The Relationship between English Learning Motivation and English Proficiency with English Learning System Usage as Moderator

全文

(1)The Relationship between English Learning Motivation and English Proficiency with English Learning System Usage as Moderator. by Cheng-Ting Shih. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Chih-Chien Steven Lai, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan February 18, 2020.

(2)

(3) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Coming to NTNU and pursue my master’s degree has always been a dream for me. I would like to thank IHRD for gave me such a great opportunity to be able to enhance my abilities and gain knowledge on human resource path. Moreover, this thesis would not be completed without many helps from many people. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge every person who have helped and contributed with the completion of this thesis. Firstly, this thesis could not be done without a help from my thesis advisor, Dr. Steven Chih-Chien Lai, who has been very helpful throughout these times. Dr. Steven Chih-Chien Lai gave me a lot of new perspectives and answered my queries. Thenceforth, I would like to thank him for his contributions and expertise that help me completed this target. Secondly, I would also give a special gratitude towards my committees, Dr. Allan Lu and Dr. Pai-Po Lee for every suggestion until the end of this thesis. It would not be completed without your guidance. Thirdly, according to problems occurred during the writing, I am very grateful to have my wonderful friends by my side through ups and downs. Thank you for staying those tough times because without these beloved people especially, Nonrawan Kanchanaprapas and Nut Tammawiteekun, I would not be able to get pass those hardbitten situations. Lastly, I would love to deliver my sincere thanks to my mother and father who have been supported me during the process. I could not make to the end without their love and their unconditional support. I might not get to mention everyone’s name on this acknowledgement but I am truly grateful and appreciated..

(4)

(5) ABSTRACT For English learners in Taiwan, we generally have started to learn English in junior high school, some of them maybe even started earlier since sending children to bilingual school or cram school are quite popular in Taiwan. However, despite many years of learning experience in English, lots of learners still struggle with it. Hence, this study intends to find the more effective way to learn English by examine the relationship between three variables, which are English learning motivation, English proficiency and English learning system usage by examining how English learning motivation can facilitate learners in Taiwan master this language. Also, exploring whether English learning system usage can moderate the outcome between English learning motivation and English proficiency. Descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, correlation analysis and multiple linear regression were used in this study, the results indicated that English learning motivation and English learning system usage do have relationships with English proficiency. However, English learning system usage does not have the moderating effect between English learning motivation and English proficiency in the study. Keywords: English learning motivation, English proficiency, English learning system usage. I.

(6) II.

(7) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………I TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………….III LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………….V LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………VII CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………….…….1. Background of the Study……………………………………………………….…1 Statement of the Problems………………………………………………………..2 Purposes of the Study………………………………………………………….….4 Questions of the Study……………………………………………………….…...4 Significance of the Study………………………………………………………....4 Delimitations………...…………………………………...………………………5 Definition of Key Terms……………………………………………………….…5. CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………….……….…9. English Learning Motivation...…………………………………………………...9 English Proficiency.……………………………………………..……………....10 English Learning System Usage…………….………………………………......12 Relationships among the Variables………………..…………………………….13. CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY……………………………….…...17. Research Framework……………………………………………………………17 Research Hypothesis…………………………………………………………….17 Research Procedure……………………………………………………………..18 Research Method………………………………………………………………..20 Research Population and Sample………………………………………………..20 Research Instrument…………….………………………………………………20 Pilot Test………………………………………………………………………...24 Reliability Analysis……………………………………………………………..24 Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………....25. CHAPTER IV. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS……………………27. Descriptive Analysis………………………………………………………...…..27 The Relationships among All the Variables………………………….................32 Correlation Analysis…………………………………………………………….33 III.

(8) Multiple Linear Regression……………………………………………………..35 Discussions…….………………………………………………………………..38. CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS……….……..41. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..41 Limitations……………………………………………………………………...42 Suggestions……………………………………………………………………...42 Implications……………………………………………………………………..43. REFERENCES………………………………………………………….45 APPENDIX A1: COVER LETTER……………………………………..49 APPENDIX A2: COVER LETTER (CHINESE VERSION) …………...51 APPENDIX B1: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE…………………….53 APPENDIX B2: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (CHINESE VERSION) ……………………………………………………………..57. IV.

(9) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. Language Learning Motivation Factors…………………....………..…….22 Table 3.2. English Proficiency Level…………………………………….……...……23 Table 3.3. The Reliability of the Questionnaire…………………………………..…..25 Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample………………..…………..….28 Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistic of English Learning Motivation…………………......29 Table 4.3. Level of English Proficiency…………………………….………...………31 Table 4.4. Experience on ELS…………………………………………………..…....31 Table 4.5. Years of using ELS…………………………………………………..……31 Table 4.6. General Attitudes on ELS……………………………………………..…..32 Table 4.7. Attitudes from ELS users……………………………………………….....32 Table 4.8. Result of Correlation Analysis………. ……………………………………34 Table 4.9. Multiple Linear Regression of ELM and EP.…………………………......35 Table 4.10. Multiple Linear Regression of ELSU and EP...…………………….……36 Table 4.11. Multiple Linear Regression of ELM, ELSU and EP.………………….…37 Table 4.12. Summary of results…………………………………………………........38. V.

(10) VI.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1. Research framework…………………………………….….……..…….17 Figure 3.2. Research procedure………………………………………….……..…...19. VII.

(12) VIII.

(13) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. The study background, statement of problem, the purpose of the study, question of the study, significance of the study, limitation and delimitation and definition of key terms was explained in this chapter, which can lead to a better understanding of the following chapter.. Background of the Study As human living and stepping in a brand-new era, there is no doubt that internet and technology have bond with our life intensively. It is inevitable to deal with technology in our daily life, in school, especially the education higher than bachelor degree, multimedia teaching has become a trend. Hence, choosing learning strategies wisely to make learning more effective and enjoyable, teachers tend to write less and less word and no longer use the traditional textbook as much as the past. Instead, the usage rate of multimedia teaching has taken the place of textbook and become one of the major teaching styles in higher education system (Becker, 2000). In some private school, they even provide an iPad for each of the student, which implies in the circumstance of abundant capital, multimedia teaching can almost entirely replace the function of traditional teaching and even capable to do something far beyond the old style to achieve the highest effect. In fact, Mobile learning is just comparable with other English Learning System (ELS), it holds the features of e-learning and the benefits of mobile technology, which include convenience, immediacy and expediency. Mobile learning is featured by mobility and ubiquity, so it becomes the next milestone of elearning and educational technology. It also proves that hi-tech products are not only a distraction that interrupts student from learning but an effective tool which facilitate learning process (Shyamlee, Skills, & Vidyanagar, 2012). At work, internet and technology have become the unprecedented helpful tools which Companies deeply relying on it to reach to maximum outcome and effectiveness. In the meanwhile, the concept of artificial intelligence (AI) has also emerged and drew our attention. Tactical Language and Culture Training System (TLCTS) is an English Learning System (ELS) combine with Artificial Intelligence (AI), it is a serious game platform that helps learners quickly acquire knowledge of foreign language and culture through a combination of interactive lessons that focus on particular skills, and interactive games to practice and apply these skills (Johnson & Wu, 2008). The very first usage of 1.

