The link between L2 motivation and L2 achievement has been a popular issue under SLA investigation for decades. Researchers have indicated that motivation to learn a second or foreign language (L2) is a crucial predictor of success in language learning (Csizer & Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Csizer, 2002; Ely, 1986; Gardner, 1985;
Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Gardner et al., 1997; Noels et al., 1999; Oxford &
Shearin, 1994; Samimy & Tabuse, 1992; Schmitt & Watanabe, 2001; Tremblay &
Gardner, 1995; Wen, 1997). That is, L2 learners with higher degree of learning motivation are widely believed and, in most cases, have been empirically found to achieve better proficiency in the target language.
Although a wide range of L2 studies have supported the strong predictive power of motivation on language learning achievement, contradictory results have been shown in either qualitative (Huang & Chang, 1996) or quantitative studies (Chen et al., 2005; Teweles, 1995; Shaaban & Ghaith, 2000; Vandergrift, 2005). For example,
Huang and Chang (1996), in an ESL (English as a second language) setting, found that the participants’ motivational beliefs such as self-efficacy level did not correlate with their learning achievements correspondingly but their achievements positively reflected their motivational level. It suggested that L2 motivation did not necessarily lead to successful performance but it served as a precondition for better achievement.
In a comparative study of two EFL settings, i.e. Japan and China, Teweles (1995) demonstrated that the level of motivation did not highly correlate with proficiency regardless of test-type. Vandergrift (2005) also indicated that L2 motivation seemed not to be a reliable predictor of proficiency in L2 listening comprehension. All of the aforementioned studies signaled the insignificant link between motivation and learning outcomes. It strongly suggested that the path from language learning motivation to language learning achievement is not linearly connected but indirectly correlated via mediators.
One mediator which has been found to be significant in several pioneering studies (Garcia et al., 1998; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Tseng et al., 2006; Tseng &
Schmitt, 2008) was learners’ self-regulatory capacity, which was argued to help protect the initial intention and to further support the demonstration of motivated learning behaviors such as strategy use (Dörnyei, 2005; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008).
In the field of L2 research, in general, the use of language learning strategies has been the most frequently explored type of actual learning behaviors which SLA researchers targeted to contribute to a deeper understanding of the indirect association between L2 motivation and L2 achievement (Garcia et al., 1998; MacIntyre & Noels, 1996; Printrich & De Groot, 1990; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008; Vandergrft, 2005). The following section provides a short review of the empirical studies on language learning strategy use and specifies the inherent problems in the L2 research on strategy use.
2.3.1 L2 Motivation and Language Learning Strategy Use
For a link of language learners’ motivational disposition with their actual motivated behaviors, a considerable body of research has been conducted to explore the interrelations between choice motivation and learners’ cognitive engagement or strategic involvement in learning tasks (Garcia et al., 1998; MacIntyre & Noels, 1996;
Printrich & De Groot, 1990; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008;
Vandergrft, 2005). More specifically, these empirical studies aimed to uncover how motivational tendencies reflect learners’ reported use of learning strategies, which are generally defined as actions, behaviors, steps or techniques used to enhance language learning (Oxford, 1990).
With regard to the correlation between choice motivation and learning strategy use, previous research has demonstrated that the level of motivation directly affected learners’ use of learning strategies, not only the frequency (Gardner et al., 1997) but also the types of strategy use (Garcia et al., 1998; Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001).
However, conflicting results also existed. For example, Tseng and Schmitt (2008) found that choice motivation did not directly and positively influence strategy use. It was found that learners’ self-regulatory capacity was a determinant mediator functioning on the path from choice motivation to cognitive engagement. Accordingly, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the relation between choice motivation and strategy use can be established by means of learners’ capacity in regulating their learning behaviors as a mediator.
2.3.2 Language Learning Strategy Use and L2 Achievement
Besides the relation between L2 motivation and language learning strategy use, how strategy use correlates with language learning achievement has also been an intriguing research issue drawing a wide range of attention. Still, like the empirical
findings concerning motivation and learning strategy use, the results of L2 studies which examined the role of learning strategy use in language learning success were also mixed. Some admittedly showed a significant positive link (Park, 1997), some a fairly weak correlation (Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005), some no significant link (Mori, 2007), and others perplexingly a negative association (Gardner at al., 1997).
