheeran, 2006) indicated that prediction of later behavior was negligible (R2

= .03). Low predictive power in explaining behavior has prompted criticisms that

59

there are variables unexplored in explaining why intention is formulated. In other

words, these two theories do not specifically address the structure of intention.

Implementation Intention

Previous discussion showed that Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of

Reasoned Action (TRA) and Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

proposed that intention is the determinant of goal-directed behaviors; however, the

models are weak in predicting subsequent behavior in terms of how much a

formulated plan can be executed. A strong motivation is not sufficient for the goal to

be understood and for an individual to take action (Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996;

Heckhausen, 1989). Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of implementation intention

may complement Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) and Ajzen’s (1991) models because the

application of implementation intention highlights the psychological process of

formulating intention of behavior and can therefore increase the commitment to

engaging in a specific behavior. According to the theory of intentional action control

(Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999), implementation intention that concerns the initiation,

execution, and terminations of actions helps people to overcome the difficulties that

can be anticipated as they progress toward their goals (cited in Achtziger and

Gollwitzer, 2008). Generally, the role of implementation intention during the

motivational process is to help accomplish goal intention (Gollwitzer, Fujita, &

Oettingen, 2004).

Dörnyei (2001) noted that an individual in the initial phase of goal setting may

have an incentive to strive for a goal, but this incentive does not guarantee that the

individual will act upon it immediately. Gollwitzer (1996, 1999) has made a further

distinction between goal and implementation intention. Goal intention (goal setting)

60

specifies what goals one wants to achieve and has the structure of “I intend to reach

X,” whereby X may relate to a particular learning target or behavior. Implementation

intention (plan making) specifies the behavior that one will perform with respect to

goal attainment and the situational context in which one will enact the actions; it has

the format “If situation X is encountered, then I will perform the goal-directed

response Y.” The if-component specifies when and where one will conduct a

goal-related activity, whereas the then-component specifies the means of pursuing the

goal. This approach facilitates realizing goals with effective and specified cues.

Previous studies indicated that case subjects with implementation plans acted quickly

(Gollwitzer & Brandstätter, 1997), responded effectively to cognitive demands

(Brandstätter, Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Lengfelder & Gollwitzer, 2001), and

did not need to intend conscious action even when critical cues were presented

subconsciously (Bayer, Achtziger, Gollwitzer, & Moskowitz, 2009). These processes

of implementing intention indicate that the more accessible the specified cues are to

the individuals, the more individuals will link anticipated critical situations with

efficient actions.

Intention in Second Language Learning

The relevance of L2 intention was not stated explicitly by Gardner in his

“socio-educational model” (1985), which has become widely known for its two

orientations, integrative and instrumental. Gardner posited that L2 learners are

affected by their attitudes toward the target language community and the instrumental

value of learning an L2. Learners in the model are assumed to be forming goal

intention; that is, they are involved in decisions of whether to do certain things and

feel a firm sense of commitment to meet their goals. However, forming goal intention

61

does not mean that an action will take place immediately. Following Heckhausen and

Kuhl’s Actional Control Theory (1985), Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) proposed a

process-oriented model of second language learning. However, their model is

insufficient in specifying cues for desired actions. In other words, without the cues,

learners would have difficulties initiating and implementing their goal-directed

behavior. The states from intention formation to intention enactment (to launch an

action) should be equally weighted because intention enactment relates to the skilled

deployment of utilizing appropriate situations with effective responses for

implementation, which will affect the magnitude of success in achieving a goal.

One of the aims of this study is to design and test a scale of the construct of L2

learning intention, which is differentiated into two distinct, but correlated,

components— namely, goal intention and implementation intention. To uncover the

processes of intention formation, it seems meaningful to examine the local milieu in

which learners conduct their learning tasks and the means learners have used to

effectively formulate their commitment to achieving their learning behavior.

Constructing an L2 Learning Motivation Model with a Social and

Individual Approach

A major feature of all mainstream motivation theories lies in a lack of synthesis; that

is, a “lack of comprehensiveness” (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 11), while every theory has been

anchored by a few motivational perspectives but largely ignores the multifaceted

features of human behavior. Weiner (1984) has suggested that “any theory based on a

single concept, ... will be insufficient to deal with the complexity of classroom

activities” (p. 18). Traditional motivational psychology has shown an emphasis on

individualistic perspective in that it attempts to explain why an individual behaves the

62

way he or she does. It is comprehensible because it is the individual who takes the

actions and the initial drives for the intended behavior are seen as personal

motivation.

However, although it can be a fact that people may pursue very limited types of

selected behavior, various factors, including both external and internal ones, may be

interwoven to affect the intention and the behavior. In line with this, Gardner (1996)

acknowledged that motivation consisted of two distinct characteristics: an internal

attribute and an external attribute. The motivation becomes an integrative perspective

that assumed motivation can be an internal attribute that results in an external force

(Gardner, 1996, cited in MacIntyre, MacMaster, & Baker, 2001). The external force is

viewed as a stimulus that drives motivation. In other words, both social and personal

motivations should be taken into account (Weiner, 1994, p. 557) since human

behaviors are directly or indirectly socially shaped. Weiner (1984) has made a similar

statement that a theory of student motivation should include many concepts and be

able to show their inter-relationships to account for the complexity of classroom

activities. Learning is a series of ongoing activities situated in social practice and in

social interaction with others. In this respect, learning is socially oriented. Though the

importance of social and cultural contexts in learning has been emphasized in terms of

sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986,

1999), studies concerning the construction of L2 learning models rarely pay sufficient

attention to the impact of social contexts, particularly the influence of students’

immediate learning environment, including perceptions of and interactions with their

significant others. Research methodology using this approach favors experiments and

qualitative studies in an attempt to examine the importance of society and culture as

an integral part of the language learning process.

63

The constructs of the current model are in line with previous studies that have

postulated that existing critical constructs, such as attitudes, self-confidence,

goal-oriented motivation, and language achievement, would form the basis of the

structural model. However, the current model would also contrast with previous

studies in four aspects. First, in line with previous review that concluded that other

research areas should be taken into consideration (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei,

1994, Oxford & Shearin, 1994), this current model is grounded on the theoretical

framework of Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior from social

psychology. Second, with the basis of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior, the current

structural model will further gain in strength by adopting Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999)

theory of implementation intention, and two constructs, the tactics of L2 learning

behavior and mastery of L2 learning, from Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model into

second language learning motivation. Third, despite the existing measures in L2

motivation research and the adopted TPB model, the measures of two new constructs,

social norms and implementation intention, will be developed and tested under a

theoretical framework to see whether they meet the psychometric characteristics in

that no validated scales in L2 motivation research are available regarding these two

constructs. Finally, the whole structural model will be distinguished with three

language learning phases, based on Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon

model.

The adoption of several motivation theories echoes the view that there is no

single theory suited to interpreting the factors involved in the dynamic process of L2

learning motivational behavior (Landy & Becker, 1987; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995).

In addition to Ajzen’s TPB model and the Heckhausen and Gollwitzer (1987) Rubicon

model, other theoretical frameworks associated with this current study include

64

Vygotsky’s (1978, 1986) Sociocultural Theory and Bandura’s (1986, 1999) Social

Cognitive Theory. The operational model will also be grounded on Ajzen’s model of

the theory of planned behavior, which has not been widely used in the field of

educational research and particularly rarely in language learning involving long

volitional processes. Cronbach and Meehl (1955) make the point that a theoretical

construct needs an elaboration of the associated network in respect of the theoretical

concept. In line with this view, Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior was

adopted because it encompasses not only the significant factors but also the two

important dimensions, social norms and behavioral intention, which have not been

thoroughly studied in L2 learning motivation. Furthermore, the current model will be

elaborated with Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) Implementation Intention, which highlights

the psychological processes concerning how learners develop particular plans with

respect to goal attainment and can therefore increase the commitment to engaging in a

specific behavior, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and

mastery, which are another two powerful factors in a temporal-processed model. The

elaborated network will be shown in a diagram which would be better understood on

one hand and which would display the causal relationships among variables to

interpret a concept and a sequential process.

According to Tremblay and Gardner (1995), the motivational antecedents were

defined as factors that “cannot be readily perceived by an external observer” (p.507),

but still have a certain effect on behavior in terms of an individual’s cognitive or

affective anticipation perspectives. With respect to the action phases in the Rubicon

model, in this study, the constructs of learners Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social

Norms and Self-Confidence will be categorized in the predecisional phase. One

common characteristic of the three factors, according to Tremblay and Gardner (1995),

65

lies in an individual’s readily-perceived attitudes toward L2 learning, readily

perceived expectations of their significant others, and readily-perceived capability of

performing a language act. According to the Rubicon model, people assess the

feasibility of a potential goal. Thus, an individual evaluates his personal competence

of whether or not to achieve a selected goal. In this study, self-confidence is viewed as

an intentional antecedent because it is a readily-perceived factor that an individual has

evaluated their linguistic competence to whether or not they can reach a generally

recognized level at the time the survey was conducted. Further, in this phase people

are affected by their immediate environment to choose among the wishes and desires

they possess in order to commit themselves to certain selected goals. Self-confidence

emerges if the contacts were pleasant, as a learner directly or indirectly interacts with

the L2 group or culture, which reveals progressive quantitative and qualitative L2

competence (Clément, Dörnyei, Noels, 1994). Students in language learning in this

phase would weigh language competence and estimate whether or not they are

capable of doing what is needed to attain the goal.

In the preactional phase, two types of intention, Goal Intention and

Implementation Intention, are the major factors that are determined by the three

previous antecedents. L2 learners weigh their relative desirability and feasibility in

terms of their capability to set their attainable goals. In addition to the set goals, in the

end of this preactional phase, implementation intention associated with planned task

to cope with goal striving would be enacted. Once the appropriate opportunities arise,

the individual would initiate goal-directed behavior. Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) argued

that intention formation (in the end of the predecisional phase) and intention

enactment (in the end of the preactional phase) should be equally weighted in that

intention enactment is associated with skill planning used in various situations with

66

effective and strategic responses, which will affect the magnitude and quality of

success in reaching the goal. In contrast to the behaviorist approach, the action phase

is deemed to be an individual’s learning behavior that corresponds with Max Weber’s

(1921) concept of “meaning” or “sense”. In agreement of this perspective, L2 learning

actions can be defined as execution behavior and activities directed to attaining the

“intended goal.” In line with the Rubicon model, volitional strength is the determinant

whether an action can be sustained in order to pursue the goal. In the current model,

an individual’s self-regulatory capacity and the tactics of various learning behaviors

will be categorized in the actional phase. These two factors in the motivation process

place an emphasis on the translation of previous set goals into action. The

self-regulatory capacity plays a critical role in determining whether or not the learning

act will succeed, whereas the tactics of L2 learning behaviors play another key in

exerting efforts to polish the learners’ linguistic proficiency as well as to overcome

encountered situational difficulties. Accordingly, the last two factors, mastery of L2

learning and L2 achievement, symbolize the results of the three phases. Tseng and

Schmitt’s (2008) emphasized that mastery of strategy use was a stronger factor than

frequency of strategy use in causal relationship with vocabulary knowledge.

Other Measurements

Attitudes toward L2 Learning

Attitudes toward the L2 community have been an important component in

Gardner’s motivation theory (1985). Several studies have provided evidence that

attitudes have played an important relationship with achievement in the second

language (Au, 1988; Bell, 2005; Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1994; Dörnyei, 1990,

2003; Ellis, 1994; Levine, 2003; Oller, 1978; Oxford, 1996; Schmidt, Boraie, &

67

Kassabgy, 1996). Spolsky (2000) summarized that attitudes are the basis of language

acquisition, and concluded that, “one of the most important attitudinal factors is the

attitude of the learner to the language and to its speakers” (p. 274). Bartley (1970) also

argued the importance of attitude stating that “attitude toward learning is probably the

most important factor in academic success” (p. 383). Accordingly, many L2

motivation studies have incorporated this component, focusing on L2 learners’

attitudes toward members of the target language and its community (Csizér &

Dörnyei, 2005). However, this macro-perspective of attitudinal components was not

sufficient to reflect the impact of learners’ immediate learning environment. Most

EFL learners have very limited opportunities to make contact with speakers of the

target language or its community. Thus, Gardner’s concept of attitudes may not be

appropriate or valid in EFL learning contexts. In Ajzen (1991, 2005), attitudes toward

the target behavior are one of the determinants of behavioral intention. Attitudes refer

to a personal positive and negative evaluation of performing a particular behavior of

interest. People like certain subjects and dislike others, prefer some teachers or

classmates over others, and approve of some learning activities and disapprove of

others. In Ajzen’s (1988) conceptual framework, as an individual forms beliefs about

an act, he/she automatically and simultaneously has general attitudes toward the act.

The person’s attitudes toward the act serve as a function of his evaluations of some

attributes. The evaluative disposition is termed attitudes which respond with some

degree of favorableness or unfavorableness to a psychological object (Eagly &

Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In this thesis, this construct was concerned

with learners’ positive or negative evaluations toward learning a second language

from cognitive and affective aspects. In general, if an individual holds more favorable

attitudes toward the behavior, the stronger the individual’s intention would likely be to

68

perform it.

Self-Confidence

Self-confidence is a construct proposed by Clément et al. (1994) and has earned

support in some empirical studies (e.g. Clément & Kruidenier, 1985). According to

Clément et al. (1994), self-confidence in L2 concerns an individual’s perceived belief

about his or her ability to achieve particular goals successfully, or perceived potential

of coping a range of tasks. In Ajzen’s (2005) theory of planned behavior, perceived

behavioral control refers to people’s perception of the ease or difficulty of performing

the behavior of interest. Ajzen (2005) considered perceived behavior control as

compatible with Bandura’s (1977, 1982) concept of perceived self-efficacy, which “is

concerned with judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to

deal with prospective situations” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122). However, self-efficacy is

concerned with more specific tasks and cognitive factor while self-confidence is

concerned with general perception and external factor (Armitage & Conner, 2001). L2

motivation research has shown that people’s behavior is strongly affected by their

confidence in their ability to perform a particular activity (e.g. Gardner et al., 1997).

Dörnyei (2001) also views self-confidence as being similar to self-efficacy, but used it

in a more general sense. In his view, self-confidence refers to a more generalized

perception of learner’s potential ability to cope with a range of subject domain,

whereas self-efficacy refers specifically to concrete tasks.

This construct has been supported by empirical studies, such as research on

willingness to communication (MacIntyre, 1994; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément &

Donovan, 2002, 2003; Yashima, 2002; Yashima et al., 2004) which showed that

learners’ perceived communicative competence played a vital role. For example, the

69

results of Baker and MacIntyre’s (2000) study on the differences of French immersion

and nonimmersion programs demonstrated a strong correlation between perceived

competence and WTC for students in nonimmersion programs, but for students in

immersion programs, communication anxiety was the most influential factor with

WTC. Yashima et al.’s (2004) study of two investigations of Japanese adolescents in

Japanese English education programs and intercultural student exchange programs

also showed that perceived competence was strongly correlated with willingness to

communicate. As a consequence, learners with higher linguistic self-confidence are

assumed to have better ability to achieve their goals since this construct reflects “a

confident, anxiety-free belief that the mastery of a L2 is well within the learner’s

means.” In this study, the factor, self-confidence, will be based on the operational

definition proposed by Clément et al. (1994), meaning low level of anxiety and high

perceptions of learner’s ability to cope with L2 learning. Self-confidence in this study

will subsume two components: self-efficacy and L2 learning anxiety. These two

components will be aggregated into an observed variable reflecting L2 learning

confidence based on existing theory (Clément, 1986; Clément et al., 1994).

Self-Regulatory Capacity

Self-Regulatory Capacity refers to self-directed volitional capacity by which thoughts,

feeling and behavior are operated systematically to the attainment of personal goals

(Zimmerman, 2000, p. 14). Though self-regulation has been studied in the field of

educational psychology (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1994, 1998; Zimmerman & Schunk,

1989, 2001), it is still a new concept underestimated in L2 motivation research.

Williams and Burden (1997, p. 121) call for a need to differentiate the generation

from maintenance of motivation. They argue that motivation is not just a means to

70

initiate interest, but it also involves how to help sustain interest and provide the

motivation needed for the learner to exert time and effort to achieve the set goals.

During the action-taking periods, there could be self-regulatory problems which may

interfere with an individual’s goal striving, preventing them from reaching their goals.

That is, once a person gets started, it’s likely they will encounter self-regulatory

challenges as they proceed in different contexts. In the actional phase of the Rubicon

model, volitional strength is viewed as a critical factor to ‘cross the Rubicon” as the

learners execute their planned behavior. Self-regulatory capacity also determines the

magnitude and the quality during the course of achieving the set goal. Tseng and

Schmitt’s (2008) study showed that self-regulatory capacity played a significant role

in predicting L2 learners’ behavior in vocabulary learning. Their self-regulation

construct is adopted into this current study with an attempt to fortify Ajzen’ (1991)

TPB model and to promote the maintenance of L2 learning behavior, which will

facilitate L2 achievement.

The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior

In Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, behavior is the consequence of an intention. In the process of

learning a second language, taking an action is an important, but not the final step.

Action is a major step in the motivation process, resulting in whether the set goal will

be achieved and the quality of the achievement. Therefore, action commitment

implies the decision to transfer the “choice motivation” into “executive motivation”

(Heckhausen, 1991, p. 170). It is argued that the tactics of L2 learning behavior will

lead learners to develop a more qualitative change in the outcome of completing an

action. Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) argued that during the actional phase, volitional

control will protect an action from being replaced by the competing tendencies, such

71

as environmental distractions. In this study, the tactics of L2 learning behavior will

subsume four categories of learning behavior: self-initiating, self-applying,

self-experimenting and self-surpassing.

Mastery of L2 Learning

Mastery of L2 learning refers to the principle of how well students can obtain a

set of reasonable predetermined objectives or unit expectations through organized as

well as ordered steps. According to Davis and Sorrel (1995), “Students, alone or in

groups, work through each unit in an organized fashion. Students must demonstrate

mastery on unit exams, typically 80%, before moving on to new material.” They

further indicated that only students with grades of “A” and “B” are considered to have

achieved the accepted standard of mastery. Bloom (1981) also believed that students

should be able to reach some expected level of performance mastery in order to attain

the specified objective. Students who fail to meet the requirements usually received

remediation through tutoring, peer monitoring, small group discussion or additional

homework.

In Taiwan, English courses are important school subjects and have been awarded

more time in school curricula in order to cultivate students’ potential to master the

ability of the English language and culture. During preparation for the university

entrance examination, most students either receive tutoring or attend “cram schools”

for extra instructions, review, and learning strategies in the English language. In this

study, measuring mastery of L2 learning with senior high school students was

developed in four aspects including: vocabulary, grammar, reading, and writing.

These four dimensions were investigated because they are the main points of focus in

terms of pedagogical teaching and students’ learning under the orientation of

72

exam-directed English education.

In this chapter, I have presented an overview of motivation theories based on

social and individual perspectives, a review of five empirical models in L2 learning

motivation, theoretical conception on social norms and behavioral intention, the need

to construct an L2 learning motivation model including sparsely studied social norms

and behavioral intention, in addition to a discussion of the other important constructs

investigated in this study. The literature review in this study lays the groundwork for

the development of a process-oriented L2 learning motivation model, which will be

discussed in the following chapter.

73

CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND

DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOMETRIC SCALES

Outlined in this chapter are an introduction of the analytical tool—structural equation

modeling, followed by psychometric development of the two scales in social norms

and behavioral intention and a test for whether these two scales meet the psychometric

properties in terms of substantive theoretical grounds. In the third section come the

selections of the other measurements and the pilot study of these measurements.

Accordingly, the final section is a description of the main study of this thesis.

The Hypothesized Model Integrating Interpersonal and

Intrapersonal Approaches

The hypothesized model in this study would consist of the following nine latent

variables: (1) Attitudes toward L2 Learning, (2) Social Norms, (3) Self-Confidence, (4)

Goal Intention, (5) Implementation Intention, (6) Self-Regulatory Capacity, (7) the

Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, (8) Mastery of L2 Learning, and (9) L2

Achievement. With respect to the action phases in the Rubicon model, in this study,

the constructs of learners Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms and

Self-Confidence will be categorized in the predecisional phase. In the preactional

phase, two types of intention, Goal Intention and Implementation Intention, are the

major factors that are determined by the three previous antecedents. L2 learners weigh

their relative desirability and feasibility in terms of their capability to set their

attainable goals. In addition to the set goals, in the end of this preactional phase,

implementation intention associated with planned task to cope with goal striving

would be enacted. The action phase is deemed to be an individual’s learning behavior.

L2 learning actions can be defined as execution behavior and activities directed to

74

attaining the “intended goal.” In line with the Rubicon model, volitional strength is

the determinant whether an action can be sustained in order to pursue the goal. In the

current model, an individual’s Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of various L2

Learning Behaviors will be categorized in the actional phase.

Figure 3.1 The hypothesized model with nine latent variables

Attitudes

Self-

Regulation

L2

Learning

Behavior

Self-

Confidence

Social

Norms

Implement

Intention

Mastery

D5Goal

Intention

L2

Achieve

Specific Hypothesized Relationships

According to the hypothesized model, some specific hypothesized relationships were

generated as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Attitudes toward L2 Learning influence Goal Intention.

Hypothesis 2: Attitudes toward L2 Learning influence Implementation Intention.

Hypothesis 3: Social Norms influence Goal Intention.

Hypothesis 4: Social Norms influence Implementation Intention.

Hypothesis 5: Social Norms influence Self-regulatory Capacity.

Hypothesis 6: Self-Confidence influences Goal Intention.

Hypothesis 7: Self-Confidence influences Implementation Intention.

75

Hypothesis 8: Self-Confidence influences Self-Regulatory Capacity.

Hypothesis 9: Self-Confidence influences the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior.

Hypothesis 10: Goal Intention influences Self-regulatory capacity.

Hypothesis 11: Goal Intention influences the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior.

Hypothesis 12: Implementation Intention influence Self-Regulatory Capacity.

Hypothesis 13: Implementation Intention influences the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior.

Hypothesis 14: Self-Regulatory capacity influences the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior.

Hypothesis 15: Self-Regulatory Capacity influences Mastery of L2 Learning

Hypothesis 16: The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior influence Mastery of L2

Learning.

Hypothesis 17: The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior influence L2 Achievement.

Hypothesis 18: Mastery of L2 Learning influences L2 Achievement.

Hypothesis 19: Social Norms are interrelated with Self-Confidence.

Hypothesis 20: Attitudes toward L2 Learning are interrelated with Self-Confidence.

Research Design

The research design was to validate two newly developed scales, social norms and

intention, and to assess these two rarely studied variables, together with other

important motivational variables, in a hypothesized motivational model in second

language learning. It was based on the need of reconceptualization of L2 motivation

research and the deficiency of instruments in L2 studies. Consequently, the design

included (1) the development of two new scales in the phase 1. The scale of Intention

was estimated with a confirmatory factor analysis, and the scale of Social Norms was

76

estimated with an exploratory factor analysis. (2) In phase 2, the design was to

evaluate three other variables, Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning, with exploratory factor analyses in a pilot

study. The items of the other two variables, Attitudes toward L2 Learning and

Self-Confidence, were adopted from existing validated scales and were given a brief

statistic description in the second phase. (3) In phase 3, all indicators from the nine

latent variables would be assessed with a confirmatory factor analysis in the

measurement model in the main study. A summary of the composition of the

participants in three phases was presented in Table 3.1, and the development and

assessment of the scales were presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1 Composition of the participants in each phase

Participants Male Female

Phase 1: Development of 2 scales

333 114 219

Phase 2: Pilot study of the other scales

149 72 77

Phase 3: Main study

265 129 136

77

Table 3.2 Development and pilot study of the scales

Number of

indicators

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3

Goal Intention 2 CFA All indicators were estimated with CFA in the measuremeant model, and the latent variables in the structural model in the main study.

Implementation Intention 3 CFA

Social Norms 3 EFA

Self-Regulatory Capacity 4 EFA

Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior 4 EFA

Mastery of L2 Learning 4 EFA

L2 Achievement 6

The purpose of the pilot study was to examine the reliability and validity of the

measurement instruments. To assess whether the instruments meet the psychometric

properties, the items of each construct were determined in terms of a series of criteria.

The items were evaluated according to three methods including item analysis, internal

consistency, and unidimensionality and each comprises of two to three criteria. A

summary of the criteria was presented in Table 3.3.

78

Table 3.3 Descriptions of the methods and the criteria for the item determination

Methods and Criteria Descriptions

Item Analysis The purpose of item analysis is to provide an

indication of the degree that an item can

differentiate among the participants on the

construct proposed

(1) Extreme Group Method A method for calculating item

discrimination. Participants were divided

into two groups based on the upper 30% for

the upper group and the lower 30% for the

lower group. The value of an item should

reach a level of significance to be

discriminated.

(2) Corrected Item-Total Correlation It is a method to assess the correlation

between an individual item and the overall

score of the whole scale. An item is

considered to be weak if the correlation is

less than .40.

(3) Content Meaning Items reflect the theme of a particular factor.

Internal Consistency A way to measure whether the measurement

items within a particular construct produce

consistency.

(1) Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s alpha indicates how closely the

related multiple questions measured for a

particular construct.

(2) Pearson Correlations Used to examine the intercorrelations among

the indicators, with a value at a significant

level suggesting the appropriateness of

discriminant validity.

Unidimensionality Unidimensionality represents a trait that a

set of proposed measures can be converged.

(1) Exploratory Factor Analysis Producing eigenvalue greater than 1, which

is explained by one and the only one latent

variable.

(2) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) The value of KMO indicates the

characteristics of sampling adequacy, with a

suggested value of .60 considered suitable.

(3) Barlett’s Test of Sphericity A value at statistic significance (p<.05)

suggested suitable.

79

Structural Equation Modeling

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a rather new and complex statistical

procedure and has become a popular multivariate approach in recent research. SEM is

used to determine how well the model fits the sample and seeks to explain the causal

relationships among a set of observed and latent variables, and thus intends to

interpret the relationship among several variables within a single framework. The

greatest benefit of SEM is that it indicates directional causal paths between the

variables, not just a correlational relationship without directions (Kline, 2005).

Dependent relationships are indicated with single-headed directional arrows,

specifying relationships between any two latent variables. Correlational (covariance)

relationships are indicated with two-headed arrows. Dörnyei (2001) suggested that

SEM techniques should be appropriate for testing a complex model with several

interrelated variables, which is exactly the case with the current study. In this thesis, a

new, empirically grounded construct of a language learning motivation model was

developed and tested. The structural relationships based on the hypotheses were tested

by means of a series of regression equations. A distinguishing feature of the SEM

model lies in that its technique provides analyses of the various motivational factors

with criterion measures, in contrast with overall outcome using traditional

multivariate procedures. With this technique, the hypothesized theoretical grounds can

be validated with increased clarity. According to Byrne (2001), SEM distinguishes

itself, using factorial criteria, from traditional approaches of multivariate analyses

with holistic consequences. First, SEM utilizes a confirmatory factor analysis, rather

than the exploratory approach. Second, it incorporates the analyses of both theoretical

basis and empirical questionnaire data; i.e., SEM links unobserved latent variables

with observed specified variables. Third, SEM estimates the error variance patterns.

80

According to Hair et al. (2010), there are several major procedures to be

identified when utilizing SEM to specify a causal model: the first step is to define

individual constructs, develop the overall measurement model and assess the

measurement model validity. Once a satisfactory measurement model is obtained, the

second step is to specify and test the structural model. The measurement model fit

provides a basis for assessing the validity of the structural theory. It is essential

because poor measures may lead to invalid structural model or the structural construct

may be misinterpreted. Further, there are two significant differences in specifying the

structural relationships. First, a distinction between exogenous and endogenous

constructs should be made. Exogenous constructs are determined by factors outside

the model and thus independent. In the model, an exogenous construct does not have

any paths from any other constructs going to it. Endogenous constructs are

hypothesized to be determined by other factors within the model and thus they are

dependent and influenced by other constructs. Further, an endogenous construct has a

path from an exogenous or another endogenous construct.

In this study, in line with previous research, the construct validity of each scale,

i.e., the relations among adjacent subscales, will be examined using correlation

analyses. The factorial validity assessments will be administered with a series of

confirmatory factor analyses using structural equation modeling in the LISREL

version 8.8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). The SEM analytical approach will be used to

assess the magnitude to which a set of observed variables reflects the common latent

variables. Model-based construct validity is viewed as more advantageous for it

accounts for the effects of latent variables and measurement errors. A coefficient

estimate of .70 or higher is indicative of good reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Construct

validity will be assessed by using Chi-square (χ2) and a range of goodness-of-fit

81

indices. It is argued that the Chi-square statistic tends to inflate with the sample size,

with a normed chi-square value below 3 is deemed as acceptable (Carmines & McIver,

1981). The other values of fit indices used to assess the model fit include absolute and

incremental indices. In this study, absolute indices would include (1) normed

Chi-square (χ2) with a value below 3, (2) Root Mean-Square Error Approximation

(RMSEA), and (3) Standardized Root Mean-square Residual (SRMR). Generally,

values of RMSEA and SRMR lower than .08 are considered acceptable (Byrne, 2001).

Values of incremental indices were calculated as follows: (4) Comparative Fit Index

(CFI), (5) Normed Fit Index (NFI), and (6) Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI). For CFI,

NFI, and NNFI, a value greater than .90 is deemed acceptable and values equal to or

greater than .95 are deemed to be a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995).

Introduction of Development of the Scales

With regard to answering the research questions, nine latent variables would be

involved in the construction of the language learning motivation model. These nine

variables include: (1) Attitudes toward L2 Learning, (2) Social Norms, (3)

Self-Confidence, (4) Goal Intention, (5) Implementation Intention, (6)

Self-Regulatory Capacity, (7) the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, (8) Mastery of L2

Learning, and (9) L2 Achievement. According to Hair et al. (2010), each individual

construct should be defined and specified before the development of the measurement

model. As the measurements of social norms and behavioral intention on L2 learning

are not available in the existent L2 learning scales, two scales concerning social

norms and behavioral intention will be introduced in the beginning of this chapter and

tested to determine whether they meet the psychometric properties. Then, the

selection and adaptation of the other measures and a pilot study of these measures will

82

be discussed, including: a description of the participants, data collection procedure,

item analysis, internal consistency and evaluation of unidimensionality of each

construct.

Scale of Social Norms in Language Learning

Development of the Scale of Social Norms

According to Pekrun et al. (2004), the development of a measurement scale should be

grounded both theoretically and empirically. Taking this into account, this construct of

social norms was adopted from Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior,

which divided normative formats into two subscales: injunctive norms, referring to

participants’ perceived approval of desirable behaviors and disapproval of undesirable

behaviors from their significant others, and descriptive norms, concerning

participants’ perception of whether their important others themselves perform the

behavior. In addition to these two norms, language learning also discloses that a

language has its prescriptive linguistic rules and performance of the language would

indicate the language proficiency level of the learner who then would be given an

expectation to reach the standard that demonstrates their working effort and aptitude.

The linguistic competence may be recognized as a social identity (Williams, 1994).

Learners thus need to regulate themselves persistently during the learning process to

meet the criteria. As a consequence, the linguistic norms become explicit to the point

that they may give the respondents pressure if they fail to meet the standards.

Therefore, the component, linguistic norms, was added to this construct. The

normative quality of the three indicators depicted here captures Dörnyei and Malderez

(1999) advice that “we should not underestimate the power of the group: It may bring

significant pressure to bear and it can sanction - directly or indirectly - those who fail

83

to conform to what is considered acceptable” (p. 161). As a result, the scale of social

norms consisted of 3 subscales:

Injunctive norms (9 items *3 (friends, teachers, and family) = 27 items): adopted from

Ajzen (2006), refer to the learners’ perceived expectations of their significant

others’ approval or disapproval of their learning behavior and represent perceived

value of the learning tasks. Injunctive norms assist an individual to determine what

is acceptable and unacceptable social behavior. “My friends think we should learn

as many English words as possible.”

Descriptive norms (8 items *3 (friends, teachers, and family) = 24 items): adopted

from Fishbein and Ajzen (2010), aims to capture whether the important others who

approve or disapprove of the perceived actions perform the behavior themselves.

The descriptive norms criteria was proposed to obtain learners’ perception of their

significant others’ behavior in quantity and frequency of language learning, and are

based largely on observations of how these people learn English, i.e. “My friends

can speak good English.”

Linguistic norms (9 items *3 (friends, teachers, and family) = 27 items): concern the

rules that govern the choice and the use of a language as generally accepted. These

rules therefore become the orthographic and grammatical norms of a given

language, which may be used to assess learners’ language performance. Linguistic

norms are social in nature, i.e. “My teacher expects me to be able to speak fluent

English like the native speakers.“

Item Pool

The first version of the scale of social norms in language learning consisted of

22 items generated from literature and 24 obtained through a focus group interview

84

with students from two colleges in the northern part of Taiwan. Participants were

encouraged to provide as much information as possible about how their significant

others’ expectations affect their motivation to study English and whether the

significant others perform the intended learning behavior. The items used for the pilot

were determined to include 8 items for injunctive, 8 for descriptive, and 9 for

linguistic. The developed items were extended to three types of significant group

members: family, teachers and peers, adopted from Wentzel’s (1998, 1999) studies.

The expansion of the list of items made the items 75 in total. Before delivering the

pilot version, two item-writing experts, one in second language acquisition and the

other in educational psychology statistics, were invited to examine the coherence of

the items. The purpose of expert consensus is to ensure face and content validity,

which guarantees the measured items can appropriately reflect what is to be estimated

(Brown, 2001). The pilot version was then given to a group of 30 freshmen at a

national university to assess the clarity and readability of the items. Participants were

asked to put confusing items into their own words or to circle confusing items or

words. With their comments, some items were rephrased for clarity and fluency. After

these revisions, all items were considered readable and easily understood to our

participants.

Participants and Procedures

The participants of the second study were 333 learners from three schools in

Taiwan, including five classes at a senior high school and five classes of freshmen at

two universities, all studying English as a foreign language. The researcher first

contacted the teachers of the participants for permission to administer the

questionnaire and explained the purpose of this study to the teachers. An appropriate

85

class time was scheduled for me to meet with the students to explain the purpose of

the study and to make it clear that the result would not have any affect on the students’

grades. The researcher was present at each research site when the survey was

conducted. The participants were asked a range of demographic questions including

gender, age, and length of time spent studying English every day. The sample

consisted of 114 males and 219 females with a mean age of 17.8 years, spending an

average of 1.7 hours studying English every day. Generally, students in Taiwan have

to pass entrance examinations to be accepted at a senior high school or university;

therefore, students in the same school are assumed to have a similar language

proficiency level.

Item Analysis

Items were estimated according to three criteria: (1) the value of the Extreme Group

Method (Feldt, 1961), (2) items with a Corrected Item-Total Correlation less than .40

(Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991), (3) items whose meaning did not reflect the theme of the

particular factor (Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). With the Extreme Group Method, all

of the values of the items in this study reached a level of significance and could be

discriminated with t-values between 3.10 and 14.18. The results of the Corrected

Item-Total Correlation showed that two items did not perform well, and thus they

were deleted. Eventually, the construct of social norms resulted in a total of 73 items:

24 items (family, teachers, and peers) for injunctive, 23 for descriptive, and 26 for

linguistic. The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors 1:

strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree.

86

Internal Consistency

In the analysis of the data, means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha were

calculated for each subscale, and intercorrelations between indicators were conducted.

Values of Cronbach’s alpha were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of

each indicator of the scale of social norms in language learning. The resulting

coefficients for all the indicators, shown in Table 3.4, ranged from .79 (descriptive

norms) to .92 (linguistic norms); alpha reliability was .93 for the overall scale of

social norms, indicating good internal consistency for the designed measurement.

Pearson correlations among the indicators showed that all were intercorrelated at

significance levels ranging from .41 to .48, suggesting the appropriateness of

discriminant validity. The final version of the whole items of this construct was

presented in Appendix 3.

Table 3.4 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale and the subscales

of Social Norms, and Pearson correlations among the subscales (N= 333)

M SD Cronbach’s α 1. 2. 3.