(14) the system is to help U.S. Marines and soldiers to learn local languages and their cultures especially in Middle East area. Since the miscommunication of the intention and the misunderstanding of cultural symbols could be a barrier in preparation for deployment and the conduction of reconstruction plans. As everyone knows the best way to integrate into a different culture is to learn the local language, this could avoid the unnecessary obstacle during the soldiers complete their tasks. Moreover, the usage of Tactical Language and Culture Training System is not only limited in military in these days. Additional courses are being developed for use by business executives, workers for nongovernmental organizations, and high school and college students. Over 40,000 and as many as 60,000 people have trained so far with TLCTS Courses (Johnson & Valente, 2009). Despite the researches have already indicate that artificial intelligence indeed has positive assistance effect during learning process, ELS such as TLCTS or some Machine Learning system has not widely used in Asia countries.. Statement of the Problems Firstly, one of the barriers that foreign language learner in Taiwan will encounter is the weakness in Language family. Chinese belong to Sino-Tibetan languages; this language family mainly distribute in China, Myanmar, India, Nepal and some Asia countries, Sino-Tibetan languages is the second largest language family next only to Indo-European languages (Matiso, 1991). The inherent restrain of Sino-Tibetan languages increase the complexity and makes Taiwanese people harder to learn other widely spoken languages such as English, Spanish, and Portuguese compare to other language learners. In the United States, approximately ninety-one percent of Americans who study foreign languages in schools, colleges, and universities choose Spanish, French, German, or Italian, while very few choose such commonly spoken languages such as Chinese, Arabic, or Russian (Johnson et al., 2004). In other word, language learner tends to choose the easier foreign language which closer to their native language. Even they have chosen the foreign languages which do not belong to the same language family compare to the language they are speaking, it is harder for them to master these languages. Take Chinese and English for example, on the spelling part, Chinese is logogram and English is phonogram (Huang, 2011). According to Dictionary, logogram means a sign or character representing a word or phrase; phonogram is a 2.

(15) symbol representing a vocal sound so a single alphabet usually has no meaning but a sound in English. On the speaking, Chinese is tonal language (tone language) which means different tone in a word could have totally different meaning; However, English is intonation language, the sentence might have different emotion depending on the tone but would not affect the meaning of the word (Hao, 2012). These dissimilarities of many aspects lead to totally different story in two languages. Secondly, the ambiance in Taiwanese education system and teaching methods do not create an environment which encourage every language learner to speak. A fact that every language learner cannot ignore is no matter how many vocabularies are recognized or how flowery article are being written, one could never master a language if students did not practice how to say it and use it (Thornton & Houser, 2005). Simultaneously, most foreign language teacher in Taiwan barely correct the accuracy of pronunciation and the correctness of word usage while speaking foreign languages since Taiwanese students do not like to make mistake, the sense of embarrassment might weaken the willingness of students to speak (Shyamlee et al., 2012). These circumstances are part of the reason which lead to generally weak English learning motivation among those English learners in Taiwan. Though, as Taiwanese is living in a global world, the motivation which driven us to learn a new language and the outcome we anticipate are more than just able to communicate. Knowing how to express our viewpoint with right words, taking a firm stand in our position, or even seize an opportunity when it comes. The more one specialized in a language, the more persuasive and determined he could be when conveying ourselves. Lastly, most of the methods we used to teach English in Taiwan are tedious and not intriguing, those ineffective approaches caused the General English proficiency in Taiwan is lower than expected. In fact, even the traditional English teaching approach is not effective, lots of learners and educator still rely on it since there are different opinions on whether English learning system usage is helpful for learning. To teach a foreign language effectively without leaving any skill behind, in other words, truly comprehend it, it is a must to arouse the interest (Littlewood, 2001), motivation and willingness are imperative. The chance for students to master in a language without fondness and understanding of the culture is extremely trifling and minute, one could not grasp it if he does not like it.. 3.

(16) Purposes of the Study This study wants to specify about the relationships between English proficiency and English learning motivation with English learning system usage as moderator. The target group of the research are those Taiwanese people who have English learning experience and able to provide their English Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) level from A1 to C2. The purpose of this study is to provide a clear instruction on whether English learning system usage is helpful on learning and the importance of the motivation, the effectiveness of new teaching and learning approach also discussed in this study.. Questions of the Study Based on the research background, the main purpose of this study is to identify the relationships between English Learning Motivation, English Proficiency and English Learning System Usage as research questions are listed below. 1. Can English Learning Motivation help learners to achieve better English Proficiency? 2. Can English Learning System Usage enhance learner’s English Proficiency? 3. Can English Learning System Usage moderate the relationship between English Learning Motivation and English Proficiency?. Significance of the Study The findings of this study can facilitate English learners who want to thoroughly comprehend this language, particularly the ones who equipped with potent English learning motivation. In contemporary society, the opportunities for reach out to people from dissimilar culture and background fulfill in the globalized world. Language could be one of a most powerful skill we can rely on to broaden our vision and grasp more potential opportunities. Additionally, this study can also provide a practically useful implication for a whole new way of language teaching style which has apparent differentiation from traditional one. Open an advanced training program by the assistance of technology. It might impress every language learner with a new concept of learning style and raise the awareness about the importance of communication and the meaning behind learning a language. This study could also provide instructions for teachers to develop different teaching methods, this study discussing the more effective 4.

(17) approach in English learning, which benefit the learners who is learning independently by showing them the new path of English learning.. Delimitations This study did not specifically focus on the effectiveness on the usage of certain English learning system since the participants might use different software and website, also, the survey area was limited in Taiwan since the questionnaire was sent in Chinese to avoid the misunderstanding in the process of personal interpretation. Hence, the nationality of all respondents were Taiwanese.. Definition of Key Terms English Learning Motivation (ELM) In the mid-19th century, it was generally believed that learning a second language depends on personal language aptitude, the importance of attitudes, motivation and language anxiety were ignored. Broadly, the first language is an essential part of growing up, we communicate and interact with our parent and our friends. Basically, it is the first thing that linked ourselves to this word, the necessity to participate in our environment and society provides the original learning motivation of native language. Before four years old, the speed of understanding language would dramatically increase if learners were born in the environment surrounded by target language, this amazing progress was coming from the primitive motivation to survive. However, this kind of inherent motivation will not exist when it comes to learn a second language. Despite there are many benefits for knowing other languages but we can still live without it. Hence, motivation can be significant in the process of a second language acquisition, and motivation can be classified in different types depend on learner’s target (Buckledee, 2008). This study focused on learning motivation of second language. Essentially, language learning motivation for second language is everything include intrinsic and extrinsic that driven us to learn a language apart from our native ones. The way to measure English learning motivation in this study is Language Learning Motivation Factors according to Larisa, Zuraidah and Sau (2016), in her study, she defined language learning motivation as “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favourable attitude toward learning the language” (p. 285). 5.

