建構一個計畫學習行為的外語動機模式

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語研究所博士論文 Doctoral Dissertation Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 建構一個計畫學習行為的外語動機模式. Constructing An L2 Motivational Model Of Planned Learning Behavior. 指導教授: 曾文鐽博士 Advisor: Wen-Ta Tseng 研究生: 戴美霞 Student: Mei-Hsia Dai. 中華民國一百零一年六月 June, 2012.

(2) 中文摘要. 第二外語學習動機的研究已顯示關於個別差異之情意變項對外語學習是重要的，但是極少數外語動機研究是專門研究社會環境及行為意圖對學習者的影響。此論文之主要目的是重新省視外語學習動機研究，運用更完整的概念理論及合併外語學習者人與人的影響及個別差異因素，建構一個假設因果關係的外語動機學習模型。本研究之結構模型主要以 Azjen (1991, 2005)的計畫行為理論為基礎，輔以 Gollwitzer (1993, 1999)的行動意圖和 Tseng 和 Schmitt (2008)的模式中之自律能力與外語精熟因素。此研究模式一共含有九個潛在變項，包含：外語學習態度，社會規範，自信，目標意圖，行動意圖，自律能力，外語學習行為，外語學習精熟度以及外語成就。此研究總共有 265 位高中生參與主要研究，並使用結構方程模式檢測此模式之適配度。結構方程模式分析分為測驗模式及結構模式。前者是界定指標變項並檢測所界定之指標變項是否可以解釋所依據之理論概念，後者則檢驗所假設之結構模式的因果關係。此研究之結果顯示測驗模式，除了極少的修正外，其適配度良好，奠定結構模式之基礎。結構模式之結果顯示外語學習態度，社會規範及自信在外語學習之初期階段有顯著重要的角色。外語學習態度與社會規範對目標意圖與行動意圖尤其具有影響力。行動意圖對自律能力及外語學習行為是最為關鍵的因素。自律能力能影響外語學習之精熟度，且後者是能直接影響外語學習成就之效果。此研究結果啟發重要的意涵：學生的學習態度及人際互動可以藉由老師在教室的引導，訓練學生學習設計讀書計畫以完成他們設定的學習目標，教師在教學計畫中亦可以訓練學生運用精熟學習策略以確定自己的學習效果。. 關鍵字：第二外語動機模式，社會規範，目標意圖，行動意圖，自律能力，第二外語學習精熟度 i.

(3) ii.

(4) CONSTRUCTING AN L2 MOTIVATIONAL MODEL OF PLANNED LEARNING BEHAVIOR. ABSTRACT Research on L2 learning motivation has shown that affective variables regarding individual differences are important in second language learning, but few studies incorporated a focus on the impact of social milieu and behavioral intention. The aim of this study is to echo the call for a reconsideration of L2 motivation research with a more complete reconceptualization and an expansion of combining both interpersonal and intrapersonal factors with hypothesized causal relationships in a model of L2 learning motivation. The structural model in this study was mainly based on Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior, reinforced by Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation intention, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and mastery of L2 learning. There are nine latent variables in the model consisting of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms, Self-Confidence, Goal Intention, Implementation Intention, Self-Regulatory Capacity, Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, Mastery of L2 Learning, and L2 Achievement. The participants in the main study are 265 senior high-school students in northern Taiwan. Structural Equation Modeling is utilized to estimate the hypothesized model in terms of a range of goodness-of-fit indices. The results of the structural equation model are analyzed with respect to the measurement model and the structural model. The former identifies the indicator variables and tests how a conceptual, grounded theory can be accounted for by the represented indicators. The latter examines the causal relationships that represent the structural hypotheses. The results show that the measurement model reveals an overall good fit with minor modifications, which provides the basic support for the structural model. The iii.

(5) results of the structural model show that attitudes toward L2 learning, social norms and self-confidence play important roles in the initial stage during the second language learning process. Attitudes toward L2 learning and social norms are particularly influential to both goal and implementation intention. Implementation intention is a critical factor on effective language learning behavior and volitional control, and self-regulatory capacity and metacognitive mastery of L2 learning are linked to influence the effect of L2 achievement. Findings of this study yield important pedagogical implications: students’ attitudes and interpersonal interaction can be directed by teachers in the classroom. With the guidance of teachers, students learn to enact their study plans to achieve their goals via various learning behaviors with volitional controls. Teachers in their pedagogical plans can demonstrate and train the students to use metacognitive learning strategies in appropriate learning contexts with explicit teaching mechanism to ensure that the students have acquired the metacognitive operations through constant exercises.. Key words: L2 motivational model, social norms, goal intention, implementation intention, self-regulatory capacity, and mastery of L2 learning. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many wonderful people have contributed greatly in various ways to the development and completion of this dissertation. I am indebted to these people who encouraged, supported and accompanied me through this long, and arduous, yet enlightening academic journey. First of all, I am deeply indebted to my advisor, Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng, for his introduction to the field of L2 motivational model and his valuable insights and for all the time and energy he has spent on me and this work. I owe him a great deal for his enlightening guidance and invaluable discussions and supervision throughout the writing of this dissertation. I am also very grateful to Dr. Yu-Show Cheng and Dr. Hsi-Chin Chu for their valuable and insightful comments and suggestions at the proposal hearing, which have helped me improve and clarify my understanding of this study. My sincere gratitude also goes to all the committee members, including Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng, Dr. Yu-Show Cheng, Dr. Hsi-Chin Chu, Dr. Chao-Chang Wang, Dr. Fang-Chuan Chang, and Dr. Yi-Ting Hwang, for their critical reading and invaluable comments on the contents and insightful suggestions to this study. My cordial appreciation also goes to all the schools, teachers, and students who provided me with much help and participation in this study. It would not have been possible for me to complete this thesis without them sharing their precious time and learning experience. I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Shi-Hwa Lin for his generosity to give me opportunities to sit in his statistics classes and his kindness to provide technical assistance in my time of need. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Chin-Yuan Chang for his constant encouragement and support along this arduous journey. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Chiou-Lan Chern and Dr. Hao-Jan Chen for always being supportive, and Roger Wang, Stan Chiu, and Ally. v.