This inconsistency and discrepancy of empirical findings concerning the predictive power of learning strategy use on L2 achievement may result from two fundamental problems: one inherent in the frequency-based measurement of strategy use, and the other deriving from the conceptual ambiguity of language learning strategies.
In general, studies on strategy use assessed learners’ strategic behaviors by means of self-report questionnaires. In the L2 field, the most frequently adopted measure of language learning strategies from 1990s has been the ‘Strategy Inventory for Language Learning’ (SILL), developed by Rebecca Oxford (1990). This instrument, composed of six dimensions, focuses on specific strategic behaviors and asks about L2 learners’ frequency of usage of strategies which ranges from ‘always’ to
‘never’. Scale scores are attained by computing the average of the item scores within a sub-dimension. Essentially, the psychometric assumption behind this measure is that the more usage, the better.
However, it has been argued that the frequency-based instrument only measures the quantity of strategy use but fails to reflect another important dimension of strategic behavior, namely, the quality of strategy use, i.e. how well these strategies are used (Tseng et al., 2006; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). A high score on SILL reflects only a high frequency and a wide range of strategy use. It does not indicate the effectiveness of strategy use and learners’ adaptive manipulation of available learning tactics.
As for the nature of learning strategy use, researchers (Gardner et al., 1997;
Ellis, 1994) have suggested that the quality dimension of strategy use is crucial to learning achievement and should be distinguished from the quantity dimension of strategy use because a larger repertoire of learning tactics and frequent use of learning strategies does not guarantee adequate and resourceful use of language learning strategies which will probably lead to better learning achievement. Therefore, the measurement of learners’ strategic competence should touch upon two distinct parts, one on learners’ quantity-based, overall involvement in using strategies for language learning and the other on learners’ quality-based mastery of specific language learning tactics.
In addition to the inherent instrumental problem, research on language learning strategies has been confronting with a theoretical problem, that is, the conceptual ambiguity of learning strategy (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003). Disagreements prevail in terms of the conceptualizations of language learning strategy and the discriminating criteria for strategic learning from ordinary learning (see Dörnyei, 2005, for a comprehensive review).
In fact, during the past decades, educational psychology has abandoned the confusing term ‘learning strategy’ and discusses learners’ strategic contribution to their learning in a more versatile concept of ‘self-regulation’. This theoretical transition implies that it is not what learners do that makes them strategic learners, but rather the fact that they make purposive efforts, get consciously involved, and regulate their own learning process (Pintrich, 2000; Skehan & Dörnyei, 2003; Tseng et al., 2006). The focus, thus, shifts from the actual techniques employed for dealing with the learning task itself to the self-regulatory process whereby learners’ underlying self-regulatory capacity works. Again, it appears justifiable to conclude that on the way from L2 motivation to L2 achievement, in addition to strategic learning behaviors,
learners’ self-regulatory capacity may also take an important part.
2.3.3 Motivation-Achievement as a Reciprocal Cycle
Although commonly believed to be a determinant of success in language learning, L2 motivation has been gradually regarded also as a result of language learning achievement. As the ‘Resultative Hypothesis’ claims, “learners who do well are more likely to develop motivational intensity and to be active in the classroom” (Ellis, 1994, p. 515). This proposition, suggesting the positive impact of achievement on motivation, has been supported in several empirical studies (Berwick & Ross, 1989;
Gardner & Tremblay, 1997; Strong, 1984; Ushioda, 1996; Tian, 2005). All of the studies indicated that L2 learners’ motivational intensity was influenced by their perceived achievement, and this perception of success in language learning did promote their language learning motivation.
It appears that the relation between motivation and achievement is interactive, reciprocal and mutual. In other words, it involves a bi-directional causality. A high level of motivation indeed facilitates language learning, but perceived accomplishment in achieving L2 goals can also help learners maintain their existing motivation and even strengthen learners’ motivational dispositions (Ellis, 1994).