(18) English Proficiency (EP) It is generally classified English into four skill areas, Listening, Speaking, Reading (and Vocabulary), and Writing. For Taiwanese, English is not our native language, in light of this, we could not just acquire this language naturally and it needs to be learned step by step. Linguists often consider there are five major stages in second language acquisition. Which are Silent or receptive phase, Early production, Speech emergence, Intermediate fluency, Continued language development or ﬂuency. The second model we can use to examine the aggregate performance in language was proposed by Buckledee (2008), he identified that there are at least four stages that can be identified in second language learning, and they are comparable to those involved in the development of one’s first language. The four stages of language acquisition are identified as elemental, consolidation, conscious expression, and automaticity and thought. In this study, the participant’s English Proficiency was ranked from A1 to C2 in CEFR level based on the score of English test, the 6 different level in CEFR can represent different stages of English acquisition and proficiency accordingly.. English Learning System Usage (ELSU) English Learning System (ELS) is an educational software including an Information Technology (IT) element, and IT has been broadly defined as the study, design, development, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems, particularly software applications and computer hardware. Researchers points out it is the practical use of knowledge especially in a certain area and complete a mission by using technical processes or methods. The software can record students’ performance, adapting feedback and hints during the process. The software can analyze learner’s strengths and weaknesses and customize unique practice by gathering information from a student’s performance. Certainly, ELS is one of the most outstanding area in AI. There are numerous ELS that have been conducted on humans in educational purposes which including TLCTS, PILE, MESLL VocaTest, and ICALL to name a few, it have been substantiated these kind of ELS can provide positive influence on facilitate learning (Graesser, Vanlehn, Rosé, Jordan, & Harter, 2001). English Learning System model generally has four components: the domain model, the student model, the teaching model, and a learning environment or user interface (Freedman, Ali, & McRoy, 2000). Learners stated that the use of technology 6.

(19) in school makes learning enjoyable and helps them learn more. Learners also said that technology makes learning interesting, enjoyable, and interactive. The other outcome of this research was that the use of technology increases learners’ motivation, social interactions, learning and engagement (Ahmadi, 2018).. 7.

(20) 8.

(21) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. The relevant literatures about English learning motivation, English proficiency and English learning system usage, relationships among 3 variables and 3 hypotheses was explained and listed in this chapter.. English Learning Motivation In this study, English learning motivation was classified into 3 dimensions, which are instrumental motivation, integrative motivation and effort and commitment according to Larisa et al. (2016). Effort and commitment is the general motivation that learners are willing to expend to learn English in order to achieve their learning goals. Integrative motivation is the willingness to become part of a member of language community, it could produce by a club we want to participate, an intriguing movie, a vivid novel or an interesting news. In other words, integrativeness is coming from the desire to the assurance from others, or we develop the interest to other cultures which leads the motivation to understand a culture different from us. Instrumental motivation refers to learning in order to achieve a practical objective, such as getting some financial benefits like higher salary or the opportunities along with the learning outcome. Many students in college and university have a specific instrumental goal which is fulfill a school language requirement so that they can graduate, however, the requirement from schools is usually the lowest standard and only focus on reading and sometimes listening. Under this motivation, students commonly stop learning second language once they accomplish the school requirement. Nonetheless, the instrumental motivation is not always impractical, some goals such as getting a decent job and or looking for salary bonus are also important factors in second language learning and could be effective in some cases. Instrumental motivation can be as strong as integrative motivation if the objective is something that learner eager to attain, this motivation can propel them to achieve success. Another type of motivation can be defined broadly as extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In the context of second language learning, extrinsic motivation includes three sub-types, external regulation, introjected regulation and identified regulation (Noels, Clément, & Pelletier, 2001). The first type is external regulation, it occurs when a learner learns a second language because of some punishment or reward that comes from the social environment, passing a course, getting better pay or even fulfill a school 9.

(22) language requirement, these kinds of conditions belong to external regulation. Once the pressure or bonus is not existing, the learner probably stops his learning in second language. Introjected regulation refers to more internalized reasons for learning second language, such as pressuring voice, worry, sense of guilt or shame (Noels et al., 2001). This form of motivation will lead to anxiety. People who driven by introjected regulation are likely to feel negative and lack of confidence about themselves. Identified regulation is the most self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, under this motivation, people determined to do something because it matches with their value or the goal they have chosen. For example, an English learner chose to learn it because he wanted to be bilingual and able to speak and write it as fluent as his native language. As long as the goal is meaningful and critical to him, this learner can be expected to engage in learning English.. English Proficiency In the five stages of second language acquisition, the very first phase is silent (or receptive) phase, which can be contrasted to CEFR Level A1 in this study. In this phase, second language learners spending time to absorb and learn the new elements from this language, it could be a new vocabulary or the pronunciation of a word. Learners in this stage could not create a new sentence by themselves and neither really understand a term, silent phase may last few days to several months depends on the individual learner. The second stage is early production, this stage usually last about half year and it happens when learner understanding over one thousand words. They will start to put words together and from some short phrases even the grammar might be wrong sometimes, learners in this stage can be ranked approximately as Level A2. When second language learners enter to the third stage which is speech emergence, they have collected several thousand word. The typical behaviors of this stage are that learners will start to communicate in second language and it is understandable, they will also begin to read and write in their second language, this is a critical stage since the second language is truly start to connect with learners, and it could be compared with Level B1. When learners are capable of communicate with even more complicated sentences and vocabularies, they will enter the fourth stage named as intermediate fluency and their English proficiency are close from Level B2 to C1, learners might start to think in their second language since they already have more connection with it. The terminal 10.

