1 / 33

Language Learning Motivation, Strategies and Achievement: A Person-centered Approach Study

Language Learning Motivation, Strategies and Achievement: A Person-centered Approach Study Chang, Shan Mao Wu, Su Ching. 1. National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan. Introduction The Individual motivation The Purpose of the Study Literature Review Method Participants

donaldtaylor
Télécharger la présentation

Language Learning Motivation, Strategies and Achievement: A Person-centered Approach Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Language Learning Motivation, Strategies and Achievement: A Person-centered Approach Study Chang, Shan Mao Wu, Su Ching 1 National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan

  2. Introduction The Individual motivation The Purpose of the Study Literature Review Method Participants Instruments Data Analysis Results and Discussion Summary of Findings Conclusion Table of Contents 2

  3. Introduction • Individual motivation is a multidimensional configuration • Not just one single need (Kolesnik, 1978) • Not just one single type of motivation (Vallerand, Pelletier, & Koestner, 2008) • L2 motivation is considered a multifaceted construct (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005) • the major predictor of learning achievement (Brown, 2000; Dörnyei, 1998, 2005; Ellis, 2007) • the most influential factor in the selection of strategy use (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) 3

  4. Introduction • Variable-centered Approach • The mainstream approach in L2 motivation research (e.g., Barnhardt, 1998; Chamot, 1998; Cohen, 1998; Ehrman, Leaver, & Oxford, 2003; Wenden, 1999) • Reflecting the phenomenon regarding a small group of individuals (Bergman, Magunsson, & El Khorui, 2003) • The exploration of individual’s strategy use could be fragmental and incomplete. • Person-centered Approach • Completely exploring individual motivational configuration of English learning 4

  5. Introduction • The context where the target language is learned • Predominating learner’s motivation (Clément & Kruidenier, 1983; Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1990; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Warden & Lin, 2000) • In the EFL context: • Instrumental motivation is the dominant motivation (e.g., Carreira, 2011; Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Dörnyei, 1990; Humphreys & Spratt, 2008; Kaneko & Kawaguchi, 2010; Warden & Lin, 2000) → A persuasive hypothesis: Instrumental motivation can be the major component of EFL learners’ motivational configuration. 5

  6. Introduction • The Purpose of the study • To explore the components of senior high school EFL students’ motivational configuration in English learning on the basis of person-centered approach • To examine the relationships between senior high school EFL students’ motivational configuration of English learning, strategy use in English learning and English achievement 6

  7. Literature Review • Previous studies of Using Person-Centered Approach • Widely used in other fields (e.g., Conley, 2012; Daniels et al., 2008; Ntoumanis, 2002) • Results: higher level of motivation usually associated with positive outcomes • Few studies elaborate on individual EFL learners’ motivation (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005) • In education field: the positive relationship between academic motivational cluster and academic performance in • high quantity cluster (Ratelle et al., 2007) • good quality cluster (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) • both high quantity and good quality clusters (Wormington, Corpus, & Anderson, 2012) 7

  8. Literature Review • Previous studies of Using Person-Centered Approach related to Strategy Use • Focusing on the comparison between clusters (Bråten & Olasussen, 2005; Turner, Thorpe, & Meyer, 1998; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009) • Strategy use is a cluster variable: High frequent strategy use cluster was associated with • higher test scores (Kojic-Sabo & Lightbown, 1999) • achievement (Yamamori et al., 2003) • The positive relationship was proven: • Motivational clusters ↹ achievement • Strategy use cluster ↹ achievement 8

  9. Literature Review • The Dominant Motivation ? • Intrinsic motivation vs. extrinsic motivation → The incompatibility between intrinsic & extrinsic motives • The two motives is not simply at opposite ends of a continuum but more complicated (Lepper, Henderlong, Carol, & Judith, 2000; Lin, McKeachie & Kim, 2003; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 2000) • Coexist to stimulate learners’ engagement (e.g., Gillet et al. 2009; Lee, McInerney, Liem, & Ortiga, 2010) • integrative motivation vs. instrumental motivation • Doubt on Gardnerian superiority of integrative motivation in foreign/second language learning (Au, 1988b; Clëment & Kruidenier, 1983; Crooks & Schimidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1990b; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Warden & Lin, 2000; Wen, 1997) • Instrumental motivation is the dominant motivation in English learning in the EFL context (Carreira, 2011; Chen, Warden & Chang, 2005; Dörnyei, 1990; Humphreys & Spratt, 2008; Kaneko & Kawaguchi, 2010; Warden & Lin, 2000) 9