(7) Lin, my peers at Ph.D. program, for their trustworthy friendship. My most heartfelt thanks go to my indispensable and considerate mother, brothers and sister for their unconditional love and trust in me. I am deeply indebted to my brothers and sister for taking good care of mom all these years. Finally, I sincerely thank my Buddha, Earth-Store Bodhisattva, and two venerable masters, Master Di-Jiao, and Master Zue-Guang. His Being has been accompanying me all the time and come to my help in my depressed and difficult times. His Being has been guiding me to reflect on myself and strengthening my belief of turning my way of viewing things, people, and events positively and actively.. vi.

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chinese Abstract ............................................................................................................. i English Abstract ............................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ...............................................................................................................xiii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xv CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Rationale ........................................................................................................................ 1 Social Norms ................................................................................................................ ..5 Behavioral Intention....................................................................................................... 7 Statement of Purpose ..................................................................................................... 8 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 10 Contribution of this Study ............................................................................................ 11 Limitations of this Study .............................................................................................. 12 Organization of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 15 Motivational Theories with Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Constructs ..................... 17 Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model .................................................................... 18 Criticism of Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model ................................. 20 Criticism of Gardner’s AMTB ............................................................... 21 Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory ....................................................................... 23 Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory ................................................................... 24 Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior ............................................................... 25 Dörnyei-Ottó Process Model of Motivation ...................................................... 29 Preactional Stage .................................................................................... 30 Actional Stage ........................................................................................ 30 Postactional Stage .................................................................................. 31 Rubicon Model................................................................................................... 33 The Predecisional Phase ........................................................................ 33 The Preactional Phase ............................................................................ 34 The Actional Phase ................................................................................ 35 The Postactional Phase .......................................................................... 35. vii.

(9) Model Review on Motivation and Second/Foreign Language Learning ..................... 36 Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) Model ............................................................. 36 Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret’s (1997) Model ............................................ 38 Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimiza’s (2004) WTC Model .......................... 40 Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) Model ................................................................... 41 Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) Model .................................................................... 43 Comments on the Five Models Reviewed ......................................................... 44 Overview of Theoretical Perspectives regarding Social Influences ............................ 50 Gardner’s Motivation Theory ............................................................................ 50 Social Motivation ............................................................................................... 52 Social Constructivism ........................................................................................ 52 Social Norms in the Theory of Planned Behavior ............................................. 53 Social Norms in L2 Learning ............................................................................. 55 Overview of Theories of Intention ............................................................................... 57 Theory of Intention ............................................................................................ 58 Implementation Intention ................................................................................... 59 Intention in Second Language Learning ............................................................ 60 Constructing an L2 Learning Motivation Model with a Social and Individual Approach ............................................................................................................ 61 Other Measurements .................................................................................................... 66 Attitudes toward L2 Learning ............................................................................ 66 Self-Confidence ................................................................................................. 68 Self-Regulatory Capacity ................................................................................... 69 The Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior .............................................................. 70 Mastery of L2 Learning ................................................................................... 71 CHAPTER THREE SCALES. METHODS AND DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOMETRIC. The Hypothesized Model Integrating Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Approaches ........................................................................................................ 73 Specific Hypothesized Relationships ........................................................................... 74 Research Design........................................................................................................... 75 Structural Equation Modeling ...................................................................................... 79 Introduction of Development of the Scales ................................................................. 81 Scale of Social Norms in Language Learning ............................................................. 82 Development of the Scale of Social Norms ....................................................... 82 Item Pool ............................................................................................................ 83 Participants and Procedures ............................................................................... 84 viii.

(10) Item Analysis ..................................................................................................... 85 Internal Consistency........................................................................................... 86 Unidimensionality .............................................................................................. 86 Scales of Intention in Language Learning ................................................................... 88 Development of the Scales of Behavioral Intention .......................................... 88 Proposed Model ................................................................................................. 89 Item Pool ............................................................................................................ 90 Participants and Procedures ............................................................................... 91 Item Analysis ..................................................................................................... 91 Evaluation of the Scales of Intention in Language Learning ............................. 91 Estimate of Model Fit ........................................................................................ 92 Development and Pilot Study of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Self-confidence, Self-Regulatory Capacity, the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior, and Mastery of L2 Learning ..................................................................................... 94 Item Formation of Attitudes toward L2 Learning .............................................. 94 Pilot Study.......................................................................................................... 96 Participants ............................................................................................. 96 Data Collection Procedures.................................................................... 96 Item Analysis ......................................................................................... 97 Internal Consistency............................................................................... 97 Item Formation of Self-Confidence ................................................................... 98 Pilot Study.......................................................................................................... 99 Participants and Data Collection Procedures ......................................... 99 Item Analysis ......................................................................................... 99 Internal Consistency............................................................................... 99 Item Formation of Self-Regulatory Capacity .................................................. 100 Pilot Study........................................................................................................ 101 Participants and Data Collection Procedures ....................................... 101 Item Analysis ....................................................................................... 101 Internal Consistency............................................................................. 101 Unidimensionality ................................................................................ 103 Item Formation of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ................................. 104 Pilot Study........................................................................................................ 105 Participants and Data Collection Procedures ....................................... 105 Item Analysis ....................................................................................... 105 Internal Consistency............................................................................. 106 Unidimensionality ................................................................................ 107. ix.

(11) Item Formation of Mastery of L2 Learning ..................................................... 108 Pilot Study........................................................................................................ 110 Participants and Data Collection Procedures ....................................... 110 Item Analysis ....................................................................................... 110 Internal Consistency............................................................................. 110 Unidimensionality ................................................................................ 111 Achievement Measures .................................................................................. 114 Main Study ................................................................................................................. 115 The Hypothesized Model ................................................................................. 115 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 119 Participants ....................................................................................................... 120 Measurements .................................................................................................. 121 Data Collection Procedures.............................................................................. 122 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Assessment of the Measurement Model .................................................................. 124 Estimate of the Model Fit of the Measurement Model .................................... 124 Modification of the Measurement Model ........................................................ 125 Convergent Validity ......................................................................................... 127 Discriminant Validity ....................................................................................... 132 Summary .......................................................................................................... 133 Assessment of the Structural Model .......................................................................... 133 Overall Model Fit of the Structural Model ...................................................... 136 Estimates of the Factor Loadings of the Indicators for the Structural Model .. 137 Estimates of the Coefficients of the Structural Paths for the Structural Model ................................................................................................... 139 Standardized Total Effects and Standardized Indirect Effects ......................... 140 CHAPTER FIVE. DISCUSSION. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 143 Discussion One: The Overall Importance of the Current Model ............................... 144 The Overall Structure and the Processes of the L2 Learning Motivation Constructs Hypothesized in this Model ............................................... 144 Discussion Two: Effects of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms, and Self-Confidence......................................................................................... 148 Effects of Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms and Self-Confidence on Goal Intention and Implementation Intention........ 149 Impact of Social Norms on Learners’ Self-Regulatory Capacity .................... 153 x.

