Abstract
There has been a lack of research on the relationship between metacognitive language-learning strategies (MCLLSs) and language-learning motivation (LLM) among Chinese-speaking ESL learners in Hong Kong. This article reports the results of a survey of the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM among Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong. The aims of the study were to identify the patterns of the use of MCLLSs and LLM of the learners and to explore the relationships between the two variables. A survey questionnaire containing items on MCLLSs of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) as well as items on integrative and instrumental motivation from the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMBT) were administered to 192 ESL learners at the institute. Findings indicate that ‘Paying Attention’, ‘Finding out language learning’ and ‘Self-monitoring’ were of the high use range, while all the other strategies including ‘Self-evaluation’, ‘Setting goals and objectives’ ‘Seeking practice opportunities’ and ‘Organizing’ were of the medium use range. Respondents’ level of LLM in general was found to be moderate, and respondents were more instrumentally than integratively motivated. Results indicate that the levels of the use of MCLLSs are positively related to the levels of motivation of respondents, with integrative motivation having a stronger relationship with strategy use than instrumental motivation and total motivation. Results from stepwise regression show that integrative but not instrumental motivation predict the levels of strategy use. The conclusion of this study is that LLM is positively related to the use of MCLLSs, and integrative motivation is a predictor of the use of MCLLSs. The inadequacies of Gardner’s (1985) dichotomous classification in measuring LLM are discussed, and implications for how to promote LLM in the local and other Asian contexts in order to bring about more use of MCLLSs are suggested.
Keywords: Metacognitive language-learning strategies, language-learning motivation, Chinese ESL learners, Hong Kong, integrative motivation, instrumental motivation
1. Introduction
In the research on metacognitive language-learning strategies (MCLLSs) to date, MCLLSs have been treated as peripheral. Most research did not focus particularly on MCLLSs and in most research MCLLSs were included among cognitive, social and affective language-learning strategies (LLSs). More and more research (e.g., Vandergrift, 2003; Wen & Johnson, 1997) has indicated the importance of MCLLSs in language learning, as they perform an executive and management function in language learning. MCLLSs were also found to be more useful among other types of LLSs (i.e., cognitive and social/affective), as they can be used for other learning activities in addition to language learning (Chamot & O’Malley, 1987).
Although previous studies attempted to investigate how the use of MCLLSs is related to a number of learner variables, there has been little research on how the use of MCLLSs is related to language-learning motivation (LLM).
2. Literature Review
MCLLSs are ‘thinking about the learning process, planning for learning, monitoring the learning task, and evaluating how well one has learned’ (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 137). They are being viewed as used to ‘oversee, regulate or self-direct language learning’ (Rubin, 1987, p. 25). Oxford (1990) emphasizes the coordinating functions of MCLLSs including centering, arranging, planning and evaluating language learning.
Based on different underlying theories of L2 learning, different classifications of MCLLSs have been developed over the past few decades (e.g., Bialystok, 1978; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). In this study, Oxford’s (1990) classification was adopted because her classification is theoretically more consistent (Hsiao & Oxford, 2002) than other classifications, and is conceptually more sophisticated (Oxford & Cohen, 1992). Ellis (1999) regards Oxford’s classification as the most comprehensive one to date, as she built her classifications on earlier ones.
Although there are many recent developments in LLM research (Dornyei, 2001), the most extensive research on LLM of integrative and instrumental motivation done by Gardner and his colleagues (Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Gardner, 1985; 1996) is the most widely recognized.
The instrumental goal of Chinese learners in L2 English learning is a well-established research finding (Tachibana, Matsukawa, & Qu, 1996; Lai, 1999). These findings have led to the doubt that instrumental motivation is not necessarily detrimental to linguistic achievement.
Studies on the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM are rare both in western and Chinese contexts. In research to date, MCLLSs were often included as part of general LLSs. The main finding of this research has been that more motivated learners used a larger number of LLSs and MCLLSs, and used them more frequently than less motivated ones (Okada, Oxford, & Abo, 1996; Schmidt, Boraie, & Kassabgy, 1996; Vandergrift, 2005). Another finding is that among a number of learner variables, LLM has the most powerful influence on reported use of LLSs (Oxford & Nyikos, 1989) and MCLLSs (Schmidt & Watanabe, 2001).
Apart from finding out the positive relationships between LLS use and general LLM, Schmidt et al. (1996) found integrativeness was unrelated to the use of learning strategies. In another study (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991), instrumental motivation was found to be related to LLS use. These findings are contrary to the earlier ones by Gardner and his colleagues that integrative motivation is more determinative for L2 learners. Despite these inconsistent findings, more and more research has shown that both types of motivation are needed for the use of MCLLSs (Okada et al., 1996; Yamaori, Isoda, Hiromori, & Oxford, 2003; Vandergrift, 2005).
As far as the use of specific MCLLSs are concerned, in a study by Wharton (2000) it was found that the level of motivation had a positive relationship with two items of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), that of goals and objective setting and of looking for people to talk to in L2. In a more recent study on young L2 learners of Taiwan, Lan and Oxford (2003) found that degree of likeness of English had positive relationships with the MCLLS items of listening closely to English speaker (Paying attention), checking own progress in learning English (Self-evaluating), analysing own mistakes and not making them again (Self-monitoring). Liking of English was found to have interaction effects with proficiency in its relationship with looking for chance to practice English (Seeking practice opportunities). However, in both the studies by Wharton as well as Lan and Oxford, LLM was measured by only one item of the perceived proficiency self-rating by respondents.
