The relationship between extrinsic intrinsic motivation and language learning strategies among...
75
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH IN TAIWAN A Thesis in Applied English By Hsin-Hui Chang Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts June 2005 Ming Chuan University College of Applied Languages Department of Applied English
-
Upload
juraimiomar -
Category
Education
-
view
76 -
download
0
Transcript of The relationship between extrinsic intrinsic motivation and language learning strategies among...
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC
MOTIVATION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES
AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS OF ENGLISH IN TAIWAN
A Thesis in
Applied English
By
Hsin-Hui Chang
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
June 2005
Ming Chuan University
College of Applied Languages
Department of Applied English
i
英文系學生語言學習內外在動機與語言學習策略之間關係之研究
研究生： 張心慧
指導教授： 陳亦蘭博士
中文摘要
本研究之目的在於調查台灣英文系學生之學習語言動機， 所使用的學習策
略， 以及兩者之間的相互關係。研究中根據 Deci et al. (1985) 所提出的自
律學習理論, 探討學生學習動機。
本研究以 307 位英文系學生為研究對象，採用改編自 Deci et al.的學習
動機問卷及 Oxford 的語言學習策略問卷。因素分析 (Factor Analysis)與皮爾
遜相關分析(Pearson Product-moment correlation analysis) 為分析問卷結果
的統計方法。研究結果顯示，最常見的語言學習動機為外在動機；而最常被使用
的學習策略則為自我評量與計畫學習策略。內在動機與認同動機均與研究中四個
學習策略高度相關。此外，認知策略與五種學習動機皆有相關。
根據研究結果，本研究建議教師先了解學生學習動機以及學生所使用的學
習策略，進而使用適合的教材，以讓學生了解更適合他們的學習策略並增進語言
學習效率。
關鍵詞：英文系學生，自律理論，學習動機，學習策略
ii
The Relationship between Extrinsic/Intrinsic Motivation and
Language Learning Strategies among College Students of English in Taiwan
Graduate Student: Hsin-Hui Chang
Advisor: Dr. Yi-Lan Chen
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to investigate the language learning motivation and
learning strategies and the relationships between these two variables among college
students of English in Taiwan. Deci et al.’s (1985) self-determination theory was
adapted in the study to discover students’ learning motivation.
A total of 307 English majors participated in the research. The
instrumentation for assessing learners’ motivation and learning strategies was adopted
from Deci et al’s motivational scale and Oxford’s SILL (Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning). Factor Analysis and Pearson Product-moment correlation
analysis was used to compute the results. The results of the study showed that, the
most frequently type of motivation was external motivation; and the most frequently
used strategy was evaluating and planning strategy; and that both intrinsic motivation
and identified motivation correlated highly to all of the four learning strategies.
Besides, it was shown that cognitive strategies were related to all the five types of
learning motivation.
Based on the results, the study suggested that teachers try to understand
learners’ learning motivation and their use of strategies so as to provide them the
appropriate learning material and the appropriate learning strategies which may
enhance their language learning.
Key words：college students of English, self-determination theory, learning
iii
motivation, learning strategies
iv
Acknowledgements
It will never be easy to complete a thesis. I suffered when facing difficulties
in the process of thesis writing, but I was also delighted with joyfulness when I finally
finished the most challenging job in my life. At this movement, I am full of joy and
thankfulness. Hereby, I would like to express my thankfulness and share the credit
with people who give my courage and support me in this tough process.
First of all, I would like to show my gratefulness and respect to my advisor, Dr,
Yi-Lan Chen, who always spared her time to support and guide me. Her thoughtful
guidance and warming encouragement supported me to complete the thesis.
I also felt an immense gratitude to Dr. Chaochang Wang and Dr. Sheng-Hui
Huang, for their patience and kindness to give me helpful suggestion on thesis
writing.
Special thanks also go to my friends and classmates who are always with me
and comfort me whenever I feel frustrated.
Especially, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my best friend,
Wen-Jui Liang, who always listens to me and helps me to go through the difficulties.
Without his company and love, I would never be able to finish this task.
Finally, I want to show my biggest thanks to my beloved family: my father, my
mother, my sister, and my nephew. They are always there for me whenever I need
them. Their love and encouragement keep me warm and lead me to the completion
of the thesis. With their warming support, I believe that I will never be afraid of any
difficulties any more.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION…………………………………………….
Background……………………………………………………………………
Definition of Motivation………………………………………………………
Definition of Language Learning Strategy……………………………………
1
1
2
4
CHPATER TWO LITERATURE
REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………
Background of Motivation…………………………………………………….
Self-Determination Theory……………………………………………………
Motivation in Self-Determination Theory………………………………...
Motivation and Achievement………………………………………………….
Language Learning Strategies…………………………………………………
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning……………………………………
Studies on Language Learning Strategies……………………………………..
Factors Affecting Learner’s Choice of Strategies……………………………..
Motivation………………………………………………………………..
External Variables………………………………………………………..
Perceived Difficulty………………...........................................................
6
6
8
8
9
12
13
14
15
15
15
16
vi
Studies related to Chinese EFL learners’ use of strategies……………………
Language Learning Strategies and Achievement……………………………..
Relation between Language Learning Motivation and Learning Strategies…..
Relation between Language Learning Motivation and Learning Strategies
within Taiwanese EFL Context ………………………………………………
Major Research Question………………………………………………………..
16
17
19
21
23
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY………………………………………...
Participants…………………………………………………………………….
Instrument……………………………………………………………………..
Procedures……………………………………………………………………..
Pilot Study………………………………………………………………
Formal Study……………………………………………………………
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………...
24
24
25
28
28
28
29
CHPATER FOUR
RESUTLS………………………………………………………………………..
30
Language Learning Motivation……………………………………………….. 30
Means and Standard Deviation for Motivation Types…………………... 30
vii
Factor Analysis for Motivation Scale…………………………………....
Relationship between Motivation Types………………………………
31
33
Language Learning Strategy………………………………………………….. 34
Means and Standard Deviation for Language Learning Strategies……... 34
Factor Analysis for Language Learning Strategies……………………… 35
Correlation between Motivation and Language Learning Strategy…………...
The Role of Gender and Achievement…………………………………..........
Gender and Language Learning Motivation……………………………..
Achievement and Language Learning Motivation………………………
Gender and Language Learning Strategies………………………………
Achievement and Language Learning Strategies………………………..
Summary of Results…………………………………………………………...
37
38
38
39
40
39
41
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION………………………..
Language Learning Motivation……………………………………………….
Learners’ Types of Motivation…………………………………………..
Positive Correlation between Intrinsic Motivation, Integrated
Motivation, Identified Motivation, and Introjected Motivation………….
Negative Correlation between Intrinsic Motivation and External
42
42
42
43
viii
Motivation………………………………………………………………..
Significant Relationship between Motivation and Achievement………...
Language Learning Strategies…………………………………………………
Learners’ Use of Learning Strategies……………………………………
Evaluating & Planning Strategy………………………………………….
Social Strategy…………………………………………………………...
Cognitive Strategy……………………………………………………….
Functional Practice Strategy……………………………………………..
Motivation and Language Learning Strategies……………………………….
Significant Correlation between Motivation and Strategy Use………….
Significant Correlation between Intrinsic Motivation and the Four
Types of Language Learning Strategies…………………………………
Significant Correlation between Integrated Motivation and Cognitive
Strategies…………………………………………………………………
Significant Correlation between Identified Motivation and the Four
Types of Language Learning Strategies…………………………………
Positive Correlation between Introjected Motivation and Cognitive
Strategies…………………………………………………………………
Negative Correlation between External Motivation and Cognitive
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
48
48
ix
Strategies…………………………………………………………………
Role of Gender and Achievement on Motivation and Strategy Use……..
Effects of Gender and Achievement on Motivation……………………..
No Effect of Gender, Achievement on Language Learning Strategies…
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...
Limitation……………………………………………………………………
Pedagogical Implication……………………………………………………..
Summary……………………………………………………………………..
48
49
49
49
50
51
51
52
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………..
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………
Language Learning Motivation and Language Learning Strategies
Questionnaires……………………………………………………………….
English Version………………………………………………………………
Chinese Version……………………………………………………………...
55
61
61
61
62
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table3
Table4
Table5
Table6
Table7
Table8
Table9
Table10
Table11
Table12
Table13
Table 14
Portfolio for 307 Participants………………………………………….
Reliability Analysis for Motivation and Strategy Scale……………….
Descriptive Statistics for the Motivation Types……………………….
Descriptive Statistics for Each Motivational Item…………………….
Matrix for Factor Analysis of Motivation Scale………………………
Correlation between Motivation Types………………………………..
Descriptive Statistics for the Language Learning Strategies………….
Descriptive Statistics for Each Strategy Item………………………….
Matrix for Factor Analysis of Language Learning Strategy…………..
Correlations between Language Learning Motivation and Strategy…..
Results of T-Test for Motivation by Gender…………………………..
Results of T-Test for Language Learning Motivation by
Achievement……………………………………………………………
Results of T-Tests for Means of Strategies between Male and Female.
Results of T-Test for Language Learning Strategies by Achievement...
25
27
30
31
33
34
34
35
37
38
39
39
40
41
1
Chapter One Introduction
Background
Second language learning has always been a complicated and controversial
issue which is related to various aspects of factors, including biological, neurological,
psychological, sociological factors, and so on. To find out the factors affecting
second language learning and to provide second language teachers the possible ways
of facilitating students’ second language learning, numerous research has been done
to discover the factors involved in second language learning, such as age, sex, culture,
identity, the emotional factors, learner variables, and so on. Among the three factors,
Bacon and Finnemann (1990) argued that learners’ social and affective factors are
especially viewed as crucial elements in determining their language acquisition
behavior.
It was pointed out that learners’ variables or characteristics were important
factors to be considered and worth investigating in relation to the area of second
language learning. Among the previous research, the psychological variables of
students, especially students’ motivation toward second language learning, was the
popular subject for researcher to discover. Second language learners’ motivations
have been claimed in research and theories to be a crucial factor in influencing the
achievement or the proficiency level of the second language learning.
Except for motivation, second language learners’ learning strategies are also
critical toward second language learning. It was claimed (Djigunovie, 2001) that
motivation may have a strong impact on language learner’s use of learning strategies.
Also, it was stated that learners’ appropriate use of language learning strategies made
great contribution to the success of second language learning (Bull, 2000). To
understand the interaction between language learning motivation and strategy use,
there were studies investigating the relationship between language learners’
2
motivation and their use of learning strategies. Oxford and Crrookall (1989), for
example, stated that based on the analysis of variance on individual’s factors, it was
shown that motivation, gender, and self-perceptions were the most influential factors
on strategy use, and that highly motivated students made frequent use of strategies in
comparison to unmotivated students. Dornyei (1998) further argued the importance
of motivation by the statement that motivation provided learners the primary stimuli
for initiating second language learning, and later motivation become the driving force
for learners to be persistent in the tedious learning process, so that learners may be
able to complete long-term goals if there is sufficient motivation.
