System 42 (2014) 451–461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/system

Differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in

a foreign and second language context
Qi Li*
College of Continuing Education, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 29 Yudao Street, Nanjing 210016, Jiangsu, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study investigated differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English
Received 21 August 2013 in a foreign and second language context. The participants consisted of 132 Chinese
Received in revised form 8 January 2014 learners of English in China (English as a foreign language learners – EFL learners) and 122
Accepted 18 January 2014
Chinese learners of English in New Zealand (English as a second language learners – ESL
learners). The motivation of 254 learners was measured by means of a self-report ques-
Keywords:
tionnaire based on Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System theory. The results
L2 motivational self system
showed that there were notable differences in the motivation between Chinese EFL and
Motivation
EFL
ESL learners. The ESL learners expended or intended to expend more effort in learning
ESL English, developed stronger idealized self images as competent users of English, and had
Motivated learning behaviour more favourable attitudes toward learning English than the EFL learners. However, the EFL
Context learners had a higher level of preventional instrumentality than the ESL learners. In the
case of these Chinese learners, English learning experience and promotional instrumen-
tality were two important factors in determining their motivated learning behaviour.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the second language acquisition (SLA) literature there has been a distinction made between a foreign and second
language context. Similarly, when it comes to motivation to learn a foreign/second language (L2), the question of whether
motivation differs between learners in a foreign and second language context has been raised by many researchers (e.g., Au,
1988; Chihara & Oller, 1978; Dörnyei, 1990; Ellis, 1994; Oller, 1978, 1981; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Schmidt, Borai,
& Kassabgy, 1996). Generally speaking, a foreign language setting involves learning environments where the target language
is usually learned in an institutional or academic context where learners have no or limited opportunities for interacting with
the target language community. A second language setting, which is clearly distinct from a foreign language one, refers to a
range of learning contexts where the target language is used for communication in daily life (Dörnyei, 1990). The investigation
of this question in previous studies has resulted in a better understanding of L2 motivation as a situated phenomenon and
endeavours to build a model of L2 motivation that is applicable to different language learning contexts and language glob-
alization, which has helped to inform L2 motivation theories. The present research sought to expand the depth of this
investigation. The current comparative study is unique in that it was conducted with L2 learners from a similar background
(adult English learners from China) but who were learning in a foreign (China) and second language (New Zealand) setting to
examine differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign and second language context by using
Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System as its theoretical framework.

* Tel.: þ86 13101843210, þ86 25 84892488.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0346-251X/$ – see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.011
452 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461

2. Literature review

The majority of previous studies have investigated the question of whether motivation differs between learners in a
foreign and second language context within Gardner’s social psychological paradigm (see Dörnyei, 2001a, 2005; Gardner,
1985, 2001; Gardner & Masgoret, 2003; for comprehensive reviews of Gardner’s model). It was initially raised mainly
because a number of empirical studies examining integrative motivation/orientations, instrumental motivation/orientations,
and their relationships to L2 achievement produced contradictory results (e.g., Au, 1988; Chihara & Oller, 1978; Lukmani, 1972;
Oller, 1981; Oller, Hudson, & Liu, 1977). In response to the conflicting findings, Clément and Kruidenier (1983) suggested that
the failure to explain the influence of the linguistic milieu on learners’ motivation is one of the reasons for the inconsistent
results. When exploring orientations in different samples in Canada (defined in terms of the learners’ ethnicity, the learning
milieu, and the target language), they found that orientations are largely determined by “who learns what in what milieu” (p.
288). Dörnyei (1990) assumed that Gardner’s findings obtained from second language contexts were not directly applicable to
foreign language contexts. In order to support his opinion, he conducted an empirical study in Hungary, a typical foreign
language learning environment, to clarify the relevance and characteristics of integrativeness and instrumentality in a foreign
language context. His findings suggested that instrumental motivation might be more important than integrative motivation
for foreign language learners as opposed to second language learners. Oxford (1996) and Oxford and Shearin (1994) also
concluded that L2 motivation of foreign and second language learners was often quite different in that integrative motivation
was more important for second language learners than for most foreign language learners.
L2 motivation researchers in Asian English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts have also questioned the existence and
validity of the integrative construct and the integrative-instrumental orientation dichotomy. For example, Apple (2005),
Kimura, Nakata, and Okumura (2001), Irie (2003), and Mori (2002) suggested that the integrative-instrumental orienta-
tion dichotomy might not be applicable to Japanese students learning a foreign language in Japan. They found it nearly
impossible to distinguish integrative reasons from other reasons for studying English. Chen, Warden, and Chang (2005)
discovered that the integrative motivation played no significant role in motivating language learning effort in the Chinese
cultural environment. Warden and Lin’ s (2000) findings indicated a lack of integrative motivation among Taiwan EFL
learners. Yashima (2000) stated that Japanese university students did not believe that identification with the target language
group was important, but perceived instrumental and intercultural friendship orientations as being the most important.
However, these studies are limited because the researchers did not actually conduct a comparison of the differences in the
motivation of L2 learners in a foreign and second language context. Rather, they only compared the results of their studies
conducted in foreign language contexts with Gardner’s findings obtained from second language contexts. The differences in
motivation they identified may have arisen not because of the difference in foreign and second language learning environ-
ments, but as a result of other contextual factors such as the learners’ ethnicity, cultural and sociocultural background, and
target language. In line with Clément and Kruidenier’s (1983) conclusion that orientations are largely determined by “who
learns what in what milieu” (p. 288), it is clear that motivation is affected by contextual variables (e.g., Clément & Kruidenier,
1983; Coleman, 1996; Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Dörnyei, Csizér, & Németh, 2006; Lamb, 2012; Tachibana, Matsukawa, & Zhong,
1996). Therefore, in order to investigate whether and how L2 motivation differs between learners in a foreign and second
language context, comparative studies need to be conducted with L2 learners from a similar background (e.g., belonging to
the same ethnic and cultural group, speaking the same first language, and learning the same target language) but who are
learning in a foreign and second language setting. In this way, it is possible to exclude the influence of other contextual
variables. Such comparative studies will enable us to better understand the influence of second and foreign language learning
environments on L2 motivation. Moreover, the previous studies that have investigated the differences in motivation within
Gardner’s social psychological paradigm have showed that Gardner’s findings may not be relevant to all foreign and second
language contexts. In this case, in order to capture the distinction between motivation in a foreign and second language
context, future research needs to employ an L2 motivation theory that is applicable to both foreign and second language
contexts as its theoretical basis.
Since many L2 motivation researchers have found that L2 learners’ desires to integrate with the L2 community are not
basic to the motivational process in all contexts but only in specific sociocultural contexts, and moreover, World English is
becoming an international language and associated with a global culture in the worldwide globalization process, they have
called for the reconceptualisation of integrativeness to make it better suited to explaining the motivational process in general
contexts and the motivational basis of language globalization (e.g., Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Dörnyei & Ushioda,
2011). As a result, the concept of integrativeness in Gardner’s model has been reconceptualised and incorporated into a new
L2 motivation model – Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System.
The L2 Motivational Self System, which builds on the findings in previous self research concerning possible selves (Markus
& Nurius, 1986), ideal and ought selves in relation to self-discrepancy (Higgins, 1987) and L2 motivation research relating to
integrativeness, is composed of three dimensions: Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, and L2 Learning Experience. Ideal L2 Self refers
to the L2-specific facet of one’s ideal self, which can strongly motivate L2 learners to learn the L2 because they desire to reduce
the discrepancy between their actual and ideal selves if the person they would like to become is a speaker of an L2. From the
self perspective, if an L2 learner would ideally like to become the person who is proficient in the L2, he/she can be said to have
an integrative disposition. Thus, traditional integrative motives and internalized instrumental motives (i.e., instrumental
motives with a promotion focus) typically belong to this component. Recently, some empirical studies have found that the
Ideal L2 Self strongly correlates with integrativeness but has the more direct relationship with motivated learning behaviour
 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461 453

