As stated previously, this study was aimed at uncovering the effects the compulsory standardized examination may bring on college students’ motivation to learn English. More specifically, we tried to examine the undergraduates’ attitudes towards the compulsory standardized examination and how their self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic value and effort were influenced by the test results. We administered
questionnaire surveys to five hundred and ninety first-year college students at two time points. After checking all the questionnaires, we abandoned the ones without complete responses. Finally, a total of three hundred and nineteen (54%) valid data sets was used in the analysis. In the following sections, the detailed calculations of variables were first elaborated before we presented their means and standard deviations. Then, the findings were reported in terms of the sequence of the five research questions.
Descriptive Statistics
In this present study, we measured four variables, including self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity, intrinsic value and test motivation. Eight positively worded items in both pre-test and post-test questionnaires (Q1 – Q8) were used to measure the informants’ self-efficacy beliefs in learning English. With a 5-point Likert scale, the overall scores obtained ranged from eight to forty. Another measure (Q9 – Q18), including five positively (Q9 – Q13) and five negatively (Q14 – Q18) worded items, was to assess the participants’ effort expended to learn English. This scale is 5-point Likert type as well, with a minimum score of ten and a maximum fifty. The measure for intrinsic value comprises seven items (Q19 – Q25), six positively (Q19 – Q23 &
42
Q25) and one negatively (Q24) worded items. With scales from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5), the respondents may gain scores ranging from seven to thirty-five. Besides, we have eight more items (Q26 – Q33), six positively and two negatively (Q30 & Q31) worded statements included, for the measurement of our participants’ test motivation. The students may obtain scores ranging from eight to forty on this scale.
Table 4.1 summarized the descriptive statistics for all the scales measured in the present study. As can be seen, we measured four variables before our participants took GEPT, including self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity, intrinsic value and test motivation. The means for these variables are 24.26, 30.81, 24.21, and 24.98
respectively. As for the variables measured after our participants obtained their GEPT grades, we got the results as shown in the same table. The means for self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value are 25.19, 30.79 and 24.31. Our participants gained an average score of 148.06 on this standardized examination.4
Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations of Self-efficacy Beliefs, Motivational Intensity, Intrinsic Value, Test Motivation and GEPT Grades (n = 319)
Before GEPT After GEPT
Variable (range of scores) M SD M SD
Self-efficacy beliefs (8-40) 24.26 5.64 25.19 5.33 Motivational intensity (10-50) 30.81 5.15 30.79 5.19
Intrinsic value (7-35) 24.21 4.38 24.31 4.15
Test motivation (8-40) 24.98 4.40 – –
GEPT grades (0-240) – – 148.06 33.0
4 The listening and reading sections on GEPT count as one hundred and twenty points, respectively.
Grades obtained depend on the numbers of correct items test-takers answer. The standardized passing grade for each section is 80. Only when test-takers achieve the criterion on both sections can they pass the first stage of GPET.
43
Investigation of Research Questions
RQ 1: Are college students’ pre-test self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English correlated with their motivation towards this compulsory standardized examination defined as test motivation?
The first research question was intended to explore how our participants viewed the standardized examination they were required to take and how their motivation to learn English was correlated with their test motivation. Already mentioned in Table 4.1, the mean for our participants’ test motivation was 24.98 (SD= 4.40) out of a possible maximum score of 40. With scores on this scale ranging from 8 to 40, a mean score of 24.98 is slightly above the halfway point on the scale, indicating that our participants may not be so motivated to prepare for the compulsory standardized examination.
As for the correlations between student’s test motivation and their self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic motivation in learning English, the statistical method of correlation was employed and the outcome was shown in Table 4.2. The correlation between test motivation and self-efficacy beliefs is r = . 245, p
< .05. The correlation coefficient between test motivation and effort the students made is .279, p < .05 and a correlation of .276, p < .05 was for the relationship between test motivation and their interest level. These figures represented low levels of correlation among test motivation and the three motivational variables.5
5 依據邱皓政(2005)量化研究法(二):統計原理與分析技術，相關係數的強度大小與意義如下(p. 15-13)
相關係數範圍(絕對值) 變相關聯程度
1.00 完全相關
.70 至.99 高度相關
.40 至.69 中度相關
.10 至.39 低度相關
.10 以下 微弱或無相關
44
RQ 2: Are college students’ pre-test self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English correlated with their GEPT grades?