Definition of Motivation
Motivation, according to Dornyei (1998), was the “process whereby a certain
amount of instigation force arises, initiates action, and persists” as long as there is no
other forces weakening it until the planned goals were reached. In other words,
motivation can be seen as a force that made a person to initiate action, and to keep on
until the goals were achieved. However, based on social psychological point of view,
Gardner (1985) defined L2 motivation as “the extent to which an individual works or
strives to learn the language” because of their desire to do so and satisfaction obtained
from the activity, such definition focuses on learners’ inner desire and attitude toward
language learning. Furthermore, based on Deci and Ryan’s (1985)
self-determination theory, motivation was related to all aspects of “activation” and
“intention”, including energy, direction, persistence and equifinality. Motivation
was classified as extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation based on the degree of
self-determination. From extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation, they were
classified as five categories: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified
regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation.
External regulation means that learners perform certain behaviors so as to
3
satisfy external demands or to get external reward. These external regulated
behaviors were usually experienced as being controlled or alienated.
Introjected regulation, which was another type of extrinsic motivation,
remained quite controlling. People who were introjected-regulated mean that they
performed the behaviors with a feeling of pressure, avoiding guilt, or obtaining
self-esteem. For example, children may do homework not because they like it; but
because they avoid being punished by teachers, or get other students’ approval.
Identified regulation, though still classified as extrinsic motivation, was a
more autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. Identified regulation occurred when
people identified the importance of some behaviors and took it as his or her own value.
For example, a girl who learned English because she knew the importance of learning
English, and she viewed this as her own goals in her life.
The most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, integrated regulation,
referred to that people has fully assimilated the identified regulation to themselves.
In other words, integrated regulation occurred when people taking the new regulation
in their life and make it congruent with their own needs and values. Though
integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation were said to be similar in some way,
integrated regulation was still viewed as one of the types of extrinsic motivation, since
people with integrated motivation were regarded as doing behaviors out of the
presumed external value which was separable from the behaviors (Ryan & Deci,
2000).
Intrinsic motivation occurred when someone was moved to do something for
fun or challenge, instead of environmental factors. In other words, people decided to
do the action or behavior because of their inherent interest toward the activity, rather
than because of the external outcome.
4
Definition of Language Learning Strategy
As for language learning strategies, it was defined by Rubin (1987) as
“operations employed by the learner to aid the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use
of information”. The importance of language learning strategies was emphasized in
the field of language learning as well as language teaching, as Oxford (1989)
proposed, that language learning strategies were related to all parts of learning
acquisition (p. 4).
Based on Oxford’s (1989) finding, good language learners use the fallowing six
groups of strategies: metacognitive, affective, social, memory, cognitive, and
compensatory strategies.
Memory, cognitive, and compensatory strategies were categories of direct
strategies which were directly involved in the target language. Memory-related
strategies were used to help language learners to link the connection between concepts
or items of second language with another, but deep understanding was not necessarily
involved in this process. For example, acronyms, images, body movement, or
location, were strategies which may be used to help learners build the connection
between their knowledge and the second language items or concepts. Cognitive
strategies referred to strategies that learner use to manipulate the language directly.
Analysis, note-taking, summarizing, outlining, and practicing structures and sounds
formally, were all examples of cognitive strategies. Compensatory strategies help
learners to make up for missing knowledge. For example, when encountering
unfamiliar words in listening and reading, learners may guess from the context.
Other strategies like using synonyms and strictly for speaking may help learners
compensate their missing knowledge in a context as well.
On the other hand, metacognitive, affective, and social strategies were included
in indirect strategies because of their nature that they were not directly involved in the
5
process of language learning. Metacognitive strategies, such as planning for L2
tasks, organizing materials, and evaluating task success, are strategies that learners
employ to manage their process of language learning. Affective strategies, like
identifying one’ anxiety level, sharing feelings, or rewarding oneself for good
performance, help learners to overcome their emotional pressure while learning or
doing language tasks. Social strategies were identified as strategies that learners use to
help themselves work with others and to understand the target language and culture.
Asking questions for verification, asking for help in a language task, or talking with
native-speakers are all examples of social strategies.
Studies have been made to discover the relationship between students’ learning
strategies and other factors such as motivation, language achievement, or learning
beliefs within Taiwan context (Yang, 1993; Huang, 1997; Chen, 2000; Chung, 2000).
It was found that learning strategies had close relationship with motivation and
achievement in second language learning. However, few studies put focus on the
relationship between extrinsic, intrinsic motivation and learning strategies among
college students of English in Taiwan. It is very important for teachers to
understand learners’ motivation and learning strategies toward language learning,
since motivation is related to the affective parts of learners which may reflect their
psychological need, and learning strategies are critical parts of effective learning; in
knowing the relationship between learners’ motivation and strategy use, it may be
possible for teachers to provide learning materials, strategies, or teaching methods
which are suitable for facilitating learners’ learning. Especially, it seems that
motivation and strategy use of college English majors was not put into consideration
by teachers. As a result, teachers in colleges may not be able to provide students the
teaching materials and strategies which may enhance learners’ learning motivation
and in turn help them to reach their learning goals. Therefore, to make further
6
discussion, the present study focused on investigating the relationship between
students’ motivational types, which were included of extrinsic/intrinsic motivation,
and language learning strategies in second language learning among college students
of English in Taiwan so as to provide implication and suggestions for language
teaching.
7
Chapter Two Literature Review
This chapter will review the theory and research that focusing on the topics of
language learning motivation, language learning strategies, and the relationship
between these two variables, and their relationship to second language achievement.
Background of Motivation
In the field of language learning, tremendous discussions have been made on
the importance of learners’ self-autonomy (Dickinson & Wenden, 1995; Littlewood,
1996). Numerous empirical studies have been shown to be supportive of the
importance of self-concept of ability, perceived value of the subjects, and
expectations for future success as crucial predictors of academic performance (Pokay
& Blumenfeld, 1990).
To understand the role of motivation in second language learning, the definition
of motivation may be discussed in the first place. In Gardner and MacIntyre’s (in
Brown & Gonzo, 1995) explanation, motivation referred to learners’ directed,
reinforcing effort in learning a language; which was, the effort that a language learner
willing to pay in the process of second language learning. Since the goal of learners
may be different, as McDonough (1981) stated, some wish to become linguists, some
for future job, and others wish to be identified with the foreign country. Therefore, the
effort learners make may be different according to their individual goals in language
learning. The former learner goals can be viewed as what Brown (2000) mentioned
the ‘instrumental orientation’, which referred to acquiring language for instrumental
goals, such as passing an entrance exams, communicating with foreigners. While
the latter learner goals can be viewed as the integrative orientation, with which can be
referred to learners’ desire to be accepted or identified as members of the group of the
target language, which means they were open to the new language and its people
(Savignon, 1980).
8
Different learner needs and interests may result in different degree of effort they
are willing to make in the language-learning process. Just as what McDonough
(1981) mentioned, individual differences in their willingness and perseverance to
learn a language were closely linked to achievement needs. Also, he proposed that
the need for achievement was composed of three factors, including the person’s
expectations of success (or failure), the value of the task as an incentive, and the
orientation toward success. In other words, it was proposed that motivation,
including both integrative and instrumental, was highly related to the individual needs
for achievement or their goals toward learning the target language.
Self-Determination Theory
Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory was an organismic theory focused
on human behavior and its correlation to social context. Human beings were viewed
as “proactive organism” whose intrinsic motivation may be either facilitated or
undermined by the social context in self-determination theory (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick,
& Leone, 1994). The focus of the theory was on the investigation of human beings’
inherent tendencies as well as the psychological needs, which were said to be the
basic elements for self-motivation and integration in personality (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
In self-determination theory, it was pointed out that there was close relationship
between people’s motivational behaviors and the social contextual factors. For
example, when people feel relatedness, secure, or a sense of competence from the
environment, then their motivation for doing the behavior may become autonomous
instead of being controlled.
Motivation in Self-Determination Theory
In self-determination theory, Deci and Ryan classified motivation as mainly
two types: intrinsic and extrinsic (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation referred
to people doing something out of the inherent interest or joy; whereas extrinsic
9
motivation referred to doing something because it contributed to a separable outcome
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, the two types of motivation were not opposite site
of each other; instead, they were along a continuum. From motivation to external
compliance, and to self commitment, they were classified as motivation, external
regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and
intrinsic motivation. External regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation,
and integrated regulation were different forms of extrinsic motivation. Deci and
Ryan classified those types of motivation based on the degree of self internalization of
the value. In other word, whether people do the action out of inherent interest on the
task, or out of external control, ex: getting reward, avoid of punishment, or to attain
ego esteem (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Dcei and Ryan (1990) proposed that human intrinsic motivations developed
from three primary psychological needs: need for competence, need for autonomy (or
self-determination), in which one have choice or voice for his/her own action, and
need for relatedness, i.e. , searching for connection with others as well as the social
world. Empirical evidences supporting the idea that intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation can be used in predicting learners’ achievement in second language
learning. It was claimed that the more internalized students are in L2 learning, the
more persistent students can be, implying that students’ degree of internalization may
determine their long-term learning outcomes (Noels, et al. 2000; Levesque, et al.,
2004).
Motivation and Achievement
Motivation has strong effect on students’ achievement in numerous studies.
Specifically, intrinsic motivation was found to have a significant effect on students
learning and performance in an empirical study (Deci et al.’s, 2004).
Gardner (1985) also found that motivation has close relationship with learner’s
10
achievement. He analyzed the role of attitude and motivation in second language
acquisition through his previous study. The subjects were a group of students who
studied French as the second language, and they were tested on their language
aptitude, attitudes toward the French-speaking community, their reasons to study
French, and the effort they were willing to make in learning French. Also, the
students’ achievements in French were measured. The results of the study showed
that there was significant relationship between language aptitude and French
achievement. However, the result also indicated that the attitudinal-motivational
factors were also related to students’ achievement in French learning.
It was also worth noticing the significant importance of intrinsic motivation in
second language learning. Studies have confirmed the relationship between intrinsic
motivation and course material and higher academic performance (Noels, et al., 1999),
indicating that intrinsic motivation may be critical predictor of learners’ academic
performance.
Furthermore, learner autonomy has been argued to play an important role in
language learning by Deci and Ryan (1985) in their Self-Determination Theory.
Several empirical studies have been constructed to examine this theoretical
framework and found supportive results for the theory (Noels, Clement, & Pelletier,
1999; Noels, Clement, & Pelletier, 2001). Noels, Clement, and Pelletier (2001), for
example, investigated French Canadian students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for
language learning with Deci and Ryan’s theory as the theoretical framework. The
results supported their prediction on the relations between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation orientations. Moreover, it was also found that integrative orientation has
strong correlation with intrinsic motivation, which was contrary to Gardner’s (1985)
assumption that there was similarity between integrative orientation and extrinsic
motivation.