1. Injunctive Norms 61.17 6.92 0.87 1

2. Descriptive Norms 52.44 7.82 0.79 .48**

1

3. Linguistic Norms 45.78 10.26 0.92 .41**

.42**

1

Total 0.93

** p < .01

Unidimensionality

Unidimensionality represents a trait that a set of proposed measures can be converged

and explained by one and the only latent variable (Hair et al., 2010). In this study, an

exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine the properties of

unidimensionality and to estimate the normative construct in terms of the eigenvalues

greater than 1. In this normative construct, the three indicators – injunctive norms,

descriptive norms, and linguistic norms were hypothesized to load primarily on one

87

and the same factor with factor analysis, instead of a principal component analysis. It

is argued that factor analysis can produce values on how well the latent variable

reflects on each indicator and the theoretically designed construct (Tabachnick &

Fidell, 2001). The resulting analysis (Table 3.5) yielded only one factor with

eigenvalue 2.013, accounting for 67 percent of the variance, which was deemed

supportive for the unidimensionality of the indicators for the measured construct.

Second, Table 3.6 presented us with a consistent high factor-loading pattern. Further,

the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .69, greater than the suggested value of .60

(Kaiser, 1974). Finally, the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Barlett, 1954) was at

significance level (Chi-square = 240, df = 3, p<.001). According to the criteria

discussed, the results of the EFA indicated that the empirical data supported overall

the properties of unidimensionality. The confirmatory factor analysis of this scale was

conducted later in the overall measurement model in the main study.

Table 3.5 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Social Norms

Component Initial Eigenvalues

Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 2.013 67.115 67.115

2 .551

3 .436

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

Table 3.6 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Social Norms

Component

1

Injunctive Norms .843

Descriptive Norms .789

Linguistic Norms .824


88

Scales of Intention in Language Learning

Development of the Scales of Behavioral Intention

In a similar vein, the measurement scale for behavioral intention was developed with

regard to theoretical background and empirical data. The new scale comprises two

main constructs: goal intention and implementation intention. The former was adopted

from the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985), which was

further divided into integrative and instrumental orientations. Implementation

intention was generated on the basis of Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of

implementation intention, specifying when, where, and how learners carry out their

intention in language learning. The when and where considerations associated with the

learning tasks were implemented under specific conditions and combined into

situational orientation. The how consideration spells out the tactical means for coping

with the learning tasks and is hence labeled as strategic orientation. In addition,

learning a foreign language usually challenges learners’ language skills holistically;

learners need to be able to plan and highlight the important and relevant topics and

themes that will improve upon their L2 proficiency levels. Thus what learners do in

the learning tasks was considered a significant component in the L2 learning process;

the content orientation component was hence added to the construct of the

implementation intention. The items were stated according to the structure “when (if)

situation X arises, (then) I will perform response Y.”

As a result, the two constructs concerning Intention in Language Learning

consisted of 5 subscales, with the first three for Implementation Intention and the

latter two for Goal Intention.

Content orientation denotes learners’ intention to plan and underline themes or motifs

for L2 (in this case, English) learning. For example, “If there are more

89

opportunities to meet English foreigners, I will try to think of some topics to speak

with them about in order to improve my oral skills.”

Situational orientation specifies learners’ intention to map out temporal schemes or

local milieus that are germane to English learning. “Even if there are many other

things to do, I still try to spare time to learn English.”

Strategic orientation characterizes learners’ intention to uncover and create personal

but efficient means for implementing learning acts. “When studying English, I

know how to use appropriate learning techniques.”

Integrative orientation specifies the degree to which students seek to learn the second

language for integrative reasons. “My intention in learning English is to be able to

speak English fluently.”

Instrumental orientation refers to the extent to which students seek to learn English

for pragmatic reasons. “I want to learn English because I think it will someday be

useful in getting a good job.”

Proposed Model

The present study focused on the construct of intention in language learning, based

on Gardner’s (1985) goal intention and Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation

intention. Figure 3.2 showed the hypothesized model with these two latent variables

and five indicators. The hypothesized model posited that implementation intention

includes content, situational, and strategic orientations, while goal intention includes

integrative and instrumental orientations. Further, the two latent variables were

hypothesized to be correlated.

90

Strategic

Orientation

Implementation

Intention

Content

Orientation

Situational

Orientation

Integrative

Orientation Goal

IntentionInstrumental

Orientation

Figure 3.2 The hypothesized model of Intention in language learning

1

2

3

4

5

Item Pool

The first version of the Scale of Intention in Language Learning consisted of 21

items relating to Goal Intention adopted from Gardner’s AMTB (1985) and 44

potential items generated for Implementation Intention. For the latter, 20 were

generated from the literature and 24 were obtained through a focus group interview

with freshmen from two colleges. Participants were guided to provide as much

information as possible about what helped them initiate actions to study English.

Before delivering the pilot version, two item-writing experts, one in second language

acquisition and the other in educational psychology statistics, were invited to examine

the coherence of the items to ensure face and content validity. The pilot version was

then given to a group of 30 freshmen at a national university in an attempt to

determine whether the item statements flowed smoothly and to examine if the items

matched students’ feelings about their English learning experiences. Most students

agreed that the items reflected their feelings about immediate learning situations. Two

items were altered to suit the students’ needs and the contexts.

91

Participants and Procedures

The participants and procedures of this study were identical to those of the

development of the scale of social norms.

Item Analysis

Items were further evaluated in terms of three criteria: (1) the value of the Extreme

Group Method (Feldt, 1961), (2) items with a Corrected Item-Total Correlation less

than .40 (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991), (3) items whose meaning did not reflect the

theme of the particular factor (Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). With the Extreme Group

Method, the values of the items in this study all reached significance level and

discriminated with t-values ranging from 3.32 to 13.60. The results of the Corrected

Item-Total Correlation showed that two items did not perform well, and thus they

were deleted. Eventually, the two-dimensional constructs of intention resulted in a

total of 38 items: 6 for content, 7 for situational, 7 for strategic, 9 for integrative and 9

for instrumental orientations. The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert

scale with anchors 1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree. The final version of the

whole items of this construct was presented in Appendixes 6 and 9.

Evaluation of the Scales of Intention in Language Learning

To evaluate the internal consistency of each dimension of the scale of intention in

language learning, values of Cronbach’s alpha were calculated. The resulting

coefficients for all the indicators, shown in Table 3.7, ranged from .78 (strategic

orientation) to .88 (integrative orientation); alpha reliabilities were .86 for goal

intention and .91 for implementation intention, indicating good internal consistency

for the designed scale. Pearson correlations among the indicators in Table 3.8

92

illustrated that all indicators were intercorrelated at significance levels ranging

from .35 to .75, suggesting the appropriateness of discriminant validity.

Table 3.7 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scales of Intention

(N= 333)

Scales M SD Cronbach α

Implementation

1. Content

94.59

33.16

14.09

5.16

.91

.80

2. Situational 29.26 5.55 .81

3. Strategic 32.18 5.01 .78

Goal

4. Integrative

90.47

40.31

13.66

8.04

.86

.88

5. Instrumental 50.17 8.08 .82

Overall .94

Table 3.8 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Intention (N= 333)

Scales 1 2 3 4 5

1. Content 1

2. Situational .67** 1

3. Strategic .69** .75

** 1

4. Integrative .70** .57

** .65** 1

5. Instrumental .35* .42

** .43** .44

** 1

** p < .01

Estimate of Model Fit

Values of the fit indices were assessed by absolute and incremental indices,

shown in Table 3.9. According to the criteria discussed earlier, the values of the fit

indices showed that that all indices, except χ 2 and RMSEA, meet these

goodness-of-fit criteria.

93

Table 3.9 Goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized model of Intention and the modified

model

Models χ2 df RMSEA SRMR GFI CFI NFI NNFI

Hypothesized

model

36.04 4 .15 .03 .96 .97 .97 .93

Modified model 18.99 3 .12 .03 .98 .99 .98 .95

.30

Strategic

OrientationImplementation

Intention

.84

Content

Orientation

Situational

Orientation

Integrative

Orientation.86

.89

.38

Goal

IntentionInstrumental

Orientation.51

.32

.26

.20

.74

.84

Figure 3.3 Confirmatory factor analysis of the modified model of intention in language learning

.48

The modification indices suggested that an additional path from goal intention to

content orientation could be further formulated. Because the hypothesized model and

the modified model were nested within one another, i.e., the hypothesized model was

a subset of the revised model, a chi-square difference test was performed to see if the

additional path could significantly improve the hypothesized model. Theχ2 for the

hypothesized model was 36.04 (df = 4, p< .05); for the revised, 18.99 (df = 3, p< .05).

Thus, this is a test of chi-square difference with 1df. The result showed thatχ2diff (1)

was 17.0 with p< .05. With this addition, the overall chi-square value was decreased

by 17 in the modified model. Hence, the additional path predicting content orientation

from the goal intention could significantly improve the hypothesized model. The

modified model in Figure 3.3 also indicated that the relation between implementation

intention and goal intention decreased from .92 to .84, as evidenced for better

94

discriminant validity (Kline, 2005) between the two factors.

Development and Pilot Study of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Self-

Confidence, Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior, and Mastery of L2 Learning

In addition to the two newly developed scales of Social Norms and two types of

behavioral intention, there are five other measured constructs: Attitudes toward L2

Learning, Self-Confidence, Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior, and Mastery of L2 Learning. The items used in Attitudes toward L2

Learning, Self-Confidence, Self-Regulatory Capacity, and the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior were adapted from research by other investigators and the items have been

altered to some extent in some cases to make them appropriate to the current sample

and in the field of applied linguistics. The items in Mastery of L2 Learning were

designed according to my teaching experiences, interviews with two senior high

school English teachers and discussions with my advisor. The development of each

scale is described in the following sections, and each is followed by a pilot study

conducted to examine whether the scale was appropriate to the context and to resolve

any problems that may arise during the main study. The reliability of every scale was

examined and the unidimensionality of the constructs in Self-Regulatory Capacity, the

Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, and Mastery of L2 Learning were performed with an

exploratory factor analysis.

Item Formation of Attitudes toward L2 Learning

In this study, the concept of attitudes toward L2 learning was adopted from Azjen’s

(1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior. Attitudes refer to an individual’s positive

95

and negative evaluation of the desirability of performing an L2 learning behavior.

Attitudes in Ajzen’s TPB have been theorized as a multidimensional construct,

composed of cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions (Ajzen, 2005; Eagly &

Chaiken, 1993; Bagozzi 1978). Attitudes in language learning research have been

studied pervasively (Bell, 2005; Cotterall, 1999; Gardner, 1985; Henry & Apelgren,

2008; Levine, 2003; Loewen, Li, Fei, Thompson et al., 2009; Masgoret & Gardner,

2003; Martinez et al., 2008; Raymond & Roberts, 1983; Yashima & Zenuk-Nishide,

2008; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide & Shimiza, 2004). Measurement of this variable

differed and very few were measured in terms of these three dimensions. Recently,

Tseng (2009) designed a scale of Attitudes in vocabulary learning in terms of Ajzen’s

theoretical construct and thus it was adopted in the current study. Two components

were used in this study, representing cognitive and affective attitudes toward learning

the target language. The conative dimension was not included because this dimension

is similar to the construct of Implementation Intention, which was emphasized as an

individual latent variable in this study. In general, if an individual holding stronger

attitudes would be likely to perform the learning act, the cognitive and affective

components were modified to suit the context in this study.

Cognitive Attitudes toward L2 Learning: reflect belief or thoughts toward the target

behavior of L2 learning. “Learning English is a very meaningful learning task.”

Affective Attitudes toward L2 Learning: indicate an individual’s feelings or emotions

associated with L2 learning. A high score represents positive attitudes toward

English learning. “I love learning English.”

Before the pilot study, the two item-writing experts, Dr. Tseng, my advisor, from the

field of applied linguistics, and the other, Dr. Lin, from the field of the educational

96

psychology statistics, were invited to examine the coherence of the items to ensure the

content validity. This construct of Attitudes toward L2 Learning resulted in 4 items

delineating cognitive attitudes and 4 items in affective attitudes toward L2 learning.

The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors 1: strongly

disagree and 6: strong agree.

Pilot study

Participants

The sample in this pilot study consisted of 149 (72 males and 77 females) freshmen of

a senior high school in northern Taiwan, with a mean age of 16.4 years, spending an

average of 1.26 hours studying English every day. The participants were of a

convenient sample selected with the assistance of two English teachers who were

teaching the participants English as a compulsory subject in Hsinchu. The

participants’ English level was considered as low-intermediate to intermediate in

general, with respect to the ranking of the school in the nationwide entrance

examinations.

Data Collection Procedures

The population of the study consisted of freshmen from a senior high school in

Hsinchu Taiwan who were recruited to participate in this study. With the permission

of their teachers, I visited the classrooms to explain the purpose and importance of

conducting this pilot study. They were also assured it would be conducted during a

time that was convenient for the teacher and the students. Students were told to ensure

the confidentiality of the data, and that the results would not influence their grades.

The questionnaire was administered in their regular classrooms after the second exam

97

in the spring semester of 2010. It took the students approximately twelve minutes to

complete the questionnaire. To thank the students for their cooperation in this study,

each participant received a donut.

Item Analysis

Similar to the testing of the two previously developed scales, an item analysis of

Attitudes toward L2 Learning was conducted according to three criteria: (1) the value

of the Extreme Group Method (Feldt, 1961), (2) items with a Corrected Item-Total

Correlation less than .40 (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991), and (3) items whose meaning

did not reflect the theme of the particular factor (Tobacyk & Milford, 1983).

According to the Extreme Group Method, an item could discriminate well in terms of

the total scores of two extreme groups, i.e. the upper top (30%) and the lower bottom

(30%). This method was administered with an Independent Sample t-test, with an

item reaching a significant level deemed good. The items included in Attitudes toward

L2 Learning all reached significant levels, with t-values ranging from 2.83 to 10.43.

The items were further evaluated in terms of the Corrected Item-Total Correlation,

which considered an item to be discriminant if the correlation between an item and the

indicator was beyond .40. The results of the corrected item-total correlation showed

that one item did not perform well, and thus it was deleted. Eventually, the construct

of Attitudes toward L2 Learning resulted in a total of 7 items: 4 for cognitive attitudes

and 3 for affective attitudes. The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert

scale with anchors 1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree.


The Cronbach alpha coefficient was computed to indicate the reliability of this scale.

98

The results showed that the reliability of cognitive attitudes was .72, the affective

attitudes .85, and the overall reliability coefficient was .83. Since the Attitudes

construct has been studied in previous studies and there were only two indicators in

this study, the confirmatory factor analysis was performed later in the measurement

model in the main study. The final version of the whole items of this construct was

presented in Appendix 11.

Item Formation of Self-Confidence

This construct, Self-Confidence, adopted from Clément, Dörnyei & Noels (1994, p.

422) defined linguistic self-confidence as “low anxious affect and high

self-perceptions of L2 competence.” Self-confidence was specified in terms of a

social cognitive subcomponent named Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977) and an affective

one, L2 Learning Anxiety, or “the discomfort experienced when using a L2”

(MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément & Noels, 1998, p. 551). According to Clément et al.

(1994), self-confidence in L2 concerns an individual’s perceived belief about his or

her ability to achieve goals successfully, or the perceived potential of coping with a

range of tasks. This dimension is then operationally defined in terms of a low anxious

affect and high perceptions of L2 competence. Thus, in this study, the factor

self-confidence subsumes two components: Self-Efficacy and L2 Learning Anxiety.

Each is defined as follows:

Self-Efficacy: according to Bandura (1988), self-efficacy refers to personal judgments

of one’s L2 ability in order to conduct L2 learning actions to reach the designated

goals (Zimmerman, 2000). “I have confidence in solving most English problems I

encounter.“

L2 Learning Anxiety: refers to an individual’s level of L2 learning apprehension

99

experienced when called upon to use English in the English classroom. Horwitz,

Horwitz, and Cope’s (1986) study showed that anxiety inhibited language learning

and production. Students who are anxious may learn less and also may not be able

to demonstrate what they have learned. “I feel distressed when I am asked

questions in English classes.” The items in this scale were computed reversely.

Pilot Study

Participants and Data Collection Procedures

In this pilot study, the participants and data collection procedures were identical to

those described in the pilot study of Attitudes toward L2 Learning. Likewise, the two

dimensions of self-efficacy and L2 learning anxiety have been studied extensively in

language learning research and there are only two indicators in this construct. A

confirmatory factor analysis will be conducted later in the main study.

Item Analysis

In terms of the Extreme Group Method, it was found that all but one of the items

reached the significant levels. In addition, according to the Corrected Item-Total

Correlations, the results indicated that the same item did not perform appropriately.

Therefore, it was deleted and there were 11 items retained in the final version.


The Cronbach alpha coefficient was computed to illustrate the reliability of this

construct. The results indicated that the reliability of self-efficacy was .80 and L2

Learning Anxiety .73. The overall reliability came to .62. Similar to the construct of

Attitudes, Self-Confidence has been studied widely in previous studies and this

100

construct consisted of only two indicators in this study, the confirmatory factor

analysis was performed in the measurement model later in the main study. The final

version of the whole items of this construct was presented in Appendix 13.

Item Formation of Self-Regulatory Capacity

The theoretical concept of Self-Regulatory Capacity was based on Dörnyei (2001) and

it is characterized as actional controls with an attempt to preserve and monitor an

individual’s behavior, to eliminate unnecessary interruption and to manage emotions.

In the current study, Liu’s (2008) self-regulation in English language learning, based

on Tseng, Dörnyei & Schmitt (2006), was adopted and modified. The Self-Regulatory

Capacity in this study included four facets: Commitment Control, Metacognitive

Control, Satiation Control, and Emotional Control. These four facets were explained

in the following paragraphs:

Commitment Control: intends to maintain or enhance learners’ initial commitment to

their goals, such as to keep positive expectations and incentives. “When studying

English, I can effectively solve the problems I encounter during the learning

process.”

Metacognitive Control: refers to monitoring and controlling the state of concentration

and discouraging any factors that may cause procrastination and distraction.

“When learning English, I think my methods of controlling my concentration are

effective.“

Satiation Control: helps to eliminate or manipulate boredom and to maintain or

enhance interest in the task. “Once the novelty of learning English is gone, I easily

become impatient about it.”

Emotion Control: concerns generating positive and constructive emotional states in

101

the execution of intention and manipulating of negative emotional states so as to

defer the implementation of intention. “When I feel stressed about learning English,

I know how to handle the stress.”

Pilot Study


In this pilot study, the participants and data collection procedures were identical to

those described in the pilot study of Attitudes toward L2 Learning.

Item Analysis

Items were determined in terms of three criteria: (1) the value of the Extreme Group

Method (Feldt, 1961), (2) items with a Corrected Item-Total Correlation less than .40

(Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991), (3) items whose meaning did not reflect the theme of the

particular factor (Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). With the Extreme Group Method, the

values of the items in this construct, all but two, reached levels of significance and

could be discriminated with t-values between 4.20 and 11.48. The results of the

Corrected Item-Total Correlation showed that the same two items did not perform

well, and thus they were deleted. Eventually, the construct of Self-Regulatory

Capacity resulted in a total of 15 items: 6 for Commitment Control, 3 for

Metacognitive Control, 2 for Satiation Control, and 4 for Emotion Control. The items

were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors 1: strongly disagree

and 6: strongly agree.



102

calculated for each subscale, and intercorrelations between subscales were conducted.

Values of Cronbach’s alpha were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of

each indicator of the scale of self-regulatory capacity in language learning. The

resulting coefficients for all the indicators, shown in Table 3.10, ranged from .50

(Satiation Control) to .89 (Commitment Control); alpha reliability was .90 for the

overall scale of self-regulatory capacity. Though two indicators (Satiation Control and

Emotional Control) did not present an ideal internal consistency for the present pilot

study, the whole scale showed high reliability. Pearson correlations among the

indicators, shown in Table 3.11, illustrated that all were intercorrelated at significance

levels ranging from .26 to .78, suggesting the appropriateness of discriminant validity.

Therefore, the items, except for the three ill-performing items, associated with the five

indicators would be retained in the final version and the final version of the entire

range of items was presented in Appendix 15.

Table 3.10 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of Self-Regulatory

Capacity (N= 149)

M SD Cronbach’s α

1. Commitment Control 22.54 5.70 .89

2. Metacognitive Control 11.13 2.84 .73

3. Satiation Control 11.09 2.61 .50

4. Emotion Control 15.52 3.34 .62

Total .90

Table 3.11 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Self-Regulatory Capacity (N=149)

1 2 3 4 5

1. Commitment Control 1

2. Metacognitive Control .70** 1

3. Satiation Control .58** .60** 1

4. Emotion Control .78** .62** .58** 1

** p < .01

103

Unidimensionality

In this pilot study, an exploratory factor analysis was employed to estimate the

unidimensionality of self-regulatory capacity in terms of eigenvalues greater than 1.

The confirmatory factor analysis of this scale was conducted in the overall

measurement model in the main study. In this self-regulatory construct, the four

indicators--commitment control, metacognitive control, satiation control, and

emotional control--were proposed to load primarily on only one factor with a

principal axis factoring to demonstrate how well the latent variable reflected on each

indicator and the theoretical construct (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). The analysis,

shown in Table 3.12 yielded only one factor with an eigenvalue of 3.175, accounting

for 63.5 percent of the variance, which was deemed sufficiently supportive for the

unidimensionality of the indicators for the measured construct. Second, Table 3.13

presented us with the consistent factor-loading pattern. Further, the

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .82, which was higher than the suggested

value of .60 (Kaiser, 1974). Finally, the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity (Barlett, 1954) was

at a significance level (Chi-square = 358, df = 10, p<.001). According to the criteria

discussed, the results of the EFA indicated that the empirical data supported overall

the properties of unidimensionality.

Table 3.12 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Self-Regulatory Capacity



1 3.175 63.499 63.499

2 .811

3 .448

4. .363


104

Table 3.13 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Self-Regulatory Capacity

Component

1

Commitment Control .910

Metacognitive Control .764

Satiation Control .677

Emotion Control .850


Item Formation of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior

The concept of Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior in English language learning was

adopted from Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) Tactics of Vocabulary Learning

Involvement. In the current study, this construct was operationalized into four facets:

Self-Initiating, Self-Applying, Self-Experimenting, and Self-Surpassing Learning

Behavior. These four facets were explained in the following terms:

Self-Initiating Learning Behavior: concerns the covert and overt L2 learning behavior

to improve an individual’s second language proficiency, such as via regularly

listening to English-language programs, looking for opportunities to practice

speaking English or reading extra articles in English. “I will try to find

opportunities to speak English.”

Self-Applying Learning Behavior: regards the various learning acts an individual

applies in order to increase their vocabulary in second language learning, or to

incorporate sentence patterns into an integrative English composition or to

engage in daily communication practice. “I try to apply the newly learned words,

sentences or grammar into English writing.”

Self-Experimenting Learning Behavior: concerns making use of overt L2 learning

behavior to ensure or improve the effectiveness of a learning method. “I will try

to use various methods to learn English, such as reading extra articles or surfing

105

information on the internet.”

Self-Surpassing Learning Behavior: concerns the efforts an individual exerts to learn

more of the second language than suggested or to challenge one to better oneself.

“In addition to English taught at school, I will read extra English-language

articles.”

Pilot Study


The pilot study of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior was similar to that conducted

in Self-Regulatory Capacity. The participants and data collection procedures were

identical.

Item Analysis

Likewise, items were determined with respect to three criteria: (1) the value of the

Extreme Group Method (Feldt, 1961), (2) items with a Corrected Item-Total

Correlation less than .40 (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991), and (3) items whose meaning

did not reflect the theme of the particular factor (Tobacyk & Milford, 1983). With the

Extreme Group Method, the values of the items in this construct all reached levels of

significance and could be discriminated with t-values between 5.54 and 12.01. The

results of the Corrected Item-Total Correlation showed also that all items performed

well. Eventually, the construct of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior resulted in a

total of 23 items: 8 for Self-Initiating Learning Behavior, 6 for Self-Applying

Learning Behavior, 5 for Self-Experimenting Learning Behavior, and 4 for

Self-Surpassing Learning Behavior. The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point

Likert scale with anchors 1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree.

106



calculated for each subscale, and intercorrelations between subscales were conducted.

Values of Cronbach’s α were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of each

indicator of the scale of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior in language learning. The

resulting coefficients for all the indicators, shown in Table 3.14, ranged from .72

(Self-Surpassing Learning Behavior) to .80 (Self-Initiating Learning Behavior and

Self-Applying Learning Behavior); α reliability was .93 for the overall scale of the

Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior. Pearson correlations among the indicators, shown in

Table 3.15, showed that all were intercorrelated at significance levels ranging

from .74 to .78, suggesting the appropriateness of discriminant validity. Therefore, the

items pertaining to the four indicators would be retained in the final version. The final

version of the entire range of items was presented in Appendix 17.

Table 3.14 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of the Tactics of

L2 Learning Behavior (N= 149)


Self-Initiating Behavior 30.60 6.48 .80

Self-Applying Behavior 25.21 4.83 .80

Self-experimenting

Behavior 20.88 4.34 .79

Self-surpassing Behavior 16.91 3.56 .72

Total .93

Table 3.15 Pearson correlations among the subscales of the indicators of the Tactics of

L2 Learning Behavior (N= 149)

1 2 3 4

1 Self-Initiating Behavior 1

2 Self-Applying Behavior .78* 1

3 Self-experimenting Behavior .78* .76* 1

4 Self-surpassing Behavior .76* .76* .74* 1

* p < .05

107

Unidimensionality

In this L2 learning behavior construct, the four indicators--self-initiating,

self-applying, self-experimenting, and self-surpassing behavior--were proposed to

load primarily on only one factor with principal axis factoring. Similarly, the principal

axis factoring was performed to estimate how well this latent variable reflected on

each indicator and the theoretically designed construct (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

The analysis, shown in Table 3.13, yielded only one factor with an eigenvalue of

3.289, accounting for 82.2 percent of the variance, which was deemed sufficiently

supportive for the unidimensionality of the indicators for the measured construct.

Second, Table 3.14 provided us with a consistent high factor-loading pattern.

Furthermore, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was .86, exceeding the

recommended value of .60 (Kaiser, 1974). Finally, the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity

(Barlett, 1954) also reached a level of statistical significance (Chi-square = 457, df = 6,

p<.001). According to the criteria discussed, the results of the empirical data

supported the suitability for factor analysis.

Table 3.16 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior (N=149)



1 3.289 82.214 82.214

2 .262

3 .234

4. .216


108

Table 3.17 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior

Component

1

Self-Initiating Behavior .888

Self-Applying Behavior .877

Self-Experimenting Behavior .869

Self-Surpassing Behavior .860


Item Formation of Mastery of L2 Learning

Coulson et al. (1987, p. 1050) defined that mastery was skill, use, or knowledge. The

operational concept of this construct was inspired by Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008)

Mastery of Vocabulary Learning Tactics. In this study, it was hypothesized that a

learner with frequent L2 learning experiences applied and experimented with

whatever was learned from a series of learning activities. However, the

quantitative-oriented and goal-directed learning behavior may not lead to the success

of L2 learning (Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997). Recently, Tseng and Schmitt

(2008) suggested that a qualitative-oriented mastery of learning tactics would

highlight learners’ effective L2 capacity. In this study, Mastery of L2 Learning

adopted the qualitative approach, meaning a learner’s L2 capability to use and

combine skills and knowledge in second language learning. Since no existent scales

are available as a reference, the generation of the items for the indicators was based

on my own teaching experiences, suggestions of my advisor, Dr. Tseng, and advice of

two senior high school teachers. The item statements of this scale were situated in

English learning mastery which reflected the nature of L2 learning. In particular, this

scale consisted of four components: vocabulary, grammar, reading and writing.

Vocabulary Mastery: In language learning, vocabulary plays an important role. Cross

(1995) argues that a good store of words is crucial for understanding and

109

communication. The construct of vocabulary mastery assumes that students have

an ability to learn vocabulary skillfully and to combine skills or knowledge of

words that express meaning. “I try to practice newly learned words in sentences.”

Grammar Mastery: concerns an L2 learner’s ability to familiarize himself or herself

with sentence structures and sentence patterns and to be able to combine sentences

in writing. “I can analyze the structure of sentences in order to comprehend the

meaning.”

Reading Mastery: concerns an individual’s L2 ability to read strategically in order to

get the meaning from texts or from an individual’s background knowledge. “When

reading English articles, I will use the context to help me guess the meaning of the

unknown words.”

Writing Mastery: concerns an individual’s L2 ability to write coherently and

supportively through a sequence of writing activities that develop fluency and

sentence construction skills. “When writing an English composition, I will use

examples to support my main ideas.”

Before the pilot study, the items had been examined again by two item-writing

experts. One was my advisor, Dr. Tseng, and the other, Dr. Lin, was from the field of

Educational Psychological Statistics, who provided guidance for ensuring the

coherence of the items in order to ensure the content validity. This construct of

Mastery of L2 Learning resulted in 5 items for Vocabulary, 4 for Grammar, 4 for

Reading, and 4 items for Writing Mastery of L2 Learning. The items were rated for

agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors 1: never used and 5: used and highly

familiar.

110

Pilot Study


Again, the participants and data collection procedures in the pilot study of this

construct were the same as those described in the previous constructs.

Item Analysis

The criteria used to determine the items included (1) the value of Extreme Group

Method, (2) items with a Corrected Item-Total Correlation less than .40, and (3) item

appropriateness. In terms of the Extreme Group Method, it was found that all items

reached statistically significant levels, with t-values ranging from 5.63 to 12.69. The

Corrected Item-Total Correlations also indicated that all items performed

appropriately, with t-values greater than .30. Thus, all items were retained in the final

version.


The Cronbach alpha coefficient was computed to illustrate the reliability of this

construct. The results, shown in Table 3.18, indicated that the reliability of the

indicators ranged from .76 (Vocabulary Mastery) and .82 (Grammar Mastery and

Writing Mastery). The overall reliability for this construct came to .94. Pearson

correlations among the indicators, shown in Table 3.19, showed that all were

intercorrelated at significance levels ranging from .63 to .76, suggesting the

appropriateness of discriminant validity. Therefore, the items represented by the four

indicators were all retained in the final version. The final version containing all the

items was presented in Appendix19.

111

Table 3.18 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of Mastery of

L2 Learning (N= 149)


Vocabulary 16.88 4.06 .76

Grammar 11.83 3.68 .82

Reading 13.74 3.37 .78

Writing 12.03 3.68 .82

Total .94

Table 3.19 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Mastery of L2 Learning (N= 149)

1 2 3 4

1. Vocabulary 1

2. Grammar .72* 1

3. Reading .76* .64* 1

4. Writing .63* .74* .63* 1

* p < .05

Unidimensionality

Unidimensionality represents that the proposed measures can be converged and

explained by one and the only latent variable (Hair et al., 2010). An exploratory factor

analysis would be performed to examine the properties of unidimensionality. In this

mastery of L2 learning construct, the four indicators – Vocabulary Mastery, Grammar

Mastery, Reading Mastery and Writing Mastery -- were proposed to load primarily on

only one and the same factor with principal axis factoring. The analytical results,

shown in Table 3.20, yielded only one factor with an eigenvalue of 3.06, accounting

for 76.6 percent of the variance, which was deemed supportive for the

unidimensionality of the indicators for the measured construct of Mastery of L2

Learning. Second, Table 3.21 presented us with a consistent high factor-loading

pattern. Further, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) estimate was .80, which was greater

than the suggested value of .60 (Kaiser, 1974). Finally, the Barlett’s Test of Sphericity

112

(Barlett, 1954) was at a significant level (Chi-square = 369, df = 6, p<.001). In terms

of the criteria discussed, the results of the EFA indicated that the empirical data

supported, overall, the properties of unidimensionality.

Table 3.20 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Mastery of L2 Learning



1 3.064 76.592 76.592

2 .444

3 .291

4. .201


Table 3.21 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Mastery of L2 Learning

Component

1

Vocabulary .863

Grammar .848

Reading .813

Writing .793


Table 3.22 presented a summary of Cronbach’s alpha, scale mean and standard

deviation of the indicators of each scale discussed above.

113

Table 3.22 Summary of Cronbach’s alpha, scale mean and standard deviation of the

indicators of each scale

Latent variables & indicators Cronbach’s ⍺ Scale mean Std. deviation

Attitudes toward L2 Learning .83

Cognitive Attitudes .72 20.99 2.66

Affective Attitudes .85 12.40 3.40

Social Norms .90

Injunctive Norms .86 56.32 8.08

Descriptive Norms .76 49.59 7.94

Linguistic Norms .89 41.99 9.87

Self-Confidence .62

Self-Efficacy .80 15.41 4.05

L2 Learning Anxiety .73 21.22 5.66

Goal Intention .83

Integrative Orientation .83 33.06 6.91

Instrumental Orientation .85 35.40 6.90

Implementation Intention .89

Content Orientation .76 25.18 5.03

Situational Orientation .71 22.58 4.75

Strategic Orientation .82 25.21 5.03

Self-Regulatory Capacity .90

Commitment Control .89 22.54 5.70

Metacognitive Control .73 11.13 2.84

Satiation Control .50 11.09 2.61

Emotional Control .62 15.52 3.34

L2 Learning Behavior .93

Self-Initiating Behavior .80 30.60 6.48

Self-Applying Behavior .80 25.21 4.83

Self-Experimenting Behavior .79 20.88 4.34

Self-Surpassing Behavior .72 16.91 3.56

Mastery of L2 Learning .94

Vocabulary .76 16.88 4.06

Grammar .82 11.83 3.68

Reading .78 13.74 3.37

Writing .82 12.03 3.68

114

Achievement Measures

In this study, students’ final exams were taken as the index of the L2 achievement

measures because this was viewed to be the most reflective for the second language

learning experience near the time of investigation. The sources of the final exam

mainly came from three parts: Live ABC, vocabulary for entrance exam, and the

Sanmin Textbook. There are 10 vocabulary items and 10 cloze items in Live ABC,

which is a complementary outside reading material. There are 10 items from

vocabulary for the entrance exam, which provides students a more opportunity to

learn more new words. The last source of the exam was from the Sanmin Textbook,

which was the main reading and teaching material in class. The sections from the

textbook include 14 cloze items, 11 grammatical items, 5 vocabulary, 10 idioms and

phrases, 10 discourses, and 5 reading comprehension. The total number of the test

items was 85, with two points for each item for the last two sections of the Sanmin

Textbook and one for each of all the rest items. The exam analysis was divided into

six categories: vocabulary, cloze, grammar, idioms and phrases, and discourses, and

reading comprehension. Vocabulary and idiom/phrases tests concern more with

memory and understanding of the new words while grammar test concerns more with

newly learned syntactic structure. Discourse involves language understanding as a

system of related elements in terms of significance, meaning and function. Cloze test

concerns more with holistic understanding of vocabulary use and syntactic variation

in a passage. Reading comprehension concerns more with the overall understanding

of the whole reading passage. To broaden the dimension of second language

achievement, the six subtopics would be taken as the measure indicators of this

construct. Vocabulary was aggregated from three subcategories, and cloze by another

two, whereas the rest of the four were summed as a single score from the participants.

115

Main Study

The Hypothesized Model

With the aforementioned literature in mind, it was determined that this study would be

conducted for the purpose of constructing an L2 motivation model of learning

behavior, based mainly on the framework of Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned

behavior (TPB) in social psychology, reinforced by Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory

of implementation intention and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model of vocabulary

learning in applied linguistics. From the previous discussion of the importance of

attitudes, self-confidence, social milieu, goal-oriented motivation, self-regulating

capacity, and L2 achievement, reseasrchers proposed L2 motivation models and

considered the interplay of some of the constructs. For example, Ajzen’s TPB model

was employed to investigate undergraduates’ intention to take a second language

proficiency test (Lin & Chiou, 2010), implementation intention was discussed by

Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) but lacked empirical studies, and Tseng and Schmitt (2008)

examined the effects of self-regulatory capacity on mastery of vocabulary learning,

however, very few have placed these constructs on a motivational systems in a

comprehensive scope and examined their causal relationships simultaneously (for a

full review, please see discussion in chapter two). In the current study, the structure

and content of Ajzen’s TPB model has been modified into the context of an L2

learning motivation model with an attempt to account for the macro-perspective of

social and cultural impact as the initial motivation drivers and the micro-perspective

of individual differences in L2 learning behavior. Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999)

implementation intention was employed to highlight the psychological process of

formulating intention regarding L2 learning behavior and can thus increase the

commitment to engaging in language learning and achieving goals. Tseng and

116

Schmitt’s (2008) model was adopted to strengthen the significant volitional factor in

self-regulation and mastery of L2 learning. The present study was thus designed with

nine key constructs.