The second research question under investigation was whether college students’
self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English correlated with their GEPT grades. As demonstrated in Table 4.2, our participating students’ pre-test self-efficacy beliefs showed a medium level of correlation with their GEPT grades (r = .442, p < .05). Besides, our participants’ pre-test motivational intensity and intrinsic value, as seen in the same table, displayed low levels of
correlations with their scores gained in the standardized examination (r = .193 & r = . 315, p < .05). To sum up, the undergraduates’ confidence, effort and interest in
learning English were correlated with their GEPT grades, meaning that those who had higher self-efficacy beliefs and intrinsic value were usually those who spent more effort in the subject of English and those who performed better academically.
Table 4.2 Correlations among Test Motivation, GEPT Grades and the Motivational Variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 test motivation - .078 .245* .279* .276* - - -
2 GEPT grades .442* .193* .315* - - -
3 (pre-test) self-efficacy beliefs .539* .567* - - - 4 (pre- test) motivational intensity .588* - - -
5 (pre- test) intrinsic value - - -
6 (post- test) self-efficacy beliefs .478* .580*
7 (post- test) motivational intensity .589*
8 (post- test) intrinsic value *p < .05
45
RQ 3: Are college students’ self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value correlated with one another before they took the compulsory standardized examination and after they gained GEPT grades?
This research question discussed the associations among the three motivational variables in learning English, both before and after the compulsory standardized examination. As can be seen in Table 4.2, the undergraduates’ pre-test self-efficacy beliefs showed medium levels of correlation with their pre-test intrinsic value and motivational intensity (r = .567 & r = .539, p < .05). As for the correlation between pre-test motivational intensity and intrinsic value, we obtained a medium level of .588 as well (p < .05).
In the same table, we saw the results regarding the correlations of the three motivational variables measured after the standardized examination. Our participants’
post-test self-efficacy beliefs were correlated with their post-test intrinsic value with a medium level of .580 (p < .05) and correlated with their post-test motivational
intensity with a medium level of .478 (p < .05). Also, the college students’ post-test motivational intensity revealed a medium level of correlation with their post-test intrinsic value (r = .589, p < .05).
To conclude, it was found that the three motivational variables positively
correlated with one another to a medium-level extent before and after the standardized examination was held, suggesting that the three aspects of motivation are interrelated.
The higher efficacy beliefs one has in learning English, the higher intrinsic motivation one owns and the more effort he or she puts forth.
RQ 4: Do college students’ self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English change significantly before and after the compulsory standardized examination?
46
The fourth research question we explored is whether our participants’ original self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English, which were shaped by their past learning experiences, were influenced by the compulsory standardized examination and the test results. More specifically, we intended to know whether the three motivational variables significantly changed after our participants finished the standardized examination.
Table 4.3 gave us a summary about the preliminary findings. The statistical method of within-subject t-test yielded the result that our participants had higher self-efficacy beliefs after they took GEPT (M = 25.19, SD = 5.33), t(318) = -4.006, p
< .05. No significant differences, however, were found for their motivational intensity and intrinsic value before and after the standardized examination, t(318) = .053 &
-.480, p > .05.
Table 4.3 Within-subject t-tests Results for Self-efficacy Beliefs, Motivational Intensity and Intrinsic Value
Notes: pre-SEF= pre-test self-efficacy beliefs; post-SEF = post-test self-efficacy beliefs pre-MOT= pre-test motivational intensity; post-MOT= post-test motivational intensity pre-INT= pre-test intrinsic value; post-INT= post-test intrinsic value
Since the findings are contradictory to the past studies (Remedios et al., 2005;
Stajkovic & Sommer, 2000), we decided to conduct a further analysis. Considering the test motivation a mediator and our participants’ test motivation normally
distributed in this experiment, we think that it is necessary to exclude part of the data -4.006 .000*
.053
-.480
.958
.631
47
so that we can have a more reasonable comparison among those with higher and lower test motivation.
First of all, we divided our data into three sets on the basis of the levels of our participants’ test motivation, whose scores ranged from twelve to thirty-six. Next, we crossed out the set of data that lay in between the two extreme ends. We gained two sets of data with one belonging to higher test motivation (above the score of
twenty-seven) and the other lower test motivation (below the score of twenty-four).