than integrativeness (e.g., Ryan, 2009; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009). Ought-to L2 Self refers to the attributes that L2 learners
believe they ought to possess to meet expectations and to avoid possible negative outcomes. This dimension corresponds to
the less internalized types of instrumental motives (i.e., instrumental motives with a prevention focus). However, some
researchers failed to elicit the construct of Ought-to L2 Self or found that in comparison with the Ideal L2 Self, it is not an
important component of the model of language learning motivation in their studies (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Csizer &
Lukács, 2010; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012). Even though the Ought-to L2 Self moderately contributed to the crite-
rion measures of intended learning effort in Asian EFL contexts in Taguchi et al.’s study (2009), the Ideal L2 Self still influenced
motivated learning behaviour to a greater extent than the Ought-to L2 Self. L2 Learning Experience refers to “situated, ‘ex-
ecutive’ motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience (e.g., the impact of the teacher, the curric-
ulum, the peer group, the experience of success)” (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 29). Most previous research on the L2 Motivational Self
System has confirmed the significant impact of this component on motivated learning behaviour, though its influence may
vary with context (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012). For example, Taguchi et al. (2009) re-
ported that attitudes to learning English had less effect on English learners in China than those in Japan and Iran.
Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) have concluded that according to the L2 Motivational Self System, there are three primary
sources of the motivation to learn an L2: the learner’s vision of him/herself as a competent L2 user, the social pressure from the
learner’s environment, and positive learning experiences. Recent studies have mainly provided support for the tripartite L2
Motivational Self System and showed that it transcends national and cultural boundaries and has the capacity to explain the L2
motivational construct in different learning contexts and the motivational basis of language globalization (e.g., Csizér &
Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009; Yashima, 2009). However, most of
these studies have been conducted in foreign language contexts. Empirical evidence for the validity of the L2 Motivational Self
System in second language contexts has still been lacking. Although some of them compared how the L2 motivation differed
among different leaner populations in a single foreign language context or among learners in different foreign language
contexts (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012; Taguchi et al., 2009), none have investigated how the
L2 motivation differs between learners in a foreign and second language context by following the L2 Motivational Self System.
The current study aims to investigate differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign and second
language context by using the L2 Motivational Self System as its theoretical framework. Additionally, the study also tests and
validates the L2 Motivational Self System in both foreign and second language contexts. The research question is: What
differences are there in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign (China) and second language (New Zealand)
context?

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The participants in this study were 132 Chinese learners of English in China (English as a foreign language learners – EFL
learners) and 122 Chinese learners of English in New Zealand (English as a second language learners – ESL learners). The 132
Chinese EFL learners were the first or second year university students who were taking a compulsory English course at a
university in China, but were not English majors. All the EFL learners (70 males, 62 females) were between 17 and 23 years old
(M ¼ 19.86). None of them had been to any English-speaking country. The 122 Chinese ESL learners (ESL-total) were tertiary
students who were taking general or academic English courses at eight English language schools in New Zealand. They were
divided into two groups based on the length of residence in New Zealand, an English-speaking country. One group included
56 Chinese ESL learners who had recently arrived in New Zealand and lived in New Zealand for less than one month (ESL-
recent arrival). The other group consisted of 66 Chinese ESL learners who had lived in New Zealand for more than three
months (ESL-resident). All the ESL learners (68 males, 54 females) were between 17 and 32 years old (M ¼ 22.03). The 56
ESL(recent arrival) learners (28 males, 28 females) ranged in age from 17 to 28 (M ¼ 22.27). The 66 ESL(resident) learners (40
males, 26 females) ranged in age from 17 to 32 (M ¼ 21.82).