The L2 learning motivation model proposed in this study is shown in Figure 3.4,

in which the variables have been modified to make them relevant to second language

learning and tapped into the current study in the field of applied linguistics. These

variables were termed Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms, Self-Confidence,

Goal Intention, Implementation Intention, Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of L2

Learning Behavior, Mastery of L2 Learning and L2 Achievement.

117

[co

g= C

ogn

itiv

e A

ttit

ud

es

tow

ard

L2

Le

arn

ing,

aff

= A

ffe

ctiv

e A

ttit

ud

es

tow

ard

L2

Le

arn

ing;

inj=

Inju

nct

ive

No

rms,

de

s= D

esc

rip

tive

No

rms,

lin

g=

Lin

guis

tic

No

rms;

eff

= S

elf

-Eff

icac

y, a

nx=

L2

Le

arn

ing

An

xie

ty;

int=

Inte

grat

ive

Ori

en

tati

on

, in

s= In

stru

me

nta

l Ori

en

tati

on

; co

n=

Co

nte

nt

Ori

en

tati

on

, sit

= S

itu

atio

nal

Ori

en

tati

on

, str

= S

trat

egi

c O

rie

nta

tio

n;

com

= C

om

mit

me

nt

Co

ntr

ol,

me

ta=

Me

taco

gnit

ive

Co

ntr

ol,

sat=

Sat

iati

on

C

on

tro

l, e

mo

= E

mo

tio

nal

Co

ntr

ol;

vo

c= V

oca

bu

lary

, grm

= G

ram

mar

, re

ad=

Re

adin

g, w

rt=

Wri

tin

g; v

o=

Vo

cab

ula

ry, c

z= C

loze

, gm

= G

ram

mar

, dm

=

Idio

ms

and

Ph

rase

s, d

s= D

isco

urs

e, a

nd

rd

= R

ead

ing]

Figu

re 3

.4 T

he

hyp

oth

esi

zed

L2

mo

tiva

tio

nal

mo

de

l of

pla

nn

ed

lear

nin

g b

eh

avio

r

Att

itu

des

Self

-

Reg

ula

tio

n

L2

Learn

ing

Beh

av

ior

Self

-

Co

nfi

den

ce

So

cia

l N

orm

s

Imp

lem

en

t

Inte

nti

on

Mast

ery

D5

Go

al

Inte

nti

on

L2

Ach

iev

em

en

t

str

con

sit

com

emo

sat

met

a

surp

exp

app

ini

vo

wrt

read

grm

voc

dsdmgmcz

int

rd

ins

aff

cog

linginj

des

anx

eff

e10

e11

e12

e16

e15

e14

e13

e24

e23

e22

e21

e27

e28

e29

e30

e26

e25

e17

e18

e19

e20

e8

e9

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e7

e6

D2

D5

D3

D4

D1

D6

118

In the model, Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms, and Self-Confidence were

hypothesized to be determinants of both Goal Intention and Implementation Intention.

In addition to the hypothesized direct effects on both types of intention, the Social

Norms variable was also posited to have both direct and indirect effects on

Self-Regulatory Capacity. The reasons for the causal paths lay in the hypotheses that

the scale of social norms was a newly developed measure and represented a type of

criteria regulating the behavior of L2 learners who were expected to reach a certain

level of L2 acquisition. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that learners’

perceived expectations from their significant others will have an impact on

individuals’ self-regulatory capacity. “Social Norms” was also hypothesized to affect

Language Achievement indirectly via the two types of intention, Self-Regulatory

Capacity, the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, and Mastery of L2 Learning as the

mediators. In addition, the two types of intention were theorized to play determinant

roles, affecting Self-regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, and

have indirect effects on L2 Achievement with Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of

L2 Learning Behavior, and Mastery of L2 Learning as the mediating roles. Further,

Self-Regulatory Capacity was hypothesized to have influence directly on the Tactics

of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning, and indirectly on L2

Achievement with the Tactics of L2 Learning and Mastery of L2 Learning as the

mediators. The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior was hypothesized to have direct

influence on the Mastery of L2 Learning and L2 Achievement, and indirectly on the

latter as well with Mastery of L2 Learning as the mediator. Finally, Mastery was

hypothesized to have direct influence on L2 Achievement.

Figure 3.3 depicted a complete specification of the structural model with nine

latent variables. Each construct comprised a set of multiple items. With the constructs

119

specified, I then specified the measurement model to be tested, with specification of

relationships among the constructs. The rectangles represented the measured indicator

variables, and the arrows denoted the relationships between the latent variables and

the respective measured indicators. As indicated, the two indicators measuring

Attitudes toward L2 Learning were linked to that latent variable, as were the other

constructs. The curved arrows between Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms,

and Self-Confidence indicated correlation relationships between them. Finally, e1~e30

represented the errors associated with each indicator, and D1~D6, the disturbulances

associated with the endogenous variables. The proposed constructs and hypothesized

relationships were shown in the following figure.

Research Questions

The study sought to address the following research questions as an attempt to

shed light on L2 learning motivation. The first research question aimed to interpret the

overall fit of the construct of the current model, and the following three questions

examined the explanatory effects of each phase contributing to the model. The last

two sub-questions explored the correlations of the antecedent factors and the causal

relationships of Social Norms and Self-Confidence on Self-Regulatory Capacity

and/or the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior.

1. To what extent can the structure and processes of the constructs explain the model

of L2 learners’ motivation?

2. To what extent can the three antecedents—Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social

Norms, and Self-Confidence—contribute to Goal Intention and Implementation

Intention?

3. To what extent can Goal Intention and Implementation Intention lead to the

120

demonstration of Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior?

4. To what extent can Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior affect Mastery of L2 Learning?

5. To what extent can the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2

Learning contribute to L2 Achievement?

6. [sub-question 1] To what extent can Social Norms affect Self-Regulatory

Capacity?

7. [sub-question 2] To what extent can Self-Confidence affect Self-Regulatory

Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior?

Participants

The sample in the main study consisted of 265 participants. To pursue the

foregoing research objective, this study involved questionnaire surveys administered

to senior high school students from a school in northern Taiwan. The participants were

of a convenience sample selected with the assistance of four English teachers who

were teaching the participants a compulsory English course. The participant’s English

level could be considered as low-intermediate to intermediate, in general, with respect

to the rank status of the school in the nationwide entrance exams. In Taiwan, students

need to participate in a national entrance exam to enter a senior high school or a

university. From a sampling perspective, the entrance exam seemed to guarantee a

certain degree of comparability of student levels and thus helped to prevent a biased

sample from occurring.

Since one of the major focuses of this study was to examine the impact of social

contexts and behavioral intention on learners’ L2 motivation, it was essential to have a

121

sample which had been adjusted to an environment for a period of time and was in

line with the perceived academic expectations from their parent and teachers, and the

sample should also possess a certain level of English proficiency. The first-year

students (10th

grade) were preferred to the second- and the third-year students in that

the latter two underwent heavier pressure in terms of preparing for the university

entrance examination in Taiwan. The first-year students were selected because they

have studied English as a required course for at least seven years. These participants

were assumed to be roughly equivalent in their language proficiency levels due to

their participation in the entrance exam and had adjusted to their learning environment

in that the study was conducted near the end in their second semester of their senior

high school studies. The participants at this crucial time (having just passed the

entrance exam to enter senior high school and still two years away from the university

entrance exam) were in rather relaxed but self-regulated learning settings, which lent

particular relevance and validity to the research concern with regard to L2 learning in

this study.

Measurements

To ensure that the theoretical variables of other measurements were tapped and the

face and content validity of the items were appropriate to the Chinese culture, two

more experts in second language acquisition were invited to examine the scale items

and both voiced approval of them. For the Social Norms dimension in the main study,

only four items obtaining the highest scores in the item-total correlation from each

social group (i.e. family, teachers, and peers respectively) would be selected from the

tested scale. Two purposes for choosing the selected items are that the selected items

may better represent the sample targeted, and the other is to avoid fatigue effects of

122

respondents while completing the questionnaire. Although the selected items are not

comprehensive, they are representative of the tested scale in the earlier phase. Further,

confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for all scales to confirm both the factor

structure and its validity. The internal consistency reliability was assessed using

Cronbach’s α, which is grounded on simple correlations of traditional statistical

reliability and has been criticized as not being able to capture the essence of the

psychometric properties of a scale. (Hair et al., 2006). Therefore, in addition to the

Cronbach’s α computed for each scale, a Pearson correlation among the indicators

was examined to determine whether the constructs can be discriminated from each

other appropriately.

Data Collection Procedures

The surveys were conducted in the later half of the spring semester of 2011. For the

purpose of this study, a sample population of freshmen from a senior high school in

northern Taiwan was recruited to participate in this study. I first consulted with their

teachers, explained the purpose of this study to them and asked them for permission to

conduct the survey in their classes. After receiving permission, I visited the

classrooms, during a time that was convenient for the teacher, to discuss the study

with the students. The purpose of this study was explained to the students, and they

were asked to sign a consent form prior to completing the questionnaire, in order to

give permission to use the scores of their final exam on the English subject. Students

were told to ensure the confidentiality of the data, and that the results would not have

any effects on their grades. The participating students and helping teachers were

assured that I would protect their anonymity in any future publications based on the

research. The questionnaire was administered in the regular classroom before the final

123

exams. It took students approximately fifteen to twenty minutes to complete the

questionnaire.

Participants first completed the questionnaire, which was divided into two

sections. Section one solicited demographic information including items relative to

age, gender, historical length of studying English and the average of time spent on

learning/studying English per week. In section two, participants responded to eight

other scales. Items belonging to different dimensions were mixed together into a

single 143 item measure, including 7 items for Attitudes toward L2 Learning, 36 for

Social Norms, 11 for Self-Confidence, 16 for Goal Intention, 18 for Implementation

Intention, 15 for Self-Regulatory Capacity, 23 for the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior

and 17 for Mastery of L2 Learning. To thank the students for their cooperation in this

study, each participant received three pieces of Ferrero Rocher chocolate.

124

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS

The previous chapter introduced the basics of utilizing structural equation modeling

and the development of the psychometric scales involved in this thesis. This chapter

addressed the results of two basic models composed in a structural equation

model—the measurement model and the structural model with confirmatory factor

analysis. The measurement model estimated the relationships between the indicators

and their hypothesized latent variables, while the structural model specified the

relationships among the latent variables.

Assessment of the Measurement Model

The pilot study has supported that the proposed constructs established internal

consistency and unidimensionality by surveying a sample of 149 respondents, based

on the corresponding items. This section focused on the assessment of the

measurement model with a confirmatory factor analysis. Specifying the measurement

model is a critical stage in developing a structural model because it helps identify

indicator variables and pair them to the constructs they represent (Hair et al., 2010;

Lievens et al., 2008). The central advantage of establishing a measurement model is to

test how a conceptually grounded theory can be accounted for by the represented

indicators through various measured items. The following sections addressed first the

goodness-of-fit of the measurement model and then the results of the assessment of

the construct validity, including convergent and discriminant validity.

Estimate of the Model Fit of the Measurement Model

According to the CFA, the goodness-of-fit of the measurement model were indicated

125

by the CFI (.97), NFI= .95, NNFI= .96, IFI= .97, SRMR= .067, which showed good

fits. Though the normed χ2 was within the suggested threshold of 3.00 (χ2

=

1004.49, df= 369, χ2/df= 2.72, p< .00), the model’s χ2

was significant, and the

RMSEA (.083) was poor. In order to provide a good base for the structural model, the

modification indices were examined to determine whether there were ways to improve

the model fits.

Modification of the Measurement Model

In addition to the paths that were proposed, the modification indices with each of the

loadings of the indicators were examined and used only as a guideline for justifying

improvements of the relationships in the model. As shown in Table 4.1, there were

two indicators showing fairly high loading values, which implied a need for

cross-loadings. First, the modification index suggested additional paths from the

indicator, Linguistic Norms, in the Social Norms construct to the Self-Confidence

construct (65.07), to the Self-Regulatory Capacity construct (31.55) and to the

Mastery of L2 Learning construct (52.20). Further, the indicator, Strategic Orientation,

in the Implementation Intention construct was suggested to cross-load on the

Self-Confidence construct (31.97), to the Goal Intention construct (46.22), and to the

Self-Regulatory Capacity construct (58.16).

126

Table 4.1 Two indicators with fairly high loading values suggested by modification

indices

ATT SONM SCON GLIN IMIN SR BHV MAST L2

ACH

Hypothesized model

linguistic 10.42 --- 65.07 .11 15.15 31.55 24.89 52.20 2.59

strategic 12.10 27.46 31.97 46.22 --- 58.16 19.73 19.80 3.80

Modified model

linguistic 6.31 --- --- 7.97 1.32 2.20 3.04 6.78 .77

strategic 3.01 3.22 .25 .82 --- --- .60 4.10 .69

It is strongly recommended that modification indices be made on the basis of

theoretical account (Hair et al., 2010; Kline, 2011). With the theoretical consideration

in mind, two respecifications of the measured indicators were made, one at a time.

First, an additional path was made from the indicator, Linguistic Norms, to

Self-Confidence construct for two reasons, in spite of the loadings suggested on the

two other constructs. First, it was the highest modification index for Linguistics

Norms in order to improve the model fit and, second, it was reasonable that perceived

linguistic norms were socially approved which, in turn, influenced individuals’

self-confidence in second language learning (Dörnyei, 2001). Another additional path

was made from the indicator, Strategic Orientation, to connect to Self-Regulatory

Capacity. It made sense that this indicator be involved in the implementation means,

i.e., in execution of an action. Strategic Orientation was itself associated with

technically planned cues concerning how to manage their learning which, to some

extent, was in relation to personal volitional controls which might help sustain the

success of strategic learning. In other words, this suggested that individuals who were

high in strategic implementation would have higher volitional controls in L2 learning.

The current model respecification was made with respect to improving model fit

that was theoretically justified. Table 4.2 displayed the new output generated by the

127

LISREL 8.8 program, providing the goodness-of-fit for the modified model. The

overall fit revealed the χ2 value decreased from 1004.92 to 850.49, with a drop of 2

degrees of freedom (from 369 to 367), and the normed χ2 value of 2.32. The

RMSEA (.071) fell within the suggested guideline of .080, and the other fit indices

were all a little higher than the hypothesized model, indicating good fits. These

diagnostics suggested that the modified measurement model provided a better overall

fit. The substantive differences lay in a better chi-square value and a much better

improvement in the RMSEA value. Despite the minor modifications suggested by

such a complex model, the results provided evidence in support of the model

hypotheses concerning relationships among the measurement constructs.

Table 4.2 Comparison of goodness-of-fit (GOF) measures between the original

hypothesized and the revised L2 learning motivation models

GOF Index Original model Revised model

Absolute measures

χ2 (chi-square) 1004.92 850.49

Degrees of freedom 369 367

Normed chi-square 2.72 2.32

p-value .00 .00

RMSEA .083 .071

SRMR .067 .054

Incremental fit measures

CFI .97 .97

NFI .95 .96

NNFI .96 .97

IFI .97 .97

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity refers to “a high proportion of variance in common” (Hair et al.,

2010, p. 709) shared by a set of items representing the indicators of a specific

128

construct. With a confirmatory factor analysis, this section examined how well the

selected measured items reflected the proposed theoretical constructs that the items

were designed to measure. Table 4.3 displayed the unstandardized and standardized

estimate loadings of the modified measurement model. It is recommended that high

loadings on a factor would indicate that they converge on a common characteristic,

the latent variable (Hair et al., 2010). For the test of construct validity of the

measurement model, standardized loadings representing estimates of constructs of

indicator variables were examined and the guidelines suggested that individual

standardized factor loadings (regression weights) should reach at least .50 and,

ideally .70, in the measurement model.

The table (Table 4.3) showed that all indicator variables have met the significant

level above the criteria t-value (1.96). All of the loadings estimates showed

statistically significance. The results thus provided initial evidence of convergent

validity. However, it was not unexpected that some of the standardized estimates fell

below the ideal .70, given the complexity of such a model. Twenty-seven out of thirty

indicators met the minimum requirement of .50, indicating a high convergent validity

in the context of items’ communality. The three indicators, Instrumental Orientation in

Goal Intention, Discourse, and Reading Comprehension in L2 Achievement, fell

below the minimum preferred .50 cutoff loading.

129

Table 4.3 Estimates of the parameters of the modified model

indicator Latent variable

Unstandardized Estimate

Standard error

Standardized estimate

error

cognitive (ATT) 1.51 .16 .55** .70

affective (ATT) 3.02 .17 .95** .10

injunctive (SONM) 6.02 .44 .81** .35

descriptive (SONM) 5.94 .47 .75** .44

linguistic

(SONM)

(SCON)

3.33

5.26

.55

.55

.34**

.53**

.50

anxiety (SCON) 3.69 .31 .66** .56

self-efficacy (SCON) 3.75 .19 .95** .10

content (IMIN) 4.34 .27 .82** .32

situational (IMIN) 3.36 .25 .73** .46

strategic

(IMIN)

(SR)

1.78

2.44

.21

.23

.41**

.56**

.20

integrative (GLIN) 5.55 .87 .76** .42

instrumental (GLIN) 1.18 .40 .20** .96

commitment (SR) 4.99 .25 .93** .13

metacognitive (SR) 3.22 .18 .86** .25

satiation (SR) 2.17 .14 .79** .37

emotion (SR) 2.78 .19 .78** .39

initiating (BHV) 5.40 .29 .90** .19

applying (BHV) 3.90 .22 .87** .24

experiment (BHV) 3.30 .20 .84** .29

surpass (BHV) 2.81 .17 .84** .29

vocabulary (MAST) 3.34 .21 .83** .32

grammar (MAST) 2.63 .18 .79** .37

reading (MAST) 2.98 .19 .82** .33

writing (MAST) 3.11 .19 .83** .32

vocabulary (L2 ACH) 2.29 .18 .75** .44

cloze (L2 ACH) 2.39 .17 .80** .35

grammar (L2 ACH) .83 .10 .50** .75

idiom (L2 ACH) .97 .09 .64** .59

discourse (L2 ACH) 1.89 .29 .43** .82

reading (L2 ACH) .68 .12 .38** .86

* p < .05, ** p< .01

130

According to theoretical review, the Instrumental Orientation should be retained

for two reasons. First, this indicator had high content validity according to the experts’

judgment. Second, it has been evidenced from previous studies sought to represent a

part of the Goal Intention construct in Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model.

Therefore, dropping this indicator may risk the construct at the expense of conceptual

inconsistency (Hair et al., 2010). Discourse and Reading Comprehension were also

retained for the empirical purposes of maintaining the completeness of the final

grades for L2 Achievement, given that they were below the conservative cutoff

values.

The following step was undertaken to compute the construct reliability, which

was also an indicator of convergent reliability. Table 4.4 displayed the reliability of

the indicator variables and the composite reliability of each surveyed construct. The

results showed that all but one exceeded the suggested threshold of .70, indicating

internal consistency and convergent reliability. Both the factor loadings and the

reliability estimates demonstrated that most of the measured items consistently

indicate the measured indicator variables, which also adequately represent the

convergence or internal consistency of the same latent construct. (Hair et al., 2010).

131

Table 4.4 Cronbach’sα, scale mean and standard deviation of the structural model

Latent variables & indicators Cronbach’sα Scale mean Std. deviation

Attitudes toward L2 Learning .82

Cognitive Attitudes .72 21.23 2.76

Affective Attitudes .83 12.66 3.17

Social Norms .91

Injunctive Norms .85 57.46 7.46

Descriptive Norms .78 50.46 7.92

Linguistic Norms .89 42.19 9.92

Self-Confidence .86

Self-efficacy .83 15.51 3.94

L2 Learning Anxiety .77 20.50 5.56

Goal Intention .82

Integrative Orientation .88 32.98 7.28

Instrumental Orientation .80 34.98 6.01

Implementation Intention .89

Content Orientation .80 24.51 5.27

Situational Orientation .77 22.93 4.74

Strategic Orientation .74 25.57 4.50

Self-Regulatory Capacity .93

Commitment Control .88 23.35 5.46

Metacognitive Control .76 15.06 3.80

Satiation Control .60 11.00 2.78

Emotional Control .83 12.03 2.91

Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior

.92

Self-Initiating Behavior .70 31.42 6.22

Self-Applying Behavior .78 25.37 4.63

Self-Experimenting Behavior .74 21.33 3.99

Self-Surpassing Behavior .72 17.20 3.42

Mastery of L2 Learning .92

Vocabulary .74 16.53 4.05

Grammar .75 11.81 3.82

Reading .81 14.09 3.61

Writing .82 11.35 3.75

132

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is to examine the extent to which a construct can be truly

distinct from the other constructs. Significant discriminant validity means the

measured constructs are able to catch the unique characteristics that others do not.

Table 4.5 showed the discriminant validity of the current model. There are nine

constructs and the interconstruct covariances were standardized and shown as

correlations. The results indicated that all structural constructs were discriminated at a

statistically significant level. Though there are some constructs showing high

correlations, they were examined with the EFA to indicate that there was one and only

one factor in each construct. Further, each construct was defined with distinct

theoretical consideration and the measured items were examined with content validity

with four experts and a pilot study of 149 students. Hair et al. (2010) even stated that

sometimes discriminant validity can still be maintained even high correlations up

to .90 emerge. Goal intention and implementation intention were postulated to be

related because they were conceptually dependent (Dai & Tseng, 2011): the former is

goal in nature and the latter is behavior in nature. In addition to their high correlation,

these two constructs further demonstrate high correlations with L2 learning behavior

respectively. The reasons may lie partly in the fact that goal-oriented intention is

originally the major determiner of behavior in Ajzen’s TPB model, and partly lie in

the fact that implementation intention originally plans what students will do in their

learning process. Therefore, these constructs should be taken as distinct factors.

133

Table 4.5 Correlations matrix of the structural constructs of the revised measurement

model (standardized)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Attitudes 1

2 Social Norms .47* 1

3 Self-confidence .76* .31

* 1

4 Goal intention .76* .78

* .63

* 1

5 Implement Intention .83* .68

* .59

* .95

*

6 Self-Regulation .80* .33

* .84

* .60

* .69

* 1

7 L2 Learning Behavior .83* .64

* .75

* .92

* .98

* .79

* 1

8 L2 Mastery .67* .27

* .75

* .64

* .68

* .75

* .76

* 1

9 L2 Achievement .39* .15

* .37

* .24

* .32

* .37

* .29

* .34

* 1

* p < .05

Summary

Taken together, the empirical evidence supported the convergent and discriminant

validity of the proposed model. Although three loading estimates were below .70, two

of these were just below the threshold .70 and the other did not seem to appear to be

significantly harmful to the model fit or the internal consistency. The interconstruct

covariances all showed statistical differences, and the reliability estimates all but one

exceeded .70. In addition, the model fitted relatively well with the empirical data. As

construct validity of the measurement model is obtained, we may go on to test the

structural model.

Assessment of the Structural Model

In addition to the measurement model, which focused on the relationships of

constructs to their indicator variables, SEM analysis also estimated the correlations

among the constructs to show their causal relationships that represented the structural

hypotheses proposed by the researcher. With a confirmatory factor analysis, this

section examined first how well the selected indicator variables represented the

proposed structural constructs. Generally speaking, the structural model diagnostics

134

were examined in a similar manner as they were for the CFA measurement model,

with two additional necessary conditions. First, the number of free parameters is less

than or equal to the number of observations (i.e. dfM ≥ 0) (Kline, 2005). The number

of observations can be calculated as v(v+1)/2, where v is the number of observed

indicator variables. In the current study, there were 30 indicator variables, the number

of observed parameters was thus: 30(30+1)/2 = 465. The hypothesized model

consisted of 82 parameters in total (47 unfixed path coefficients, 5 residual error terms,

and 30 measurement error variances). Second, the unstandardized coefficient (loading)

of a factor to one of its indicators was fixed to equal 1.0, in order to set the scale of

the latent variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).

135

[co

g= C

ogn

itiv

e A

ttit

ud

es t

ow

ard

L2

Lea

rnin

g, a

ff=

Aff

ecti

ve A

ttit

ud

es t

ow

ard

L2

Lea

rnin

g; in

j= In

jun

ctiv

e N

orm

s, d

es=

Des

crip

tive

N

orm

s, li

ng=

Lin

guis

tic

No

rms;

eff

= Se

lf-E

ffic

acy,

an

x= L

2 L

earn

ing

An

xiet

y; in

t= In

tegr

ativ

e O

rien

tati

on

, in

s= In

stru

men

tal O

rien

tati

on

; co

n=

Co

nte

nt

Ori

enta

tio

n, s

it=

Situ

atio

nal

Ori

enta

tio

n, s

tr=

Stra

tegi

c O

rien

tati

on

; co

m=

Co

mm

itm

ent

Co

ntr

ol,

met

a= M

etac

ogn

itiv

e C

on

tro

l, sa

t= S

atia

tio

n C

on

tro

l, em

o=

Emo

tio

nal

Co

ntr

ol;

voc=

Vo

cab

ula

ry, g

rm=

Gra

mm

ar, r

ead

= R

ead

ing,

wrt

= W

riti

ng;

vo

= V

oca

bu

lary

, cz=

Clo

ze,

gm=

Gra

mm

ar, d

m=

Idio

ms

and

Ph

rase

s, d

s= D

isco

urs

e, a

nd

rd

= R

ead

ing]

Fig

ure

4.1

Res

ult

s o

f th

e h

ypo

thes

ized

L2

mo

tiva

tio

nal

mo

del

of

pla

nn

ed le

arn

ing

beh

avio

r

Att

itudes

Sel

f-

Reg

ula

tion

L2 L

earn

ing

Beh

avio

r

Sel

f-

Confi

den

ce

Soci

al

Norm

s

Imple

men

t

Inte

nti

on

Mas

tery

D5

Goal

Inte

nti

on

L2

Ach

ievem

ent

.12

.02

.77*

.49*

.04

.46*

.38*

.14

.25*

.46*

.72*

.61*

.44*

-.34

*

.01 -.

12 .60*

.24*

.77*

.34*

.48*

str

con

sit

com

emo

sat

met

a

surp

exp

app

ini

vo

wrt

read

grm

voc

dsdmgmcz

int

rd

ins

aff

cog

linginj

des

anx

eff

.79

.23

.83

.76

.41

.78

.86

.93

.56

.79

.87

.90

.85

.84

.82

.79

.83

.81

.37.5

1

.64

.43

.81

.74

.92

.55

.40

.72

.74

.65

.97

.49

e10

e11

e12

e16

e15

e14

e13

e24

e23

e22

e21

e27

e28

e29

e30

e26

e25

e17

e18

e19

e20

e8e9

e1e2

e3 e4 e5

e7e6

D2

D1

D3

D5

D6

D4

136

Overall Model Fit of the Structural Model

The structural model shown in the path diagram in Figure 4.1 was administered with

the LISREL program. The emphases of the results were examined first with regard to

the SEM model fit and then as to whether the structural relationships were consistent

with theoretical expectations. Similar to the goodness-of-fit indices discussed in the

measurement model, the output of the structural CFA model also included several fit

indices, and the guidelines remained similar for assessing the fit of a structural model.

Table 4.6 showed the goodness-of-fit for nine structural model indices for the

hypothesized model of L2 learning motivation. The overall χ2 was 912.74, with 383

degrees of freedom (p< .05) and the normed χ2 was 2.38 for the model, below the

cutoff value of 3.0, providing initial evidence for good fit for the model. The p-value

was significant (p<.000), which was not unexpected, based on a sample over 250

respondents and a nine-construct model with 30 total indicator variables (Hair et al.,

2010).

Table 4.6 Goodness-of-fit for the structural model of the hypothesized model

Chi-square df RMSEA NFI NNFI CFI IFI SRMR

912.74 383 .074 .95 .97 .97 .97 .059

p <.000, normed χ2 = 2.38

Given the size of the huge model with 30 measured indicators and nine

constructs, the value of RMSEA (.074) stayed within the suggested cutoff value

of .080. With a 90% confidence interval, i.e. the true value of the RMSEA of this

structural model was between .068 and .080. The RMSEA therefore provided

additional support for the model fit. Next, the standardized root mean square residual

(SRMR) was estimated with a value of .059, which was below the cutoff value of .08

and was therefore considered favorable (Kline, 2005). Moving to the incremental fit

indices, five goodness-of-fit indices were estimated, with the CFI being the most

137

widely used index. In this L2 learning motivation model, CFI showed a value of .97,

exceeding the preferred guideline of greater than .90 for a model of this complexity.

The other incremental fit indices (NFI, NNFI, IFI) also exceeded the suggested

threshold value of .90. According to these fit indices, the hypothesized theoretical

division of nine latent variables was strongly supported.

With the improvement of the measurement model, which was examined with

emphasis on achieving an adequate fit according to three modification indices, it is

argued that only after then can the CFA model perform a good structural model (Hair

et al., 2010). Taken together with the absolute and incremental fit indices, the results

suggested that the structural model of the L2 learning motivation provided a good

overall fit and supported further examination of the model results.

Estimates of the Factor Loadings of the Indicators for the Structural Model

As the satisfactory structural model fit has been met, I next examined the path

coefficients and loadings estimates of the indicators, presented in Table 4.7. Virtually,

the loadings estimates were relatively stable from the CFA results, both in the

measurement model and the structural model. The maximum change was .07,

presenting evidence of the stability of the measured indicators and providing further

support of the construct validity of the measurement model.

138

Table 4.7 Unstandardized and standardized factor loadings for the structural model of

L2 learning motivation model

Indicator Latent variable

Unstandardized Estimate

Standard error

Standardized estimate

error

cognitive (ATT) 1.50 .16 .55** .70

affective (ATT) 2.92 .17 .92** .15

injunctive (SONM) 5.50 .44 .74** .46

descriptive (SONM) 5.68 .47 .72** .49

linguistic (SONM)

(SCON)

3.97

4.83

.56

.55

.40**

.49**

.47

anxiety (SCON) 3.62 .31 .65** .58

self-efficacy (SCON) 3.83 .19 .97** .06

content (IMIN) 4.35 .83** .32

situational (IMIN) 3.46 .25 .76** .43

strategic (IMIN)

(SR)

1.78

2.45

.22

.21

.41**

.56**

.19

integrative (GLIN) 5.69 .79** .38

instrumental (GLIN) 1.35 .39 .23** .95

commitment (SR) 4.97 .93** .13

metacognitive (SR) 3.22 .15 .86** .26

satiation (SR) 2.17 .12 .79** .38

emotion (SR) 2.78 .16 .78** .39

initiating (BHV) 5.39 .90** .19

applying (BHV) 3.91 .18 .87** .24

experimenting (BHV) 3.28 .17 .84** .30

surpassing (BHV) 2.82 .14 .85** .28

vocabulary (MAST) 3.36 .83** .31

grammar (MAST) 2.64 .18 .79** .37

reading (MAST) 2.98 .19 .82** .33

writing (MAST) 3.06 .20 .81** .34

vocabulary (L2 ACH) 2.27 .74** .45

cloze (L2 ACH) 2.41 .22 .81** .34

grammar (L2 ACH) .84 .11 .51** .74

idiom (L2 ACH) .97 .10 .64** .59

discourse (L2 ACH) 1.88 .30 .43** .82

reading (L2 ACH) .67 .12 .37** .86

*p < .05, **p < .01

139

Estimates of the Coefficients of the Structural Paths for the Structural Model

Table 4.8 displayed the unstandardized and standardized structural path estimates.

All but six structural path estimates were significant. The insignificant paths occurred

in the estimates between Self-Confidence and Goal Intention as well as

Implementation Intention, between Goal Intention and Self-Regulatory Capacity as

well as the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, between Self-Regulatory Capacity and

the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, and between the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior and L2 Achievement. The values of these six estimates showed statistical

significance below the critical t-value of 1.96. Therefore, these hypothesized

relationships were not supported by the estimates. Given that these were uncorrelated

structural relationships, it was necessary to discuss whether they would be supported

by previous research or the current structural model would denote new findings in the

hypothesized model. However, given that 12 out of 18 estimates were consistent with

the hypotheses in this complex model, these results supported the theoretical model

and served to be capable of capturing the process of L2 learning motivation.

140

Table 4.8 Results of the unstandardized and standardized structural path estimates of

L2 learning motivation model

Structural

relationship

Unstandardized factor loading

Standard error Standardized factor loading

H01: ATT GLIN .47 .14 .46**

H02: ATT IMIN .72 .13 .72**

H03: SONM GLIN .63 .09 .61**

H04: SONM IMIN .44 .07 .44**

H05: SONM SR -.34 .13 -.34**

H06: SCON GLIN .01 .12 .01

H07: SCON IMIN -.12 .11 -.12

H08: SCON SR .60 .08 .60**

H09: SCON BHV .24 .07 .24**

H10: GLIN SR .12 .18 .12

H11: GLIN BHV .02 .11 .02

H12: IMIN SR .49 .12 .49**

H13: IMIN BHV .77 .13 .77**

H14: SR BHV .04 .08 .04

H15: SR MAST .46 .08 .46**

H16: BHV MAST .38 .08 .38**

H17: BHV L2 ACH .14 .11 .14

H18: MAST L2 ACH .25 .11 .25*

*p < .05, **p < .01

In addition to the loadings estimates, the modification indices did not indicate

excessively high values, which suggested modified relationships. In terms of these

two diagnostics, the results supported an overall good fit of the structural model.

Standardized Total Effects and Standardized Indirect Effects

Total effects of a variable are the sum of both the direct and indirect effects of the

variables. The results of the standardized total effects of all the latent variables were

shown in Table 4.9.

141

Table 4.9 Standardized total effects and standardized indirect effects of the L2

learning motivation model

Standardized

total effects

Standardized

indirect effects

ATT GLIN .46** ATT SR .41**

ATT IMIN .72** ATT BHV .58**

SONM GLIN .61** ATT MAST .41**

SONM IMIN .44** ATT L2 ACH .18**

SONM SR -.05 SONM SR .29**

SCON GLIN .01 SONM BHV .35**

SCON IMIN -.12 SONM MAST .11*

SCON SR .54** SONM L2 ACH .08*

SCON BHV .17* SCON SR -.06

GLIN SR .12 SCON BHV -.07

GLIN BHV .03 SCON MAST .32**

IMIN SR .49** SCON L2 ACH .10**

IMIN BHV .79** GLIN BHV .01

SR BHV .04 GLIN MAST .07

SR MAST .48** GLIN L2 ACH .02

BHV MAST .38** IMIN BHV .02

BHV L2 ACH .23** IMIN MAST .53**

MAST L2 ACH .25* IMIN L2 ACH .24**

SR MAST .02

SR L2 ACH .13*

BHV L2 ACH .10*

*p < .05, **p < .01

The table shows that attitudes toward L2 learning have significant total effects on

both goal intention and implementation intention, with a higher impact on the latter (r

=.72**) than on the former (r = .46**). Similarly, social norms have significant total

effects on both goal intention and implementation intention, with higher impact on the

former (r = .61**) than on the latter (r = .44**). Self-confidence, however, has

significant total effects on self-regulatory capacity (r = .54**) and the tactics of L2

learning behavior (r = .17*); however, it has nonsignificant total effects on both goal

142

intention and implementation intention. Concerning the total effects of the two types

of intention on the two types of behaviors, goal intention has nonsignificant total

effects on self-regulatory capacity and the tactics of L2 learning behavior, whereas

implementation intention has significant total effects on these two, with higher impact

on the tactics of L2 learning behavior (r = .79**) than on self-regulatory capacity (r

= .49**). In the case of self-regulatory capacity, it has no significant total effects on

the tactics of L2 learning behavior but has significant total effects on the mastery of

L2 learning (r = .48**). Regarding the tactics of L2 learning behavior, it has

significant total effects on both the mastery of L2 learning (r = .38**) and L2

achievement (r = .23**). The Mastery of L2 learning has significant total effects on

L2 achievement (r = .25*).

Most of the total or indirect effects were in line with the structural path estimates

(see Table 4.8), with two exceptions: one occurred between Social Norms (SNOM)

Self-Regulatory Capacity (SR), which indicated the total effect with a nonsignificance

difference (r = -.05) but was estimated to be statistically significant (r = -.34**) in the

structural path. The other exception occurred between the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior (BHV) and L2 Achievement (L2 ACH), which indicated the total effect with

a significance difference (r = .25*), but was estimated to be statistically nonsignificant

(r = .14) in the structural path. These two paths, Social Norms Self-Regulatory

Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior L2 Achievement will be

discussed in more detail in the next chapter. In terms of indirect effects, there could be

indirect effects for any of the variables in the model. The results of the indirect effects

are also shown in Table 4.9.

