臺灣高中生英文學習意圖對自我調整能力之影響研究

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 臺灣高中生英文學習意圖對自我調整能力之影響研究. Measuring the Impact of English Learning Intentions on Self-regulatory Capacity for High School Students in Taiwan. 指導教授：曾文鐽博士 Advisor: Dr. Wen-Ta Tseng 研究生：張. 又. 仁. Graduate: Edward, Yu-Jen Chang. 中華民國一零二年七月 July, 2013.

(2) 摘要此論文之主要目的是檢視學習意圖對於學生動機歷程的影響，研究重點為學生的自律能力(self-regulatory capacity)。本研究預期建立一能測量學生英文學習意圖的量表，學習意圖可分成目標意圖和行動意圖兩大類，並依此量表研究學生學習意圖在英語學習中和自律能力的關係。本研究初步先行建立英文學習意圖量表之題庫，並邀請一百一十六位高二學生參與預試。主成分分析和信度分析顯示學習意圖共可分為六個面向。在主要研究的問卷中，包含了修正過的英文學習意圖量表和英文學習自律能力量表，研究對象為四百一十二位高一及高二的學生。研究結果顯示修正後學習意圖量表具有相當的穩定性，多元迴歸分析法印證了學習意圖可正向地預測學生英文學習自律能力，尤以行動意圖為甚。其中互動取向是本研究的新發現，印證了和外國人的互動的機會可對學生自我學習調整有顯著的影響。本研究期望能幫助英語教師釐清目標的建立和關鍵情境(situational cues)的重要性，並且利用機會幫助學生主控其學習表現，最終能達成精熟的目的。. 關鍵字：英文學習意圖、自我調整能力、目標意圖、行動意圖、英文學習動機. i.

(3) ii.

(4) ABSTRACT Researchers have long been interested in what motivates learners to transform thoughts into actions. The intention to learn tends to prevail over other competing motivational variables (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008). Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) were among the first L2 researchers who placed intentions as critical variables in the motivational activities in the Process Model of L2 Motivation. The model offered detailed description of L2 motivational process, but an explanation on the decisive factor to act still remained unsatisfactory. Consequently, the current research intends to borrow Gollwitzer’s (1999) implementation intentions because the construct is believed to complement goal intentions in that it specifies in advance when, where, and how one’s intentions are guided through the process. Furthermore, following the process model, Self-Regulatory Capacity (SRC) stands out for its facilitative nature to help learners adapt and sustain in pursuit of the goal. The current study is designed to distinguish goal intentions and implementation intentions and to measure L2 learning intentions and the effect on the motivational process based on a standard psychometric procedure. Items for measuring goal intentions and implementation intentions in English learning were first developed, and 116 second-year high school students participated in the pilot study. Principal Component Analysis was adopted to explore the underlying traits of the two learning intentions. The result of the pilot study showed that two components for goal intentions and four components for implementation intentions were properly extracted. The questionnaire in the formal study included the revised intentional scales and the Self-Regulatory Capacity in Language Learning Scale constructed by Liu (2008). A total of 412 first-year and second-year high school students were recruited in the formal study. Multiple regression and correlation. iii.

(5) analysis were operated to investigate the predictability of L2 intentions in self-regulatory capacity and the relationships among the variables. The findings suggest that while goal intentions and implementation intentions show an interaction effect with self-regulation, the decisive factor of implementation intentions commands an individual’s self-regulatory capacity. Interactive orientation, the new dimension extracted to highlight the interaction with people from the target language community, holds predictive power over one’s SRC. In addition, implementation intentions can function when based upon goal intentions, which confirmed the result of the previous studies. With the development of the intentional scales and the findings of the multiple regression analysis, it is hoped that EFL teachers can have a clearer view on how to aid the learners to empower their learning performance with goal setting furnished with situational cues.. Key words: goal intentions, implementation intentions, self-regulatory capacity, L2 motivation. iv.

(6) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of the kind people around me. Above all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Wen-ta Tseng, for his intellectual guidance, scholarly inputs and consistent encouragement I received throughout the research work. Professor Tseng has always made himself available to clarify my doubts despite his busy schedules and I consider it as a great opportunity to complete my thesis under his supervision and to learn from his unsurpassed research expertise. I am also very fortunate in having Professor Yuh-show Cheng and Professor Hsing-fu Cheng as my committee members. Their insightful advice and support has been invaluable on both academic and personal levels, for which I am extremely grateful. In addition to the committee members for enlightening me with the research of L2 motivation, I am also grateful for the instruction of critical analysis from the professors of English Department in NTNU. The academic training have equipped me with confidence in dealing with content-related obstacles and broadened my perspective on educational research. I am indebted to my many teachers and classmates who supported me through the process of data collection. I would like to thank Wei-ting Chen, Sharon Huang, Wei-shu Chang, Kerry-Ann Chen, Ivy Wang, Glory Lai, Yi-kuang Lin, and Ya-chien Yang for their prompt reply and unconditional assistance in helping me with collecting pilot and formal data from their students. In addition, I could not complete the tedious practice of questionnaire coding without the help of my sister, Yi-Tzu Chang, and my best friends from high school, Jai Cheng and Amando Hung. The thesis would not have come to a successful completion without the help I received from my best friends, Bob, David, Allen, and Miranda, who lent their support with the preparation for the oral defense. These people have been kind enough to extend their. v.

(7) help at various phases of this research. I will remember the generosity and encouragement they have offered along the way. I owe a lot to my parents, who encouraged and helped me at every stage of my personal and academic life, and longed to see this achievement come true. I would like to dedicate the thesis to my parents for their unequivocal support, for which my mere expression of appreciation does not suffice. This is also for my grandmother, who passed away right after my oral defense, for her encouraging words whenever I need comforts. I will always bear the unreserved love you have given me in mind and transform the love into the driving force to face challenges ahead.. vi.

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chinese Abstract ............................................................................................................i English Abstract ...........................................................................................................iii Acknowledgement......................................................... ................................................v Table of Contents ........................................................................................................vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................ix List of Figures ...............................................................................................................x CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION. Background ................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose of the Present Study...................................................................................... 3 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 4 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 5 Goal Intentions ....................................................................................................... 5 Implementation Intentions ...................................................................................... 5 Self-Regulatory Capacity ....................................................................................... 6 Organization of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Theory of Intentions ................................................................................................... 9 Goal Intentions ....................................................................................................... 9 Goal Intentions in L2 research.............................................................................. 11 Implementation Intentions .................................................................................... 15 Implementation Intentions in L2 research ............................................................ 18 Self-Regulatory Capacities ....................................................................................... 20 Zimmerman’s Social Cognitive Model of Self-Regulation .................................. 21 Winne & Hadwin’s Four-stage Model of Self-Regulated Learning..................... 22 Pintrich’s General Framework of Self-Regulated learning .................................. 24 Self-Regulation in L2 Research ............................................................................ 26 CHAPTER THREE METHOD Participants ............................................................................................................... 30 The Pilot Study ..................................................................................................... 30 The Formal Study ................................................................................................. 31 Instruments ............................................................................................................... 31 Scale of Goal Intentions in Language Learning ................................................... 32 Scale of Implementation Intentions in Language Learning.................................. 32 Scale of Self-Regulatory Capacity in Language Learning ................................... 33 vii.