The conclusion from previous research on MCLLSs and LLM is that more motivated L2 learners employ more MCLLSs. However, we should note that in all these studies few details on the use of specific MCLLSs were given. The measurements of LLM in these studies were also too general. Thus, the details of the relationships between the use of specific MCLLSs and specific types of LLM are not known. There is a need to fill the gap in previous research of the lack of details reported on investigating the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM. These findings can allow us to improve the teaching of ESL learners not only in the local Hong Kong context but also in other Asian contexts.
3. Purpose of the study
As we can see from the above literature review, previous research has found that the use of MCLLSs is related to LLM. However, there has been little research on the use of MCLLSs focusing on young adults, especially learners undertaking vocational education. One limitation of past research on MCLLS is that it predominantly focused on tertiary students (Zhang, 2003). There is a need to increase our understanding on how the use of MCLLSs is related to LLM of this type of ESL learners.
Given the above background, this study focuses on the above two neglected areas of MCLLSs and LLM, particularly among Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in the Hong Kong context.
This study was driven by three research questions:
1. What are the MCLLSs used by Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong?
2. What are the patterns of LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong?
3. What are the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong?
This article reports the findings of a study on the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM among Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong. The methods and procedures will be introduced in the next section. Answers to the above three research questions will then be given by the presentation of the results of this study. Discussion in light of the results will be made. Finally, implications for teaching, particularly for the local and the Asian context in general, will be given.
4. Methodology
4.1 Participants
A total of eight classes of year one students were randomly selected from all the 28 diploma classes of different streams of studies of about 25 students in each class.
In the diploma course, students have to take about 200 hours of English. The English curriculum is vocationally biased, in which students have to learn the different types of communication skills in the workplace, including speaking, writing, reading and listening.
Most of the students studying Diploma year one course completed their Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE) the same year. There are two main public examinations at the secondary level in Hong Kong. The first one is the HKCEE and the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examinations (HKALE). Most candidates take the HKCEE after their five-year study at a secondary school at the age of about 16. Those who have satisfactory results in their HKCEE are offered places to continue their studies in secondary school for two years (Form Six and Seven). The HKALE is normally taken by a student at the end of their two-year sixth-form courses, and the results determine his/her entry to tertiary education. In both examinations, English is one of the compulsory subjects, meaning that they have to get at least a pass in them in order that they are eligible to continue their studies. Among those who decide not to prepare for their HKALE, vocational education is one of their choices.
As far as the role of English in the Hong Kong society is concerned, since colonial times English has been the dominant language in government, education, business and the law courts. English has traditionally been an important medium for communication, the media, tourism, and the arts in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is an international centre of trade, finance and commerce with a population of over six million, 98% of whom are Chinese with Cantonese as the predominant language. Cantonese is common in the daily lives of Hongkongers. Hong Kong people seldom have the need to use English except in the workplace. English has been serving the ‘value-added’ role in the Hong Kong society (Li, 1999).
4.2 Procedures
The nine items on MCLLS of Oxford’s (1990) SILL version 7.0 designed for speakers of other languages learning English were used to measure the use of MCLLSs (1). In Oxford’s (1990) classification, MCLLSs are divided into three groups, including Centering your Learning (one items), Arranging and Planning your Learning (six items), and Evaluating your Learning (two items). In this part, respondents were asked to rate how often they used the specific MCLLSs, ranging from ‘1’ (Never or almost never true of me) to ‘5’ (Always or almost always true of me). There are 50 items in the SILL version 7.0 measuring cognitive, metacognitive and social/affective LLSs. Only Part D which measures the use of MCLLSs was included in the questionnaire to suit the focus of this study. Despite only one part of the whole inventory being included in the questionnaire, this part can be regarded as an independent scale, as its reliability and validity statistics independent to the other parts have been reported (for example, Oh, 1992; Bremner, 1999). The SILL has also been administered in a lot of other research in investigating LLS use in the western (e.g., Oxford and Nyikos, 1989) and Chinese (e.g., Goh and Kwah, 1997) contexts. In Gardner’s (1985) AMTB, there are four items in the Integrative Orientation Scale which measure integrative orientation, and four items in the Instrumental Orientation Scale which measure instrumental orientation. These items were included in the survey questionnaire. A seven-point Likert scale from ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree’ was adapted to a five-point scale to facilitate response. Gardner’s AMTB has undergone lengthy validation and widespread use since the 1960s. Good psychometric properties have been reported (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003).
The number of items on demographic data was kept to a minimum and these items were included at the end of the questionnaire. Suitable items from Oxford’s (1990) Background Questionnaire, which is recommended to be used together with the SILL to collect information on learner characteristics, were included and modified whenever necessary.
The questionnaire in English was translated into Chinese by a translator who had specialized training in English/Chinese translation. The Chinese-translated version of the questionnaire was then back-translated by another translator who had the same training as the first translator. Although a Chinese version of the SILL is available (Yang, 1999), the items were translated because items in more local written Chinese were more easily understood by respondents. SPSS was used for statistical analyses.