143

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION

Introduction

In this chapter, I present and discuss the results related to the research questions and

research hypotheses, in hope of drawing theoretical insights and pedagogical

implications. The arrangement of this chapter is divided into five sections, with the

first addressing the overall importance (research question 1) of the current model

towards L2 (second language) learning motivation. The first section will discuss the

overall goodness-of-fit indices, an overall remark regarding the structural

relationships hypothesized in this L2 learning motivation model and on the variables

in terms of the three actional phases as they provide the bases relating to the rest of

the research questions. In the second part, the discussion will be mainly centered on

the three antecedent constructs in the initial phase in light of the action phases of the

Rubicon Model. The three factors, attitudes toward L2 learning, social norms and

self-confidence, will be discussed (research question 2) together in that they are the

determinants of the goal and implementation intention, serving a top-down analytical

approach from the social-oriented level. A closer look at social norms on

self-regulation (research question 6) and a discussion of the different effects of

self-confidence on the two types of intention and the two types of learning behavior

will also be provided (research question 7). In the third section, the discussion will

emphasize on the distinct effects of the two types of intention--goal intention and

implementation intention--and their impact on self-regulatory capacity and the tactics

of L2 learning behavior (research question 3). In the fourth part, self-regulatory

capacity and the tactics of L2 learning behavior will be discussed in relation to

mastery of L2 learning, and L2 learning behavior relating to the mastery of L2

144

learning (research question 4). The discussion aims to explore a learning pattern from

the underlying phenomena. Finally, the tactics of L2 learning behavior and mastery of

L2 learning will be discussed in terms of their contributions to L2 achievement

(research question 5). The conclusion of the discussion should be able to shed light on

how students’ motivation might be enhanced in terms of modifying certain learning

patterns and pedagogical implications in the process of L2 learning motivation.

Discussion One: The Overall Importance of the Current Model

The hypothesized model of this study attempted to integrate some of the most

important strands of motivation research into a concrete, causal study in the context of

second language acquisition. The following addresses the main research question

concerning the overall structure and the processes of the current model.

The Overalll Structure and the Processes of the L2 Learning Motivation

Constructs Hypothesized in this Model

The current model of L2 learning motivation demonstrated a significant effect on the

grounded theoretical framework proposed, which was based in part upon: Ajzen’s

(1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior, Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation

intention, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and L2 mastery

constructs. The results show a good fit of the data to the hypothesized model.

Statistical values were as follows: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) = .074, within the threshold value .080 (Hair et al., 2010);

Goodness-of –Fit index (CFI) = .97, exceeding the ideal value at .95; Standardized

Root Mean Residual (SRMR) = .059, much lower than the suggested cutoff

value .080. Although the chi-square is significant, χ2/df = 2.38, p < .01, the normed

145

chi-square is good, below the threshold value “3”. The other fit indices, including NFI,

NNFI, and IFI, also indicate good fitnesses, being equal to or exceeded the ideal value

at .95. Based on the fit indices, the current model has presented a rather good fit to the

empirical data.

Based on the theoretical review, the current model was further divided into three

motivation phases in terms of Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) actional phases of

the Rubicon Model. Although 6 out of 18 structural paths denoted nonsignficant

relationships, two paths (Self-Confidence Goal Intention and Self-Confidence

Implementation Intention) were supported by Ajzen in that the effects of

self-confidence on intention would become weak if the other two antecedents of

intention had powerful effects, and this is exactly the case in the current model. The

effects of attitudes toward L2 learning on goal intention are .46** and .72** on the

implementation intention, whereas the effects of social norms on goal intention

are .61** and .44** on implementation intention. The factor loadings of attitudes

toward L2 learning and social norms relating to both intentions show strong effects,

thus reducing the low-predictive-power of self-confidence upon them.

Second, the nonsignficant effects of goal intention on self-regulatory capacity

and the tactics of L2 learning behavior may be attributed to the added construct of

implementation intention which appears to have a strong impact on the two types of

behavior. This does not mean that goal intention is not important. Instead, it is a

valuable stage for the learners to set their learning goals at the end of the

pre-decisional phase and to confirm and modify the goal throughout the pre-actioal

phase. However, when it comes to “executive motivation” (Heckhausen, 1991, p. 170)

in the actional-related mechanism, goal intention yields its importance to

implementation intention. A similar situation may also exist with regard to the

146

nonsignificant relationship between self-regulation and the tactics of L2 learning

behavior because implementation intention has the strongest ability to make

predictions with regard to the tactics of L2 learning behavior for the whole model,

which is likely to reduce the influence of self-regulatory capacity on the tactics of L2

learning. The last nonsignificant relationship occurs at the relationship of the tactics of

L2 learning behavior on L2 achievement, which may be attributed to another newly

added construct of mastery of L2 learning, serving as a mediating role.

In sum, although there are nonsignficant structural paths, they appear to denote

meaningful implications for the new added constructs, which will be discussed more

in later sections. In addition to the nonsignificant but thought-provoking paths, the

other structural paths within the model show significant effects on their predictions, as

hypothesized. The overall results indicate that the value of the current model, in terms

of the structural relationships hypothesized among the variables, seems to activate

effectively from the outer macro-perspectives toward the inner micro-perspectives.

The power of this L2 learning motivation model is further strengthened by the

stability and consistency of fit indices from the measurement model to the structural

model by means of the empirical data.

The constructs presented in this model are not wholly novel in a sense but the

design of the constructs, grounded on a major theoretical framework with three other

important theoretical constructs, presents a synthesis of the model sources into a more

comprehensive scheme. This model illustrates the motivational variables into three

consecutive, processed phases and seems to reflect L2 learning motivation in the real

world with deeper insights. In the pre-decisional phase, it first helps learners to

understand and evaluate the “desirability and feasibility” among learners’ wishes

(Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008). The desirability of having L2 learning goals is

147

determined by the positive or negative attitudes of an individual toward L2 learning,

the perceived approval or disapproval of the learner’s significant others to the selected

L2 learning goals, and the probability of accomplishing the goals. The feasibility of

these selected goals is further determined by an individual’s self-confidence of

evaluating whether or not he or she is capable of achieving the goal or goals.

Therefore, in the pre-decisional phase, the initial wishes and desires of L2 learning

have been selected to address a potential, attainable goal under the assessment of

attitudes toward L2 learning, social expectations from significant others and

evaluation of their self-confidence. Toward the end of this phase, the initial vagueness

of what needs to be learned has been shifted into a rather concrete, doable goal.

In the end of the pre-decisional phase, individuals select what they really want to

do; and in the pre-actional phase, the individuals set their L2 learning goals according

to what they would like to achieve. It has been agreed that setting a goal does not

mean a final success or immediacy of execution on the goal (Achtziger & Gollwitzer,

2008). Before putting the goals into action, making concrete plans for implementation

would help bridge the gap to a more perceived belief of being able to attain the goal.

The implementation intention specifying content orientation (what to do), situational

orientation (when and where to do it) and strategic orientation (how to do it) helps

people to “cross the Rubicon Model” toward performing a goal-directed behavior with

effective implementable plans. The enacted plans will facilitate learners to conquer

procrastinating or difficult situations that may emerge during the course of executing

the L2 learning target.

In the actional phase, in order to maintain the motivational intensity of the

selected goal and the strategic L2 learning plans, the emphasis is placed on the various

actional control mechanisms in an individual’s self-regulatory capacity and the

148

various tactics of L2 learning behavior. It is argued that the volitional strength is the

determinant of a course of an action toward the goal or the sustained efforts exerted in

the execution of the L2 learning goal (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998). In this phase, the

mindset of the individual focuses on turning the goal-directed plans toward integrated

internal and external cues, with the actional control in terms of commitment,

metacognitive awareness, satiation and emotion. In addition to the volitional control,

individuals specifically implement the L2 learning plans in accordance with the tactics

of initiating their own learning, applying what they learn in class and experimenting

with new, effective methods, in addition to those taught at school, in an attempt to

guide themselves to the course of goal attainment. Research supports that the

difficulties that emerge during the course of an L2 learning action may become easier

to manage when guided by the enacted implementation and the set goal (Achtziger

and Gollwitzer, 2008) in this section.

Discussion Two: Effects of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social

Norms, and Self-Confidence

To provide a sense of unity, research questions associated with the three

antecedents of intention: attitudes toward L2 learning, social norms, and

self-confidence, serving the external factors of this model, will be discussed together.

This section will concern with hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, corresponding

research questions 2, 6, and 7.

149

Effects of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms and Self- Confidence on

Goal Intention and Implementation Intention

Hypothesis 1: Attitudes toward L2 Learning influence Goal Intention.

Hypothesis 2: Attitudes toward L2 Learning influence Implementation Intention.

Hypothesis 3: Social Norms influence Goal Intention.

Hypothesis 4: Social Norms influence Implementation Intention.

Hypothesis 6: Self-Confidence influences Goal Intention.

Hypothesis 7: Self-Confidence influences Implementation Intention.

According to Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) TPB, attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms,

and Self-Confidence are the antecedent determinants of Intention. Attitudes have been

viewed as a significant factor in motivation research (Bell, 2005; Cotterall, 1999;

Henry & Apelgren, 2008; Levine, 2003; Loewen et al., 2009; Yashima &

Zenuk-Nishide, 2008; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide & Shimiza, 2004). Among the three

antecedent constructs in this study, attitudes toward L2 learning present significant

factor loadings in terms of both goal and implementation intention. The factor-loading

of attitudes toward L2 learning on implementation shows the highest loading among

all the antecedent predictors. The overall results are consistent with Tremblay and

Gardner’s (1995) study indicating that, if L2 learners have higher attitudes toward L2

learning, the more likely they will be to develop their language-learning goals.

Students having negative attitudes are not likely to develop specific goals for

themselves in order to pursue a second language. In addition to the likelihood of

setting personal learning goals, this study further demonstrates that students’

perceived attitudes also strongly influence their implementation intention to act. The

results support the hypotheses, indicating that the more positive learners are regarding

150

their L2 learning attitudes, the higher they will set their L2 learning goals and plan

their studies in order to achieve the goals. In line with their attitudes toward goal

setting, students who have positive attitudes toward L2 learning are likely to orient a

further approach to engage themselves in planning anticipated learning situations. The

results provide initial evidence that the proposed new conceptual construct,

implementation intention, has a role to play in the current model.

Social norms have been a long and extensive practice within a social discipline,

though there may not be explicit consensus in research. According to Armitage and

Conner’s (2001) meta-analysis, the predictive value of social norms on behavioral

intention to execute a particular action was weak and thus prompted controversy with

regard to Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (1991, 2005). Their analysis showed that

the problem of the weak prediction in subjective norms lies with the instrument in that

most studies used single items to measure this construct. According to Hair et al.

(2010), a single item cannot effectively measure a variable in a construct, let alone

reach a significant correlation between factors. Such outcomes tend to mislead as a

result of pedagogical ignorance of the influence of significant others in social contexts.

Even Ajzen (2005) acknowledged that subjective norms generally accounted for less

variance than attitudes toward the behavior(s) in question and perceived behavioral

controls.

Contrary to the meta-analysis (Armitage & Conner, 2001) that indicated

subjective norms to be a rather weak predictor of intention, the development of social

norms in this study lessened the measurement problem by including a new design of

this scale. The scale consisted of three indicators in language learning—injunctive,

descriptive and linguistic norms, with each from the three types of significant others –

friends, teachers, and family – in an attempt to cover a more comprehensive scope of

151

this construct. The results of this present study indicate that social norms have

significant, positive effects on both goal intention (r = .61**) and implementation (r

= .44**). The results supported Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) original hypotheses in the theory

of planned behavior; i.e., social norms have direct impact on behavioral intention and

echoed some previous studies which showed students’ interaction at home and at

school would be likely to influence their academic achievement (Dandy & Nettlebeck,

2002; McGroarty, 1998; Phillipson & Phillipson, 2007; Phillipson, 2009; Stevenson,

Lee, Chen, Stigler et al., 1990).

Further, the path values present practical and meaningful implications in that

social norms are associated more with the ultimate goal that people generally

visualize and evaluate, indicated by the higher loading-value from social norms to

goal intention. Wentzel and Wigfield (1998) supported the view that “social and

academic goals are part of a network of complementary goals.” (p. 162).

Implementation intention, on the other hand, is associated more with the

individualized set plans, specifying more concrete, strategic-learning execution

behavior and will be more complicated and difficult to fulfill, thus it is understandable

that the factor-loading is lower with regard to implementation intention. The results of

this current study naturally reported a higher impact of social norms with regard to

goal intention than to implementation. For example, Lai (2009) notes that cultural

context and national origin could have a different effect on students’ strategic learning

process. Learners in second language learning environments have higher rates of

strategy use than those in foreign language learning environments, where frequent

authentic, language input and opportunity for authentic interaction in English is not

available. In Taiwan, students are in a mono and rather collectivist culture and

consider meeting general social-oriented standards as their targets. Lin and Chiou’s

152

(2010) study supported the view that the encouragement of the students’ parents or

friends to take the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) was the strongest

influence behind students’ intention to take the test.

The discussion of social norms as external social impacts on individuals’ goal

setting and plan implementing seems to corroborate Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural

theory, which speculates a central tenet that children’s interactions with the

environment are essential to their mental development. This speculation may

comprise the transfer of significant others’ expectations associated with the children’s

schooling performance (Phillipson, 2009). The higher processes emerge when the

learners perceive their academic expectations from their significant others, together

with their learning in school from their teachers and peers. They then transfer the

expectations and L2 learning into personal, implementable intention, with specific

plans specifying when, where and how to act with respect to the set goal. Mediated by

their implementation intention, the L2 learners learn to internalize the perceived

norms and set goals, which can then be translated into executable plans when

appropriate situations are encountered. The higher processes of mental development

occur at this point, progressing from the social domain (interpsychological, i.e.

perceived social expectations) to the cognitive domain (intrapersonal, i.e. making

implementing plans). The learners’ mental function has been activated and heightened

by the independent problem-solving scheme of making their own plans to achieve

their goals. Further, the results echo the call for paying more attention to the

importance of social contexts and cultures that may play a critical role in language

learning motivation (Dörnyei, 2001; Järvelä, 2001; McGroarty, 1998; Pintrich, 2003).

153

Impact of Social Norms on Learners’ Self-Regulatory Capacity

Hypothesis 5: Social Norms influence Self-regulatory Capacity.

In accordance with the norms of a collectivist, cultural society, social

expectations towards reaching certain levels of language proficiency as communicated

by their significant others in an L2 learning context provides either support or

pressure to L2 learners. The potential impact of two such cognitive extremes in

behavior also occurs in this current study and is indicated by the negative value (r =

-.34**) of social norms on self-regulatory capacity, which may be attributed to two

reasons. First, the degree of perceived social norms of L2 learners will impose

learning expectations on them and may result in some degree of their willingness to

put the goals into action, causing prosocial or antisocial behavior. The negative

loading implies that the more learners perceive high levels of L2 learning expectations

from their significant others, the lower willingness they have to regulate their

participation in the study, meaning the perceived norms were, at times, much more

than the learners can take. In other words, it may not be an easy task to achieve the

language level when an individual’s discipline to a specific learning act requires

constant volitional persistence with respect to the learners’ perceived expectations of

their significant others on the second language learning. Second, when it comes to

realistic, self-regulatory behavior, social norms may appear limited and stressful to

learners who may have vague or poorly-contemplated, strategic study plans. Thus, the

negative value of social norms on self-regulatory capacity may be attributed to

learners’ perceived difficulties balancing the external, social norms and the internal,

individual self-discipline. This aspect may echo Woolfolk’s (2001) argument that, if

there is a discrepancy between a commonly accepted standard and a learner’s

behavior, then the discrepancy will not cease until the standard has been met. In other

154

words, if the standard is not met, the discrepancy continues to enlarge, and may likely

turn out to have a negative influence.

Though the socially-oriented expectations function negatively with regard to

self-regulatory capacity, characterized as a set of social rules to constrain the learners

when engaging themselves in achieving situated tasks, the total effect of social norms

on self-regulatory capacity, shown in Table 4.9, shows a nonsignificant effect,

indicating that there is something in between when the whole structural model is

considered. Self-regulatory capacity was hypothesized to be determined directly and

indirectly by social norms, with implementation intention as the mediator for the

indirect impact. The nonsignificant, total effect of social norms on self-regulation was

indicated partly by the negative, direct impact, which may likely be balanced by the

indirect mediator of implementation intention. Implementation seems to function as a

solving mechanism to work effectively to ease and balance the stressed expectations

that L2 learners perceive from their significant others. This finding can add evidence

showing the advantages of making implementing plans during the course of a

long-term learning process.

From the social aspect, the operationalized mechanism between social norms and

self-regulatory capacity seems to reflect the value of Bandura’s (1988, 1991) social

cognitive theory, which concerns a reciprocal relationship of environmental, personal

and behavioral interactions. This theory highlights the value of observing a model in a

social environment, which may act as a mirror to represent the observed, social value

to be learned on one hand and to push and control the individual learner to monitor

their own learning behavior according to the standards observed. Consequently, to

achieve the standard of the valued model, the individual was motivated to change

his/her behavior. However, when the individual’s regulated behavior cannot meet the

155

standard of the model, a discrepancy appears. The social norms, particularly learners’

perceived expectations from their significant others on their language performance,

will turn into a type of “aware stress” that may trigger negative feelings toward the

regulating behavior. Fortunately, the stressed norms can be balanced by the effective

mediator of implementing plans. Thus, the development of the learning process is

socially-oriented in nature, and is subsequently translated into self-initiated volitional

regulation.

Effects of Self-Confidence on Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2

Learning Behavior

Hypothesis 8: Self-Confidence influences Self-Regulatory Capacity.

Hypothesis 9: Self-Confidence influences the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior.

Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) TPB model has been widely used in other research areas

and revealed a strong relation between self-efficacy beliefs and behavior. However,

research rarely provides evidence (i.e. self-efficacy) for the causal relationships

between perceived behavioral control and intention- behavior (Armitage & Conner,

2001; Abraham et al., 1998; Sheeran, 2002), or the different effects of perceived

behavioral control on intention and on behavior respectively, as they both are

hypothesized in Ajzen’s TPB model. The current study distinguishes itself from

previous studies by not only hypothesizing relationships of self-confidence on both

intention and behavior, but in two types of each. That is, this study hypothesized

influences of self-confidence on both goal and implementation intention and on

self-regulatory capacity and the tactics of L2 learning behavior. The former

hypotheses were not supported in this model while the latter were supported by the

empirical data. In view of the predictive validity of self-confidence, it should come as

156

a surprise that the resulting, loading values of self-confidence are nonsignificant with

regard to both types of intention, goal (r = .01) and implementation (r = -.12). The

findings are not consistent with Ajzen’s hypothesis in his TPB model. One reasonable

explanation for the nonsignificant relationships may lie on the fact that, when the

relationship between self-confidence and implementation intention was evaluated, the

other relationships (attitudes implementation, and social norms implementation)

were controlled. The results show that both attitudes toward L2 learning and social

norms have significant influences on goal and implementation intention, and the

effects of self-confidence on goal and implementation intention becomes negligibly

nonsignificant. At this point, attitudes toward L2 learning and social norms have

higher influences on the two types of intention than self-confidence does. The

predictive power of self-confidence on goal and implementation intention becomes

ignorance because of the other two powerful antecedents.

Another reasonable explanation for the nonsignficant relationships between the

causally-linked variables in the present context may be attributed to the students’

habitual learning behavior. These students, oriented by the goal of entering a better,

socially-approved university, do not seem to be motivated to learn English in terms of

an individual’s specific set goal. Analysis of their personal history of learning English

indicates that 90% of the students had 8.5 years of prior English learning experiences.

It could be natural to propose that those who are activated to learn more English have

engaged themselves in some particular tactics of learning behavior and may be used to

implementing plans of their studies in such an examination-oriented learning

mechanism. Therefore, given that there are several courses to be taken care of and

given that students may have developed their own learning patterns, the general set

goals and the implementing plans may not be influenced by the self-confidence

157

described in the scale.

Other than the negligible relationships between self-confidence and the two types

of intention, the predictive results of self-confidence on self-regulatory capacity and

the tactics of L2 learning behavior demonstrate consistency with Ajzen’s (1991, 2005)

hypothesis in the TPB model, showing significant impact loadings. The results

indicate a fact that self-confidence is an existing, perceived ability the respondents

had at the point the survey was conducted and the learning behavior may not be new

to these exam-oriented students. In response to the entrance examination taken in

order to seek admission to a better university, the senior high school students are

immersed in a rather competitive and stressful learning context, and they have to

constantly regulate themselves with regard to their studies in order to meet the

expected standards and struggle with both themselves and their competitive peers for

success, given that they might be in a psychologically and physiologically unstable

state with regard to their mental tolerance and affective considerations. On the other

hand, they have to utilize different learning tactics to familiarize themselves with what

they learn in class. The results indicate that students with higher self-confidence are

more likely to regulate themselves affectively and behaviorally. They’ll also develop

higher frequency of learning behavior. These results are in line with previous studies

(Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Clément, 1980) that demonstrated that self-efficacy

showed a significant influence on motivational behavior. Clément and Kruidenier

(1985) also lent their supportive view that “it is this self-confidence which is the most

important determinant of motivation to learn and to use the second language” (p. 24).

Overall, the model suggests that it is central for learners to develop a positive

sense of the antecedents of intentional motivation: attitudes toward L2 learning,

supportive social norms and high self-confidence. The three antecedents are

158

strongly-related, particularly the first two constructs, which are contingent to learners

goal intention and implementation intention.

Discussion Three: Effects of Goal Intention and Implementation

Intention on Learners’ Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of

L2 Learning Behavior

Hypothesis 10: Goal Intention influences Self-regulatory capacity.

Hypothesis 11: Goal Intention influences the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior.

Hypothesis 12: Implementation Intention influence Self-Regulatory Capacity.

Hypothesis 13: Implementation Intention influences the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior.

One of the major findings of this study lies in the two types of intention which

are partly consistent and partly inconsistent with Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) hypotheses in

the theory of planned behavior. Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action

(TRA) hypothesized intention as the prominent determinant of behavior with

complete volitional control, which is deemed impossible due to several

non-motivational factors in practice. The TRA was modified as the theory of planned

behavior (TPB) with an additional variable, the perceived behavioral control, which is

hypothesized to influence behavior directly and indirectly (via intention). Sutton

(1998) reviewed nine meta-analyses pertinent to the TRA and the TPB and found that

the predictive power of intention, or intention and the perceived behavioral control, on

behavior is rather low (19~38% of the variance). The low-predictive effect in behavior

thus led to criticism that there must be something in the process that remained

unexplored and that could account for how intention can lead to a higher predictive

power on behavior in the TPB (Bagozzi, 1992; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). To fill the

159

void of the low, predictive power of intention on behavior and to reinforce the

deficient study of the TPB in academic fields, in the current study, Gollwitzer’s (1993,

1999) implementation intention was added to distinguish and strengthen the predictive

power of the intentional construct. The main purpose of the added implementation

intention is to test whether the intentional antecedents would have different, predictive

values on the two types of intention and whether implementation intention would

have different predictive values on two types of behavior in the following actional

phase. The results elicit that goal intention has no significant effects on self-regulatory

capacity nor on the tactics of L2 learning behavior, whereas implementation intention

has significant effects on both. It is a surprise that goal intention has nonsignificant

effects on both types of behavior, which are not in line with Ajzen’s hypothesis in the

TPB. Though the correlation matrix in Table 4.5 shows that goal intention is strongly

correlated with self-regulation (.60) and the tactics of L2 learning behavior (.84).

However, human behavior is generally affected by several factors, instead of a single

factor.

In the current model, self-regulatory capacity was hypothesized to be influenced

by goal and implementation intention, social norms and self-confidence, while the

tactics of L2 learning behavior were hypothesized to be influenced by both types of

intention, self-confidence and self-regulation. When the predictive value of goal

intention on self-regulation is hypothesized, the other three factors that have an arrow

to self-regulation are controlled. The results, however, show that the predictive power

is null. This situation appears similar to goal intention on the tactics of L2 learning

behavior. The predictive results of goal intention on the two types of behavior are

consistent with Sutton’s (1998) meta-analysis that intention in Ajzen’s TRA and TPB

has a low-predictive power on behavior. In the current study, the negligible results

160

may be attributed to two reasons. First, goal intention specifies mainly the attempts to

reach ultimate, set goals regardless of the systematic and effective regulatory behavior

in the process. Second, the addition of implementation intention seems to activate

learning to fill the gap between the nullified goal intention and two behaviors in the

actional phase. Research on self-regulation also indicated that goal-oriented intention

might be difficult to translate into action (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994;

Sheeran, Milne, Webb, & Gollwitzer, 2005) because there are several interfering

factors such as other, preoccupied concerns or some external temptations.

Contrary to the predictive results of goal intention, implementation intention

demonstrates strongly-predictive values on self-regulatory capacity (.49) and on the

tactics of L2 learning behavior (.77), with the latter paramount to the path loadings in

the whole model. The results are consistent with previous research related to

Gollwitzer’s implementation intention in that evidence of previous studies implies

that implementing strategies may enhance positive effects on self-regulation (Bögels

& Mansell, 2004; Rapee, Gaston, & Abott, 2009). It has been argued that holding a

strong goal intention does not guarantee goal attainment (Webb & Sheeran, 2006)

because people do not have sufficient cues to process situations that may prompt

potential difficulties. Implementation intention has shown significant effects on

self-regulatory capacity, partly because strategic plans may reduce the negative effects

of affective arousal (Gallo, Keil, McCulloch, Rockstroh, & Gollwitzer, 2009,

Experiment 1), and partly because forming implementation intention may engender

more effective emotional regulatory capacity. The senior high school students in this

study have been immersed in the exam-oriented teaching and learning environment

that forces them to plan their studies, everyday. The students in this study have

received no explicit if-then plan in the English language learning, but appeared to be

161

relatively well formed in that the students have several school subjects to take care of

and numerous exams to manage every week. The intensive learning situations may

impose the students to make their study plans and distribute appropriate time

according to the significance of the subjects in the entrance exams. It is not a surprise

that the factor-loading of implementation intention on self-regulatory capacity would

be a little lower than it is with regard to the tactics of L2 learning behavior. The

results of Webb, Ononaiye, Sheeran, Reidy, and Lavda’s (2010) study on whether or

not implementation intention can soothe people with social anxieties indicated that

forming implementation intentions may provide effective cues on handling

self-regulatory problems concerning social anxiety.

Goal-setting intention is important because it is the target that all efforts and

execution will lead to. However, merely committing L2 learners to or providing them

with a seemingly attainable goal is not sufficient. Gollwitzer’s theory of

implementation intention (1993, 1999) may complement Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980)

and Ajzen’s (1991) models because the application of implementation intention

highlights the psychological process of formulating intention of behavior and can

therefore increase the commitment to engage in a specific behavior. Research has

shown that implementation intention can be initiated more immediately (Brändstatter,

Lengfelder, & Gollwitzer, 2001; Gollwitzer & Brändstatter, 1997; Orbell & Sheeran,

2000; Webb & Sheeran, 2004), responded efficiently and effectively to cognitive

demands (Brändstatter et al., 2001; Lengfelder & Gollwitzer, 2001), and would

respond more automatically when critical cues were presented subconsciously (Bayer,

Moskowitz, & Gollwitzer, 2005; Bayer, Achtziger, Gollwitzer, & Moskowitz, 2009;

Sheeran et al., 2005). In this thesis, the effects of goal intention would disappear if

implementation intention and the other factors hypothesized to influence

162

self-regulatory capacity and the L2 learning behavior were controlled. Implementation

intention makes itself a pivotal role in the pre-actional phase once the goal intention

has been set and yields its significance to implementation, which continues to

maintain its powerful ability to predict, in the actional phase. It does not take over the

role of goal intention, but it complements the role of taking action in what has been

targeted. According to the results, implementation intention demonstrates the

strongest predictive power, regarding the tactics of L2 learning behavior, in the whole

model. The results seem to explain the void that intention in the TPB has a low-

predictive power regarding behavior (Sutton, 1998) and shows that individuals who

formed implementation intention are likely to commit themselves to executing the

specific L2 learning behavior.

Implementation intention engages learners in the anticipated situations in the

if-component cues and leads them to associate with the goal-directed then-component

responses. In L2 learning contexts, it links the cue-response association in terms of the

L2 learning content, the learning situations and the strategic plans, in relation to the

various tactics of L2 learning behavior. The formation of the if-then plans not only

reduces learners’ cognitive loading, regulating their affective emotions, but also

provides better preparation for committing and monitoring their learning acts. The

cue-response plans correspond strongly with the tactics of L2 learning behavior which

are associated with a self-initiating approach, applying lessons learned from school

and experimenting with new, effective language learning method in which learners

perceive what they would do when they were given opportunities and further applying

what they learn into practice to polish their language proficiency. The execution of

each learning behavior seems to bring to the learner a self-surpassing sense. In this

regard, these L2 learning behaviors cater to planned implementation intention, and

163

thus earn a higher-causal relationship. Implementation intention at this point provides

evidence in support of and complementing the gap of solely-orienting a goal. Lai’s

(2009) study on language learning strategy use reported that the strategies used more

frequently by the more proficient learners were those of arranging and planning their

learning. Lai’s results appear to indicate that making implementing plans is effective

and important to successful language learning.

In contrast to previous L2 studies, in which the focus has mostly been placed on

goal intention, this study employs implementation intention hypothesized to be an

influential, predictive construct of the two types of L2 learning behavior. The current

results suggest that explicitly implementing means are a useful avenue to translate

goal intention into realistic action, which supports Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of

implementation intention, having powerful effects on goal-striving outcome. The high

loadings of implementation intention on self-regulatory capacity and on L2 learning

behavior seem to be in line with Gollwitzer & Sheeran’s (2006) meta-analysis that

implementation intention has a medium to large effect on goal attainment. The

findings show that the new construct can more precisely capture the effects of

motivational behavior in the “predecisional - preactional - actional” motivation chain.

Implementation intention serves to facilitate a mediating role of goal-directed action

when the specified opportunities are encountered and an appropriate response will be

initiated to cope with the situations arisen. The results confirmed the assumption that

implementation intention, instead of goal intention, has the stronger impact on

language learners’ behavioral commitment.

In addition, this study shows that the two types of intention do not load equally

on their respective indicators. The results show that the three indicators in

implementation intention generally have loadings as well as the highest indicator, the

164

integrative orientation, but are far greater than the instrumental in goal intention,

implying that the proposed new conceptual construct, implementation intention, has a

critical role and should not be overlooked in L2 motivation research. The results of

the indicator loadings were consistent in three stages: first in scale development (Dai

& Tseng, 2011), then in indicator identification in the measurement model, and finally

in structural model. Previous studies on L2 motivation placed more weight on goal

intention and ignored immediate learning implementation intention (reviewed by

Dörnyei, 2001). As the model in Figure 4.1 has shown, immediately implementing

learning situations in fact weigh much more than far-reaching goals, which may not

be so vital or urgent in everyday learning. The implementation intention is a

significant factor in the preactional phase and appears to enhance immediate and

facilitative motivational effects upon the occurrence of self-regulatory capacity and

language learning behavior in the actional phase. The findings support Gollwitzer’s

(1993, 1999) theorizing on the content of implementation intention. However, it is

recommended that further studies be conducted to confirm this conclusion since

language learning is a long-term, volitional behavior.

Though the modification indices from LISREL recommended that the

hypothesized model be improved by adding a path from self-regulatory capacity to

strategic orientation in implementation intention; this addition is theoretically

meaningful. The path has threefold significance in the revised measurement model.

First, the result is in line with previous studies showing a demonstrative and

affirmative link between strategic plans and an individual’s volitional capacity.

Furthermore, this added, strategic orientation in actuality exhibits a higher factor

loading, .56, on self-regulatory capacity than that (.41) on implementation intention.

This finding supports the importance of self-regulation (Tseng et al., 2006) shown in

165

previous studies on one hand and, on the other hand, discloses the long absence of

attention to the new, unexplored variable of implementation, which should be heeded

in L2 motivation research. Finally, since the strategic indicator loads on the two

factors, multidimensional measurement is specified (Kline, 2005). The finding should

not be taken as negative evidence of strategic orientation in implementation, but

should be taken as a positive value of the whole set of implementation in the field of

language learning research as the factor loadings of the other two indicators in

implementation intention are almost as high as the integrative orientation, but far

greater than the instrumental in goal intention. The added link between strategic and

self-regulation is reasonable and theoretically meaningful in that implementation and

self-regulatory capacity are two successive and causal phases, accounting for the two

associated but different factors concerning intention enactment and regulatory

behavior.

In sum, the construct of implementation intention is particularly thought-

provoking because this is the first time this construct has been designed with a reliable

and validated psychometric instrument and adopted in the language learning contexts.

Evidence shows that implementation intention plays a pivotal role first on regulating

volitional capacity in committing learning, monitoring learning acts, and controlling

irrational emotion while studying an L2, and then on effective language learning

behavior in initiating facilitative action, applying what learners have learned into

practice, experimenting with means to promote learning effects, and surpassing

themselves. The present findings demonstrate that the newly-forged associations of

implementation intention on individuals’ volition and on L2 learners’ behavior reveal

critical accessibility and powerful strength. Implementation intention benefits

effective and feasible behaviors in attaining the final target because learners are in a

166

prepared state, readily to seize and to respond to appropriate situations. The mediating

role of implementation intention facilitates execution of action and may illuminate

learners who do not augment their goal intention with the if-then plans.

Discussion Four: Effects of Self-Regulatory Capacity on the Tactics

of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning

Hypothesis 14: Self-Regulatory capacity influences the Tactics of L2 Learning

Behavior.

Hypothesis 15: Self-Regulatory Capacity influences Mastery of L2 Learning

In the current study, self-regulatory capacity and the tactics of L2 learning

behavior were hypothesized in the actional phase, postulating that self-regulation can

influence both the tactics of L2 learning behavior and mastery of L2 learning.

According to the results, the latter hypothesis was supported while the former was not.

Self-regulatory capacity has a nonsignficant relationship with the tactics of L2

learning behavior, which could be considered from two perspectives. First, in contrast

to beginning learners who are likely to show success if they listen carefully to and

follow teachers’ instruction in the class and do the exercises assigned, students in this

current study are not novel learners in a second language. They are similar in levels

since they attended the same senior high school after a national entrance exam. The

students would discover that it was not so easy to maintain a sense of success in their

academic studies as they had done in their junior high schools, where students are

basically from local communities and are distinguished at various levels.

Subsequently, a variety of cognitive, affective, motivational, and behavioral processes

will be reshaped through learners’ perception and engagement in the newly adjusted

culture in the senior high. For these first-grade senior high school students, they are

167

probably in a state of searching for effective methods that support them to attune

themselves and enable them to live flexibly and adaptively within the new learning

contexts. Thus, it is reasonable that the self-regulatory capacity of these students does

now show a significant relationship with their L2 learning behavior. Naturally, in new

given learning contexts, they need to cultivate themselves to develop new skills and

study tactics that enable them to function well in the new learning environments. In

this sense, sociocultural structure seems to impose new learning systems on the

learners who may be forced to be attuned to and coordinated with the systems

(Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997).

Another possible reason for the nonsignificant relationship between

self-regulatory capacity and the tactics of L2 learning behavior may be attributed to

the powerful effect of implementation intention on the tactics of L2 learning behavior,

which presents the strongest causal relationship in the whole model. As hypothesized,

the L2 learning behavior was hypothesized to be influenced by self-confidence, both

goal and implementation intention, and self-regulation. When the predictive value of

self-regulation on the tactics of L2 learning behavior is hypothesized, the other three

variables are controlled. The results, however, indicate the predictive power of

self-regulation on L2 learning behavior is negligible and thus does not support the

hypothesis.

However, the current results indicate that self-regulation can significantly predict

mastery of L2 learning. According to Elliot (2006), mastery is a category that pertains

to goal classification and there is a positive correlation between self-regulation and

mastery. The results of the current study are consistent with Elliot (2006) claim that

self-regulation has a significant positive relation with mastery of L2 learning.