(9) Procedures ................................................................................................................ 34 Item Analysis ........................................................................................................ 31 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 34 CHAPTER FOUR. RESULTS. The Reliability Test of the Intentional Constructs ................................................... 44 Correlation Analysis ................................................................................................. 47 The Effects of Intentions on Self-Regulatory Capacity ........................................... 48 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Summary of Major Findings .................................................................................... 52 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 53 The Modification of Scale Items .......................................................................... 53 The Conceptualization of Interactive Orientation ................................................ 55 The Effects of Intentions on Self-regulatory Capacities ...................................... 56 The Interplay between Goal Intentions and Implementation Intentions .............. 58 Pedagogical Implications ......................................................................................... 59 Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................... 60 Suggestions for Future Research .............................................................................. 61 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................64 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................75 Appendix A The Item Pool of Goal Intentions (in Chinese)………........................75 Appendix B The Item Pool of Goal Intentions (in English)……….........................76 Appendix C Item Pool of Implementation Intentions (in Chinese)……………......77 Appendix D Item Pool of Implementation Intentions (in English)..........................78 Appendix E Items of Goal Intentions for the Pilot Study in Chinese......................79 Appendix F Items of Goal Intentions for the Pilot Study in English.......................80 Appendix G Items of Implementation Intentions for the Pilot Study in Chinese....82 Appendix H Items of Implementation Intentions for the Pilot Study in English.....83 Appendix I Items of Goal Intentions for the Formal Study in Chinese..................85 Appendix J Items of Goal Intentions for the Formal Study in English...................86 Appendix K Items of Implementation Intentions for the Formal Study in Chinese… ..............................................................................................................87 Appendix L Items of Implementation Intentions for the Formal Study in English… ..............................................................................................................88 Appendix M Items of Self-regulatory Capacity in Chinese.....................................90 Appendix N Items of Self-regulatory Capacity in English......................................91 viii.

(10) LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Pintrich’s General Framework for Self-Regulated Learning………..............24 Table 2 First Rotated Component Matrix for Goal Intentions in the Pilot Study .......35 Table 3 Second Rotated Component Matrix for Goal Intentions in the Pilot Study ...36 Table 4 First Rotated Component Matrix for Implementation Intentions in the Pilot Study .............................................................................................................37 Table 5 Second Rotated Component Matrix for Implementation Intentions in the Pilot Study .............................................................................................................39 Table 6 Summary of Modifications Made from the Pilot Results…………………...40 Table 7 The Internal Consistency Reliability of Subscales in the Pilot Study............41 Table 8 The Internal Consistency of Intentional Subscales in the Formal Study….....45 Table 9 Item-total Statistics of Instrumental Orientation in the Formal Study ...........46 Table 10 Item-total Statistics of Strategic Orientation in the Formal Study................47 Table 11 Correlations Matrix among the Independent Variables and the Correlation Coefficients of Subscales with the Dependent Variable ................................48 Table 12 Results from Hierarchical Multiple Regression: Predicting Self-regulatory Capacities from Goal Intentions and Implementation Intentions……..........49. ix.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior ............................................................10 Figure 2 Dörnyei and Ottó’s Process Model of L2 Motivation……...........................14 Figure 3 Dai and Tseng’s Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Modified Model of L2 Intentions........................................................................................................19 Figure 4 Zimmerman’s Academic Learning Cycle Phases……………………..............22 Figure 5 Winne & Hadwin’s Four-stage Model of Self-regulated Learning................23. x.

(12) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background Researchers from different domains have long been interested in how human beings transform thoughts into actions. The intentions to act or learn tend to prevail over other competing motivational variables (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008). Although there have been quite a few studies on intentions in the field of health science and psychology (Orbell, Hodgkins, & Sheeran 1997; Gollwitzer, Bayer, & McCulloch, 2005), intentions have not received sufficient attention on how goal-directed behaviors can be shaped, formalized, and implemented in language learning. Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) were among the first L2 researchers who placed intentions as critical variables in the motivational activities in the Process Model of L2 Motivation. The process model not only offers adequate synthesis of the past research over time but also explores the thought-to-action process and behaviors in detail. This model divides motivational processes into preactional, actional, and postactional phases, each of which contains action sequence (the behavioral process) and motivational influences (the forces that fuel the behavioral process). During the preactional stage, goals and intentions are the most significant components formed in an individual’s mind. The formulated intentions proceed to the actional phase and the behaviors at this stage are considered to be determined by past experience, the appraisal of the environment, emotions, and the intensity of one’s commitment. These evaluating and monitoring forces have been categorized as the self-regulatory capacity (Liu, 2008; Tseng et al., 2006). The effort of Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) has incorporated behavioral intentions into language learning, but it is still considered insufficient for providing a thorough mechanism of how intention facilitates the 1.

(13) learning experience. Most importantly, there must be an instigation force for an individual to move from action plans to planned actions. The model offered detailed description of L2 motivational process, but a satisfactory explanation on how the instigation force can be understood was still missing. Consequently, the current research intends to borrow Gollwitzer’s (1999) implementation intentions, in the structure of “If situation X happens, I will engage myself with the action Y!” to fully analyze the process of motivation and action initiation/ enactment. According to the theory of intentional action control (Gollwitzer 1993, 1999), the beginning, the execution, and the ending of actions are concerned with implementation intentions, helping people overcome the expected difficulties. Gollwitzer’s theory of implementation intentions (1996, 1999) can complement the process of goal setting in that it specifies in advance when, where, and how one’s intentions are guided through the process. Drawn from contemporary theories of intentions in social psychology, the current study aims to measure L2 learning intentions and the effect on the motivational process based on a standard psychometric procedure. Motivational processes imply the course of initiating, guiding, and sustaining student efforts to self-regulate their learning (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008). Following the process model to proceed to actional phase, one element stands out for its facilitative nature to help learners adapt and sustain in pursuit of the goal accordingly: Self-Regulatory Capacity (SRC). Most self-regulation theories highlight its intrinsic connection with goals (Schunk, 2001). Research on self-regulation has unveiled that good self-regulators set better learning goals, adopt effective learning strategies, manage their goal progress better, establish a more productive environment for learning, seek assistance more often when needed, persist better, adjust strategies better, and approach effective new goals when present ones are completed (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2008, p.1). In order to validate the construct of 2.

