language learning motivation, strategies and achievement: a person-centered approach study chang,...

Language Learning Language Learning Motivation, Strategies and Motivation, Strategies and

Achievement:Achievement:

A Person-centered Approach A Person-centered Approach StudyStudy

Chang, Shan Mao Chang, Shan Mao

Wu, Su Ching Wu, Su Ching 1 National Changhua University of National Changhua University of

Education, TaiwanEducation, Taiwan

National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan Su Ching Wu & Shan Mao Chang

Table of ContentsTable of Contents Introduction

The Individual motivation The Purpose of the Study

Literature Review

Method Participants Instruments Data Analysis

Results and Discussion Summary of Findings Conclusion

2


Introduction Individual motivation is a multidimensional

configuration Not just one single need (Kolesnik, 1978) Not just one single type of motivation (Vallerand,

Pelletier, & Koestner, 2008)

L2 motivation is considered a multifaceted construct (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005) the major predictor of learning achievement

(Brown, 2000; Dörnyei, 1998, 2005; Ellis, 2007) the most influential factor in the selection of

strategy use (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) 3


Introduction Variable-centered Approach

The mainstream approach in L2 motivation research (e.g., Barnhardt, 1998; Chamot, 1998; Cohen, 1998; Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003; Wenden, 1999)

Reflecting the phenomenon regarding a small group of individuals (Bergman, Magunsson, & El Khorui, 2003)

The exploration of individual’s strategy use could be fragmental and incomplete.

Person-centered Approach

Completely exploring individual motivational configuration of English learning

4


Introduction The context where the target language is

learned Predominating learner’s motivation (Clément &

Kruidenier, 1983; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1990; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Warden & Lin, 2000)

In the EFL context: Instrumental motivation is the dominant motivation (e.g.,

Carreira, 2011; Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Dörnyei, 1990; Humphreys & Spratt, 2008; Kaneko & Kawaguchi, 2010; Warden & Lin, 2000)

→ A persuasive hypothesis: Instrumental motivation can be the major component of

EFL learners’ motivational configuration. 5


Introduction The Purpose of the study

To explore the components of senior high school EFL students’ motivational configuration in English learning on the basis of person-centered approach

To examine the relationships between senior high school EFL students’ motivational configuration of English learning, strategy use in English learning and English achievement

6


Literature ReviewLiterature Review Previous studies of Using Person-

Centered Approach Widely used in other fields (e.g., Conley, 2012; Daniels et

al., 2008; Ntoumanis, 2002) Results: higher level of motivation usually associated with

positive outcomes Few studies elaborate on individual EFL learners’

motivation (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005) In education field: the positive relationship between

academic motivational cluster and academic performance in

high quantity cluster (Ratelle et al., 2007) good quality cluster (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010;

Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) both high quantity and good quality clusters (Wormington,

Corpus, & Anderson, 2012)7


Literature ReviewLiterature Review Previous studies of Using Person-Centered

Approach related to Strategy Use Focusing on the comparison between clusters

(Bråten & Olasussen, 2005; Turner, Thorpe, & Meyer, 1998; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009)

Strategy use is a cluster variable: High frequent strategy use cluster was associated with

higher test scores (Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999) achievement (Yamamori et al., 2003)

The positive relationship was proven: Motivational clusters ↹ achievement Strategy use cluster ↹ achievement

8


Literature ReviewLiterature Review The Dominant Motivation ?

Intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation

→ The incompatibility between intrinsic & extrinsic motives The two motives is not simply at opposite ends of a continuum but

more complicated (Lepper, Henderlong, Carol, & Judith, 2000; Lin, McKeachie & Kim, 2003; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000)

Coexist to stimulate learners’ engagement (e.g., Gillet et al. 2009; Lee, McInerney, Liem, & Ortiga, 2010)

integrative motivation vs. instrumental motivation Doubt on Gardnerian superiority of integrative motivation in

foreign/second language learning (Au, 1988b; Clëment & Kruidenier, 1983; Crooks & Schimidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1990b; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Warden & Lin, 2000; Wen, 1997)

Instrumental motivation is the dominant motivation in English learning in the EFL context (Carreira, 2011; Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Dörnyei, 1990; Humphreys & Spratt, 2008; Kaneko & Kawaguchi, 2010; Warden & Lin, 2000)

9


Literature ReviewLiterature Review Strategy use

The conflicting findings the differences of strategy use between high- and low-

proficiency learners did not always exist (Reiss, 1975; Rubin, 1975)

higher-proficiency learners actually use fewer strategies than low proficiency learners (Chen, 1990; Oxford, 1993)

→ Frequency of strategy use neither represents the quality of strategy use nor bears a simple linear relationship to language achievement (McDonough, 1999)

→ Cohen (1994): neither the frequency nor variety of strategy use definitely could serves as the indicator of successful learners’ strategy use.