11
However, Noels, Clement, & Pelletier (2001) also pointed out that learners’
motivation, no matter external or internal, did not necessarily determine their effort or
persistence in language learning. In other words, learners may engage in language
learning because of rewards of punishment, but they may also cease learning once the
external pressure no longer exists. Learners who were intrinsically motivated to
learn were still believed to be more persistent in language learning, and this
persistence may in turn contribute to learners’ achievement.
In addition, it was suggested (Deci & Ryan, 1987a) that informational feedback
with non-controlling manner may support learners’ autonomy by providing them
greater opportunities of making their own decisions. In other words, learners’
autonomy in learning may be enhanced if teachers provided students non-controlling
feedback.
There were studies proving that learners’ motivation or performance may be
inhibited if the teachers’ style is controlling instead of being supportive. For
example, Boggiano, and Barrett (1990) conducted a study to examine the hypothesis,
that students show performance impairment when they were under the environment
where teachers were pressured to maximize students’ performance level with
controlling strategies. The results confirmed the hypothesis that students showed
impairment on their performance as well as intrinsic motivation when they were under
controlled environment.
Teachers who were supportive of learners’ autonomous learning were proven to
have significant impact on learners’ motivational processes. Reeve, Bolt, and Cai
(1999), for instance, led a study to examine the motivating style based on teachers’
disposition to control students or support their autonomy. The results implied that in
comparison with teachers who use controlling strategies, teachers who were
autonomy-supportive to students showed a significant motivating style and intend to
12
support students’ intrinsic motivational as well as internalization processes.
Language Learning Strategies
Learning strategies have been investigated within the two fields: second
language acquisition and cognitive psychology. The research on this two fields were
both focused on strategies used by effective or successful learners, and how those
strategies could help less effective learners (Rubin, 1975). Language learning
strategies were defined as actions that “learners use to make language learning more
successful, self-directed, and enjoyable” (Oxford, 1989). However, it was of great
interest for researchers to discover what characteristics good language learners
possess. Rubin (1975) defined good language learner as “willing and accurate
guessers”. In other words, good language learners were not afraid of making
mistakes, and they were willing to take every opportunity to communicate or to
practice. Besides, according to Oxford, good language learners use more and better
learning strategies than poor language learners do.
It was suggested that; learning strategies help students to comprehend,
remember, and store new information (Chamot & Kupper, 1989). The behaviors of
using strategies were believed to be goal-oriented with learners’ consciously
involving in the use of strategies, and the behaviors can be either observable or
non-observable (Wenden, 1987). Learners’ choice and use of language learning
strategies may in a way enhance their L2 learning with effective strategies to process
the input into learners’ intake (Park, 1997).
Learners’ use of appropriate strategies enabled them to be responsible for their
own learning through improving their independence, self-direction, and
learner-autonomy, which were crucial factors for learners to continue learning even
when they were no longer in school setting (Oxford & Crookall, 1988). Much more
recent theory and research on student learning has taken a process-oriented
13
perspective, based on cognitive and information-processing models that assume
learning to be dependent on students’ effective use of learning strategies. (Weinstein&
Mayer, 1986)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
Learning strategies, defined by Oxford, were “specific action, behaviors, steps,
or techniques” that help learners handle with a difficult task and enhance learners’
learning, such as seeking for help, asking questions for verification, or changing
topics (Oxford, 2003). Oxford claimed that language learning styles and strategies
among the critical factors may help determine second language learners’ achievement
(Oxford, 2003). According to Oxford (2003), a strategy was useful under the three
conditions: (a) the strategy relates well to the L2 task at hand, (b) the strategy fits the
particular student’s learning style preferences to on degree or another, and (c)the
student employs the strategy effectively and links it with other relevant strategies
(Oxford, 2003). If strategies were used under these three conditions, then learner’s
language learning may be facilitated and enhanced (Oxford, 1990)
Based on Oxford’s strategy system, there were two major classes of strategies:
direct and indirect. There were six major categories of second language strategies
designed by Oxford (1990, in Oxford, 2003), which include cognitive strategies,
metacognitive strategies, memory-related strategies, compensatory strategies,
affective strategies, and social strategies. Memory-related strategies, cognitive
strategies, and compensation strategies are classified as direct strategies because of
their nature that they were directly involved in the target language and required deep
mental processing; while metacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social
strategies were groups of indirect strategies, since they were used to deal with
language learning without directly involved in the target language.
14
Studies on Language Learning Strategies
It was discovered that students’ point of view toward their use of strategies may
differ from teachers’ perceptions. Griffiths and Parr (2001), for example, led a
survey to investigate students’ use of language learning strategies and teachers’
perception on students’ strategy use. It was presented that students tended to use
social strategies most frequently, while memory strategy was reported to be used least
frequently, which was opposite to their teachers’ perceptions. It was found from the
survey that those teachers believed that their students use memory strategies most
frequently, while compensation and affective strategies were believed to be used least
frequently.
Cognitive and strategies were reported by some researchers to be the most
frequently used strategies. Chamot and Kupper (1989), for example, conducted a
three year project to investigate learning strategies used by foreign language students
and their teachers. It was found in the longitudinal study that students of higher
level reported using more strategies than learners of beginning level. In the study,
cognitive strategy was reported to be used more frequently than metacognitive
strategy, and the most used strategies among metacognitive strategy were planning
strategies. Moreover, Social and affective strategies were shown to be used least
frequently.
Except for Oxford’s categories of language learning strategies, there were other
categories created by several researchers. O’Malley and Chamot (1993), for
example, categorized language learning strategies as cognitive, metacognitive, and
social affective strategies. Moreover, based on several empirical studies, it was
hypothesized in Chen’s (2002) study that there were three factors included in the
strategies scale: deep-processing, surface-level, and functional factors. The results
were supportive of the deep-surface distinction of language learning strategies.
15
Moreover, functional strategies were also proved to be used in monitoring and
organizing language learning (Chen, 2002).
Metacognitive strategy was found to be effective in improving both listening
comprehension and attitude language learning. For example, Chien and Kao (2004)
conducted a study to exam the relationship between metacognitive strategies and
listening comprehension, it was presented that metacognitive strategy training had
strong effects in enhancing listening comprehension, which implied that
metacognitive strategies played a significant role in the improvement of language
skills. In addition, it was found that metacognitive strategy training had positive
effect on changing students’ attitudes toward language learning.
Factors Affecting Learner’s Choice of Strategies
Motivation
Numerous studies have been made to discover factors affecting learners’ choice
of strategies to clarify what made the differences on learners’ strategy use. Oxford
(1989) found that motivation was one of the important factors that affect learners’ use
of learning strategies, which was supportive of Gardner’s (1985) finding that the
effort learners willing to make on language learning was determined by their attitudes
and motivation.
External Variables
However, it should also be noticed, as Oxford (1989) pointed out, that
motivation was not only an inner phenomenon which were generated by individual
learners, it might be affected by external variables, such as teaching methods,
classroom interaction, task requirement, or school environment (Oxford, 1989). As
for students seeking academic degree, the focus of their instructional environment
might be on developing analytic and discrete language skills to get good grades on
tests, which may in turn influence students’ learning motivation and choice of
16
learning strategies, as well.
Perceived Difficulty
Perceived difficulty of the language skill may also contribute to learners’
engaging in the use of strategy. Huang and Tzeng (2000), for example, conducted a
study to examine successful English learner’ use of strategy in Taiwan, and the
finding showed that those successful English learners, whose TOEFL scores were
above 600, tend to use more strategies to improve their listening skills, while
strategies were least frequently used to improve their writing skills. One of the
reasons was that most learners considered writing as a difficulty skill to be improved.
Studies related to Chinese EFL learners’ use of strategies
Several studies were conducted to examine and investigate Chinese EFL
learners’ use of language learning strategies. Huang and Naerssen (1978), for
example, proposed that the most frequently used strategies among 60 Chinese English
majors was functional practice strategies, which involves in learner’s autonomously
seeking for opportunities to practice. However, compensatory strategy was also
found to be the frequently used strategies for Chinese EFL learners in several
empirical studies (Chang, 1992; Yang, 1993, 1994).
Moreover, it was found that learners tend to use social and metacognitive
strategies most frequently in some studies. For instance, Liao (2000) examined
Taiwanese secondary school students’ learning motivation and use of strategies. It
was found that learners showed stronger extrinsic motivation than intrinsic motivation,
and that social and metacognitive strategies were found to be used most frequently.
However, research also proved that formal-practice strategies were most
frequently used, yet cognitive-memory strategies were least frequently used by
learners. Yang (1995), for example, investigated college English majors’ use of
learning strategies in Taiwan. The results showed that the most frequently used
17
strategies for those English majors were formal-practice strategies and compensation
strategies, while the cognitive-memory strategies were among the least frequently
strategies. More importantly, it was found that there were significant connections
between students’ beliefs and their strategy use, that students with strong belief in
their language learning ability and proficiency were shown to actively look for
opportunities to practice English.
Language Learning Strategies and Achievement
The relationship between general cognitive and metacognitive strategies and
achievement has been investigated by researchers. For instance, it has been found
that there was difference in the use of content-specific strategies for effective and less
effective learners in subjects such as reading and math (Golinkoff, 1976; Rohrkemper
& Berson, 1984).
However, as Pokay and Blumenfeld (1990) pointed out, studies on strategy use
usually focused on early grades, and the focus of both literature on motivation and
strategy use was mostly on their relation to learners’ achievement. However, it was
still important for researchers to discover learners’ strategy use in the later
developmental stage, and also to investigate the relationship between motivation,
strategy, and other possible influential factors, such as learning experience,
personality, learning style, teachers’ teaching method, etc.
For instance, Pokay and Blumenfeld (1990) found that self-concept,
expectancies for success, and perceived value on subjects, were all related to
academic achievement, in a study examined the relation between motivation
(self-concept, expectancies, and perceived value), use of learning strategies, and the
effects of these two factors on grades on geometry tests.
It was found that compensatory and metacognitive strategies were most
frequently adopted by learners, whereas affective and memory strategies were
18
reported to be least frequently used ones. Bremner (1998), for example, conducted a
survey to investigate the language learning strategies employed by a group of Hong
Kong learners. The focus of the survey was to discover the correlation between
levels of language proficiency and use of strategies. The results of the survey
indicated that compensation and metacognitive strategies were the most frequently
used strategies, while affective and memory strategies were the least used strategies.
As for the correlation between levels of language proficiency and strategy use, the
study showed significant levels of correlation for eleven strategies, and most
significantly, nine of the eleven strategies are from the cognitive category, which were
seen to involve active practice.
Functional practice strategies, which involved in authentic use of the language,
were found to enhance learners’ achievement and also effective for all levels of
learners. For instance, in a study led by Bialystock’s (1978), she investigated the
relationship between learning strategy and achievement. It was found that there was
positive relationship between functional practice strategy and achievement.
Functional practice strategy was proved to promote learners’ achievement and it was
shown to be effective strategy for learners of every level.