(12) Effects of Self-Confidence on Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ........................................................... 155 Discussion Three: Effects of Goal Intention and Implementation Intention on Learners’ Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ........................................................................................... 158 Discussion Four: Effects of Self-Regulatory Capacity on the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning ........................................ 166 Discussion Five: Effects of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning on L2 Achievement ................................................... 168 Overall Discussion ..................................................................................................... 172 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 176 Pedagogical Implications ........................................................................................... 179 Predecisional Phase .......................................................................................... 180 Preactional Phase ............................................................................................. 182 Actional Phase ................................................................................................. 183 Summary of Pedagogical Implications ............................................................ 185 Research Implications ................................................................................................ 186 Limitations ................................................................................................................. 188 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 189 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 219 Appendix 1: Appendix 2: Appendix 3: Appendix 4: Appendix 5:. The Item Pool of Social Norms.......................................................... 219 Pilot Study of the Items of Social Norms .......................................... 224 Items of Social Norms in the Main Study .......................................... 232 The Item Pool of Goal Intention ........................................................ 235 Pilot Study of the Items of Goal Intention ......................................... 237. Appendix 6: Appendix 7: Appendix 8: Appendix 9: Appendix 10: Appendix 11: Appendix 12: Appendix 13:. Items of Goal Intention in the Main Study ........................................ 240 The Item Pool of Implementation Intention ....................................... 242 Pilot Study of the Items of Implementation Intention........................ 244 Items of Implementation Intention in the Main Study ....................... 247 Pilot Study of the Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning ............... 249 Items of Attitudes toward L2 Learning in the Main Study .............. 250 Pilot Study of the Items of Self-Confidence .................................... 251 Items of Self-Confidence in the Main Study ................................... 253 xi.

(13) Appendix 14:. Pilot Study of the Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity...................... 254. Appendix 15: Appendix 16: Appendix 17: Appendix 18: Appendix 19: Appendix 20: Appendix 21: Appendix 22:. Items of Self-Regulatory Capacity in the Main Study ..................... 257 Pilot Study of the Items of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior .... 259 Items of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior in the Main Study .... 262 Pilot Study of the Items of Mastery of L2 Learning ........................ 264 Items of Mastery of L2 Learning in the Main Study ....................... 267 Consent Form ................................................................................... 269 Items of the Final Exam ................................................................... 271 Syntax and Covariance of the Structural Model .............................. 279. xii.

(14) LIST OF TABLES Dörnyei and Ottó’s Process Model of L2 Learning Motivation ............. 32 Composition of the participants in each phase ........................................ 76 Development and pilot study of the scales .............................................. 77 Descriptions of the methods and the criteria for the item determination ......................................................................................... 78 Table 3.4 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale and the subscales of Social Norms, and Pearson correlations among the subscales ............................................................................... 86 Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3. Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7. Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Social Norms ...... 87 Factor loading on one unrotated factor of Social Norms ........................ 87 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scales of Intention .................................................................................. 92. Table 3.8 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Intention .......................... 92 Table 3.9 Goodness-of-fit indices for the hypothesized model of Intention and the modified model.......................................................................... 93 Table 3.10 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of Self-Regulatory Capacity ............................................................... 102 Table 3.11 Pearson correlations among the indicators of Self-Regulatory Table 3.12 Table 3.13 Table 3.14 Table 3.15 Table 3.16 Table 3.17 Table 3.18 Table 3.19. Capacity ............................................................................................... 102 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Self-Regulatory Capacity ................................................................... 103 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Self-Regulatory Capacity ............................................................................................. 104 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior .................................... 106 Pearson correlations among the indicators of the subscales of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ........................................... 106 Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ....................................................... 107 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior ............................................................................. 108 Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha of the scale of Mastery of L2 Learning ................................................................. 111 Pearson correlations among the indicators of the subscales of Mastery of L2 Learning ................................................................................... 111. xiii.

(15) Table 3.20. Eigenvalue and explained variance for the factors of Mastery. of L2 Learning ................................................................................... 112 Table 3.21 Factor loadings on one unrotated factor of Mastery of L2 Learning ............................................................................................. 112 Table 3.22 Summary of Cronbach’s alpha, scale mean and standard deviations of the indicators of each scale .......................................... 113 Table 4.1 Two indicators with fairly high loading values suggested by modification indices ........................................................................... 126 Table 4.2 Comparison of goodness-of-fit (GOF) measures between the original hypothesized and the revised L2 learning motivation models ............. 127 Table 4.3 Estimates of the parameters of the modified model .............................. 129 Table 4.4 Cronbach’s α, scale mean and standard deviations of the structural model ................................................................................... 131 Table 4.5 Correlations matrix of the structural constructs of the revised measurement model (standardized) ..................................................... 133 Table 4.6 Goodness-of-fit for the structural model of the hypothesized model.................................................................................................... 136 Table 4.7 Unstandardized and standardized factor loadings for the structural model of L2 learning motivation model ............................................ 138 Table 4.8 Results of the unstandardized and standardized structural path Table 4.9. estimates of L2 learning motivation model.......................................... 140 Standardized total effects and standardized indirect effects of L2 learning motivation model .............................................................. 141. xiv.

