Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement
(USC Thesis Other)
Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
SELF-DETERMINATION AMONG ADULT CHINESE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNERS: THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG PERCEIVED AUTONOMY
SUPPORT, INTRINSIC MOTIV ATION, AND ENGAGEMENT
by
Yi-Chen (Jenny) He
_____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2009
Copyright 2009 Yi-Chen (Jenny) He
ii
DEDICATION
To my Mom and Dad,
My family,
And my loving husband.
Thank you for all of your support
Dream comes true
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to offer my most sincere gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Robert
Rueda, for his clear instructions, valuable feedback, and guidance of this research. I
would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Dr. James
Valentine for sharing their expertise and advice. Special thanks to Dr. James Valentine, for
also guiding and supporting me through the data collection process. I wish to thank Dr.
Yu-Ying Tsong for her great help in data analysis support.
I would also like to acknowledge my family, especially to my Mom, Dad, and
my husband. Thank you for believing in me, and made me become who I am today.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………...…ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………....vii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………..…………………..viii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….………….....xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..……1
Overview…………………………………………………………………...…….1
Purpose of this Study…………………………………………………………….4
Significance of the Study………………………………………………………...6
Definitions of Terms…………………………………………………………...…7
Delimitations..........................................................................................................8
CHAPTER2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………………..9
Introduction………………………………………………………………………9
Methodology……………………………………………………..………………9
An Overview of Language Teaching Methods…………………………………...9
Grammar Translation Method……………………………………………..10
Direct Method…………………………………………………………......10
Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching…………………….…11
Audio-Lingual Method…………………………………………………….11
Communicative Language Teaching…………………………………..…..12
Natural Approach……………………………………………..…………...12
Gardner’s Motivation Theory in Language Learning………………………..…14
Cultural Beliefs on Language Learning and Motivation………………………..15
Self-Determination…………………………………………………………...…16
Self-Determination and Language Learning………………………………...….21
Self-Determination and Engagement………………………………………...…25
Self-Determination and Cultural Differences…………………………………...28
Summary………………………………………………………………………..32
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………34
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY……………………………………………..…….35
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..35
v
Overview………………………………………………………………………..35
Research Context………………………………………………………………..36
Participants…………………………………………………………………...…37
Research Design…………………………………………………………...……37
Measure………………………………………………………………………....38
Perceived Autonomy Support……………………………………………...38
Intrinsic Motivation………………………………………………………..39
Engagement……………………………………………………………......39
Procedure………………………………………………………………………..40
Data collection…………………………………………………………………..41
Inclusion/ Exclusion Criteria……………………………………………...…….41
Data analysis…………………………………………………………………....41
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS……………………………………………………………..43
Correlation………………………………………………………………………43
Regression…………………………………………………………………...….44
Research Question 1…………………………………………………………….46
Research Question 2…………………………………………………………….46
Research Question 3…………………………………………………………….47
Research Question 4………………………………………………...…………..47
Summary………………………………………………………..………………50
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………...……51
Overview………………………………………………………………………..51
Limitations…………………………………………………………………...…51
Discussion of Self-Determination Theory and Language Learning…………….52
Discussion of Self-Determination Theory and Engagement……………………53
Discussion of Self-Determination Theory and different Cultural contexts……..54
Discussion of Cultural Application and Age Difference………………………..55
Discussion of Motivation and Engagement…………………………………….57
Implications……………………………………………………………………..58
Applications………………………………………………………………….....59
Future Research…………………………………………………………………60
Conclusion………………………………………………………...…………….61
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………...…………..63
vi
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………..70
Appendix A: Survey Questions……………………………………………...….70
Appendix B: Research Information Sheet………………………………………77
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter……………………………………………..…80
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Correlation between Nationality, Perceived Autonomy Support, Intrinsic
Motivation, and Engagement……………………………………………….37
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations for Measured Variables……..43
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Measured Variables……………...….43
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Dialectical Framework within Self-Determination Theory…………...19
Figure 2. Proposed Research and Mediation Model………………………………....35
Figure 3. Diagram of Paths in Mediation Models……………………………………48
Figure 4. Mediation Model………………………………………………………...…49
ix
ABSTRACT
This is a study of Self-Determination Theory in English language learning and
on Chinese culture group. Self-Determination Theory has been successfully applied to
many academic fields. However, it has not yet been fully explored in the filed of
English language learning. Also, recently some researchers have raised another issue
regarding the cultural application within Self-Determination Theory. These
researchers argued that the theory may not be applied to people from different cultures.
This study will further explore the application of Self-Determination Theory in
English language learning and examine its effect on adult Chinese culture group.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Overview
As public transportation and media have been gradually developed and improved,
the concept of globalization becomes more and more popular. Learning a foreign or a
second language has now become essential. Foreign/second language learning is seen
as a tool to express ideas, feelings, and to communicate with others (Richards &
Rodgers, 2001). Many people also believe that having the ability to speak two or more
languages can help them become more successful in society. Numerous college
students have stated that foreign language skills are a useful tool in job-related fields,
such as business or education (Rueda & Chen, 2005). Rueda and Chen (2005) found
that non-Asian college participants indicated that learning Chinese is helpful in
“traveling to a Chinese speaking country” and “becoming a more qualified job
candidate”. Also, Gan, Humphreys, and Hamp-Lyons’s (2004) found that college
students believe learning a foreign language can help them understand the target
language’s culture. These studies provide some evidence that studying a foreign or
second language has generally become important, and many researchers have paid
much attention to this globalized issue.
Another factor that influences the importance of second language learning in the
United States is the growing population of immigrants. According to Garcia (2002,
p.8), “from 1981 through 1990, more than 7.3 million people immigrated to the
United States --- a 63 percent increase over the previous decade.” Among these
immigrants, 90 percent are from non-English speaking countries (Garcia, 2002).
Another recent study conducted by Burroughs (2008) also pointed out that the
communication challenges between native and non-native English speakers in the
United States have become locally, nationally, and internationally sensitive. Schools
2
of various levels have continuously received students who do not speak English at
home. Therefore, it is essential for educators to study the issue of increasing these
immigrants’ English proficiency and helping them to adapt to our education and
society.
Numerous studies on second language learning mainly focused on the
measurement of “language ability” (Brown, 2001). Other studies of second language
acquisition have focused on the improvement of teaching methods and curriculum
design, such as Communicative Language Teaching, Natural Approach, or
Audio-lingual Method. (For a review please see Brown, 2000; 2001; Richards &
Rodgers, 2001). However, a number of researchers have shifted their attention to the
relationship between second language learning and motivation. These researchers
generally believe that if language learners are motivated in learning, they will show
more engagement and have a higher language achievement. Language learners’
motivation can be very important and useful in predicting their language achievement
(Vandergrift, 2005).
The word “motivation” is defined as an idea of movement that “gets us going,
keeps us moving, and helps us to complete tasks” (Schunk, Pintrinch, & Meece, 2007).
Ryan and Deci (2000) further described motivation as “to be motivated means to be
moved to do something” (p.5). The term motivation generally explains “why” people
decide to do something and “how persistent” they will be to complete the task.
Various studies have pointed out that strong motivation in second language
learning will lead to increased language attainment and the feeling of progress
(Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, Lalonde, Moorcroft, & Evers, 1987; Mills,
Pajares, & Herron, 2007). The issue of how to keep learners motivated in their
language learning has therefore become important in the research field.
3
Earlier investigation on second language learning and motivation used Gardner
and Lambert’s (1959) language learning motivation framework, which focused on the
orientation index: integrative and instrumental. Integrative orientation is defined that a
second language learner wants to learn more about the culture and the community of
the target language group. Instrumental orientation means a language learner gains
benefits from studying the target language. Various second language learning studies
conducted their research using this framework to examine learners’ language
motivation in terms of culture identity, value, or goal orientations (Rueda & Chen,
2005; Wright & McGrory, 2005).
Recently, some current research in language learning has shifted its attention to
Self-Determination Theory. These studies have used Self-Determination Theory as the
framework to analyze language learners’ motivation (d’Ailly, 2004; Noels, 2001;
Tanaka & Yamauchi, 2000). Noels, Clément, and Pelletier (1999) pointed out in their
study that Self-Determination Theory can be one good predictor of language learners’
motivation and achievement.
According to Deci (1980), self-determination is “the process of utilizing one’s
will” (p.26). Self-determination requires people to make choices and determine ways
to satisfy needs. When applied to education, Self-Determination Theory is about one’s
perceived capability, choice of control, and sense of belongingness in school (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Hardré & Reeve, 2003). Individuals will become self-determined when
they internalize their reasons for executing a given behavior.
The perceptions of “autonomy” and “choice” are two important factors in
Self-Determination Theory. It assumes that with the provision of choice, students’
sense of autonomy will increase and hence leads to a greater intrinsic motivation and
engagement (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Deci and Ryan also proposed that students need to
4
have a sense of internal control and freedom of choice with interactions in their
environment.
However, recent research has also raised another issue regarding student
autonomy, perceived control, and cross cultural difference (d’Ailly, 2003; Iyengar &
Lepper, 1999; Katzner, 2000; Rudy, Sheldon, Awong & Tan, 2007). Researchers are
concerned about the cultural limitation of Self-Determination Theory, since this
construct was originated and developed mainly from the Western perspectives and
beliefs.
Studies have found out that students’ perception and preference for classroom
autonomy is different across cultures. In Iyengar and Lepper’s (1999) study, a
surprising difference was found between Anglo-American students and Asian-
American students: Anglo-American students showed fewer interests when their
choices were made for them by others. In contrast, Asian-American students were
more motivated when choices were made for them by trusted authorities.
d’Ailly’s (2003; 2004) studies also confirmed cultural differences in terms of
Self-Determination Theory. In these two studies, d’Ailly concluded that without the
support and mediation of perceived control, autonomy can be a negative factor in
Asian students’ academic performance. The findings suggested that further research
should pay attention to the implication of Self-Determination Theory across different
cultures.
Purpose of this Study
Given the relative lack of information on cultural factors in Self-Determination
Theory and language learning, the purpose of this study is to use the construct of
student autonomy and perceived control to analyze adult Chinese English language
learners’ motivation towards learning English as a second language. This study
5
intends to examine if Self-Determination Theory can be applied in a language
learning classroom and to collectivistic cultures.
This study seeks to explore the connections between students’ perceived
autonomy support, learning motivation, and classroom involvement. A conceptual
model is adapted from Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan’s (2007) study which stated that
classroom learning environments will influence students’ motivational beliefs, and
these beliefs, in turn, influence and predict their engagement in academic tasks. In this
study, students’ perception of the learning environments is conceptualized as their
perceived autonomy support in a language classroom. This study expects that
teachers’ autonomy support can increase students’ intrinsic motivation in learning
(motivational beliefs), and therefore enhances students’ engagement in class. This
study will examine adult Chinese English language students’ perception of perceived
autonomy support from their language teachers and correlate it to their intrinsic
motivation and task engagement. Also, since the research model of this study
proposes a chain relationship among each variable (perceived autonomy support,
intrinsic motivation, and engagement), this study will also examine to see if intrinsic
motivation serves as a mediator between perceived autonomy support and
engagement.
The four research questions are:
1. What is the relationship between perceived classroom autonomy support and
students’ intrinsic motivation among adult Chinese English language learners?
2. What is the relationship between students’ intrinsic motivation and student
engagement among adult Chinese English language learners?
3. What is the relationship between perceived classroom autonomy support and
student engagement among adult Chinese English language learners?
6
4. Does intrinsic motivation mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy
support and student engagement?
Significance of the Study
This study would contribute to the literature on Self-Determination Theory and
language learning motivation. This is an area that is currently limited in research.
Self-Determination Theory has been successfully applied to many different academic
contexts (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, its
effect on language learning motivation has not yet been fully explored (Dörnyei, 2003;
Noels et al., 1999). This study would provide a better understanding of
self-determination among English language learners. This study would also examine
the relationship among self-determination, intrinsic motivation, and student
engagement.