Significant relationship between strategy use, especially cognitive and social
strategies, and L2 proficiency was also found in several studies. Park (1997), for
example, led a study to investigate the relationship between language learning
strategies and L2 proficiency in Korean university students by using SILL, and
learners’ proficiency level was determined by their TOEFL scores. The findings
showed that there was a linear relationship between language learning strategies and
L2 proficiency. Besides, all the six categories of language learning strategies were
significantly related to learners’ TOEFL scores. Moreover, it was found that
cognitive and social strategies were the most crucial predictor of learners’ TOEFL
19
scores, indicating that in the Korean context, cognitive and social strategies might be
effective strategies for Korean learners to enhance their L2 acquisition.
Moreover, it was found in Politzer’s (1983) study that there was a close
relationship between learning strategy and language achievement. However, the
links seemed to depend on learners’ course level and teaching methodology, implying
that there might be interaction between strategy and treatment.
Relation between Language Learning Motivation and Learning Strategies
Learners’ use of strategy may reflect their motivational orientation. Oxford
and Nyikos (1989), for example, found that the most frequently used strategies were
formal practice strategies, which are related to language rules; whereas the least
frequently used strategies were functional practice strategies related to use of
authentic language. In other words, learners’ choice of learning strategies might be
reflection of their motivational orientation. Learning strategies, especially
metacognitive strategies which require greater effort, are shown to have close
relationship with learners’ development of self-autonomy (Fleming and Walls, 1998).
Besides, it was stated (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) that motivation can be effective in
predicting learners’ use of strategies. In other words, students with stronger
motivation were believed to use more learning strategies than less motivated one.
It was suggested that students who regarded intelligence as important element
in learning tend to use more learning strategies. For instance, Braten and Olaussen’s
study (1998) discovered the relationships between motivational beliefs and use of
learning strategy among Norwegian. It was found that students tend to use more
learning strategies when they conceive intelligence as a relatively important quality.
Besides, they suggested that students’ belief on the modifiability of intelligence might
have stronger effect on students’ use of learning strategies than self-efficacy do.
Learners’ need for cognition was reported to be significantly correlated to their
20
self-determination in second language learning. McIntosh and Noels (2004), for
instance, conducted a study to examine the relationship between need for cognition,
self-determination to learn second language, learning strategies, and second language
achievement. The study investigated the hypothesis that need for cognition may
affect learners’ self-determination to learn second language, which would in turn lead
to various use of language learning strategies and then influence second language
proficiency levels. They found out that there was a significant as well as positive
relationship between need for cognition and self-determination in second language
learning, indicating that people who enjoy making effort on thinking for his/her own
sake may also choose to learn a second language for self-determined reasons.
Besides, there were studies supporting the concept that self-determination in
second language learning was positively related to the use of a variety of language
learning strategies (Oxford, 1990, 1996b). Moreover, Noels and her colleagues
(Noels 2001a; Noels et al., 1999, in McIntosh & Noels, 2004) claimed that
self-determined second language motivation was positively related to self-reported
effort. These studies confirmed the finding that there was a close relationship
between self-determined motivation and second language learning strategies.
It was assumed that the degree of mastery orientation been characterized in a
classroom environment may be a critical predictor of students’ use of learning
strategies. Learners with an emphasis on mastery goals were reported to use more
affective strategies. For instance, Ames and Archer (1988) examined the
motivational process and performance goals in classroom settings, and how these two
variables related to each other. The results showed that students who put emphasis
on mastery goals tended to use more effective strategies, have more positive attitudes
toward school, and have more confidences about their effort made. However,
students whose emphasis was on performance goals seemed to put emphasis on their
21
ability, their ability was negatively evaluated, and failure was attributed to lack of
ability. In other words, the strategies used by students may depend on how students
perceived the goal emphasized in the classroom, instead of on their proficiency levels.
Conclusively, motivation played a role in learners’ choice of learning strategies.
Bacon and Finnemann (1990), for example, investigated the correlation between
attitudes, motives, and strategies of university foreign language students. The results
revealed that motivation did play a role in the choice of strategies. More specifically,
the non-instrumentally motivated students were reported to have more tendencies to
use global/synthetic strategies, but they seemed to avoid the use of decoding/analytic
comprehension strategies when they were exposed to authentic input.
Relation between Language Learning Motivation and Learning Strategies within the
Taiwanese EFL Context
Deep-processing strategies were found to have significant correlation with
motivation factor of integration, yet surface-level strategies were positively related to
instrumental motivation. Chen (2000), for example, examined the power of
intentional theory of motivation as well as the social-psychological model of language
learning motivation, and the two categories of strategies: deep-processing and
surface-level strategies. The aim of the study was to find out the relationship
between motivation and the two categories of strategies in the EFL environment.
The results showed that there was positive relationship between deep-processing
strategies and the motivation factors of betterment, acceptance, effort, and integration.
Surface-level strategies, on the other hand, has significant as well as positive
correlation with the motivation factor of instrumentality.
Learning motivation, especially intrinsic motivation, was confirmed to have
significant correlation with language learning strategies. Chang and Huang (1999)
investigated English learners’ learning motivation and learning strategies within
22
Taiwan context. It was found that learning motivation and language learning
strategies had significant correlation with each other. Moreover, it was shown that
intrinsic motivation was significantly related to motivation level as well as the deep
processing strategies: cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Based on the finding,
it was suggested that intrinsic motivation may be powerful predictors for language
learning and should be put into emphasis in the EFL classroom (Chang & Huang,
1999).
However, extrinsic motivation was reported to have significant correlation with
cognitive and affective strategies; yet intrinsic motivation was claimed to have more
significant relationship with metacognitive and cognitive strategies. Pong (2002),
for instance, investigated language learning motivation and use of language learning
strategies among Taiwanese senior high school students. She found out that
extrinsic motivation was the most frequent motivation type from the sample, yet she
proposed that intrinsic motivation seemed to have stronger relationship with
achievement. Besides, the result of her study showed that there was strong
correlation between intrinsic motivation and the use of metacognitive and cognitive
strategies; while extrinsic motivation seemed to have close relationship with cognitive
and affective strategies.
It was suggested that students with higher motivation were more likely to
engage in using various kinds of learning strategies. For instance, Pintrich and
Garcia (1991) found that students who were more intrinsically motivated in a task
tend to use cognitive strategies, such as elaboration and organization, which involves
in deeper processing of material.”
23
Major Research Questions
The purpose of this paper was to find out the relationship between students’
types of motivation and their use of learning strategies in second language learning
among college students of English in Taiwan. Based on the related literature
discussed above, there were several research questions:
1. What are the types of motivation among Taiwanese college students of English?
2. What kind of language learning strategies do Taiwanese college students of
English use?
3. To what extent does intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and language learning strategies
relate to each other?
4. Do second language achievement and gender have any relationship with students’
motivational types and language learning strategies?
24
Chapter Three Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the types of
motivation and language learning strategies among college students of English in
Taiwan. Learners’ learning motivation and strategies were identified, and the
relationships between these two variables were discovered, as well. In addition, the
relationship between these two variables and learners’ achievement were discussed.
This chapter will describe the research methodology adopted in this study
Participants
There were two studies in this investigation: pilot study and formal study.
Fifty-nine freshmen students of English from one private university participated in the
pilot study, including 45 female (76.3%) and 14 male students (23.7 %). A total
number of 307 college students in Taiwan participated in the formal study (See Table
1). The participants were all English majors in Taiwanese colleges, including two
private colleges and one government-funded college. All of the students were
randomly selected. Of the 307 students, 229 were male and 78 were female. A
majority of the students were seniors (37.1 %). 25.1 percent were freshmen, 25.7
were sophomores, and 12.1 percent were juniors. They were asked to respond to the
questionnaire on language learning motivation adapted from Deci & Ryan’s (1985)
motivational scales and learning strategy adapted from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Besides, they were required to response to
the part of background information on their gender, grader, and average grades.
25
Table 1. Portfolio for 307 Participants
Instrument
Questionnaires were used to collect data on students’ language learning
motivation, language learning strategies, and their background information. The
questionnaire was divided into three parts: background information, motivational
questionnaire, and learning strategy questionnaire.
In the pilot study, the motivational questionnaire contains 25 items, students
were asked to show their agreement or disagreement with a five-point scale, ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree).
The items of motivational questionnaire were adapted from Deci and Ryan’s
definition and classification of motivation in self-determination theory, including
intrinsic motivation, which refers to one’s doing activities out of fun and pleasure
(sample item: I think it is very interesting to learn English); integrated regulation,
which means that people have fully assimilate the identified regulation to themselves
(sample item: I learn English because I know the importance of English); identified
Number
Gender
Male
Female
78
229
Grader
Freshmen
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
77
79
37
114
Average Grade
Below 70
70-80
Above 80
45
112
150
Total 307
26
regulation which refers to that people identify the importance of certain behavior and
take it as his or her own value (sample item: I learn English because I think it is very
important to me); introjected regulation refers to people performing certain behaviors
out of avoiding pressure, guilty, or obtaining self-esteem (sample item: I learn English
to show my ability to others); and external regulation refers to people doing certain
activities to get external reward or to satisfy external demand (sample item: I learn
English to satisfy my parents’ expectation).
The items of learning strategies questionnaire which consisted of 30 items, were
modified with other related thesis as references on the basis of Oxford’s (1990)
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). There were six types of
strategies in this questionnaire, including memory-related strategies for storing and
retrieving new information (sample item: I use flashcards to remember new English
words) , cognitive strategies for associating new information with existing
information (sample item: When I encounter unfamiliar English words, I divide them
into several parts that I understand to guess their meaning) , compensation strategies
for overcoming deficiencies to knowledge (sample item: I make up new words if I
don’t know the right words in English), metacognitive strategies for evaluating and
planning learning (sample item: When I am assigned English tasks, I will make plans
before doing the tasks), affective strategies for directing feeling, motivation, and
attitudes (sample item: I try to relax whenever I feel nervous on using English.), and
social strategies for interacting with others and managing discourse (sample item: If I
have difficulties in English tasks, I will ask for help).
However, after initial exploratory factor analysis, some items were deleted due
to the lack of discriminative power. The questionnaire was reorganized into 41
items, including 21 items for investigating learning motivation, and 20 items for
learning strategies. The 41 items were chosen because of their discriminative power
27
after exploratory analysis. For formal study, 21 items were included in the part of
motivational measurement, which contained five categories of motivation: intrinsic
motivation, integrated regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and
external regulation; while there were 20 items composed to specify learners’ use of
learning strategies, including five categories of strategies: memory strategies,
functional practice strategies, cognitive strategies, evaluating and planning strategies;
and social strategies. The names of strategies were decided on the basis of their
characteristics in evaluating learners’ learning strategies.
A reliability analysis was computed to examine the scales of motivation and
language learning strategies. The results of the reliability analysis were summarized
in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the cronbach’s alpha for each motivational and
strategy items were quite high, confirming the reliability for the items.