3.2. Instrument

The research instrument was a self-report motivation questionnaire (MQ) written in Chinese. The MQ was adapted from
the Chinese version of Taguchi et al.’s (2009; see also Dörnyei, 2010) questionnaire, which was mainly based on Dörnyei et al.’s
(2006) Hungarian studies and the L2 Motivational Self System theory. The MQ contained 13 constructs measured by 62 items.
It was composed of two sections. In the first section, Item 1 to 45 were statements and the participants were asked to indicate
the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with these statements by marking one of the 6 responses ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree on a six-point Likert scale. In the second section, Item 46 to 62 were questions and the participants
were asked to answer these questions by marking one of the 6 responses ranging from very much to not at all on a six-point
rating scale. The overall reliability alpha for the MQ was .89. The following are the 13 constructs of the MQ:

(1) Attitudes to learning English (6 items), which refers to the feelings that the learners have toward their immediate English
learning environment and experiences.
454 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461

(2) Attitudes to L2 community and culture (8 items), which refers to the feelings that the learners have toward members of
the L2 community and cultural products of the L2 culture (i.e., the attitudes of the learners toward having direct contact
with L2 speakers and cultural products associated with L2).
(3) Fear of assimilation (5 items), that is, “the extent to which the learners believe that learning and using the L2 may lead to
the loss of the native language and culture” (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005, p. 23).
(4) Ought-to L2 Self (4 items) measuring the attributes that the learners believe they ought to possess in order to meet
others’ expectations.
(5) Ideal L2 Self (5 items), which refers to the learners’ vision of themselves as a competent L2 user.
(6) Instrumentality (Prevention) (4 items) measuring the regulation of duties and obligations such as studying English in
order to pass an English course or exam.
(7) Social expectation (6 items) measuring the attributes that the society might expect from the learners.
(8) Family influence (3 items), that is, the extent of the parents’ influence.
(9) Ethnocentrism (4 items), that is, the extent to which the learners believe that their native culture is superior to other
cultures.
(10) Instrumentality (Promotion) (4 items) “measuring the regulation of personal goals to become successful such as
attaining high proficiency in English in order to make more money or find a better job” (Taguchi et al., 2009, p. 74).
(11) English anxiety (4 items) assessing the extent to which the learners feel anxious when speaking English in different
situations.
(12) Travel orientation (3 items) measuring the extent to which the learners study English for the sake of travel.
(13) Criterion measures (6 items) measuring the amount of effort that the learners put or are willing to put into learning English.

3.3. Procedures

The original version of MQ was translated and piloted with 202 respondents (127 EFL and 75 ESL learners). It was almost
the same as Taguchi et al.’s (2009; see also Dörnyei, 2010) work, except five items whose wording was adjusted in order to
make them suitable to both Chinese EFL and ESL learners. Following the factor and reliability analysis of this pilot run, some
changes were made to the original version of MQ: one construct (Integrativeness) was removed, two constructs (Attitudes to L2
community, Cultural interest) were combined into one (Attitudes to L2 community and culture), and one construct (Social
expectation) was added because instead of loading on the Ought-to L2 Self construct, 6 items loaded high on this construct.
Finally, five items were deleted and some items were reworded or replaced.
The final version of MQ was administered to the EFL and ESL learners after school by the author. All the participants were
given information about the purpose of the research and the nature of the survey. The data obtained with the MQ were
analyzed with SPSS version 15.0. A factor analysis (principal components, with varimax rotation) of the MQ was conducted to
explore motivational factors. The factor analysis was computed on all the participants’ responses to the 62 MQ items. The
entire sample for the factor analysis was 254 (including 132 EFL and 122 ESL learners). The reliability alpha was also computed
on each of the factors emerging from factor analysis. In order to investigate differences in the motivation of Chinese EFL and
ESL learners, t-tests were performed. Regression analysis also assessed the impact of the various motivational factors on the
learners’ motivated learning behaviour. The level of significance was set at .05 for all the statistical tests. However, for each of
the multiple statistical tests, the Bonferroni correction was used to adjust the level of significance to minimize Type I errors.

4. Results

4.1. Factor analysis of the participants’ responses to the MQ

The factor analysis revealed 12 interpretable factors (see Appendix A), which corresponded closely to the 12 pre-
determined constructs of the MQ. These 12 factors addressed the motivational state of Chinese learners of English and were
used in subsequent analyses. One predetermined construct (Family influence) failed to emerge as a clear factor and was also
eliminated from subsequent analyses. The 12 factors that were retained together comprised 51 of the 62 items in the MQ. The
total percentage of variance accounted for by the 12 factors was 60.8% (See Appendix B). Thus, it can be claimed that the MQ
has construct validity as a measure of motivation of Chinese learners of English.
The internal consistency reliability of the motivational factors was measured by the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. The reli-
ability alpha was computed on each of the 12 factors for the whole sample and two (EFL, ESL) subsamples (See Table 1). All the
reliability coefficients exceeded .70. An alpha level of .70 or higher is generally considered as an acceptable reliability coef-
ficient (e.g., Dörnyei, 2003; Nunnaly, 1978; Santos, 1999). Therefore, the 12 factors had acceptable reliability.

4.2. Comparative analysis of the motivational factors

Independent-samples t tests were used to determine the significance of the differences in the responses to the 12
motivational factors between the EFL and ESL(total) learners, between the EFL and ESL(recent arrival) learners, and between
 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461 455

Table 1
Reliability coefficients in the whole sample and two subsamples for each factor.