(16) LIST OF FIGURES. Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4. Gardner’s conceptualization of integrative motives .............................. 19 Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) Theory of Reasoned Action ..................... 25 Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior ......................................... 27 Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon Model of Action Phases ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2.5 Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) study of motivation construct in language learning ................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.6 Gardner, Tremblay, and Masgoret (1997) model of second Figure 2.7 Figure 2.8 Figure 2.9 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3. language learning ................................................................................... 39 Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide and Shimizu’s (2004) study of WTC model...................................................................................................... 41 Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) study of internal structure of second language learning on intended effort and language choice ........ 42 Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model of vocabulary learning ................... 44 The hypothesized model of nine latent variables .................................. 74 The hypothesized model of intention in language learning................... 90 Confirmatory factor analysis of the modified model of intention in language learning ............................................................................... 93. Figure 3.4. The hypothesized L2 motivational model of planned learning behavior................................................................................................ 117 Figure 4.1 Results of the hypothesized structural model of L2 learning motivation ............................................................................................ 135. xv.

(17) CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. This chapter opens with a rationale of this current study and a brief introduction of two important variables, social norms and behavioral intention, which have not been sufficiently studied in L2 motivation research. These are followed by the statement of purpose of this study, research questions, and a statement concerning the expected contribution of this study. This chapter concludes with a brief introduction of the organization of this thesis.. Rationale For the past several decades, motivation has been acknowledged as playing a prominent role in second/foreign language (L2) learning. Much of the research focused on individual differences in foreign language acquisition, demonstrating the importance of affective variables, including integrative motivation (Gardner, 1985, 2000, 2001), instrumental motivation (Warden & Lin, 2000), attitudes and beliefs (Bell, 2005; Loewen et al., 2009; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Leone & Peru, 1999; Rifkin, 2000), self-regulation (Tang & Neber, 2008; Tseng, Dörnyei, & Schmitt, 2006; Wolters, 2003), and willingness to communicate (Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003; MacIntyre, 1994, 2007; MacIntyre, Babin, & Clément, 1999; MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, & Conrod, 2001) on achievement. However, Firth and Wagner (1997) called for a complete reconceptualization of second language acquisition, emphasizing social and contextual orientation. More recently, Fulmer and Frijters (2009) have lamented that motivation research has focused predominantly on cognitive, intrapsychological aspects, downplaying the significance of other personal and contextual factors in the relationship between motivation and academic achievement. Both researchers and 1.

(18) teachers agree that there are significant differences between motivated and unmotivated students when it comes to learning a foreign language. Generally speaking, learners with stronger motivation become more active, resourceful, and effective in acquiring a second language. This suggests that, if learners can develop a personal motivation for language learning, their intention to learn the subject matter is more likely to be formed and implemented. Since 1990s, several motivation researchers in the L2 field (Crookes & Schmidt 1991; Dörnyei, 1994; Oxford, 1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994) have reached an agreement that research in motivation should be expanded to cover social milieus as well as other important, personal factors in second language acquisition. To meet the call for a consideration of research that includes more other important, motivational factors in L2 motivation research, Gardner and his associates (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995; Gardner, Tremblay & Masgoret, 1997) designed two structural models, grounded mainly on the Socio-educational model, in an attempt to investigate causal relationships among the developed motivational factors with the intention of explicating a more complete model of SLA. Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) also proposed an L2 motivation model examining the internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship to language choice. Based on McCroskey’s (1992, 1997) construct of willingness to communicate (WTC), Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimizu (2004) explored the antecedents of students’ willingness to communicate and its results in an international exchange program. In addition to these empirical studies, there are some others: Gardner, Masgoret, and Tremblay, 1999; MacIntyre, MacMaster, and Baker, 2001; Tseng and Schmitt, 2008; Yamashiro and McLaughlin, 2000. These researchers used structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate causal relationships among the motivational variables involved. 2.

(19) However, few seemed to be based on a major, theoretical framework when the modeling structure is examined. There is no doubt that motivation is a dynamic concept and that there is no single, motivational theory that could comprehensively explain all the factors involved (Landy & Becker, 1987). To fill in the gaps in motivation research in second language acquisition and to be in line with the conceptualized principles of dynamic motivation, this current model is grounded on the theoretical framework of Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior from social psychology. With the basis of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior, the current structural model will further gain in strength by adopting Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of implementation intention, and two constructs, the tactics of L2 learning behavior and mastery of L2 learning, from Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) model into second language learning motivation. Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior was adopted because it encompasses not only the significant factors but also the two important dimensions, social norms and behavioral intention, which have not been thoroughly studied in L2 learning motivation. Furthermore, the current model will be elaborated with Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) Implementation Intention, which highlights the psychological processes concerning how learners develop particular plans with respect to goal attainment and can therefore increase the commitment to engaging in a specific behavior, and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and mastery, which are another two powerful factors in a temporal-processed model. The elaborated network will be shown in a diagram which would be better understood on one hand and which would display the causal relationships among variables to interpret a concept and a sequential process on the other. Further, despite the existing measures in L2 motivation research and the adopted TPB model, the measures of two new constructs, social norms and implementation 3.

(20) intention, will be developed and tested under a theoretical framework to see whether they meet the psychometric characteristics in that no validated scales in L2 motivation research are available regarding these two constructs. Finally, the whole structural model will be distinguished with three language learning phases, based on Heckhausen and Gollwitzer’s (1987) Rubicon model. The ultimate goal of this study is to include these two newly explored variables in order to establish a model of L2 learning motivation and then examine the effects of the structure in this model, which is another under-examined area (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005). Motivation in L2 learning not only means to set a goal to learn a second language but also needs to include the effects of social context on individuals and learners’ intention to act on set, learning goals. Previous research has proposed several theories affecting L2 motivation including expectancy values (Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000), achievement motivation (Atkinson & Raynor, 1974), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1993, 1997a, 1997b; Zimmerman, 1989, 1990, 2008), attribution (Weiner, 1992), self-worth (Covington, 1992), goal-setting (Locke & Latham, 1990), goal-orientation (Ames, 1992), self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and social motivation (Weiner, 1994). These theories have particular points to make and can be justified in empirical studies; however, none of them can fully and properly account for the whole motivational process of learning an L2 (Dörnyei, 2001). To be more specific, these theories ignore each other and thus fail to achieve a synthesis (Dörnyei, 2001). More importantly, most of the motivational theories appear to focus narrowly on the antecedents or determinants of learning intention, largely ignoring how the immediate social milieu affects learners’ willingness to continue the learning act and how the individual intention of goal-directed behavior can be shaped, formalized, and implemented. Further, although research on L2 motivation has shed 4.