(14) self-regulation in L2, Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006) developed the item pool, the Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc) to measure the self-regulatory capacity of Taiwanese students in vocabulary acquisition. Liu (2008) expanded the scope and modified SRCvoc to general L2 learning based on a series of reliable psychometric evaluation to develop the Self-Regulatory Capacity in Language Learning (SRClang) scale. The current research would take on this measurement to assess self-regulation in second language learning. In short, the process model demonstrates that intentions can be transformed into action with commitment and the instigation force, and, for the action to last, self-regulatory capacity matters throughout the L2 motivational process. To further understand the influences of intentions on self-regulation, the current study will adopt the questionnaire items measuring intentions and self-regulatory capacity from Gardner (1985; 2000), Dai and Tseng (2011) and Liu’s (2008) studies and make moderate modifications in the hope of reflecting the up-to-date motivational variables and procedures.. Purpose of the Present Study The current research is concentrated on the activation of intentions and how intentions persist with self-regulatory strategies in L2 learning. More specifically, this study is undertaken in order to understand the intentional control over the self-regulatory capacity in L2 and thus a valid assessment of intentions should be formalized. Two types of complementary and yet distinctive intentions, goal intentions and implementations intention are to be scrutinized and investigated, with the former modified from Gardner’s (2000) Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) and the later designed on the basis of relevant literature. If intentions can be proved to have positive effects on SRC, this process must become a needed tool for future 3.

(15) research and educational purposes. The current research is required to examine the preactioanl elements that influence action implementation in language learning based on the dynamic perspective of motivational process. Although intentions and SRC have received significant attention as crucial factors in motivation-related research, the “preactional-actional” motivation chain has not been sufficiently investigated. To fill the gap, the study will examine motivation as a process and the extent to which goal intentions and implementation intentions can predict self-regulatory capacities in L2. Two research questions are proposed to provide information on the motivational process: 1. To what extent can goal intentions affect the demonstration of self-regulatory capacity for high school students in Taiwan? 2. To what extent can implementation intentions affect the demonstration of self-regulatory capacity for high school students in Taiwan?. Significance of the Study With rising recognition of self-regulatory capacity, the past few decades has witnessed an increase of interests in realizing how to research on the construct and how to integrate the ability with instruction. However, this line of research and practice has not emphasized the causes and the precursors of the ability, especially in the field of second language acquisition. In order to find out if L2 learning intentions weigh to a significant extent on self-regulatory capacity, the present research intends to uncover the explanatory power of goal intentions and implementation intentions respectively. Through such an examination, the study is expected to determine relative importance of the two factors in second language learning and can provide pedagogical implications accordingly. 4.

(16) Definition of Terms Goal Intentions Goal intentions are “goals” in the conventional sense, specifying the general desire to reach an end state of a yearning (Lewin, 1926). The mental representation can be realized in the structure of “I intend to become/ achieve X.” As for its relationship with L2, Gardner’s socio-educational model (1985) provides the foundation as learners are believed to be involved in forming decisions and commitment to meet their goals, which can be further realized as integrative and instrumental orientations. The integrative orientation was made clear by Gardner that second language acquisition involves “ an interest in becoming closer to the group for the purpose of communication and interaction” (Gardner, 2000, p.6), whereas instrumental orientation offers explanation on studying a second language for practical benefits such as getting a promotion at work. The present study follows this two-factor index, which have been tested its validity and adopted in different contexts for the past three decades, to measure goal intentions in second language learning.. Implementation Intentions A strong commitment simply cannot guarantee successful accomplishment of the goals. Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation intentions may complement the psychological process of formulating intentions by specifying the contexts where the action takes place in the structure of “If situation X happens, I will engage myself with the action Y.” Holding an implementation intention commits an individual to perform the specified goal-directed response once the critical situation is encountered. Because forming implementation intentions implies the selection of a critical situation, it is assumed that the mental representation of the situation becomes highly activated and more accessible. Moreover, initiation of the intended response should become 5.

(17) swift and efficient and should no longer require conscious intention once the critical situation is encountered.. Self-regulatory Capacity Theories of self-regulation have been widely discussed in educational psychology and personal health management sine 1980s. Some similarities can be drawn and observed from these different research domains. Educational psychologist Wlodkowski considered self-regulation to be “a process by which learners control their behavior, feelings, and thoughts to attain academic goals” (1999, p.329). Zimmerman offered the definition as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals” (2000, p.14). Pintrich and Schunk regarded self-regulation as “the process whereby students activate and sustain cognitions, behaviors, and affects that are systematically oriented toward attainment of their goals” (2002, p.176). The above definitions generally points to the same direction, as Tseng conceptualized self-regulation as “the self-directed processes by which systematic operations of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are attuned to take control over a chosen action” (2008, p.7). The strategies one implements to monitor their actions in language learning are synthesized by Dörnyei (2001b) and will be the basis of the assessment in the present research.. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized in five chapters. Chapter One outlines the general background of the study. The purpose and the significance of the study are explicated and some major terms are defined and listed for clarifications at the end of the chapter. Chapter Two provides a thorough review of previous studies on intentions and self-regulation. The constructs are discussed from the research field where the 6.

(18) conceptualizations originates and from L2 research domain respectively. Chapter Three is the methodology that the researcher adopts in order to answer the research questions. It includes background information of the participants in the pilot and formal studies, instruments used to measure the psychometric properties, the procedures to validate the data, and the process and tools engaged in data analysis. Chapter Four presents the results of the correlation and regression analysis mostly in well-formulated tables. Chapter Five concludes the entire study with a thorough discussion of the results and provides pedagogical implications. Limitations of the study are acknowledged and possible future research directions are presented based on the limitations.. 7.

(19) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW The past few decades has witnessed a great interest in understanding the mechanism and the relationships between human intentions and behaviors. According to Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Ajzen (1991, 2005), intentions have been regarded as a mediating role between intentional precursors and goal-oriented performances. Forming intentions or setting goals entails committing oneself to reaching desired outcomes or to performing goal-directed behaviors (Gollwitzer, 1999). However, it has been acknowledged that goal setting does not necessarily lead to goal attainment. An individual may hesitate to take actions even with the goals in mind when not knowing how to get started, becoming distracted by external factors, or having competing temptations (Gollwitzer, 1996). To put it differently, in order to achieve one’s goal successfully, it depends on skills in initiating goal-directed behaviors and guiding them towards a successful ending. Kuhl (1984) proposed a number of control strategies that serve the purpose, i.e. emotion control and environment control. However, it was not until Gollwitzer’s (1993, 1999) implementation intentions that research perspectives have been fortified with specificities of critical situations. The conceptualization of implementation intentions is concerned with the initiation, execution, and termination of actions that helps people defeat anticipated difficulties as they advance toward their goals. Moreover, the goal-pursuing process never persists without the ability to monitor, regulate, and control the behavioral and psychological conditions; that is, intentional activities and goal-directed behaviors are considered to be closely related to self-regulation (Pintrich, 2000). In order to understand the intention-regulation relationship, the current research aims to further analyze the intricate nature of L2 learning, and how intentions can be functioned as. 8.