Factors Alpha (EFL & ESL) Alpha (EFL) Alpha (ESL)

Ideal L2 Self .82 .85 .73
Attitudes to learning English .86 .87 .87
Fear of assimilation .83 .85 .79
Ought-to L2 Self .77 .76 .77
Attitudes to L2 community and culture .83 .84 .81
Instrumentality (Prevention) .83 .84 .81
Criterion measures .79 .80 .73
English anxiety .77 .78 .74
Social expectation .76 .73 .80
Travel orientation .78 .76 .81
Instrumentality (Promotion) .73 .74 .72
Ethnocentrism .71 .71 .71

the EFL and ESL(resident) learners. The Bonferroni correction was used, and the adjusted level of significance was set at .005.
Table 2 shows a comparison of the mean scores of the EFL and ESL(total) learners for the 12 motivational factors. The
ESL(total) learners’ mean scores for the Ideal L2 Self, Attitudes to learning English and Criterion measures factor were signifi-
cantly higher than the EFL learners’. It seems that the ESL(total) learners had stronger ideal self images regarding their
proficiency in English and were thus more likely to be motivated by the Ideal L2 Self than the EFL learners. Also, the ESL(total)
learners had more favourable attitudes to learning English and put or intended to put more effort and time into learning
English than the EFL learners. However, the EFL learners’ mean scores for the Instrumentality (Prevention) and English anxiety
factor were significantly higher than the ESL(total) learners’. It appears that the motivation of the EFL learners was more
related to fulfilling duties and obligations (e.g., passing tests) and they felt more anxious and nervous when speaking English.
Table 3 shows a comparison of the mean scores of the EFL and ESL(recent arrival) learners for the 12 motivational factors.
The ESL(recent arrival) learners’ mean score for the Criterion measures factor was significantly higher than the EFL learners’.
On the whole, it seems that the motivation of the ESL(recent arrival) learners was similar to the motivation of the EFL learners
except that the ESL(recent arrival) learners expended or intended to expend more effort and time in learning English than the
EFL learners.
Table 4 shows a comparison of the mean scores of the EFL and ESL(resident) learners for the 12 motivational factors. The
ESL(resident) learners’ mean scores for the Ideal L2 Self, Attitudes to learning English, Attitudes to L2 community and culture and
Criterion measures factor were significantly higher than the EFL learners’. In comparison with the EFL learners, the ESL(re-
sident) learners were more likely to be motivated to learn English by their Ideal L2 Self images, showed more favourable
attitudes to learning English and to the English language community and culture, and put or intended to put more effort into
English learning. The effect size for all the above differences, as measured by Cohen’s d, was medium.

4.3. Relationship between the motivational factors and the criterion measures

Multiple regression analyses with a stepwise approach were carried out to find out which motivational factors act as
predictor variables of the learners’ motivated learning behaviour – the learners’ effort expended in learning English. The
results show both similarities and differences between the EFL and ESL learners (See Tables 5 and 6). For both the EFL and ESL
learners, attitudes to learning English and promotional aspect of instrumentality contributed significantly to the learners’
motivated learning behaviour, with attitudes to learning English being the most important predictor variable for the EFL
learners and promotional aspect of instrumentality being the most important predictor variable for the ESL learners.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for the ESL(total) and EFL learners and comparison of their mean scores.

Factors ESL(total) (N ¼ 122) EFL (N ¼ 132) t p Effect size

(Cohen’s d)
Mean SD Mean SD
Ideal L2 Self 4.51 .77 4.13 1.10 3.22 .001 .4
Attitudes to learning English 4.03 .96 3.69 .97 2.89 .004 .4
Fear of assimilation 2.39 .99 2.70 1.17 2.26 n.s. n.s.
Ought-to L2 Self 3.21 1.03 3.17 .98 .33 n.s. n.s.
Attitudes to L2 community and culture 4.57 .78 4.33 .94 2.22 n.s. n.s.
Instrumentality (Prevention) 3.66 1.13 4.11 1.08 3.24 .001 .4
Criterion measures 4.46 .77 3.95 .97 4.60 .000 .6
English anxiety 3.07 1.04 3.47 1.08 2.99 .003 .4
Social expectation 3.50 1.20 3.66 1.04 1.10 n.s. n.s.
Travel orientation 4.78 .96 4.53 .95 2.05 n.s. n.s.
Instrumentality (Promotion) 5.27 .70 5.23 .80 .32 n.s. n.s.
Ethnocentrism 3.62 1.12 3.91 1.20 1.94 n.s. n.s.
456 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461

Table 3
Descriptive statistics for the ESL(recent arrival) and EFL learners and comparison of their mean scores.

Factors ESL(recent arrival) EFL (N ¼ 132) t p Effect size

(n ¼ 56) (Cohen’s d)

Mean SD Mean SD
Ideal L2 Self 4.36 .81 4.13 1.10 1.42 n.s. n.s.
Attitudes to learning English 3.88 .97 3.69 .97 1.28 n.s. n.s.
Fear of assimilation 2.23 .89 2.70 1.17 2.70 n.s. n.s.
Ought-to L2 Self 3.10 1.09 3.17 .98 .44 n.s. n.s.
Attitudes to L2 community and culture 4.39 .78 4.33 .94 .41 n.s. n.s.
Instrumentality (Prevention) 3.65 1.28 4.11 1.08 2.52 n.s. n.s.
Criterion measures 4.42 .81 3.95 .97 3.15 .002 .5
English anxiety 3.11 .99 3.47 1.08 2.15 n.s. n.s.
Social expectation 3.51 1.34 3.66 1.04 .83 n.s. n.s.
Travel orientation 4.67 1.10 4.53 .95 .86 n.s. n.s.
Instrumentality (Promotion) 5.22 .76 5.23 .80 .12 n.s. n.s.
Ethnocentrism 3.57 1.11 3.91 1.20 1.79 n.s. n.s.