10


Literature ReviewLiterature Review Strategy Use - Successful learners

Prefer to particular types of strategies metacognitive strategies (Goh & Foong, 1997; Hong-Nam

& Leavell, 2007; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Oxford, 1993; Pishghadam, 2008; Rahimi et al. 2008; Whorton, 2000)

depend little on cumulative knowledge and rehearsing skills (Gan et al., 2004)

→ Successful learners’ strategy use does not depend on a single category of strategies but on the combination of different categories of strategies (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993).

11


MethodMethod

Participants A boys’ senior high school located in central

Taiwan Cluster sampling Average age: 16.47

Grade Information of the Participants

12

1st grade 2nd grade 3rd grade Total

Class Number 8 8 8 24

Student Number 330 351 337 1018

Invalid Q No. 33 24 16 73

Valid Q No. 297 327 321 945


Method - Method - InstrumentsInstruments The Motivation Questionnaire (Wu, 2010)

Background information and 35 questions for Motivational Orientations

The Strategy Use Questionnaire (Wu, 2010) Derived from Oxford’s (1989) Strategy Inventory

for Language Learning (SILL), ESL/EFL Version 7.0 Verification of Questionnaires

Item analysis: Item-total correlation coefficient >.30 Independent t-test for each questionnaire item

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Lisrel, Simplis

13


Method Method –– Data AnalysisData Analysis Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

Bartlett’s test of sphericity Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO): Measure of Sampling

Adequacy Factor Loadings Extraction: principle components analysis (PCA),

eigenvalues >1; Rotation: oblique (Promax)

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Lisrel, Simplis Construct Reliability (.31<CR<.89)

14

Proportion of variance Squared multiple correlation (SMC) >.30

Construct ValidityStandardized loading estimates > .50

Average variance extracted (AVE >.50)

Construct reliability (CR >.70)


Method Method –– Data AnalysisData Analysis Correlation of the three variables:

All significant at the .01 level (p < .01) The coefficients: all fell into the range of (.163 ≦

r ≦ .746) The diagnosis of multicollinearity

The tolerance values (>.10) Variance inflation factor (VIF < 10)

→ The possibility of multicollinearity among the ten independent variables could be eliminated

15


Method Method –– Data AnalysisData Analysis Cluster Analysis

Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): Ward’s Linkage with the interval of Squared Euclidean

distance 23 univariates (3 SDs above or below the mean

values of motivational factors MF1-MF5) were eliminated since HCA is sensitive to outliers (Garson, 1998)

→ 4 level of hierarchical cluster in motivation (MF1~MF5)

16


Method Method –– Data AnalysisData Analysis Cluster Analysis

K-means cluster analysis: 4 clusters A double-split cross-validation procedure (Breckenridge,

2000) Data (N=922) is split into two random halves for K-means

cluster analysis: Cohen’s kappa = .918

MANOVA analysis and Post Hoc Tests of Homogeneous Subsets Multivariate tests of the four clusters indicated significant

differences among the four groups (Wilks’ Lambda = 91.778, p<.001,η2=.525)

Partial η2 > .138 Post Hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) of homogeneous subsets:

5 motivational factors could be significantly classified into 4 different clusters except for MF1 (There is not much difference between MF1 of cluster2 and that of cluster4.)

17


Results and DiscussionResults and Discussion

18


Results and DiscussionResults and Discussion The differences of the motivation constituents

19

N=238

High Motive

N=188

Performance Focused

N=212

Low Motive

N=284

Socioculture Focused



20

High Motive

High Frequent Str. User

Low Motive

Low Frequent Str. User



21

Not merely depend on the five categories of strategies (SF1~SF5) but on some other factors for English Achievement

SF3 is the only coordinator among different kinds of strategies.



22

SF3 is not the only coordinator.SF3 → SF1 →SF4, SF5

The more correlations between Motivation and Strategy Use of Cluster4, however, do not consequentially bring about any effects on Achievement

Not merely depend on the five categories of strategies (SF1~SF5) but on some other factors for English Achievement



23

SF3 is coordinated by SF1

SF2 → negative effects on Ach

Socioculture Focused Learners: 1. Using more surface strategies 2. Lacking of organized manipulation in SF3 3. SF2 → negative effects on Ach → Comparatively inefficient strategy use



24

3 negative correlations between Motivation and Strategy Use suggest the higher motivation EFL students in Cluster1 Low Motive Group have, the fewer the effects on strategy use are.