(20) bases to predict and facilitate self-regulation.. Theory of Intentions Intention symbolizes the configuration of a cognitive representation of an action (Kuhl & Kraska, 1989). Gollwitzer (1996, 1999) has distinguished goal intentions and implementation intentions: the former specifies the intention to meet a goal or standard; the latter refers to the intention to perform a plan. The concept of “goal intentions” has much in common with Lewin’s (1926) conceptualization of intentions, specifying desired end states that have not yet been achieved. In other words, goal intentions are “goals” in the conventional sense, often realized as the structure of “I intend to become/ achieve X.” Implementation intentions, on the other hand, are subordinated to goal intentions; they are plans that support goal intentions. In forming implementation intentions, the anticipated situations or conditions are specified only to trigger a certain goal-directed response in the structure of “When (if) situation Y arises, (then) I will perform response Z,” often called if-then plans. The if-component reveals the time and the place in which an individual intend to perform the goal-oriented activity; the then-component, in contrast, involves the means of goal-pursuing. Thus, Gollwitzer’s theory of implementation intention (1993,1999) can complement goal intention in that it indicates the process of behavior that helps overcome the limitations that can be foreseen during goal-pursuing (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008).. Goal Intentions Goal intentions specify an end point of a desired performance or an outcome (Gollwitzer, 1999). In social psychology, Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA), which is concerned with goal intentions, hypothesized that an 9.

(21) individual’s intention to perform goal-directed behavior is guided by the attitudes toward the behavior and by subjective norms. Nevertheless, the model has been criticized for assuming that individuals had total volitional control, i.e. being permanently rational throughout the whole process, and for ignoring the spontaneous or habitual nature of behaviors (Conner & Armitage, 1998). In response to the criticism, Ajzen (1991) revised the model by complementing it with an additional variable, the perceived behavioral control (PBC). PBC was related to the self-assessment of an individual’s own abilities to deal with prospective situations, compatible with Bandura’s (1982) notion of self-efficacy. The model, known as theory of planned behavior (TPB), contended that intention would predict goal attainment only when it is under total volitional control. Although Ajzen’s models have been successful in examining social behaviors, Sutton (1998) found the predictive power of intentions and the perceived behavioral control to be rather low (19~38 % of the variance) through nine meta-analyses regarding the models. The findings prompted supplementary research to fully address the structure of intentions.. Figure 1. Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior Goal intentions are viewed as decisions that transform a desire into a goal, and these decisions are attended by senses of determination or of obligation to conform the desire (Gollwitzer, 1996). In Gollwitzer’s (1996) Model of Action Phases, the pre-decisional phase, in which an individual selects from competing wishes and. 10.

(22) desires, culminates with the decision of a particular goal, termed as goal intention. Theoretically significant as it is to pursuing a goal or performing a behavior, correlational surveys that measured participants’ goal intentions at one time-point and behavioral outcomes at a later time-point seem to confirm the predictive validity of goal intentions. Sheeran (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of goal intention research and found that goal intentions accounted for 28% of the variance in behaviors across 422 studies, proving them to hold a fair explanatory power. Goal intentions are thus endorsed to be predictors of behaviors and entail a form of motivation. Goal setting has been advocated as a good strategy for enacting wishes and fulfilling requirements in psychological and motivational theories. Yet, in reality, even highly motivated people often find it challenging to convert their goals into action (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2008). Sheeran’s (2002) review of health behavior found that people translated their intentions into action only 53% of the time. Furthermore, in Webb and Sheeran’s (2006) meta-analysis of the overall impact of intentions on subsequent behavior change in experiments, the integration of the 47 tests demonstrated that a medium-to-large sized change in intention indicated only a small-to-medium change in subsequent behavior. It was thus suggested that “interventions should aim not only to identify more effective methods of changing intentions but also to facilitate the translation of intentions into action” (Webb & Sheeran, 2006, p.263). These studies specified that forming even strong goal intentions could affect goal attainment to a certain extent but did not necessarily guarantee achievement. There should be other complementary factors that can fully address to the motivational process.. Goal Intentions in L2 research Although behavioral intentions have been measured and discussed extensively in 11.

(23) an attempt to predict the subsequent behavior in (social) psychology, L2 research has not put forth sufficient discussion of this dimension to enlighten the process of intentional activities. Gardner and Lambert (1959) initiated the earliest and the most significant exploration on intentions and motivation in the L2 field. The coexistence of Anglophone and Francophone communities in Canada offered great advantages for the researchers to scrutinize language learners’ motivation, attitudes, and proficiency. With the efforts of several decades from Gardner and his associates, the influential socio-educational model and the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985) of second language acquisition were hence generated. Through many adaptations, AMTB has been well-acknowledged as reaching a high level of internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and a considerable number of studies employing the measure have also proved the correlation between these attitudinal and motivational variables and language achievements (Gardner, 2000). Gardner’s socio-educational model and AMTB (1985) were one of the earliest and the most significant work to be concerned with L2 learning goals. Gardner's motivation constructs have often been acknowledged as the interplay of two components, integrative and instrumental motivations. The former implies a positive proclivity toward the L2 group and the aspiration to interact with and even become akin to the esteemed members of that community. The latter is concerned with the practical assets of achieving L2 proficiency, such as getting a better job or a higher salary. As a matter of fact, L2 intentions were not explicitly associated with integrative and instrumental orientations, but learners in the model were believed to be forming goal intentions. That is, learners were regarded as involving in decision-making and forming commitment to the target of language proficiency. Thus, the scale of measuring goal intentions in the current study has been generated from AMTB, with some modifications made to meet the learning intentions in current EFL 12.

(24) contexts. In addition to the enlightenment of L2 goal intentions from Gardner’s (1985, 2000) theory, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) synthesized different lines of motivational frameworks and theorize the dynamic and evolving nature of goal-directed behavior to propose a motivation construct featuring temporal axis. This Process Model of L2 Motivation demonstrated how intentions are transformed into action and led to outcome in L2 learning over time, which includes Action Sequences and Motivational Influences. Action Sequences engages a series of chained behaviors that initiate goal-setting, sustain action, and appraise the outcome, whereas Motivational Influences associate the motivational sources with the actions. Taken from Heckhausen and Kuhl’s (1985) and Heckhausen’s (1991) Action Control Theory, the process model aims to provide three phases of motivated behaviors containing different motives throughout the process of L2 learning: Preactional, Actional, and Postactional phases.. Preactional phase This stage consists of three subphases: goal setting, intention formation, and the initiation of intention enactment. Establishing a goal represents the transformation of wishes, desires, and opportunities to commitment. However, adding commitment to a goal is not sufficient for an individual to embark on an action if it is not translated into concrete steps of a plan. Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) argued that the states from intention formation to intention enactment were concerned with the availability of the necessary means and resources and the start condition, which has been specified by the action plan. If the goals are relevant, specific, and proximal for an individual, it is more likely for the plans to be implemented (Schunk, 2001). Besides, the action would be launched if the necessary means and resources are made available in this 13.