Moreover, for the EFL learners, the Ought-to L2 Self also contributed significantly to their motivated learning behaviour; and
travel orientation played a positive role, while English anxiety and social expectation played a negative role in shaping their
motivated learning behaviour.

5. Discussion

Overall the results of the factor and reliability analysis of the MQ provide support for the tripartite L2 Motivational Self
System in a Chinese EFL and New Zealand ESL context. The factors measuring the three main components (Ideal L2 Self,
Ought-to L2 Self, and L2 Learning Experience) of the L2 Motivational Self System could be identified clearly as valid and
reliable ones. Moreover, promotional and preventional instrumentality, which are, according to Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Moti-
vational Self System, related to the Ideal and Ought-to L2 Self, also emerged as clear factors. Although these factors were
measured successfully for both of the investigated populations, the extent to which they were found to contribute to the
criterion measures of motivated learning behaviour was different. There were also very clear differences in the motivational
profile and motivated learning behaviour between the EFL and ESL groups.
The comparative analysis revealed that the ESL learners had a stronger Ideal L2 Self than the EFL learners. For the Ideal L2
Self factor, the mean score of the ESL(total) learners was significantly higher than the mean score of the EFL learners. The
result seems reasonable considering the learners’ access to English in the community. Compared to the EFL learners in China,
when living in New Zealand, the ESL learners had more chances to interact with native or fluent speakers of English and to
see, hear and use English, which may have been more helpful in forming a salient vision of themselves as a competent user of
English. As pointed out by Dörnyei (2009), one of the ways for creating a self vision was related to the impact of role models
seen by the learners in films, on TV, or in real life. Moreover, the mean score of the ESL(resident) learners was significantly
higher than the mean score of the EFL learners, while the mean score of the ESL(recent arrival) learners was not. A possible
explanation is that the ESL learners who had recently arrived in New Zealand did not have as much direct contact with English
and English speakers as the ESL learners who had lived in New Zealand for more than three months, and with the contact
increasing, the ESL learners were likely to develop a stronger Ideal L2 Self than the EFL learners. Kormos and Csizér (2008) also
found that in comparison with university students, secondary school students had a limited amount of contact with English
speakers and thus did not yet perceive the importance of being a competent user of English in the future.

Table 4
Descriptive statistics for the ESL(resident) and EFL learners and comparison of their mean scores.

Factors ESL(resident) EFL (N ¼ 132) t p Effect size

(n ¼ 66) (Cohen’s d)

Mean SD Mean SD
Ideal L2 Self 4.64 .72 4.13 1.10 3.92 .000 .6
Attitudes to learning English 4.16 .94 3.69 .97 3.32 .001 .5
Fear of assimilation 2.53 1.05 2.70 1.17 .98 n.s. n.s.
Ought-to L2 Self 3.31 .98 3.17 .98 .94 n.s. n.s.
Attitudes to L2 community and culture 4.72 .76 4.33 .94 2.99 .003 .5
Instrumentality (Prevention) 3.66 1.00 4.11 1.08 2.78 n.s. n.s.
Criterion measures 4.50 .74 3.95 .97 4.02 .000 .6
English anxiety 3.04 1.09 3.47 1.08 2.62 n.s. n.s.
Social expectation 3.50 1.08 3.66 1.04 .99 n.s. n.s.
Travel orientation 4.87 .81 4.53 .95 2.48 n.s. n.s.
Instrumentality (Promotion) 5.30 .65 5.23 .80 .60 n.s. n.s.
Ethnocentrism 3.67 1.14 3.91 1.20 1.35 n.s. n.s.
 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461 457

Table 5
Results of the regression analysis of the motivational factors with motivated learning behaviour as the criterion variable for the EFL
learners (N ¼ 132).

Variable Final model

B SE B beta
Attitudes to learning English .53 .07 .52a
Ought-to L2 Self .21 .07 .21a
Instrumentality (Promotion) .21 .07 .20a
Travel orientation .22 .08 .18b
English anxiety .12 .05 .14b
Social expectation .14 .07 .15b
R2 .59
a
p < .005.
b
p < .05.

