Read Writ (2011) 24:861881

DOI 10.1007/s11145-010-9229-z

Reading motivation in two languages: an examination

of EFL college students in Korea
Kyung Ja Kim

Published online: 8 April 2010

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract This study was designed to identify underlying factors that motivate
language learners to read in a foreign language (L2) context. It also examined the
relationships between L1 and L2 reading motivation and any differences in reading
motivation based on the learners academic majors and L2 reading proficiency. 259
Korean EFL college students participated in this study. Participants L1 and L2
reading motivation was measured using a Likert scale questionnaire and their L2
proficiency was estimated by test scores in their reading classes. This study yielded
a four-factor solution for L2 reading motivation: learning goal-oriented motivation,
intrinsic motivation, avoidance of reading, and utility value of L2 reading. The
results indicated that learning goal-oriented motivation and utility value of L2
reading were the two primary indicators for the participants desire to read in
English. The study also demonstrated that the factor-based L2 reading motivation
scales correlated with some of the L1 reading motivation scales in the relatively low
range but statements about the connection or transfer issue of reading motivation
between the two languages must be tentative. All L2 reading motivation scales
revealed significant differences between English and non-English majors except in
utility value of L2 reading. Furthermore intrinsic and avoidance scales also differed
significantly depending on the participants L2 reading proficiency.
Keywords English reading motivation
English reading proficiency

Relationship between L1 and L2 reading motivation
Background variables

K. J. Kim (&)
Department of English Education, Chosun University, 375 Seosuk-dong, Dong-gu,
Gwangju 501-759, Korea
e-mail: kyung9@chosun.ac.kr

123

862

K. J. Kim

Introduction
Although there are numerous reports regarding the motivation of students learning a
language in both a foreign and second language (L2) contexts (Csizer & Dornyei,
2005; Gardner, 1985, 1988; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Kim, 2004; Lukmani,
1972), there have been few studies on L2 skill-specific motivation. Students may be,
in other words, motivated to read, but not to speak or listen in an L2. Furthermore,
due to the lack of literature dealing with L2 reading motivation, the work relevant to
L2 readers motivation (e.g., Mori, 2002; Takase, 2007) has been framed in terms of
first language (L1) motivation to read. L1 motivation theory proposed by Wigfield
and Guthrie (1995, 1997) is based on the synthesis of several theories of motivation.
Students decisions about which activities to do, how long to do them, and how
much effort to make can be influenced by their beliefs in ability and efficacy,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, reasons for achievement, and social aspects of
motivation (Baker, Afflerbach, & Reinking, 1996; Bandura, 1997; Brunstein &
Maier, 2005; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Elliot &
McGregor, 1999; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Thus, engaged readers, according to
Wigfield and Guthrie (1995, 1997), are motivated to read for different purposes, use
prior knowledge, and participate in social interaction to generate new understandings. With regard to L2 reading, Day and Bamford (1998) first attempted to explain
the nature of motivation for extensive reading and developed an expectancy-value
model. According to their model, four factors contribute to the formulation of L2
reading motivation: reading materials, ability, attitudes, and classroom environment.
Their claim is that appropriate reading materials and attitudes play a more crucial
role in motivating students than reading ability and classroom situations. However,
the paucity of research on L2 reading motivation resting on the model of either L1
or L2 clearly indicates that further investigation is required.
Language learning research suggests that there is a complex interdependence
between L1 and L2 reading (Bernhardt & Kamil, 1995; Brisbois, 1995; Davis &
Bistodeau, 1993; Hedgcock & Atkinson, 1993). Cummins (1979) conceptualized a
threshold hypothesis to explain dependent patterns of bilingual childrens academic
achievement. His notion of a threshold level of language proficiency for children
refers to both L1 and L2 abilities. However, when this notion is applied to adult L2
learners, the concept of the linguistic threshold level needs to be modified since they
have already acquired sufficient L1 ability. Therefore, the threshold hypothesis in
L2 reading can be reframed as: L2 readers cannot read as well as they do in L1 due
to their limited L2 proficiency but they can transfer their L1 reading proficiency to
L2 when they have reached a certain threshold level of L2 ability (Yamashita,
2007). Based on the threshold hypothesis, a number of studies explored the transfer
issue between L1 and L2 reading. Two aspects of reading have been most frequently
examined: reading strategies (Clarke, 1979; Davis & Bistodeau, 1993; Kim &
Krashen, 1997; Tang, 1997) and reading proficiency (Brisbois, 1995; Lee &
Schallert, 1997; Pretorius & Mampuru, 2007; van Gelderen, Schoonen, Stoel, de
Glopper, & Hulstijn, 2007). In contrast, only a few researchers investigated whether
this interdependence is applicable to the affective factors such as attitudes
(Camiciottoli, 2001; Kamhi-Stein, 2003; Yamashita, 2004, 2007) and motivation

123

Reading motivation in two languages

863

(Takase, 2007) toward reading. Not much is known about the effect of L1
motivation on L2 motivation to read.
In order to address the gaps in reading motivation research concerning the
relationship between L1 and L2 reading motivation, the primary goals of this study
were to (a) identify constituent factors that motivate a sample of Korean college
students to read in English, (b) examine the relationship of L1 reading motivation to
that of L2, and (c) investigate the differences in motivational components in terms
of the participants background factors such as major and L2 reading scores.