Then we utilized the statistical method of within-subject t-tests to compare the college students’ self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English before and after GEPT.
Table 4.4 summarized the changes of our participants’ self-efficacy beliefs, motivational intensity and intrinsic value in learning English in the two groups of higher and lower test motivation. As can be seen, the participants in the group of higher test motivation enhanced their self-efficacy beliefs (M = 26.96, SD = 4.77) but lowered their motivational intensity (M = 31.86, SD = 4.75) and intrinsic value (M =
Table 4.4 Within-subject t-tests Results for Self-efficacy Beliefs, Motivational Intensity and Intrinsic Value between the Groups of Higher and Lower Test Motivation
Higher Test Motivation Lower Test Motivation
n M SD t value p value n M SD t value p value Notes: pre-SEF = pre-test self-efficacy beliefs; post-SEF = post-test self-efficacy beliefs pre-MOT = pre-test motivational intensity; post-MOT = post-test motivational intensity pre-INT = pre-test intrinsic value; post-INT = post-test intrinsic value
48
25.65, SD = 3.54) after they took the compulsory standardized examination. By applying within-subject t-tests, we found that the effort the college students put forth in learning English was significantly decreased, t(105) = 2.672, p < .05, while no obvious difference was discovered for this group’s self-efficacy beliefs and intrinsic value, t(105) = -1.446 & 1.085, p > .05.
Turning our focus to the group with lower test motivation, we detected that these participants were more efficacious in learning English after they underwent GEPT (M
= 24.02, SD = 5.72), t(105) = -2.857, p < .05. Although this cohort’s post-test motivational intensity and intrinsic value scored higher (M = 29.36 & 23.53, SD = 5.21 & 4.52) compared to those measured before GEPT (M = 29.26 & 22.91, SD = 5.16 & 4.75), within-subject t-tests yielded insignificant results, t(105) = -.211 &
-1.921, p > .05. This means that the standardized examination had no impact on this group’s effort and enthusiasm to learn English.
Surprised with the findings regarding the variances of self-efficacy beliefs, we analyzed our raw data in a different way. First of all, we separated all the participants into three groups according to their levels of pre-test self-efficacy beliefs in learning English (with a range score of eight to forty) and then chose the two sets of data at the two extreme points of the continuum (above the score of twenty-seven & below the score of twenty-two). Within both groups, data were sifted again based on the
undergraduates’ pass or failure on the standardized examination. We thus had four sets of data within which the differences of pre- and post-test self-efficacy beliefs were compared as shown in Table 4.5.
For the college students with higher self-efficacy beliefs and success on the standardized examination, no significant difference was found between confidence in learning a second language before and after the examination, t(46) = 1.365, p > .05.
However, significant results were yielded for the other three groups. Self-efficacy
49
-8.610 Table 4.5 Within-subject t-test Results for Self-efficacy Beliefs
Group n M SD t value p value
beliefs of the undergraduates who were more confident but flunked the examination were reduced, t(58) = 2.196, p < .05 while the participants who owned lower self-efficacy beliefs but passed the examination enhanced their confidence in L2 learning, t(9) = -8.610, p < .05. For those with lower self-efficacy beliefs and failure on the examination, their confidence in English learning scored higher after the examination (M = 20.59, SD = 4.49) in comparison with that before the examination (M = 17.76, SD = 2.79) and as a result, this cohort’s self-efficacy beliefs were significantly enhanced, t(95) = -6.444, p < .05.
RQ 5: What are college students’ perspectives towards learning English as a
requirement and the compulsory standardized examination as a graduation threshold?
In the last research question we intended to realize college students’ perspectives towards learning English as a requirement and the compulsory standardized
examination as a threshold for graduation. To elicit our participants’ responses, we designed two open-ended questions for them to express their opinions (see Appendix E). Thirty-two participants only filled in the Likert-type questions but did not answer the two open-ended questions. Therefore, we received a total of two hundred and eighty-seven (90%) responses.
50
The first open-ended question asked that “many people consider that the decrease of domestic undergraduates’ English ability is related to temporary
termination of entrance examinations. To encourage college students to keep learning English, our university sets up a graduation threshold – to pass the first stage of the High-intermediate level of GEPT. Do you think this policy works? Why?”