5. Results
In this section, answers to the three research questions will be given. In order to answer the first research question, ‘What are the MCLLSs used by Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, the results of descriptive analysis on the use of MCLLSs will be presented. This is followed by the results of the descriptive analysis on the LLM which provide answers to the second research question, ‘What are the patterns of LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’. The findings of the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM, which provide answers to the third research question, ‘What are the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, will be given at the end of this section.
A total of 192 questionnaires were collected. Among the respondents, 106 (57.6%) were males and 78 (42.4%) were females. Their mean age was 17.6. About 48% of them were from the Department of Hotel, Service and Tourism Studies, 29% were from the Department of Business Administration. Twenty four respondents (12.5%) studied electrical engineering, and 19 (9.9%) studied computer and information management.
5.1 The results of descriptive analysis on the use of MCLLSs
The means and standard deviations of the scores of the individual MCLLSs and the three MCLLS categories are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Scores of MCLLS and MCLLS Categories
MCLLS / MCLLS category |
Mean |
SD |
Finding out about language learning |
3.5 |
.89 |
Self-monitoring |
3.5 |
.84 |
Paying attention |
3.6 |
.86 |
Organizing |
2.7 |
.90 |
Seeking practice opportunities |
3.1 |
.70 |
Setting goals and objectives |
3.1 |
.93 |
Self-evaluating |
3.3 |
.91 |
Arranging and planning your learning |
3.1 |
.66 |
Centering your learning |
3.6 |
.86 |
Evaluating your learning |
3.4 |
.75 |
The mean of the total score of these nine items was 3.2, which indicates a medium use (Oxford, 1990) of MCLLSs among the respondents. Among the seven MCLLSs, ‘Paying attention’ had the highest score, with a mean of 3.6 (SD=.86). Item 5, which measures ‘Organizing’ strategy, (‘I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English’) had the lowest score, with a mean of 2.7 (SD=.90). Similarly, among the three categories of MCLLSs, ‘Centering your learning’ (as measured by the item on ‘Paying attention’) was the most popular, while ‘Arranging and planning your learning’ was the least popular.
According to Oxford (1990), a mean within the range of 3.5 to 4.4 can be regarded as being within the low end of high use range. We see that in this study ‘Finding out about language learning’, ‘Self-monitoring’ and ‘Paying attention’ are within this range. The MCLLS category of ‘Centering your learning’, which is measured by the MCLLS of ‘Paying attention’, is also within this high use range. The remaining two categories are of the medium use range.
Cronbach’s alpha of the nine-item MCLLS scale is .878. This means that the scale has high internal consistency and reliability. This value is comparable to those previously reported (e.g., Bremner, 1999; Oh, 1992).
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed to investigate the relationships of the use of MCLLSs with different learner characteristics, including age, respondents’ perceived English proficiency, and their perceived importance of being proficient in English. There were no significant relationships between age and the respondents’ perceived importance of English proficiency with the use of MCLLSs (both in terms of individual items, strategies and categories). A possible reason for the lack of relationships found between age and the use of MCLLSs is that the respondents came from a narrow age range (a minimum of 16 and a maximum of 23). Most of them attached a high importance English proficiency (with 68.3% chose ‘Very important’ and the rest 31.7% chose ‘Important’ and no respondent expressed it as not important). Therefore, no significant relationship was found between this learner characteristic with the use of MCLLSs. On the other hand, respondents’ perceived English proficiency was found to be related to a number of MCLLSs. Findings are given in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Respondents’ Perception of their English Proficiency with the Use of MCLLSs
MCLLS / MCLLS category |
r |
Finding out about language learning |
nsa |
Self-monitoring |
.191** |
Paying attention |
nsa |
Organizing |
.215** |
Seeking practice opportunities |
.232** |
Setting goals and objectives |
.227** |
Self-evaluating |
.183* |
|
|
Arranging and planning your learning |
.252*** |
Centering your learning |
nsa |
Evaluating your learning |
.219** |
|
|
MCLLS total score |
.245** |
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
a: not significant.
As we can see from the above findings, most of the significant coefficients were rather small. Yet they show that respondents’ perceived English proficiency was positively related to a lot of MCLLSs and the general use of MCLLSs. However, we should also aware that better perceived English proficiency may be a result of more frequent use of MCLLSs.
A t-test was conducted and no gender difference was found in overall use of MCLLSs. Among the nine individual items, the only gender difference was found in item 9 (of ‘Self-evaluation’). This item was more popular among female respondents (t=-2.797, p<0.01). No other gender differences in terms of both individual strategies and the categories were found.
Answers to the first research question, ‘What are the MCLLSs used by Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, are that there is a medium level of use of MCLLSs among the learners. More specifically, ‘Finding out language learning’, ‘Self-monitoring’, and ‘Paying attention’ are of the high use range, while all the other strategies, namely ‘Self-evaluation’, ‘Setting goals and objectives’ ‘Seeking practice opportunities’ and ‘Organizing’ are of the medium use range.
The additional findings from descriptive analysis are that the use of MCLLSs is not related to the age and gender of the learners. Also, it is not related to learners’ perceived importance of English proficiency. However, it was found to be positively related to learners’ perceived English proficiency.