  10. Literature Review • Strategy use • The conflicting findings • the differences of strategy use between high- and low-proficiency learners did not always exist (Reiss, 1975; Rubin, 1975) • higher-proficiency learners actually use fewer strategies than low proficiency learners (Chen, 1990; Oxford, 1993) → Frequency of strategy use neither represents the quality of strategy use nor bears a simple linear relationship to language achievement (McDonough, 1999) → Cohen (1994): neither the frequency nor variety of strategy use definitely could serves as the indicator of successful learners’ strategy use. 10

  11. Literature Review • Strategy Use - Successful learners • Prefer to particular types of strategies • metacognitive strategies (Goh & Foong, 1997; Hong-Nam & Leavell, 2007; Magogwe & Oliver, 2007; Oxford, 1993; Pishghadam, 2008; Rahimi et al. 2008; Whorton, 2000) • depend little on cumulative knowledge and rehearsing skills (Gan et al., 2004) →Successful learners’ strategy use does not depend on a single category of strategies but on the combination of different categories of strategies (Chamot & Kupper, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1993). 11

  12. Method • Participants • A boys’ senior high school located in central Taiwan • Cluster sampling • Average age: 16.47 Grade Information of the Participants 12

  13. Method - Instruments • The Motivation Questionnaire (Wu, 2010) • Background information and 35 questions for Motivational Orientations • The Strategy Use Questionnaire (Wu, 2010) • Derived from Oxford’s (1989) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), ESL/EFL Version 7.0 • Verification of Questionnaires • Item analysis: • Item-total correlation coefficient >.30 • Independent t-test for each questionnaire item • Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Lisrel, Simplis 13

  14. Method –Data Analysis • Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) • Bartlett’s test of sphericity • Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) • Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO): Measure of Sampling Adequacy • Factor Loadings • Extraction: principle components analysis (PCA), eigenvalues >1; • Rotation: oblique (Promax) • Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Lisrel, Simplis • Construct Reliability (.31<CR<.89) 14

  15. Method –Data Analysis • Correlation of the three variables: • All significant at the .01 level (p < .01) • The coefficients: all fell into the range of (.163 ≦ r ≦ .746) • The diagnosis of multicollinearity • The tolerance values (>.10) • Variance inflation factor (VIF < 10) → The possibility of multicollinearity among the ten independent variables could be eliminated 15

  16. Cluster Analysis Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA): Ward’s Linkage with the interval of Squared Euclidean distance 23 univariates (3 SDs above or below the mean values of motivational factors MF1-MF5) were eliminated since HCA is sensitive to outliers (Garson, 1998) → 4 level of hierarchical cluster in motivation (MF1~MF5) Method –Data Analysis 16

  17. Method –Data Analysis • Cluster Analysis • K-means cluster analysis: 4 clusters • A double-split cross-validation procedure (Breckenridge, 2000) • Data (N=922) is split into two random halves for K-means cluster analysis: Cohen’s kappa = .918 • MANOVA analysis and Post Hoc Tests of Homogeneous Subsets • Multivariate tests of the four clusters indicated significant differences among the four groups (Wilks’ Lambda = 91.778, p<.001,η2=.525) • Partial η2 > .138 • Post Hoc Tests (Tukey HSD) of homogeneous subsets: • 5 motivational factors could be significantly classified into 4 different clusters except for MF1 (There is not much difference between MF1 of cluster2 and that of cluster4.) 17

  18. Results and Discussion 18

  19. Results and Discussion • The differences of the motivation constituents N=238 High Motive N=284 Socioculture Focused N=188 Performance Focused N=212 Low Motive 19

  20. Results and Discussion High Motive High Frequent Str. User Low Motive Low Frequent Str. User 20

  21. Results and Discussion Not merely depend on the five categories of strategies (SF1~SF5) but on some other factors for English Achievement SF3 is the only coordinator among different kinds of strategies. 21