(25) phase.. Figure 2. Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) Process Model of L2 Motivation Actional phase Following Heckhausen (1991), action enactment symbolizes the most important component to cross the “Rubicon”: the metaphorical boundary that one needs to pass to put commitment into implementation. That is, “choice motivation” is replaced by “executive motivation” in this phase (Dörnyei, 2005). Based on the action plans. 14.

(26) induced at the preactional phase, an individual undergoes subtask generation, environment and stimuli evaluation, and the process of action control/ self-regulation to protect concentration and direct efforts to the final goal.. Postactional phase Right after an individual achieved the goal or an action has ended, he or she compares the initial expectancies or anticipated progresses to reality and forms causal attributions to evaluate the efficiency of the plan in this phase. The individual can amend the implemented strategies and structure adequate standards for further actions. Dörnyei and Ottó’s process model has regarded intentions as a critical element in L2 motivation. In addition, the model highlights the link between intentions and action control/ self-regulation. However, it is still considered unsatisfactory in outlining specific cues to cross the “Rubicon” of action. In other words, although the process model provided comprehensive summary of motivational influences and sources in time, the specified, situational cues facilitating learners to switch the desire into the actual implementation of action plans remained unresolved in the model.. Implementation Intentions In explaining how a planned conduct to be performed, both TRA and TPB models are considered weak in predicting behaviors. Regardless of the intensity of goal intentions, learners could still be hesitant to take actions. That is, a strong volitional control or motivation does not always guarantee the success of individuals’ goal. In contrast with the common notion that goal setting is a sufficient condition for the goal accomplishment, an extensive body of research showed that many goals are never essentially converted into practice (Sheeran, Webb, & Gollwitzer, 2005). 15.

(27) Gollwitzer (1996, 1999) concluded that goals could often only be attained when goal pursuit was supported by strategies of planning. Two types of intentions are thus distinguished: goal intentions and implementation intentions. Forming an implementation intention engages the conscious selection of a critical situation or stimulus in the if-part of the intention, and the mental representation of this situation is believed to be highly activated and thus easily accessible (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer, Bayer, & McCulloch, 2005). Such acts can take the form of making plans that specify when, where, and how a goal-directed response can be implemented. The critical situation is hence easier to be detected and attended to with this cognitive accessibility, even when surrounded by other distracters. Achtziger and Gollwitzer (2008) described a classic study on the cognitive accessibility of situations in which implementation intentions was centered on a dichotic listening experiment. The participants were presented with words to both ears simultaneously via headphones and were instructed to repeat the words presented on one channel and to ignore the words heard from the other channel. Attention was thus assumed to be focused on one channel. The experiment results demonstrated that when efforts were made to direct attention to the shadowing task, critical words attracted attention even when they were heard from the unattended channel. The same effect was not observed either in a group of participants who had only formulated a goal intention or in a group who had not formulated any intentions at all on how to approach the task at hand. This finding indicated that the critical situations specified in implementation intentions were unlikely to escape people’s attention, even when participants were occupied with other things. Moreover, implementation intentions simultaneously facilitate recall of the critical situation in terms of how, where, and when the goal-directed behavior is to be enacted. Gollwitzer and Brandstӓtter (1997) conducted an experiment that required 16.

(28) participants to finish a written report about Christmas Eve during Christmas vacation. Students were asked to complete the task no later than 48 hours after the event. As expected, students who had formed a corresponding implementation intention were significantly more likely to write a report within the allotted time than students who had only formed a goal intention. In this study, 71% of the implementation intention participants completed the assignment Consequently, compared to the formation of goal intentions on its own, implementation intentions increase the possibilities of goal-attainment and, during the motivational process, help accomplish goal intentions (Gollwitzer, Fujita, & Oettingen, 2004). The processes of implementing intentions demonstrate that the manageable cues will facilitate individuals to associate the situations with efficient acts. Previous studies demonstrated the case participants with implementation plans acted rapidly and effectively to situational cues (Gollwitzer & Brandstӓtter,1997) and required minimum amount of cognitive demands (Lengfelder & Gollwitzer, 2001). However, implementation intentions do not work when the respective goal intention is weak. Orbell et al. (1997) reported that the beneficial effects of implementation intentions on compliance in performing a breast examination were observed only in those women who strongly intended to perform breast self-examination (i.e., possessed a strong goal commitment). Similarly, based on TPB model (Ajzen, 1991) and its variables, Sheeran et al. (2005) measured students’ perspectives and intentions on an independent study. The researchers conducted simple slope analysis only to find that when participants had weak goal intentions, implementation intentions had no effect on behavioral performance. In other words, implementation intentions may promote goal achievement only when if-then plans can be fortified by strong goal intentions. The strength of commitment to goal intentions and the activation of the goal intentions have proved to be significant 17.

(29) moderators of performance effects. Thus, it is believed that these two distinctive yet connected intention constructs have been verified to have solid stances in the development of motivation respectively.. Implementation Intentions in L2 research In the process model (Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998), goal-setting in the beginning would not necessarily be followed by immediate action implementation. An individual needs to transform potential goal intentions into concrete implementable plans in order to remove competing temptation, difficulties and laziness in the actional phase (Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2008). The situational cues are considered to be the instigation force for an individual to move from intention initiation to intention enactment in L2 learning. In order to further develop a scale to measure learners’ L2 intentions, Dai and Tseng (2011) proposed a conceptual construct specifying the components of implementation intentions. Grounded on the definition of Gollwitzer (1999), implementation intentions in language learning enumerated when, where, and how learners execute L2 learning intentions (categorized as situational, strategic, and content orientations), as shown in figure 3. Along with integrative and instrumental orientations for measuring goal intentions, the results of the psychometric assessment indicated that the three indicators of implementation intentions generally loaded strongly, suggesting the conceptual construct has a critical role in L2 motivation research. In addition, the correlation between the two types of intentions (r =.84) supported previous literature, such as Sheeran et al. (2005), that intentions consisted of two distinct but correlated components. However, an additional path from goal intention to content orientation was found in the study. The researchers contended that this additional path implied the unexplored variable of implementation and advocated a multidimentional measurement. Regardless of the unexpected finding, this study 18.