Background
While many would agree about the importance of reading motivation for reading
achievement, the field of reading motivation is an underexplored area. In 1997,
Wigfield and Guthrie proposed the multidimensionality of L1 reading motivation.
According to their model, reading motivation is comprised of three components:
individuals beliefs about their efficacy to achieve (represented by self-efficacy,
challenge, and work avoidance factors), the goals individuals have for performing
different reading tasks (represented by curiosity, grades, involvement, importance,
recognition, and competition factors), and social reasons for reading (represented by
social purposes and compliance factors). Based on these theoretical taxonomies
Wigfield and Guthrie (1995, 1997) developed the Motivation for Reading
Questionnaire (MRQ) to assess 11 factors of motivation. Although the 11
dimensions of reading motivation did not always cluster as hypothesized, the
multifaceted characteristics of L1 reading motivation were confirmed with different
children samples (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Watkins & Coffey, 2004).
With regard to L2 reading motivation, a few researchers have attempted to
explain reading motivation using a translated version of the MRQ. Mori (2002), for
example, investigated Japanese college students reading motivation with a
modified MRQ. She also included some items to assess Gardners (1985, 1988)
notion of integrative motivation to read in English. In support of multidimensionality in reading motivation, four sub-components of L2 reading motivation were
identified (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, importance of reading, and reading
efficacy), demonstrating that Wigfield and Guthries 11 factors of motivation did not
adequately fit her data and the MRQ should be revised in terms of the research
context. In a study replicating Moris research, Nishino (2005) showed that reading
motivation in an L2 is defined by multifaceted characteristics such as intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and attitudes toward reading. These results were almost
equivalent concepts to the four-factor result found by Mori. Takase (2007) also
constructed a questionnaire based on studies of L1 reading (Wigfield & Guthrie,
1997) and L2 learning (Gardner, 1985; Schmidt, Boraie, & Kassabgy, 1996). Her
target population was Japanese high school students in an extensive English reading
program. Her analysis revealed that reading motivation is related to the following
factors: intrinsic motivation for L1 and L2 reading, parents involvement in and
family attitudes toward reading, extrinsic motivation, fondness for written materials,
and negative attitudes toward extensive reading.

123

864

K. J. Kim

Since Alderson (1984) addressed the question of whether L2 reading is a

language problem (linguistic threshold) or a reading problem (linguistic interdependence), much work has been done to reinterpret that question and to explore the
transferability of L1 reading competence and strategies to L2 reading process
(Brisbois, 1995; Davis & Bistodeau, 1993; Lee & Schallert, 1997; Pretorius &
Mampuru, 2007; Tang, 1997; van Gelderen et al., 2007). In contrast, little attention
has been given to how L1 affective factors may facilitate or constrain L2 reading.
Several studies dealt with L2 affective factors of reading although they did not
examine simply and solely the motivation to read. Camiciottoli (2001) investigated
reading attitudes of Italian college students who were learning English as a foreign
language (EFL). She found that the amount of L1 reading was one of the significant
predictors of L2 reading attitudes, demonstrating the connection between L1 and
L2. Kamhi-Stein (2003) used think-aloud protocols, open-ended interviews, and
questionnaires to explore if ESL students attitudes toward their home language and
beliefs about reading influence L2 reading behavior. She showed that attitudes
toward L1 and beliefs about reading influenced reading processes in both L1 and L2
languages. Yamashita (2004, 2007) examined the transfer of reading attitudes from
L1 to L2 with Japanese college students. She identified four sub-components of
reading attitudes (comfort, anxiety, value ascribed to reading, and self-perception as
a reader). She found significant contributions of L1 reading attitudes in explaining
L2 reading attitudes with albeit different degrees of transferability among different
attitude sub-components. Thus, the transfer of reading attitudes from L1 to L2 is
generally supported. Reading attitude, which is distinct from motivation, refers to
a system of feelings related to reading which causes the learner to approach or
avoid a reading situation (Alexander & Filler, 1976, p. 1). Reading attitude, which
causes the learner to like or dislike reading, may affect reading ability through its
influence on engagement in reading (McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995). In
contrast to attitude, reading motivation is multidimensional. Attributes of reading
motivation encompass a variety of constructs such as self-efficacy beliefs, intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, goals for learning, and social motivation that explain why
students choose to read or not to read (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997). For example, an extrinsically motivated student (e.g., I read to
improve grades) could show high reading achievement without liking to read (Baker
& Wigfield, 1999), indicating that the extrinsic motivation enables or promotes his
achievement by influencing such factors as engagement and practice of reading,
notwithstanding his negative attitudes toward reading.
On the other hand, only one study, to the best of my knowledge, appeared to have
examined the connection of reading motivation between L1 and L2. Takase (2007)
combined quantitative questionnaires with in-depth qualitative analysis to illuminate the role of L1 motivation in motivating Japanese students to extensively read in
English. She found that the correlation between L1 and L2 reading motivation was
non-significant (r = -.093). Furthermore, follow-up interview data revealed that
students L1 reading motivation did not influence their motivation to read in the L2
due to the gap between their proficiency to read in the L1 and L2. Takases study
can be viewed as a base study and more research is needed to determine the
connection between L1 and L2 motivational attributes.