Research argues that the metacognitive monitoring mastery can be valued from the

168

perspective of an individual, self-regulatory capacity (Winne, 2001), which is

hypothesized in the current model and the results support the postulation. The

self-regulatory process is considered to be essential with respect to monitoring and

evaluation during the course of various learning stages. In the process, learners may

observe the extent of what strategies may be beneficially utilized, the degree of how

strategies may be switched according to contextual needs and why certain strategies

would be used in some particular occasions. The mechanisms of self-control and

self-enhancement in the mastery of various strategies helps develop a sense of

strategic capacity and ensures which strategy is better suited in certain tasks, which in

turn help learners to accomplish their L2 achievement. The developed, metacognitive

capacity on strategy use in the construct of mastery of L2 learning has demonstrated

significant effects on L2 achievement. The results provide evidence in support of the

metacognitive mastery of L2 learning over the cognitive L2 learning behavior of mere

strategy use. Acquiring metacognitive monitoring mastery in L2 learning gains its

strength to cater to strategies necessary to achieve L2 acquisition.

Discussion Five: Effects of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and

Mastery of L2 Learning on L2 Achievement

Hypothesis 16: The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior influence Mastery of L2

Learning.

Hypothesis 17: The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior influence L2 Achievement.

Hypothesis 18: Mastery of L2 Learning influences L2 Achievement.

The results in the path diagrams show that L2 learning behavior does not show

significant effects on L2 achievement, while mastery of L2 learning does. The results

are consistent with those in Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model of vocabulary learning,

169

in which they attributed the non-significant effect of vocabulary learning involvement

on vocabulary knowledge to the quantitative frequency of use of strategies and the

significant effect on qualitative, metacognitive mastery. This assumption seems to

lend support to Ellis’ (1994) argument that “… effective strategy use involves

frequent strategy use is also questionable” (p. 559). He argues that the metacognitive

knowledge of what and how to use particular learning tactics in specific learning tasks

are more effective than the types of and the frequency of the strategies used.

However, it is worthwhile noting that, in this study, both the tactics of L2

learning behavior and mastery of L2 learning showed significant relationships with L2

achievement with regard to the standardized, total effects (see Table 4.9). The results

appear paradoxical on the surface, particularly in view of the causal relationship

between the tactics of L2 learning behavior and L2 achievement, which shows that,

though the direct effect is non-significant, the indirect effect is significant, with

mastery of L2 learning as the channel. The paradoxical results between the

standardized, total effects and the path diagrams seem to shed light on the

contribution of L2 learning behavior for L2 achievement, which should be best

realized through mastery of L2 learning. The L2 metacognitive self-monitored

mastery mechanism deepens learners’ understanding of what they have learned in a

particular subject.

Though the hypothesis of significant effects of L2 learning behavior on L2

achievement is not supported on the path loading, it is corroborated in terms of the

standardized, total effect. In academic contexts (Graham, 1994), effort and ability

have been specified as the most prominent factors. Past success or failure are credited

to external and controllable effort or to internal and stable ability. Briggs (1989, 1990,

1991, 1992, 1993) found that Asian students consistently scored higher in deep

170

approaches to learn than did their Australian counterparts. The reasons for mastering

the deep meaning-oriented learning strategies may be credited to their thorough

controls of the surface approach to learning, which may include the external

frequency of language learning behavior. The participants are all from the

Confucian-heritage culture that places high value on effort, which should be

considered to be associated with high academic achievement (Grant & Dweck, 2001).

Therefore, rather than viewing the tactics of L2 learning behavior as a deficit in

learning achievement, it may be more productive to estimate the total effect of L2

learning behavior on L2 achievement through the mediator of L2 mastery. In this way,

the effectiveness of frequent L2 learning behavior may be identified for the benefit of

all students’ efforts. Though Ellis (2006a, 2006b) and Tseng and Schmitt (2008) posed

questions as to the effects of frequency use of strategic learning behavior, the current

study highlights the point that mastery is effort-oriented competence. Learners’ ability

to master a second language is attributed to the capacity (L2 learning behavior) to

learn with self-regulated volition (self-regulation), which should be credited as a

prerequisite to the ability to achieve a second language. Dweck (2000) convincingly

warned that effort should be appreciated as an important determinant in developing

professional skills.

In contrast to Oxford’s (1989, 1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning

(SILL), which places emphasis on the quantitative assessment of learning strategies,

the results of this model suggest that language achievement is contingent on both

learners’ progress in quantitative learning engagement and qualitative L2 learning

mastery. The tactics of learning behavior should not be taken as a non-significant

construct. Instead, it should be taken into important consideration when learning a

second language, which requires a sustained, long-term effort. Through the

171

longitudinal study process, L2 learners attempt various strategic skills with lots of

opportunities to practice what they have learned. The frequent, effortful engagements

in initiating learning, applying what has been learned in class, and experimenting with

strategies to polish learners’ language competence have laid the groundwork toward a

stage in which learners are capable of demonstrating the professional ability to

monitor their language use in situational contexts, and to evaluate and judge the

specific properties in particular subject areas, such as topic sentences, systematic

writing structure, supporting ideas, and coherence of the writing in composing a

composition. This later stage represents qualitative perspectives of learners’ capability

of language use, indicating a deeper sense of internalized competence of mastering

particular language learning tactics. Additionally, the measures for mastery of

language learning are distinctive because they are rated primarily on mastery criteria

in terms of a percentage scale (Zimmerman, 1989) rather than frequency criteria of

strategic learning behavior. The domain-specific property of mastery-construct

measures in this study has been credited with significant effects in predicting learners’

language achievement and the mastery-oriented items demonstrate properties of

language competence.

The external effort of language learning behavior serves as a pavement for

reaching a better and more complete control of the language competence. Language

learning engagement is behavioral in nature and is associated with effort exerted in

the frequency of use of language learning, whereas language mastery is metacognitive

in nature and is associated with ability accumulated through long-term effort. During

the language learning process, learners exhibit their ability to make use of the tactics

and the deployment in metacognitive monitoring and in evaluating certain levels of

linguistic use achieved during the L2 learning programs. The results of the current

172

study demonstrate that metacognitive operations have an influential effect on L2

achievement during the course of the language learning process, transferring the

quantitative strategic use to a qualitative mastery, moving students into a phase of

internal capacity to control, direct and evaluate their own language ability. Though the

loading of mastery of L2 learning on L2 achievement is not very high, the mastery

construct does present positive impact on L2 achievement. Contrary to previous

studies focusing on conscious use of metacognitive strategies of students’ learning

behavior, the metacognitive mastery strategies in this study concern how well learners

are familiar with particular mastery in the language field such as vocabulary, reading,

grammar, and writing in the real world, which may risk the mastery construct to

predict the final exam with specific lessons in the L2 achievement construct. It may

also be attributed to the indicator, writing mastery, which does not have corresponding

evaluated indicator in L2 Achievement even though there are six indicators to cover as

many facets as possible.

Overall Discussion

As to the development of the L2 learning motivation model in this study, compared

with other models regarding L2 motivation research (Gardner, 1985; Csizér &

Dörnyei, 2005; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Gardner, et al., 1997; Yashima, et al.,

2004), this study is probably the first study that takes into account both the external,

socially oriented factors and the internal, individually oriented factors, and

incorporates the involved motivational factors into three successive and causal-related

phases. In macro top-down research methodology, qualitative studies on the

transformation of individuals are common, whereas in micro bottom-up research

designs, studies are administered mainly on individual differences using quantitative

173

methods of analysis. In this study, the macro-level and the micro-level approaches

were combined and focused on the causal relations between motivational factors in

different phases. Both approaches were viewed to be complementary and beneficial to

each other.

The general findings in this study suggest a need to elaborate upon Ajzen’s (1991,

2005) theory of planned behavior when the model is adapted to L2 learning

motivation. As per the discussions aforementioned, although goal intention seems to

share conceptual similarities (Dai & Tseng, 2011) with implementation intention, their

functions and operations are not identical. Goal intention is cognitive in nature and is

related to setting attainable goals, whereas implementation intention is behavioral in

nature and is associated with specifying feasible plans for execution. As the results

indicate, implementation intention has been shown to be a dominant factor in

self-regulation and execution of the tactics of L2 learning behavior. When this factor

is controlled, goal intention has a non-significant influence on self-regulatory capacity

and L2 learning behavior. Given this, despite the conceptual similarities,

implementation intention may not be viewed as just an intention to do something but

the representation of committing a learning behavior with planned processes. With

specified plans, learners know better how to strive for their goals and through such

strivings their chances for success seem to be made easier. Therefore, implementation

intention serves to strengthen goal intention and make the goals easier to obtain. The

creation of implementation intention can thus be viewed as a complementary role

which is in service of accomplishing the set goals.

In addition, the results of this study support Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987)

action phases of the Rubicon model, implying that goal-oriented behavior can be

divided into a series of consecutive phases. The identified phases represent different

174

psychological processes which display different functions in each action phase.

Consistent with the Rubicon model, the L2 learning motivation model proposed in

this study is both structural and functional. The functions of the action phases are

associated with identification and performance of specific L2 learning tasks, and the

characteristics of the tasks consist of social-level factors, behavioral intention, and

volitional action. In the initial, pre-decisional phase, L2 individual learners are faced

with perceived attitudes toward L2 learning, expected achievement and perceived

capability of performing learning tasks associated with the executed achievement. In

other words, learners weigh their evaluative disposition toward the learning tasks, the

expectations perceived from their significant others, and the feasibility of attaining the

goal. The following preactional phase is associated with intentional states, whose

tasks are to set goals and specify implementing plans to execute the learning tasks in

the course of the learning process. In the end of this phase, previously perceived

evaluation, expectations and feasibility of the L2 learning have been set into goals as

well as tuned tasks relevant to when, where, how and what to execute. The actional

phase is associated with the behavioral state concerning the translation of previously

set goals and implementing plans into regulatory control and actual learning behavior.

It is argued that volition is an important factor in sustaining the specified plans and the

action and behavioral effort should be credited in performing mastery of L2 learning

and achievement.

A process orientation learning model may be promoted over a goal orientation

learning one by focusing students on the effective and practical implementation of

intention cues rather than on a far-reaching goal. Therefore, to promote

process-oriented learning, the focus should be on establishing positive attitudes and

supportive values toward L2 learning and make accessible the implementation of

175

plans to complete a learning task – rather than on stressful, normative expectations

and methodological goal-oriented learning, which provides students, who would

otherwise be without implementable plans, the means to help them achieve their goals.

This change in focus can be promoted through school policy and classroom practice,

and even between individuals’ interactions. Both schools and teachers should work on

a feasible and positive process-oriented learning approach rather than on setting a

mere goal or examination-oriented teaching and learning approach. It may be more

beneficial to train students to plan their studies in the course of L2 learning and

consider individual differences so as to provide them with support to construct a sense

of group cohesiveness between learners during classroom practice.

176

CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusion

In consideration of motivational theories of L2 learning, the current model seems to

provide support for the elaboration of L2 learning motivational theories. The two

newly developed scales and the added motivational variables appear to contribute to a

more comprehensive and full-scoped view of the motivation theories. Ajzen’s theory

of planned behavior model was selected as the major theoretical framework because

of its merits with respect to the reasonable learning sequential in a concrete structural

model. To improve the measurement problem in the subjective norms and the low

predictive power of intention on behavior of the TRA and the TPB, the current study

was made to design two reliable and validated scales of social norms and behavioral

intention with regard to language learning. The social norms variable was constructed

with three indicators, each with three normative sources, in an attempt to cover a more

complete dimension of this construct. The design of behavioral intention was based on

Gollwitzer’s implementation intention in an attempt to strengthen the predictive

power of intention on behavior by specifying what, when, where and how to learn an

L2 with effectively implementable plans. These two constructs result in significant

prediction of the variables they hypothesized, giving evidence of the validated design

of the two scales and the importance of these two variables in L2 learning motivation

research. The structural model in this study places an emphasis on the external

social-oriented factors that are not perceived but are commonly recognized by others

in the initial, predecisional phase, moving toward internal factors of individual’s goal

setting intention in light of assessing the feasibility for them to attain their goals and

the implementation intention in the preactional phase, and to finally execute the

177

enacted plans with volitional strength as well as individual efforts on a series of L2

learning behavior in the actional phase.

The modification and extension of Ajzen’s TPB model in the current model

highlight the generation of social, cognitive, pragmatic, affective and behavioral

relationships among the factors proposed. The development of a theoretical sound and

empirically applicable that focuses on learning would be an important step forward in

making language teaching and learning more effective. For example, the model

suggests that attitudes toward L2 learning and social norms have a direct influence on

both goal intention and implementation intention; and social norms have another

direct influence on self-regulatory capacity, and self-confidence on self-regulatory

capacity and L2 learning behavior. The results in this study showed that the effects of

social norms and implementation intention on L2 learning should be taken into

pedagogical consideration in a more realistic manner. The impact of social norms

have been embedded in the process of learning environment and was often assessed in

natural, authentic context of learners’ experiences perceived from their significant

others’ reaction whereas implementation intention may assist students with explicit

training and practice in actual learning contexts. Therefore, when a teacher observes

that students have positive attitudes toward L2 learning, value perceived expectations

from their significant others on their study if the perceived pressure is not too stressful,

and have a high value of self-confidence in second language learning, the teacher may

assume that the students exhibit a high set of goal, high level of implementing plans,

and high level of volitional persistence as well as exerted efforts on learning behavior.

Since the study does not really train students to execute an implementation intention

language program, the results of the current study may be underestimated. Though

they could manage to implement in the real classroom behavior, it could be

178

reasonably expected to speculate that the positive effects might be amplified if

teachers were to apply implementation intention strategically and in a

context-appropriate manner.

The current model is definitely not the final one in L2 learning motivation but it

provides initial support for the development of a comprehensive model elaborated and

grounded on Ajzen’s (1991, 2005), Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) and Tseng and Schmitt

(2008) model of vocabulary learning. The new design of this model contributes to a

more comprehensive view of the motivational process in terms of the actional control

phases. The model further distinguished goal intention from implementation intention

with the latter provides significant pedagogical implications to teachers and learners.

The results imply that when a teacher observes that student exhibits higher levels of

goal and implementation intention, the teacher may hypothesize they are influenced

by their attitudes toward l2 learning and perceived higher social expectations from

their significant others. The teacher may further hypothesize that the implementation

intention will affect their subsequent following L2 learning behavior with volitional

control.

Given our present model, it would be meaningful that future studies should

further examine the relationships that do not display significant influences in this

study. They do not present significant relationships may lie in the fact that there are

several mediating factors between the external antecedents and the final mastery of L2

learning and L2 achievement. One of the most salient features of the mediating factors

is the distinction of the two types of intention in the preactional phase before an

individual takes actions. These two intentions do not show significant influence from

self-confidence, neither does the goal intention contribute significant effects on the

two types of learning behaviors, self-regulation on the tactics of L2 learning behavior,

179

and the mastery of L2 learning on L2 achievement. Future research may test the

validity of goal and implementation intention with respect to linguistic

self-confidence. Students could be asked to evaluate the level of perceived confidence,

outline their pursued goals, and to specify plans they will do to achieve the goals.

Throughout the course, student could be given opportunities to receive feedback from

their significant others and to assess their progress in terms of plans achieved, effort

exerted, and level of volitional strength.

In summary, this current model is a first attempt to investigate the motivational

variables in different action phases situating in the second language learning context.

The findings suggest the measured constructs in Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior

with the other added motivational variables in terms of Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s

action phases of the Rubicon model are applicable in the L2 learning motivation

environment. It is hoped that this study will raise further attention on the relationships

among motivational factors as well as in different action phases, particularly the

newly constructed factors, social norms and implementation intention, as well as

self-regulatory capacity and mastery of the second language. It is also expected that

this study will trigger additional research to test the model and confirm the current

findings.

Pedagogical Implications

In accordance with the importance of social contexts on L2 learning aforementioned,

the development of Social Norms in Language Learning, was thus to fill in the gap

raised by several researchers and to improve the instrumental scale with validated

psychometrics. The instrument development in this study consists of 3 facets with

solid theoretical basis, each facet includes four items and each item comes from three

180

sources (parents, teachers and friends) that make a total of 12 items for each facet in

an attempt to provide a more comprehensive scope on this construct. The current

instrument may improve the deficiency of single item domain analyzed in previous

studies.

The advantage of a model of process-oriented language learning lies in the extent

to which many constructs/factors can be directed at the classroom level via guidance

of students’ attitudes or interpersonal interactions between students. A supportive

social motivation may be promoted over a competitive learning mode by focusing

students on collaborative learning in the process of learning rather than on getting a

better score than other students. Thus, it is worthy to promote the value of positive

social relationships and to minimize the sole focus on normative expectations and

orthodox linguistics norms. The construct of implementation intention is particularly

interesting because this is the first time this construct has been designed with a

reliable and validated psychometric instrument and adapted in language learning

contexts. It demonstrates a critical role.

Predecisional Phase

Social norms are commonly social standards which regulate group members to act

with respect to the standards. Norms can either reinforce individual’s motivation to

learn an L2 in social environment or to bring negative pressure to bear on the

individual to avoid acting in accordance with the norms. In order to prevent the social

norms from giving too much pressure on the individual learner, Chang (2010)

suggested that group cohesiveness could facilitate the learning within an L2 group.

This idea of providing positive learning environment has an influential effect on

learner motivation gives teachers implications to develop a cohesive learning context,

181

such as helping group members to learn cooperatively, to promote positive

interpersonal relationships among learners, and to encourage learning experiences.

Teachers may design pair or group activities to promote positive interactions among

learners who are encouraged to share their ideas and experiences, through which

learners become familiar with each other and willing to sanction those who lag behind

in the learning.

Furthermore, teachers may monitor students’ learning and capture needs to

generate scaffolding learning contexts among students, with the more capable students

to give assistance to those who fail to catch up with the accepted standards. In the

long run, such beneficial interactions will generate the development of a cohesive

learning environment, where the capable students get a feeling capable of helping

others and a sense of achievement while the less capable others feel supportive and

receive effective assistance from their classmates. In this regards, teachers play a

pivotal role as a teacher in designing and encouraging such a beneficial learning

approach, as a scaffolder in giving directions and guidance to the capable others how

to help and understand their peers, and as an evaluator in assessing the teaching

activity design and the progress of the students’ overall learning. With the assistance

of the teacher, the capable students take an initial step to train themselves to be group

leaders, to learn to communicate with others, and to realize that there is more to learn

than just getting good grades. The less capable students, on the other hand, supported

and assisted by their more capable peers, will gradually catch up with their studies and

gain self-confidence and will in turn give their shares when others are in need. Such

pedagogical teaching design and learning modes correspond with Vygotsky’s

sociocultural theory which considers the social environment as the source of the mind

development. Through the participation in various learning activities, learners

182

cultivate different functions in ways that “nurture and scaffold” them. It is strongly

recommended that learners develop positive perception of learning attitudes, social

norms, and self-confidence in the predecisional phase. Accordingly, the

implementation intention will be formed naturally, and enacted effectively. Without

the positive values of the learning attitudes in the motivational antecedents, learners’

intention to proceed their action will be weak, let alone the volitional regulation in the

later stage.

Preactional Phase

When learners experience the rewards of scaffolding learning and working

cooperatively as group members, teachers may then guide the learners to set a

learning goal which will direct and generate implementation intention formation.

From the sociocultural perspectives, the child development in the cultural functions

undergoes two stages “first in social, later in the psychological, first in relations

between people as an interpsychological category, afterwards within the child as an

intrapsychological category” (cited in Valsiner, 1987, p. 67). With the guidance of the

teacher, learners make their study plans by specifying when, where, how and what to

study. For example, learners who intend to study English grammar could select the

specific sentence patterns that they find more difficult and specify when and where

they would do more exercises to familiarize themselves with the patterns. The

consequence of specifying such learning acts means the anticipated grammatical cues

have been stored and activated in the mental representation. Once the opportunities of

the heightened cued, i.e. the specified grammatical sentence patterns, are encountered,

learners would respond more swiftly and accurately due to the accessibility stored in

the mental representation.

183

Although the learners did not understand well the sentence patterns in the initial

learning stage, the association between the specified cues and the intended correct

response to the sentence patterns will be promoted through constant practice and

discussion with their peers or teachers. In this respect, learner first study the sentence

patterns from the teacher in the class, do group activities with their peers. Afterward,

they specify their own situations and strategic tactics to do more exercises to get to

know the sentence patterns better by enacting the implementation intention. If they

have any parts they still can’t figure out, they can raise their questions in group

discussion in class. The more capable classmates will help them out. In collaboration

with the more capable students, the novice students develop their higher

psychological functions from learning to solve problems. The interpersonal

relationships between the learners and their confidence on their study of this particular

English subject will be enhanced. The phase of intention enactment is critical to cross

the Rubicon to engage a learner in committing themselves with planned cues to help

them achieve their learning goals effectively and efficiently.

Actional Phase

However, it is argued that it is still not sufficient and might be wrong to assume that

people would always take action to achieve their goal with high intention. Since

course learning in school, particularly learning a second language, concerns a

long-term process, volitional strength to attain the goal would be determinant during

the execution of the learning acts. Previously perceived social norms would be the

standard that regulates the goal-directed learning behavior. In order to meet the

targeted goal, individual learners need to set out their enacted plans and exert efforts

to carry out their various learning behaviors.

184

Vygotsky highlighted that, “All higher psychological functions are internalized

relationship of the social kind.” (cited in Valsiner, 1987, p. 67). Self-regulation is an

internalized capacity governed by social norms, yet teachers can help learners to

develop such regulating capacity. For instance, teachers may, with the advantages of

implementing plans, train their students to be aware of their volitional strength while

executing their study plans, especially when students encounter frustration or

temptations. Furthermore, teachers may encourage students to work as a small group,

so students may share their experiences to help each other overcome their emotional

difficulties encountered. This way, students’ attention will be focused more on the

study. With constant practice and sharing, students learn to modify their learning

tactics and how to deal with their volitional problems. Teachers then need to observe

the progress of the students activating volitional control and may reward them with

small gifts and praise them a good job when the right situations emerge.

In response to significant metacognitive operations of the mastery of L2 learning,

learners are suggested to exert effort in cultivating their metacognitive mastery

operations and make sense of the metacognitive knowledge in exercising the strategy

use. Compared to the cognitive strategy use in the tactics of L2 learning behavior,

which reveals no significant effects on L2 achievement, it should be noted that it is

the metacgonitive strategies appear to have more powerful effects than those cognitive

strategies themselves on reaching certain levels of L2 achievement. It is argued that

the metacognitive evaluations are most effectively operated when students are given

learning tasks appropriate to or slightly above their current level of L2 knowledge.

Teachers in their pedagogical plans can demonstrate and train the students to use

metacognitive learning strategies in appropriate learning contexts with explicit

teaching mechanism to ensure that the students have acquired the metacognitive

185

operations through constant exercises.

Summary of Pedagogical Implications

It should be noted that the significant role of intention plays in this study. Previous

studies place more emphases on goal intentions which tend to deal with goal-setting

rather than deal with cue-response plans making. It seems to be traditional aptitude

approach that learners state in ideal as “I want to do such to achieve that (goal).”

However, this type of internal statement will not be realized clearly and concretely as

Dörnyei (2001, p. 94) argued, “simply having the incentive to strive for a goal does

not guarantee that the person will actually undertake the effort that is required” (p. 94).

For this reason, the goal-setting as the initial stage of intention formation in terms of

learners’ positive appraisal of L2 learning plays a significant role in initiating

intention formation, which should further be fostered by the concrete and feasible

plans of specific engagement in learning. In this phase, learners involve in motivation

maintenance and volitional controls of an individual with an informed action plan that

helps engage in actional process.

It is believed that a better solution to such problems is through pedagogical

education. If we design a pedagogical training program with a focus on the

implementation intention that helps L2 learners specify what, when, where, and how

to do with respect to L2 learning, running the program will allow us to observe the

consequences on the students of the implementing plans as the individuals proceed

with the program over time. These consequences may turn out to be reflections of the

effectiveness of implementation intention imposed to the individuals. The systematic

progress may exhibit emergent properties that are valuable to students, teachers and

researchers of such a program.

186

In this procedure, teacher may use pedagogical design to discover the

consequences of the effects of implementation intention serving as the behavioral

units for determining the extent of achieving L2 learning goals. It may not be the only

factors of reaching L2 achievement; nevertheless, it is essential for two reasons. First,

learning a second language is not only concerned with cognitive or affective factors

but also associated with behavioral specified plans. With the assistance of planned

cues, it is important for learners of second languages with volitional persistence. With

the assistance of specified plans, volitional strength will not be void but effective and

progressive in the process of learning.

Research Implications

The basic concept of this current model was grounded on Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory

of planned behavior for second language learning, and folstered by Gollwitzer’s (1993,

1999) implementation intention and Tseng and Schmitt’s self-regulatory capacity and

mastery of L2 Learning. The modification and extension of Ajzen’s theory of planned

behavior in the current model highlight the social, cognitive, affective and behavioral

relationships among the factors proposed in three phases. Future research should

assess the modification and the effects on the L2 learning motivation factors proposed

in the current study in a longitudinal study. The intent of the hypothesized model is to

demonstrate that the two newly introduced variables, social norms and

implementation intention, should be taken into account in consideration of L2

motivation research. Two added variables, self-regulatory capacity and mastery of L2

learning concerning volitional controls and learners’ language ability, play important

roles since learning a language is a long-termed process and deserve more attention in

L2 motivation studies. It is recommended that further studies can be conducted to

187

confirm the findings of these four variables found in this study.

To what extent can a student alter their perceived social norms and balance them

with their learning behavior, goal intention, implementation intention, self-regulation,

the tactics of L2 learning behavior and mastery of L2 leaning? Further research may

focus on addressing the characteristics of the environment that contributes to the

changes in terms of either of the attributes. According to the findings of this study, it

is also imperative that teachers enrich the learning environment in the classroom by

training students more supportive for their peers or by offering more encouraging

communicative ways for students to reconstruct their self-confidence and positive

attitudes toward L2 learning. Training students in coping with their perceived

expectations from their significant others and assisting them in developing their own

unique ways of learning would make them independent and effective learners. The

training should be stressed in EFL learning environments in Taiwan because most of

the learning settings do not offer sufficient opportunities for students to reflect their

frustration and to receive support and warmth from their significant others in the

process of L2 learning. For instance, research may be conducted to test the validity of

implementation intention in the classroom context. Students could be asked to write

down their study plans specifying when, where and how they would do the review of

a specific grammatical sentence pattern in the class. Students would be asked to

evaluate whether or not they completed their specified plans and would be given some

feedback from their teachers and classmates. Throughout the course, students would

be given similar tasks and evaluation of their progress and whether they would alter

their learning goals. Given these tasks, it would allow teachers to observe whether or

not the manipulation has actual effects on learner’s motivation.

188

Limitations

Some cautions remain in terms of the generalizability of the findings in the study. The

sampling of the data was drawn on one occasion to investigate the effects of

high-school students’ L2 learning motivation in terms of three phases. The complex

constructs of the model lends a certain amount of validity to the comprehensiveness of

the three-phased design. The latent variables hypothesized in this structural model

also made it possible to interpret the internal structure of L2 learning motivation in

terms of the variation of constructs across temporal phases. The nature of the data,

however, also posed some limitations: in order to evaluate a processed model from a

cohort population, motivational variables that represent different phases were

performed at a survey measure. Thus, the results reported in this study may not

generally represent L2 learners’ immediate learning context. Instead, this study

targeted at more comprehensive motivational constructs and generalized process that

explained a succession of the students’ motivational determinants, motivational

planned cues, and motivational behavior as well as its outcomes. Fulmer and Frijters

(2009) argued that motivation can be viewed as a trait and appears to be stable over

time, but motivation is also viewed as dynamic and situational-oriented, and gives rise

to changes in motivation over time and across situational in developmental-related

studies. However, the results of this study can be extended and generalized from

diverse population such as respondents from individualistic cultural contexts as well

as across various learning phases in a longitudinal study.

189

REFERENCES

Abraham, C., Sheeran, P., & Johnston, M. (1998). From health beliefs to

self-regulation: Theoretical advances in the psychology of action control.

Psychology and Health, 13, 569-591.

Achtziger, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Motivation and volition in the cCourse of

action. In J. Heckhausen and H. Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp.

272-295). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl

and J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39).

Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2001). Predicting hunting intentions and behavior: An application of the

theory of planned behavior. Leisure Science, 23, 165-178.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the

theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Berkshire: Open University

Press.

Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Retrieved

on May 23, 2010 at http://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social

behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Albarracin, D., Fishbein, M., Johnson, B. T., & Muellerieile, P. A. (2001). Theories of

190

reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 142-161.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms. goals, stuctures, and student motivation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84, 267-271.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour. A

meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (Eds.) (1974). Motivation and achievement.

Washington, DC: Winston & Sons.

Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social-psychological theory of

second language (L2) learning. Language Learning, 38, 75-100

Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). Exchange and decision processes in the buying center. In T. V.

Bonoma & G. Zaltman (Eds.), Organizational Buying Behavior (pp. 100-125).

Chicago: AMA.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178-204.

Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in

communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50(2),

311-341.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American

Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive

theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Bandura1982AP.pdf

191

Journal of Management, 13, 275-302.

Bandura, A. (1989a). A social cognitive theory of action. In J. P. Forgas & M. J. Innes

(Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp.

127-138). North Holland: Elsevier.

Bandura, A. (1989b). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American


Bandura, A. (1991). Self-regulation of motivation through anticipatory and

self-reactive mechanisms. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1990, 39,

69-164.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.

Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.

Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1997b). Personal efficacy in psychobiologic functioning. In G. V.

Caprara (Ed.), Bandura: A leader in psychology (pp. 43-66). Milan, Italy:

Franco Angeli.

Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda,

(Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency,

variability, and organization (pp. 185-241). New York: Guilford Press.

Barlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi-square

approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16, 296-298.

Bartley, D. E. (1970). The importance of the attitude factor in language dropout: A

preliminary investigation of group and sex differences. Foreign Language

Annals, 3(3), 383-393.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and

192

why people fail at self-regulation. London: Academic Press.

Bayer, U. C., Achtziger, A., Gollwitzer, P. M. & Moskowitz, G. (2009). Responding to

subliminal cues: Do if-then plans facilitate action preparation and initiation

without conscious intent? Social Cognition, 27, 183-201

Bayer, U. C., Moskowitz, G. B., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2005). Implementation

intentions and action initiation without conscious intent. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Konstanz, Germany.

Bell, T. R. (2005). Behaviors and attitudes of effective foreign language teachers:

Results of a questionnaire study. Foreign Language Annals, 38(2), 259-270.

Bloom, B. S. (1981). All Our children learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bögels S, & Mansell, W. (2004). Attention processes in the maintenance and

treatment of social phobia: Hypervigilance, avoidance and self-focused

attention. Clinical Psychology Review, 24(7), 827-56.

Brändstatter, V., & Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Implementation

intentions and efficient action initiation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 81, 946-960.

Briggs, J. B. (1989). Students’ approaches to learning in Anglo-Chinese schools.

Educational Research Journal, 4, 8-17.

Briggs, J. B. (1990). Asian students’ approaches to learning: Implications for

teaching overseas students. Keynote discussion paper, 8th

Australasian Tertiary

Learning Skills and Language Conference, Queensland University of

Technology, Australia.

Briggs, J. B. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in

Hong Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6,

27-39.

http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gollwitzer/09_Bayer_Achtziger_etal_subliminal_implementation_intent.pdf



193

Briggs, J. B. (1992). Why and how do Hong Kong students learn? Using the Learning

and Study Process Questionnaires. University of Hong Kong: Faculty of

Education.

Briggs, J. B. (1993). Why do Asian students perform so well? Lessons for the West.

Keynote address, Australian Association for Research in Education Conference,

Fremantale, Australia.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. 2nd

Ed. NY: Addition Wesley Longman, Inc.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables:

Analysis of covariance structures. California, Sage: Thousand Oaks.

Chan, B., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The WTC scale as a predictor of classroom

participation. Communication Research Reports, 4(2), 47-50.

Chang, L. Y. (2010). Group processes and EFL learners’ motivation: A study of group

dynamics in EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 129-154.

Chen, H., & Lan, W. (1998). Adolescents perception of their parents academic

expectation. Adolescents, 33, 385 – 390

Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second

language. In H. M. Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language:

Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Clément, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: an investigation

of the effects of language status and individual characteristics. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 5, 271-290.

Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in

194

a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 22, 190-209.

Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence and

group cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3),

417- 448.

Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Motivational variables in second

language acquisition: A study of Francophones learning English. Canadian

Journal of Behavioral Science, 9, 123-133.

Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition:

The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence.

Language Learning, 33, 273-291.

Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second

language proficiency: A test of Clément’s model. Journal of Language and

Social Psychology, 4, 21-37.

Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1980). Social and individual factors in

second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 12,

293-302.

Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A

review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

28, 1429-1464.

Cook, V. (1996). Second language learning and language teaching. London: Arnold.

Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe

about them? System, 27, 493-513.

Coulson, J., Carr, C.T., Hutchinson, I., & Eagle, D. (1987). The new oxford

encyclopedic dictionary. Singapore: Toppan Printing Company.

195

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on school

reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.

Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.


Cross, D. (1995). Practical handbook of language teaching. Great Britain: The Bath

Press.

Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning

motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The

Modern Language Journal, 89, 19-36.

Dai, M.-H., & Tseng, W.-T. (2011). Measuring intention in language learning: A

confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 108, 766-778.

Dandy, J., & Nettelbeck, T. (2002). Research note: A cross-cultural study of parents’

academic standards and educational aspirations for their children. Educational


Davis, D., & Sorrell, J. (1995). Mastery learning in public schools. Retrieved October

20, 2010, from http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/files/mastlear.html

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically

motivated learning and achievement. In A.K. Boggiano & T.S. Pittman (Eds.),

Achievement and motivation: A social developmental perspective (pp. 3-36).

Toronto, ON: Cambridge University Press.

Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation in

196

education: The self-determination. The Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-346.

Donato, R., & McCormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language

learning strategies: The role of mediation. The Modern Language Journal, 78,

453-464. [Special issue on sociocultural theory and L2 learning.]

Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning.


Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.

Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language

Teaching, 31, 117- 135.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Essex: Pearson Education

Limited.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). New themes and approaches in second language motivation

research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning:

Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, sp1, 3-32.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Zoltan Dörnyei and Ema

Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol:

Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Motivational dynamics in second language

acquisition: Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23,

421-462.

Dörnyei, Z., & Malderez, A. (1999). The role of group dynamics in foreign language

197

learning and teaching. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp.

155-169). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2

motivation. Working Papers in Applied linguistics (Thames Valley University,

London), 4, 43-69.

Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and

development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of

adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215-225.

Ehrman, M. E., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language

education: The visible and invisible classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J.

Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.

52-72). New York: Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach avoidance motivation.

Motivation and Emotion, 30, 111-116.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2×2 achievement goal framework. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

198

Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied

Linguistics, 27, 1-24.

Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency,

cue competition, salience, overshadowing, blocking and perceptual learning.

Applied Linguistics, 27, 164-194.

Feldt, L. S. (1961). The use of extreme groups to test for the presence of a relationship.

Psychometrika, 26, 307-316.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An

introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social

behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned

action approach. New York: Psychology Press.

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some)

fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3),

285-300.

Fulmer, S. M., & Frijters, J. C. (2009). A review of self-report and alternative

approaches in the measurement of student motivation. Educational Psychology

Review, 21, 219-246.

Gallo, I. S., Keil, A., McCulloch, K. C., Rockstroh, B., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2009).

Strategic automation of emotion regulation. Journal of Personality and Social


Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and language learning: The role of attitudes

and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second-language learning:

199

Assumption, findings, and issues. Language Learning, 38, 101-126.

Gardner, R. C. (1996). Motivation and second language acquisition: perspectives.

Journal of the CAAL, 18, 19-42.

Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivation, and second language

acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41, 10-24.

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z.

Dörnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Learning.

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language

acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second

language learning. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative

motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course.


Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., & Tremblay, P. F. (1999). Home background

characteristics and second language learning. Journal of Language and Social


Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. M. (1997). Towards a full model of

second language learning: An empirical investigation. The Modern Language

Journal, 81, 344-362.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In W. Stroebe &

M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp.

141-185). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J.

200

A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to

behavior ( pp. 287-312). New York: Guilford.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-297.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of action: Linking

cognition and motivation to behavior. New York: Guilford Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Brändstatter, V., (1997). Implementation intentions and effective

goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 186-199.

Gollwitzer, P. M., Fujita, K., & Oettingen, G. (2004). Planning and the implementation

of goals. In R. F. Baumeister and K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of

Self-Regulation: Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal

achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 249-268.

Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students:

Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13,

21–43.

Graham, S. J. (1994). Classroom motivation from an attributional perspective. In H. F.

Jr. O’Neil & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 31-48).