The current study would also contribute to the literature on self-determination
and cultural differences. Several studies have argued against the effect of perceived
autonomy support among Asian learners (d’Ailly, 2003; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999), and
yet other studies claimed that Self-Determination Theory is universally applicable
(Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003). Most of the previous research using
Self-Determination Theory has been conducted in the Western cultural setting; only a
few studies have addressed its cultural issue in the collectivistic context. This study
would examine the effect of self-determination among Chinese adult English
language learners and provide a better understanding of this cultural issue.
Finally, as the population of English language learners in the United States has
grown consistently, helping these English language learners adapt to our educational
system and society has become an essential task. This study would provide an insight
of dealing with this language learning issue.
7
Definitions of Terms
Self-determination is “the process of utilizing one’s will” (Deci, 1980, p.26). To
be self-determined, people decide how to act in their environment. If an individual
acts on a behavior which is freely chosen, then the type of experienced behavior is
self-determined. On the contrary, if the individuals’ acting behaviors are under force
or pressure, then their behaviors are considered controlled.
The need for autonomy is described as the feeling of control and freedom for
choices and actions over the environment. Self-Determination Theory stated that
autonomy-supportive contexts tend to maintain or enhance intrinsic motivation,
whereas controlling contexts tend to undermine intrinsic motivation and create more
learning anxiety (Black & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation is categorized as an individual engaging in an activity
because it is interesting and enjoyable. This type of behavior is a spontaneous
experience of interest and enjoyment. Intrinsic motivation also represents the
prototype of self-determined behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 1994, 2000). They are
experienced as volitional and free from demands and instrumentalities. Intrinsic
motivation is “the human need to be competent and self-determining in relation to the
environment” (Deci, 1980, p.27).
Extrinsic motivation is defined as something that is done as a means to an end.
This type of action is not spontaneous and is carried out to achieve some instrumental
end, such as earning a reward or avoiding punishment.
School engagement is categorized as three different types: behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2005; Reeve, Jang, Carrell,
Jeon, & Barch, 2004). In a classroom setting, behavioral engagement refers to
behavioral intensity, such as students’ effort, persistence, concentration, and
8
participation in school-related activities (Fredricks et al., 2005; Reeve et al., 2004).
Emotional engagement is characterized by students’ emotional quality in a classroom,
such as anger, happiness, anxiety, etc. (Fredricks et al., 2005; Reeve et al., 2004).
Cognitive engagement refers to students’ investment in learning, such as their
self-regulation and strategies use (Fredricks et al., 2005).
Collectivistic culture is identified as greater emphasis on the importance of social
harmony, the avoidance of conflicts, and obligation to the group. In contrast,
individualistic culture is centered on the personal rights, desires, and privileges
(Forbes, Zhang, Doroszewicz, & Haas, 2009). In general, individualistic culture is
associated with Western cultures and collectivistic culture is associated with Eastern
cultures.
Delimitations
This study was designed to study the effect of self-determination on Chinese
adult English language learners. The findings may not apply to other age or ethnic
groups.
Data of this study was collected in an urban university in Southern California.
Findings of this study may not be applied to other geological settings.
Finally, data of this study was collected in an ESL (English as a Second
Language) environment. Findings of the present study may not be applied to other
subject areas.
9
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This study will investigate motivational factors in second/foreign language
learning. Therefore, in this chapter, this review will first provide a brief overview of
some major trends in twentieth-century language teaching.
A background will be provided for discussion of contemporary language
teaching methods. Next, the early theoretical framework of language learning and
motivation, constructed by Gardner and his colleagues will be presented, followed by
some cultural perspectives in terms of second language learning. Finally,
Self-Determination Theory will be discussed, as well as its application in language
learning, engagement, and the cultural differences within this theory.
Methodology
This paper collected its literature mainly from ERIC and PsycINFO databases,
using peer-reviewed journal articles only, which were published within the period
from 1998-2009. Some key articles published prior to 1998 that were often cited in
other research articles were also used in this study.
The combination of key words to search these articles were “second language
learning”, “motivation”, “self-determination”, “cultural differences”, “engagement”,
and “achievement”.
An Overview of Language Teaching Methods
A brief overview of some major language teaching methods will be discussed in
this section. Although these methods do not mention the concept of motivation in their
theories, they provide an insight into foreign/second language learning history,
background, and the changes based on different eras. This study understands their
importance and contribution towards the area of second language learning. Therefore,
10
a brief overview of some of the major second language teaching methods will be
touched upon briefly.
Richard & Rodgers (2001) identified four major trends in twentieth-century
language teaching: Grammar Translation Method, the Direct Method, Situational
Language Teaching, and the Audio-lingual Method. These language teaching
methods/approaches will be briefly described later on. Moreover, the following
section also includes some recent communicative approaches, including
Communicative Language Teaching and the Natural Approach.
Grammar Translation Method
The term “foreign language learning” first appeared in the Western world when
students began to study Latin (Brown, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2001). About 500
years ago, Latin was the dominant language in the Western world in all major aspects
of communication such as education, religion, business, and politics. However, as the
English language gained its importance as a result of political change in Europe, Latin
gradually disappeared from the use of spoken and written communication (Richards
& Rodgers, 2001). Since Latin was no longer spoken or written, the way students
learned Latin in school became to focus on the translation of ancient Latin books or
materials. Therefore, a language classroom was taught in students’ first language, with
little or no active use of the target language. Students’ tasks were to translate the given
material (eg., Latin sentences) into their first languages. Little attention was paid to
the use of the target language, pronunciation, or content of texts (Brown, 2000; Brown,
2001; Richards & Rodgers, 2001)
Direct Method
Toward the mid-nineteenth-century, the increased opportunities of
communication among Europeans created a demand of foreign language learning in
11
oral proficiency (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Since the Grammar Translation Method
mainly focused on written texts translation and hence could not meet this need, a new
approach in language teaching was developed emphasizing oral interaction of the
target language. In a Direct Method language learning classroom, classroom
instruction is exclusively taught in the target language. The class should be small and
interactive, so that teachers and students can practice their oral communication skills.
Grammar is taught inductively, and only everyday vocabulary and sentences are
emphasized (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching
During the 1930’s to 1960’s, British applied linguistics developed a principled
approach in language teaching, focusing on vocabulary control, structural syllabus,
and situational teaching. This theory of language teaching believes that vocabulary is
one of the most important aspects of foreign language learning, and language is
learned through the process of habit formation (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Therefore,
in a Situational Language Teaching classroom, the target language is taught and
practiced through meaningful and situation-based activities. Students learn grammar
and vocabulary in different real-life situations. Learning contexts, vocabulary, and
grammar are carefully and situationally structured and designed in a class syllabus.
Audio-Lingual Method
While the Direct Method was popular among European countries, it was not as
popular in the United States. One reason for this difference was that it was more
difficult to find language teachers who were native-speakers of foreign languages in
the United States than in Europe, since language teachers in Europe were more easily
to obtain (Brown, 2000). During World War II, the United States government needed
urgent supplies of personnel who were fluent in their ally’s or enemies’ languages.
12
The Army Specialized Training Program was therefore designed for highly-motivated
students to learn oral skills of the target languages in an immersion class (usually 10
hours a day, 6 days a week) (Brown, 2000; 2001, Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The
characteristics of the Audio-lingual Method are as follows; a). New material is
presented in dialog form, b). Language and structural patterns are taught using
repetitive drills, and c). Language is acquired through a process of habit formation.
Communicative Language Teaching
Prior to the development of Communicative Language Teaching, Situational
Language Teaching represented the major British approach of language teaching
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). However, in the mid-1960’s, British applied linguists
started to stress another way of thinking that language learning should carry meaning
and that the purpose of language itself is to communicate. The goal of language
teaching therefore became to develop “communicative competence” (Richards &
Rodgers, 2001). The characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching are a). The
primary function of language is to allow interaction and communication, b). Language
techniques are designed to engage learners in the meaningful, functional, and
authentic use of language, and c). Function and communication, rather than grammar
and structure, should be the prime units of language learning (Brown, 2000; Richards
& Rodgers, 2001).
Natural Approach
Stephen Krashen’s (1981; 1982) theory of second language acquisition has been
widely accepted, discussed, and debated since the 1970’s (Brown, 2000). Similar to
Communicative Language Teaching, Natural Approach also views communication as
the primary function of language (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
13
The Natural Approach was aimed at the goal of basic interpersonal
communication skills (Brown, 2000). The theory of language learning is based on five
hypotheses:
a. The acquisition/learning hypothesis: acquisition refers to an unconscious,
natural way of learning through using language for meaningful
communication, while learning, by contrast, refers to a process in while
conscious rules about a language are developed (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
Language acquisition is the only way that second language competence
occurs.
b. The monitor hypothesis: conscious learning occurs only to monitor, repair, or
edit the language output that has been acquired.
c. The natural order hypothesis: the acquisition of grammatical structures is
acquired in a predictable order, and errors are signs of naturalistic
developmental process.
d. The input hypothesis: learners acquire the most optimal language learning
input when the tasks difficulty is just slightly more difficult than the learners’
levels of proficiency.
e. The affective filter hypothesis: learners’ emotional states can act as a filter
influencing their learning conditions.
These language teaching methods/approaches above provide very useful
alternative explanations for understanding second/foreign language learning. However,
as mentioned earlier in this study, they neither provide a theoretical framework of
second language learning and motivation nor do they include motivation as a
component in their theory development. As many researchers have pointed out
(Gardner, 1985; Dörnyei, 2003; Vandergrift, 2005), motivation plays a key role in the
14
success of second or foreign language learning. Brown (2001) also stated that one of
the more complex problems of second language learning has been to define and apply
the construct of motivation in the classroom. Therefore, it is crucial to explore the
relationship between second/foreign language learning and motivation.
Gardner’s Motivation Theory in Language Learning
The modern research in second language learning and motivation was first
initiated by Gardner and Lambert (1959). Dörnyei (2003) stated in his review article
that it was because of the unique situation in Canada (with the coexistence of the
Anglophone and Francophone communities speaking two of the most dominant
languages of the world) that the field of language learning and motivation was first
conceived there and has been actively promoted and sponsored since. Accordingly,
Gardner and Lambert (1959) proposed a framework for language learning and
motivation, the “Orientation Index”, to categorize language learning motivation for
one of two purposes: integrative or instrumental. While integrative orientation means
learning a new language to meet and know more about the target group, instrumental
orientation reflects the more utilitarian reasons for learning a new language, such as
its usefulness in obtaining a job or making one a more educated person. Integrative
orientation is defined that a second language learner wants to learn more about the
culture and the community of the target language group. Learners with this orientation
wish to have more interaction with the target group and may eventually want to
become a part of it. Instrumental orientation is when a language learner gains benefits
from studying the target language.
Gardner’s motivation and language learning framework has been widely cited in
various articles (Gan & Hamp-Lyons, 2004; Rueda & Chen, 2005; Wright & McGrory,
2005). One example was presented by Wright & McGrory (2004). Their study used
15
Gardner’s framework to observe adult Irish language learners’ learning motivation in
North Ireland. The results showed that most participants indicated that learning the
Irish language means learning its cultural identity, which suggested that an integrative
orientation may be more motivating for many of the adult Irish learners in North
Ireland.
The foundation of Gardner’s theory was based on a social-cultural or
social-psychological point of view and was established in the 1960’s. However, since
cognitive theories became more popular in psychological research during the
subsequent decades, researchers of language learning and motivation have begun to
utilize a social cognitive point of view for a better understanding of language learners’
learning motivation (Dörnyei, 2003). One of the most prominent social cognitive
approaches is Self-Determination Theory. Later in this chapter, Self-Determination
Theory will be discussed further.
Cultural Beliefs on Language Learning and Motivation
Some studies on language learning and motivation have considered the effect of
learners’ cultural beliefs on second language learning (Gan & Hamp-Lyons, 2004;
Rueda & Chen, 2005; Wright & McGrory, 2005). In his review article, Dörnyei (2003)
also argued that Gardner’s integrative language learning orientation may not be
universally applicable in different social contexts. Some learners may have difficulty
finding the cultural or integrative values in the target language if they do not have the
target community in their learning environments.