(23) stage is continued language development, usually it takes more than two years of learning to reach this final stage. To retain the fluency in second language, learners need continuing opportunities to participate in conversations and get to express their feeling in second language. This phase could last more than ten years for learners to truly specialized and accomplish dexterity, when learners step into this phase, their English proficiency would be ranked as Level C2. One of the key factors that bolster second language learning is the acquisition of a sophisticated vocabulary both actively and passively. Active vocabulary is needed in dialog and written communication, where learners have to come up words and sentences by themselves. Passive word knowledge is needed to recognized when the vocabulary was spoken and written texts (Sandberg, Maris, & Geus, 2011). Buckledee (2008) identified that there are at least four stages that can be identified in second language learning, and they are comparable to those involved in the development of one’s first language. The four stages of language acquisition are identified as elemental, consolidation, conscious expression, and automaticity and thought, these four stages can be contrasted to CEFR Level A1, A2, B1 to B2 and C1 to C2 respectively. The first stage is elemental, in this stage the individual is learning the basics of the language, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciations, trying to learn a new vocabulary, begins to put words together and create a sentence, making a lot of mistakes on grammar, pronunciation and meaning of the words. In this very beginning phase, we are attempting to make other people understand us regardless of anything, and we can see the same process when we just begin to learn second language. The second stage is consolidation, where the elements of the language are brought together and some degree of familiarity with the language is achieved. In the first language, this stage appears in childhood when kids start to realize that language is a system and have a sense of right and wrong about grammar, spell and word usage and the basic understanding of idioms. In second language, this pattern happens when language learners find some sentence structure can be similar or related to his native language and what is totally dissimilar from it. They can also seek for the meaningful word to express their easy request. The third stage is identified as conscious expression, during which the individual can use the language but with a great deal of conscious effort. The individual can communicate thoughts and ideas, but there is a lot of deliberation about what is being expressed (Buckledee, 2008). This can be observed when young first language learners giving a 11.

(24) speech or presentation, usually they tend to speak less fluently than usual and use of a lot of speech hesitations because they are already able to know some words are too colloquial and not appropriate in formal situations so they are seeking for more proper and academic word to express themselves without losing the point they meant to convey. The similar phenomenon can be seen when second language learners trying to articulate their opinion, the hesitation is caused by they are searching help from their native language, they are trying to translate the sentences in their mind into second language. The very last stage is automaticity and thought, at this eventual process, language and thought merge and language becomes automatic in most contexts (Buckledee, 2008). In this phase, the language ability of second language no longer limited in translating what we want to say from native language but directly thinks in the language we are going to speak. In other words, second language learners whoever reach this stage can elaborate their viewpoint fluently in formal occasions or daily conversation, knowing how to use proper words and seldom make mistake in grammar or pronunciation. We could only see this phenomenon when someone truly comprehend and master a language.. English Learning System Usage Multimedia technology transcends time and space, creates more lifelike and entertaining environment for English learning, stimulates learners’ proactivity and conserves class time and build class information simultaneously, one of the aspect of ELS is to improve learners’ ability to listen and speak, and to develop their communicative competence ( Parvin & Salam, 2015; Shyamlee et al., 2012), in such manner, learners can create new learner-based educational materials and their understanding about English can increase. Numerous English Learning System (ELS) have been developed in the past 30 years have confirmed to be fairly successful, especially in the mathematics, science, and technology area. These systems create tremendous learning outcomes and not only limited in campus or classroom (Sandberg et al., 2011). ELS is able to attract most students by provide intriguing game situations or helpful hints, keeping their attention and interest for learning (Chi, Hung, & Chang, 2010; Graesser et al., 2001). One of a fascinating filed of among ELS is dialog-based tutoring systems (Freedman et al., 2000), the technique of Virtual Human (VM) can be considered the 12.

(25) demonstration of this skill and researches have indicated it is quite helpful in language learning area. VM are used to simulate the decision pattern of the human teacher to assist learners from the performance they have shown, the VM technique makes it feasible for system to give learners extensive conversational practice. In the meanwhile, the system constantly tracks each learner’s performance of each part of skills to evaluate the learner’s level of mastery of these skills. By these evaluations, the system is able to lead learners to the part they need to focus on their training effort (Johnson & Valente, 2009).. Relationships among the Variables English Learning Motivation and English Proficiency Buckledee (2008) research pointed out the difference between second language learning versus acquisition is that language learning focus on development of knowledge and skill about the target language which enable the learner to communicate with others. Nonetheless, the process of language acquisition is the learner make the target language become part of him. In a nutshell, the mastery of reading, writing and all the other skills is not adequate to accomplish English acquisition, it requires leaner to truly comprehend the underlying connotation and meaning in English, that is why motivation is imperative in the acquisition process. Buckledee (2008) identified some points about achieving bilingual, he classified two clusters in the process of becoming bilingual, the vocabulary cluster and the cultural cluster. Vocabulary cluster comprised all the elements of the language, not only limited in vocabulary items, all the skills such as the availability of listening and writing composed this cluster, which is comparatively easier to grasp; Another phase is cultural cluster, it refers to a shared history, religion, economic development, regional proximity, and other factors. The language learners could comprehend this stage only if they transfer the language to part of themselves, and it demands strong passion and enthusiasm toward the language. Further, he conducted a research in United States by compares the individual language performance of three groups. One group was composed of 14 undergraduate students majoring in French, another group contained 14 graduate students majoring in French, and 14 native French speaker who had lived for at least seven years in the United States and all of them used English on a daily basis composed the third group. On some measures, he found the native French speakers’ 13.

(26) performance were fairly superior than others groups. He therefore concludes there was an obvious pattern in the development of competence and bilingual skills considering experience in the other language. Conclusively, students with an openness to cultural identification, and/or a favorable attitude and interest in English speaking communities achieve higher grades in English than those who are less willing or less able to take on characteristics of other cultural community. As it mentioned previously that language learning motivation can enhance the performance, it could state that there might be some connection between English learning motivation and English proficiency. Hypothesis 1: English Learning Motivation has a relationship with English Proficiency. English Learning System Usage and English Proficiency Acquiring new languages apart from our native ones by the assistance of technology have been addressed by researches in past few decades (Khemaja & Taamallah, 2016). Dodigovic (2007) used the software which is called the Intelligent Tutor, the main function of this software is to diagnoses some typical errors that students who are learning English as a second language will make. According to the experiment conducted in 2007 by Dodigovic, the 266 students who participated came from 3 different countries, 107 students came from the United Arab Emirates, 83 from Australia, and 77 in Taiwan. These participants were aged 19 to 21, and their TOEFL score are generally around 500. Before they operate the software, a grammatical pretest was conducted and also a post-test after the curriculum was completed. After taking the whole Intelligent Tutor curriculum and the post-test was conducted, the result has demonstrated significant reduction in the error rate. The students from Taiwan attain the best result by decreased 94% error rate, followed by the Australian students (85% error reduction rate), students from United Arab Emirates achieved 79% error reduction rate. Last but not least, the error reduction rate from overseas English language learners in Australia were 73%, which is relatively insignificant compare to other subjects but still quite remarkable. Hence, as the finding listed above, we can summarize that English learning system can facilitate the acquisition process and provide appreciable enhancement for language learners of English as a second language (Dodigovic, 2007). As a result, technology turns into an indispensable part of English learning experience for learners and also a critical change 14.