(21) light on the relevance of these factors in acquiring a second language, this effort has arguably failed to offer a clear, transparent, and full-scope lens through which the mechanism of interpsychological and intrapsychological perspectives in L2 learning motivation can be seen and understood thoroughly and deeply. Subjective norms and behavioral intention are two components in Ajzen’s (1985, 1991) theory of reasoned action (TRA) and theory of planned behavior (TPB). Subjective norms are one of the three determinants of behavioral intention, which has been presumed to be the major predictor of behavior. These two components, however, have not received sufficient attention in the field of L2 learning. The following sections will thus address the importance of social norms and behavioral intention.. Social Norms Social norms are a component adopted from Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior, meaning an individual’s perception of social pressure to perform or not to perform a particular behavior under consideration. Though most L2 motivation research has focused on factors influencing individual differences, these factors have tended to be antecedents of intentional behavior. Among the antecedents, the factor of social context seemed to be downplayed and appeared to be a rather weak predictor. It has been noted that social culture has an impact on human motivation (Bandura, 1986, 1999; Dörnyei, 2001; McGroarty, 1998; Terry, Hogg, & Duck, 1999). Chinese culture, for example, is viewed as collectivist (Triandis, 1987, 1995; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990) in that the relationships between individuals and social groups tend to be stable and profound. People in collectivist cultures often feel positive about accepting social norms and do not even challenge whether or not to accept them. Acceptance of social norms 5.

(22) becomes an unstated assumption in such cultures. Like Chinese culture, various researchers in western cultures view cultural and social contexts as important in formatting students’ learning motivation since students are immersed in a social context through interaction with others (Donato & McCormick, 1994; Lantolf, 1985, 1993; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1985a, 1985b, 1988a, 1988b). Dörnyei (2001), for example, had the similar idea that the traditional emphasis on individualism in motivational psychology is insufficient since humans are social beings and their behavior is often a part of various physical and psychological contexts, which would influence an individual’s cognition, behavior, and achievement. However, few empirical studies on the effects of social context using SEM structural model supported the role of sociocultural values mediating learning achievement cognition and behavior (Dörnyei, 2001). Social norms represent a type of standard that regulates the behavior of group members who are expected to accomplish acceptable tasks (Ajzen, 2005). To extend the study of motivation, it has therefore been argued that social contexts should be taken into account, as should the degree of impact of social contexts in relation to the individual’s learning experience (McGroarty, 1998). The importance of social contexts in second language learning has been evidenced in Chang’s (2010) study on group cohesiveness. The results showed that learners are affected by their class group and that positive relationships among learners motivated them to study, whereas indifferent/stolid relationships de-motivated their learning interest. Social norms are still a fairly new dimension in the field of second language research even though the impact of social norms on human behavior has been studied for decades in the field of social psychology, particularly in Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) and Ajzen’s (1985, 1988, 1991, 2005) theories of reasoned action (TRA) and 6.

(23) planned behavior (TPB). Subjective norms (as Ajzen calls them in the TRA and the TPB) are considered to be one of the determinants of behavioral intention. In language learning, McGroarty (1998) makes clear that researchers should pay more attention to the degree of social factors that might facilitate or hinder the acquisition of L2 proficiency. Thus, one of this study’s objectives is to bridge the gap by conceptualizing social motivation from contemporary theories in social psychology and then developing and validating a new conceptual model in which social norms are a determinant of behavioral intention in L2 learning.. Behavioral Intention Intention, in principle, refers to the formation of a cognitive representation of an action schema (Kuhl and Kraska, 1989). The motivational mechanism underlying intention is “primal, providing the mindfulness qualities and systemic perspectives that should infuse attention” (Shapiro and Schwartz, 2000, p.254). The significance of intention has been neatly pinpointed and theorized in the field of social psychology and particularly underpinned by the study of attitudes. According to models posited by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Ajzen (1991, 2005), intention acts as a mediating role between. intentional. antecedents. and. goal-directed. behavior.. Among. the. intention-behavior relationships, many studies indicated that people had strong intention but failed to put them into action (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998). People are likely to make resolutions in some particular situations, but they will also find problems in translating their goals into action, such as not knowing how to get started, becoming distracted by external forces or having competing temptations. Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) theory of implementation intention then may complement the deficiency of intention in Ajzen’s (1991) TPB model in that the application of implementation 7.

(24) intention highlights the psychological process of formulating intention regarding learning behavior and can therefore increase the commitment to engage in a specific behavior. According to the theory of intentional action control (Gollwitzer, 1993, 1999), implementation intention that concerns the initiation, execution, and termination of actions helps people to overcome the difficulties that can be anticipated as they progress toward their goals. Although L2 motivation researchers (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998; Dörnyei, 2001) have considered the relevance of intention in learning a second language, their effort, arguably, is not sufficient for a clear understanding of the mechanisms of underlying intention. This current study attempted to fill the gap and to design a scale in language learning intention to investigate how implementation intention can predict the effect of the goal-directed behaviors.. Statement of Purpose The main purpose of this study is to adopt and modify the model of Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior and to test the effectiveness of this model in the field of applied linguistics. Ajzen’s TPB model was chosen as the main model because it has been studied extensively in social psychology, but not in education or language learning applications. This implies that there are likely factors remaining to be explored since learning, particularly second language learning, is a long-term process with planned intention and volition. The present study was conducted to fill the gap after Ajzen’s model was strengthened by Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation intention and Tseng and Schmitt’s (2008) self-regulatory capacity and mastery constructs. There were three main purposes in this thesis. First, due to the deficiency of concrete measurements of social norms and behavioral intention, I reviewed the appropriate theoretical considerations and developed structures and content of 8.

(25) possible measurements for these two dimensions in L2 learning. Specifically, drawing on the contemporary theories of subjective norms and intention in social psychology and applied linguistics, the construct for social norms emphasizes respondents’ perceived expectations from their “significant others” regarding their second language learning. As regards intention, I will examine the distinction between goal intention and. implementation. intention,. with. the. former. adopted. from. Gardner’s. socio-educational model and the latter designed based on the relevant literature. Second, a new conceptual L2 learning motivation model in which social norms and intention are presumed to be two influential factors will be developed and tested as these two factors have been under-estimated in previous L2 motivation research. Finally, these two new variables—social norms and behavioral intention—will be examined for their effectiveness in the L2 learning model and for their causal relationships with other relevant motivation variables. Thus, the ultimate goals of this study are not only to design two reliable and valid L2 learning instruments, but also to examine the effects of these two instruments in a newly constructed L2 learning motivation model and to investigate the causal relationships among the relevant motivational variables in L2 learning contexts. Further, learning a second language is a long-term volitional behavior and concerns a sequence of various action formations; thus, the constructs involved in the structural model will be divided into three consecutive causal phases in this study. Each of the motivated actional phases corresponds with different motivation factors during the learning process.. 9.