Consistent with Dörnyei’s (2003) argument, Rueda and Chen’s (2005) study
confirmed the importance of ethnic background in language learning motivation. The
participants in their study were Asian heritage and non-Asian heritage college
students studying Chinese as a foreign language. The results suggested that Chinese
16
language learners of Asian heritage and non-Asian heritage reported different
motivational beliefs in learning Chinese as a foreign language. While Asian heritage
participants mainly saw learning Chinese as a part of self-fulfillment or
self-identification, the non-Asian heritage counterparts reported more instrumental
value in learning Chinese, such as better communication skills when traveling to a
Chinese-speaking country. This study then suggested that students’ motivational
beliefs in language learning are influenced by their cultural and ethnical background.
Other examples of the influence of cultural beliefs and language learning were
presented by Wright and McGrory (2005) and Gan and Hamp-Lyons (2004). In
Wright and McGrory’s (2005) study, participants were adult language learners in
North Ireland enrolled in an Irish class. The results showed that an overwhelming
interest in the Irish culture and identity were the main motivation to study the Irish
language for the participants. In contrast, in Gan and Hamp-Lyons’s (2004) study, the
reasons for the Chinese college students to study English as a foreign language was
mostly for “test preparation” or “winning a scholarship for graduate study in a
Western country” (p.240). These studies provided some evidence that individuals’
cultural beliefs and social contexts will have an impact on language learners’ learning
motivation. Future research should take into consideration of these cultural and
motivational perspectives in language learning.
In the following section, the theory and foundation of Self-Determination Theory
will be presented.
Self-Determination
While de Charms (1968) and Harter (1978) stressed that individuals have the
motivation to exert control over their environments, Deci, Ryan, and their colleagues
(Deci, 1980, 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1994, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) further
17
extended this view stating that humans have a need to be autonomous
(self-determining) and engage in activities because they want to. Deci and his
colleagues also distinguished self-determination from will. Will is “the capacity of the
human organism to choose how to satisfy its need” (Deci, 1980, p.26), whereas
self-determination is “the process of utilizing one’s will” (Deci, 1980, p.26). To be
self-determined, people decide how to act in their environment. Individuals would not
feel satisfied if they cannot make their own choices and decide how to attain those
choices.
Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000) also proposed that humans have three basic innate
psychological needs: the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. They
defined the need for competence as an individual’s need to feel competent or mastery
in interacting with others and contexts. They defined the need for autonomy as the
feeling of control and freedom for choices and actions over the environment, and the
need for relatedness is similar to the need to belong to a group.
According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci, 1980, 1994; Deci & Ryan,
1985, 1994, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000), humans have the desire to engage in activities
to experience mastery and efficacy. People have the motivation or intention to
accomplish something with a mean to attain a desired end (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
According to SDT there are different types of motivated, or intended, behaviors that
have different qualities. Intentional behaviors may vary in the extent to which they are
self-determined or controlled. If an individual acts on a behavior which is freely
chosen, then the type of experienced behavior is self-determined. On the contrary, if
the individuals’ acting behaviors are under force or pressure, then their behaviors are
considered controlled.
18
In general, self-determined (autonomous) behaviors are related to more
enjoyment and higher quality of learning, whereas controlled behaviors are associated
with decreased learning interest and lower performance. An example of SDT in the
school setting would involve students completing their homework assignments.
Self-determined students would be doing homework because it is interesting,
important, or valuable, while the non-SDT students would do it to avoid being
punished. In both cases, students all finish their assignments, but the degrees of
self-determination, free will, and autonomy which they experience are different.
Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000) further categorized motivations into two different
types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is defined as an individual engaging
in an activity because it is interesting and enjoyable. This type of behavior is a
spontaneous experience of interest and enjoyment. Intrinsic motivation also represents
the prototype of self-determined behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 1994, 2000). They are
experienced as volitional and free from demands and instrumentalities. Intrinsic
motivation is “the human need to be competent and self-determining in relation to the
environment” (Deci, 1980, p.27). On the other hand, extrinsic motivation is defined as
something that is done as a means to an end. This type of action is not spontaneous
and is carried out to achieve some instrumental end, such as earning a reward or
avoiding punishment.
The “self” in Self-Determination Theory is seen as action and development from
within (Deci & Ryan, 1994). Students’ self-related development can encourage them
to grow or internalize their motivation and engagement over the environment. Reeve’s
(2006) study proposed a theoretical framework within Self-Determination Theory that
explained the mutual influences of students’ inner needs and the classroom
environment. The Dialectical Framework is shown in Figure 1.
19
Figure 1. The Dialectical Framework within Self-Determination Theory, as shown in
Reeve’s study (2006).
Reeve’s (2006) study explained that students have their inner motivational
resources, such as psychological needs, interests, and values. Their inner motivational
resources will make them want to engage in the classroom environment as an
expression of themselves, which indicates the upper arrow in Figure 1. The classroom
environment, depending on its classroom conditions (teachers’ motivating style or
social demands), will either nurture or disrupt the students’ inner motivational
resources. This process indicates the lower arrow in Figure 1. This Dialectical
Framework shows the importance of teachers’ autonomy support, for it can influence
students’ desire to learn and engage in classroom activities.
SDT also stated that autonomy-supportive contexts tend to maintain or enhance
intrinsic motivation, whereas controlling contexts tend to undermine intrinsic
STUDENTS’ INNER MOTIV ATIONAL
RESOURCES
Psychological Needs
(Autonomy, Competence, Relatedness)
Interests, Values, and Strivings
(Interests, Preferences, Values, Goals,
Aspirations, etc.)
CLASSROOM CONDITIONS
Teacher’s Motivating style
(Autonomy Supportive vs.
Controlling)
External Events
(Rewards, Punishment, Praise, Feedback,
Evaluation, etc.)
Social Demands
(Goals, Priorities, Rules, Norms,
Expectations, etc.)
Affordances
(Interesting Activities, Optimal Challenges)
20
motivation and create more learning anxiety (Black & Deci, 2000). Various studies
have provided empirical evidence that students with autonomy-supportive learning
environments can have more intrinsic learning motivation, learning enjoyment, and a
higher level of performance. One example was presented by Black & Deci (2000).
Black and Deci conducted a study to investigate student perceptions of their
instructors’ autonomy support on adjustment and academic performance in a
college-level course. Their study found that their college participants whose
perceptions of their instructors who were autonomy-supportive reported more
interest/enjoyment, less learning anxiety, and better performance. This study therefore
concluded that instructors who provide autonomy support can enhance students’
achievement and psychological development.
Another example, presented by Hardre and Reeve (2003), focused on the effects
of classroom autonomy support versus control in predicting high school students’
dropout intentions. They hypothesized that students who obtain more classroom
autonomy support are more inclined to stay in school. The result showed that the rural
high school participants who had the provision of classroom autonomy support
possessed more intrinsic motivation and higher perceived competence in their
classrooms. This result, in turn, predicted the high school students’ persistence versus
dropout intentions.
One recent study of self-determination and academic achievement was
conducted by Close and Solberg (2008). The participants in their study were mostly
Latino youth from an inner-city, low-income high school. The results showed that the
students who had higher autonomous motivation in school learning reported more
confidence in their academic abilities, higher levels of academic achievement, and
less physical and psychological distress.
21
More and more research articles have consistently provided empirical evidence
of the positive relations between SDT and intrinsic motivation, achievement, and
well-being. SDT has been widely applied to the educational field as well as other
domains such as work (Vansteenkiste, Neyrinck, Niemiec, Soenens, De Witte, & Van
den Broeck, 2007), athletics (Hodge, Allen, & Smellie, 2008), health (Kim, Carver,
Deci, & Kasser, 2008), and social behaviors (Weibel, 2007).
Self-Determination and Language Learning
Self-Determination Theory has been one of the most influential approaches in
motivational psychology (Dörnyei, 2003). The constructs of the three basic human
needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation has
been widely cited in various studies and can be used to predict student learning
motivation and their academic performance. For the past few years, Noels and her
research partners (Noels, 2001; Noels, Clément, & Pelletier, 1999; Noels, Pelletier,
Clément & Vallerand, 2000) have been actively promoting the application of
Self-Determination Theory into the field of second/foreign language learning
motivation. According to Noels et al. (1999), Self-Determination Theory can be a
useful framework to analyze language learners’ motivation. First, the concept of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which was constructed by Deci and Ryan, is very
helpful in understanding language learners’ reasons for learning a new language.
Second, the theory provides the psychological principles to explain how different
classroom teaching orientations (controlling vs. autonomy supportive) can influence
the language learning process and hence learning outcomes (Noels et al., 1999).
In their first study, Noels et al. (1999) examined the relationship between student
perceptions of their teachers’ communicative styles and their intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation in language learning. The participants were Anglophone college students
22
learning French in Canada. The result confirmed that intrinsic motivation is associated
with the teachers’ communicative style. The more an individual perceived the teacher
as controlling and less informative, the more anxious they were in the language
classroom. They were also less intrinsically motivated, and fewer were inclined to
continue studying the language. This finding was consistent with Self-Determination
Theory in that students’ sense of self-determination and learning enjoyment can be
enhanced by teachers supporting classroom autonomy and providing informative
feedback.
Similar to previous research, studies done by Noels et al. (2000) and Noels (2001)
found out that increased perceptions of freedom of choice are linked to more intrinsic
motivation in language learning. In Noels et al.’s (2000) study, they examined the
relationships between students’ intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, perceived competence
and their language learning outcome in a French-English bilingual university. The
results showed that teachers’ autonomy-supportive communicative style, which is
defined as giving students more choices and providing informative feedback, can
promote language learners’ intrinsic motivation, sense of self-determination, increased
perceived competence, and learning enjoyment. Consistent with the previous research,
Noels (2001) did another similar study of assessing students’ intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation and the perceptions of their teachers’ communicative style in a
college-level, Spanish-language setting. The results indicated that perceptions of
having choice in language learning strongly predicted higher levels of intrinsic
motivation (Noels et al., 2001). On the contrary, the more students perceived their
teachers as controlling and as failing to provide instructive feedback, the less they
were intrinsically motivated in their language learning.
23
One interesting result that was found in Noels et al.’s (2000) study was that
indentified regulation, one form of extrinsic motivation, had a stronger correlation
with freedom of choice, perceived competence, and intention to continue. This finding
suggested that students who are intrinsically motivated in learning a new language
may not necessarily feel personally involved in the learning process. The study
concluded that “to foster sustained learning, it may not be sufficient to convince
students that language learning is interesting and enjoyable; they may need to be
persuaded that it is also personally important for them” (p.75).
In addition to Noel et al.’s (2000, 2001) study, another example of
self-determination in language learning was presented by Tanaka and Yamauchi
(2000), who conducted research on the relations between autonomy, perceived control,
and self-regulated English language learning among Japanese college students.
Tanaka & Yamauchi hypothesized that the degree of students’ perceived autonomy
and classroom control can have an impact on students’ language learning behaviors.