(27) for teachers (Eady & Lockyer, 2013). As a result, it could be suggested that English learning system usage might be related to English Proficiency. Hypothesis 2: English Learning System Usage has a relationship with English Proficiency. English Learning Motivation, English Proficiency and English Learning System Usage Researchers stated the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) acts as a stimulant would shape traditional learning methods into a new way, since learning is no longer limited in campus and learners become more autonomous and independent, it is important for teachers support and facilitate their learners to develop their learning style (Hennessy, Deaney, & Ruthven, 2005). Self-regulated learning refers to an individual choose, arrange and adjust his learning through his cognitive demand and characteristic to attain specific learning task or target. The learner who conduct self-regulated learning can apply his own meta-cognition ability, analyzing the task he was commissioned or the problem he encounters. Broadly, the current study espouses that self-regulated learning through ELS improves students' performance in English (Chang, 2012). Researches indicated that the use of internet increases learners’ motivation and Learners’ cooperation in learning tasks, learning outcome could effectively increase when technology such as software and internet are used in the learning process, it can be concluded that the true combination of multimedia and teaching methodology is very important to attract learners’ attention towards English language learning (Arifah, 2014; Gillespie, 2006). Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) also supported the view that technology provides intriguing information and brings learning experience to learners. By the using of ELS, many credible messages can be provided to users and they can be motivated in learning English, in a nutshell, the combination of multimedia and teaching approach is imperative to keep learners’ interest. In the experiment conducted by Mohammadzadeh and Sarkhosh (2018), he chose 45 students from Azad University of Pars Abad, Ardebil, Iran. They all spoke Azeri Turkish as their native language and were students of Applied Linguistics at BA level, and they all scored 18 to 27 in Oxford Placement Test. Before these students employing self-regulated learning through ELS, 15.

(28) they have got relatively lower scores on speaking test. Nevertheless, after the application of ELS, students who have strong learning motivation and capable of conducting self-regulated learning behaved obviously better in their speaking tests. These learners claimed that this system supported them to learn in a more effective way, students were also gratifying to experience how useful ELS can provide them with much remedial feedback and indication. Harmer (2007) suggested that teachers should encourage learners to find suitable approach through using technology in order to achieve better result in language learning. The innovation of ELS has changed the English learning approaches from teachercentered to learner-centered ones (Riasati, Allahyar, & Tan, 2012). The research conducted in 2007 indicates that the ELS which named Handheld English Language Learning Organization (HELLO) can increase learners’ motivation to learn English. The results demonstrate that the HELLO can improve users’ listening, speaking and reading ability (Liu, Tan, & Chu, 2007). Another research on Physically Interactive Learning Environment (PILE) system conducted in 2010 also revealed that those students who did not show any interest on regular class continuously showing their willingness to operate the PILE system, it proves that ELS can successfully draw learners’ attention (Chi et al., 2010). From the previous researches, it can be assumed that the usage of English learning system plays an important role between English learning motivation and English proficiency. Hypothesis 3: English Learning System Usage moderates the relationships between English Learning Motivation and English Proficiency. 16.

(29) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY. This chapter sketch out the research framework, research hypothesis, research procedure, research sample and population, data collection, data analysis, research instrument and the pilot test displaying how the study was conducted.. Research Framework H1. English Learning Motivation. H3. English Proficiency H2. English Learning System Usage Gender Age Education Years of Learning English Frequency of using English Figure 3.1. Research framework. Research Hypothesis According to the review of the previous literature, the research questions and the framework were presented in figure 3.1., the following hypotheses were listed: Hypothesis 1: English Learning Motivation has a relationship with English Proficiency. Hypothesis 2: English Learning System Usage has a relationship with English Proficiency. Hypothesis 3: English Learning System Usage moderates the relationships between English Learning Motivation and English Proficiency.. 17.

(30) Research Procedure The process for this study is briefly described below: 1. Reviewing relevant literature: Literature review was undertaking in order to realize the relationships between the all the variables in this study. 2. Identifying the research topic: Based on literature review, the research topic was classified 3. Proposing research questions and hypothesis: Based on literature review and purposes of this study, the research questions and all the hypothesis were built. 4. Designing research method and identifying research participants: The research design was based on a quantitative sampling method. 5. Instrument Selection: Questionnaire were picked based on previous measurements of these variables. A copy of this questionnaire is found in the appendix section of this study. 6. Collecting data: The sample was collected base on convenient sampling. 7. Analyzing data: The data was collected and recorded by using Microsoft Excel, and it was analyzed by using IBM SPSS. 8. Writing the research findings. 9. Conclusion.. 18.

(31) A summary of the research procedure is provided as figure 3.2.: 1. Reviewing relevant literatures. 2. Identifying the research topic. 3. Proposing research questions and hypothesis shypothesis. 4. Designing research method. 5. Selecting the instrument. 6. Collecting data. 7. Analyzing data. 8. Writing the research findings. 9. Conclusion Figure 3.2. Research procedure. 19.

(32) Research Method Since quantitative research is used to study the problems by describing the trends or explaining the correlation among variables mention in the specific research. In order to accomplish the research objective, a survey and questionnaire was applied for this study. The reasons for choosing quantitative sampling method was because literatures support that all of the variables in this study are related to each other. Adopting a quantitative sampling method can provide accurate data to analyze, which can be a benefit on building validity in this study.. Research Population and Sample Regarding the expected contribution from this study, the population of this study is the English learners above 18 years’ old with the experience on using English learning system to learn English. Random sampling method was conducted to reach the target participants of English learners, through the distribution of classmates and internet, there was 204 English learners filled this questionnaire.. Research Instrument The research instrument of this study was a questionnaire and it consist of five parts: Cover letter, respondents’ information, English proficiency, English learning motivation and the using experience on English learning system. English proficiency was ranked from some international English test such as IELTS and TOEFL; English learning motivation was examined by language learning motivation factors. The full copy of this questionnaire is in appendix.. English Learning Motivation Learning Motivation was measured by (Larisa et al., 2016) with fifteen items, three subscales comprised five items for general motivation, which was divided into two factors labelled Commitment and Effort, five items for instrumental motivation, five for integrative motivation. Briefly, general motivation is effort and commitment that learners are ready to pay to learn the target language to accomplish their goal. Instrumental motivation refers to learners’ consciousness of the target language praticalness and their aim to use it for realistic purposes, such as future studies, employment or acquiring financial benefits. Lastly, integrative motivation involves a 20.