0.30

Lacking of manipulation on SF3

SF2 → negative effects on Ach SF4 → positive effects on Ach



25

N χ2 df GFI RMSEA CFI NNFI CN

Assessing Norms χ2/df <3 >.900 <.080 >.900 >.900 >200

High Motive 238 7.73 4 .994 .063 .996 .949 405

Performance Focus 188

13.76 12 .986 .028 .995 .975 348Integrative Focus 284

21.80 13 .982 .049 .987 .947 355Low Motive 212

20.04 13 .983 .051 .985 .936 289

Note. df= degrees of freedom, GFI=Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI=Comparative Fit Index, NNFI=Non-Normed Fit Index, CN=Critical N.

Fit Measures of 4 Clusters



26


Summary of the FindingsSummary of the Findings The features of senior high school EFL

students’ motivational configuration Deeply influenced by the EFL context: instrumental MF3 Prospective Needs and MF2 Realistic Needs MF3 & MF2 → no direct effects on English

achievement

→ Senior high school EFL students’ English learning motivation should not merely focus on instrumental motivation but on the configuration of a variety of motives.

27


Summary of the FindingsSummary of the Findings Features of Strategy Use of the 4 groups:

Frequency of strategy High Motive Group: the high strategy use group The other 3 groups: medium strategy use group

Strategies preference High Motive Group: using fewest direct strategies Performance Focused vs. Socioculture Focused:

Social-affective vs. Memory strategies Low Motive: direct strategies > indirect strategies

Strategic behavior Coordinators: Indirect Strategies (Metacognitive & Socio-

affective) Coordinating Relationship: Metacognitive & Socio-affective

should not be coordinated by direct strategies unless the reciprocal relationship exists between indirect and direct strategies (indirect strategies → direct strategies → indirect strategies)

28


Summary of the FindingsSummary of the Findings Strategic behavior

High Motive Group: Appropriate but insufficient for improving English achievement.

→The five categories of strategies, however, are not sufficient enough for the high achievers to improve their English achievement.

Performance Focused Group: Less proper and still insufficient for improving English achievement because of imperfect coordination

Socioculture Focused Group: less effective because of more negative correlations between Motivation and Strategy Use and even more chaotic coordination between indirect and direct strategies

Low Motive Group: obviously ineffective due to: 3 negative correlations between motivation and strategy use, suggesting

low motive EFL students’ avoidance in strategy use, especially the negative correlation between MF2 and SF3,

indirect strategies were functionless on the coordination between indirect and direct strategies,

indirect strategies (SF2 and SF3) were coordinated by direct strategies (SF1), and 4) No reciprocal relationship between indirect and direct strategies.

29


Summary of the FindingsSummary of the Findings The Relationship between Motivation, Strategy

Use and English achievement High Motive & Performance Focused Group:

Direct relationship models: only MF1 Intrinsic Motivation serves as a direct impetus leading to positive effects on English achievement

Socioculture Focused & Low Motive Group: Partial indirect relationship models

→ Motivation serves as a trigger prompting EFL students to take their efforts into practice through strategic behavior for the purpose of improving English achievement

→ The efforts derived from motivation putting action into practice through strategy use, however, may not be sufficiently or efficiently enough to improve EFL students’ English achievement.

30


ConclusionConclusion Through person-centered analysis, this study

definitely proved EFL students’ English learning motivation does not

merely lie in a single motive but constructed by a motivational configuration which may influence EFL students’ strategy use, including frequency of strategy, strategy preference and strategic behavior.

Instrumental motivation: Indispensable but not the major impetus for highly

motivated and extrinsically motivated EFL students The significant driving force for the lower achievers→ Instrumental motivation could be an initial motive for less

motivated learners

31


ConclusionConclusion The positive effects derived from

instrumental motivation through ineffective strategy use for less motivated EFL students:

Enlightening language instructors on the issues of strengthening less motivated EFL students’ learning motivation by executing strategy use instruction especially for the use of Metacognitive Strategies.

31


Thank You for Listening

language learning motivation, strategies and achievement: a person-centered approach study chang,...

Documents

taiwan slide

shan mao wu

instrumental motivation

language learning motivation

dominant motivation

warden chang

education field

l2 motivation research