Their results found that the combination of high autonomy support and low control
would lead students to become more adaptive learners. An adaptive learner is
competent, spends more effort, and uses optimal strategies to learn English. In
contrast, a classroom that had low autonomy support and high control could lead
students to become maladaptive learners, who spent little effort on the task, did not
believe in their abilities, and relied on luck rather than effort. Therefore, it was
suggested that in order for students to achieve higher academic performance, reduced
feelings of being controlled is as important as enhancing the feelings of autonomy.
d’Ailly (2004) also conducted a study of self-determination and language
learning in different cultural contexts. Her study examined the role of choice in
Taiwanese and Canadian children’s language learning. A conflicting result was found
24
that making a choice has no significant impact on both groups of children’s language
learning interest, effort, and learning outcome. The provision of choice did not seem
to have any direct interaction effects on interest, effort, and performance. The
plausible explanation for this observation is that the effect of choice is mainly
mediated by students’ interests (d’Ailly, 2004). This study was conducted using
computerized learning tasks; therefore, it was possible that most participants were
highly interested in using computers as assisted learning tools. Since the students
were already quite interested in the task, it might explain why the manipulation in this
study was not effective in predicting the possible impact of perceived autonomy on
students’ learning. The implication of this finding was that making personal choices
may only be relevant in students’ learning where the learning environment requires a
higher level of interests in students. In conflict with Noel’s study, d’Ailly’s (2004)
research indicated some doubt as to the power and the effect of self-determination in
students’ learning environment.
d’Ailly’s (2004) study also implied that for the Canadian participants, interest in
the task was important in foreign language learning, while compared to their Chinese
counterparts, values and self-regulation were the more important factors in language
learning. The Canadian children tended to exert more/less effort when they were
more/less interested in the task. On the contrary, although the Chinese participants
reported less intrinsic motivation in the task, their exerted effort was significantly
higher. This result shows that future research should focus on self-determination and
cultural differences.
In summary, Self-Determination Theory has had an essential influence in
psychological motivation, but it has not been extensively explored in the field of
second/foreign language learning motivation. While Noel and other researchers have
25
successfully applied the theory to language learning, some researchers (d’Ailly, 2004)
argued against its effect on students’ learning interest, effort, and performance. Future
research will need to further address this issue.
In the following section, the issue of student engagement and its relation to
self-determination will be examined.
Self-Determination and Engagement
The concept of student engagement has become a growing interest in the
educational field. Researchers generally believe that student engagement can predict
learners’ achievement and intentions to complete their study (Handelsman, Briggs,
Sullivan, & Towler, 2005; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000). One example was
shown in Handelsman et al.’s (2005) study. They developed and explored the validity
of a student course engagement for college/university level and examined its relation
to student course grades. They hypothesized that students who were more engaged in
class would have better achievement than those who were not engaged. The results
showed that student engagement can be a significant predictor for grades of
homework assignment, midterm examination, and final examination.
There are three types of engagement: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
(Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris, 2005; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch,
2004). In a classroom setting, behavioral engagement refers to behavioral intensity,
such as students’ effort, persistence, concentration, and participation in school-related
activities (Fredricks et al., 2005; Reeve et al., 2004). Emotional engagement is
characterized by students’ emotional quality in a classroom, such as anger, happiness,
anxiety, etc. (Fredricks et al., 2005; Reeve et al., 2004). Cognitive engagement refers
to students’ investment in learning, such as their self-regulation and strategies use
(Fredricks et al., 2005).
26
Handelsman et al.’s (2005) study categorized student engagement into four
different types: skills engagement, participation/interaction engagement, emotional
engagement, and performance engagement. Handelsman et al. (2005) defined skills
engagement as student engagement through practicing skills and learning strategies.
Similar to Fredricks et al.’s (2005) and Reeve et al.’s (2004) definition, emotional
engagement represents student engagement through emotional involvement.
Participation/interaction engagement refers to student engagement through
participation in class and interactions with instructors and other students. Performance
engagement represents for student engagement through levels of performance
(mastery vs. performance goal orientations) in class. Skills engagement is similar to
cognitive engagement, which both refers to students’ strategies use and out-of-class
practice. Participation/interaction engagement is paralleled with behavior engagement,
which both represents students’ effort and participation in classroom activities.
One study that provided empirical evidence of classroom autonomy support and
student engagement was presented by Reeve et al. (2004). Their study examined high
school teachers’ autonomy support and their students’ classroom engagement. The
results showed that the more teachers used autonomy support during instruction, the
more engaged their students were. The study concluded that positive classroom
instruction with autonomy support can have an effect on students’ engagement.
Another example was shown by Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipuer, Hanisch, Creed,
and McGregor (2006). Their study proposed that by providing classroom autonomy
support, teacher-student relationships and school fit are better promoted and result in
increased student engagement. Their results showed that by fulfilling in students the
need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, participants reported better
relationships with their teachers as well as higher classroom engagement as predicted.
27
Also, engagement fully mediated the path from school fit to achievement. This study
provided further evidence that engagement is an important factor in predicting
students’ achievement, and Self-Determination Theory has its influence on promoting
student engagement.
Similar to Zimmer-Gembeck et al’s (2006) study, Van Ryzin, Gravely, and
Roseth (2009) conducted a study examining the relationships between autonomy
support, engagement, peer-related belongingness, and school adjustment. They did a
self-report, quantitative, and short-term longitudinal study on secondary school
students. Their results indicated that students’ academic engagement can be enhanced
by their perceptions of autonomy support and both teacher and peer related
belongingness. Their results also showed that positive effect on student engagement
can increase students’ school adjustment (hope). Findings of Van Ryzin et al’s (2009)
study implied that an autonomy-supportive learning environment can stimulate
students’ school engagement, and in turn, has a positive impact their psychological
well-being.
However, as Fredricks et al. (2005) stated in their review study, only limited
research has been done demonstrating how autonomy support can enhance students’
engagement. Although Self-Determination Theory is generally believed that can be
used to increase learners’ school involvement, its application on academic
engagement is still inadequate in current literature. Reeve et al.’s (2004) study also
indicated that the existing literature has a significant gap when teachers adopt a more
autonomy-supportive style, they can increase their students’ engagement. The current
study would further examine this issue.
28
Self-Determination and Culture Differences
Various studies of Self-Determination Theory have provided evidence that the
provisions of choice and classroom autonomy support are positively related to
students’ learning motivation (Black & Deci, 2000). Many classroom teachers also
hold a common belief that their students will learn more when choices are offered.
Giving students personal choices can lead to higher levels of interest and achievement,
and they tend to spend more time and effort in learning if they are offered choices
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
However, recent studies have argued the limitations of applying
Self-Determination Theory into different cultural contexts, since the concepts were
originally generated and constructed using Western perspectives and beliefs (d’Ailly,
2003, 2004; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). According to Self-Determination Theory, the
idea of autonomy is deeply rooted in North American culture and is considered one of
the basic human psychological needs. However, many studies have shown that people
from Asian cultures hold different beliefs and values than those from Western cultures
(Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Kitayama, Snibbe, Markus & Suzuki, 2004; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991), and varied beliefs and values can result in differing perceptions and
behaviors in various social contexts.
One widely-cited study that had strong evidence for Self-Determination Theory
and cultural difference was conducted by Iyengar and Lepper (1999). In their study,
two groups of children, one Anglo-American and the other Asian-American, were told
to either make their own choices or to follow the choices that were already made by
their trusted authority figures (eg., mothers) or in-group members (eg., peers). A
striking result was that while the Anglo-Americans preferred to make their own
choices, the Asian-American counterparts showed higher level of intrinsic motivation
29
and performance when their choices were made by the trusted authority figures and
in-group members. This finding implied that for the Eastern culture, having choices
made by trusted others instead of an individual making their own choices “provides a
greater opportunity to promote harmony and to fulfill the goal of belonging to the
group” (p. 363).
Similar to Iyengar and Lepper’s (1999) study, another example of cultural
differences and the perceptions of “choice” were presented by Kitayama et al. (2004).
Their study found that the European American college participants valued making
their own choices as a means to express themselves and to be independent from any
form of social others (eg., peers, parents, etc.), whereas the Japanese college students
preferred to justify their choices when their liked others’ preferences were considered.
The Japanese participants’ feeling of dissonance would arise if their decisions were
rejected by their liked others. This study implied that while the concept of “self” or
“individualism” is an essential element in Western culture, it may be less important
and universally applicable in collectivistic cultures such as Asian cultures.
d’Ailly’s (2003) research also confirmed that different choice preferences and
behaviors were found among Asian learners. This study stated that although having
classroom autonomy support increased the Taiwanese children’s intrinsic motivation
and task enjoyment, it did not have a direct impact on their effort in school and
academic performances. In fact, the Taiwanese participants who reported higher
autonomy support were inclined to do slightly less well in school. The implication of
this finding is “although the ideal scenario is that children are motivated by intrinsic
interest in their learning, it is also logical to infer that students with a higher sense of
autonomy, who study mainly for fun and interest and do not yield much to external
pressures, are more likely to decide not to study when they cannot find fun and
30
interest in their learning.” (p.94). Classrooms with high autonomy support may only
facilitate students’ learning when they are also mediated by high classroom control.
d’Ailly’s (2003) study therefore concluded that without the mediation of perceived
control, autonomy might be detrimental to Taiwanese students’ learning.
A number of researchers have doubted the universal need for autonomy among
Asian learners, yet some studies have argued against this cultural perspective
(Chirkov et al., 2003; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenes, 2005). In particular,
Self-Determination Theory argued that people from all cultures or social contexts
share the three basic human psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and
relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Different cultural contexts may
have different and various means to fulfill these needs, but the three basic needs are
universal and functionally relevant across these surface variations (Chirkov et al.,
2003). Self-Determination Theory also argued that since the need for relatedness is
also an important construct in Self-Determination Theory, the opposite of autonomy is
not dependence but rather heteronomy (Chirkov et al., 2003). One can autonomously
depend on other individuals or willingly follow orders, especially if the later is
perceived as supportive (Chirkov et al., 2003). On the contrary, one can also feel
forced to care for another individual or to submit to guidance even if the orders are
commanded by the trusted authority.
Chirkov et al.’s (2003) study differentiated the construct of “autonomy” and
“individualism”. They argued that autonomy is not defined as independence or
separateness; it does not imply the denial of reliance on others or the separation from
relations. They defined autonomy as the volition or inner endorsement of one’s
actions and lifestyles. Their study hypothesized that any type of cultural practices,
whether collectivistic or individualistic in nature, can be engaged in and benefit from
31
more or less autonomy.
In Chirkov et al.’s (2003) study, they examined the relationships between college
students’ experience of autonomy and their well-being in four different cultural
contexts: South Korea, Russia, Turkey, and the United States. The results showed that
all four groups found possible relations between greater psychological well-beings (eg.
happiness, self-fulfillment, self-worth, satisfaction, etc.) and more internalized or
autonomous behaviors. This result confirmed the hypothesis that possible relations
between autonomy and well-being are cross-cultural.
Similar to Chirkov et al.’s (2003) study, Vansteenkiste et al.’s (2005) study stated
that autonomy is universally important and can predict better learning motivation and
higher performance across different cultures. In their study, autonomous motivation
was found positively related with concentration, time management, adaptive learning
attitudes, personal well-being, and academic success among the Chinese college
participants. On the contrary, controlled motivation was positively associated with
passive behavior, maladaptive learning attitudes, and higher dropout rates. This study
also provides some evidence that autonomy is a basic human psychological need, and
it can be applied to different cultures among diverse social contexts.
Various studies have provided their opposite points of views in terms of
self-determination in different social contexts (d’Ailly, 2003, 2004; Iyengar & Lepper,
1999; Kitayama et al., 2004). Some studies debate that Asian groups prefer to
conform to the choices made by liked others instead of making their own. Moreover,
some studies found classroom autonomy support to be positively related to intrinsic
motivation and learning enjoyment, however, it does not have direct impact on
classroom performance. Some studies argue that autonomy is the will to execute a
behavior and that it is positively associated with better well-being and higher
32
performance. To examine these issues further, the current study will contribute to the
research on self-determination, intrinsic motivation, achievement, and cultural
difference.
Summary
Beginning with Gardner and Lambert in 1959, researchers have widely studied
the field of language learning and motivation. This area of study was first constructed
from a social psychological point of view emphasizing how language learners interact
with the target language group or utilize the value of language learning.
For the past few decades, cognitive psychology has been the dominant view in
psychology research, and researchers in language learning and motivation started to
apply cognitive psychology to analyzing language learners’ motivation (Dörnyei,
2003). Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is one of the most influential cognitive
motivational theories in the twentieth-century (Dörnyei, 2003). The theory believes an
autonomy-supportive environment can stimulate students’ learning interests and
classroom engagement, and in turn predicts their academic achievement.