NJ, Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2001). Cross-cultural response to failure: Considering

outcome attributions within different goals. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, & &. Y. Hong

(Eds. ), Students motivation: The cultural and context of learning. New York:

201

Plenum.

Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivation language learners: A

classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on

student movation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55-77.

Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., & Von Secker, C. (2000). Effects of Integrated instruction on

motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,

331-341.

Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2005). First- and higher-order models of

attitudes, normative influence, and perceived behavioural control in the theory

of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 513-535.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). The influence of

autonomous and controlling motives on physical activity intentions within the

theory of planned behavior. British Journal of health psychology, 7, 283-297.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data

analysis. (6th

ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data

analysis: A global perspective. (7th

ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The research manual. Boston, MA: Heinle &

Heinle.

Heckhausen, J. (1987). Vorsatz, wille und bedürfnis: Lewins frühes vermächtnis und

ein zugeschutteter rubikon [Intention, will, and need: Lewin’s early legacy and

a missed Rubicon]. In H. Heckhausen, P. M. Gollwitzer & R. E. Weinert (Eds.),

Jeneits des rubikon: Der wille in den humanwissenschaften (pp. 86-96). Berlin,

Germany: Springer.

Heckhausen, J. (1989). Motivation und handeln [Motivation and action] (2nd

ed.).

202

Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Hechhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer.

Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive

functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and

Emotion, 11, 101-120.

Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short

cuts on the long way to action. In M. Frese & J. Sabini (Eds.), Goal-directed

behaviour: The concept of action in psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Henry, A., & Apelgren, B. M. (2008). Young learners and multilingualism: A study of

learner attitudes before and after the introduction of a second foreign language

to the curriculum. System, 36, 607-623.

Hidi, S., Renninger, K. A., & Krapp, A. (1992). The present state of interest research.

In K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning

and development (pp. 433-447). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic

under-achievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and

underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155.

Hiromori, T. (2009). A process model of L2 learners’ motivation: From the

perspectives of general tendency and individual differences. System, 37,

313-321.

Hong, S., & Ho, H.-Z. (2005). Direct and indirect longitudinal effects of parental

involvement on student achievement: Second-order latent growth modeling

across ethnic groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 32-42.

Horwitz, E. K. Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

203

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and

applications (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure

analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation

Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Inbar, O., Donitsa-Schmidt, S., & Shohamy, E. (2001). Students’ motivation as a

function of language learning: The teaching of Arabic in Israel. In Z. Dörnyei

and R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. Honolulu:

University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.

Jacques, S. R. (2001). Preferences for instructional activities and motivation: A

comparison of student and teacher perspectives. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt

(Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu: University of

Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Järvelä, S. (2001). Shifting research on motivation and cognition to an integrated

approach. In S. Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts:

Theoretical advances and methodological implications (pp. 3-14). London:

Pergamon.

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software].

Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and

development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191-206.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Kaplan, D. (2001). Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual

204

and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the

United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72, 1245-1267.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd

ed.).

New York: The Guilford Press.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (3rd

ed.).

New York: The Guilford Press.

Kuhl, J. (2008). Individual dDifferences in self-regulation. In J. Heckhausen & H.

Heckhausen (Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 296-322). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Kuhl, J., & Kraska, K. (1989). Self-regulation and meta-motivation: Computational

mechanism, development, and assessment. In R. Kanfer, P. L. Ackerman & R.

Cudeck (Eds.), Abilities, motivation, and methodology (p. 32). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ladd, G. W. (1989). Children’s social competence and social support: Presursors of

early school adjustment? In B. Schneider, G. Attili, J. Nadel & R. Weissberg,

(Eds.), Social competence in developmental perspective (pp. 277-292).

Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Lai, Y. C. (2009). Language learning strategy use and English proficiency of

university freshmen in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 43, 255-280.

Landy, F. J., & Becker, W. S. (1987). Motivation theory reconsidered. Research in

Organization Behavior, 9, 1-38.

Lantolf, J. P. (1985). On communication strategies: A functional perspective.

Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata. 17(2/3), 143-157.

Lantolf, J. P. (1993). Sociocultural theory and the second-language classroom: The

205

lesson of strategic interaction. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Strategic interaction and

language acquisition: Theory, practice and research, (pp. 220-233).

Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Lengfelder, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2001). Reflective and reflexive action control in

frontal lobe patients. Neuropsychology, 15, 80,-100.

Leone, L., & Peru, M. (1999). A comparison of three models of attitude-behavior

relationships in the studying behavior domain. European Journal of Social


Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language

Use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The

Modern Language Journal, 87(iii), 343-364.

Lievens, F., Peeters, H., & Schollaert, E. (2008). Situational judgment tests: A review

of recent research. Personnel Review, 37, 426-441.

Lin, B.-J., & Chiou, W.-B. (2010). Undergraduates' intentions to take a second

language proficiency test: A comparison of predictions from the theory of

planned behavior and social cognitive theory. Psychological Reports, 106(3),

798-810.

Liu, H. T. (2008). Scale development and causal-effect studies of self-regulation in

English language learning. Unpublished Master’s thesis, National Taiwan

Normal University, Taipei.

Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X.

(2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error

correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(i), 91-104.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

206

Ma, X. (2000). Socioeconomic gaps in academic achievement within schools: Are

they consistent across subject areas? Educational Research and Evaluation, 6,

337-355.

MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal

analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11(2), 135-142.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communication in the second language:

understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern

Language Journal, 91(iv), 564-576.

MacIntyre, P. D., Babin, P. A., & Clément, R. (1999). Willingness to communicate:

Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47(2), 215-229.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to

communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion

students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369-388.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2002). Sex and age

effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2

motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language

Learning, 52(3), 537-564.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. A. (2003). Talking in

order to learn: Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs.

Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(4), 589-607.

MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, 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.

MacIntyre, P. D., MacMaster, K., & Baker, S. C. (2001). The convergence of multiple

models of motivation for second language learning: Gardner, Pintrich, Kuhl,

207

and McCroskey. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second

language acquisition (Technical Report#23, pp. 461-492). Honolulu: University

of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Marcoulides, G., Eskeles, G., Gottfried, A., & Oliver, P. (2008). A latent transition

analysis of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through adolescence.

Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 411-427.

Martinez, R. S., Aricak, O. T., & Jewell, J. (2008). Influence of reading attitude on

reading achievement: A test of the temporal-interaction model. Psychology in

the Schools, 45(10), 1010-1022.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language

learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.


McGroarty, M. (1998). Constructive and constructivist challenges for applied

linguistics. Language Learning, 48, 591-622.

McGroarty, M. (2001). Situating second language motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & R.

Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (Technical Report

#23, pp. 69-92). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching

and Curriculum Center.

McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate

scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25.

McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension,

and self-perceived communication competence: Conceptualizations and

perspectives. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, & D. M. Ayres (Eds.),

Avoiding communication: syness, reticence, & communication apprehension,

(pp. 75-108). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

208

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Student/teacher relations and

attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high

school. Child Development, 60, 981-992.

Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies

and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language

annals, 38, 100-107.

Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and

integrative orientations of French Canadian learner of English. Canadian

Modern Language Review, 57(3), 424-444.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd

ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Nurmi, J.-E., & Aunola, K. (2005). Task-motivation during the first school years: A

person-oriented approach to longitudinal data. Learning and Instruction, 15(2),

103-122.

Oller, J. W. (1978). Attitude variables in second language learning. In M. Burt, H.

Dulay, & M. Finsocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language

(pp. 172-184). New York: Regents.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language

acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P.

(1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students.


Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998). Inclined abstainers: A problem for predicting

health-related behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,

151-165.

209

Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (2000). Motivation and volitional processes in action

initiation: A field study of the role of implementation intentions. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 30, 780-797.

Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with

implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.

New York: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. (1994). Where are we with language learning motivation? The Modern

Language Journal, 78, 512-514.

Oxford, R. (Ed.). (1996). New pathways of language learning motivation. In

Language learning motivation: Pathways to a new century (Tech. Rep. No 11,

pp. 1-8). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Second Language

Teaching and Curriculum Center.

Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the

theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 12-28.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, L. K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S.

(2004). Beyond test anxiety: Development of the test emotions questionnaire

(TEQ). Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 17, 287-316.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A., & Cao, H. (1991). Students' multiple worlds: Negotiating

the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and

Education Quarterly, 22(3), 224-250.

Phillipson, S. (2006). Cultural variability in parent and child achievement attributions:

A study from Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 26, 625-542.

Phillipson, S. (2009). Context of academic achievement: Lessons from Hong Kong.

Educational Psychology, 29, 447-468.

210

Phillipson, S., & Phillipson, S. N. (2007). Academic expectation, belief of ability and

involvement by parents as predictors of child achievement: A cross-cultural

comparison. Educational Psychology, 27, 329-348.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student

motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational


Pintrich P. R., & Maehr M. L. (1995). Culture, motivation and achievement:

Foreword. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 9, ix-xi.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: theory, research,

and application. (2nd

ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rapee, R. M; Gaston, J. E., & Abbott, M. J. (2009). Testing the efficacy of

theoretically derived improvements in the treatment of social phobia. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 317-327.

Raymond, M. R., & Roberts, D. M. (1983). Development and validation of a foreign

language attitude scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(4),

1239-1246.

Rifkin, B. (2000). Revisiting beliefs about foreign language learning. Foreign

Language Annals, 33(4), 394-420.

Shapiro, S., & Schwartz, G. E. (2000) The role of intention in self-regulation: Toward

intentional systemic mindfulness. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & Zeidner, M.

(Eds), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation:

Internal structure and external connections. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language

learning motivation: Pathways to a new century (Tech. Rep. No. 11, pp. 9-70).

Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Second Language Teaching and

211

Curriculum Center.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational


Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and

performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From

teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Shapiro, S., & Schwartz, G. E. (2000) The role of intention in self-regulation: Toward

intentional systemic mindfulness. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & Zeidner, M.

(Eds), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical review.

In W. Hewstone, & M. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology

(Vol. 12, pp. 1-36). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Sheeran, P., Milne, S., Webb, T. L., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2005). Implementation

intentions. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Vol. Eds.), Predicting health behaviour:

Research and practice with social cognition models (2nd

ed., pp. 276-323).

Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Sheeran, P., & Taylor, S. (1999). Predicting intentions to use condoms: A

meta-analysis and comparison of the theories of reasoned action and planned

behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 298, 1624-1675.

Sheppard, B. H., Harwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action:

A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and

future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.

Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London:

212

Edward Arnold.

Smith, V., Mirenda, P., Zaidman-Zait, A. (2007). Predictors of expressive vocabulary

growth in children with autism. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing

Research, 59, 149-160.

Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Spolsky, B. (2000). Language motivation revisited. Applied Linguistics, 21, 157-169.

Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational

Researcher, 27(3), 11-20.

Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S.-Y., Chen, c.-S., Stigler, J. W., Hsu, C.-C., & Kitamura, S.

(1990). Contexts of achievement: A study of American, Chinese, and Japanese

children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55,

1-2.

Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are

failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New

York: Summit Books.

Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we

doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317-1338.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th

ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tachibana, Y., Matsukawa, R., & Zhong, Q. X. (1996). Attitudes and motivation for

learning English: A cross-national comparison of Japanese and Chinese high

school students. Psychological Reports, 79, 691-700.

Tang, M., & Neber, H. (2008). Motivation and self-regulated science learning in

high-achieving students: Differences related to nation, gender, and grade-level.

213

High Ability Studies, 19(2), 103-116.

Terry, D. J. Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1999). Group membership, social identity

and attitudes. In D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social

cognition (pp. 280-314). Oxford: Blackwell.

Tobacyk, J., & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: assessment

instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1029-1037.

Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in

language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 505-520.

Triandis, H. C. (1987). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a

basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In C Bagley & G. K. Verma

(Eds.), Personality, cognition and values: Cross-cultural perspectives of

childhood and adolescence. London: Macmillan.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of

individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

59, 1006-1020.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988).

Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323-338.

Tseng, W. T. (2009). Multidimensionality and hierarchical structure of the English

vocabulary learning attitude scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(7),

907-918.

Tseng, W. T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing

strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied

214

Linguistics, 27, 78-102.

Tseng, W. T., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Toward a model of motivated vocabulary leraning:

A structural equation modeling. Language Learning, 58, 357-400.

Ushioda, E. (1994). L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga, 14, 76-84.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology,

(vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action: A

cultural-historical theory of developmental psychology. Chichester, New York:

Wiley.

Van den Putte, B. (1991). 20 years of the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein and

Ajzen: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.

Volet, S. E. (2001). Understanding learning and motivation in context: A

multi-dimensional and multi-level cognitive-situative perspective. In S. E. Volet

& & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances

and methodological implications (pp. 57-82). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.

and Trans.), The concept of activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144-148).

Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kosulin (Ed.). Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation,

215

extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text

comprehension between U. S. and Chinese students. Reading Research

Quarterly, 39, 162-186.

Warden, C., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in Asian EFL

setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 535-547.

Webb, T. L., Ononaiye, M. S. P., Sheeran, P., Reidy, J. G., & Lavda, A. (2010). Using

implementation intentions to overcome the effects of social anxiety on attention

and appraisals of performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,

612-627.

Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Identifying good opportunities to act:

Implementation intentions and cue discrimination. European Journal of Social


Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender

behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological

Bulletin, 132, 249-268.

Weiner, B. (1984). Principles for a theory of student motivation and their application

within an attributional framework. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on

motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 15-38). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving.

Review of Educational Research, 64, 557-573.

216

Wen, Q., & Johnson, R. K., (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A

study of tertiary-level English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18, 27-48.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role

of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2),

202-209.

Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships:

Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 91(1), 76-97.

Wentzel, K.R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences

on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10,

155-175.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985a). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985b). Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian

perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1988a). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Spain: Polity

Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1988b). Mediated action in sociocultural studies. Mind, Culture, and

Activity, 1, 202-208.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement

motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading

to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,

89, 420-432.

Williams, M. (1994). Motivation in foreign and second language learning: An

217

interactive perspective. Educational and Child Psychology, 11, 77-84.

Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information

processing. In B. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning

and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd

ed., pp. 153-189).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized

aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 189-205.

Woolfolk, A. E. (2001). Educational psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Woodrow, L. J. (2006) A model of adaptive language learning. The Modern Language

Journal, 90, 297-319.

Yamashiro, A. D., & McLaughlin, J. (2000). Relationships among attitudes,

motivation, anxiety, and English language proficiency in Japanese college

students. In S. Cornwell & P. Robinson (Eds.), Individual differences in foreign

language learning: Effects of aptitude, intelligence, and motivation (pp. 9-26).

Tokyo: Aoyama Gakuin University.

Yamashiro, A., & McLaughlin, J. (2001). Relationship among attitudes, motivation,

anxiety, and English language proficiency in Japanese college students. In R.

Robinson, M. Sawyer, & S. Ross (Eds.), Second language acquisition research

in Japan (pp. 113-127). Tokyo: Japan Association for Language Teaching.

Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning

strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese

218

EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.

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), 119-154.

Yashima, T., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impact of learning contexts on

proficiency, attitudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined

international community. System, 36, 566-585.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: an

overview. Educational Psychologist 25, 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In

M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation

(pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical

background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American

Educational Research Journal, 45, 166-183.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and

academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York:

Springer-Verlag.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and

academic achievement (2nd

ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

219

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: The Item Pool of Social Norms (English version)

* My friends think we should have a good command of four skills when using the

English language.

* My friends think we should spend some time learning English every day.

* My friends think we should read some extra English materials, such newspaper or

magazines.

* My friends spend some time learning English every day.

* My friends maintain a habit of listening to English conversation.

* My friends think we should learn English well.

* My friends think we should be able to present a good report like that of native

speakers.

* My friends think we should devote ourselves to learning English grammar.

* My friends read some extra English materials, such newspaper or magazines.

* My friends think the more often speak English, the better.

* My friends think it is important to learn English well.

* My friends learn as many words as possible.

* My friends can speak good English.

* My friends learn well the four skills of English.

* My friends think we should have correct pronunciation.

* My friends think we should be able comprehend English as well as native speakers.

* My friends devote themselves to learning English grammar.

* My friends think we should be able to write a long English composition.

* My friends think we should learn as many words as possible.

* My friends often speak English.

* My friends consider we should maintain a habit of listening to English

conversation.

* My friends expect we can speak fluent English like native speakers.

* My friends think the speed of our English reading should be as fast as native

speakers.

* My friends think we should be able to write good reports using English.

* My friends think we should have English pronunciation like that of native speakers.

* My friends think we should understand American and English pronunciation.

* My English teacher(s) think I should read some extra English materials, such as

newspaper or magazines.

* My English teacher(s) expect me to learn well the four skills of English.

220

* My English teachers think I should be able to understand American and English

pronunciation.

* My English teacher(s) read some extra English materials, such as newspaper or

magazines.

* My English teacher(s) can speak good English.

* My English teacher(s) think I should learn English well.

* My English teacher(s) think I should spend some time learning English every day.

* My English teacher(s) think I should devote myself to learning English grammar.

* My English teacher(s) think I should have correct pronunciation.

* My English teacher(s) consider I should maintain a habit of listening to English

conversation.

* My English teacher(s) think the more often I speak English, the better.

* My English teacher(s) think I should be able to present good oral report like native

speakers.

* My English teacher(s) think the speed of my English reading should be as fast as that

of native speakers.

* My English teacher(s) have a good command of the four skills of English.

* My English teacher(s) know many English words.

* My English teacher(s) think my English pronunciation should be able like that of

native speakers.

* My English teacher(s) think I should comprehend English as well as native speakers.

* My English teacher(s) think I should be able to write a good English composition.

* My English teacher(s) think I should learn as many English words as possible.

* My English teacher(s) spend some time learning English.

* My English teacher(s) have excellent English grammar.

* My English teacher(s) expect me to speak fluent English like native speakers.

* My English teacher(s) maintain a habit of listening to English.

* My English teacher(s) often speak English.

* My English teacher(s) think I should be able to write good English reports.

* My family members think I should devote myself to learning English grammar.

* My family members expect that I should have a good command of four skills when

using the English language.

* My family members think I should maintain a habit of listening to English.

* My family members devote themselves to learning English grammar.

* My family members think I should learn as many English words as possible.

* My family members think I should read some extra English materials, such as


* My family members think I should understand American and English pronunciation.

* My family members think the more often I speak English, the better.

* My family members also read some extra English materials, such as newspapers or

magazines.

221

* My family members thin I should be able to write a long English composition.

* My family members think I should learn English well.

* My family members think I should be able to make English oral reports as good as

native speakers.

* My family members learn well the four skills of English.

* My family members also learn as many English words as possible.

* My family members spend some time learning English.

* My family members think I should have correct pronunciation.

* My family members listen to English habitually.

* My family members often speak English.

* My family members speak good English.

* My family member think the speed of my English reading should be as fast as that of

native speakers.

* My family members think I should be ablt to write good English reports.

* My family members think my English pronunciation should be able like that of native

speakers.

* My family members think I should spend some time learning English every day.

* My family members think I should be able to write a good English composition.

* My family members expect me to be able to comprehend English as well as native

speakers.

The item pool of Social Norms (Chinese version)

* 我的朋友認為我們應該可以把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要每天花一些時間學英文。

* 跟我關係不錯的同學認為我要多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。

* 我的朋友每天會花一些時間讀英文。

* 我的朋友有養成聽英文的習慣。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要把英文讀好。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該可以做英文口頭報告就像外國人一樣好。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要認真學英文文法。

* 我的朋友會多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該愈常開口說英文愈好。

* 我的朋友認為我們學好英文是很重要的。

* 我的朋友會儘可能多學一些單字。

* 我的朋友英文講得不錯。

* 我的朋友把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學得不錯。

222

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要發音正確。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該可以理解英文如同外國人一樣好。

* 我的朋友有認真學英文文法。

* 我的朋友覺得我們應該要能可以寫一篇長的英文作文。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要儘可能多學一些單字。

* 跟我關係不錯的朋友常常開口說英文。

* 我的朋友覺得我們應該要養成聽英文的習慣。

* 我的朋友期待我能夠像外國人一樣講流利的英文。

* 我的朋友覺得我們讀英文的速度應該可以和外國人一樣快。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要可以寫一篇不錯的報告。

* 我的朋友認為我們的英文口音應該講得像外國人一樣。

* 我的朋友認為我們應該要懂美國人及英國人的口音。

* 我的老師認為我應該多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。

* 我的老師期待我把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。

* 我的老師認為我應該要懂美國人和英國人的口音。

* 我的英文老師會讀許多英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。

* 我的老師英文講得很好。

* 我的老師認為我應該要把英文讀好。

* 我的老師覺得我應該要每天花一些時間學英文。

* 我的老師認為我應該要認真學英文文法。

* 我的老師認為我應該要發音正確。

* 我的老師覺得我應該要養成聽英文的習慣。

* 我的老師認為我應該愈常開口說英文愈好。

* 我的老師認為我應該可以做英文口頭報告像外國人一樣好。

* 我的老師覺得我讀英文的速度應該可以像外國人一樣快。

* 我的英文老師聽說讀寫很不錯。

* 我的老師懂很多英文字。

* 我的老師認為我的英文口音應該能講得像外國人一樣。

* 我的老師認為我應該要能理解英文如同外國人一樣好。

* 我的老師覺得我應該可以寫一篇不錯的英文作文。

* 我的老師認為我應該要儘可能多學一些單字。

* 我的老師每天花一些時間讀英文。

* 我的老師英文文法很好。

* 我的老師期待我能夠像外國人一樣講流利的英文。

* 我的英文老師有聽英文的習慣。

* 我的英文老師會常常開口說英文。

* 我的老師認為我應該要可以寫一篇不錯的英文報告。

223

* 我的家人認為我應該要認真學英文文法。

* 我的家人期待我把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。

* 我的家人覺得我應該要養成聽英文的習慣。

* 我的家人也會認真學英文文法。

* 我的家人認為我應該要儘可能多學一些單字。

* 我的家人認為我應該要多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。

* 我的家人認為我應該要懂美國人和英國人的口音。

* 我的家人認為我應該愈常開口說英文愈好。

* 我的家人也會讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。

* 我的家人覺得我應該可以寫一篇長的英文作文。

* 我的家人認為我應該把英文讀好。

* 我的家人認為我應該可以做英文口頭報告像外國人一樣好。

* 我的家人把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學得不錯。

* 我的家人也會儘可能多學一些單字。

* 我的家人會每天花一些時間讀英文。

* 我的家人認為我應該要發音正確。

* 我的家人有聽英文的習慣。

* 我的家人會常常開口說英文。

* 我的家人英文講得不錯。

* 我的家人覺得我讀英文的速度應該可以和外國人一樣快。

* 我的家人認為我應該要可以寫一篇不錯的英文報告。

* 我的家人認為我的英文口音應該能講得像外國人一樣。

* 我的家人覺得我應該要每天花一些時間學英文。

* 我的家人覺得我應該可以寫一篇不錯的英文作文。

* 我的家人期待我應該可以理解英文如同外國人一樣好。

224

Appendix 2: Pilot Study of the Items of Social Norms (English version)

No.

Injunctive norms (friends)

Corrected item-total correlation

1 My friends think we should learn English well. .522

2 My friends think we should have a good command of four skills when

using the English language.

.651

3 My friends think we should learn as many words as possible. .707

4 My friends think we should spend some time learning English every day. .697

5 My friends think we should devote ourselves to learning English grammar. .638

6 My friends think we should read some extra English materials, such


.640

7 My friends consider we should maintain a habit of listening to English

conversation.

.708

8 My friends think the more often speak English, the better. .518

Descriptive norms (friends)

9 My friends can speak good English. .571

10 My friends learn well the four skills of English. .648

11 My friends learn as many words as possible. .550

12 My friends spend some time learning English every day. .420

13 My friends devote themselves to learning English grammar. .597

14 My friends read some extra English materials, such newspaper or

magazines.

.571

15 My friends maintain a habit of listening to English conversation. .634

16 My friends often speak English. .364

Linguistic norms (friends)

17 My friends think we should have English pronunciation like that of native

speakers.

.714

18 My friends expect we can speak fluent English like native speakers. .724

19 My friends think the speed of our English reading should be as fast as

native speakers.

.627

20 My friends think we should understand American and English

pronunciation.

.598

21 My friends think we should have correct pronunciation. .472

22 My friends think we should be able to write a long English composition. .484

23 My friends think we should be able to write good reports using English. .661

24 My friends think we should be able to present a good report like that of

native speakers.

.640

25 My friends think we should be able comprehend English as well as native

speakers.

.615

225

No.

Injunctive norms (teachers)

Corrected

item-total

correlation

26 My English teacher(s) think I should learn English well. .653

27 My English teacher(s) expect me to learn well the four skills of English. .597

28 My English teacher(s) think I should learn as many English words as

possible.

.449

29 My English teacher(s) think I should spend some time learning English

every day.

.470

30 My English teacher(s) think I should devote myself to learning English

grammar.

.410

31 My English teacher(s) think I should read some extra English materials,

such as newspaper or magazines.

.576

32 My English teacher(s) consider I should maintain a habit of listening to

English conversation.

.553

33 My English teacher(s) think the more often I speak English, the better. .550

Descriptive norms (teachers)

34 My English teacher(s) can speak good English. .598

35 My English teacher(s) have a good command of the four skills of English. .586

36 My English teacher(s) know many English words. .677

37 My English teacher(s) spend some time learning English. .610

38 My English teacher(s) have a good command of English grammar. .527

39 My English teacher(s) read some extra English materials, such as


.608

40 My English teacher(s) maintain a habit of listening to English. .584

41 My English teacher(s) often speak English. .567

Linguistic norms (teachers)

42 My English teacher(s) think my English pronunciation should be able like

that of native speakers.

.650

43 My English teacher(s) expect me to speak fluent English like native

speakers.

.591

44 My English teacher(s) think the speed of my English reading should be as

fast as that of native speakers.

.582

45 My English teachers think I should be able to understand American and

English pronunciation.

.558

46 My English teacher(s) think I should have correct pronunciation. .319

47 My English teacher(s) think I should be able to write a good English

composition.

.580

48 My English teacher(s) think I should be able to write good English

reports.

.542

49 My English teacher(s) think I should be able to present good oral report

like native speakers.

.730

50 My English teacher(s) think I should comprehend English as well as

native speakers.

.581

226

Injunctive norms (family)


51 My family members think I should learn English well. .563

52 My family members expect that I should have a good command of four

skills when using the English language.

.546

53 My family members think I should learn as many English words as

possible.

.600

54 My family members think I should spend some time learning English

every day.

.616

55 My family members think I should devote myself to learning English

grammar.

.610

56 My family members think I should read some extra English materials,

such as newspaper or magazines.

.472

57 My family members think I should maintain a habit of listening to English. .685

58 My family members think the more often I speak English, the better. .552

Descriptive norms (family)

59 My family members speak good English. .726

60 My family members learn well the four skills of English. .823

61 My family members also learn as many English words as possible. .718

62 My family members spend some time learning English. .706

63 My family members devote themselves to learning English grammar. .804

64 My family members also read some extra English materials, such as

newspapers or magazines.

.825

65 My family members listen to English habitually. .818

66 My family members often speak English. .726

Linguistic norms (family)

67 My family members think my English pronunciation should be able like


.586

68 My family members think I should be able to write a good English

composition.

.573

69 My family member think the speed of my English reading should be as

fast as that of native speakers.

.648

70 My family members think I should understand American pronunciation. .570

71 My family members think I should have correct pronunciation. .464

72 My family members thin I should be able to write a long English

composition.

.613

73 My family members think I should be ablt to write good English reports. .647

74 My family members think I should be able to make English oral reports as

good as native speakers.

.699

75 My family members expect me to be able to comprehend English as well

as native speakers.

.532

227

Pilot study of the items in Social Norms (Chinese version)

Injunctive norms (friends)


1 我的朋友認為我們應該要把英文讀好。 .522

2 我的朋友認為我們應該可以把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。 .651

3 我的朋友認為我們應該要儘可能多學一些單字。 .707

4 我的朋友認為我們應該要每天花一些時間學英文。 .697

5 我的朋友認為我們應該要認真學英文文法。 .638

6 跟我關係不錯的同學認為我要多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜

誌。

.640

7 我的朋友覺得我們應該要養成聽英文的習慣。 .708

8 我的朋友認為我們應該愈常開口說英文愈好。 .518

Descriptive norms (friends)

9 我的朋友英文講得不錯。 .571

10 我的朋友把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學得不錯。 .648

11 我的朋友會儘可能多學一些單字。 .550

12 我的朋友每天會花一些時間讀英文。 .420

13 我的朋友有認真學英文文法。 .597

14 我的朋友會多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 .571

15 我的朋友有養成聽英文的習慣。 .634

16 跟我關係不錯的朋友常常開口說英文。 .364

Linguistic norms (friends)

17 我的朋友認為我們的英文口音應該講得像外國人一樣。 .714

18 我的朋友期待我能夠像外國人一樣講流利的英文。 .724

19 我的朋友覺得我們讀英文的速度應該可以和外國人一樣快。 .627

20 我的朋友認為我們應該要懂美國人及英國人的口音。 .598

21 我的朋友認為我們應該要發音正確。 .472

22 我的朋友覺得我們應該要能可以寫一篇長的英文作文。 .484

23 我的朋友認為我們應該要可以寫一篇不錯的報告。 .661

24 我的朋友認為我們應該可以做英文口頭報告就像外國人一樣好。 .640

25 我的朋友認為我們應該可以理解英文如同外國人一樣好。 .615

228

No.

Injunctive norms (teachers)


26 我的老師認為我應該要把英文讀好。 .653

27 我的老師期待我把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。 .597

28 我的老師認為我應該要儘可能多學一些單字。 .449

29 我的老師覺得我應該要每天花一些時間學英文。 .470

30 我的老師認為我應該要認真學英文文法。 .410

31 我的老師認為我應該多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 .576

32 我的老師覺得我應該要養成聽英文的習慣。 .553

33 我的老師認為我應該愈常開口說英文愈好。 .550

Descriptive norms (teachers)

34 我的老師英文講得很好。 .598

35 我的英文老師聽說讀寫很不錯。 .586

36 我的英文老師聽懂很多英文字。 .677

37 我的英文老師聽每天花一些時間讀英文。 .610

38 我的英文老師文法很好。

39 我的英文老師會讀許多英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 .608

40 我的英文老師有聽英文的習慣。 .584

41 我的英文老師會常常開口說英文。 .567

Linguistic norms (teachers)

42 我的老師認為我的英文口音應該能講得像外國人一樣。 .650

43 我的老師期待我能夠像外國人一樣講流利的英文。 .591

44 我的老師覺得我讀英文的速度應該可以像外國人一樣快。 .582

45 我的老師認為我應該要懂美國人的口音。 .558

46 我的老師認為我應該要發音正確。 .319

47 我的老師覺得我應該可以寫一篇不錯的英文作文。 .580

48 我的老師認為我應該要可以寫一篇不錯的英文報告。 .542

49 我的老師認為我應該可以做英文口頭報告像外國人一樣好。 .730

50 我的老師認為我應該要能理解英文如同外國人一樣好。 .581

229

No.

Injunctive norms (family)


51 我的家人認為我應該把英文讀好。 .563

52 我的家人期待我把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。 .546

53 我的家人認為我應該要儘可能多學一些單字。 .600

54 我的家人覺得我應該要每天花一些時間學英文。 .616

55 我的家人認為我應該要認真學英文文法。 .610

56 我的家人認為我應該要多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 .472

57 我的家人覺得我應該要養成聽英文的習慣。 .685

58 我的家人認為我應該愈常開口說英文愈好。 .552

Descriptive norms (family)

59 我的家人英文講得不錯。 .726

60 我的家人把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學得不錯。 .823

61 我的家人也會儘可能多學一些單字。 .718

62 我的家人會每天花一些時間讀英文。 .706

63 我的家人也會認真學英文文法。 .804

64 我的家人也會讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 .825

65 我的家人有聽英文的習慣。 .818

66 我的家人會常常開口說英文。 .726

Linguistic norms (family)

67 我的家人認為我的英文口音應該能講得像外國人一樣。 .586

68 我的家人覺得我應該可以寫一篇不錯的英文作文。 .573

69 我的家人覺得我讀英文的速度應該可以和外國人一樣快。 .648

70 我的家人認為我應該要懂美國人的口音。 .570

71 我的家人認為我應該要發音正確。 .464

72 我的家人覺得我應該可以寫一篇長的英文作文。 .613

73 我的家人認為我應該要可以寫一篇不錯的英文報告。 .647

74 我的家人認為我應該可以做英文口頭報告像外國人一樣好。 .699

75 我的家人期待我應該可以理解英文如同外國人一樣好。 .532

230

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method on the Items in Social Norms

t-value

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

1 -4.778 179 .000 -.630 .132 2 -10.543 179 .000 -1.464 .139 3 -8.538 179 .000 -1.181 .138 4 -9.594 179 .000 -1.246 .130 5 -8.778 179 .000 -1.178 .134 6 -9.054 179 .000 -1.277 .141 7 -10.518 179 .000 -1.454 .138 8 -7.360 179 .000 -1.133 .154 9 -7.252 179 .000 -.940 .130 10 -6.133 179 .000 -1.013 .165 11 -8.751 179 .000 -1.210 .138 12 -6.036 179 .000 -.825 .137 13 -5.756 179 .000 -.986 .171 14 -9.049 179 .000 -1.309 .145 15 -7.747 179 .000 -1.097 .142 16 -7.931 179 .000 -1.238 .156 17 -7.442 179 .000 -1.387 .186 18 -12.625 179 .000 -1.833 .145 19 -14.188 179 .000 -1.956 .138 20 -10.844 179 .000 -1.587 .146 21 -8.885 179 .000 -1.503 .169 22 -10.565 179 .000 -1.431 .135 23 -8.273 179 .000 -1.478 .179 24 -10.466 179 .000 -1.467 .140 25 -12.641 179 .000 -1.718 .136 26 -11.339 179 .000 -1.678 .148 27 -7.828 179 .000 -.614 .078 28 -7.333 179 .000 -.699 .095 29 -5.898 179 .000 -.591 .100 30 -4.955 179 .000 -.481 .097 31 -6.030 179 .000 -.796 .132 32 -6.500 179 .000 -.646 .099 33 -6.061 179 .000 -.635 .105 34 -6.621 179 .000 -.701 .106 35 -3.423 179 .001 -.381 .111 36 -3.053 179 .003 -.402 .132 37 -3.106 179 .002 -.305 .098 38 -4.499 179 .000 -.502 .112 39 -3.701 179 .000 -.414 .112 40 -4.510 179 .000 -.426 .094 41 -3.832 179 .000 -.361 .094 42 -11.212 179 .000 -1.613 .144 43 -10.177 179 .000 -1.407 .138 44 -9.329 179 .000 -1.511 .162 45 -9.350 179 .000 -1.385 .148 46 -6.922 179 .000 -.906 .131 47 -9.287 179 .000 -1.425 .153 48 -7.886 179 .000 -1.217 .154 49 -10.149 179 .000 -1.611 .159 50 -9.170 179 .000 -1.385 .151 51 -5.986 179 .000 -.504 .084

231

52 -6.720 179 .000 -.919 .137 53 -8.013 179 .000 -1.020 .127 54 -6.632 179 .000 -.918 .138 55 -8.621 179 .000 -1.269 .147 56 -7.716 179 .000 -1.051 .136 57 -8.435 179 .000 -1.106 .131 58 -9.816 179 .000 -1.359 .138 59 -7.282 179 .000 -1.539 .211 60 -9.268 179 .000 -1.925 .208 61 -6.779 179 .000 -1.423 .210 62 -7.661 179 .000 -1.537 .201 63 -9.738 179 .000 -1.959 .201 64 -10.916 179 .000 -2.226 .204 65 -7.941 179 .000 -1.736 .219 66 -8.710 179 .000 -1.744 .200 67 -9.107 179 .000 -1.513 .166 68 -7.650 179 .000 -1.281 .167 69 -9.537 179 .000 -1.608 .169 70 -9.122 179 .000 -1.526 .167 71 -10.105 179 .000 -1.477 .146 72 -10.622 179 .000 -1.665 .157 73 -12.590 179 .000 -1.831 .145 74 -11.042 179 .000 -1.773 .161 75 -10.335 179 .000 -1.653 .160

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

232

Appendix 3: Items of Social Norms in the Main Study (English version)

No. Items SD

D WD

WA

A SA

1 My friends think we should have a good command of four skills

when using the English language.