Correspondingly, for the Attitudes to L2 community and culture factor, the mean score of the ESL(resident) learners was
significantly higher than the mean score of the EFL learners, while the mean score of the ESL(recent arrival) learners was not.
Similar to the EFL learners, the ESL learners who had recently arrived in New Zealand may not have had enough direct contact
with people from the English-speaking community to form positive attitudes toward them. However, the ESL learners who
had lived in New Zealand for more than three months may have had more opportunities for direct contact with English
speakers to form positive attitudes toward them, so they were likely to have more positive attitudes toward members of the
English-speaking community and English cultural products than the EFL learners. Since direct contact with English speakers
and English was also considered as a significant factor that influenced the learners’ idealized self images as competent users of
English, it seems that the learners’ Ideal L2 Self may be related to their attitudes toward the L2 community and culture. As
Dörnyei (2009) suggested: the more positive our attitudes toward L2 speakers, the more attractive our Ideal L2 Self, because
L2 speakers are the closest parallels to our Ideal L2 Self. This was confirmed by the Pearson correlation coefficients which
were computed between the learners’ mean scores for the Attitudes to L2 community and culture and Ideal L2 Self factor. The
correlations between the Attitudes to L2 community and culture and Ideal L2 Self factor for both the ESL (r ¼ .371, p ¼ .000) and
EFL groups (r ¼ .555, p ¼ .000) were statistically significant.
Moreover, the ESL learners had more favourable attitudes toward learning English than the EFL learners. That is, the ESL
learners may have had a more positive disposition toward their immediate English learning environment and experiences
than the EFL learners. This may be explained with reference to their different classroom experiences. The English classes that
the EFL learners attended were usually very large and the classroom instruction was always teacher-centred, so they had few
opportunities for meaningful interaction by using English and had to passively receive a lot of knowledge in the class. Such
classroom experiences may have failed to arouse their interest in learning English. However, the English classes that the ESL
learners attended were always small. Due to the student-centred classroom instruction, they had many opportunities to be
actively involved in meaningful communication in English and could have fun participating in classroom activities. They may
also have found that the communicative skills they acquired in the classroom were very useful in their daily life. Such
classroom experiences may have enhanced their interest in learning English and helped them to enjoy the process of learning
English. Moreover, compared to the EFL learners, the ESL learners felt less anxious and nervous when speaking English in
different situations. This may also be due to the more positive English learning experiences that the ESL learners had.
The motivation of the EFL learners was more related to fulfilling duties and obligations than that of the ESL learners. That
is, the EFL learners were more likely to study English in order to pass an English course or exam than the ESL learners. As is
widely known, in China’s educational system, English is a compulsory course. In order to graduate from high school, enter a
university, or get a degree, Chinese students must take English exams, and it is very important for them to pass the exams or
even get a high grade in the exams. However, it seems that after coming to New Zealand, the ESL learners attached less
importance to passing exams than the EFL learners, even though they had to pass International English Language Testing
System (IELTS) test in order to further their education in New Zealand. A possible reason is that when living in an English-
speaking environment, the ESL learners may have found that even if they passed English tests and got a high grade in En-
glish courses, they still had many difficulties in using English in communicative contexts. Then they may have realized that

Table 6
Results of the regression analysis of the motivational factors with motivated learning behaviour as the criterion variable for the ESL
learners (N ¼ 122).

Variable Final model

B SE B beta
Instrumentality (Promotion) .36 .10 .33a
Attitudes to learning English .22 .07 .27a
R2 .26
a
p < .005.
458 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461

being a competent user of English should be their ultimate goal of learning English rather than passing English exams or
courses.
As for motivated learning behaviour, the ESL learners were found to expend or intend to expend more effort in learning
English than the EFL learners. This may be explained with reference to the differences in the predictor variables of motivated
learning behaviour between them. Similar to previous studies (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb,
2012), this study also confirmed the great importance of learning experience in motivating these Chinese learners to study
English, as attitudes to learning English contributed significantly to motivated learning behaviour in both regression models.
This contrasts with Taguchi et al.’s (2009) argument that enjoying learning English does not play a decisive role in influencing
Chinese students’ effort expended in learning English. The regression analyses also revealed that attitudes to learning English
had a stronger effect on the EFL learners’ motivated learning behaviour than on the ESL learners’. A possible explanation is
that for the EFL learners, English learning was usually confined to classroom settings, so classroom experiences were more
important for them. However, as discussed above, the EFL learners had less favourable attitudes toward learning English than
the ESL learners. These may be contributory factors to the less effort invested in learning English by the EFL learners, which is
given further support by the negative effect of English anxiety on the EFL learners’ motivated learning behaviour.
It is surprising that the Ideal L2 Self did not appear to contribute significantly to motivated learning behaviour in both the
EFL and ESL groups. This result contrasts with previous studies (e.g., Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Taguchi
et al., 2009), which proposed a prominent role for the Ideal L2 Self. However, the regression analyses revealed that pro-
motional instrumentality played a role in determining their motivated learning behaviour. Moreover, both groups had a
similarly high level of promotional instrumentality. The mean scores of the ESL and EFL groups for the Instrumentality
(Promotion) factor were higher than their mean scores for the other factors. Thus, although these Chinese learners could form
a vision of themselves as a competent user of English, what made them likely to invest effort in learning English was their
internalized instrumental motives, that is, their personal goals to become successful, such as academic or professional
advancement, growth, and accomplishment. The result is not surprising considering the great importance that is attached to
English in China. It is almost a common view of Chinese people that a good knowledge of English is required for succeeding
educationally, searching for a good job, and achieving promotion. The regression models also showed that promotional
instrumentality was a stronger predictor of motivated learning behaviour for the ESL learners than the EFL learners. It is
possible that in comparison with the EFL learners, the ESL learners were more eager to achieve their personal goals to become
academically or professionally successful since they invested more in studying abroad; and moreover when living in New
Zealand, high proficiency in English was more important for them to achieve their personal goals, which therefore made them
more likely to invest effort in learning English.
Similar to other studies (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009), the regression models revealed that the Ought-to L2
Self played a limited role in predicting these Chinese learners’ effort expended in learning English, as it had only a modest
effect on the EFL learners’ motivated learning behaviour, but not on the ESL learners’. It appears that in the case of the EFL
learners, meeting the expectations of parents and significant others was a contributory factor to their motivated learning
behaviour. However, social expectation was found to have a negative effect on their motivated learning behaviour. This
suggests that extrinsic (i.e., non-internalized) incentives may play a negative role in motivating learners to study English in
the Chinese context even though the society attaches much importance to English language competence.