Table 4.6 summarized our participating students’ responses to the compulsory standardized examination. Forty-six percent of the undergraduates referred that the graduation threshold was helpful for them. Nine percent of the participants indicated that this policy may be useful while thirty-two percent of them did not consider this kind of threshold can push students to learn English. Another three percent of the participants said that they had no idea about the effectiveness of this policy or they did not show their position regarding this issue.
Table 4.6 Undergraduates’ Responses to the Usefulness of the Graduation Threshold
Yes No Maybe No idea No response Total
n 146 102 30 9 32 319
% 46 32 9 3 10 100
Of the one hundred and forty-six college students who considered that the compulsory standardized examination was conducive, they provided us with several reasons as demonstrated in Table 4.7. As we can see, forty percent of the
undergraduates claimed that this standardized examination served as a motivator, pushing them to study English. Seventeen percent of the college students wanted to maintain, enhance or better understand their English competence by means of taking this examination. In other words, they can realize if they need to strengthen their listening or reading skills through the test results. Another fifteen percent of them
51
remarked that this policy was effective because it could force them to study English to pass the examination. Seven percent of the college students stated that this policy worked since they would study English in order to meet the graduation threshold.
Table 4.7 Reasons for Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness of the Compulsory Standardized Examination
Reasons N %
Effective ・examinations as motivators, helping them to learn English
・letting students realize what language skills they should strengthen through the test results
・studying English in order to pass examinations
・studying English in order to graduate successfully
・helping them enhance competitive ability in workplaces or make preparations for advanced studies in the future
・studying English for the purpose of not having to take remedial English courses
Ineffective ・this policy cannot really motivate students to learn English
・this policy would lead to “teaching to testing”
・they can still graduate as long as they take remedial English courses
・this policy imposes pressure on students, lowering their learning motivation
・too busy with their majors or other activities; having no time to study English
・English proficiency is not rapidly enhanced only by GEPT or remedial English courses
・GEPT is not an internationally-recognized standardized examination
52
Three percent of our participants focused on the future, thinking that this kind of policy can help them enhance English proficiency in workplaces or graduate schools.
Only two percent of the participating students thought that the standardized
examination was helpful for they would study English harder for the purpose of not having to take remedial English courses.
Of those who did not support the implementation of the standardized
examination, thirty-two percent of the first-year college students did not think this policy would motivate them to learn English. Eighteen percent of the students thought that this policy might have negative effects on teaching, resulting in “teaching to testing.” Another eight percent of the participants did not consider this compulsory examination worked since they could still graduate from university as long as they took remedial English courses if they failed GEPT. Eight percent of the
undergraduates thought that the compulsory standardized examination brought them pressure and lowered their learning motivation in English. Several students, around four percent among our recruited participants, indicated that they were too busy with their majors or extra-curricular activities and as a result, they had no time studying English and preparing for the examination. Some undergraduates (4%) opposed to the execution of the policy since they thought that English proficiency could not be enhanced by the compulsory standardized examination or remedial English courses.
Few students, about three percent of our participants, mentioned that GEPT was not an internationally-recognized standardized examination and thus they considered this policy ineffective.
The above were our participants’ responses to the first open-ended question. In the following, we will report what our participants responded to the second
open-ended question.
The second open-ended question asked “Did you prepare for the compulsory
53
standardized examination, i.e., GEPT? If yes, how did you prepare for it? If no, what was your attitude when you took this examination?” As shown in Table 4.8, thirty-two percent of our students prepared for this standardized examination while fifty-seven percent of them did not prepare for it.
Table 4.8 Numbers and Percentage for Preparation for GEPT among the Undergraduates
Yes No No
mention
No response
Total
n 101 182 4 32 319
% 32 57 1 10 100
Of the one hundred and one college students who made preparations for GEPT, they said they enhance their English ability by utilizing resources in their daily life, including English magazines, broadcasting, TV programs, movies and so forth. In addition, quite a few students referred that they write the on-line or paper mocks offered by the university and the Language Teaching and Research Center in NCTU.
Some participants indicated they try to improve their weaker skills before the examination and few students mentioned that they concentrate on their English courses and amassed their English competence in class.
As for those who did not prepare for the standardized examination, Table 4.9 displayed their attitudes as they took the examination. Most of the participating
As for those who did not prepare for the standardized examination, Table 4.9 displayed their attitudes as they took the examination. Most of the participating