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 My friends devote themselves to learning English. □ □ □ □ □ □

3 My friends think we should be able to write good reports using

English.

□ □ □ □ □ □

4 My friends learn well the four skills of English. □ □ □ □ □ □

5 My friends think we should spend some time learning English

every day.

□ □ □ □ □ □

6 My friends think we should be able to present a good report like


□ □ □ □ □ □

7 My friends can speak good English. □ □ □ □ □ □

8 My friends think we should have English pronunciation like that

of native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

9 My friends consider we should maintain a habit of listening to

English conversation.

□ □ □ □ □ □

10 My friends listen to English habitually. □ □ □ □ □ □

11 My friends think we should learn as many words as possible. □ □ □ □ □ □

12 My friends expect we can speak fluent English like native

speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

13 My English teacher(s) think I should learn English well. □ □ □ □ □ □

14 My English teacher(s) think my English pronunciation should be

able like that of native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

15 My English teacher(s) think I should read some extra English

materials, such as English newspapers or magazines.

□ □ □ □ □ □

16 My English teacher(s) expect me to speak fluent English like

native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

17 My English teacher(s) spends some time learning English. □ □ □ □ □ □

18 My English teacher(s) can speak good English. □ □ □ □ □ □

19 My English teacher(s) think I should be able to present good oral

report like native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

20 My English teacher(s) expect me to learn well the four skills of

English.

□ □ □ □ □ □

21 My English teacher(s) will read some extra English materials, such

as newspapers or magazines.

□ □ □ □ □ □

22 My English teacher(s) think I should comprehend English as well

as native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

23 My English teacher(s) think I should listen to English habitually. □ □ □ □ □ □

24 My English teacher(s) knows many English words. □ □ □ □ □ □

25 My family members think I should learn as many English words as

possible.

□ □ □ □ □ □

26 My family devote themselves to learning English grammar. □ □ □ □ □ □

233

27 My family members think I should devote myself to learning

English grammar.

□ □ □ □ □ □

28 My family members think I should be able to write good English

reports.

□ □ □ □ □ □

29 My family members will read some extra English materials, such

as newspapers or magazines.

□ □ □ □ □ □

30 My family members think I should be able to write a long English

composition.

□ □ □ □ □ □

31 My family members think I should listen to English habitually. □ □ □ □ □ □

32 My family members think the speed of my English reading should

be as fast as that of native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

33 My family members think I should spend some time learning

English.

□ □ □ □ □ □

34 My family members learn well the four skills of English. □ □ □ □ □ □

35 My family members listen to English habitually. □ □ □ □ □ □

36 My family members think I should be able to make English oral

reports as good as native speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

SD= strongly disagree, D= disagree, WD= somewhat disagree, WA= somewhat agree, A= agree, SA= strongly agree

No.

Items

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 我的朋友認為我們應該可以把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

2 我的朋友有認真學英文文法。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 我的朋友認為我們應該要可以寫一篇不錯的報告。 □ □ □ □ □ □

4 我的朋友把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學得不錯。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 我的朋友認為我們應該要每天花一些時間學英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 我的朋友認為我們應該可以做英文口頭報告就像外國人一樣

好。

□ □ □ □ □ □

7 我的朋友英文講得不錯。 □ □ □ □ □ □

8 我的朋友認為我們的英文口音應該講得像外國人一樣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

9 我的朋友覺得我們應該要養成聽英文的習慣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

10 我的朋友有養成聽英文的習慣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

11 我的朋友認為我們應該要儘可能多學一些單字。 □ □ □ □ □ □

12 我的朋友期待我能夠像外國人一樣講流利的英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

13 我的老師認為我應該要把英文讀好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

14 我的老師認為我的英文口音應該能講得像外國人一樣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

15 我的老師認為我應該多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 □ □ □ □ □ □

16 我的老師期待我能夠像外國人一樣講流利的英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

234

17 我的老師每天花一些時間讀英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

18 我的老師英文講得很好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

19 我的老師認為我應該可以做英文口頭報告像外國人一樣好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

20 我的老師期待我把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

21 我的英文老師會讀許多英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 □ □ □ □ □ □

22 我的老師認為我應該要能理解英文如同外國人一樣好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

23 我的老師覺得我應該要養成聽英文的習慣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

24 我的老師懂很多英文字。 □ □ □ □ □ □

25 我的家人認為我應該要儘可能多學一些單字。 □ □ □ □ □ □

26 我的家人也會認真學英文文法。 □ □ □ □ □ □

27 我的家人認為我應該要認真學英文文法。 □ □ □ □ □ □

28 我的家人認為我應該要可以寫一篇不錯的英文報告。 □ □ □ □ □ □

29 我的家人也會讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 □ □ □ □ □ □

30 我的家人覺得我應該可以寫一篇長的英文作文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

31 我的家人覺得我應該要養成聽英文的習慣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

32 我的家人覺得我讀英文的速度應該可以和外國人一樣快。 □ □ □ □ □ □

33 我的家人覺得我應該要每天花一些時間學英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

34 我的家人把英文的聽說讀寫技巧都學得不錯。 □ □ □ □ □ □

35 我的家人有聽英文的習慣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

36 我的家人認為我應該可以做英文口頭報告像外國人一樣好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

235

Appendix 4: The Item Pool of Goal Intention (English version)

Integrative Orientation

* I intend to learn English because it will allow me to be more at ease with fellow

English speakers.

* My goal in learning English is to be able to meet and converse with more and varied

people.

* I intend to learn English to better understand and appreciate English art and literature.

* My goal in learning English is to be able to participate more freely in the activities of

other cultural groups.

* My goal in learning English is to learn more about other cultures and to better

understand the world.

* I intend to learn English to be able to speak English fluently.

* My goal in learning English is because I may have an opportunity to move to an

English-speaking country.

* My goal in learning English is to better understand English people and culture.

* My goal of learning English is to understand and imitate how foreigners think.

Instrumental Orientation

* My goal of learning English is because I think it will someday be useful in getting a

good job.

* I intend to learn English because I will need it for my future career.

* I intend to learn English because it will make me a more knowledgeable person.

* My goal in learning English is because it will assist me to apply to a better major.

* I intend to learn English to be a more qualified job candidate.

* My goal in learning English is to achieve an “A” in the class.

* I intend to learn English to obtain as many English certificates as possible.

* I intend to learn English because other people will respect me more if I have

knowledge of a foreign language.

* I intend to learn English to pass foreign language requirements.

* My goal in learning English is to be able to use English when I travel to

English-speaking countries.

236

The Item Pool of Goal Intention (Chinese version)


* 我學英文的目的是可以比較自在的跟講英文的人在一起。

* 我學英文的目標是希望能夠多結交一些不一樣的朋友。

* 我學英文的目的是要了解英語系國家的藝術與文學。

* 我學英文的目的是比較可以參與其他文化的活動。

* 我學英文的目標是要多學一些其他的文化並更了解世界。

* 我學英文的目的是要能夠說流利的英文。

* 我學英文的部份目的是有一天如果可能的話可以移民到英語系的國家。

* 我學英文的目的是想了解英語系國家的人民與文化。

* 我學英文的目的是為了多了解並仿傚外國人的思考模式。


* 我學英文的目的是因為它會幫我找到一份好工作。

* 我學英文的目標是因為我在職場會有需要。

* 我學英文的目的是因為它會讓我看起來更有學問。

* 我學英文的目的是因為它會幫助我申請到比較好的科系。

* 我學英文的目標是希望將來在職場更具競爭力。

* 我學英文的目標是為了能在英文科目拿到好的成績。

* 我學英文的目標是希望能夠拿到多張英文證照。

* 我學英文的目的是因為如果我懂英文，別人會更尊重我。

* 我學英文的目標是為了能夠通過外語必修的要求。

* 我學英文的目的是旅遊到英語系國家時能使用英文。

237

Appendix 5: Pilot Study of the Items of Goal Intention (English version)

No.


Corrected

item-total

correlation

1 My intention of learning English is because it will allow me to be more at

ease with fellows of English speakers.

.605

2 My goal of learning English is to be able to meet and converse with more

and varied people.

.611

3 My intention of learning English is to better understand and appreciate

English art and literature.

.596

4 My goal of learning English is because I will be able to participate more

freely in the activities of other cultural groups.

.698

5 My goal of learning English is to learn more other cultures and to better

understand the world.

.735

6 My intention of learning English is to be able to speak English fluently. .574

7 My goal of learning English is because I may have an opportunity to move

to an English-speaking country.

.561

8 My goal of learning English is to better understand English people and

culture.

.742

9 My intention of learning English is to understand and imitate how

foreigners think.

.507


10 My goal of learning English is because I think it will someday be useful in

getting a good job.

.632

11 My intention of learning English is because I will need it for my future

career.

.635

12 My intention of learning English is because it will make me a more

knowledgeable person.

.455

13 My goal of learning English is because it will assist me to apply to a better

major.

.515

14 My intention of learning English is to help me to be a more qualified job

candidate.

.588

15 My goal of learning English is to achieve the grade of “A” from the class. .479

16 My intention of learning English is to obtain as many English certificates as

possible.

.619

17 I intend to learn English to pass foreign language requirements. .452

18 My intention of learning English is to have outstanding English grades. .348

238

Pilot Study of the Items of Goal Intention (Chinese version)

No. Integrative Orientation Corrected Item-total correlation

1 我學英文的目的是可以比較自在的跟講英文的人在一起。 .605

2 我學英文的目標是希望能夠多結交一些不一樣的朋友。 .611

3 我學英文的目的是要了解英語系國家的藝術與文學。 .596

4 我學英文的目的是比較可以參與其他文化的活動。 .698

5 我學英文的目標是要多學一些其他的文化並更了解世界。 .735

6 我學英文的目的是要能夠說流利的英文。 .574

7 我學英文的部份目的是有一天如果可能的話可以移民到英語系的國

家。

.561

8 我學英文的目的是想了解英語系國家的人民與文化。 .742

9 我學英文的目的是為了多了解並仿傚外國人的思考模式。 .307


10 我學英文的目的是因為它會幫我找到一份好工作。 .632

11 我學英文的目標是因為我在職場會有需要。 .635

12 我學英文的目的是因為它會讓我看起來更有學問。 .455

13 我學英文的目的是因為它會幫助我申請到比較好的科系。 .515

14 我學英文的目標是希望將來在職場更具競爭力。 .588

15 我學英文的目標是為了能在英文科目拿到好的成績。 .479

16 我學英文的目標是希望能夠拿到多張英文證照。 .619

17 我學英文的目的是為了能夠通過外語必修的要求。 .510

18 我學英文的目的是為了能夠英文成績能突出。 .348

239

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method

Item t-value df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

1 -11.837 179 .000 -1.612 .136

2 -12.408 179 .000 -1.764 .142

3 -10.207 179 .000 -1.832 .180

4 -12.604 179 .000 -1.753 .139

5 -13.563 179 .000 -1.963 .145

6 -11.511 179 .000 -2.074 .180

7 -11.599 179 .000 -2.014 .174

8 -13.389 179 .000 -2.049 .153

9 -13.690 179 .000 -1.690 .123

10 -8.693 179 .000 -1.216 .140

11 -8.737 179 .000 -1.206 .138

12 -7.970 179 .000 -1.435 .180

13 -5.721 179 .000 -1.044 .183

14 -8.697 179 .000 -1.118 .129

15 -3.317 179 .001 -.602 .181

16 -10.108 179 .000 -1.716 .170

17 -7.822 179 .000 -1.435 .183

18 -4.874 179 .000 -1.120 .156


240

Appendix 6: Items of Goal Intention in the Main Study (English version)

No. Item SD

D WD

WA

A SA

1 I intend to learn English to be able to speak English fluently. □ □ □ □ □ □

2 My goal in learning English is to learn more about other cultures and

to better understand the world.

□ □ □ □ □ □

3 I intend to learn English to obtain as many English certificates as

possible.

□ □ □ □ □ □

4 I intend to learn English because it will allow me to be more at ease

with fellow English speakers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

5 I intend to learn English to better understand and appreciate English

art and literature.

□ □ □ □ □ □

6 My goal of learning English is because I think it will someday be

useful in getting a good job.

□ □ □ □ □ □

7 My goal in learning English is to be able to participate more freely in

the activities of other cultural groups.

□ □ □ □ □ □

8 I intend to learn English to be a more qualified job candidate. □ □ □ □ □ □

9 My goal in learning English is to better understand English people

and culture.

□ □ □ □ □ □

10 I intend to learn English because I will need it for my future career. □ □ □ □ □ □

11 My goal to learn English is because I may have an opportunity to

move to an English-speaking country.

□ □ □ □ □ □

12 I intend to learn English because other people will respect me more if

I have knowledge of a foreign language.

□ □ □ □ □ □

13 My goal in learning English is to be able to meet and converse with

more and varied people.

□ □ □ □ □ □

14 I intend to learn English because it will make me a more

knowledgeable person.

□ □ □ □ □ □

15 My goal in learning English is to achieve an “A” in the class. □ □ □ □ □ □

16 I intend to learn English to pass foreign language requirements. □ □ □ □ □ □


241

Items of Goal Intention in the Main Study (Chinese version)

No.

Item

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 我學英文的目的是要能夠說流利的英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

2 我學英文的目標是要多學一些其他的文化並更了解世界。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 我學英文的目標是希望能夠拿到多張英文證照。 □ □ □ □ □ □

4 我學英文的目的是可以比較自在的跟講英文的人在一起。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 我學英文的目的是要了解英語系國家的藝術與文學。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 我學英文的目的是因為它會幫我找到一份好工作。 □ □ □ □ □ □

7 我學英文的目的是比較可以參與其他文化的活動。 □ □ □ □ □ □

8 我學英文的目標是希望將來在職場更具競爭力。 □ □ □ □ □ □

9 我學英文的目的是想了解英語系國家的人民與文化。 □ □ □ □ □ □

10 我學英文的目標是因為我在職場會有需要。 □ □ □ □ □ □

11 我學英文的部份目的是有一天如果可能的話可以移民到英語系

的國家。

□ □ □ □ □ □

12 我學英文的目的是因為它會幫助我申請到比較好的科系。 □ □ □ □ □ □

13 我學英文的目標是希望能夠多結交一些不一樣的朋友。 □ □ □ □ □ □

14 我學英文的目的是因為它會讓我看起來更有學問。 □ □ □ □ □ □

15 我學英文的目標是為了能在英文科目拿到好的成績。 □ □ □ □ □ □

16 我學英文的目標是為了能夠通過外語必修的要求。 □ □ □ □ □ □

242

Appendix 7: The Item Pool of Implementation Intention (English version)

* If there are more opportunities to meet English foreigners, I would try to think of some

topics to speak with them to improve my oral skills.

* If there are opportunities, I intend to learn as many words as possible.

* If I have opportunities in my spare time, then I intend to improve my English via

listening to radio programs.

* If there are English songs I love, I would like to learn English via English songs

* If I have extra time, I intend to read more English articles.

* If I encounter difficulties when I read English, then I will have my tactics to solve the

problems and make it understood.

* If opportunities occur, I would plan to keep the habit of diary regularly to improve my

English writing.

* If there are opportunities, I try to make an English study plan for myself.

* If there are opportunities after school, I will arrange time to study English.

* When studying English, I would manage an environment in order to make learning

more efficient.

* If there are opportunities during break time, then I will learn English.

* Even if there are many other things to be busy with, I still try to spare time to learn

some English

* If I have to be out, then I will try to bring with me some English materials whenever

possible.

* If I have to study English, then I will select appropriate time to make learning more

efficient.

* If there are more opportunities to meet and converse with foreigners, then I will think

of how to speak with them to improve my English oral skills.

* If I have English class, I will try to concentrate myself to learning more effective.

* When studying English, I know how to maintain my concentration to make learning

more effective.

* If there are opportunities in my spare time, I will think of how to learn more English.

* If there are words I don’t know, I know how to handle them.

* If there are more opportunities to meet English foreigners, then I will think of how to

improve my English ability.

* When studying English, I know how to use appropriate learning techniques.

243

The Item Pool of Implementation Intention (Chinese version)

* 如果有多一些機會見到外國人，我會想一些話題跟他們講英文來增加我的英文

口說能力。 * 如果有機會，我會想要儘可能的學很多字彙。 * 如果休閒時有機會，我會想要藉由聽廣播中的英文節目來提升我的英文能力。 * 如果有我喜歡的英文歌，那我會想要藉由聽英文歌曲來學英文。 * 如果我有時間，我會想要多讀一些英文的文章。 * 如果閱讀英文時遇到困難，我會有方法去解決並且把不會的地方弄懂。 * 如果我有時間，我會想要保持寫英文日記習慣來提昇我的英文寫作能力。 * 如果有機會，我會試著為自己訂定一套英文學習計畫。 * 如果放學後有機會，我會安排時間學英文。 * 讀英文時，如果有機會我會佈置良好的讀書環境，以便提昇學習效率。 * 如果下課時有機會，我會讀一些英文。 * 即使其他事情已經很忙，我仍然會試著挪出時間來讀一些英文。 * 如果需要出門，我會隨時攜帶英文資料以便學習。 * 如果我必須要讀英文時，我會挑選適當的時間，好讓學習更有效率。 * 如果有多一些機會與外國人在一起，我會想如何跟他們講英文來增加我的英文

口說能力。 * 上英文課時，我會很專注聽講，好讓學習更有效果。 * 當我讀英文時，我知道如何專注自己好讓學習更有效果。 * 如果休閒時有機會，我會想如何背更多英文。 * 如果有我不會的單字，我知道如何處理。 * 如果有多一些機會與外國人在一起，我會想著如何來改善自己的英文能力。 * 讀英文時，我知道如何運用適當的學習方法來學英文。

244

Appendix 8: Pilot Study of the Items of Implementation Intention (English

version)

No.

Content Orientation

Corrected

item-total

correlation

1 If there are opportunities, I intend to learn as many words as possible. .533

2 If I have opportunities in my spare time, then I intend to improve my

English via listening to radio programs.

.576

3 If there are English songs I love, I would like to learn English via English

songs.

.304

4 If I have extra time, I intend to read more English articles. .624

5 If there are more opportunities to meet English foreigners, I try to think

of some topics to speak with them about to improve my oral skills.

.568

6 If opportunities occur, I plan to keep a regular diary to improve my

English writing.

.543

7 If there are opportunities, I try to make an English study plan for myself. .517

Situational Orientation

8 When studying English, I would manage an environment in order to

make learning more efficient.

.479

9 If there are opportunities during break time, then I will learn English. .654

10 If there are opportunities after school, I will arrange time to study

English.

.569

11 If I have to be out, then I will try to bring some English materials with

me whenever possible.

.498

12 If I have to study English, then I will select appropriate time to make

learning more efficient.

.451

13 Even if there are many other things to do, I still try to spare time to learn

some English.

.675

14 If I have English class, I will try to concentrate on learning more

effectively.

.527

Strategic Orientation

15 If there are opportunities in my spare time, I will think of how to learn

more English.

.413

16 If there are words I don’t know, I know how to handle them. .432

17 If I encounter difficulties when I read English, then I will have my tactics

to solve the problems and make it understood.

.584

18 When studying English, I know how to use appropriate learning

techniques.

.615

19 If there are more opportunities to meet and converse with foreigners, then

I will think of how to speak with them to improve my English oral

ability.

.463

20 If there are opportunities, I try to make an English study plan for myself. .517

21 When studying English, I know how to maintain my concentration to

make learning more effective.

.571

245

Pilot Study of the Items of Implementation Intention (Chinese version)

No.

Content Orientation

Corrected

item-total

correlation

1 如果有機會，我會想要儘可能的學很多字彙。 .533

2 如果休閒時有機會，我會想要藉由聽廣播中的英文節目來提升我的英

文能力。

.576

3 如果有我喜歡的英文歌，那我會想要藉由聽英文歌曲來學英文。 .304

4 如果我有時間，我會想要多讀一些英文的文章。 .624

5 如果有多一些機會見到外國人，我會想一些話題跟他們講英文來增加

我的英文口說能力。

.568

6 如果我有時間，我會想要保持寫英文日記習慣來提昇我的英文寫作能

力。

.543

7 如果有機會，我會想要為自己擬一份讀書計畫。 .517

Situational Orientation

8 讀英文時，如果有機會我會佈置良好的讀書環境，以便提昇學習效率。 .479

9 如果下課時有機會，我會讀一些英文。 .654

10 如果放學後有時間，我都會安排時間學英文。 .569

11 如果需要出門，我會隨時攜帶英文資料以便學習。 .498

12 如果我必須要讀英文時，我會挑選適當的時間，好讓學習更有效率。 .351

13 即使其他事情已經很忙，我仍然會試著挪出時間來讀一些英文。 .675

14 上英文課時，我會很專注聽講，好讓學習更有效果。 .527

Strategic Orientation

15 如果休閒時有機會，我會想如何背更多英文。 .413

16 如果有我不會的單字，我知道如何處理。 .432

17 如果閱讀英文時遇到困難，我會有方法去解決並且把不會的地方弄

懂。

.584

18 讀英文時，我知道如何運用適當的學習方法來學英文。 .615

19 如果有多一些機會與外國人在一起，我會想如何跟他們講英文來增加

我的英文口說能力。

.463

20 如果有機會，我會試著為自己訂定一套英文學習計畫。 .517

21 當我讀英文時，我知道如何專注自己好讓學習更有效果。 .571

246

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method

Independent Samples T Test

Item t-value df Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference


1 -9.962 179 .000 -1.053 .106

2 -10.454 179 .000 -1.640 .157

3 -7.438 179 .000 -1.008 .136

4 -12.575 179 .000 -1.731 .138

5 -12.027 179 .000 -1.634 .136

6 -10.729 179 .000 -1.832 .171

7 -10.039 179 .000 -1.604 .150

8 -10.039 179 .000 -1.584 .158

9 -10.449 179 .000 -1.546 .148

10 -11.770 179 .000 -1.595 .136

11 -7.500 179 .000 -1.343 .179

12 -12.422 179 .000 -1.512 .122

13 -12.780 179 .000 -1.910 .149

14 -10.916 179 .000 -1.377 .126

15 -11.300 179 .000 -1.748 .155

16 -6.549 179 .000 -.872 .133

17 -10.277 179 .000 -1.399 .136

18 -11.291 179 .000 -1.660 .147

19 -13.683 179 .000 -1.634 .119

20 -10.400 179 .000 -1.522 .146

21 -10.898 179 .000 -1.639 .150


247

Appendix 9: Items of Implementation Intention in the Main Study (English

version)

No. Item SD

D WD

WA

A SA

1 If there are opportunities to meet and converse with English-speaking

foreigners, then I will think of how to speak with them to improve

my English oral skills.

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 If there are opportunities, I intend to learn as many words as possible. □ □ □ □ □ □

3 If I have opportunities in my spare time, then I intend to improve my

English via listening to radio programs.

□ □ □ □ □ □

4 If I have extra time, I intend to read more English articles. □ □ □ □ □ □

5 When studying English, I know how to maintain my concentration to

make learning more effective.

□ □ □ □ □ □

6 When studying English, I know how to use appropriate learning

techniques.

□ □ □ □ □ □

7 If opportunities occur, I plan to keep a regular diary to improve my

English writing.

□ □ □ □ □ □

8 If I encounter difficulties when I read English, then I have tactics to

solve the problems and understand.

□ □ □ □ □ □

9 If there are opportunities, I try to make an English study plan for

myself.

□ □ □ □ □ □

10 Even if there are many other things to do, I still try to spare time to

learn some English.

□ □ □ □ □ □

11 If there are words I don’t know, I know how to handle them. □ □ □ □ □ □

12 When studying English, I manage my environment in order to make

learning more efficient.

□ □ □ □ □ □

13 If I have English class, I will try to concentrate on learning more

effectively.

□ □ □ □ □ □

14 If there are opportunities after school, I will arrange time to study

English.

□ □ □ □ □ □

15 If there are opportunities during break time, then I will learn English. □ □ □ □ □ □

16 If I have to be out, then I will try to bring some English materials

with me whenever possible.

□ □ □ □ □ □

17 If there are more opportunities to meet English foreigners, I try to

think of some topics to speak with them about to improve my oral

skills.

□ □ □ □ □ □

18 If there are opportunities in my spare time, I will think of how to

learn more English.

□ □ □ □ □ □

19 If I have to study English, then I will select the appropriate time to

make learning more efficient.

□ □ □ □ □ □

20 If there are opportunities to meet English-speaking foreigners, then I

will think of how use these opportunities to improve my English

ability.

□ □ □ □ □ □


248

Items of Implementation Intention in the Main Study (Chinese version)

No.

Item

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 如果有多一些機會與外國人在一起，我會想如何跟他們講英文來

增加我的英文口說能力。

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 如果有機會，我會想要儘可能的學很多字彙。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 如果休閒時有機會，我會想要藉由聽廣播中的英文節目來提升我

的英文能力。

□ □ □ □ □ □

4 如果我有時間，我會想要多讀一些英文的文章。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 當我讀英文時，我知道如何專注自己好讓學習更有效果。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 讀英文時，我知道如何運用適當的學習方法來學英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

7 如果我有時間，我會想要保持寫英文日記習慣來提昇我的英文寫

作能力。

□ □ □ □ □ □

8 如果閱讀英文時遇到困難，我會有方法去解決並且把不會的地方

弄懂。

□ □ □ □ □ □

9 如果有機會，我會試著為自己訂定一套英文學習計畫。 □ □ □ □ □ □

10 即使其他事情已經很忙，我仍然會試著挪出時間來讀一些英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

11 如果有我不會的單字，我知道如何處理。 □ □ □ □ □ □

12 讀英文時，如果有機會我會佈置良好的讀書環境，以便提昇學習

效率。

□ □ □ □ □ □

13 上英文課時，我會很專注聽講，好讓學習更有效果。 □ □ □ □ □ □

14 如果放學後有時間，我都會安排時間學英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

15 如果下課時有機會，我會讀一些英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

16 如果出門在外，我會隨時攜帶英文資料以便學習。 □ □ □ □ □ □

17 如果有多一些機會見到外國人，我會想一些話題跟他們講英文來

增加我的英文口說能力。

□ □ □ □ □ □

18 如果休閒時有機會，我會想如何學習更多英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

19 如果我必須要讀英文時，我會挑選適當的時間，好讓學習更有效

率，

□ □ □ □ □ □

20 如果有多一些機會與外國人在一起，我會想著如何來改善自己的

英文能力。

□ □ □ □ □ □

249

Appendix 10: Pilot Study of the Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning

(English version)

No.

Cognitive


1 English is an important language. .429

2 Learning English is a very meaningful task. .543

3 Learning English well is helpful. .609

4 Learning English well can help one obtain self-confidence. .517

Affective

5 I think learning English is fun. .709

6 I think learning English can give me a sense of achievement. .615

7 I love learning English. .723

8 I think learning English is useless. [Reverse] .345

Pilot Study of the Items in Attitudes (Chinese version 8 items)

No. Cognitive


1 英文是一種重要的語言。 .429

2 學英文是一件很有意義的事。 .543

3 學好英文是有幫助的。 .609

4 學好英文可以令人產生自信的。 .517

Affective

5 我覺得學英文是很有趣的。 .709

6 我覺得學英文可以讓我產生成就感。 .615

7 我喜愛學英文。 .723

8 我覺得學英文是沒有用的。[Reverse] .345

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method on the items of Attitudes


Mean Difference


1 -6.932 147 .000 -.687 .099

2 -9.599 147 .000 -.687 .100

3 -6.888 147 .000 -1.228 .149

4 -8.254 147 .000 -1.523 .159

5 -7.931 147 .000 -1.470 .185

6 -9.335 147 .000 -1.613 .173

7 -10.431 147 .005 -1.886 .181

8 -2.832 147 .003 -.914 .323

250

Appendix 11: Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning in the Main Study

(English version)

No. Item SD

D WD

WA

A SA

1 Learning English well can help one obtain self-confidence. □ □ □ □ □ □

2 I love learning English. □ □ □ □ □ □

3 Learning English is a very meaningful task. □ □ □ □ □ □

4 I think learning English is fun. □ □ □ □ □ □

5 Learning English well is helpful. □ □ □ □ □ □

6 English is an important language. □ □ □ □ □ □

7 I think learning English can give me a sense of achievement. □ □ □ □ □ □


Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning in the Main Study (Chinese version)

No. Item 非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 學好英文可以令人產生自信的。 □ □ □ □ □ □

2 我喜愛學英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 學英文是一件很有意義的事。 □ □ □ □ □ □

4 我覺得學英文是很有趣的。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 學好英文是有幫助的。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 英文是一種重要的語言。 □ □ □ □ □ □

7 我覺得學英文可以讓我產生成就感。 □ □ □ □ □ □

251

Appendix 12: Pilot Study of the Items of Self-Confidence (English version)

No. Self-Efficacy Corrected item-total correlation

1 I have confidence in solving most English problems I encounter. .760

2 Even though I make mistakes when speaking English, I am still

confident in attempting communication.

.580

3 I am confident that I am able to read and understand most English

articles.

.660

4 I have confidence in learning English well. .686

5 Even though my English is not excellent, I have confidence in

composing a structural English composition.

.577

6 I feel I can learn English faster than other people. .468

Anxiety

7 I often feel stressed in English classes. [Reverse] .539

8 I feel distressed when I am asked to speak in English classes. [Reverse] .582

9 I often feel worried that my classmates will perform better than me.

[Reverse]

.038

10 Speaking English often distresses me. [Reverse] .701

11 I often feel stressed when I need to write an English composition.

[Reverse]

.475

12 I feel uneasy to speak English at any time. [Reverse] .560


Pilot study of the Items of Self-Confidence (Chinese version 12 items)

No. Self-Efficacy Corrected item-total correlation

1 我有信心解決大部分的英文問題。 .760

2 即使講英文會犯錯，我仍然有信心能試著溝通。 .580

3 我相信我有能力可以閱讀及了解大多數英文的文章。 .660

4 我有信心把英文學好。 .686

5 即使我的英文不是頂尖，我有信心寫一篇有結構的英文作文。 .577

6 我覺得我學英文的速度比別人快。 .468

Anxiety

7 上英文課讓我常常覺得有壓力。[Reverse] .539

8 上英文課時，當我被問到問題我會焦慮。[Reverse] .582

9 我會擔心班上其他同學好像英文講得比我好。[Reverse] .038

10 講英文會困擾我。[Reverse] .701

11 說到要寫英文作文時，我常會覺得很有壓力。[Reverse] .475

12 在任何情況下講英文，我都覺得不自在。[Reverse] .560

252

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method on the Items of Self-Confidence

Item t-value df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference


1 5.303 70 .000 1.399 .264

2 2.988 70 .004 .848 .284

3 6.899 70 .000 1.818 .264

4 2.743 70 .004 .846 .308

5 3.454 70 .000 1.236 .348

6 4.220 70 .003 .750 .265

7 -8.988 70 .000 -2.308 .256

8 -7.561 70 .000 -2.231 .295

9 -7.488 70 .067 -2.114 .282

10 -8.072 70 .003 -2.154 .267

11 -5.138 70 .000 -1.641 .319

12 -6.890 70 .000 -1.460 .214

253

Appendix 13: Items of Self-Confidence in the Main Study (English version)

No. Item SD

D WD

WA

A SA

1 I feel distressed when I am asked to speak in English classes.

[Reverse]

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 I have confidence in learning English well. □ □ □ □ □ □

3 I often feel stressed in English classes. [Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

4 Even though I make mistakes when speaking English, I am still

confident in attempting communication.

□ □ □ □ □ □

5 I am confident that I am able to read and understand most English

articles.

□ □ □ □ □ □

6 Even though my English is not excellent, I have confidence in

composing a structural English composition.

□ □ □ □ □ □

7 Speaking English often distresses me. [Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

8 I have confidence in solving most English problems I encounter. □ □ □ □ □ □

9 I feel I can learn English faster than other people. □ □ □ □ □ □

10 I often feel stressed when I need to write an English composition.

[Reverse]

□ □ □ □ □ □

11 I feel uneasy to speak English at any time. [Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □


Items of Self-Confidence in the Main Study (English version)

No.

Item

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 上英文課時，當我被問到問題我會焦慮。[Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

2 我有信心把英文學好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 上英文課讓我常常覺得有壓力。[Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

4 即使講英文會犯錯，我仍然有信心能試著溝通。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 我相信我有能力可以閱讀及了解大多數英文的文章。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 即使我的英文不是頂尖，我有信心寫一篇有結構的英文作文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

7 講英文會困擾我。[Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

8 我有信心解決大部分的英文問題。 □ □ □ □ □ □

9 我覺得我學英文的速度比別人快。 □ □ □ □ □ □

10 說到要寫英文作文時，我常會覺得很有壓力。[Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

11 在任何情況下講英文，我都覺得不自在。[Reverse] □ □ □ □ □ □

254

Appendix 14: Pilot Study of the Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity (English

Version)

No. Commitment Control Corrected item-total correlation

1 When learning English, I have special techniques to achieve my

learning objectives.

.645

2 Even though I notice that I am behind schedule in learning English, I

know how to catch up.

.693

3 When learning English, I will maintain myself and work hard until

the goal is reached.

.644

4 I believe I can come over the difficulties to fulfill my English

learning goals.

.722

5 When learning English, I know the tactics to maintain my

concentration.

.674

6 When learning English, I can effectively solve the problems I

encounter I encounter during the learning process.

.692

Metacognitive

7 When learning English, I have my own special techniques to keep

my concentration focused.

.628

8 When learning English, I think my methods of controlling my

concentration are effective.

.577

9 When it comes to learn English, I have my own methods of

controlling procrastination.

.615

10 It’s easy for me to make excuses for procrastinating. .374

Satiation Control

11 Once the novelty of learning English is gone, I easily become

impatient about it.

.336

12 During the process of learning English, I feel satisfied with the ways

I eliminated boredom.

.432

13 When learning English, I know how to manage my personal

emotions to make the learning efficient.

.554

Emotion Control

14 When I need to speak English and feel stressed in the process, I

know how to reduce the stress.

.578

255

15 When I feel stressed about learning English, I know how to handle

the stress.

.714

16 When learning English, I know how to manage my emotions to

make my learning more effective.

.616

17 When learning English with difficult content, I will easily feel

frustrated. [reverse]

.427

Pilot study of the Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity (Chinese Version 20 items)

No.

Commitment Control


1 學英文時，我有自己的秘訣來達成訂定的目標。 .645

2 學英文時，當我意識到我進度落後時，我知道如何趕上進度。 .693

3 學英文時，我會一直堅持並努力直到達成既定的目標為止。 .644

4 我相信我能克服一切困難來達成學習英語的目標。 .722

5 學習英文的時候，我知道如何保持專心。 .674

6 我能有效的解決學習英文時，所遭遇到的困難。 .692

Metacognitive

7 學英文時，我有讓自專心的特殊技巧。 .628

8 我認為我讓自己專心學習英文的方法是有效的。 .577

9 學英文時，我有特殊的方法不讓自己推拖延遲。 .615

10 我很容易拖拖拉拉找藉口，不學英文。 .374

Satiation Control

11 在學英文的時候，一旦學習的新鮮感消失，我就容易感到不耐煩。 .336

12 在學英文學得很煩的時候，我對於用來擺脫這種心情的方法，感

到滿意。

.432

13 我知道如何調整自己的心情讓學習英文更有效率。 .554

Emotion Control

14 在需要講英文的時候，雖然過程中壓力很大，我知道如何減輕壓

力。

.578

15 在學英文的時後，我知道如何調適壓力。 .714

16 學英文時，我知道如何管理自己的情緒，來讓學習更有效率。 .616

17 學習英文碰到較艱澀的內容時，我很容易因為內容困難而感到沮

喪。[reverse]

.427

256

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method on the items of Self-Regulatory Capacity

Item t-value df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

1 -9.152 88 .000 -1.897 .207

2 -9.446 88 .000 -1.896 .201

3 -9.176 88 .000 -1.708 .186

4 -11.398 88 .000 -2.239 .196

5 -11.289 88 .000 -2.141 .190

6 -11.731 88 .000 -2.199 .187

7 -9.574 88 .000 -1.919 .200

8 -8.366 88 .000 -1.795 .215

9 -7.563 88 .000 -1.596 .211

10 .714 88 .477 .225 .315

11 -1.399 88 .165 -.433 .309

12 -6.674 88 .000 -1.475 .221

13 -9.019 88 .000 -1.923 .213

14 -10.134 88 .000 -2.142 .211

15 -9.246 88 .000 -2.123 .230

16 -11.086 88 .000 -1.976 .178

17 -1.430 88 .006 -.383 .268


257

Appendix 15: Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity in the Main Study (English

version)

No. Item SD

D WD

WA

A SA

1 When learning English, I know the tactics to maintain my

concentration.