The key component in SDT is autonomy, which states that people have the desire
to interact with their environments with free choices and actions. People’s well being
would suffer if they could not exercise their wills. Various studies have provided some
empirical evidence that an autonomy-supportive environment is positively related to
learners’ increased intrinsic motivation, greater learning enjoyment, and higher levels
of achievement (Deci, 1980, 1994; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1994, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000).
Noels and her research partners (Noels, 2001; Noels et al., 1999, 2000) have
been actively promoting SDT in the language learning and motivation field. They
have conducted research proving that language learners with autonomy-supportive
33
learning contexts can have better interests in learning and higher language
performances.
However, there is still a gap in the research in this area. Studies that have been
conducted in the field of language learning are still very limited. The current study
would therefore contribute to examine the relationship between self-determination
and second/foreign language learning.
Although researchers of student engagement generally believe that providing
autonomy-supportive learning environments can predict students’ increased active
classroom engagement, the evidence to confirm this statement is still limited. The
current study would also attempt to address this issue.
Finally, SDT has been widely examined in many social contexts (such as work,
health, athletics, school environment, etc.) and has proven that providing autonomy
support is associated with learners’ increased learning enjoyment, intrinsic motivation,
and better performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, recently
some researchers have casted doubt on application of SDT in Eastern cultural contexts
(d’Ailly, 2003, 2004; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Kitayama et al., 2004). These
researchers argued that people from a more collectivistic culture prefer choices to be
made by their trusted figures instead of making their own choices. Some studies even
found that classroom autonomy does not have a direct impact on Asian students’
learning achievement. On the contrary, SDT argued back that the need for autonomy
is universally applicable, and SDT studies have consistently provided evidence that
greater well-beings are associated with more autonomy-support across various
cultural contexts. While this issue still remains unsolved, the current study will
contribute to the research on self-determination and cultural difference.
34
Conclusion
Based on these issues in the current literature, this study will investigate the
effect of self-determination among Chinese adult English language learners. The
study will examine the relationships between students’ perceived autonomy support,
intrinsic motivation, and student engagement. The present study expected that
perceived autonomy support can predict students’ intrinsic motivation and
engagement among adult Chinese English language learners. In addition, based on the
proposed model, this study will also examine if students’ learning motivation serves
as a mediator between their perceived autonomy support and engagement.
The four research questions are:
5. What is the relationship between perceived classroom autonomy support and
students’ intrinsic motivation among adult Chinese English language learners?
6. What is the relationship between students’ intrinsic motivation and student
engagement among adult Chinese English language learners?
7. What is the relationship between perceived classroom autonomy support and
student engagement among adult Chinese English language learners?
8. Does intrinsic motivation mediate the relationship between perceived autonomy
support and student engagement?
35
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
A self-report survey instrument was developed based on previous research
literature. This chapter will describe the research design, participants and settings,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis process of this study.
Overview
The purpose of this study was to examine if the conceptual framework of
Self-Determination Theory can be applied to adult Chinese English language learners.
This study expects that if adult Chinese English language learners perceive more
autonomy support from their language instructors, they will have higher learning
intrinsic motivation and increased classroom engagement. The proposed conceptual
model is shown in Figure 2.
The proposed conceptual model can also be seen as a mediator model. A
mediator is defined as a variable that explains the relation between a predictor and an
outcome (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). In this study “intrinsic motivation” may serve
as the mediator that predicts the influences of “perceived autonomy support” on
“student engagement”. Perceived autonomy support may have a direct effect on
student engagement. However, it may also have an indirect effect on student
engagement through the mediation of intrinsic motivation. The proposed mediation
model is shown in Figure 2.
36
Figure 2. Proposed Research and Mediation Model.
Research Context
The participant school is an English language learning service department for
matriculated international students in an urban university in Southern California. Its
main mission is to help international students of the participant school to reach
academic English proficiency in their regular classrooms. International students of the
participant university whose first language is not English and whose TOEFL (Test of
English as a Foreign Language) scores are lower than 100 are required to take the
school’s ESL (English as a Second Language) classes in addition to their regular
college courses. The school provides courses designed to improve an international
student's oral and written communication skills in English. The goal of the participant
school is to provide language support and instruction, so that international students
can achieve their academic success and have a wonderful learning experience.
Perceived
autonomy
support
(independent
variable)
Intrinsic
motivation
(mediator variable)
Student
engagement
(dependent
variable)
37
Participants
One hundred fifty-seven adult Chinese English language students (109 were
from Mainland China, 48 were from Taiwan) who enrolled in intermediate-level ESL
classes within the participating school participated in the study during the Fall of 2008.
The participants were 20 to 35 years old who had been in the United States for less
than a year. Correlation results showed that participants’ nationality (Chinese and
Taiwanese, coded as group “1” and group “2”, respectively) did not relate to any of
the variables (perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement)
(See Table 1). This study then combined the two groups into one.
Table 1
Correlation between Nationality, Perceived Autonomy Support, Intrinsic Motivation, and
Engagement
Support Motivation Engagement
Nationality Pearson Correlation
-.142 -.130 -.079
Sig. (2-T)
.075 .104 .325
N 157 157 157
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
All participants were enrolled in intermediate-level ESL classes as well as their
regular college courses, both of which were required. The survey instrument was
given to the participants at the end of the semester in Fall 2008.
Research Design
A non-experimental quantitative method was the research approach of this study.
Quantitative methods can provide empirical evidence that allow phenomena to be
ranked or measured on a scale (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). A self-report
38
measurement was used to collect data. This study also used the predictive research
design to test how perceived autonomy support among Chinese adult English
language learners is related to their intrinsic motivation and classroom engagement.
Measure
This study examined three variables: perceived autonomy support, intrinsic
motivation, and student engagement. For this study, three separate assessment
instruments were used to measure these three separate factors. These assessments
were scored using a seven point Likert-type scale, with 1 indicating “strongly disagree
with the statement” (or “not at all true”) and 7 indicating “strongly agree with the
statement” (or “very true”).
Perceived Autonomy Support
The Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) was originally structured by
Williams and Deci (1996) from the Health-Care Climate Questionnaire. Black and
Deci (2000) adjusted the questionnaire and used it for college students to report their
perceptions of their instructors. The questionnaire is typically used with respect to
specific learning settings, such as a particular class, at the college or graduate school
level. The LCQ contains 15-item Likert scales measuring participants’ perceptions of
how their instructors support their autonomy. Sample items include “I feel that my
instructor provides me choices and options”, “I feel that my instructor accepts me”,
and “I don't feel very good about the way my instructor talks to me”. These items are
shown in full in the Appendix A. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha)
of scores for the LCQ was found to be .93 in Black & Deci’s (2000) study. In this
study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this measure was .95.
39
Intrinsic Motivation
The measurement is Interest/Enjoyment (IE) adapted from Intrinsic Motivation
Inventory (IMI). IMI is a multidimensional measurement device intended to assess
participants’ subjective experience related to a target activity. Ryan (1982) first
developed IMI using it to measure college level of participants’ interest/enjoyment
after a lab experiment. The IMI contains six subscales: interest/enjoyment, perceived
competence, effort, value/usefulness, pressure/tension, and perceived choice.
Although the overall questionnaire is called Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, only the
interest/enjoyment (IE) subscale is considered the self-report measure of intrinsic
motivation (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989). Many studies adapted IE as one of
their measurements (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; McAuley et al., 1989;
Ryan, Koestner, & Deci, 1991). IE contains 7-item Likert scales measuring
participants’ interest/enjoyment of a particular learning class. Sample items include “I
enjoyed learning in this class very much”, “I thought this class was quite enjoyable”,
and “I thought this was a boring class”. These items are shown in full in the Appendix
A. The internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of scores for the IE was
found to be .78 in McAuley et al.’s (1989) study. In this study the Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for this measure was .93.
Student Engagement
Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ) is adapted from Handlesman
et al.’s (2005) study. SCEQ was designed to measure specifically on student
engagement in particular college course (Handlesman et al., 2005). The construct of
student engagement of Handlesman et al.’s (2005) study was generated and reflected
by asking undergraduates and faculty to describe what engaged students do, feel, and
think. SCEQ contains four subscales, skills (cognitive) engagement, emotional
40
engagement, participation/interaction (behavioral) engagement, and performance
engagement. The fourth factor (performance engagement) appeared to be related to
extrinsic motivation and performance goal orientation (Handlesman et al.’s 2005),
which are not the focus of this study; therefore this study only used the first three
subscales (skills, emotional, and participation) as the engagement measurement. The
revised SCEQ contains 20-item Likert scales asking participants to state the extent
(1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree) they agree with the statements. Sample
items include “taking good notes in class”, “finding ways to make the course
interesting to me”, and “asking questions when I don’t understand the instructor”.
These items are also shown in full within the Appendix A. In Handlesman et al.’s
(2005) study, the internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha) of scores for skills
engagement, emotional engagement, and participation/interaction engagement were
found to be .82, .82, .79, respectively. In this study the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for this combined engagement measure was .88.
Procedure
Before conducting research, approval for this proposed study was obtained from
the University of Southern California Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB). Prior
to the UPIRB granting their permission to proceed, consent was also obtained for this
study from the participating school and the director of the institution site.
All measures (LCQ, IE, SCEQ) were pre-tested on two adult Chinese English
language learners from the participating school. This procedure was to make sure that
the level of language difficulty on the survey was appropriate. The researcher slightly
adjusted three survey questions based on their responses on the language issue (survey
question 5 “I feel that my instructor accepts me as a person” was changed to “I feel
that my instructor accepts me”, question 24: “put forth effort in class” was changed to
41
“I spend effort in studying” and question 42: “Helping fellow students” was changed
to “I help other classmates”).
Data Collection
The actual survey was given to the participants in November, 2008 during
regular class hour. The researcher asked for the institution’s and instructors’
permission and decided the time and date to come into class. In class, the researcher
briefly described the purpose of the study and instructions for completing the survey.
Each participant received an envelope which contained the survey instrument, the
recruitment letter, and the information sheet (see Appendix B and C). Participants
were told that they would complete the survey during their own time and bring back
their surveys within their envelopes (either they decide to participate or not) in the
next class scheduled meeting. The researcher also assured to participants that their
instructors had no access to their survey answers, and their responses on the survey
would not affect their final course grade.
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
All English language students who enrolled in the intermediate-level English
classes at the participant school were given survey questions and instructions. All of
them were invited to complete the survey. However, among the received responses,
only students who wrote “Chinese” or “Taiwanese” as their nationalities were counted
as the participants for this study. Students and instructors were not told that this study
would only focus on the Chinese group. This procedure was to prevent the Chinese/
Taiwanese students from being identified or singled out in class.
Data Analysis
Data for this study was analyzed using SPSS version 17.0. Descriptive analysis
was used to tabulate means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations. Reliability
42
data was computed for scores on survey items corresponding to various scales.
Multiple regressions were used to examine relationships among different variables.
Path analysis was used to find cause-effect relationships among variables. Finally,
based on the proposed research model, mediation analysis was performed to see if
motivation serves as a mediator between perceived autonomy support and student
engagement. Data and findings that resulted from performing these statistical
techniques can be found in Chapter four.
43
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between perceived
autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement among adult Chinese
English language learners. This chapter will present the results of the research
described in the previous chapter, as well as answer the research questions presented
in Chapter one.
In an attempt to answer the research questions with the sample of adult
Chinese English language learners, descriptive statistics (means and standard
deviations) were computed for items measuring students’ perceptions of perceived
autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement. The Pearson correlation
analysis was then used to examine the relationship between each variable (perceived
autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement)
Correlation
Data was collected using a student self-report survey to measure participants’
degree of perceived autonomy support from their language instructors, learning
intrinsic motivation, and engagement. A Pearson correlation matrix was created to
determine the relationship between each variable. The results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Measured Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3
1. Perceived autonomy Support 5.73 .97 --
2. Intrinsic motivation 4.93 1.33 .535** --
3. Engagement 4.90 .77 .525** .514** --
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Note: N=157
44
Table 2 shows that item means (with standard deviations in brackets) ranged
from 5.73 (0.97) for perceived autonomy support, 4.93 (1.33) for intrinsic motivation,
and 4.90 (0.77) for engagement.