Table 2 . Reliability Analysis for Motivation and Strategy Scale
Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Motivation
Intrinsic motivation
Integrated motivation
Identified motivation
Introjected motivation
External motivation
5
4
2
3
4
.902
.849
.677
.770
.765
Learning Strategy
Functional practice strategies
Cognitive strategies
Evaluating & planning strategies
Social strategies
4
4
4
4
.580
.574
.789
.729
28
Procedures
Pilot Study
To examine the reliability and validity of the instruments and to find out
possible obstacles, we first conducted a pilot study. Participants of the pilot study
were asked to fill in the questionnaire with 55 items, including 25 items on language
learning motivation, and 30 items on their use of language learning strategies.
Fifty-nine freshmen students of English from private university participated in this
pilot study. The students were asked to fill in the questionnaires in class during the
first semester. All the participants were chosen randomly so that the results will be
more reliable.
Formal Study
After the completion of the pilot study, an exploratory factor analysis was
conducted to examine the factor structure of the questionnaire items. Based on the
results of the factor analysis, certain items with no discriminative power were deleted.
After the factor analysis, the questionnaire was reorganized into a 41-item
questionnaire, with 21 items on language learning motivation and 20 items on
language learning strategies. Besides, students were asked to fill in their background
information, including their gender, grader, and average grade in the first part of the
questionnaire.
The questionnaires were administered during the class. Data collection for the
pilot study took place during the first semester; while data collection for formal study
was held during the second semester. Students who participated in the study were
required to rate statement ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
In addition, students’ names were not required to be given; only their gender and
average grade of the semester were asked to be reported.
29
Data Analysis
Data collection was conducted at regular English classes during the second
semester, with the assistance of several English teachers at three universities;
including two private universities and one government-funded university.
Exploratory Factor Analyses with Principal Component Analysis was used to
examine the items related to learning motivation as well as learning strategies by
using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for window version 10.0.
Motivational items were examined first for factor structure. We used promax
rotation to examine the results of the simple structure. Items related to learning
strategies were examined next to those related to motivation following the same
process with motivational scales.
After Exploratory Factor Analyses was conducted, composite variables were
created according to the results of factor analysis. After data collection, Pearson
Product-moment Correlation Analysis was then adopted to compute the correlation
between the two variables—learning motivation and learning strategies after data
collection. Also, descriptive statistics including means, standard deviation,
frequency, were calculated to summarize the result of students’ responses to the
questionnaire and their background information, as well.
30
Chapter Four Results
The SPSS package for window version 10.0 was employed to compute the data.
The purpose of this study was to find out the 307 participants’ language learning
motivation and language learning strategies and the relationship between these two
variables.
Language Learning Motivation
Means and Standard Deviation for Motivation Types
The motivation questionnaire was composed of five types of motivation:
intrinsic motivation, integrated motivation, identified motivation, introjected
motivation, and external motivation. The means and standard deviation for each
types of motivation were summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Motivation Types
Variable Mean Standard Deviation
Intrinsic Motivation
Integrated Motivation
Identified Motivation
Introjected Motivation
External Motivation
1.98
1.89
2.09
2.18
3.64
.69
.75
.79
.84
.82
Among the five motivation types, the means of external motivation was the
highest (M = 3.64), as shown in Table 4, followed by introjected motivation (M =
2.18), identified motivation (M = 2.09), intrinsic motivation (M = 1.98), and
integrated motivation (M = 1.89). The results showed that the students were more
extrinsically motivated than intrinsically motivated, implying that most of the students
learned English for external reasons instead of for intrinsic reasons. The means for
each motivational item were summarized in Table 4.
31
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Each Motivational Item
Motivational Items Mean
1. I love to learn English very much. 1.89
2. I think it is very interesting to learn English. 1.92
3. English is my favorite subject, I feel happy whenever it’s time for
English class. 2.33
4. Learning English makes me feel satisfied. 2.00
5. Learning English is a challenge that I love to take. 1.79
6. I learn English because it’s what I am supposed to learn. 1.91
7. I learn English because English is a global language. 1.77
8. I learn English because it’s a worldwide trend. 2.06
9. I learn English because it’s the skill that everyone should be 1.84
required.
10. I learn English because it can help me to understand western culture. 2.03
11. I learn English because it can help me to make friends with
foreigners.
2.16
12. I learn English to show my ability to others. 2.61
13. Being able to speak English makes me feel a sense of superiority. 2.22
14. I will feel proud if I can speak English well. 1.71
15. I learn English to satisfy my parents’ expectation. 3.22
16. I learn English because I can get reward from my parents/family. 3.89
17. I learn English because it is a required course. 3.04
18. I learn English because I will be punished by my parents if I don’t. 4.42
Factor Analysis for Motivation Scale
Exploratory Factor Analyses with Principal Component Analysis was used to
32
test the factor structure of motivation scales as well as strategy scales. For items
related to motivation, we use a promax rotation (k = 4) with eigenvalue greater than 1.
The results showed a 5 factor structure (see Table 5).
Factor one (intrinsic motivation): The items of intrinsic motivation loaded
highly, ranging from .604 to .922. These items were related to learners’ intrinsic
motivation for learning, which shared the same feature of learning a language for fun
or for intrinsic fulfillment.
Factor two (integrated motivation): All items of integrated motivation loaded
highly from .634 to .904. The items reflected the concept of people taking the new
regulation in their life and make it congruent with their own needs and values
Factor three (introjected motivation): Factor three were introjected regulation,
loaded from moderately to highly with loading from .580 to .828. This factor
specialized the concept that people learn a language to avoid feeling pressure, guilty,
or to obtain self-esteem.
Factor four (external motivation): Items on factor 4 loaded highly with
loadings from .630 to .911. Those items were related to external regulation, which
means learners perform certain behaviors so as to satisfy external demands or to get
external reward
Factor five (identified motivation): Items of factor five were related to
identified regulation, which loaded from moderately to highly with loadings ranging
from .472 to. 883. This factor reflected the feature that people identified the
importance of some behaviors and took it as his or her own value
33
Table 5. Matrix for Factor Analysis of Motivation Scale
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5
Intrin1 .922
Intrin2 .892
Intrin3 .804
Intrin4 .809
Intrin5 .694
Inte1 .634
Inte2 .904
Inte3 .889
Inte4 .837
Iden1 .472
Iden2 .883
Intro1 .580
Intro2 .911
Intro3 .828
Exter1 .630
Exter2 .911
Exter3 .490
Exter4 .673
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization
Note: Intrin = intrinsic motivation, Inte = integrative motivation, Iden = identified
motivation, Intro = introjected motivation, Exter = external motivation.
Relationship between Motivation Types
Pearson Product-moment correlation was computed to investigate the
relationships between the five types of motivation. The purpose of examining the
relationship between motivation types was because that, according to Deci and Ryan’s
theory, there would be an ordered pattern between each types of motivation, i.e., the
relationship between intrinsic and integrated motivation would be more closer than
intrinsic and identified motivation. As shown in Table 6, intrinsic motivation,
integrated motivation, identified motivation, and introjected motivation were
significantly correlated to each other at the .01 level. However, intrinsic motivation
34
was negatively correlated to external motivation (r=-.165) at the .01 level.
Table 6. Correlation between Motivation Types
Intrin Inte Iden Intro Exter
Intrin
Inte
Iden
Intro
Exter
---
.143*
.355**
.206**
-.165**
---
.324**
.330**
.222**
---
.281**
.148**
---
.245**
---
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Language Learning Strategy
Means and Standard Deviation for Language Learning Strategies
The means and standard deviation for language learning strategies were
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Descriptive Statistics for the Language Learning Strategies
Variable M SD
Functional Practice Strategy
Cognitive Strategy
Evaluating & Planning Strategy
Social Strategy
1.82
1.84
2.45
1.91
.55
.48
.68
.65
The results showed that the most commonly used strategies were evaluating &
planning strategies (M = 2.45), followed by social strategies (M = 1.91), cognitive
strategies (M = 1.84), and functional practice strategies (M = 1.82). It was indicated
from the results that students tend to use the strategies of evaluating and planning
most frequently, which require self-control and self-management. The means for
35
each items on learning strategies were summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Each Strategy Item
Strategy Items Mean
1. I connect the sound of a new English word with a mental picture to
memorize it.
2.23
2. I practice the sounds of English often. 2.00
3. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to
movies spoken in English.
1.73
4. When I learn new words, I will write them for several times to
memorize them.
2.01
5. When I encounter unfamiliar words in English paragraphs or during
English conversations, I guess their meanings from the context.
1.66
6. When I encounter unfamiliar English words, I divide them into
several parts that I understand to understand their meaning.
1.90
7. When I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that
means the same thing.
1.69
8. When I learn new words in English, I will look for words in my own
language that are similar to the new words.
1.96
9. When I am assigned English tasks, I will make plans before doing the
tasks.
2.54
10. I plan my schedule so that I will have enough time to study English. 2.77
11. I know my learning style and needs in English learning. 2.04
12. I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 2.46
13. If I don’t understand what others want to express in English, I will
ask them to say it again.
1.86
14. If someone is talking in English too fast for me to understand, I will
ask him/her to slow his/her speed.
1.96
Factor Analysis for Language Learning Strategies
Four categories of strategies were included in the scale of language learning
strategies, including functional practice strategy, cognitive strategy, evaluating and
planning strategy, and social strategy. We computed the data with eigenvalue
36
greater than 1, using a promax rotation (k = 4). The results of factor analysis
revealed a 4 factor structure (see Table 9)
Factor one referred to evaluating and planning strategies, which loaded from
moderately to highly with loadings ranging from .478 to .843. This factor share the
feature of exercising executive control through planning, arranging, evaluating their
own learning process.
Factor two was cognitive strategies, composed of one of functional strategy
(function 3) and four cognitive strategies, loadings ranging from moderately to highly
from .455 to. .645. This factor showed the characteristics of analyzing, using
keywords, recalling new information, and reasoning deductively,
One memory strategy (memo3) and two functional practice strategy (function1,
function2) loaded highly, with ranging from .557 to .765 on Factor three, referring to
functional sound practice strategies. They shared the feature that they were all
involved in learners’ actively taking chance to practice the sound of English.
Two social strategies (social1, social2) loaded highly with loadings ranging
from .774 to.849 on Factor four. This factor shared the concept of learning language
through interacting with others.
37
Table 9. Matrix for Factor Analysis of Language Learning Strategy
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Mem4 .557
Fun1 .736
Fun2 .765
Fun3 .455
Cog1 .614
Cog2 .645
Cog3 .585
Cog4 .629
Eva1 .732
Eva2 .843
Eva3 .478
Eva4 .734
Soci1 .774
Soci2 .849
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization
Note: Mem=memory strategies, Fun=functional practice strategies, Cog=cognitive
strategies, Eva=evaluating & planning strategies, Soci=social strategies
Correlation between Motivation and Language Learning Strategy
Pearson Product-moment correlation analysis was employed to investigate the
relationship between motivation and language learning strategies. The results were
summarized in Table 10.