6. Conclusion

The findings of this study revealed notable differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a Chinese EFL and
New Zealand ESL context. Overall, the ESL learners were more motivated to learn English than the EFL learners in that the ESL
learners expended or intended to expend more effort in learning English than the EFL learners. Moreover, the ESL learners
developed stronger idealized self images as competent users of English and had more favourable attitudes toward learning
English than the EFL learners, while the EFL learners had a higher level of preventional instrumentality than the ESL learners.
The comparison of the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign and second language context in this study in-
dicates that language learning context (i.e., foreign and second language learning environments) does impact on motivation,
which supports the results of other studies and the more general claim that to some extent motivation is a situated
phenomenon.
In general, it can be argued that the validity of the L2 Motivational Self System has been confirmed in the foreign and
second language context of this study because the three dimensions of the L2 Motivational Self System could be identified
clearly in this study. In the case of these Chinese learners, L2 learning experience was the most important of the three
components in determining their English learning effort, which suggests that teachers play an important role in motivating
students and thus should try to improve their teaching methods, employ motivational strategies in the classroom, and
encourage and help students to use self-motivating strategies to motivate themselves (Dörnyei, 2001b). Of the other two
components, the Ought-to L2 Self played a less important role in shaping motivated learning behaviour. However, the Ideal L2
Self did not have any significant effect on motivated learning behaviour in both the EFL and ESL contexts of this study, which
contrasts with previous studies in other contexts. This suggests that its influence on motivated learning behaviour may vary
with context. As for the Chinese learners in this study, it is their idealized self image associated with being professionally and
academically successful (i.e., promotional instrumentality) that was another important motivational factor in determining
their motivated learning behaviour. By contrast, their idealized self image as a competent user of English appeared to be too
 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461 459

vague and did not have a sufficient degree of elaborateness and vividness to be effective in motivating them to learn English.
The result also suggests that this component might include several subcomponents, that is, different forms of the ideal self.
Similarly, considering the emergence of the construct of Social expectation, the component of Ought-to L2 Self might also be
the combination of several subcomponents representing the various attributes that one believes one ought to possess in order
to meet different expectations.
The main limitation of this study is that the sampling of the participants was limited to the first and second year university
students at one university in China and tertiary students at eight English language schools in New Zealand. As a result, the
sample may not be representative of Chinese EFL and ESL learners in general, and it is thus not quite clear how generalizable
the findings are to other Chinese EFL and ESL learners in different contexts. Therefore, it would be useful to conduct further
research with different groups of English learners (e.g., with different native languages, cultural or education backgrounds, or
language learning settings) in order to better understand differences in the motivation of English learners in a foreign and
second language context from a self and identity perspective. Although the participants in both the EFL and ESL groups were
tertiary students who were taking an English course during the period of investigation, the ESL learners might be a little more
academically mature than the EFL learners because on average, the ESL learners were about two years older than the EFL
learners. The ESL learners also attended more English classes every week than the EFL learners because the ESL learners were
studying English at English language schools; and the EFL learners were taking a compulsory English course at a university,
but were not English majors. That is, in addition to language learning context, other variables such as age, academic maturity,
and the number of English classes they attended every week, might also influence the motivation of the EFL and ESL learners.
Future research needs to be more cautious about sampling in order to exclude the influence of these possible intervening
variables. The findings of this study revealed differences in the motivation of Chinese EFL and ESL learners. The ESL learners
had a higher level of motivated learning behaviour than the EFL learners. Whether these differences in their motivation lead
to differences in their achievement in learning English also needs investigating. Moreover, the current study used a self-report
questionnaire to identify the learners’ motivational factors. The questionnaire may not always be able to extract learners’
actual motivational thinking or future visions. Future research may consider employing multiple data collection methods.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Professor Rod Ellis for his wise guidance and insightful comments in this study.

Appendix A. 12 Motivational factors

Factor Item no. Questionnaire statement Loading

Factor 1: Ideal L2 Self 35 I can imagine myself frequently speaking English with international friends or colleagues. .71
(Alpha ¼ .82) 14 I imagine myself as someone who is able to speak English. .68
6 I can imagine myself living abroad permanently and always having a discussion in English. .65
28 I can imagine myself speaking English as if I were a native speaker of English. .62
42 Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using English. .52
Factor 2: Attitudes to learning 51 Do you find learning English really interesting? .78
English (Alpha ¼ .86) 60 Do you really enjoy learning English? .73
57 How much do you like English? .69
41 If an English course was offered in the future, I would like to take it. .61
55 Do you always look forward to English classes? .61
Factor 3: Fear of assimilation 40 I think that, as internationalisation advances, there is a danger of losing the Chinese identity. .81
(Alpha ¼ .83) 32 I think the cultural and artistic values of English are going at the expense of Chinese values. .80
25 Because of the influence of the English-speaking countries, I think the morals of .68
Chinese people are becoming worse.
8 I think that there is a danger that Chinese people may forget the importance of Chinese .68
culture, as a result of internationalisation.
17 Because of the influence of the English language, I think the Chinese language is .67
becoming corrupt.
Factor 4: Ought-to L2 Self 12 I consider learning English important because the people I respect think that I should do it. .68
(Alpha ¼ .77) 11 Studying English is important to me in order to bring honours to my family. .67
5 I study English because close friends of mine think it is important. .63
18 Learning English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do so. .54
29 Being successful in English is important to me so that I can please my parents/relatives. .54
Factor 5: Attitudes to L2 53 Do you like English films? .72
community and culture 58 Do you like TV programmes made in English-speaking countries? .70
(Alpha ¼ .83) 54 Do you like meeting people from English-speaking countries? .67
49 Do you like the music of English-speaking countries (e.g., pop music)? .61
59 Do you like to travel to/in English-speaking countries? .59
50 Do you like the people who live in English-speaking countries? .55
62 Would you like to know more about people from English-speaking countries? .55
(continued on next page)
460 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461

(continued )