(26) Research Questions This study will address the following research questions as an attempt to shed light on L2 learning motivation. The first question examines the overall structure and the processes of the current model. The following three explore the explanatory effects of variables investigated in each phase and their contributions to the model. The fifth question investigates the correlated relationships among the three exogenous, latent variables and the last explores the causal effect of social norms, using the newly developed scale, with the emphasis on students’ self-regulatory capacity. [research questions] 1. To what extent can the structure and processes of the constructs explain the model of L2 learners’ motivation? 2. To what extent can the three antecedents—Attitudes toward L2 Learning, Social Norms, and Self-Confidence—contribute to the formation of Goal Intention and Implementation Intention? 3. To what extent can Goal Intention and Implementation Intention lead to the demonstration of Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior? 4. To what extent can Self-Regulatory Capacity and the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior contribute to Mastery of L2 Learning? 5. To what extent can the Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior and Mastery of L2 Learning contribute to Language Achievement? 6.. [sub-question 1] To what extent can Social Norms affect students’ SelfRegulatory Capacity?. 7. [sub-question 2] To what extent can Self-Confidence affect students’ Self-Regulatory Capacity and their Tactics of L2 Learning Behavior? 10.

(27) Contribution of this Study The contribution of this study is threefold. First, since there were no validated scales with a solid theoretical foundation specifically designed to measure social norms and behavioral intention for L2 learners, this study designed and tested two scales using several criteria in order to examine whether the scales meet the psychometric properties. The scale of intention in language learning was divided into two subcategories, goal intention and implementation intention, as the latter was developed particularly to facilitate realizing goals with effective and specified cues. Second, most of the research associated with sociocultural theory was conducted using qualitative methods and was rarely administered with concrete and specific measures. This study intended to explore Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior in second language learning context using a quantitative survey on L2 learning motivation. Third, previous L2 motivation studies generally assessed by using a quantitative approach, nevertheless placed emphases on individual differences. This current study considers the effects of social environment to be indispensable and thus takes into account learners’ complex social milieu and the interaction of individuals’ perception of their L2 learning with their immediate social context. By enlarging the focus of L2 motivation research, this study embodies the constituted factors in causal relationships initiated from the macro social contexts toward the micro individual factors within a model. By and large, the attempts demonstrated in this study correspond with recent calls for reconceptualization in motivation research highlighted by Dörnyei (2001), Firth and Wagner (1997), Fulmer and Frijters (2009), and Volet (2001). In terms of the construction of an L2 learning motivation model, this study is one of the few that deals with motivation research featuring perspectives on both social environment and individual differences with a solid theoretical 11.

(28) framework from Ajzen’s TPB for empirical evidence. Results from this study should be able to inform L2 teachers of ways to operationalize teaching principles, L2 learners on how to plan their studies, and researchers on possible topics for L2 motivation research.. Limitatons of the Study The sampling of the data was drawn on one occasion to investigate the effects of high-school students’ L2 learning motivation in terms of three phases. The nature of the data, thus, posed some limitations: in order to evaluate a processed model from a cohort population, motivational variables that represent different phases were performed at a survey measure. Accordingly, the results reported in this study may not generally represent L2 learners’ outcomes of different learning phases. It is suggested that results of this study, therefore, can be extended and generalized from diverse population such as respondents from individualistic cultural context. Future research should assess the modification of Ajzen’s TPB model proposed in this study and its effects on L2 learning motivation as across various learning phases in a longitudinal study.. The Organization of the Thesis The thesis will be displayed in six chapters. Chapter One opens with a brief introduction of the rationale to this study and presents the conceptual framework of the main constructs. It follows with the statement of purpose, the main research questions and a statement concerning the anticipated contributions of this study. Chapter Two provides an overview of motivational theories that embody both interpersonal and intrapersonal perspectives, followed by a review of five important 12.

(29) model reviews on L2 learning motivation. These are followed by a review of important theories with regard to the concepts of social norms and behavioral intention and a delineation of other factors investigated in this thesis. Chapter Three presents a detailed process for developing the scales of social norms and behavioral intention and an analysis of whether they meet the psychometric characteristics. These are followed by a description of the piloting processes of the other scales. It then presents the reliability results for all the scales. Chapter Four first illustrates the results of the construct validity of the measurement model and the modifications that have been made in terms of theoretical review. It then presents the results of the construct validity of the structural model in terms of several psychometric criteria. Chapter Five is devoted to the discussion of the findings in response to the particular research questions. It also presents pedagogical implications for teachers with respect to the findings of the model. Chapter Six concludes the thesis with a summary of the findings, limitations of the study and directions for future research.. 13.

(30) 14.

(31) CHAPER TWO. LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter starts an overview of motivational theories, moving from Gardner’s classic socio-educational model, to Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory and Bandura’s (1988, 1989a) social cognitive theory, Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior, and finally to the more concretely modeled-construct of Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) process model of motivation. This was followed by with an overview of some empirical L2 motivation models that are pertinent to L2 motivation learning and/or are related to the design of the study reported in this thesis and the interpretation of its results. These are followed by a discussion of two important constructs adopted from Ajzen’s (1991, 2005) theory of planned behavior into the design of an L2 learning motivation model in applied linguistics. The chapter concludes with an overview of the other constructs selected for the design of the model used in the current study.. Introduction The study of motivation in L2 learning was initiated by Gardner and Lambert (1959), who highlighted the importance of aptitude and motivation in language learning. Over 40 years later, Clément and Gardner (in press) noticed that research keenness in the study of aptitude has diminished in recent years; however, researchers’ enthusiasm on learners’ motivation for second language learning is still vivacious. Motivation has been acknowledged to be one of the most influential factors for learners seeking to acquire a second or foreign language (L2). Previous studies have demonstrated a significant relationship between attitudes, motivation, and second language learning (Bell, 2005; Martinez, Aricak & Jewell, 2008; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003; Wang & 15.