Three variables were significantly correlated with one another. Perceived
autonomy support was significantly correlated with intrinsic motivation and
engagement (r = .535, p< .05, r = .525, p< .05, respectively), indicating that those
participants who perceived more autonomy support from their classroom instructors
were more likely to demonstrate more intrinsic motivation and engagement. Also,
intrinsic motivation was significantly correlated with engagement (r = .514, p< .05),
indicating that those participants who had higher intrinsic motivation in learning were
more likely to demonstrate more classroom engagement.
Regression
This study used hierarchical regression as its research technique. Hierarchical
multiple regression is similar to stepwise regression, but the researcher, not the
computer, determines the order of entry of the variables. F-tests are used to compute
the significance of each added variable (or set of variables) to the explanation
reflected in R-square. This hierarchical procedure is an alternative to comparing betas
for purposes of assessing the importance of the independents. The model may involve
a series of intermediate variables which are dependents with respect to some other
independents, but are themselves independents with respect to the ultimate dependent.
Hierarchical multiple regression may then involve a series of regressions for each
intermediate as well as for the ultimate dependent. In the present analysis, perceived
autonomy support is the foundation predictor, and it was used to predict the
relationships to other outcome variables (intrinsic motivation and engagement). Also,
45
intrinsic motivation is another predictor of engagement based on the proposed
hypothesis. The hierarchical regression results of this study are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Measured Variables
Order of entry of set predictors β R Square F
Step 1
DV: Intrinsic Motivation
Predictor: Perceived Autonomy Support
.535*** .287 62.251***
Step 2
DV: Engagement
Predictor: Intrinsic Motivation
.514*** .254 55.687***
Step 3
DV: Engagement
Predictor: Perceived Autonomy Support
.525*** .276 59.133***
Note: ***p<.001
Table 3 shows that perceived autonomy support was a significant predictor for
intrinsic motivation (β = .535, p< .001) (step 1), indicating that those participants who
had more perceived autonomy support demonstrated higher intrinsic motivation in
learning. At step 2, results showed that intrinsic motivation was a significant predictor
for engagement (β = .514, p<.001), indicating that those participants who had higher
learning intrinsic motivation demonstrated more classroom engagement. Finally, at
the third step, results showed that perceived autonomy support was also a significant
predictor for engagement (β = .525, p< .001), indicating that those participants who
perceived more autonomy support from their instructors showed increased classroom
engagement.
46
Research Question 1: Perceived Autonomy Support and Intrinsic Motivation
The first research question is “What is the relationship between perceived
classroom autonomy support and students’ intrinsic motivation among adult Chinese
English language learners?”
Correlation. Perceived autonomy support was positively correlated with intrinsic
motivation (r = .54, p< 0.01) (See Table 2).
Regression. Results indicated that perceived autonomy support was a significant
predictor of intrinsic motivation, β = .54, p < .001, and it accounted for approximately
28.7% of the variances, F (1, 155) = 62.25, p<.001 (See Table 3).
Results of the correlation and regression analyses showed that perceived
autonomy support can predict participants’ intrinsic motivation, suggesting that the
more autonomy support the participants perceived, the higher intrinsic motivation
they demonstrated.
Research Question 2: Intrinsic Motivation and Engagement
The second research question is “What is the relationship between students’
intrinsic motivation and student engagement among adult Chinese English language
learners?”
Correlation. Intrinsic motivation was positively correlated with engagement (r
= .51, p< 0.01) (See Table 2).
Regression. Results indicated that intrinsic motivation was a significant predictor
of engagement, β = .51, p < .001, and it counted for approximately 26.4% of the
variances, F (1, 155) = 55.69, p< .001 (See Table 3).
47
Results of the correlation and regression analyses showed that intrinsic
motivation can predict participants’ engagement, indicating that when participants
showed higher intrinsic motivation, they also demonstrated more classroom
engagement.
Research Question 3: Perceived Autonomy Support and Engagement
The third research question is “What is the relationship between perceived
classroom autonomy support and student engagement among adult Chinese English
language learners?”
Correlation. Perceived autonomy support was positively correlated with
engagement (r = .53, p< 0.01) (See Table 2).
Regression. Results indicated that perceived autonomy support was a significant
predictor of engagement, β = .53, p < .001, and it counted for approximately 27.6% of
the variances, F (1, 155) = 59.13, p < .001 (See Table 3).
Results of the correlation and regression analyses showed that perceived
autonomy support can also predict participants’ engagement, suggesting that the more
autonomy support the participants perceived, the higher classroom engagement they
demonstrated.
Research Question 4: Motivation and Mediator
The fourth research question is “Does intrinsic motivation mediate the
relationship between perceived autonomy support and student engagement?”
A mediator is defined as a variable that explains the relation between a predictor
and an outcome (Frazier et al., 2004). Mediators explicate “how” and “why” one
variable (predictor) causes or predicts an outcome variable.
If the proposed research questions suggest a chain of relations (a predictor affects
a mediation variable, which then affects an outcome variable), it is important to
48
Predictor
variable
Outcome
variable
Predictor
variable
Mediator Outcome
variable
examine how the mediation variable influences the relation between two other
variables (Mackinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007).
The condition to do mediation analysis involves four steps (Baron & Kenny,
1986; Frazier et al. 2004). The first step is to show there is a significant relationship
between the predictor and the outcome variable (see Path C in Figure 3A).
The second step is to show that the predictor is related to the mediator (Path A in
Figure 3B).
The third step is to show that the mediator is related to the outcome variable
(Path B in Figure 3B). The last step is to demonstrate that the relationship between the
predictor and the outcome variable is significantly reduced when the mediator is
involved in the model (compare Path C in Figure 3A and Path C’ in Figure 3B)
A
Path C
B. Path C’
Path A Path B
Figure 3. Diagram of Paths in Mediation Models.
49
Perceived
autonomy
support
(independent
variable)
Intrinsic motivation
(mediator variable)
Student
engagement
(dependent
variable)
In this study “intrinsic motivation” may serve as the mediator that predicts the
influences of “perceived autonomy support” (predictor) on “student engagement”
(outcome variable). Perceived autonomy support may have a direct effect on student
engagement. However, it may also have an indirect effect on student engagement
through the mediation of intrinsic motivation.
The result showed that the motivation variable has a partial mediation effect on
autonomy support and engagement. Partial mediation holds when the mediator reduces
the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, whereas perfect
mediation occurs if the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable
when the mediator is controlled. Although in this study, Path C’ is smaller than Path C,
it is still significant; therefore it is counted as partial mediation effect. The effect of
engagement was partially mediated by intrinsic motivation (β = .351, p< .001) with
perceived autonomy support as the predictor (See Figure 4).
β = .535*** β = .514***
(β = .326***)
β = .525*** (Path C)
(β = .351***) (Path C’)
Figure 4. Mediation Model. ***p<.001
50
This finding suggests that intrinsic motivation is also one important predictor for
student engagement, since it partially mediates the relationship between perceived
autonomy support and engagement. It explains that even though students all perceive
the same degree of autonomy support from the same instructor, students may still
have different levels of engagement. Their degree of engagement may depend on how
intrinsically motivated they are in reacting to their teacher’s autonomy support.
Summary
This study used a self-report survey to measure adult Chinese English language
learners’ perceptions of perceived autonomy support from their language instructors,
learning intrinsic motivation, and engagement. Correlation and hierarchical regression
analyses were used to determine the relation and direction between each variable
(perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement). Mediation
analysis was used to determine if intrinsic motivation serves as a mediator between
perceived autonomy support and engagement.
The results showed that possible correlations were found in between each
variable. Also, perceived autonomy support is one good predictor for intrinsic
motivation and engagement. Finally, students’ intrinsic motivation can be seen as a
partial mediator for participants’ learning engagement. The findings correspond to the
research hypotheses, suggesting that for adult Chinese English language learners,
more perceived autonomy support from their instructors can increase their learning
motivation and engagement. Discussions and implications of the findings will be
shown in the next chapter.
51
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Overview
The purpose of this study was to examine if Self-Determination Theory can be
applied to adult Chinese English language learners. Previous studies have proven that
self-determination can be one good predictor in predicting students’ learning
motivation and engagement. Various studies have provided evidence that students
show higher motivation and school engagement when they perceive more autonomy
support from their instructors (Close & Solberg, 2008; Reeve et al., 2004). However,
the theory has not yet been fully explored in the field of English language learning.
Also, some studies have raised another issue within Self-Determination Theory
regarding its application in collectivistic cultures (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Kitayama
et al., 2004). On the contrary, other researchers have argued that Self-Determination
Theory is universally applicable across different cultures. The present study was
intended to offer insights into the application of Self-Determination Theory in English
language learning and in different cultural context.
The results of this study indicated that self-determination can be one useful
predictor in predicting adult Chinese English language learners’ intrinsic motivation
and classroom engagement. Participants showed higher learning motivation and
increased engagement when they perceived more autonomy support from their
instructors. This chapter will discuss the findings of this study, limitations,
implications, applications, and suggestions for future research.
Limitations
This study is limited to the data complied from self-report rating scales.
Although self-report measures are widely used and play an important role in the
research area, the validity of self-report measure is subject to errors such as inaccurate
52
interpretation of the test items, low motivation to complete the measure, or inability to
respond accurately (O'Sullivan, 2008).
Data of this study was collected for the Fall semester, 2008. Although a
longitudinal study would show more accurate and reliable results, it is beyond the
researchers’ time and control to conduct a longitudinal study for this dissertation.
Another important limitation of this study is a possible selection bias. Students’
participation was voluntary. This may imply that participants’ may already have had
high learning motivation and enjoyment than other students. Future research can
recruit participants randomly in order to avoid this selection bias.
Discussion of Self-Determination Theory and Language Learning
Self- determination is defined as “the process of utilizing one’s will” (Deci, 1980,
p.26). The three important constructs in Self-Determination Theory are the need for
competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The need for competence involves being able
to see oneself as capable of producing a desired outcome. The need for autonomy
refers to feeling of control over the environment. The need for relatedness is seen as a
feeling to see oneself as worthy of love and respect.
A self-determined behavior is generally seen as self-initiated and not controlled
by others. To be self-determined, people decide how to act in the environment.
Although Self-Determination Theory has proven to be a successful framework in
many research fields, its application on English language learning has not yet been
fully explored.
For the past few years, Noels and her research partners (Noels, 2001; Noels et al.,
1999; Noels et al., 2000) have been actively applying Self-Determination Theory into
the field of language learning. Their research results showed that language learners
reacted the same to Self-Determination Theory, meaning that if language learners
53
perceive more autonomy support from their language instructors, they demonstrate
increased learning enjoyment and perceived competence.
The results of this study are consistent with the pervious literature and provide
some evidence that self-determination has a positive influence on adult Chinese
English language learners. Findings of this study indicated that perceived autonomy
support was positively related to students’ intrinsic motivation among adult Chinese
English language learners. Moreover, the degree of students’ perceived autonomy
support can predict their learning motivation and engagement. These results imply
that an autonomy supportive learning environment can increase learners’ English
language learning motivation and enjoyment. Increased perceived autonomy support
did enhance higher students’ learning interests.
Discussion of Self-Determination Theory and Engagement
Academic engagement can occur at three different levels: behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive (Fredricks et al., 2005). Behavioral engagement means students’
participation in the classroom activities (raising a hand or asking question in class).
Emotional engagement refers to students’ emotional quality, such as happiness or
frustration. Cognitive engagement represents students’ effort and persistence
(self-regulation, preview / review class materials, etc).
It is generally believed that Self-determination Theory can be used to increase
learners’ school engagement and involvement. Previous literature has provided some
evidence indicating that when students perceive more autonomy support from their
teachers, they show higher academic commitment and persistence (Reeve et al., 2004;
Van Ryzin et al., 2009; Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2006). However, this area of study is
still currently limited and lack of empirical evidence in literature.