(30) still remains significant in its demonstration of the intentional indicators.. .30. .20. Situational Orientation. .84 .89. Strategic Orientation. Implementation Intention. .38 .32. Content Orientation. .84 .48. .26. Integrative Orientation. .83 Goal Intention. .53 .74. Instrumental Orientation. Figure 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Modified Model of L2 Intentions (Dai & Tseng, 2011). In Dai and Tseng (2011), integrative orientation loaded more strongly than instrumental orientation only to support Gardner’s claim (1985) that integrative orientation is more critical in L2 learning. The desire to interact with native speakers and become closer to the target language community stood out as a significant indicator for the motivational process. Similarly, Hernández (2010) discovered a positive relationship between students’ integrative orientation and their interaction with L2 culture (r = .675, β = .667). In addition, interaction motivation was proposed in Cullhane’s inter-class exchange programme (Cullhane & Umeda, 2004), concerning with learner’s focus on integrating into L2 cultural context during intercultural interactions and with stronger interest in integrative aspects of SLA. 19.

(31) Students who are interactively-motivated are considered more likely to make efforts to establish friendships based on use of the target language and to show less concern of networking with people who are from the target cultural groups. These results not only provide better explanation for integrative orientation but also complement the intentional structures as a whole. Despite its contribution to enlighten L2 learning intentions, Dai and Tseng’s (2011) study was centered on confirmatory factor analysis of L2 intentions to validate the proposed model. The research design did not capture other possible dimensions that L2 intentions can address to. Moreover, the subscales have not yet been expanded to fit in a holistical motivational process. Consequently, based on the categorization of intentions, the current study aims to examine intentions through explanatory factor analysis to seek the underlying patterns and bring intentions and learners’ self-regulatory capacity together with an attempt to realize how thoughts can be transformed into capabilities to act and persist.. Self-Regulatory Capacity Self-regulatory capacity represents the ability that one directs himself volitionally to systematically control thoughts, feelings and behaviors in pursuit of personal goals (Zimmerman, 2000, p.14). Self-regulation theories on learning emerged in the mid-1980s so as to understand how students self-direct the learning process through which learners display personal initiatives, perseverance, and adaptive skills. Many self-regulated learning models have been proposed ever since and, as Boekaerts (1999) stated, the models enable researchers to demonstrate the assorted factors involved in successful learning, to display the reciprocal and recurrent relationships between these self-regulatory components, and to directly associate learning with the goals, motivation, will, and emotions. Three models related to 20.

(32) learning are to be reviewed in this section.. Zimmerman’s Social Cognitive Model of Self-Regulation Grounded on Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, Zimmerman (1989, 1998, 2000) regarded self-regulation as a recurring process in the field of educational psychology. Self-regulated learners constantly self-monitor the plans they implement and make immediate modifications whenever necessary in order to achieve their goals. This model comprises three cyclical elements: forethought, performance or volitional control, and self-reflection. The forethought phase represents the practices such as task analysis (e.g. goal setting and strategic planning) and self-motivation beliefs (e.g. self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and intrinsic motivation) that precede and prepare action implementation. The performance or volitional control phase contains self-control (e.g. self-instruction, attention focusing, and task strategies) and self-monitoring. Volitional theorists (Kuhl, 1985; Heckhausen, 1991; Corno, 1993) cannot overemphasize the importance of action and attention control, especially when learners try to keep themselves from distractions and to excel other competitors. As for self-monitoring, it may seem to be a facilitative power in self-regulation but overanalyzing oneself may impede the implementation of strategies (Winne, 1995). The self-reflection phase incorporates self judgment (e.g. self-evaluation) and self-reaction (self-perceptions of the performance). This process helps learners gain experiences from mistakes and modify the performance (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1992). There has been consensus that cognitive and metacognitive aspects, including knowledge about oneself and about the task, are important in the forethought process whereas monitoring in volitional process and evaluation in self-reflection are significant (Zimmerman, 1998; Hofer, Yu & Pintrich, 1998). The cyclical phases move along as the elements of the preceding stage have a 21.

(33) great impact on the following stage, as observed in Figure 4. The self-regulatory process prepares learners to present and future action enactment in an effort to master certain subject or performance. Empirical studies have been conducted to validate the model and test learners’ use of self-regulatory strategies. A general conclusion can be drawn from the studies: learners’ self-regulatory self-efficacy holds strong predictive power over their confidence in academic achievement (Puustinen & Pulkkinen, 2001, p.279).. Performance or Volitional Control. Forethought. Self-reflection. Figure 4. Academic Learning Cycle Phases by Zimmerman (1989). Winne and Hadwin’s Four-stage Model of Self-Regulated Learning As Steffens (2006) stated, a large amount of the contemporary research on self-regulated learning contributes to enhancing the original Zimmerman model. Winne and Hadwin (1998), for example, proposed a model of self-regulated learning which distinguishes four stages: (1) defining the task, (2) goal setting and planning, (3) enacting study tactics and strategies, and (4) metacognitively adapting studying for the future. The model has been based on the cyclical conceptualization and enhanced the process with solid variables. The first stage of the model involves the multifaceted and personalized perceptions of the task as well as experience of previous tasks of similar kind (Winne & Perry, 2000; Butler & Winne, 1995; Winne, 1997). These 22.

(34) perceptions comprise task conditions (referring to social context and time), instructional cues/ cognitive conditions including learning strategies, task knowledge, and motivational factors. Next stage is concerned with goal setting and planning, supported by information from past experience. The third stage, enacting, takes on tactics and strategies recognized in stage 2. Lastly, learners reflect upon the strategies they have adopted and make adaptations for a better outcome. The central essence of this model lies in metacognitive monitoring in which learners constantly produce internal feedback to detect the divergence between effects and criteria at each stage. The feedback further guides learners to adjust strategies and this ability reveals how learners self-regulate in the learning process.. Figure 5. Winne & Hadwin’s (1998) Four-stage Model of Self-regulated Learning 23.

(35) Pintrich’s General Framework of Self-Regulated learning The framework demonstrates self-regulated learning can be broken into four phases: planning and goal setting, monitoring, control and regulation, and reflection. Learners are regarded as constructive agent in the learning process, and all learners are potentially believed to possess the ability to monitor, control, and regulate the internal, behavioral, and external constructs. Pintrich (2000) claimed that self-regulated learners display positive self-efficacy beliefs and better management of time and effort. Table 1 Pintrich’s (2000) General Framework for Self-Regulated Learning Areas for Regulation Phases Cognition. Motivation/ Affect. Behavior. Context. Planning &. Target goal setting, Goal orientation,. Planning of time,. Perceptions of. Goal Setting. knowledge. efficacy judgments,. effort,. task, context. activation. task value, interest. self-observation. Metacognition. Awareness of. Awareness of. Monitoring. awareness. motivation, affect. effort, time use,. changing task,. need for help. context. Monitoring. Control &. Selection of. Selection of. Increase/. Change task,. Regulation. cognitive. strategies for. decrease effort. context. strategies. motivation, affect. Reaction/. Cognitive. Affective reactions. Choice behavior. Evaluation of task,. Reflection. judgments. context. Pintrich (2000) synthesized various self-regulation models and postulated a. 24.