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 When learning English, I have special techniques to achieve my

learning objectives.

□ □ □ □ □ □

3 When I need to speak English and feel stressed in the process, I

know how to reduce the stress.

□ □ □ □ □ □

4 I believe I can come over the difficulties to fulfill my English

learning goals.

□ □ □ □ □ □

5 When it comes to learn English, I have my own methods of

controlling procrastination.

□ □ □ □ □ □

6 When I feel stressed about learning English, I know how to

handle the stress.

□ □ □ □ □ □

7 Even though I notice that I am behind schedule in learning

English, I know how to catch up.

□ □ □ □ □ □

8 When learning English, I have my own special techniques to keep

my concentration focused.

□ □ □ □ □ □

9 When learning English, I will maintain myself and work hard

until the goal is reached.

□ □ □ □ □ □

10 When learning English, I can effectively solve the problems I

encounter I encounter during the learning process.

□ □ □ □ □ □

11 When learning English with difficult content, I will easily feel

fru14strated. [reverse]

□ □ □ □ □ □

12 When learning English, I know how to manage my personal

emotions to make the learning efficient.

□ □ □ □ □ □

13 During the process of learning English, I feel satisfied with the

ways I eliminated boredom.

□ □ □ □ □ □

14 When learning English, I think my methods of controlling my

concentration are effective.

□ □ □ □ □ □

15 When learning English, I know how to manage my emotions to

make my learning more effective.

□ □ □ □ □ □


258

Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity in the Main Study (Chinese version)

No.

Item

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 學習英文的時候，我知道如何保持專心。 □ □ □ □ □ □

2 學英文時，我有自己的秘訣來達成訂定的目標。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 在需要講英文的時候，雖然過程中壓力很大，我知道如何減輕

壓力。

□ □ □ □ □ □

4 我相信我能克服一切困難來達成學習英語的目標。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 學英文時，我有特殊的方法不讓自己推拖延遲。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 在學英文的時後，我知道如何調適壓力。 □ □ □ □ □ □

7 學英文時，當我意識到我進度落後時，我知道如何趕上進度。 □ □ □ □ □ □

8 學英文時，我有讓自專心的特殊技巧。 □ □ □ □ □ □

9 學英文時，我會一直堅持並努力直到達成既定的目標為止。 □ □ □ □ □ □

10 我能有效的解決學習英文時，所遭遇到的困難。 □ □ □ □ □ □

11 學習英文碰到較艱澀的內容時，我很容易因為內容困難而感到沮

喪。[reverse]

□ □ □ □ □ □

12 我知道如何調整自己的心情讓學習英文更有效率。 □ □ □ □ □ □

13 在學英文學得很煩的時候，我對於用來擺脫這種心情的方法，

感到滿意。

□ □ □ □ □ □

14 我認為我讓自己專心學習英文的方法是有效的。 □ □ □ □ □ □

15 學英文時，我知道如何管理自己的情緒，來讓學習更有效率。 □ □ □ □ □ □

259

Appendix 16: Pilot Study of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behaviors (English version)

No. Self-Initiating L2 Learning Behaviors Corrected item-total correlation

1 I spend some time learning English every day. .407

2 I have a habit to listen to English. .515

3 I pay attention to learning English grammar. .365

4 I often try to find opportunities to speak English. .468

5 I try to understand the people and culture of English-speaking

countries.

.408

6 I will read extra English articles, such as newspapers or magazines. .401

7 I will ask my teachers or classmates for the tactics to enhance my

overall English proficiency.

.437

8 When my English teacher asks questions in class, I want to try to

answer them.

.410

Self-Applying L2 Learning Behaviors

9 I try to create opportunities to use words newly learned. .537

10 I try to do more exercises related to my learning to get familiar with

newly learned English grammar or sentence patterns.

.413

11 I try to apply the newly-learned sentences or grammar in English

writing.

.529

12 I try to practice the newly-learned English in my daily life. .658

13 I try to make my English pronunciation like that of the native

speakers.

.493

14 I try to apply some learned English reading skills to help myself read

precisely and fast.

.591

Self-Experimenting L2 Learning Behaviors

15 I will experiment and ensure whether a new English-learning method

works for me.

.450

16 I will try to use various methods to learn English, such as reading

extra articles or surfing information on the internet.

.609

17 I try to improve my previous, inappropriate English learning methods. .482

18 I try to apply newly learned methods to those taught by my English

teachers.

.568

19 I try to talk with foreigners to promote my speaking and

comprehending ability.

.405

Self-Surpassing L2 Learning Behaviors

20 I think about how to learn more words. .450

21 In addition to those materials used in school, I also read some extra

English reading materials.

.446

22 If I meet an unknown word, I will try to find out its meaning. .590

23 I like to challenge myself to make my English better. .562

260

Pilot Study of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behaviors (Chinese version)

No.

Self-Initiating L2 Learning Behaviors


1 我每天會花一些時間讀英文。 .407

2 我有養成聽英文的習慣。 .515

3 我有認真學習英文文法。 .365

4 我會試著找機會常常開口講英文。 .468

5 我會試著想要了解英語系國家的人民與文化。 .408

6 我會多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 .401

7 我會詢問老師或同學，如何增進我的英文聽說讀寫能力的技巧。 .437

8 當英文老師在課堂上問問題時，我會想要試著回答。 .410

Self-Applying L2 Learning Behaviors

9 我會試著製造機會來運用新學到的英文單字。 .537

10 我會試著多做一些英文相關的練習，以熟悉新學到的英文文法或

句型。

.413

11 我會試著將學到的句型或文法，運用到英文寫作當中。 .529

12 我會進行練習如何把新學到的英文應用到日常生活當中。 .658

13 我會試著將自己的英文口音練習得像外國人一樣。 .493

14 我會試著運用一些學到的英文閱讀技巧，好讓我的閱讀可以正確

又快速。

.591

Self-Experimenting L2 Learning Behaviors

15 我會試驗並確認一個新的英文學習方法對我是否有效。 .450

16 我會試著用不同的方法，來學習英文，e.g.閱讀課外讀物或網路資

訊。

.609

17 我會試著改進我用過的英文學習方法。 .482

18 我會試著運用與有別於英文老師所教的不同方法來學習英文。 .568

19 我會試著跟外國人聊天，以增加自己的口說及理解能力。 .405

Self-Surpassing L2 Learning Behaviors

20 我會想著如何背更多的單字。 .450

21 除了學校所教的英文以外，我也會閱讀其他課外英文讀物。 .446

22 如果遇到不懂的英文，我會想辦法把它弄懂。 .590

23 我會挑戰自己讓自己的英文更好。 .562

261

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method on the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior



Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

1 -9.214 89 .000 -1.894 .206

2 -7.342 89 .000 -1.749 .238

3 -5.555 89 .000 -1.295 .233

4 -9.370 89 .000 -2.030 .217

5 -6.541 89 .000 -1.693 .259

6 -10.429 89 .000 -1.961 .188

7 -6.385 89 .000 -1.534 .240

8 -5.869 89 .000 -1.505 .256

9 -6.833 89 .000 -1.428 .209

10 -8.439 89 .000 -1.696 .201

11 -7.446 89 .000 -1.420 .191

12 -10.330 89 .000 -1.953 .189

13 -6.965 89 .000 -1.643 .236

14 -7.426 89 .000 -1.598 .215

15 -8.256 89 .000 -1.738 .211

16 -10.791 89 .000 -2.261 .210

17 -9.544 89 .000 -1.729 .181

18 -6.857 89 .000 -1.447 .211

19 -6.044 89 .000 -1.467 .243

20 -5.540 89 .000 -1.353 .244

21 -12.014 89 .000 -2.314 .193

22 -8.301 89 .000 -1.774 .214

23 -10.293 89 .000 -1.884 .183


262

Appendix 17: Items of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior in the Main

Study (English version)

No. Item S

D D W

D WA

A SA

1 I try to apply some learned English reading skills to help myself read

precisely and fast.

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 I try to apply the newly-learned sentences or grammar in English

writing.

□ □ □ □ □ □

3 I pay attention to learning English grammar. □ □ □ □ □ □

4 I try to practice the newly-learned English in my daily life. □ □ □ □ □ □

5 I try to understand the people and culture of English-speaking

countries.

□ □ □ □ □ □

6 I like to challenge myself to make my English better. □ □ □ □ □ □

7 I try to do more exercises related to my learning to get familiar with

newly learned English grammar or sentence patterns.

□ □ □ □ □ □

8 I spend some time learning English every day. □ □ □ □ □ □

9 I will ask my teachers or classmates for the tactics to enhance my

overall English proficiency.

□ □ □ □ □ □

10 If I meet an unknown word, I will try to find out its meaning. □ □ □ □ □ □

11 I have a habit to listen to English. □ □ □ □ □ □

12 I will experiment and ensure whether a new English-learning method

works for me.

□ □ □ □ □ □

13 I try to create opportunities to use words newly learned. □ □ □ □ □ □

14 I often try to find opportunities to speak English. □ □ □ □ □ □

15 When my English teacher asks questions in class, I want to try to

answer them.

□ □ □ □ □ □

16 I will read extra English articles, such as newspapers or magazines. □ □ □ □ □ □

17 I try to make my English pronunciation like that of the native speakers. □ □ □ □ □ □

18 In addition to those materials used in school, I also read some extra

English reading materials.

□ □ □ □ □ □

19 I think about how to learn more words. □ □ □ □ □ □

20 I try to apply newly learned methods to those taught by my English

teachers.

□ □ □ □ □ □

21 I will try to use various methods to learn English, such as reading extra

articles or surfing information on the internet.

□ □ □ □ □ □

22 I try to improve my previous, inappropriate English learning methods. □ □ □ □ □ □

23 I try to talk with foreigners to promote my speaking and

comprehending ability.

□ □ □ □ □ □


263

Items of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior in the Main Study

(Chinese version)

No.

Item

非

常

不

同

意

不

同

意

有

些

不

同

意

有

些

同

意

同

意

非

常

同

意

1 我會試著運用一些學到的英文閱讀技巧，好讓我的閱讀可以正確

又快速。

□ □ □ □ □ □

2 我會試著將學到的句型或文法，運用到英文寫作當中。 □ □ □ □ □ □

3 我有認真學習英文文法。 □ □ □ □ □ □

4 我會進行練習如何把新學到的英文應用到日常生活當中。 □ □ □ □ □ □

5 我會試著想要了解英語系國家的人民與文化。 □ □ □ □ □ □

6 我會挑戰自己讓自己的英文更好。 □ □ □ □ □ □

7 我會試著多做一些英文相關的練習，以熟悉新學到的英文文法或

句型。

□ □ □ □ □ □

8 我每天會花一些時間讀英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

9 我會詢問老師或同學，如何增進我的英文聽說讀寫能力的技巧。 □ □ □ □ □ □

10 如果遇到不懂的英文，我會想辦法把它弄懂。 □ □ □ □ □ □

11 我有養成聽英文的習慣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

12 我會試驗並確認一個新的英文學習方法對我是否有效。 □ □ □ □ □ □

13 我會試著製造機會來運用新學到的英文單字。 □ □ □ □ □ □

14 我會試著找機會常常開口講英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

15 當英文老師在課堂上問問題時，我會想要試著回答。 □ □ □ □ □ □

16 我會多讀一些英文課外讀物，例如報章雜誌。 □ □ □ □ □ □

17 我會試著將自己的英文口音練習得像外國人一樣。 □ □ □ □ □ □

18 除了學校所教的英文以外，我也會閱讀其他課外英文讀物。 □ □ □ □ □ □

19 我會想著如何背更多的單字。 □ □ □ □ □ □

20 我會試著運用與有別於英文老師所教的不同方法來學習英文。 □ □ □ □ □ □

21 我會試著用不同的方法，來學習英文，e.g.閱讀課外讀物或網路資

訊。

□ □ □ □ □ □

22 我會試著改進我用過的英文學習方法。 □ □ □ □ □ □

23 我會試著跟外國人聊天，以增加自己的口說及理解能力。 □ □ □ □ □ □

264

Appendix 18: Pilot Study of the Items of Mastery of L2 Learning (English version)

No. Vocabulary Corrected item-total correlation

1 I will use pronunciation to help memorize English vocabulary. .525

2 I will separate a word into parts (eg. root or prefix) to help me

understand the meaning of the word.

.464

3 I will put together English words that are similar or are easily confused. .501

4 I will put marks before important words. .442

5 I will try to put newly-learned English words into sentences. .566

Grammar

6 I try to analyze the structure of sentences in order to better understand

the meaning of the sentences.

.525

7 I try to analyze the tenses of sentences in order to better understand the

cause and effect.

.563

8 I try to analyze English grammatical rules and put them in my notes. .553

9 I try to apply newly-learned English grammar into composition writing. .526

Reading

10 When reading English, I mark key information. .640

11 When reading English articles, I pay attention to the main ideas that the

articles wish to deliver.

.654

12 When reading English articles, I guess the meanings of unknown words

from the contexts.

.629

13 When reading English articles, I apply my background knowledge or

experiences to understand the content of the articles.

.607

Writing

14 When writing an English composition, I pay attention to the consistency

of grammatical tenses.

.590

15 When writing an English composition, I notice whether it is coherent

between paragraphs.

.632

16 When writing a composition in English, I express a main theme in a

paragraph.

.687

17 When writing an English composition, I use examples to support my

ideas.

.641

265

Pilot Study of Mastery of L2 Learning (Chinese version 21 items)

No. Vocabulary Corrected item-total correlation

1 我會運用發音來背英文單字。 .525

2 我會把英文單字拆開(如字根或字首)，以幫助我了解單字的意思。 .464

3 我會歸納相似的或容易混淆的英文單字。 .501

4 我會在重要的單字前註記。 .442

5 我會試著將新學到的英文單字運用在句子裡。 .566

Grammar

6 我會分析句子的結構，以便了解句子的意義。 .525

7 我會分析句子的時態，以便了解句子的前因後果。 .563

8 我會分析英文文法的規則，然後做筆記。 .553

9 我會試著將新學到的英文文法運用在文章寫作裡。 .526

Reading

10 閱讀英文時，我會摘錄重點。 .640

11 閱讀英文文章時，我會注意文章要傳達的主旨重點。 .654

12 閱讀英文文章時，遇到不會的字詞時，我會利用前後文來猜測字的

意思。

.629

13 閱讀英文文章時，我會用自己所知道的知識或生活經驗去了解文章

的內容。

.607

Writing

14 寫英文作文時，我會注意時態的一致性。 .590

15 寫英文作文時，我會注意段落之間是否有連貫性。 .632

16 寫英文作文時，我會在一個段落裡表達一個主要重點。 .687

17 寫英文作文時，我會運用舉例子來支持我所提的論點。 .641

266

Item Analysis: Extreme Group Method on the items of Mastery of L2 Learning



Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

1 -5.928 83 .000 -1.145 .193

2 -5.637 83 .000 -1.384 .245

3 -10.794 83 .000 -2.177 .202

4 -12.211 83 .000 -2.094 .172

5 -9.809 83 .000 -1.876 .191

6 -8.397 83 .000 -1.670 .199

7 -9.385 83 .000 -1.771 .189

8 -12.604 83 .000 -2.190 .174

9 -8.442 83 .000 -1.815 .215

10 -8.910 83 .000 -1.815 .204

11 -10.981 83 .000 -1.824 .166

12 -7.109 83 .000 -1.388 .195

13 -7.764 83 .000 -1.649 .212

14 -9.489 83 .000 -1.691 .178

15 -10.091 83 .000 -1.915 .190

16 -11.408 83 .000 -2.140 .188

17 -8.294 83 .000 -1.797 .217


267

Appendix 19: Items of Mastery of L2 Learning in the Main Study (English

version)

No. Item

Nev

er used

Yes, b

ut

w

ith

little mastery

Y

es, bu

t

with

so

me

m

astery

Yes, b

ut

w

ith

lots

o

f

mastery

Yes, b

ut

w

ith

lots

o

f

mastery

1 I will put together English words that are similar or are

easily confused.

□ □ □ □ □

2 When writing an English composition, I notice whether it

is coherent between paragraphs.

□ □ □ □ □

3 When reading English articles, I guess the meanings of

unknown words from the contexts.

□ □ □ □ □

4 I will separate a word into parts (eg. root or prefix) to

help me understand the meaning of the word.

□ □ □ □ □

5 I try to analyze the structure of sentences in order to

better understand the meaning of the sentences.

□ □ □ □ □

6 When reading English articles, I apply my background

knowledge or experiences to understand the content of the

articles.

□ □ □ □ □

7 I will try to put newly-learned English words into

sentences.

□ □ □ □ □

8 I try to apply newly-learned English grammar into

composition writing.

□ □ □ □ □

9 I try to analyze the tenses of sentences in order to better

understand the cause and effect.

□ □ □ □ □

10 When writing an English composition, I pay attention to

the consistency of grammatical tenses.

□ □ □ □ □

11 When reading English articles, I pay attention to the main

ideas that the articles wish to deliver.

□ □ □ □ □

12 I will put marks before important words. □ □ □ □ □

13 When reading English articles, I will notice whether I

pronounce words correctly.

□ □ □ □ □

14 When writing a composition in English, I express a main

theme in a paragraph.

□ □ □ □ □

15 When reading English, I mark key information. □ □ □ □ □

16 I try to analyze English grammatical rules and put them in

my notes.

□ □ □ □ □

17 When writing an English composition, I use examples to

support my ideas.

□ □ □ □ □

268

Items of Mastery of L2 Learning in the Main Study (Chinese version)

No.

Item

不

曾

使

用

不用

熟過

練，

但

是

經用

有過

點，

熟而

練且

已

經用

夠過

熟，

練而

且

已

經用

十過

分，

熟而

練且

已

1 我會歸納相似的或容易混淆的英文單字。 □ □ □ □ □

2 寫英文作文時，我會注意段落之間是否有連貫性。 □ □ □ □ □

3 閱讀英文文章時，遇到不會的字詞時，我會利用前後文來

猜測字的意思。

□ □ □ □ □

4 我會把英文單字拆開(如字根或字首)，以幫助我了解單字

的意思。

□ □ □ □ □

5 我會分析句子的結構，以便了解句子的意義。 □ □ □ □ □

6 閱讀英文文章時，我會用自己所知道的知識或生活經驗去

了解文章的內容。

□ □ □ □ □

7 我會試著將新學到的英文單字運用在句子裡。 □ □ □ □ □

8 我會試著將新學到的英文文法運用在文章寫作裡。 □ □ □ □ □

9 我會分析句子的時態，以便了解句子的前因後果。 □ □ □ □ □

10 寫英文作文時，我會注意時態的一致性。 □ □ □ □ □

11 閱讀英文文章時，我會注意文章要傳達的主旨重點。 □ □ □ □ □

12 我會在重要的單字前註記。 □ □ □ □ □

13 在讀誦英文時，我會注意自己是否發音正確。 □ □ □ □ □

14 寫英文作文時，我會在一個段落裡表達一個主要重點。 □ □ □ □ □

15 閱讀英文時，我會摘錄重點。 □ □ □ □ □

16 我會分析英文文法的規則，然後做筆記。 □ □ □ □ □

17 寫英文作文時，我會運用舉例子來支持我所提的論點。 □ □ □ □ □

269

Appendix 20: Consent Form (English version)

CONSENT FORM

Dear classmates,

First of all, I really appreciate your assistance to do the survey for me in your

hectic study. I am a Ph D. student of TESL in the department of English at

National Taiwan Normal University. I am now conducting a study concerning

English learning motivation for senior high school students. In addition to the

completion of the questionnaire, I also need to ask for your permission of using

your final grades of the English subject in my study. Your consent will be

valuable to the study. Your personal grade and the content of the survey will

merely be used for academic research. You are assured of complete

confidentiality. The information you provide for this study will have your name

removed and will not affect your grade in this course.

I hereby □ agree

□ disagree

to help with the completion of the questionnaire and provide my final grade of

the English subject for mere academic research for this study.

Thank you very much for your assistance!

National Taiwan Normal University

Ph D. TESL program in the English department

Ph D. student: Mei-Hsia Dai

Advisor : Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng

270

Consent Form (Chinese version)

同意書

親愛的同學您好:

首先，非常感謝您在繁忙的課業中撥空幫我填寫資料。我是師大英

語教學研究所博士班的學生，現在正在進行一項有關高中生學習英語的

研究。我的研究除了需要請您幫忙填寫問卷之外，並需要徵求您的同

意，讓我使用您的段考成績(含各項大題的分數)。您的同意將會對我的

研究有莫大的幫助。您個人的成績及填寫問卷的內容僅供學術研究之

用，您個人的資料將會完全保密，而且絕對不會影響各位同學的成績。

請各位同學放心！墾請您的幫忙參與和同意。再次感謝您！

敬祝您學業順利！所求滿願！

我 □ 同意

□ 不同意

幫忙做問卷並將我的段考成績提供並僅做學術研究之用。

班級：__________ 姓名：______________ 學號：______________

非常感恩同學的熱情協助!

國立臺灣師範大學

英語教學研究所

博士生戴美霞敬上

指導教授曾文鐽博士

271

Appendix 21: Items of the Final Exam

Part A. Live ABC

1. Vocabulary

1. Mother’s Day wasn’t _____ as a holiday in the United States until 1914.

(A) recognized (B) criticized (C) invaded (D) estimated

2. Marty is afraid of _____, so he washes his hands at least ten times a day.

(A) fireworks (B) angles (C) spices (D) germs

3. I was _____ speechless when the teacher told me how much she had enjoyed

reading.

(A) practically (B) leisurely (C) gently (D) instantly

4. We chose a beautiful _____ for our home, but it is not very close to a city.

(A) satisfaction (B) extinction (C) location (D) conclusion

5. These paintings can’t _____ in expression power with those ones.

(A) estimate (B) compete (C) state (D) complete

6. My brother and I saw a _____ play about horses last weekend, which made us

surprised.

(A) marvelous (B) dangerous (C) disasters (D) superstitious

7. Quite a few people are interested in seeing movies about American police and

_____.

(A) supporters (B) partners (C) gangsters (D) challengers

8. Tom is a man of great _____. He can pull two trucks by himself.

(A) revenge (B) strength (C) pressure (D) talent

9. My father _____ several spelling mistakes in my composition.

(A) guaranteed (B) admired (C) drowned (D) spotted

10. It was _____ that the boy was able to solve the problem so quickly.

(A) promising (B) exhausting (C) amazing (D) entertaining

Cloze (10%)

Have you ever wondered what life is like in the ocean? A Japanese photographer

named Yukihiko Otsuka (大塚幸彥) who specializes in underwater photography, has

recently released a book showing some surprising images. In one picture, some fish

are living in a can. In another, colorful coral is growing out of an old, rusted hubcap.

The pictures point out the sad fact that our oceans are seriously polluted. Even though

some sea creatures have __11__ the pollution, many more have died because of it.

__12__, over fishing has threatened the very survival of several species of fish. It is

clear that our oceans are in trouble and that they need our help. __13__ joining a local

beach cleanup event, you can make some small but significant changes to your daily

272

life as well. For starters, don’t eat any seafood that __14__ extinction. Also, use

eco-friendly household cleaners and never pour paint or oil down the drain or toilet.

The life in the oceans and the benefits and beauty we get from them are too __15__ to

waste. It is time that we treated this part of our plant with the respect it deserves.

11. (A) counted on (B) adapted to (C) stood for (D) resulted from

12. (A) Moreover (B) However (C) Hence (D) Thus

13. (A) Once (B) Since (C) Because (D) Besides

14. (A) been faced (B) is faced (C) is facing (D) to face

15. (A) precise (B) precipitous (C) precious (D) precipitate

This summer, football fans around the world are in for a real treat. The FIFA World

CUP, which took place every four years, began on June 11 in South Africa. After two

weeks of tough fighting, now the final teams will __16__ to be the one lifting the

trophy at the end of the tournament on July 11. This is the first time the World Cup

__17__ in Africa. South Africa built five brand-new stadiums for the tournament,

including Cape Town Stadium in the Green Point area. __18__, organizers want to

make this a greener World Cup. Nine teams are wearing jerseys made from recycled

plastic bottles. __19__ you can’t afford a ticket, you can still be a part of the action.

Meet your friends at a sports pub or host a game-viewing party at home. The World

Cup doesn’t come around every summer; __20__, adopt a team and get ready to

cheer!

16. (A) compact (B) complete (C) discussion (D) expansion

17. (A) in being held (B) holding (C) required (D) abandoned

18. (A) In sum (B) In fact (C) In all (D) In advance

19. (A) Even if (B) As long as (C) Only when (D) Just as

20. (A) still (B) likewise (C) therefore (D) furthermore

Part B. 學測字彙 (10%)

21. After the ____ of war, people welcomed peace.

(A) satisfaction (B) destruction (C) discussion (D) expansion

22. Tom ____ building a bridge across this river.

(A) proposed (B) consumed (C) required (D) abandoned

23. Cheese, powered milk, and yogurt are common milk products that many ___ like

to shop.

(A) consumers (B) communicators (C)commuters (D) conductors

24. The young ____ decided to start their tour immediately.

(A) cell (B) corner (C) wonder (D) couple

273

25. The ____ rate has risen by 1% in the last three months due to the Economic Crisis.

(A) employment (B) unemployment (C) agreement (D) disagreement

26. Helen ____ on wearing a coat, even though it was quite warm.

(A) focused (B) counted (C) lived (D) insisted

27. He is an ____ on international law.

(A) popularity (B) security (C) authority (D) curiosity

28. Some storekeepers take ____ of innocent children, selling them things at higher

prices.

(A) charge (B) notice (C) care (D) advantage

29. The dam project has been under ____ for several years. Whenever it comes up for

consideration, it gets bogged down on the question of wildlife conservation.

(A) information (B) solution (C) discussion (D) suggestion

30. More people in Taiwan are now ____ in service industries than in manufacturing

because many factories have relocated to China, where labor is cheap.

(A) employed (B) removed (C) defined (D) fetched

PART C. Sanmin Textbook (70%)

I. Cloze (14%)

Dr. Frankenstein created a monster. The creature, of course, wasn’t the type of human

being he had hoped for. Frankenstein was tortured by the thought __31__ he had

created a monster, and in horror he ran away. The monster, __32__ the world in

loneliness, was rejected for his terrible looks. __33__, he killed Frankenstein’s brother.

Later, when he found Frankenstein, he asked the scientist to create a female monster

for him so that he would be loved. Frankenstein, __34__, destroyed the __35__

female monster. At the end of the story Frankenstein died, lying __36__ on a ship, and

the monster disappeared forever.

31. (A) that (B) which (C) of (D) what

32. (A) wandered (B) wander (C) wandering (D) to wander

33. (A) Fortunately (B) Day and night (C) In revenge (D) With respect

34. (A) therefore (B) however (C) furthermore (D) once

35. (A) half-finish (B) half-finished (C) finishing-half (D) half-finishing

36. (A) actively and lively (B) deadly and peacefully (C) sick and tired

(D) cold and still

Mickey Mouse is familiar to people almost everywhere in the world. A large number

of children and tourists are obsessed with products and souvenirs __37__ his logo and

274

spend a lot of money buying them. We can find each Disneyland overcrowded with

visitors, __38__ we visit it. It goes without saying that its worldwide __39__ does

bring in a good profit. No wonder one Disneyland after __40__ was opened all over

the world. So far, there __41__ five Disneylands in the world--two in the U.S.A., one

in Paris, and two in Asia. Believe it or not, it is reported that they are planning to build

still another in Shanghai in the near future. Since there is an __42__ need for

amusement parks, the tourism market is __43__. It is incredible that this prosperity

was all started by Mickey Mouse, a cartoon character __44__ by Walt Disney about

eighty years ago.

37. (A) have (B) which are (C) that having (D) with

38. (A) no matter when (B) no matter which (C) however (D) wherever

39. (A) necessity (B) personality (C) popularity (D) similarity

40. (A) one (B) another (C) the other (D) the others

41. (A) are (B) have been (C) were (D) has been

42. (A) exhausting (B) exhausted (C) exploded (D) exploding

43. (A) stressful (B) annoying (C) promising (D) promised

44. (A) explored (B) created (C) discovered (D) disappointed

II. Grammar (11%)

45. There are children _____ hide-and-seek in the park.

(A) played (B) who is playing (C) playing (D) are playing

46. Is that why there _____ many fish in our nets lately?

(A) isn’t (B) hadn’t been (C) aren’t (D) haven’t been

47. _____ the work, Tony went home happily.

(A) Although finishing (B) Having finished (C) Finished

(D) After finished

48. Since Tina returned to Taipei, I _____ her only once.

(A) meet (B) have met (C) met (D) am meeting

49. Last night I had a crazy dream _____ I was teaching school.

(A) that (B) when (C) which (D) what

50. Roses smell _____ sweeter than carnations.

(A) meanwhile (B) also (C) almost (D) even

51. _____ on Sunday _____ people go to church.

(A) It was; when (B) It is; which (C) I was; did (D) It is; that

52. No matter how successful Walt became, he always knew _____.

(A) what to thank (B) where to thank (C) who to thank

(D) whom to thank

275

53. Sally invited many friends to her birthday party, but _____ able to come.

(A) a few was (B) a little were (C) little was (D) few were

54. _____ her son’s letter, Mrs. Wong wondered if something bad happened to him.

(A) Not received (B) Having received not (C) Not having received

(D) Received not

55. By the time Roy was thirty, he _____ a house.

(A) was owning (B) has owned (C) had owned (D) owns

III. Vocabulary (5%)

56. When my father painted the wall today, the wet paint _____ his jeans.

(A0 stepped (B) strengthened (C) stamped (D) stained

57. To his parents’ _____, Paul didn’t meet their expectations.

(A) excitement (B) agreement (C) disappointment (D) improvement

58. Mr. Lin looks like a gentleman in _____, but actually he is a liar.

(A) appearance (B) action (C) appreciation (D) approach

59. It’s fun to see the monkeys give a _____ performance on the stage.

(A) clichéd (B) comical (C) critical (D) considerate

60. Paul found the painting _____ on the wall missing.

(A) hanged (B) hung (C) hidden (D) lain

IV. Idioms & Phrases (10%)

61. Billy doesn’t like to go to school because his classmates always _____ his potbelly.

62. The school _____ some rules that the students should follow.

63. The singer fame _____ even though he quit singing many years ago.

64. The police _____ everyone’s help to find the murder.

65. The death of his son _____ Mr. Wang _____ depression.

66. If we keep polluting our environment, what we do now will _____ disaster _____

the future generations.

67. Many football players came _____ from their own country to join the World Cup

in South Africa.

68. Billy is lucky to find a wonderful job _____ he graduated from college.

69. Peter studies _____ because he is going to take a very important test at the end of

the month.

(A) come upon (B) lives on (C) lays downs (D) called for (E) rise above (AB)

ring…upon (AC) head for (AD) soon after (AE) day and night (BC) drove…to

(BD) lost sight of (BE) make fun of (CD) all the way (CE) pass…on to (DE) had

better.

276

70. If you want to be a successful writer, you have to _____ reader’s criticism.

V. Discourse (20%)

(1) Animated movies are based on a simple idea: if you draw some sketches and

show them quickly, they will appear continuous. It may sound very simple, but one

second of a movie needs twenty-six drawings. __71__

When Walt Disney, a talented artist from Chicago, headed for California with his

brother, Roy, in 1923, he had a dream. He wanted to be an animator and he knew that

he must work very hard. He and his brother started Walt Disney Studio in 1923 and

five years later Mickey Mouse was created. __72__ In the following years, Walt

Disney Studio became very successful. __73__ He dreamed of making a full-length

film and in 1937 “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves” was shown. It was a huge hit

and Walt Disney Studio became famous. The next two films, “Pinocchio” and

“Fantasia,” were even greater challenges. “ Pinocchio,” the story of a wooden puppet

who came to life, had over 2.5 million drawings. __74__ These films are the greatest

examples of Walt Disney’s imagination.

__75__ Paper has been replaced by a computer, and an animator uses a mouse rather

than a pencil. Still, Disney continues to make great animated films like “Finding

Nemo,” “The Incredibles,” and so on. Eighty years later, the company Walt Disney

started in a small room hasn’t lost sight of Walt’s dream.

(A) Short movies weren’t enough for Walt, however.

(B) “Fantasia” mixed classical music with the imagination of the animators.

(C) Actually, this was only the start of the hard work.

(D) Now, imagine seventy minutes and you can see the difficulty.

(E) Times have changed greatly.

(2) Do you ever wish you had a pet that you never had to walk, wash or feed?

Would you like someone to help clean your room? __76__

Robots are machines that are designed to perform tasks for humans. __77__

Leonardo da Vinci first drew a robot in the shape of a human in 1495. One of the first

working robots was made in 1738 in France by a famous inventor, Jacques de

Vaucanson. It was a mechanical duck that was able to eat grain and flap its wings.

For many years, robots have been used in the manufacturing industry(製造業), for

example, in the production of automobiles. __78__ Jobs like bomb disposal, and

underwater and space exploration can be done by robots. __79__ That is to say, they

don’t make mistakes, they perform tasks exactly the same way every time, and they

don’t need coffee breaks.

277

Robots are often described and presented in science fiction books and movies,

but now it is possible for everyone to own their own robot! More than one million

robot vacuum cleaners have been sold to households all over the world. __80__

Future developments in the field of robots will probably include robots doctors that

will perform intricate surgery(手術), and robot soldiers to replace humans in war.

(A) Robot workers have a number of advantages over humans.

(B) Robot toys and pets are also popular here and there.

(C) What you may need is doubtless a robot!

(D) They are made for performing tasks that are too boring or dangerous for humans.

(E) They are not new id

VI. Reading comprehension (10%)

Everyone has a lot to do these days: finishing homework, answering e-mails,

responding to instant messages, and so on. In general, we think it will save time if we

do all of them together. Trying to do several things at once is called “multitasking.”

Recently, studies have proven that when you change among different tasks, you

actually take longer to do them. That’s because your brain takes time to change what

it is thinking about, and then change what it is thinking about, and then change back

again. That is, multitasking can’t help you get things done quickly.

For example, if you are doing math homework and researching a history essay on

your computer at the same time, it means that your brain is changing between math

and history again and again. To make things even worse, most of us also listen to

music, talk on the phone, and chat online with friends while doing our work.

In this way, our brains need extra time to organize all of those different jobs. You

can’t do math and remember the words in a song at the same time. You may fool

yourself into thinking that you are really achieving both things at once, because you

don’t realize that you’ve stopped doing one of them.

If you have a lot to do, and you want to get it all done as quickly as possible, it is

probably better to focus on one thing at a time. That will keep your brain working

efficiently so that you can focus on each task.

81. In the first paragraph, “at once” means _____.

(A) in no time (B) at times (C) all the time (D) on time

82. According to the passage, multitasking means doing _____ thing(s).

(A) few (B) only one (C) two (D) many

83. The author tends to take a _____ attitude toward multitasking.

(A) favorite (B) positive (C)negative (D) reliable

278

84. In the passage, trying to do different things at the same time _____.

(A) will take you longer to get them done.

(B) will save much time

(C) may help you get things done as quickly as possible

(D) may keep your brain working fast.

85. In order to get things done quickly, we had better _____ while doing our work.

(A) focus on one thing at a time.

(B) listen to the radio at the same time.

(C) spare no effort to save time by doing all the things together.

(D) keep our brain changing among as many tasks as possible.

279

Appendix 22: Syntax and Covariance of the Structural Model

Latent Variables: ATTL SONML SCONL GLINL IMINL SRL BHVL MASTL ACHL

Relationships

cog aff = ATTL

inj des ling = SONML

ling eff anx = SCONL

int ins = GLINL

con sit str = IMINL

com meta sat emo str = SRL

ini app exp surp = BHVL

voc grm read wrt = MASTL

vo cz gm dm ds rd= ACHL

GLINL = ATTL SONML SCONL

IMINL = ATTL SONML SCONL

SRL = SONML SCONL GLINL IMINL

BHVL = SCONL GLINL IMINL SRL

MASTL = SRL BHVL

ACHL = BHVL MASTL

LET THE ERROR VARIANCE OF GLINL AND IMINL CORRELATE

LISREL Output: RS MI SC EF

Path Diagram

End of Problem

constructing an l2 motivational model of planned learning

Documents