5.2 Results of the descriptive analysis on LLM
The means of the items of the Integrative and Instrumental Orientation Scales are given in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Means of Items of the Integrative and Instrumental Orientation Scales
Item |
Mean |
SD |
1 |
4.0 |
.96 |
2 |
4.0 |
.95 |
3 |
3.3 |
1.06 |
4 |
3.7 |
.99 |
Integrative Motivation |
3.8 |
.79 |
5 |
4.3 |
.95 |
6 |
4.0 |
.94 |
7 |
4.2 |
.93 |
8 |
3.6 |
1.00 |
Instrumental Motivation |
4.0 |
.76 |
Overall mean |
3.9 |
.71 |
The reliabilities of the Integrative and Instrumental Orientation scales, as indicated by Cronbach’s alphas, were .804 and .817 respectively. They were higher than the alphas of .57 and .79 reported by Masgoret and Gardner (2003). These statistics show the two measures have high internal consistency.
The levels of motivation of respondents in this study can be regarded as moderate. Respondents were more instrumental in their motivation for learning English. A t-test was conducted to test for the difference between integrative and instrumental motivation. Results indicate that the difference was statistically significant (t=-5.990, p<.001).
A series of t-tests was performed to determine the gender differences in LLM. Significant differences were found in total motivation, integrative and instrumental motivation, with females higher in the respective means. As far as individual items are concerned, gender differences were found in all the eight items except for item 5 and 7. Findings from t-tests are given in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Findings of t-tests of Gender Differences in LLM
*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001
One possible reason for the insignificant gender differences in item 5 and 7 is that respondents regarded their future career (Item 5) and getting a good job in future (Item 7) as very important reasons for them to learn English regardless of their gender. We can see from the questionnaire in the Appendix that there is a difference between these two items. Item 5 focuses on the importance of English as perceived by respondents as in their future career. Item 7, on the other hand, is concerned with using English for finding a good job. These two items have the highest means among the 8 items, with Item 5 having a mean of 4.3 and Item 7 having a mean of 4.2.
As with MCLLS use, the correlation coefficients between LLM and a number of learner characteristics were computed. Total LLM and the two types of motivation were found to be not related with respondents’ perceived English proficiency. This shows that how good respondents perceived their English is not related to their motivation. Item 1 and 2 of the Instrumental Orientation Scale, instrumental motivation and total LLM score were found to be related to age. The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients obtained range from .16 to .18 (p<.01). Despite these weak relationships, the findings show the existence of age differences in instrumental motivation, with older learners having higher levels of instrumental motivation.
All the items on LLM were found to be significantly related to respondents’ perceived importance of English proficiency, with Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients ranging from .15 to .31. These findings show that the more motivated respondents are, the more important it is for them to be proficient in English. The weak correlations show that there may be a gap in respondents’ perceived importance of English proficiency and the motivation to learn English. That is, a learner might view being proficient in English as important, yet he/she lacks the motivation, either integrative or instrumental, in their English learning.
Answers to the second research question, ‘What are the patterns of LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, are that learners’ level of LLM in general is moderate, and respondents are more instrumentally than integratively motivated.
Additional findings from the descriptive analysis indicate that there were age and gender differences in LLM, with older learners found to be more instrumentally motivated and female learners more motivated, in terms integrative, instrumental and total LLM. Learners’ perceived English proficiency was found to be not related to LLM. Finally, learners’ perceived importance of English proficiency was found to be positively related to LLM.
5.3 Results of the analysis on the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM
In this section, results of the analysis on how the use of MCLLSs is related to LLM will be given.
Pearson correlation coefficients of the use of seven specific MCLLSs and the scores on integrative, instrumental and total motivation are given in Table 5 below.
Table 5
Pearson Correlation Coefficients of the Use of MCLLSs and MCLLS Categories with Integrative, Instrumental and Total Motivation (see PDF)
The above findings show that integrative, instrumental and total motivation are positively related to the use of MCLLSs. Among the significant correlations, the largest coefficient between individual MCLLSs and the two types of motivation was found between ‘Paying attention’ and instrumental motivation. This is followed by the correlation between ‘Finding out about language learning’ and integrative motivation.
As far as the relationships between MCLLS categories and the two types of motivation are concerned, the largest correlation is found between ‘Evaluating your learning’ and integrative motivation, followed by that between ‘Centering your learning’ and instrumental motivation. The MCLLS having the strongest relationships with total motivation is ‘Paying attention’, followed by ‘Finding out about language learning’. The MCLLS category having the strongest relationship with total motivation, on the other hand, is ‘Evaluating your learning’. In terms of the relationship between general MCLLS use and total motivation, the relationship is moderate, as reflected by a coefficient of .33.
Stepwise regression analyses with the use of MCLLSs as the dependent variable were conducted to determine which type of LLM is the best predictor of the use of MCLLSs. Integrative motivation emerged as the only predictor of the use of MCLLSs, explaining 11.6% (F=24.486, p<0.001) of the total variance. Instrumental motivation, on the other hand, was found not to be a predictor of MCLLS use. The failure of instrumental motivation to be a predictor of MCLLS use seems to contradict its significant correlation with the use of MCLLSs. We should remember that one limitation of correlational statistics is that they do not show any causal relationships. Therefore, it is possible that higher instrumental motivation can be a product of more MCLLS use. Another possibility is that the positive relationship which exists between MCLLS use of instrumental motivation is resulted from the influence of another factor such as beliefs on language learning. More research is needed to clarify these uncertainties.