  22. Results and Discussion Not merely depend on the five categories of strategies (SF1~SF5) but on some other factors for English Achievement SF3 is not the only coordinator. SF3 → SF1 →SF4, SF5 The more correlations between Motivation and Strategy Use of Cluster4, however, do not consequentially bring about any effects on Achievement 22

  23. Results and Discussion SF2 → negative effects on Ach SF3 is coordinated by SF1 Socioculture Focused Learners: 1. Using more surface strategies 2. Lacking of organized manipulation in SF3 3. SF2 → negative effects on Ach → Comparatively inefficient strategy use 23

  24. Results and Discussion SF2 → negative effects on Ach SF4 → positive effects on Ach 0.30 Lacking of manipulation on SF3 3 negative correlations between Motivation and Strategy Use suggest the higher motivation EFL students in Cluster1 Low Motive Group have, the fewer the effects on strategy use are. 24

  25. Results and Discussion Fit Measures of 4 Clusters Note. df= degrees of freedom, GFI=Goodness of Fit Index, RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI=Comparative Fit Index, NNFI=Non-Normed Fit Index, CN=Critical N. 25

  26. Results and Discussion 26

  27. Summary of the Findings • The features of senior high school EFL students’ motivational configuration • Deeply influenced by the EFL context: instrumental MF3 Prospective Needs and MF2 Realistic Needs • MF3 & MF2 → no direct effects on English achievement → Senior high school EFL students’ English learning motivation should not merely focus on instrumental motivation but on the configuration of a variety of motives. 27

  28. Summary of the Findings • Features of Strategy Use of the 4 groups: • Frequency of strategy • High Motive Group: the high strategy use group • The other 3 groups: medium strategy use group • Strategies preference • High Motive Group: using fewest direct strategies • Performance Focused vs. Socioculture Focused: • Social-affective vs. Memory strategies • Low Motive: direct strategies > indirect strategies • Strategic behavior • Coordinators: Indirect Strategies (Metacognitive & Socio-affective) • Coordinating Relationship: Metacognitive & Socio-affective should not be coordinated by direct strategies unless the reciprocal relationship exists between indirect and direct strategies (indirect strategies → direct strategies → indirect strategies) 28

  29. Summary of the Findings • Strategic behavior • High Motive Group: Appropriate but insufficient for improving English achievement. →The five categories of strategies, however, are not sufficient enough for the high achievers to improve their English achievement. • Performance Focused Group: Less proper and still insufficient for improving English achievement because of imperfect coordination • Socioculture Focused Group: less effective because of more negative correlations between Motivation and Strategy Use and even more chaotic coordination between indirect and direct strategies • Low Motive Group: obviously ineffective due to: • 3 negative correlations between motivation and strategy use, suggesting low motive EFL students’ avoidance in strategy use, especially the negative correlation between MF2 and SF3, • indirect strategies were functionless on the coordination between indirect and direct strategies, • indirect strategies (SF2 and SF3) were coordinated by direct strategies (SF1), and 4) No reciprocal relationship between indirect and direct strategies. 29

  30. Summary of the Findings • The Relationship between Motivation, Strategy Use and English achievement • High Motive & Performance Focused Group: • Direct relationship models: only MF1 Intrinsic Motivation serves as a direct impetus leading to positive effects on English achievement • Socioculture Focused & Low Motive Group: • Partial indirect relationship models → Motivation serves as a trigger prompting EFL students to take their efforts into practice through strategic behavior for the purpose of improving English achievement → The efforts derived from motivation putting action into practice through strategy use, however, may not be sufficiently or efficiently enough to improve EFL students’ English achievement. 30

  31. Conclusion • Through person-centered analysis, this study definitely proved • EFL students’ English learning motivation does not merely lie in a single motive but constructed by a motivational configuration which may influence EFL students’ strategy use, including frequency of strategy, strategy preference and strategic behavior. • Instrumental motivation: • Indispensable but not the major impetus for highly motivated and extrinsically motivated EFL students • The significant driving force for the lower achievers → Instrumental motivation could be an initial motive for less motivated learners 31

  32. Conclusion • The positive effects derived from instrumental motivation through ineffective strategy use for less motivated EFL students: • Enlightening language instructors on the issues of strengthening less motivated EFL students’ learning motivation by executing strategy use instruction especially for the use of Metacognitive Strategies. 31

  33. Thank You for Listening

More Related