(36) general working definition for self-regulated learning: “an active, constructive process whereby learners set goals for their learning and then attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cognition, motivation, and behavior, guided and constrained by their goals and the contextual features in the environment (p. 453).” All the above models view learners as active and constructive agents who possess capabilities to monitor aspects of their own cognition and behavior in the learning process. Most importantly, the models of self-regulation demonstrated how comparisons are made to assess whether modifications should be adopted during the process (Pintrich, 2000). These basic assumptions should be served as a heuristic point to facilitate the current study to organize L2 self-regulation. Various types of assessment tools have been developed in the investigation of self-regulation, such as self-report questionnaires (Weinstein, Schulte, & Palmer, 1987), interviews (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986), think-aloud protocols (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995), and observations (Turner, 1995), etc. Among the assessment tools, one particular scale, Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991), has been solidly constructed for self-regulation and motivation related research to “assess college students’ motivational orientations and their use of different learning strategies for a college course” (p. 3). Items are simple declarations and conditional relations using a 7-point Likert scale anchored by not all true of me (1) and very true of me (7). The item pool is composed of motivation (subdivided into expectancy, value, and affect) and learning strategies (cognitive, metacognitive, and resource management), 81 items in total. A sample of 356 university students and 24 community college students were recruited in the development of the inventory. Alpha internal consistency coefficients for subscales range from .52 to .92. It is concluded that “overall, the models show sound structures, and one can reasonably claim factor 25.

(37) validity” (Pintrich et al., 1991, p.80).. Self-Regulation in L2 Research Although there has been abundant research on self-regulation in educational psychology, few studies have intended to evaluate self-regulation in second language learning. Lin (2003) has attempted to validate his Self Regulatory Academic Learning Strategies Survey on three distinctive subject matters (Chinese, English, and math) to understand Taiwanese (vocational) high school students’ usage of strategies and the process of self-regulation, yet the nature of the study lay mainly in counseling psychology and it did not consolidate the research on language learning theories. Besides, in Lin’s study, the researcher did not differentiate senior high school students and vocational high school students, which might reduce the explanatory power of the statistics in that these two groups have distinguished learning goals. In order to monitor and measure an individual’s self-regulatory capacity in L2 learning, Dörnyei (2001b) developed a classification of self-regulatory strategies from the area of educational psychology, based on Kuhl’s (1987) and Corno and Kanfer’s (1993) taxonomies of action control strategies, to scrutinize an individual’s language learning behavior. Self-regulatory strategies were formulated as following five subscales: 1. Commitment control, interpreted as one’s intentional techniques to help persist to or enhance individuals’ devotion to the goal. One can approach the tactics by means of envisioning the successful outcome or the negative consequences of discarding the goal. 2. Metacognitive control, which is executed to uphold concentration and to prevent procrastination by reminding oneself to focus and visualizing the harmful results of a lack of attention. Individuals are also vigilant of the deadline, purposefully ignore distractions and restrict counterproductive procrastinations, and develop 26.

(38) defensive routines. 3. Satiation control, which prevents the tasks from boredom and adjoin extra spices and attractions by making the tasks more fun or challenging. 4. Emotion control, which deters meddlesome states of mind and generates positive emotions pertaining to the pursuit of the goal. Individuals plan to deal with pressure and anxiety and benefits from self-encouragement and relaxation. 5. Environmental control, which represents the elimination of interfering sources and temptations and promotes the supportive atmosphere in the surroundings. Founded on the above sorting, Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006) offered a self-report instrument named “Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc),” whose items were composed of general declarations or conditional relations. With a series of elaborate statistical analyses using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis, the proposed instrument has satisfactory psychometric properties and that the hypothesized theoretical model had a good fit with the data. The five subscales: Commitment Control, Metacognitive Control, Satiation Control, Emotion Control, and Environment Control were thus confirmed to be legitimately representative for measuring self-regulatory capacity (confirmatory factor loadings from .69 to .88). SRCvoc was further integrated into developing a structural model that explains vocabulary knowledge and the process of motivation by Tseng and Schmitt (2008). In line with the process model of motivation, self-regulating capacity served as sustaining and realizing the initial motivation in the actional phase. Self-regulating capacity was hypothesized to be a mediating role between learners’ intention to learn and further learning behaviors. The model indicated that learners’ self-regulation could directly influence the involvement of vocabulary learning (direct effect = .48), which proved that the system was the successful functioning of metacognitive regulation and involvement in L2 vocabulary learning. 27.

(39) With the high reliability and validity of SRCvoc, it could be assumed that the scale can be viewed as “a heuristic point of departure in the (L2 research) realm” (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 95) and be expanded to investigate other language learning spheres rather than vocabulary acquisition alone. Based on the structure, Liu (2008) modified SRCvoc and developed an item pool for the self-regulatory capacity in language learning scale (SRClang) to expand the scope of understanding self-regulation to general language learning contexts. Factor analysis was adopted to explore the underlying traits of self-regulation in English learning. The findings suggested that the underlying construct of self-regulation in English learning is unidimensional. Although the results from Liu (2008) demonstrated that self-regulatory capacity can positively predict learners’ use of learning strategies and self-perceived language proficiency, the study did not emphasize the precursors of SRC. To truly understand the motivational process, researchers must address factors that affect L2 learning in general (Tseng & Schmitt, 2008). Accordingly, further research is required to examine the preactioanl elements that influence action enactment in language learning. Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) process model stands out as the basic structure of this study since it encompasses theoretical views by analyzing goal setting and self-regulation within a single theoretical framework for second language acquisition. The dynamic perspective of motivation is particularly relevant to language learning, as learners have to study over an extended period of time. The model extends from the awakening of a person’s wishes and their setting a goal, through the self-regulatory processes necessary for successful action initiation, to the evaluative thoughts people have once goal striving has led to some outcome. It is this process model that deals most clearly and explicitly with the sequence of second language learning intentions and the cognitive processes involved in transforming what people want to do into 28.

(40) what they do actually do. More specifically, the study will examine motivation as a process and investigate the extent to which goal intentions and implementation intentions can predict self-regulatory capacity in L2.. 29.

(41) CHAPTER THREE METHOD The current research intends to measure the causal link between L2 learning intentions and self-regulatory capacity. Consequently, the researcher initiated a research design that adopted and modified the item pool for each subscale from Gardner (1985), Dai and Tseng (2011) and Liu (2008) in the following steps: preparing a first version of the instrument; piloting this version; based on the pilot results designing the final version; and finally administering the instrument to a sample of language learners to validate it. In order to measure students’ L2 learning intention and its influence on self-regulatory capacity, a two –phase study was designed to examine the interaction among variables. A pilot survey was conducted to validate the modified items questionnaire and corroborate the theoretical constructs of L2 intentions. The researcher intended to investigate whether the items of learning intentions could be categorized into five subscales as proposed in the previous research. Each item was treated as a variable, and factor analysis was done through subjecting the variables to Principal Component Analysis. In addition, reliability test was implemented to ensure consistency within the subscales. Subsequently, based on the valid and reliable data, a formal questionnaire was carried out and the collected data received multiple regression analysis to identify the factors that best predict self-regulatory capacity.. Participants The Pilot Study The pilot study was conducted to finalize the intention inventory. The pilot study involved 116 Taiwanese senior high school students in Taichung. Judging from the. 30.