Factor Item no. Questionnaire statement Loading

Factor 6: Instrumentality 24 Studying English is necessary for me because I don’t want to get a poor score or a fail .81
(Prevention) (Alpha ¼ .83) mark in English proficiency tests.
31 I have to learn English because I don’t want to fail the English course. .81
7 I have to study English because I don’t want to get bad marks in it. .72
39 Studying English is important to me, because I would feel ashamed if I got bad grades .68
in English.
Factor 7: Criterion measures 3 I think that I am doing my best to learn English. .72
(Alpha ¼ .79) 34 Compared to my classmates, I think I study English relatively hard. .61
13 I would like to spend lots of time studying English. .58
22 I am prepared to expend a lot of effort in learning English. .58
Factor 8: English anxiety 56 How nervous and confused do you get when you are speaking in your English class? .77
(Alpha ¼ .77) 47 How tense would you get if a stranger asked you for directions in English? .75
61 How afraid are you of sounding stupid in English because of the mistakes you make? .75
52 How uneasy would you feel speaking English with a native speaker? .72
Factor 9: Social expectation 38 Studying English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able .68
(Alpha ¼ .76) to speak English.
44 Studying English is important to me in order to attain a higher social respect. .58
45 Studying English is important to me because other people will respect me more if I have .57
a knowledge of English.
Factor 10: Travel orientation 43 I study English because with English I can enjoy travelling abroad. .76
(Alpha ¼ .78) 19 Studying English is important to me because it will help me when I travel abroad. .75
1 Learning English is important to me because I would like to travel internationally. .69
Factor 11: Instrumentality 4 Studying English can be important to me because I think it will someday be useful in .69
(Promotion) (Alpha ¼ .73) getting a good job.
16 Studying English can be important to me because I think I’ll need it for further studies. .62
10 Studying English is important to me because English proficiency is necessary for promotion .56
in the future.
Factor 12: Ethnocentrism 36 It would be a better world if everybody lived like the Chinese. .78
(Alpha ¼ .71) 23 Other cultures should learn more from my culture. .74
9 I would be happy if other cultures were more similar to Chinese. .67

Appendix B. Eigenvalues and variance for each factor

Factors Eigenvalue Percentage of variance Cumulative percentage

1. Ideal L2 Self 11.98 19.32 19.32
2. Attitudes to learning English 6.98 11.27 30.59
3. Fear of assimilation 2.93 4.72 35.31
4. Ought-to L2 Self 2.50 4.04 39.34
5. Attitudes to L2 community and culture 2.37 3.82 43.16
6. Instrumentality (Prevention) 1.98 3.20 46.36
7. Criterion measures 1.92 3.10 49.46
8. English anxiety 1.60 2.58 52.04
9. Social expectation 1.58 2.55 54.60
10. Travel orientation 1.39 2.25 56.84
11. Instrumentality (Promotion) 1.25 2.01 58.85
12. Ethnocentrism 1.22 1.97 60.82

References

Apple, M. (2005). Extensive reading and the motivation to read: a pilot study. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 8(1), 193–212.
Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social-psychological theory of second-language (L2) learning. Language Learning, 38(1), 75–100.
Chen, J. F., Warden, C. A., & Chang, H.-T. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: the case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation.
TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609–633.
Chihara, T., & Oller, J. W. (1978). Attitudes and attained proficiency in EFL: a sociolinguistic study of adult Japanese speakers. Language learning, 28(1), 55–68.
Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: the effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence.
Language Learning, 33(3), 273–291.
Coleman, J. A. (1996). Studying languages: A survey of British and European students. London: CILT.
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The
Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19–36.
Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: a comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian
secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98–119). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
 Q. Li / System 42 (2014) 451–461 461

Csizér, K., & Lukács, G. (2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: the case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38, 1–13.
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, 40(1), 45–78.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001a). Teaching and researching motivation. Edinburgh Gate, England: Pearson Education.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001b). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration, and processing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation: results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23(4),
421–462.
Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dornyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition
(pp. 1–19). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Gardner, R. C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and as-
sociates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123–163.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self–discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.
Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning motivation of university students in Japan? Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal,
25(1), 86–100.
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura, T. (2001). Language learning motivation of EFL learners in Japan: a cross-sectional analysis of various learning milieus.
JALT Journal, 23(1), 47–68.
Kormos, J., & Csizér, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: attitudes, selves, and motivated learning
behavior. Language Learning, 58(2), 327–355.
Lamb, M. (2012). A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning, 62(4), 997–
1023.
Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22(2), 261–273.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
Mori, S. (2002). Redefining motivation to read in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 91–110. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://
nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oller, J. W. (1978). Attitude variables in second language learning. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language
(pp. 172–184). New York: Regents.
Oller, J. W. (1981). Research on affective variables: some remaining questions. In R. Andersen (Ed.), New dimensions in second language acquisition research
(pp. 14–27). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Oller, J. W., Hudson, A., & Liu, P. F. (1977). Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: a sociolinguistic study of native speakers of Chinese in the United States.
Language Learning, 27(1), 1–27.
Oxford, R. L. (1996). New pathways of language learning motivation. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 1–
8). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Oxford, R. L., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28.
Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: the Ideal L2 Self and Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation,
language identity and the L2 self (pp. 120–143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Santos, J. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: a tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal of Extension, 37(2). Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.joe.org/
joe/1999april/tt3.php.
Schmidt, R., Borai, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: internal structure and external connections. In R. L. Oxford (Ed.), Language
learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp. 9–70). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Tachibana, Y., Matsukawa, R., & Zhong, Q. X. (1996). Attitudes and motivation for learning English: a cross-national comparison of Japanese and Chinese
high school students. Psychological Reports, 79, 691–700.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: a comparative study. In
Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Warden, C. A., & Lin, H. J. (2000). Existence of integrative motivation in an Asian EFL setting. Foreign Language Annals, 33(3), 535–547.
Yashima, T. (2000). Orientations and motivations in foreign language learning: a study of Japanese college students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121–133.
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self (pp. 144–163). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.