(33) positive interest in the target language country, its culture and native speakers. Sample items include “I want to keep improving my English to reach next level” for general motivation; “Proficiency in English can bring me some financial benefits (e.g., translations, etc.)” for instrumental motivation; “I decided to study English because I am interested in the culture of English speaking countries” for integrative motivation. Learning motivation items are rated on a 5-point Likert’s scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), higher scores represent higher learning motivation. In Larisa et al. (2016) research based on Cronbach’s α values. All four factors had satisfactory levels of internal consistency: instrumental motivation was stated as (α = 0.831); integrative motivation had Cronbach’s α = .754. Commitment (α = .637), Effort (α = .63). For that reason, this implement supported to exhibit the scale of learning motivation (table 3.1.).. 21.

(34) Table 3.1. Language Learning Motivation Factors Factors. Questionnaire Items. Effort 1. I am working hard at learning English.. Effort 2. I put great efforts to understand everything my English teacher teaches us in class.. Commitment 1. I always volunteer to answer the questions my language teacher asks in class.. Commitment 2. I want to keep improving my English to reach next level.. Commitment 3. If my English teacher wanted someone to do an extra assignment for the class, I would certainly volunteer.. Instrumental 1. Knowledge of English can be useful for my further studies.. Instrumental 2. Knowledge of the English will increase my job opportunities.. Instrumental 3. Proficiency in the English can bring me some financial benefits (e.g., translations, etc.).. Instrumental 4. Knowledge of the English will help me when I travel abroad.. Instrumental 5. Knowledge of the English will be useful for my future career.. Integrative 1. I decided to study English because I am interested in the culture of English speaking countries.. Integrative 2. Studying English is important because it will enable me to better understand the way of life in English speaking countries.. Integrative 3. studying this language is important because it will enable me to appreciate the English art and literature.. Integrative 4. I decided to learn English in order to better understand the life style of English speaking countries.. Integrative 5. I decided to learn English so that I can get to know its speakers better.. 22.

(35) English Proficiency English Proficiency can illustrate learners’ knowledge and proficiency on this language, in this study, English proficiency was measured by requesting the examinees to rate themselves on their English levels in the following table from A1 to C2, from elementary to proficient (see table 3.2.). This table was announced by Ministry of Education (2018). Table 3.2. English Proficiency Level Level Elementary. CEFR Level A1. IELTS 0-2.5. Description Elementary level of English. TOEIC 0-349 Pre-Intermediate. A2. IELTS 3-3.5. Low Intermediate level of. TOEFL iBT 29-46. English. TOEIC 350-549 CAMBRIDGE KET Intermediate. B1. IELTS 4-5 TOEFL iBT 47-70. Intermediate level of English. TOEIC 550-749 CAMBRIDGE PET Upper- Intermediate. B2. IELTS 5.5-6. High Intermediate level of. TOEFL iBT 71-82. English. TOEIC 750-879 CAMBRIDGE FCE Advanced. C1. IELTS 6.5-7. Advanced level of English. TOEFL iBT 83-108 TOEIC 880-949 CAMBRIDGE CAE Proficient. C2. IELTS 7.5-9. Proficient in English. TOEFL iBT 109-120 TOEIC 950-990 CAMBRIDGE CPE. 23.

(36) English Learning System Usage English Learning System Usage was measured by asking whether participants have the experience on using ELS. Also, the years of using ELS and the respondents’ attitudes toward ELS was asked in this study.. Control Variables Moreover, for English proficiency, researchers have been classified some key factors that might have effect on this variable, which are gender, age, education level, years of learning English and frequency of using English. These variables can be relevant to years of study English since almost all the students started to learn English from junior high until university. In five stages of second language acquisition, in order to retain the fluency in second language, learners need continuing opportunities to participate in conversations and get to express their feeling in second language. This could explain why the frequency of using English can be a crucial factor. To sum up, age, education, years of learning English and frequency of using English was set as control variables in this study.. Pilot Test Previously, the pilot test was conducted in order to measure the Cronbach’s Alpha in English learning motivation scale before running the real study. Hence, there was 51 English learners concluded to this pilot test. For this pilot test, 51 questionnaires were distributed and 50 were received. After conducted the Cronbach’s Alpha Value test, it has presented that the questionnaire questions have a good reliability (α = 0.859).. Reliability Analysis Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test validity and reliability of the questionnaire. The following table shows the results obtained from the pilot study and also the results from the formal study. All the variables exceeded (α = 0.800) both from pilot study and the formal test, meaning that all of the questions were reliable to use (see table 3.3.).. 24.

(37) Table 3.3. The Reliability of the Questionnaire (N = 204) Cronbach’s Alpha Value. Items Variables Pilot Study. Formal Study. Pilot Study. Formal Study. Effort & Commitment. 5. 5. .836. .847. Instrumental Motivation. 5. 5. .866. .912. Integrative Motivation. 5. 5. .814. .881. Data Analysis After the data collection was completed, the data was analyzed by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23 in order to examine there are significant relationships between 3 variables or not, which are English proficiency, English learning motivation and English learning system usage. Descriptive analysis was conducted along with reliability analysis, correlation analysis and multiple linear regression. At first, the descriptive analysis was performed to demonstrate the arbitrary demographic of this research, which can illustrate the standard deviation and other distribution of the data. Secondly, the relationships between three variables was examined by correlation analysis. Lastly, multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the moderating effect as preceding hypothesis.. 25.

(38) 26.

(39) CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS This chapter depicts the primary findings of the study. Firstly, this chapter illustrate the demographic characteristics of 204 participants. Secondly, it presents the study’s descriptive statistical analysis, correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis, the discussions of the research findings were also presented in this chapter.. Descriptive Analysis In this study, a total 204 questionnaires were collected and corroborated. The majority of the participants were female between 23 – 26 years old (65.2%). Most of them hold a Bachelor’s Degree, which can be calculated as 73.5%. Among these participants, 57.4% of them have a 10 – 19 years English learning experience. Additionally, the frequency of using English in daily life of these participants concentrated in occasionally, sometimes and frequently, the percentages are 25%, 25% and 23.5% respectively (see table 4.1.).. Descriptive Statistic of English Learning Motivation As presented in table 4.2., this table shows the mean and standard deviation of English learning motivation which was measured in 5-point Likert’s scale. Based on the result in the table. “Knowledge of the English will help me when I travel abroad” has the highest mean score (M = 4.61) and “I always volunteer to answer the questions my language teacher asks in class” has the lowest mean score (M = 2.57), the standard deviation was calculated approximately 1.073.. 27.