Results showed that intrinsic motivation was significantly correlated to all of
the four language learning strategies, in the sequence of evaluating and planning
strategy (r = .459), functional practice strategy (r = .414), cognitive strategy (r = .381),
and social strategy (r = .252) at the .01 level.
Same with intrinsic motivation, identified motivation was also shown to be
positively and significantly correlated with all of the four strategies as the following
sequence: social strategy (r = .311), evaluating and planning strategy (r = .284),
cognitive strategy (r = .279), and functional practice strategy (r= .217).
38
Integrative motivation was only significantly correlated to cognitive strategy
(r = .184) at the .01 level. Similarly, introjected motivation was only significantly
correlated to cognitive strategy (r = .179) at the .01 level.
It was worth noticing that external motivation was significantly but negatively
correlated to cognitive strategies (r = -.247) at the .01 level.
Among the five types of motivation, intrinsic motivation was especially highly
correlated with evaluating and planning strategies. Moreover, the results indicated
that learners with stronger motivation tended to use more learning strategies, and
employ more deep-processing strategies, including functional practice, cognitive,
evaluating and planning, and social strategies.
Table 10. Correlations between Language Learning Motivation and Strategy
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The Role of Gender and Achievement
Gender and Language Learning Motivation
t-test was conducted to investigate whether there was any difference on
motivation types between male and female students. The results showed that gender
may serve as an influential factor on some types of motivation (See Table 11). More
specifically, it was shown that there was a significant difference between male and
female learners on intrinsic and identified motivation.
Intrin Inte Iden Intro Exter
Eva .459** .284**
Cog .381** .184** .279** .179** -.247**
Fun .414** .217**
Soci .252** .311**
39
Table 11. Results of t-Test for Motivation by Gender
*p < .05
Achievement and Language Learning Motivation
It was argued by researchers (Politzer, 1983; Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990) that
there was strong relationship between achievement and language learning motivation.
t-test was conducted to investigate whether there was any difference on students’
motivation between learners with learners with lower achievement (average grade of
the semester below 70) and higher achievement (average grade of the semester above
80). Based on the results, there was a significant difference between learners with
higher achievement and learners with lower achievement on identified motivation.
The result was illustrated in Table 12.
Table 12. Results of t-Test for Language Learning Motivation by Achievement
*p < .05
Male (N = 78) Female (N = 229)
Learning Motivation M SD M SD T Sig
Intrin 2.05 .83 1.96 .64 1.031 .007*
Inte 2.02 .84 1.85 .71 1.773 .750
Iden 2.18 .90 2.06 .75 1.228 .006*
Intro 2.38 .93 2.11 .80 2.466 .382
Exter 3.59 .88 3.66 .80 -.590 .146
Low (N = 45) High (N = 150)
Learning Motivation M SD M SD t Sig.
Intrinsic 2.11 .77 1.86 .65 2.171 .590
Integrated 2.03 .91 1.96 .70 .561 .147
Identified 2.09 .91 2.10 .73 -.110 .039*
Introjected 2.28 .99 2.15 .84 .857 .139
External 3.71 .66 3.77 .77 -.436 .388
40
Gender and Language Learning Strategies
To examine whether there was difference for male and female participants in
the use of language learning strategies, t-test was computed to discover the
differences.
As shown in table 11, the results showed that there was no significant
difference in the use of language learning strategies, including memory, functional
practice, cognitive, evaluating & planning, and social strategies, between male and
female participants in this survey at a significance level of .05 (See Table 13).
Table 13. Results of t-Tests for Means of Strategies between Male and Female
*p < .05
Achievement and Language Learning Strategies
t-test was conducted to discover the differences on the use of language learning
strategies between students with higher achievement and those with lower
achievement. According to the results, there was no significant difference on the use
of strategies between students with higher achievement and lower achievement (See
Table 14).
Low (N = 45) High (N = 150)
Learning Strategy M SD M SD t Sig.
Functional practice 1.82 .55 1.83 .56 -.145 .599
Cognitive 1.86 .45 1.84 .49 .410 .873
Evaluating & planning 2.37 .66 2.48 .69 -1.300 .462
Social 1.92 .59 1.91 .68 .147 .576
41
Table 14. Results of t-Test for Language Learning Strategies by Achievement
*p < .05
Summary of Results
Pearson Product-moment Correlation Analysis were conducted to examine the
relationship between types of motivation (including intrinsic motivation, integrated
motivation, identified motivation, introjected motivation, and external motivation),
and use of strategies in language learning (functional practice strategies, cognitive
strategies, evaluating & planning strategies, and social strategies). The results
showed that the most frequent type of motivation was external motivation, and
integrated motivation was the least frequent types of motivation. Learners reported
to use evaluating and planning strategy most frequently; and functional practice
strategy least frequently. Based on the results, significant correlation was displayed
between motivation types and strategy use. It was assumed from the results that
both intrinsic and identified motivation was closely correlated to the four learning
strategies. Integrated, introjected, and external motivation was found to have
correlation with cognitive strategies. However, external motivation and cognitive
strategies were negatively correlated to each other.
Low (N = 78) Female (N = 229)
Learning Strategy M SD M SD t Sig.
Functional practice 2.48 .70 2.38 .66 .884 .455
Cognitive 1.78 .55 1.83 .47 -.636 .112
Evaluating & planning 1.77 .55 1.79 .59 -.211 .752
Social 1.82 .61 1.89 .63 -.604 .979
42
Chapter Five Conclusion and Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between language
learning motivation and the use of language learning strategies among university
students of English in Taiwan. The results was discussed in this chapter.
Language Learning Motivation
Learners’ Types of Motivation
In this study, the mean of external motivation was shown to be the highest in
comparison with the other four types of motivation, revealing that the students in this
study were more extrinsically motivated than intrinsically motivated to learn English.
In other words, the students showed that they choose to learn English for extrinsic
reasons. For example, item 15 for external motivation showed that learners learn
English to satisfy parents’ expectation; other reasons like item 16, I learn English
because I can get reward from my parents/family, item 17 I learn English because it
is a required course, and item 18, I learn English because I will be punished by my
parents if I don’t (See Table 3). It appeared that most of the students learn English
for getting rewards, satisfying expectation, or avoiding punishment from their parents.
The possible explanation for the results may be that family or parents’ expectation
plays an important role in most of the students’ life; therefore, students tended to obey
parents’ suggestion or live up to their expectation so as to get rewards or to avoid
feeling guilty. The results were consistent with the previous study (Liao, 2000; Pong,
2002; Chang & Huang, 1999; Chung, 2000) that students in Taiwan were reported to
be more extrinsically motivated in learning English.
It was worth noticing that the means of intrinsic (M = 1.98), identified (M =
2.09), and integrated motivation (M = 1.89) were quite low, indicating that students in
this sample did not show strong interest or enthusiasm for English learning. The
43
phenomenon may due to the environmental factor that English was viewed as a
foreign language in Taiwan; some students may not feel it necessary or fun to learn
English since there was limited chance provided for students to use English in their
daily life.
Positive Correlation between Intrinsic Motivation, Integrated Motivation, Identified
Motivation, and Introjected Motivation.
By examining the relationship between motivation types with Pearson
Product-moment Correlation Analysis, it was found that there was a positive
correlation between intrinsic motivation, integrated motivation, identified motivation,
and introjected motivation. Besides, intrinsic motivation was especially highly
correlated with identified regulation (r=. 355, p<.01), followed by introjected
regulation (r=.206), and integrated regulation (r=.143, p<.05), indicating that intrinsic
motivation was significantly correlated to the three types of extrinsic motivation.
The result confirmed the notion that though intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were
often viewed as opposite motivation, it was still possible for learners to learn English
for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. For example, learners may learn English for
getting instrumental goals, but they still may get a sense of fulfillment from the
processing of learning.
Negative Correlation between Intrinsic Motivation and External Motivation
Though it was shown that intrinsic and the three types of extrinsic
motivation—integrated, identified, and introjected motivation, were positively related
to each other; however, it was worth noticing that intrinsic motivation was shown to
be negatively correlated with external regulation (r=-.165, p<.01). The phenomenon
may be due to the reason that intrinsic motivation tend to have close relationship with
the three more self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, yet intrinsic motivation
may be negatively correlated to external motivation which was the least
44
self-determined form of extrinsic motivation.
Significant Relationship between Motivation and Achievement
Based on the previous studies, it was proposed that there was significant
relationship between motivation and achievement (Deci, et al., 2004; Gardner, 1985;
Noels, et al., 1999). Learners were found to be more likely to make more effort on
the process of learning with stronger motivation. In congruent with the previous
studies, significant relationship was found between motivation and achievement in
this study. More specifically, there was significant difference between learners
with higher achievement and lower achievement on identified motivation, indicating
that identified motivation may be a crucial factor in learners’ achievement.
Learners’ Language Learning Strategies
Learners’ Use of Learning Strategies
Congruent with the previous finding (Chien & Kao, 2004), it was shown that
the most frequently used strategy was evaluating and planning strategy, which was
strategy that involved learners’ learning language through autonomous
self-management of time and learning process. Following evaluating strategy was
social strategy, which required learners to actively interact with people. Cognitive
strategy and functional practice strategy were less frequently used strategies in the
current study. Especially, functional practice strategy was found to be least
frequently used by students, which was contradicted to the previous research (Chamot
& Kupper, 1989)
Evaluating & Planning Strategy
Evaluating and planning strategies, which were strategies among metacognitive
strategies, help learners to get improvement through completing tasks with plans and
examining what had been done (Chien & Kao, 2004). The results of the study
45
showed that the most frequently used strategies among evaluating & planning
strategies were planning a schedule to study English (M = 2.77), making plans before
doing the tasks (M = 2.54), and setting clear goals for improving English skills (M =
2.46) (See Table 7). It was shown that students appeared to make plans and setting
goals for language learning, which indicated autonomous involvement in the process
of language learning. The results were consistent with the previous study that the
most frequently used strategies among metacognitive strategies were planning
strategies (Chien & Kao, 2004).
Social Strategy
Social strategies were defined as actions that learners used to interact with
others and managing discourse, such as asking questions, cooperating with others
(Oxford, 1989). The most frequently adopted strategies among social strategies
were, if someone is talking in English too fast for me to understand, I will ask him/her
to slow his/her speed (M=1.96), and if I don’t understand what other want to express
in English, I will ask them to say it again (M=1.86). In previous studies, social
strategies were shown to be least frequently used by language learners (Chamot &
Kupper1989; Griffiths & Parr, 2001). However, Liao (2000) found that social
strategies were used most frequently within Taiwanese context.
Cognitive Strategy
Cognitive strategies enabled learners to manage the learning process as well as
learning material through direct ways; strategies such as reasoning, analyzing,
summarizing, synthesizing were all included in cognitive strategies (Oxford, 1990).