(32) Guthrie, 2004), strategy use and language learning outcome (Guthrie et al., 2000; Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2008; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; O’Malley et al., 1985), or L2 learning variables and second language achievement (Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1994; Gardner et al., 1997; Guilloteaux & Dörnyei, 2007; Hiromori, 2009; Tseng & Schmitt, 2008; Wen & Johnson, 1997; Woodrow, 2006). What is motivation? What is the relationship between motivation and second/foreign language learning? What factors have been considered in the research of previous L2 learning models? Are there any other factors that need to be taken into account? Motivation, derived from the Latin root movere, refers to self-directed movement (Pintrich, 2003) and “represents the predominant, intrapersonal dynamic that orients an individual to a particular learning goal” (recited in Fulmer & Frijters, 2009, p. 220). However, this definition focuses more on individual differences of self-directed learning goals, ignoring social impacts on learners’ intention in the process of striving for their achievement. Researchers have discussed the definitions of motivation. Nevertheless, there are fervent controversies with this concept in that it has been grounded on different viewpoints. According to Brown (2001), motivation refers to the determinant of the goals that a person wants to achieve and the amount of effort one exerts to achieve these goals. That is, motivation is an internal drive, stimulating power, wish, or desire. Williams and Burden (1997) define motivation as a state of cognitive and emotional arousal, which leads to a conscious decision of action, and which prompts the physical effort exerted to attain a previously set goal. Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) describe motivation as a state of arousal determining the priority of set goals and the positive or negative feelings further affecting his/her learning. Dörnyei (2001) later argued that motivation generally implies two major components—the direction and magnitude of human behavior. 16.

(33) Grounded on these definitions, most of the motivational research appears to focus on the determinants of learning intention. Intention factor has not been studied much but appears to be a critical step in a long-term process of language learning. In addition, as most of the definition seems to be oriented towards the intrapsychological perspectives, little attention has been devoted to the interpsychological dimension given to the L2 learners. Motivation is a dynamic and a multifaceted construct; thus, it is difficult to reach a consensus with respect to various challenges facing motivational research (Dörnyei, 2001). More recently, researchers appear to account for social influence as a partial determinant of motivation. Therefore, in this thesis, motivation in L2 learning is not only determined by setting a goal to initiate learning a second or foreign language but is also affected by the impact of social contexts on the individual as well as the individual’s intention to act and self-regulatory capacity regarding the fulfillment of his/her set learning goals.. Motivational Theories with Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Constructs In the following section, a selection of theories and constructs referring to interpersonal and intrapersonal factors that affect an individual’s motivation will be presented. They vary in the extent to which they are socially determined and/or a product of individual considerations. Due to space limitation, a few tenets of each theory of motivation will be selected for discussion on the basis of how supportive they are to the relevance of studies associated with the research presented in the thesis.. 17.

(34) Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model The earliest and most influential motivation research in the L2 field came from social psychologists in Canada, Gardner, Lambert and their associates, working on Anglophone Canadians learning French. In their initial study, Gardner and Lambert (1959) found three motivational factors related to their students’ orientation to learning French, including motivation to learn the language, attitudes toward Canadian French, and proficiency in French. In their subsequent research (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), attitudes and motivation were confirmed to be significant factors associated with students’ achievement in second languages. The research further proposed. a. more. complex. pattern. of. relationships.. These. two. social-. psychological-based L2 motivation approaches were later expounded upon by Gardner and his associates (Gardner, 1985, 1988; Tremblay & Gardner, 1995) into the socio-educational model of second language acquisition. This model posits that individual’s motivation to learn an L2 will be affected by social-cultural values, and the impact will lead to different degrees of effort an individual spends on the study of a second language, which will result in further differences in the success of the study. This model was developed more than three decades ago and the main concern of this model is the role of various individual differences of learners associated with their goal-directed, L2 learning approach. In addition, adopted from a social-psychological approach, Gardner and his associates posited that student’s L2 learning motivation is determined by “his attitudes and readiness to identify and by his orientation to the whole process of learning a foreign language” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p. 132). The individual’s attitudes towards the L2 and the L2 community influence his or her motivation to learn the target language. With respect to this approach, L2 learning motivation is attitude-oriented and goal-directed, with a focus on the intrapersonal, 18.

(35) psychological perspectives within inter-group contexts. Gardner’s theory doesn’t seem to place any emphasis on the impact of immediate interpersonal interaction or social environment in L2 learning. Central to this model is the elaboration of the concept “Integrative Motive” which is perhaps the most widely researched. Integrative Motive is defined as a “motivation to learn a second language because of positive feelings toward the community that speaks that language” (Gardner, 1985, p. 82-83). There are three major components embodied in this complicated construct: Integrativeness, referring to individual’s willingness and interest in social interaction with the L2 community; Attitudes towards the Learning Situation, reflecting students’ attitudes toward the L2 teachers and the L2 courses, and Motivation, concerning a learner’s attitudes, aspirations, and effort to learn the target language. Each component is made up of two to three subcomponents (see Figure 2.1 for more details).. Integrative orientation. Interest in foreign languages. Attitudes towards L2 community. Desire to learn the L2. INTEGRATIVESNESS. MOTIVATION ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE LEARNING SITUATION. Evaluation of the L2 teacher. Motivational intensity (effort) Attitudes towards learning the L2. Evaluation of the L2 course. Figure 2.1 Gardner’s conceptualization of integrative motives. 19.