(40) Sample Characteristics Table 4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Samples (N = 204) Variable. Category. Frequency. Percentage. Gender. Male. 71. 34.8%. Female. 133. 65.2%. 19 – 22 years old. 29. 14.2%. 23 – 26 years old. 107. 52.5%. Above 27 years old. 68. 33.3%. Senior high school. 17. 8.3%. Bachelor. 150. 73.5%. Master & Doctor. 37. 18.1%. 0 – 9 years. 57. 27.9%. 10 – 19 years. 117. 57.4%. Above 20 years. 30. 14.7%. Rarely. 23. 11.3%. Occasionally. 51. 25 %. Sometimes. 51. 25 %. Frequently. 48. 23.5%. Usually. 31. 15.2%. Age. Educational Level. Years of learning English. Frequency of using English. 28.

(41) Table 4.2. Descriptive Statistic of English Learning Motivation (N = 204) Mean. Std. Dev.. Effort & Commitment. 3.18. 1.08. Effort &. I am working hard at learning English.. 3.13. 1.08. Effort &. I put great efforts to understand. 3.43. 1.00. Commitment 2. everything my English teacher teaches. 2.57. 1.09. 3.73. 1.15. 3.05. 1.10. 4.26. 0.97. 4.17. 0.97. 4.28. 1.00. 3.97. 1.12. 4.61. 0.76. 4.27. 0.97. Code. Items. Commitment 1. us in class. Effort &. I always volunteer to answer the. Commitment 3. questions my English teacher asks in class.. Effort &. I want to keep improving my English. Commitment 4. to reach next level.. Effort &. If my English teacher wanted someone. Commitment 5. to do an extra assignment for the class, I would certainly volunteer.. Instrumental Motivation Instrumental 1. Knowledge of English can be useful for my further studies.. Instrumental 2. Knowledge of the English will increase my job opportunities.. Instrumental 3. Proficiency in the English can bring me some financial benefits.. Instrumental 4. Knowledge of the English will help me when I travel abroad.. Instrumental 5. Knowledge of the English will be useful for my future career.. (continued). 29.

(42) Table 4.2. (continued) Code. Items. Mean. Std. Dev.. Integrative Motivation. 3.59. 1.17. Integrative 1. 3.51. 1.14. 3.83. 1.09. 3.66. 1.17. 3.37. 1.26. 3.60. 1.19. I decided to study English because I am interested in the culture of English speaking countries.. Integrative 2. Studying English is important because it will enable me to better understand the way of life in English speaking countries.. Integrative 3. Studying this language is important because it will enable me to appreciate the English art and literature.. Integrative 4. I decided to learn English in order to better understand the life style of English speaking countries.. Integrative 5. I decided to learn English so that I can get to know its speakers better.. This can be interpreted that most of the English learners in Taiwan have a strong motivation especially when they took English as a tool or skill to achieve certain goal, since the commitment and effort they put in English (M = 3.18) and Integrative motivation (M = 3.59) are relatively lower than instrumental motivation (M = 4.26). Also, the socres of standard deviation were low, which validated the consistency of each question.. Descriptive Statistic of English Proficiency In table 4.3., it shows the level of English of the participants, the mode of CEFR Level among respondents is B2 (26.5%). The respondents who got A1 and B1 in CEFR Level have the same percentage (20.6%) and the third level is A2 (18.1%). According to the analysis, it can be explained that in Taiwan most of English learner’s proficiency level are below advanced. 30.

(43) Table 4.3. Level of English Proficiency (N = 204) Variable. Category. Frequency. Percentage. EP. A1. 42. 20.6%. A2. 37. 18.1%. B1. 42. 20.6%. B2. 54. 26.5%. C1. 26. 12.7%. C2. 3. 1.5%. 204. 100%. Total. Descriptive Statistic of English Learning System Usage In table 4.4. and 4.5., it shows that among 204 participants, 117 of them have the ELS using experience, which is 57.4%. Additionally, among these 117 respondents who have used ELS before, most of the users have the experience less than 1 year (47.9%), the second level is 1 to 3 years (35.0%).. Table 4.4. Experience on ELS (N = 204) Frequency. Percentage. Yes. 117. 57.4%. No. 87. 42.6%. Total. 204. 100%. Table 4.5. Years of Using ELS (N = 117) Frequency. Percentage. Less than 1 year. 56. 47.9%. 1 – 3 years. 41. 35.0%. 4 – 6 years. 11. 9.4%. More than 7 years. 9. 7.7%. Total. 117. 100% 31.

(44) Table 4.6. and table 4.7. depicted that English learners in Taiwan generally believed that ELS is more effective (56.9%) and interesting (56.9%) compared to traditional English teaching method. Moreover, from the respondents who have used ELS before, 62.4% of them consider it is more effective and 66.7% of them believed it is more interesting. Table 4.6 . General Attitudes on ELS (N = 204) Effective. Percentage. Interesting. Percentage. Yes. 116. 56.9%. 123. 60.3%. No. 28. 13.7%. 22. 10.8%. Neutral. 60. 29.4%. 59. 28.9%. Total. 204. 100%. 204. 100%. Effective. Percentage. Interesting. Percentage. Yes. 73. 62.4%. 78. 66.7%. No. 15. 12.8%. 9. 7.7%. Neutral. 29. 24.8%. 30. 25.6%. Total. 117. 100%. 117. 100%. Table 4.7. Attitudes from ELS Users (N = 117). The Relationships Among All the Variables The following approaches were utilized to examine the relationships between English learning motivation, English proficiency and English learning system by adopting correlation analysis and multiple linear regression. Firstly, correlation analysis was applied to test the degree of correlation among all of the three variables. Secondly, multiple linear regression was also conducted to test all of the three hypotheses of the study.. 32.

(45) Data Coding To operate correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis in order to text the relationship among 3 variables, male was coded as 1 and female was 2, participants’ age between 19 – 22 were coded as 1, 23 – 26 years old as 2 and above 27 years old as 3. For educational level, senior high school was coded as 1, bachelor as 2, master and doctor as 3. 0 – 9 years of English learning experience was coded as 1, 10 – 19 years as 2, above 20 years as 3. Rarely using English was coded as 1, occasionally as 2, sometimes as 3, frequently as 4 and usually as 5. CEFR Level A1 to C2 were coded 1 to 6 respectively. If the participant has used English learning system, the answer was coded as 1, otherwise was 2. Less than 1 year experience on ELS was coded as 1, 1 – 3 years as 2, 4 – 6 years as 3 and more than 7 years as 4.. Correlation Analysis In this study, Correlation Analysis was conducted to measure the relationships between independent variable, dependent variable and the moderator. The result has to range within -1 to +1 to show the validity of the study (Taylor, 1990). Table 4.8., illustrates the results of means and standard deviation and also the correlation coefficient among English learning motivation, English proficiency and English learning system. The (r) shows that gender and years of learning English has no significant relationship between all of the variables mentioned above as (r = -.011, p < .05; r = .027, p < .05; r = -.120, p < .05; r = -.006, p < .05; r = -.050, p < .05; r = -.023, p < .05) respectively. However, Age and Frequency of using English does have significant influence with motivation, English learning system and CEFR, which represent English proficiency in this study, the table shows (r = -.182**, p < .05; r = .155*, p < .05; r = -.240**, p < .05; r = .398**, p < .05; r = -.180**, p < .05, r = .553**, p < .05) respectively. Education also have significant influence with CEFR (r = .333**, p < .05) but did not show influence on both motivation (r = -.035, p < .05) and English learning system (r = -.018, p < .05). Furthermore, all three variables of the study are correlated with each other as Motivation and ELS (r =-.330**, p < .05), Motivation and CEFR (r = .358**, p < .05), ELS and CEFR (r = -.782**, p < .05). Hence, it can be determined that the Result of Correlation Analysis can be used in this study.. 33.