54
In the present study, positive correlation was found between participants’
perceived autonomy support and engagement. Also, perceived autonomy support
predicted students’ degree of engagement in class. This result is consistent with the
previous literature, indicating that when students receive more autonomy support
from their instructors, they show higher classroom engagement. This finding may
imply that students’ academic commitment depends, in part, on the quality of
supportive classroom environment in which they learn.
Discussion of Self-Determination Theory and Different Cultural Contexts
Previous literature also has doubt on the effect of self-determination on
collectivistic cultures, since the theory was first generated in the Western culture
(Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Kitayama et al., 2004). They generally questioned the idea
of “provision of choice” within Self-Determination Theory. However, other
researchers (Chirkov et al., 2003; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005) argued that autonomy is
a basic human psychological need, and it can be applied to different cultures among
diverse social contexts.
Findings of this study prove consistent with Self-Determination Theory. The
results showed that adult Chinese English language learners responded the same to
Self-Determination Theory, indicating that instructors’ autonomy support can enhance
Chinese students’ learning interests and engagement. Positive correlations where
found in between each variable (perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation,
and engagement). Also, perceived autonomy support predicted adult Chinese English
language participants’ intrinsic motivation and class engagement. This result not only
indicates that Self-Determination Theory can be applied to Chinese learners but also
may suggest that Self-Determination Theory is universally applicable.
55
Previous studies which question the application of Self-Determination Theory to
non-Western cultures mainly focused on the construct of “choice”. These studies
argued that people from collectivistic cultures prefer to follow decisions than making
their own. However, “choice” is just one of the constructs in Self-Determination
Theory. The theory also includes “the need for competence” and “the need for
relatedness” in its fundamental framework. People from a collectivistic culture may
indeed prefer their choices to be made by others; however, they also have the need to
feel competent and related over the environment. If students feel they are capable of
completing a task and are cared and supported by their instructors, they will still
autonomously study and engage in the classroom environment even when the
environment is highly controlled. Strategies to enhance students’ self-determination
should also look into ways of promoting their sense of accomplishment and
belongingness.
Discussion of Cultural Application and Age Difference
Age difference may also play an important part regarding the cultural issue
within Self-Determination Theory. Participants from previous literature which held
doubt on the cultural issue within the theory were mainly children (d’Ailly, 2003;
Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). In d’Ailly’s (2003) study, perceived autonomy support had
no direct impact on Taiwanese participants’ (children) academic effort and school
performances. Her study argued that for Taiwanese children, classroom with high
autonomy support may only facilitate students’ learning when they are also mediated
by high classroom control.
Similar with d’Ailly’s (2003) study, Iyengar and Lepper (1999) stated that their
Asian-American participants (children) showed higher level of intrinsic motivation
and performance when their choices were made by the trusted figures and in-group
56
members. Their study concluded that provision of choice has no critical influence on
Asian-American children’s intrinsic motivation and academic achievement. These two
studies provide some evidence that an autonomy-supportive environment may have
no direct academic influence on children from collectivistic cultures.
Some researchers have doubted the universal need for autonomy among Asian
learners. However, there are other studies which showed that Self-Determination
Theory is universally applicable and can be applied to collectivistic cultures (Chirkov
et al., 2003; Tanaka & Yamauchi, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). One interesting
point is that the participants from these studies were all college students. In Chirkov et
al.’s (2003) study, autonomy was correlated with greater psychological well-beings,
indicating that their college participants (South Korea, Russia, Turkey, and the United
States) showed higher happiness and satisfaction when they perceived more autonomy
support.
Similar with Chirkov et al.’s (2003) study, Tanaka and Yamauchi (2000)
conducted research on the relations between autonomy, perceived control, and
self-regulated English language learning among Japanese college students. Their
studies stated that their college participants showed more academic effort when they
had high autonomy support and low control.
Another similar study was conducted by Vansteenkiste et al. (2005), who stated
that autonomy is universally important and can predict better learning motivation
across different cultures. Their Chinese college participants showed higher personal
well-being when they were in a more autonomy-supportive environment. On the
contrary, controlled motivation was associated with passive behavior, maladaptive
learning attitudes, and higher dropout rates. These three studies provide some
evidence that for adult learners from collectivistic cultures, autonomy is a basic
57
human psychological need, and it can predict better learning motivation and academic
engagement.
The discussion above shows that age difference may be an essential factor
regarding the cultural application within Self-Determination Theory. While some
researchers (d’Ailly, 2003; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999) stated that autonomy has no
critical influence on Asian children, other studies (Chirkov et al., 2003; Tanaka &
Yamauchi, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005) claimed that their adult participants
showed increased learning motivation and higher engagement when they perceived
more autonomy support. The possible explanation is that children from collectivistic
cultures may indeed prefer their trusted authorities to give them high control (or tell
them what to do); however, once they turn into adults, they may develop a sense that
is more self-centered and require more free will and independence. Although the
present study only focused on the Chinese college participants, future study may
consider further addressing this age issue in a collectivistic cultural context.
Discussion of Motivation and Engagement
Findings of this study also show that motivation is also another important factor
to influence students’ engagement. Positive correlation was found between intrinsic
motivation and engagement, and motivation partially mediated participants’ degree of
classroom engagement. This result indicated that students may have different degrees
of intrinsic motivation in reacting to their instructors’ autonomy support, which in
return, predicted their various levels of engagement.
This finding may actually lead back to the basic questions, “What motivates the
students?” and “How to increase students’ engagement?” There are other variables
that may influence students’ intrinsic motivation other than autonomy support, such as
value, relatedness, self-regulation, goal orientation, and so on. Although
58
Self-Determination Theory is the main focus of this study, it is important to look at
other variables/constructs which may also affect students’ intrinsic motivation.
Schunk, Pintrinch, and Meece (2007) suggested four sources that can enhance
students’ intrinsic motivation: challenge, curiosity, control, and fantasy. Another
recent study conducted by Kaufman and Dodge (2009) pointed out that feelings of
relatedness and value are critical factors that affect students’ school engagement.
Future research may address on this issue and examine further on the relationship
between intrinsic motivation and engagement.
Implications
This study, while modest in scale, provides some understanding of the
application of Self-Determination Theory to English language learning and the
Chinese culture. In light of the findings of this study, it appears that educators should
indeed provide autonomy-supportive learning environments for language learners in
order to help them achieve their academic success. Self-Determination Theory can be
one useful framework to stimulate students’ learning interest and school engagement.
Many educators generally believe that with the provision of choice, their students
can become more autonomous learners. This is true, according to Self-Determination
Theory. However, choice is just one construct with the theory. There are also other
important factors within the theory that can also help raise students’
self-determination, such as the need for competence and relatedness. More substantial
ways to promote students’ self-determination will be discussed later in the application
section.
Results of this study suggest that Self-Determination Theory is universally
applicable across different cultural contexts. This finding may imply that an
autonomy-supportive learning environment can help Chinese students reach academic
59
success. What educators should be aware of is that different cultural groups may have
special preferences for increasing their perceived autonomy support. Previous studies
did indicate that students from more collectivistic cultures prefer not to make their
own choices. They generally rather follow their group decisions to protect harmony
than being singled out. On the contrary, students of Western cultures prefer to make
their own choices to show their will and independence. When dealing with
multicultural classroom settings, teachers should understand this cultural difference
and try to find a balance to benefit both cultural groups.
Applications
Self-Determination Theory has provided some evidence showing that an
autonomy supportive classroom environment can enhance students’ learning
motivation and engagement. The findings of this study indicated that
Self-Determination Theory can not only be applied to English language learners but
also to people who are from the Chinese culture. It is therefore important for
educators to learn to become more autonomy supportive in order to promote students’
learning interests and engagement. Reeve’s (2006) study suggested some approaches
for supporting students’ autonomy and engagement which are noted below.
Nurture inner motivational resources. Students’ inner motivational resources
include their needs for competence, relatedness, and values/goals. Autonomy
supportive teachers find ways to increase students’ preferences, enjoyment, sense of
competency, and choice-making. They avoid using external controls such as
punishments, rewards, deadlines, or compliance requests.
Rely on informational, non-controlling language. Autonomy supportive
teachers communicate classroom requirements through informational and flexible
messages. Non-controlling languages do not involve push, pressure, or compliance.
60
Communicate value and provide rationales. Autonomy supportive teachers help
and incorporate students’ inner motivational resources into classroom activities. They
make an effort to identify and explain the use, value, and importance of completing
tasks.
Acknowledge and accept students’ expressions of negative affect. Controlling
teachers react to students’ expressions of negative affect by countering it. On the
contrary, autonomy supportive teachers communicate an understanding of students’
perspectives.
Future Research
This study did not address on the qualitative research part due to the researcher’s
time limit. It is also very important to know what particular teacher behavior or
classroom activity can increase/decrease students’ perceived autonomy support.
Identifying what autonomy-supportive teachers say and do in class can provide
practical recommendations for any future research and teachers who want to practice
a more autonomy motivating style. Qualitative research such as classroom
observation, interviews, or open-ended survey questions may be able to further
address on this issue.
The participants from this study were Chinese English languages learners who
came to the United States to study English as a second language. Although the
participants have only been in the United States for less than a year, it may be possible
that some participants already accepted the Western thinking and values into their
logics and expectations. Future research may study English foreign language learners
of collectivistic cultures to compare any differences.
Also, this study did not include “achievement” as its outcome variable due to the
unique grading system of the participating school. The participating school is a
61
English language learning service department in an urban university in Southern
California. The school does not assign letter grades to students; instead, students
receive “credit” or “no credit” as their final English course grade. This grading system
made it difficult for this study to examine the participants’ achievement outcome.
However, future research can take account of students’ achievement as one of the
research variables.
Another suggestion for future research is a comparison study in a collectivistic
cultural context regarding the age difference issue. Previous literature showed that
different age groups from collectivistic cultures may have different preferences for
autonomy support. Children from collectivistic cultures may show more academic
gains in a controlling environment, while adults demonstrate higher motivation and
engagement in a more autonomy-supportive environment. It is surprising that so far
the current literature has not yet explored much in this cultural issue regarding the age
difference within the theory. Future research may consider further addressing this
issue.
Finally, future research can also consider doing the mediation analysis within
Self-Determination Theory. The theory proposes a framework indicating that
perceived autonomy support can increase students intrinsic motivation and
engagement, and in turn, predicts their academic achievement. However, only a few
studies have done mediation analysis examining the mediation effect within the
theory in the educational context. Future research can further address this issue.
Conclusion
With the growing number of immigrants and English language learners in public
schools, helping these language learners to achieve academic competence has become
necessary and essential. While motivation and engagement are two key indicators of
62
students’ learning, increasing their perceived autonomy support can be seen as a good
predictor to expect students’ success. The present findings of this study confirm that
English language learners’ motivation and engagement increase in responding to their
teachers’ autonomy support. The more autonomy supportive teachers were toward
their students, the more their students benefited in terms of learning motivation and
classroom engagement. This study may be able to shed some light in assisting English
language learners to reach their academic success.
63
References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and
students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A
self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756.
Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post firth and wagner (1997).
Modern Language Journal. Special Issue: Focus Issue, 91(5), 863-876.
Brown, H. D., (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. (4
th
edition).
New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D., (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. (2
nd
edition). New York: Pearson Education.
Burroughs, N. F. (2008). Non-native speakers of english: What more can we do?
Communication Education, 57(2), 289-295.
Chirkov, V ., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y ., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy
from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective
on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97-109.
Close, W., & Solberg, S. (2008). Predicting achievement, distress, and retention
among lower-income latino youth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 31-42.
d'Ailly, H. (2003). Children's autonomy and perceived control in learning: A model of
motivation and achievement in taiwan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1),
84-96.
d'Ailly, H. (2004). The role of choice in children's learning: A distinctive cultural and
gender difference in efficacy, interest, and effort. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 36(1),
17-29.
64
de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of
behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The Psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: D. C.
Heath.