In order to further explore the relationships between MCLLS use and LLM, stepwise regression was again conducted, with individual items measuring LLM as the independent and the use of MCLLSs as the dependent variables. Results indicate that one item on integrative motivation (appreciating British art and literature) and one on instrumental motivation (being respected by others) significantly predict the use of MCLLSs. Their R-squares are 0.11 (p<0.001) and 0.038 (p<0.01) respectively, accounting for a total of 14.5% of the variance. These findings show that both integrative and instrumental motivation can predict MCLLS use, despite only one item from each of the two motivation scales was found to be predictive of MCLLS use.
6. Conclusion
The answer to the first research question, ‘What are the MCLLSs used by Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, is that there is a medium use of MCLLSs among ESL learners undertaking vocational education in Hong Kong. More specifically, there is a high use of ‘Finding out about language learning’, ‘Self-monitoring’, and ‘Paying attention’, and there is a medium use of ‘Self-evaluating’, ‘Seeking practice opportunities’, ‘Setting goals and objectives’ and ‘Organizing’. ‘Paying attention’ is the most popular MCLLS and ‘Organizing’ is the least popular. MCLLS use is positively related to learners’ perceived English proficiency. There are no age and gender differences in the use of MCLLSs, and no relationships between the use of MCLLSs and respondents’ perceived importance of English proficiency exists.
The answer to the second research question, ‘What are the patterns of LLM of among Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, is that there is a moderate level of motivation among the learners, with the level of instrumental motivation significantly higher than that of integrative motivation. Gender differences in motivation levels exist, with females having higher levels of both integrative and instrumental motivation. Older learners are more instrumentally motivated, and there are no relationships between the use of MCLLSs and learners’ perceived English proficiency. Learners’ perceived importance English proficiency is positively related to LLM and the relationship is weak.
The answer to the third research question, ‘What are the relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong’, is that the use of MCLLSs is positively related to integrative, instrumental and total motivation. The positive relationships are moderate. ‘Organizing’ and ‘Setting goals and objectives’ are unrelated to LLM regardless of types. Finally, integrative motivation is a good predictor of MCLLS use.
The conclusion we can draw from the results of this study is that there are medium level of the use of MCLLSs and a medium level of LLM of Chinese-speaking ESL learners at a vocational education institute in Hong Kong. In addition, MCLLSs and LLM are positively related and integrative motivation is a good predictor of the use of MCLLSs.
The main implication of the findings of this study as a whole is that integrative motivation is an important factor influencing ESL learners’ use of MCLLSs. Together with the finding that instrumental motivation failed to be a predictor of MCLLS use, we know that integrative rather than instrumental motivation has a more prominent role in bringing about the use of MCLLSs. This finding contributes to our understanding of the more specific relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM. As pointed out at the end of section 2, past research on language-learning strategies and language learning motivation has been too general and one purpose of this study is to fill in this gap in research.
Another implication of this study is that we should take into consideration the role of context in influencing the learning behaviours of L2 learners. In the Hong Kong context in which this study was located, the higher prevalence of instrumental motivation as compared to integrative motivation is a result of contextual influences. Although there is a lack of research, we can speculate that the popularity of some MCLLSs may be a result of contextual influences such as the lack of opportunities in the classroom to utilize them. Given this, there is a high possibility that different patterns of the use of MCLLSs and LLM as well as their relationships might be found in other contexts. More research in different contexts should be conducted in order that we have a better understanding of the patterns of MCLLSs and LLM as well as the relationships between them. However, there are some similarities among a lot of Asian contexts in terms of contextual influences on the use of MCLLSs and LLM. Some examples of these similarities are the emphasis of the monetary rewards attached to English learning, the examination-orientedness of the education system, the lack of training on LLSs and MCLLSs both at the classroom and teacher-training levels. The patterns of the use of MCLLSs and LLM found in different Asian contexts may have some commonness. Nevertheless, more research on these two variables and their relationships in different Asian contexts is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
7. Discussion
The discussion of the findings on the use of MCLLSs, LLM and their relationships are given in this section.
The medium use of two out of the three categories of MCLLSs found confirms the earlier findings by Wen and Johnson (1997). This finding is also similar to the findings from Wu (2002) in a study of the same level of students at the same institute in 2002. However, compared to the mean of 3.5 as reported by Goh and Kwah (1997) among their 175 tertiary students from the PRC in Singapore, this finding is comparatively low. One possible reason is that respondents of this study were younger than those in the study by Goh and Kwah. As we know, age is a significant factor which affects MCLLS use. Older language learners have been consistently found to employ MCLLSs more frequently (Oxford, 1989). This age difference is further confirmed by the findings of a study by Lan and Oxford (2003). They found that a mean of 2.9 was reported by their 379 elementary school respondents in their overall strategy use, as measured by the children’s version of SILL.