Besides, cognitive strategies were claimed to be the effortful strategies that require
great time and effort (Weinstein & Myer, 1991). The most frequently used strategies
among cognitive strategies as reported by the students were when I learn new words, I
will write them for several times (M = 2.01), when I learn new words in English, I
46
will look for words in my own language that are similar to the new words (M=1.96),
and when I encounter unfamiliar English words, I use a word or phrase that means
the same thing (M = 1.90). The results were consistent with Yang’s (1995) study
that cognitive-memory strategies were found to be less frequently used strategies
among students in Taiwan. A possible explanation for the result may be that
cognitive strategies required greater effort and deeper mental processing; therefore, it
was not widely adopted by learners who sought for the easier and faster way to learn
second language. However, cognitive strategies were found to be effective for
Korean learners to improve second language acquisition (Park, 1997).
Functional Practice Strategy
Functional practice strategies referred to learners’ use or practice of English
through actively seeking for opportunities. Though it was found that functional
practice strategies were least frequently used strategies among students in this study;
it suggested that functional practice strategies may be effective in promoting learners’
achievement (Bialystock, 1978). In the current study, students were reported using
the following strategies most frequently among functional practice strategies: I
connect the sound of a new English word with a mental picture to memorize it (M =
2.23), and I practice the sounds of English often (M = 2.00). The results were
congruent with Yang’s (1995) finding that functional practice was used with less
frequency.
Motivation and Language Learning Strategies
Significant Correlation between Motivation and Strategy Use
According to previous studies (Ames & Archer, 1988; Bacon & Finnemann,
1990; Fleming & Walls, 1998; Braten & Olaussen, 1998; Chang & Huang, 1999;
McIntosh & Noels, 2004), there was significant relationship between learners’
47
motivation and use of language learning strategies. Based on the results of current
study, it was shown that students with stronger motivation tend to employ more
learning strategies than learners with less strong motivation. The results confirmed
with the previous finding that learners who learned language for intrinsic or more
self-determined reasons appeared to be more willing to use various kinds of language
learning strategies; whereas learners with less self-determined motivation tended to
use less learning strategies, implying that less effort and time were endeavored
(Oxford & Nykos, 1989; Oxford, 1990, 1996b).
Significant Correlation between Intrinsic Motivation and the Four Types of Language
Learning Strategies
Intrinsic motivation in this study was reported to have positive as well as
significant correlation with all types of language learning strategies: functional
practice strategy, cognitive strategy, evaluating & planning strategy, and social
strategy. Among the four strategies, intrinsic motivation was especially highly
correlated with evaluating & planning strategies, functional practice strategies, and
cognitive strategies. The results indicated that learners who were intrinsically
motivated were more likely to engage in different kinds of language learning
strategies. The finding was correspondent to the previous studies (Pintrich & Garcia
1991; Chang & Huang, 1999) that intrinsic motivation was significantly related to
cognitive and metacognitive strategies, which were also strategies involved in deep
mental processing.
Significant Correlation between Integrated Motivation and Cognitive Strategies
Integrated motivation, which was the most self-determined form of extrinsic
motivation, referred to learners’ fully assimilating or identifying the value into their
lives. The results showed that integrated motivation was only positively correlated
with cognitive strategies, implying that learners with integrated motivation tended to
48
use cognitive strategies to learn English. One possible explanation may be that
integrated motivation was the most-self determined form of extrinsic motivation that
learners have fully integrated the value into their life; therefore, they may be more
willing to engage in cognitive strategies which require greater time and effort.
Significant Correlation between Identified Motivation and the Four Types of
Language Learning Strategies
Another more self-determined form of extrinsic motivation was identified
motivation, referring to people who identified the importance of certain behavior and
took the importance as their own. Identified motivation in current study was found
to have a positive and significant correlation with all of the four strategies, especially
closely correlated with social strategies,
The results showed that students with identified motivation tended to use social
strategies most frequently; whereas learners with intrinsic motivation reported to use
evaluating and planning strategies most. The possible explanation might be that the
easier way for learners who learned English for identified reasons, such as
understanding western culture or making friends with foreigners, was through
interacting with others, such as asking questions, or asking for help.
Positive Correlation between Introjected Motivation and Cognitive Strategies
Introjected motivation referred to learners’ performing certain behaviors to
obtain self-esteem or to avoid feeling guilty. The results showed that introjected
motivation was only positively correlated with cognitive strategies, revealing that
introjected-motivated students adopted cognitive strategies to organize their
knowledge.
Negative Correlation between External Motivation and Cognitive Strategies
External motivation, referring to that learners learn language to satisfy external
demands or get external rewards, was found to be negatively correlated with cognitive
49
strategies in this study. In other words, learners with external motivation appeared
to pay less effort and time in using deep-processing strategies, especially cognitive
strategies which involved in elaboration and organization.
Based on the relationships between motivation and strategy use mentioned
above, it was found that cognitive strategies were related to all types of motivation,
implying that both learners with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation applied cognitive
strategies in the process of language learning. The possible reason for more
extrinsically motivated learners to use cognitive strategies might be that learners
achieve their goals in language learning through manipulating the language directly,
such as analysis, note-taking, summarizing, outlining, etc.
Role of Gender and Achievement on Motivation and Strategy Use
Effects of Gender and Achievement on Motivation
In the current study, it was shown that gender has significant effects on
motivation, especially on intrinsic motivation and identified motivation, indicating
that gender may be a critical factor influencing learners’ motivation.
Besides, it was presented in previous studies (Dec et al., 2004; Gardner, 1973;
Noel, et al., 1999) that learning achievement have and influential effect on learners’
motivation. In consistent with the previous studies, significant effects of
achievement on motivation were found in the current study. Especially,
achievement has significant effect on identified motivation, revealing learning
achievement might be influencing factors affecting learners’ motivation.
No effect of Gender and Achievement on Language Learning Strategies
It was shown in the present study that gender has no influencing effect on
language learning strategies. Besides, in contrast to the previous study (Golinkoff,
1976; Rohrkemper & Berson, 1984; Biaystock, 1978; Park, 1997) which presented
50
that there was effect of L2 achievement on language learning strategies, it was found
in the current study that there was no significant effect of learners’ achievement on
their use of strategies. The possible explanation may be that, learners’ learning
strategies were influenced by other factors, but not gender or achievement. For
instance, learners’ learning background, personality, teachers’ style, teaching method,
may contribute to learners’ use of learning strategies. Further research is needed to
find out the possible factors in influencing learners’ learning strategies.
Conclusion
From the discussion mentioned above, it was found that college students of
English in Taiwan were reported to have strong extrinsic motivation toward language
learning, implying that they may learn English for instrumental goals rather than for
inner enjoyment. As to language learning strategies, the students appeared to use
evaluating and planning strategies most frequently. In other words, learners tend to
use strategies such as evaluating their performance, making plans or reviews as
effective ways in language learning.
The relationships between learners’ types of motivation and their use of
strategies were also investigated in this study, and it was discovered that intrinsic and
identified motivation were significantly correlated with all of the four types of
strategies, indicating that students with intrinsic and identified motivation tend to use
more learning strategies. Both introjected and integrated motivation were found
only positively correlated to cognitive strategies. External motivation, on the other
hand, was found significantly but negatively correlated with cognitive strategies.
Furthermore, cognitive strategies were found to be correlated with all of the
five motivation types, which revealed that cognitive strategies might be a crucial
element for learners with both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and it may in turn
contribute to learners’ second language learning.
51
Gender and achievement, which were argued to have influential effects on both
motivation and learning strategies, were found to have a significant effect on
motivation. Especially, gender was found to be influential on intrinsic and identified
motivation; whereas achievement was found to have effect on identified motivation.
However, no significant effect of gender, achievement was discovered on
learning strategies, which may due to other undermining factors, such as age, learning
background, personality, etc.
Limitation
There were several limitations on this study. First of all, students’ motivation
and use of learning strategies were assessed through questionnaires, which may
undermine other individual factors, such as learners’ age, learning background,
creative thinking, and affective variables. In addition, it was possible that learners’
responses may not be representative of their real behaviors due to certain factors such
as over-estimation of their behaviors on social expectation. Therefore, other
measures may need to be adopted in assessing learners’ motivation types and
language learning strategies to discover the possible factors in influencing students’
motivation and strategy use in future study.
Another limitation for the study is that it is a small sample size with 307
participants, which may not be representative for all of the college students of English
in Taiwan. Future study with a larger group of students may be needed to confirm
the consistence of the study.
Pedagogical Implication
Based on the finding of the current study, several pedagogical suggestions were
provided for language teaching, despite of the limitations of the study.
First, teachers should put emphasis on increasing students’ intrinsic motivation,
since they were reported to have stronger extrinsic motivation than intrinsic
52
motivation on language learning, yet research findings have revealed that intrinsic
motivation played an important role in enhancing second language learning.
Therefore, it was important for teachers to find out the activities or teaching methods
that may draw students’ interest so as to enhance their intrinsic motivation.
Second, teachers may need to provide instruction and practice in using
metacognitive strategies, especially in comprehension monitoring, self-evaluation
strategies, which were found to have positive influence on motivation. Also, foreign
language teachers may assess students’ needs for strategy instruction by first
analyzing the strategies students used, and using the findings as a guide to determine
strategies that have potential for improving students’ learning and motivation. More
importantly, teachers may need to inform students the importance and helpfulness for
students’ language learning in the beginning of the strategy instruction (Chamot &
Kupper, 1989).
Moreover, as Oxford (1989) suggested, it was important to teach learners
clearly why and how to use effective strategies and to use strategies in appropriate
situation. It was shown from the results that students did not report high frequency
in using language learning strategies, which may due to lack of knowledge on
learning strategies. Therefore, teachers may need to introduce the concept of
language learning strategies to students, and make students familiar with the learning
strategies. It was also necessary for teachers to provide learners opportunities to
practice the new strategies so as to integrate the new strategies into the process of
language learning (Oxford, 1989).
Summary
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between students’
types of motivation and their use of learning strategies among college students of
English in Taiwan. A total number of 307 English major participated in this study.
53
The participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire on language learning
motivation adapted from Deci & Ryan’s (1985) motivational scales and learning
strategy adapted from Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
(SILL). Besides, they were requested to response to the part of background
information on their gender, grader, and average grade.
Pearson Product-moment Correlation Analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and
independent t-test were employed to compute and analyze the collected data. The
findings of the current study were presented in the following paragraphs:
First of all, college students of English in Taiwan of this sample appeared to
show strong external motivation toward English learning (M = 3.64), which was
congruent with the previous studies (Liao, 2000; Pong, 2002) that students of Taiwan
reported to have stronger extrinsic motivation than intrinsic motivation. In addition,
intrinsic motivation was found to be negatively correlated with external motivation.
Secondly, evaluating and planning strategies was demonstrated most frequently
used by students in the present study. Functional practice strategies and cognitive
strategies were least frequently used by the participants, indicating that strategies
which require time and effort to practice and to organize were not employed
frequently by this group of students.