Deci, E. L. (1994). Self-determination theory and education. Ceskoslovenská
Psychologie, 38(5), 420-426.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994). Facilitating
internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,
62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale:
Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2),
109-134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1994). Promoting self-determined education.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38(1), 3-14.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),
227-268.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning:
Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53(Suppl1),
3-32.
Forbes, G., Zhang, X., Doroszewicz, K., & Haas, K. (2009). Relationships between
individualism-collectivism, gender, and direct or indirect aggression: A study in
China, Poland, and the US. Aggressive Behavior. 35(1), 24-30.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator
effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
51(1), 115-134.
65
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In
K. A. Moore & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish:
Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305-321).
New York, NY: Springer.
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and
unsuccessful EFL students in chinese universities. Modern Language Journal,
88(2), 229-244.
Garcia, G.E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction) In Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3rd ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., Moorcroft, R., & Evers, F. T. (1987). Second language
attrition: The role of motivation and use. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 6(1), 29-47.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne De Psychologie,
13(4), 266-272.
Handelsman, M. M., Briggs, W. L., Sullivan, N., & Towler, A. (2005). A measure of
college student course engagement. Journal of Educational Research, 98(3),
184-191.
Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students' intentions to
persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(2), 347-356.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model.
Human Development, 21, 34-64.
Hodge, K., Allen, J. B., & Smellie, L. (2008). Motivation in masters sport:
Achievement and social goals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9(2), 157-176.
66
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural
perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.
Katzner, D. W. (2000). Culture and the explanation of choice behavior. Theory and
Decision, 48(3), 241-262.
Kaufman, A., & Dodge, T. (2009). Student perceptions and motivation in the
classroom: Exploring relatedness and value. Social Psychology of Education,
12(1), 101-112.
Kim, Y ., Carver, C. S., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2008). Adult attachment and
psychological well-being in cancer caregivers: The mediational role of spouses'
motives for caregiving. Health Psychology, 27(2, Suppl), S144-S154.
Kitayama, S., Snibbe, A. C., Markus, H. R., & Suzuki, T. (2004). Is there any "free"
choice?: Self and dissonance in two cultures. Psychological Science, 15(8),
527-533.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V . V . (1989). Psychometric properties of the
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory
factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
67
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate
french students: Relation to achievement and motivation. Language Learning,
57(3), 417-442.
Noels, K. A. (2001). Learning spanish as a second language: Learners' orientations
and perceptions of their teachers' communication style. Language Learning,
51(1), 107-144.
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers'
communicative style and students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern
Language Journal, 83(1), 23-34.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you
learning a second language? motivational orientations and self-determination
theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57-85.
O'Sullivan, L. F. (2008). Challenging assumptions regarding the validity of self-report
measures: The special case of sexual behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health,
42(3), 207-208.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the
classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(1), 83-98.
Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and
why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225-236.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students'
engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support¹. Motivation and Emotion,
28(2), 147-169.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching.
(2
nd
edition). Cambridge University Press.
Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (2000). School as a context of early
adolescents' academic and social-emotional development: A summary of
research findings. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 443-471.
68
Rudy, D., Sheldon, K. M., Awong, T., & Tan, H. H. (2007). Autonomy, culture, and
well-being: The benefits of inclusive autonomy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41(5), 983-1007.
Rueda, R., & Chen, C. B. (2005). Assessing motivational factors in foreign language
learning: Cultural variation in key constructs. Educational Assessment, 10(3),
209-229.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence: When
free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15,
185-205.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2007). Motication in education: theory,
research, and applications. Pearson: Merrill Pretice Hall.
Shavelson, R. & Towne, E. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
Tanaka, K., & Yamauchi, H. (2000). Influence of autonomy on perceived control
beliefs and self-regulated learning in japanese undergraduate students. North
American Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 255-272.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive
awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70-89.
Van Ryzin, M. J., Gravely, A. A., & Roseth, C. J. (2009). Autonomy, belongingness,
and engagement in school as contributors to adolescent psychological well-being.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4
69
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den
Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations,
psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory
approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2),
251-277.
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences of
autonomy and control among chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 468-483.
Weibel, A. (2007). Formal control and trustworthiness: Shall the twain never meet?
Group & Organization Management.Special Issue: New Perspectives on the
Trust-Control Nexus in Organizational Relations, 32(4), 500-517.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E.L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by
medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 1161-1176.
Wright, M., & McGrory, O. (2005). Motivation and the adult Irish language learner.
Educational Research, 47(2), 191-204.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipuer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, P. A., & McGregor, L.
(2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for
adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29(6),
911-933.
70
Appendix A: Survey Questions
Your nationality:_______________________
Learning Climate Questionnaire
This questionnaire contains items that are related to your experience with your
instructor in this class. Instructors have different styles in dealing with students, and
we would like to know more about how you have felt about your encounters with
your instructor. Your responses are confidential. Please be honest and candid.
1. I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
2. I feel understood by my instructor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
3. I am able to be open with my instructor during class.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
4. My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
5. I feel that my instructor accepts me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
6. My instructor made sure I really understood the goals of the course and what I
need to do.
71
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
7. My instructor encouraged me to ask questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
8. I feel a lot of trust in my instructor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
9. My instructor answers my questions fully and carefully.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
10. My instructor listens to how I would like to do things.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
11. My instructor handles people's emotions very well.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
12. I feel that my instructor cares about me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
13. I don't feel very good about the way my instructor talks to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
14. My instructor tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new
way to do things.
72
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
15. I feel able to share my feelings with my instructor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
Interest/Enjoyment
For the following statements, please indicate how true it is for you, using the
following scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
16. I enjoyed this class very much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
17. This class was fun.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
18. I thought this was a boring class.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
19. This class did not hold my attention at all.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
20. I would describe this class as very interesting.
73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
21. I thought this class was quite enjoyable.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
22. While I was doing this class, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all true somewhat true very true
Student Course Engagement Questionnaire (SCEQ)
For the following statements, please rank your agreement from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree).
Skills engagement
23. I make sure to study on a regular basis.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
24. I spend effort in studying.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
25. I do all the homework problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
26. I stay up late for studying class materials.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
27. I look over class notes between classes to make sure I understand the
material.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
74
28. I am organized.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
29. I take good notes in class.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
30. I listen carefully in class.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
31. I come to class everyday.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
Emotional engagement
32. I find ways to make the course material relevant to my life.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
33. I apply course material to my life.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
34. I find ways to make the course interesting to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
35. I think about the course between class meetings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
36. I really desire to learn the material.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
75
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
Participation/interaction engagement
37. I raise my hand in class.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
38. I ask questions when I don’t understand the instructor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
39. I have fun in class.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
40. I participate actively in small-group discussions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
41. I go to the instructor’s office to review assignments or tests or to ask
questions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
42. I help other classmates.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree neutral strongly agree
76
Appendix B: Research Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
*********************************************************************
*********
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Self-Determination among English Language Learners: The
Relationship among Intrinsic Motivation and Engagement
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Yi-Chen (Jenny) He,
M.S, and Robert Rueda, Ph.D, from the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California (USC) because you are enrolled in the USC ALI (American
Language Institute) classes in Fall, 2008. The results of this study will be used in a
doctoral dissertation project. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you are attending the USC American Language Institute (ALI) and are
enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes.
You must be at least18 years of age to participate. All adult students attending the
USC ALI classes in Fall 2008 are eligible to participate. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything
you do not understand, before deciding whether or not to participate. Please take as
much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide to discuss it
with your family or friends. You will be given a copy of this form.
77
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of Self-Determination on English
language learners’ learning motivation and classroom engagement.
PROCEDURES
Completion and return of the questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in
this research project.
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to complete survey
questionnaires. Example questions that will be asked are “My instructor answers my
questions fully and carefully” and “I feel that my instructor provides me choices and
options”. You will range your agreement with the statements from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 6 (strongly agree).
The survey contains 42 questions. The time to complete the survey is about 10-20
minutes. You can complete the survey in your own time. However, you are asked to
return the survey in the envelope provided and leave it at the back of the class. The
survey will be picked up tomorrow. If you do not want to complete the survey and
don’t want anyone to know whether or not you’ve completed it, please place it in the
envelope and leave it at the back of the class. Please do not place you name or other
identifiable information on the survey or envelope.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks from your participation. You do not need to answer
any questions you do not want to.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this research study. It is
hoped that this research will help educators understand more in promoting English
language learners’ motivation and improving instructors teaching methods.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive payment for your participation.
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The investigators of this research do not have any financial interest in the sponsor or
in the product being studied.
78
CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no information obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you. Your name, address or other information that may identify you
will not be collected during this research study.
Only members of the research team will have access to the data associated with this
study. Your professors will not know whether or not you participated, nor will you be
graded on your responses. The data will be stored in the investigator’s office in a
locked file cabinet/password protected
The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and then
destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity, since no identifiers will
be collected
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. If you do not want to participate do not complete
the survey. You will not be graded on the survey or whether or not you participate.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have any questions about your rights as a
study subject or you would like to speak with someone independent of the research
team to obtain answers to questions about the research, or in the event the research
staff can not be reached, please contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice
Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA
90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
79
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Yi-Chen (Jenny) He, yichenhe@usc.edu, 626-636-6702 or
Robert Rueda, Ph.D, rueda@usc.edu, 323-740-9323
80
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter
To ALI student,
Hi, my name is Yi-Chen (Jenny) He, and I’m a doctoral student in the USC Ed.D
program. I’m conducting a reserch study about adult English language learners’
learning motivation and engagement. You are invited to participate. You must be
aged 18 or older to participate. The design of the study is to ask you to fill out a short
survey (about 40 questions). The survey questions are about your perceived autonomy
support from your instructors, your learning interests, and your classroom
engagement/participation. Sample items include “I feel that my instructor provides me
choices and options”, “I feel that my instructor accepts me”, and “I don't feel very
good about the way my instructor talks to me”. You will be asked to rank your
agreement about the statements from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Your
instructor will not have access to your responses.
Your participation is voluntary. If you would like to participate, please
complete the survey during your own time and return the survey to the back of the
class.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the survey, please do feel free to
contact me through email, yichenhe@usc.edu or you can call my cell, 626-636-6702.
Sincerely,
Yi-Chen (Jenny) He
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This is a study of Self-Determination Theory in English language learning and on Chinese culture group. Self-Determination Theory has been successfully applied to many academic fields. However, it has not yet been fully explored in the filed of English language learning. Also, recently some researchers have raised another issue regarding the cultural application within Self-Determination Theory. These researchers argued that the theory may not be applied to people from different cultures. This study will further explore the application of elf-Determination Theory in English language learning and examine its effect on adult Chinese culture group.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners
PDF
Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics
PDF
Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
Factors associated with second language anxiety in adolescents from different cultural backgrounds
PDF
A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program
PDF
The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students
PDF
Conductors and word choice: a theoretical handbook
PDF
Equitable learning opportunities for English Language Learners
PDF
Examining the relationship between knowledge, perception and principal leadership for standard English learners (SELs): a case study
PDF
Math achievement and self-efficacy of linguistically and ethnically diverse high school students: their relationships with English reading and native language proficiency
PDF
Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study
PDF
Culturally-relevant, autonomy supportive instruction: toward an integration for enhancing the motivation of racially and ethnically diverse learners
PDF
The use of culturally relevant authentic materials and L1 in supporting second language literacy
PDF
Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
The role of student study team members in the special education referral process for English Learners
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on school support and school counseling resources
Asset Metadata
Creator
He, Yi-Chen (Jenny)
(author)
Core Title
Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
08/04/2009
Defense Date
06/08/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
cross cultural difference,English language learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-determination theory
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rueda, Robert S. (
committee chair
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
), Valentine, James (
committee member
)
Creator Email
linoia@msn.com,yichenhe@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2456
Unique identifier
UC179669
Identifier
etd-He-3082 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-171857 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2456 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-He-3082.pdf
Dmrecord
171857
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
He, Yi-Chen (Jenny)
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
cross cultural difference
English language learning
self-determination theory