Apart from general MCLLS use, the more frequent use of ‘Paying attention’, ‘Self-monitoring’ and ‘Self-evaluating’ found in this study also confirms most earlier findings (e.g., Goh & Kwah, 1997; Goh, 2002). However, no previous study has reported the frequent use of ‘Finding out about language learning’ and ‘Setting goals and objectives’ found in this study. The popularity of these two strategies may be due to the moderate level of motivation reported by respondents. The more motivated a learner is in learning a target language, the more he/she tends to set clear goals and find out how to be better learners of that language.
Another observation is that similar to the earlier findings by Gunning (1997), ‘Seeking practice opportunities’ was found to be unpopular among Chinese learners, especially when respondents were required to practice their English in speaking with others. The lowest mean of 2.9 was found in the item ‘I look for people I can talk to in English’. The reason for the reluctance of respondents in talking to others in seeking their practice opportunities is contextual. English has been performing an instrumental role in the Hong Kong sociolinguistic context as mentioned in 4.1. It is seldom used in daily life. Therefore, using English, especially speaking, is limited to the classroom. However, as ‘Seeking practice opportunities’ was applied in general use and reading, respondents found it more easily applied. This is reflected by the higher means of 3.3 of both item 1 (‘I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English’) and 7 (‘I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English’), a mean which is comparable to other MCLLS items.
One reason for the comparatively infrequent use of ‘Organizing’ is its higher cognitive demand this strategy imposes on learners. Respondents of this study were from a relatively academically less successful group. Therefore, we would expect that they might be more unwilling to adopt strategies such as ‘Organizing’ which require higher order cognitive processing. Compared to ‘Organizing’, other MCLLSs are more straight-forward and are therefore more popular among the respondents.
The lack of gender difference found in this study is different from the finding of some earlier studies that females tend to employ more MCLLSs than males (Vandergrift, 1996). Another finding of the weak positive relationships between learners’ perceived English proficiency and the use of MCLLSs provide some evidence to support the earlier view that the use MCLLSs and LLSs is indirectly related to learners’ L2 performance (Oxford, 1990). Despite the weak relationships, this finding increases our confidence on the usefulness of MCLLS training on learners’ perception of their English proficiency.
The prevalence of both integrative and instrumental motivation was contrary to most previous findings that Chinese ESL learners were pre-dominantly instrumentally motivated as described in the literature review.
What is worth mentioning is that from the responses of open-ended question of the Background Questionnaire, a lot of respondents expressed that one reason for the importance of being proficient in English was being able to communicate effectively with people of other nationalities for work and survival purposes. Some respondents on the same question also expressed that the reason for being more knowledgeable was also for instrumental purposes such as surviving in society, work and future studies (in order to find a good job). These responses reflect the inadequacies of Gardner’s conceptualization. There have been doubts on the spilt between integrative and instrumental motivation (Dornyei, 1994), as other types of motivation such as manipulative motivation are at work and affect L2 achievement (e.g., Dornyei, 1990). In the factor analysis of 1,500 Egyptian learners of English by Schmidt et al. (1996) mentioned earlier, instrumental, integrative and intrinsic motivation emerged among the other six factors of linguistic motivation, determination, anxiety about using English in class, sociability, foreign residence, and beliefs about failure found. There are certain motivations for learning a language, such as traveling, that cannot be classified as either instrumental or integrative. At the same time, individuals may have both integrative and instrumental motivation in learning a particular language. Another related issue is that motivation is prone to change. It is highly possible that an individual starts learning a language with instrumental motivation and become more interested in learning the language because of integrative reasons such as art appreciation as they become more advanced in their language studies. More research is needed in the local and other Chinese contexts to gather information on the different types of motivation Chinese learners have in their L2 learning.
Despite the existence of the inadequacies of Gardner’s dichotomous classification as described above, the prevalence of both the integrative and instrumental motivation partly confirms most previous findings of the prevalence of instrumental motivation of Hong Kong learners in their English learning due to the contextual influences as described in section 4.
The result that integrative, instrumental and total motivation are positively related to the use of MCLLSs confirms the findings of more recent research, such as those conducted by of Okada et al. (1996) and Vandergrift (2005) mentioned in the literature review. These more recent studies found that both integrative and instrumental motivation are positively related to LLS use, including the metacognitive ones. The significance of instrumental motivation in the use of MCLLSs found in this study confirms the earlier view that it contributes significantly to LLM (e.g., Crookes & Schmidt, 1991). However, the above findings do not support the finding of Schmidt et al. (1996) that integrativeness is unrelated to strategy use.
As far as the relationships between the use of individual MCLLSs and LLM are concerned, the existence of a significant relationship between ‘Finding out about language learning’ and LLM has not been reported in previous studies. The positive relationship between ‘Setting goals and objectives’ and total motivation found in this study confirms the earlier findings by Wharton (2000). As already mentioned, higher levels of motivation may induce learners to set goals and put more efforts to find out how to be better L2 learners. In addition, the positive relationships found between LLM and the use of MCLLSs of ‘Paying attention’, ‘Self-monitoring’ and ‘Self-evaluating’ respectively support the findings of Lan and Oxford (2003). The positive relationships found between ‘Seeking practice opportunities’ and the two types of motivation and total motivation confirm the findings of both Lan and Oxford (2003) and Wharton (2000). The non-existence of any significant relationships between ‘Organizing’ and the overall and different types of motivation also confirms all the previous findings described above.