Finally, significant correlations between learners’ motivation types and strategy
use were found in the current study. It was displayed from the results that students
with more self-determined forms used more strategies. In other words, students who
were more intrinsically motivated tended to engage in using various kinds of learning
strategies in comparison to the less intrinsically motivated students. For example,
intrinsic and identified motivation was found positively correlated with all of the five
learning strategies; whereas external motivation only had positive correlation with
functional practice strategies.
54
In summary, the current study focuses on investigating learner’ types of
motivation, use of learning strategies, and the relationship between extrinsic/intrinsic
motivation and learning strategies. The results showed that the most frequent type of
motivation was extrinsic motivation. Besides, evaluating and planning strategies
was found the most frequently used strategies, whereas functional practice strategies
was least frequently used strategies for learners in this sample. Most importantly,
significant correlation between learners’ motivation and learning strategies was
discovered. Based on the finding, several implications were provided for future
language learning and teaching. It was believed that if teachers could try to promote
learners’ intrinsic motivation as well as use of proper learning strategies for language
learning, then learners’ learning may become more effective and persistent, as well.
55
REFERENCES
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Modern
Language Journal, 28, 69-83.
Bull, S. (2000). Individualized recommendations for learning strategy use.
Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 594-603.
Bacon, S. M.,& Finnemann, M. D. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives,
and strategies of university foreign language students and their disposition to
authentic oral and written input. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 459-470.
Braten, I., & Olaussen, B. S. (1998). The relationships between motivational
beliefs and learning strategy use among Norwegian college students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 23, 182-194.
Chang, S. (1992), A study of language learning strategies that overseas Chinese
students in the United States employed and the relation of their strategy used to oral
proficiency and other factors. Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on English
Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 443-470). Taipei: The Crane
Publishing Co.
Chang, S. M., & Huang, S. H. (1999). Taiwanese English learners’ learning
motivation and language learning strategies. Proceedings of the Sixteenth
Conference on English Teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 111-128).
Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Chen, Y. L. (2000, April). Motivation and Learning Strategies in Learning
English as a Foreign Language: a case in Taiwan. Paper presented at 2000 AERA
(American Educational Research Association) Annual Meeting, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA.
Chen, Y. L. (2002). A language learning strategies scale for college students in
56
Taiwan. Journal of the English Language Center, 1, 5-26.
Chamot, A. U.& Kupper, L. (1989) Learning strategies in foreign language
instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24.
Chien, C. N. & Kao, L. H. (2004). Examining the inter-relationship of
metacognitive strategy training, listening comprehension, and learning attitudes in
EFL training. Chung Yuan Journal, 32, 241-254.
Chung, Y. T. (2000). The motivation and language learning strategies of
students in high school—a site study. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on English
Teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 284-292). Taipei: The Crane
Publishing Co.
Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning.
Language Teaching, 31, 117-135.
Djigunovie, J. M. (2001). Are language learning strategies
motivation—specific? Orbis Linguarum, 18, 125-138.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination
in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Intrinsic Motivation and
Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Dickinson, L., & Wenden, A. (1995). Autonomy, self-direction and self access
in language teaching and learning. System, 23, 149-282.
Deci, E. L., Eghrarl, H., Patrick, B., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62:1,
119-141.
Deci, E. L., Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J. Lens, W., & Sheldon, K. M. (2004).
Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic
goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social
57
Psychology, 87:2, 246-160.
Fleming, F., & Walls, G. (1998). What pupils do: the role of strategic planning
in modern foreign language learning: Language Learning, 18, 14-21.
Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching
strategies: undermining children’s self-determination and performance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916-924.
Golinkoff, R. (1976). A comparison of reading comprehension processes in
good and poor comprehenders. Reading Quarterly, 11, 623-659.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The
role of attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.
Huang, S. H., & Tzeng, C. T. (2000). Learning strategies used by high English
proficiency learners in Taiwan. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on English
Teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 111-128). Taipei: The Crane
Publishing Co.
Littlewood, W. (1996). ‘Autonomy’: An anatomy and a framework. System,
24, 427-435.
Liao, Y. F. ( 2000). Taiwanese secondary school students’ learning motivation
and language learning strategies in EFL learning. 千禧年全國語言學論文研討會
(pp. 155-183).
Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy
and competence in German and American university students: a comparative study
based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68-84.
McIntosh, C. N. & Noĕls, K. A. (2004). Self-determined motivation for
language learning: the role of need for cognition and language learning strategies:
[Online], 9 (2), 28. http://www.ualberta.ca/~german/ejoumal/Mcintosh2.htm
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teacher
58
communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern
Language Journal, 83, 23-34.
Noels, K. A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (2001). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and
integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. The Canadian
Modern Language Review, 57:3, 425-442.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are
you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination
theory. Language Learning, 50:1, 57-85.
Oxford, R. L. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: a synthesis of
studies with implication for strategy training. System, 17:2, 235-247.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston: Heinel & Heinle.
Oxford, R., & Crookall, D. (1988). “Learning Strategies.” You can take it with
you: Helping students maintain second language skills. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Oxford, R. L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning
strategies: methods, findings, and instructional issues. The Modern Language Journal,
73, 404-419.
Oxford, R. L. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language
learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-300.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1993). Learning Strategies in Second
Language Acquisition. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning
behaviors and their relation to achievement. Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-65.
Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in
Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 197-216.
59
Pong (2002). EFL motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high
school learners. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Taiwan University of
Education. Taiwan: Taipei.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late
in the semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of
Education Psychology, 82:1, 41-50.
Pintrich, P. R. & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and
self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement: goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7,
pp371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the “good language learner” can teach us. TESOL
Quarterly, 9, 41-51.
Ryan, M. R & Deci, E. L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55:1, 68-78.
Ryan, M. R & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How
they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537-548.
Rohrkemper, M., & Berson, B. (1984). Elementary school students’ reports of
the causes and effects of problem difficulty in mathematics. Elementary School
Journal, 85, 127-147.
Wenden, A. (1987). “Conceptual background and utility” (pp. 3-13). In
Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. eds. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language learning.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Weinstein, C. E. & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In
60
M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York:
Macmillan.
Yang, N. D. (1993). Beliefs about language learning and learning strategy use:
A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Proceedings of the Tenth
Conference on English Teaching and learning in the Republic of China (pp. 193-219).
Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Yang, N. D. (1994). A study of factors affecting college EFL students’ use of
learning strategies. Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on English Teaching and
learning in the Republic of China (pp. 53-82). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Yang, N. D. (1996). Language learning strategies: investigation and
instruction. Proceedings of the Twelfth Conference on English Teaching and learning
in the Republic of China (pp. 137-153). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
61
APPENDIX A
Language Learning Motivation and Language Learning Strategies Questionnaires
(English Version)
I. Motivational Questionnaire:
Intrinsic Motivation
1. I love to learn English very much.
2. I think it is very interesting to learn English.
3. English is my favorite subject, I feel happy whenever it’s time for English class.
4. Learning English makes me feel satisfied.
5. Learning English is a challenge that I love to take.
Integrated Motivation
6. I learn English because it’s what I am supposed to learn.
7. I learn English because English is a global language.
8. I learn English because it’s a worldwide trend.
9. I learn English because it’s the skill that everyone should be required.
Identified Motivation
10. I learn English because it can help me to understand western culture.
11. I learn English because it can help me to make friends with foreigners.
Introjected Motivation
12. I learn English to show my ability to others.
13. Being able to speak English makes me feel a sense of superiority.
14. I will feel proud if I can speak English well.
External Motivation
15. I learn English to satisfy my parents’ expectation.
16. I learn English because I can get reward from my parents/family.
17. I learn English because it is a required course.
18. I learn English because I will be punished by my parents if I don’t.
II. Questionnaires on language learning strategies.
Functional Practice Strategies
1. I connect the sound of a new English word with a mental picture to memorize it.
2. I practice the sounds of English often.
3. I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in
62
English.
Cognitive Strategies
4. When I learn new words, I will write them for several times to memorize them.
5. When I encounter unfamiliar words in English paragraphs or during English
conversations, I guess their meanings from the context.
6. When I encounter unfamiliar English words, I divide them into several parts that I
understand to understand their meaning.
7. When I can’t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the
same thing.
8. When I learn new words in English, I will look for words in my own language
that are similar to the new words.
Evaluating & Planning Strategies
9. When I am assigned English tasks, I will make plans before doing the tasks.
10. I plan my schedule so that I will have enough time to study English.
11. I know my learning style and needs in English learning.
12. I have clear goals for improving my English skills.
Social Strategies
13. If I don’t understand what others want to express in English, I will ask them to say
it again.
14. If someone is talking in English too fast for me to understand, I will ask him/her
to slow his/her speed.
Chinese Version:
一一一一.... 語言學習動機
Intrinsic regulation
1.我非常喜歡學英文。
2.我覺得學習英文非常有趣。
3.英文是我最喜歡的科目，每次要上英文課時我都感到很快樂。
4.學習英文讓我感到很滿足。
5.學習英文是我樂於接受的一項挑戰。
Integrated regulation
6.我學習英文是因為那是我應該要學的。
7.我學習英文是因為英文是全球性的語言。
8.我學習英文是因為這是全世界的潮流。
63
9.我學習英文是因為這是現今大家都必須具備的技能。
Identified regulation
10.我學習英文是因為英文能幫助我了解西方文化。
11.我學習英文是因為英文能幫助我和外國人交朋友。
Introjected regulation
12.我學習英文是為了要向別人證明我的能力。
13.會說英文讓我有優越感。
14.如果我能說一口流利的英文, 我會覺得很驕傲。
External regulation
15.我學習英文是為了要滿足父母親的期望。
16.我學習英文是因為這樣父母親/家人會給我獎賞。
17.我學習英文是因為英文是必修課程。
18.我學習英文是因為如果我不學的話，我會被父母親處罰。
二二二二.... 語言學習策略
Functional Practice Strategies
1.我把英文單字的發音和這個字的圖像結合在一起,以便加深記憶。
2.我時常練習英文發音。
3.我會收看英語電視節目或電影。
Cognitive Strategies
4.當我學習新的單字時, 我會在紙上練習寫幾次來加深記憶。
5.當我在讀英文文章或用英文和別人對談時,若遇到不熟悉的單字， 我會藉由上
下文來猜測單字的意思。
6.當我遇到不熟的英文單字時，我會把單字拆解成幾個我認得的部分，來了解字
的意思。
7.當我想不起來某個英文單字時，我會用同義詞或其他有相同意思的字句來表
達。
8.當我學到新的英文單字時, 我會試著找出中文裡意義相似的字。
Evaluating & Planning Strategies
9.當我有英文作業時，我會先作好詳細的計畫再去做作業。
10.我會訂定課程表，好讓自己有足夠的時間學習英文。
11.我知道自己在英文學習上的學習方式及需要。
12.對於增進自己的英文能力方面, 我有明確的目標及計劃。
64
Social Strategies
13.用英文對話時，當我不明白對方所要表達的意思，我會要求對方再說一次
14.當我和別人用英文交談時, 如果對方講的太快了讓我無法了解, 我會要求他
們放慢速度。