(42) rank status of the school and their overall scores of the entrance exam, participants were of intermediate level. They were recruited from three intact classes, with two classes majoring in natural science and one in social science. Participants were all from the second semester of their sophomore year in high school.. The Formal Study A total of 412 students participated in the formal study. The researcher recruited a bigger sample when considering the completion rate of the questionnaire and the sampling errors. Excluding the incomplete accomplishment of the data, there were 405 participants, including 162 males and 243 females, from 10 intact classes of four public high schools in central Taiwan. English was a compulsory subject for all the participants. Among the participants who had completed the items, 126 of them were in the first year of senior high school and 279 of them were the second graders. The participants have been learning English as a foreign language at school for minimally five years since students in Taiwan are required to take English as a compulsory subject starting from the fifth grade in elementary school. The subjects were asked to complete a questionnaire which was designed to elicit information concerning their goal intentions, implementation intentions, and self-regulatory capacity. The participants were given clear instruction and sufficient time from the researcher to answer the questions in an appropriate manner, and they were assured that the results would be confidential and would not affect their grades.. Instruments In order to confirm the psychometric properties of the scales, three sections of items were presented to collect information on learners’ learning intentions and self-regulatory capacity. The categorized item pools were demonstrated in Appendix 31.

(43) A, B, C, and D.. Scale of Goal Intentions in Language Learning The measurement of goal intentions was adopted from the Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985), consisting of integrative and instrumental orientations. Along with the mental representation (“I intend to become/achieve X”) proposed by Gollwitzer (1996, 1999), the questionnaire items were phrased as “I intend to learn English because…” and “My goal in learning English is to…” to further analyze goal intentions in language learning. AMTB has been regarded as a well-designed instrument and as having the structure that follows the psychometric principles governing questionnaire theory (Dörnyei, 2005). Items were arranged and modified to suit the L2 learning context in Taiwan.. Scale of Implementation Intentions in Language Learning On the other hand, consistent with the definition of implementation intention, the researcher specified when, where, and how learners exert intentions in the questionnaire items of language learning. The when and where components were merged as one situational orientation for its context-oriented character in task completion (“If there are many other things to do, I still try to spare time to learn English”), whereas the how elements were identified as strategic orientation for its tactical nature in dealing with language learning tasks and creating personal efficient means (“When studying English, I know how to use appropriate learning techniques”). In the current study, the what aspect was added to elaborate on the decision-making process for improving the proficiency level (“If there are some chances to meet English speakers, I will try to think of some topics to talk with them to improve my oral skills”) as content orientation. Most of the items were adopted from Dai and 32.

(44) Tseng (2011). As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, the research design of Dai and Tseng (2011) did not fully enumerate the intentional dimensions through confirmatory factor analysis. To find out possible unexplored variables in the motivational process, the collected pilot data would receive explanatory factor analysis. The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors 1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree.. Scale of Self-Regulatory Capacity in Language Learning As for the measurement of self-regulatory capacity, the questionnaire contained items from five aspects: Commitment Control (“When studying English, I can effectively solve the problems I encounter”), Metacognitive Control (“When learning English, I think my methods of controlling concentration are helpful”), Satiation Control (“Once the novelty of learning English is gone, I easily become impatient”), Emotional Control (“When I feel stressed, I know how to handle it.”), and Environmental Control (“When learning English, I know how to set up an environment that can best facilitate my learning.”). There were total 18 items: 5 for Commitment Control, 4 for Emotional Control, 4 for Metacognitive Control, 2 for Satiation Control, 3 for Environmental Control, as shown in the Appendix N. The items were rated for agreement on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors 1: strongly disagree and 6: strongly agree. The SRClang scale was properly developed by Liu (2008) based on Tseng, Dörnyei, and Schmitt (2006) via Principal Axis Factoring only to find that the descriptors in the scale answered to one latent variable. It was hence suggested that self-regulation is unidimensional. This measure aims to measure the underlying capacity to regulate the learning behaviors. Self-regulating capacity would be conceptualized more like aptitude than as a series of discrete events (Winne & Perry, 2000). A total score of self-regulatory capacity would be obtained as the sole 33.

(45) dependent variable. The reliability for SRClang scale was reported to be .93 for the pilot and the formal study, which can be regarded as internally consistent construct for further investigation.. Procedures Before the formal study was done, the pilot version of the modified questionnaire should be tested. In the pilot study, goal intentions, composed of integrative orientation and instrumental orientation proposed by Gardner (1985) and combined with the structure of Gollwitzer (1999), was approached through 16 items, 7 items for integrative and 9 for instrumental. As for implementation intentions, 6 items for content orientation, 7 items for situational orientation, and 7 items for strategic orientation were adopted based on Dai and Tseng (2011). Self-regulatory capacity was measured by implementing Liu’s (2008) scale, for which self-regulation was realized as one single psychometric trait with high internal consistency (α = .93). The participants received the Chinese version of the questionnaire and were told that there was no time limit in completing it; they were also encouraged to report the items which were worded inappropriately.. Item Analysis After the data were gathered, two kinds of item analysis were conducted: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and reliability analysis. With regard to the PCA, items were grouped in different subgroups and, having high within-correlations, considered to represent the same dimension (Tacq, 1997). For the measurement of goal intentions, four components were extracted at first. The items were grouped based on the loadings. Item 14 (designed as instrumental orientation) were deleted because this item switched its component during the 34.

(46) analysis, as observed in the first column in Table 2. For item 1, 3, 8, and 13, cross-loadings were discovered among components, which could be regarded as unsuitable for further survey.. Table 2 First Rotated Component Matrix for Goal Intentions in the Pilot Study Component Integrative. Instrumental. Unknown. Unknown. G15. .875. .095. .032. .151. G10. .828. .091. .217. .171. G14. .765. .072. .262. -.153. G16. .733. .156. .237. .183. G12. .709. -.034. .315. .371. G6. .640. .052. .151. .507. G4. .146. .904. .038. .160. G5. .095. .896. .084. .104. G7. .007. .847. .097. .258. G9. .074. .726. .306. -.207. G11. .081. .562. .088. -.424. G8. .318. .124. .799. .051. G13. .324. .161. .767. .162. G3. .114. .379. .543. .387. G1. .369. .091. .340. .684. G2. .532. .170. .124. .617. a.. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.. After the removal of the five items from the pool for goal intentions, another Principal Component Analysis of the remaining 11 items was conducted. This time, two components were extracted, with the two explaining 68% of the variance, and the results demonstrated that the items could be perfectly grouped as integrative and. 35.