8. Limitations of the study
There are three limitations of this study: the limitations of quantitative data, limitations of self-report data and the limitation of correlational statistics in showing the directions of relationships. They are discussed below.
8.1 The limitation of quantitative data.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, findings from the open-ended question show that other types of motivation might be at work in motivating respondents of this study to learn English. Quantitative data can only provide us prescribed descriptive information. More research on other types of motivation such as the one conducted by Vandergrift (2005) is needed to enhance our understanding on LLM. It is highly possible that respondents used other types of MCLLSs and they were not captured by the questionnaires. As suggested by Dornyei (2001), more qualitative data is needed so that we can capture a wider variety of data regarding LLM.
8.2 The limitation of self-report data
There have been detailed discussions on the limitations of self-report data (e.g., Cohen & Scott, 1996). The two main arguments over this issue are that whether strategy use is conscious or unconscious and whether L2 learners can accurately describe their use of strategies. Despite more and more evidence that has shown that adults (Cohen, 1996) and children (Chamot and El-Dinary, 1999) are able to articulate clearly their use of LLSs, no firm conclusion can be drawn until more evidence is available.
8.3 The limitation of correlations in showing direction of relationships
The relationships found between the use of MCLLSs and LLM shown by the correlation coefficients do not tell us the directions of relationships. This is particularly true in this study, given the fact that only two items of the motivation scales were found to be predictive of MCLLS use. Given this, it is possible that providing L2 learners MCLLS instruction will improve their learning outcomes and in turn raise their motivation for learning. As will be delineated below, implementing MCLLS instructions can be an effective way of raising motivation of learners.
Apart from the inadequacies of the dichotomous classification, another criticism of Gardner’s framework is the lack of considerations of contextual influences. Dornyei (2001) criticises that research on LLM have been neglecting contextual factors and employing a traditional individualistic approach in motivational psychology. Studies utilizing Gardner’s framework in other contexts such as India found instrumental motivation more important (Lukmani, 1972). It has been argued that contextual influences contribute to the prevalence of instrumental motivation among ESL learners in Hong Kong (Lai, 1999). However, given the almost equal importance of both integrative and instrumental motivation of the respondents found in this study, there is a need to further explore how the above contextual influences affect the LLM of ESL learners in Hong Kong.
9. Implications for teaching
The findings of ESL learners’ prior knowledge and use of MCLLSs, their preference for some MCLLSs, the gender differences in LLM, the prevalence of both integrative and instrumental motivation, the positive relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM, the possibility of the existence of bi-directional relationships between MCLLS use and LLM, and finally the importance of context in influencing the use of MCLLSs and LLM of learners provide some implications for teaching. They are described in this section.
This study found a moderate use level of most MCLLSs. This shows that these MCLLSs are not totally new to the respondents, despite the lack of emphases of MCLLSs in most English curricular in Hong Kong. The development of materials and training programs on MCLLSs should be based on the different degree of popularities of different MCLLSs among our respondents. Strategies training can start with the MCLLSs of ‘Paying attention’, ‘Self-monitoring’, and ‘Finding out about language learning’, which learners are more familiar with and use more frequently. After learners have gained the mastery over these strategies, strategy training can proceed with introducing to learners MCLLSs such as ‘Seeking practice opportunities’ and ‘Setting goals and objectives’ which are less popular among them. Since ‘Organizing’ is the least popular among our respondents, effort should be put on raising their awareness of the potential benefits of employing this cognitively more demanding MCLLS. This is not only true in the Hong Kong context, but in other Asian contexts as well, given the fact that MCLLS instruction is a relatively new area in the Asian context.
Female ESL learners were found to have significantly higher levels of both types of motivation. Teachers should emphasize these two benefits in encouraging female learners. They can also take practical steps such as leading learners to participate in the activities of other cultural groups, in addition to just focusing on the instrumental aspect of learning English. Raising the level of LLM of female ESL learners can also raise the LLM level of male ESL learners because of peer influences.
Both integrative and instrumental motivation were found to be prevalent among the respondents. They were also found to be positively related to the use of MCLLSs. Techniques on raising motivation should emphasize both types of motivation. In addition to raising learners’ interests in the target community, teachers should let learners know the external rewards which could be brought about by knowing the English language, for example, increasing one’s competitiveness in the labor market, career-advancement, etc. This can lead to an increased use of MCLLSs.
The finding of integrative but not instrumental motivation being the predictor of the use of MCLLSs shows the more important role of integrative motivation in the use of MCLLSs. This implies that teachers can pay more attention to raise learners’ level of integrative motivation in order to facilitate the use of MCLLSs. However, given the strong inclination towards the instrumental motivation of ESL learners in Hong Kong and a lot of Asian contexts because of contextual influences, ESL learners may have resistance in changing their motivational orientation. It may be difficult for language teachers to develop the integrative orientation of their learners. Teachers may also have to face resistance from parents, schools and the education authorities.