(46) Table 4.8. Result of Correlation Analysis (N = 204) M. G. Age. YOE. Edu.. G. 1. Age. .164*. 1. YOE. .103. .173*. 1. Edu.. -.053. .071. .040. 1. Fre. -.045. -.116. .107. .150*. 1. Mot. -.011. -.182**. -.006. -.035. .398**. ELSU. .027. .155*. -.050. -.018. -.180** -.330**. YELS. .004. -.032. .125. .116. .301**. .361**. -.782**. 1. CEFR. -.120. -.240**. .553**. .358**. -.218**. .230**. -.023 .333**. Fre. Mot. ELSU. YELS. CEFR. 1 1. 1. Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, M = measures, S.D. = standard deviation, G = gender, YOE = years of study English, Edu. = education, Fre. = frequency of using English, Mot = English learning motivation, ELSU = English learning system usage, YELS = years of using ELS, CEFR = the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages.. 34.

(47) Multiple Linear Regression Multiple Linear Regression was conducted to examine the relationship between each variable, which are English proficiency and English learning motivation with the moderating effect of English learning system to test if it match 3 hypothesis or not.. English learning motivation and English proficiency In this study, hypothesis 1 test the relationship between English learning motivation and English proficiency. To test the relationship, English proficiency was set as the dependent variable. According to table 4.9., R squared is .128, which explained 12.8% of the variation in English proficiency variable and F value is 29.656. From the general outcome, it can be indicated that the relationship between English learning motivation and English proficiency is positively significant (p = .000). The result agrees with many previous studies proving that motivation does connect with performance (Stevenson & Lee, 1996; Yu, 1996; Zimmerman, 2008).. Table 4.9. Multiple Linear Regression of ELM and EP (N = 204) English Learning Motivation Model 1. Model 2. β. β. -.073. -.075. Age. -.197***. -.176**. YOE. .167**. .153**. Education. .239***. .254***. Frequency. .433***. .377***. Variables Gender. English Learning Motivation. .154**. R2. .435. .454. Adjusted R2. .421. .438. F. 30.511. 27.349. Note: Independent Variable: English learning motivation, ***p<.001, **p < .01. 35.

(48) English learning system usage and English proficiency Hypothesis 2 of this study was to examine the relationship between English learning system and English proficiency. To test the relationship, English proficiency was set as dependent variable. As stated in the report, 12.8% of the variation in English proficiency was explained variable and F value is 24.326. From the overall result, it can be interpreted that the relationship between English learning system and English proficiency is positively significant (p = .000). This result can relate to relevant researches that English learning system does connect with performance (Jarvela, 2016; Koedinger & Aleven, 2007; Koedinger, Aleven, Roll, & Baker, 2009).. Table 4.10. Multiple Linear Regression of ELSU and EP (N = 204) English Learning System Usage Model 1. Model 2. β. β. -.073. -.072. Age. -.197***. -.184**. YOE. .167**. .162**. Education. .239***. .239***. Frequency. .433***. Variables Gender. English Learning. .. 420*** -.091**. System Usage R2. .435. .443. Adjusted R2. .421. .426. F. 30.511***. 26.125***. Note: Independent Variable: English learning system usage, ***p<.001, **p < .01. 36.

(49) English learning motivation, English learning system usage and English proficiency Hypothesis 3 of this study tested the relationship between English learning motivation, English learning system and English proficiency. The relationship was examined by setting EP as the dependent variable; ELM and ELS as the independent variable. The outcome confirmed the moderating effect between ELM and EP was not significant (p = .900). Therefore, it shows that English learning system in this study does not moderate the relationship between English learning motivation and English proficiency.. Table 4.11. Multiple Linear Regression of ELM, ELSU and EP (N = 204) Model. Variables. 1. (Constant). β. ELM. 2. .358***. R2. .128. Adjusted R2. .124. F. 29.656***. (Constant) ELM. .321***. ELSU. -.112**. R2. .139. Adjusted R2. .131. F 3. 16.262***. (Constant) ELM. .318***. ELSU. -.112. ELM*ELSU. .009. R2. .139. Adjusted R2. .126. F. 10.793***. Note: Independent Variable: English learning motivation, English learning system usage, ***p<.001, **p < .01 37.

(50) Discussions According to the result from analysis, hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 were supported, English learning motivation and English learning system usage are positively related to English proficiency. However, in this study, English learning system usage did not moderate the relationship between English learning motivation and English proficiency (See table 4.12.).. Table 4.12. Summary of Results Hypothesis H1. Results. English Learning Motivation has a relationship with English Proficiency.. H2. English Learning System Usage has a relationship with English Proficiency.. H3. Accepted. Accepted. English Learning System Usage moderates the relationships between English Learning Motivation and. Rejected. English Proficiency.. From the tables show above, the target of this study is to examine the relationships between three variables, which are English learning motivation, English learning system and English proficiency among Taiwanese who have English learning experience. It is confirmed that if English learners have a strong learning motivation, it will enhance their English proficiency since it takes consistant practice and proactive use to master a non-native language. The result was analyzed based on previous studies indicated that these variables were related to each other (Chi, Siler, Jeong, Yamauchi, & Hausmann, 2001; Dörnyei, 1998; Graesser & McNamara, 2010; Kosek & Lison, 2014; Ono & Zavodny, 2007). All the hypothesese were tested by conducting the descriptive analysis, correlation coefficient analysis and multiple regression analysis. Based on the analysis, in 204 respondents, only 29 (14.2%) of them have the advanced and proficient CEFR level. However, the result still show that the stronger English learning motivation learner possess, the better English proficiency he can demonstrate (H1). Also, analysis supported thatlearner’s experience on using English learning system also affect the 38.

(51) English ability (H2). Nonetheless, the moderating effect between English learning motivation and English proficiency (H3) was not significant according to the multiple regression analysis, it could be interpreted that the survey on English learning system in this study does not foucus on specific English learning system, which result in the discrepancy in each learners’ using experience.. 39.

(52) 40.