(36) Criticisms of Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model From Figure 2.1, we can see Integrative Motive is composed of three main components: Integrativeness and Attitudes towards the Learning Situation leading to Motivation, which indicate motivation is the resultant of the two components, which then serve as the determinants of the construct Motivation, which itself is composed of three subcomponents. The relationships between the motivational components (integrative motive, integrative orientation, motivation, and motivational intensity) do not demonstrate clear distinctive definitions between them, and these terms thus become confusing and misleading. Likewise, the term “integrative” in Integrative Motive, Integrativeness, Integrative Orientation has by no means clarified anything but misunderstandings (Dörnyei, 1994). In addition to this, the term “attitudes towards learning the L2” is likely to be confused with the latent variable “attitudes towards the learning situation”, with the former an indicator of motivation and the latter a variable of two evaluative, attitude indicators. The distinctions between the terms were difficult to define and it is easy to confuse them (Dörnyei, 2003) Furthermore, in Gardner’s socio-educational model, learning a second language was viewed as a mediating factor of inter-ethnic communication in multicultural settings. This approach may be useful to capture the motivational patterns of whole learning communities, and its findings may infer discussions on intercultural communication, multiculturalism and language globalization (Dörnyei, 2005). However, this macro-perspective of inter-ethnic communication cannot cater to the possible motivational antecedents, i.e. the motivational influence of the actual learning context. In other words, the microcontext of the immediate learning situation, particularly for a large group of EFL learners, who are in a monolingual and monocultural context, will have a strong impact on the learner’s motivation to learn a 20.

(37) second language. Learning a foreign language is a required school subject for most EFL learners, and these learners have very limited opportunities to contact with L2 native speakers. Therefore the macro-perspective of inter-ethnic communication may be less influential to EFL learners. In addition, the term “integrative” motivation concerns L2 learner’s affective disposition toward target community and the desire to identify with L2 group. As discussed above, EFL learners have very limited opportunities to contact with L2 native speakers, let alone immersed in any L2 community environment. Thus, the concept “integrative” motivation may not do justice to EFL learners since they are different from learners in Canadian contexts, immersed in the L2 environment. Accordingly, Gardner and his associates’ macro-perspective of L2 learning motivation may not be appropriate to explain the motives associated with the more intricate learning processes in EFL contexts on one hand, and the motivational scenarios in contexts of factors in actual learning environments on the other. McGroarty (2001) has characterized the situation which has emerged as follows:. Existing research on L2 motivation, like much research in educational psychology, has begun to discover the multiple and mutually influential connections between individuals and their many social contexts, contexts that can play a facilitative, neutral, or inhibitory role with respect to further learning, including L2 learning. (p. 86). Criticism of Gardner’s AMTB As Dörnyei (2005) pointed out, Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) is composed of all the main components of Gardner’s theory of the 21.

(38) Integrative Motive and other additional important components, such as language anxiety and instrumental orientation. The AMTB is a very well-designed instrument and has structure that follows the psychometric principles governing questionnaire theory (Dörnyei, 2005). However, as research (Dörnyei, 1994) has pointed out, the three subcomponents of Motivation (desire to learn the L2, motivational intensity, and attitudes toward learning the L2) overlapped at the items level, and are therefore likely to present high intercorrelations between the scales. The second problematic issue concerns the content statements in operationalizing the “Motivation” subcomponent, in which motivated behavior should be in relation to the consequences of a series of motivation chained behavior. In addition, a subcomponent of “Motivation,” motivation intensity, representing the amount of effort that a learner exerted to their L2 learning, does not target the unobservable mental phenomenon of motivation. The last two problems demonstrate that the AMTB does not only assess motivation, but also the motivated behavior (Dörnyei’s term, 2005), which seems to be reasonably categorized as motivated L2 strategic behavior. With the combination of items concerning the unobservable motivation and the observable behavior, the instrument will then present higher predictive validity. With regard to these three issues mentioned, the AMTB may thus raise problems, such as content validity, high intercorrelation between scales, and artificially high predictive validity of the instrument. Though the discussion of Gardner’s AMTB elicits some item problems, it does not mean to diminish its importance or impact in L2 motivation research because of the “pervasive use of the battery of tests (Attitude/Motivation Test Battery) developed to measure it” (Jacques, 2001, p. 186). On the contrary, the problems raised by the instrument provide us an opportunity to re-theorize the construct of L2 learning motivation, and due attention 22.

(39) should be paid to the distinction between phases in motivation formation and behavioral engagement.. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory Sociocultural theory is based on Vygotsky’s (1978) work, which has gained increasing recognition in education, psychology and other diverse contexts. The power of Vygotsky’s ideas lies in “his interpretation of the dynamic interdependence of social and individual processes” (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p.192). In contrast to social motivation theory, which focuses on external, environmental influence; and expectancy-value, self-efficacy, and attribution theories, which focus on the internal, Vygotsky postulated his framework on the development of the transformation of socially shared activities into individual, internalized processes. In other words, the mental development of the individual accounts for the vast pool of interpersonal activities. Sociocultural theory differs from other theories because it posits that the social environment is the source of, rather than providing a context for, mental development. Vygotsky (1978), in his well-known genetic law of development, highlights the importance of social interaction in children’s learning development:. Every function in the cultural development of the child comes on the stage twice, in two respects; first in the social, later in the psychological, first in relations between people as an interpsychological category, afterwards within the child as an intrapsychological category. … All higher psychological functions are internalized relationships of the social kind, and constitute the social structure of personality. (as cited in Valsiner, 1987, p. 67). 23.

(40) In order to explain the higher psychological functions of individual internalized processes, Vygotsky (1978) developed the concept of the zone of proximal development: with the assistance and guidance of, or collaboration with, more capable others, the novice develops potential through problem solving. Through their participation in social activities, learners develop various functions in ways that nurture and scaffold them (p. 6-7). In other words, Vygotsky (1986) argued that a child’s psychological development cannot be understood by studies of the individuals since humans are social beings (Dörnyei, 2001). The external world, in which their lives are embedded and their knowledge has been constructed through repeated and varied experiences, should be taken into account in the L2 research.. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory Similar to sociocultural theory, social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1999) posits that human learning builds on a causal model of triadic reciprocal causation in terms of personal factors, behavioral patterns, and social environment. The three factors operate as determinants that affect each other bidirectionally. People learn by observing others within the social context. Observers seek a close identification with the model and estimate whether they [observers] have good self-efficacy, which is presumed to function as a determinant of the role of human motivation, affect, and action. Bandura (1988) proposed that learners’ perceived ability to accomplish a task strongly influences their motivational commitment to the learning task. In this respect, the social context provides an environment for the construction of knowledge and competencies in that the social system represents the model and rules for building behavioral patterns. In contrast with sociocultural theory, which considers social contexts as the bases of knowledge construction, social cognitive theory considers the 24.