It is highly possible that bi-directional relationships between the use of MCLLSs and LLM exist as described in section 8.3. Therefore, suggestions on improving the use of MCLLs can raise the level of LLM. More motivated learners are more willing to learn and apply LLSs and this in turn results in better ESL learning. Because of this possibility, LLS instruction can be an effective means of heightening the LLM of learners. There are a lot of existing programs available (Hosenfeld, Arnold, Kirchofer, Laciura, & Wilson, 1981; Cohen, Weaver, & Lee, 1998). The encouraging outcomes of these programs imply that they can be adapted specifically for MCLLS instruction and for the local and other Asian contexts.
Finally, there is a need to point out that we should take into consideration the importance of contextual influences in designing instructional programs on MCLLSs and LLM. There is a need to develop cultural specific interventions. Existing programs on strategy instructions are by no means targeting specifically on the cultural characteristics of Chinese and other Asian ESL learners. As already mentioned, there are some characteristics of the context of language learning which Hong Kong shares with other Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. An example is the value-added role of English in the society. Another example is the examination-oriented education system. The design of instructional programs should take into consideration the common characteristics of ESL learners in the Asian context so that ESL learners in Asia can benefit from these programs.
In summary, the implications for teaching are that language teachers should make use of ESL learners’ prior knowledge and experiences in using MCLLSs in MCLLS instruction, not only to raise learners’ level of instrumental but also integrative motivation in order to bring about more MCLLS use, using MCLLS instruction as a means to raise the level of LLM, and finally taking into consideration contextual influences in designing programs for MCLLS instruction and raising LLM.
(1). Thanks are given to Professor Rebecca Oxford for her kind permission of using the SILL 7.0 in this study.
References
Bialystok, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 28, 69-83.
Bremner, S. (1999). Language learning strategies and language proficiency: Investigating the Relationship in Hong Kong. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 490-515.
Chamot, A. & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children's learning strategy in immersion classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 319-41.
Chamot, A. & O’Malley, J. M. (1987). The Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach: A bridge to the mainstream. TESOL Quarterly, 21(2), 227-49.
Cohen, A. D. & Scott, K. (1996). A synthesis of approaches to assessing language learning strategies. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning strategies around the world (pp. 89-108). Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning, 7(1), 5-24.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S., & Li, T. Y. (1998). The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107-56). London: Longman.
Crookes, G. & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. International Abstracting Journal for Language Teachers, 31, 117-35.
Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-84.
Dornyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 117-35.
Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (1996). Motivation and second language acquisition: Perspectives. Journal of the CAAL, 18, 19-42.
Goh, C. & Kwah, P. F. (1997). Chinese ESL students’ learning strategies: A look at frequency, proficiency, and gender. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 39-53.
Goh, C. (2002). Exploring listening comprehension tactics and their interaction patterns. System, 30(2), 185-206.
Gunning, P. (1997). The learning strategies of beginning ESL learners at the primary level. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Hosenfeld, C., Arnold, V., Kirchofer, J., Laciura, J., & Wilson, L. (1981), ‘Second language reading: A curricular sequence for teaching reading strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 14(5), 415-422.
Hsiao, T. & Oxford, R. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86, 368-383.
Lai, E. F. (1999). Motivation to learn English in Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12, 280-84.
Lan, R. & Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning strategy profiles of elementary school students in Taiwan. IRAL, 41, 339-379.
Li, C. S. (1999). The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: A post-1997 Update. English World-wide, 20, 67-110.
Lukmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22, 261-73.
Masgoret, A-M. & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 167-210.
O’Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oh, J. (1992). Learning strategies used by University EFL students in Korea. Language Teaching, 1, 3-53.
Okada, M., Oxford, R., & Abo, Z. (1996). Not all alike: Motivation and learning strategies among students of Japanese and Spanish in an exploratory study. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century (pp.105-120). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Oxford, R. & Cohen, A. D. (1992). Language learning strategies: Crucial issues of concept and classification. Applied Language Learning, 3, 1-35.
Oxford, R. & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. Modern Language Journal, 73, 291-399.
Oxford, R. (1989). Use of language learning strategies: A synthesis of studies with implications for strategy training. System, 17, 235-247.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Rowley, M.A.: Newbury House.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schmidt, R. & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dornyei and R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition. (pp. 313-59). Honolulu: HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching Center.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation: Internal structure and external connections’. In R. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new century, (pp. 9-70). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Tachibana, Y., Matsukawa, S., & Qu, K. S. (1996). Attitudes and motivation for learning English: A cross-national comparison of Japanese and Chinese high school students. Psychological Reports, 79, 691-700.
Vandergrift, L. (1996). Listening strategies of core French high school students. Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(2), 200-223.
Vandergrift, L. (2003). Orchestrating strategy use: Towards a model of the skilled L2 listener. Language Learning, 53, 461-94.
Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientation, metacognitive awareness and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 70-89.
Wen, Q. & Johnson, R. K. (1997). L2 learner variables and English achievement: A study of tertiary English majors in China. Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 28-48.
Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50, 203-243.
Wu, M. M. F. (2002). Language Learning Strategies and Language Learning Motivation of Chinese Learners at a Vocational Education Institute in Hong Kong. Unpublished Master's Theses, University of Leicester, Leicester.
Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515-535.
Zhang, L. (2003). Research into Chinese EFL learner strategies: Methods, findings and instructional issues. RELC Journal, 34(3), 284-322.