123

Reading motivation in two languages

865

Reviewing the current literature, it would be plausible to assume that motivation

to read in an L2 possesses multifaceted characteristics and reading motivation
between L1 and L2 is related to a certain extent. The present study was designed to
expand on previous studies that explored factors that motivate language students to
read in an L2 and the transfer of L1 reading motivation to L2 reading. It is hoped
that the findings of this study will lead to greater understanding of L2 reading
motivation and the transfer from L1 to L2 in the affective domain of reading. The
following research questions were addressed in the present study:
1.
2.
3.

What are the sub-components of motivation to read in English for Korean

college students?
What are the relationships between students L1 and L2 reading motivation?
Does students L2 reading motivation differ according to their academic major
and L2 reading proficiency?

Research design
Participants
A total of 259 Korean EFL students at university level (120 males and 139 females)
participated in the study. Most of them were first- (n = 84, 32.4%) and second-year
(n = 169, 65.3%) students with a few fourth-year students (n = 6, 2.3%). Their
ages ranged from 18 to 25 with the mode of 19. All of the participants were from 10
intact groups with approximately 30 in each class. Their academic backgrounds
were: tourism convention (n = 60), hotel management (n = 58), health and fitness
management (n = 48), culinary arts (n = 38), and English (n = 55). The majority
of them (n = 211, 81.5%) had never traveled to English-speaking countries. When
asked to rate themselves on their self-assessed English reading proficiency, 136
(52.5%) reported their levels as medium, 95 (36.7%) as not good or very poor, and
28 (10.8%) rated themselves as good or very good. Most of them (n = 191, 73.7%)
reported that they do not read any English texts unless assigned as homework. 61%
of the participants (n = 158) liked the intensive reading style, which can be
described as the detailed linguistic study of text. While 34.7% (n = 90) preferred
extensive reading, which can be defined as the reading of a large quantity of text for
information or pleasure (Day & Bamford, 1998). Eleven students did not provide
the requested information, indicating that they do not like either intensive or
extensive reading in English. Also, most participants (n = 205, 79.2%) showed a
willingness to take a more advanced reading class next semester, while the
remaining 54 did not want to enroll in an advanced English reading class.
All the participants, aside from the English majors, were enrolled in a
compulsory English reading course General English 1 for freshmen or General
English 3 for the second-year students at the time of data collection. The goals of
the General English 1 and 3 courses are to encourage basic ability in all areas of
English use with particular emphasis on the development of reading skills.
Instruction is conducted by Korean teachers exclusively in Korean. Classes meet 3 h

123

866

K. J. Kim

a week and class content is comprised of reading and discussion of short passages,
grammar and vocabulary exercises, and occasional writing practices including oral
small-group activities and presentations. English major participants were also
enrolled in a second-year reading class as an elective. The classes were divided into
two groups according to the participants enrollment order. Two native Englishspeaking instructors taught the participants. Class time was spent on almost the
same activities as those of General English 1 and 3 with less emphasis on grammar
and vocabulary practices. The grades of these three different reading courses were
determined by performance on two written exams (60%), assignments and
participation in class activities including quizzes (20%), and attendance (20%).
Materials and data collection
The measure used in this study contained three sections. The first section included
items asking about participants reading motivation in English. A 30-item
questionnaire was constructed based on the studies by Wigfield and Guthrie
(1997), Mori (2002), and Takase (2007). Some items in Wigfield and Guthries
study were not considered relevant to the participants in this study since the MRQ
was developed for primary school children. Furthermore, some motivational items
in Takases study would be relevant only to high school students in an extensive L2
reading program. Therefore the items used in this section, for the most part, were
from Moris research in which college students took part in identifying L2 reading
motivation. The 30 items were designed to measure five constructs of L2 reading
motivation derived from previous studies: intrinsic motivation (Items 1, 2, 10, 12,
13, 16, 25, 26), extrinsic motivation (Items 4, 5, 7, 11, 21, 22, 27, 28), importance of
L2 reading (Items 3, 15, 17, 20, 30), avoidance of L2 reading (Items 6, 8, 19, 23, 24,
29), and L2 reading efficacy (Items 9, 14, 18).
The second section consisted of 24 items concerning motivation to read in Korean.1
These items were constructed based on the studies by Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais,
Brie`re, Senecal and Vallie`res (1992) and Yamashita (2004, 2007). Items derived and
modified from Vallerand et al. composed two constructs assessing intrinsic
motivation (Items 3, 12, 16, 18, 22, 24) and extrinsic motivation (Items 1, 5, 13,
17, 19, 21). The chosen items from Yamashitas work were used to measure the
participants intellectual (Items 2, 6, 9, 14, 23) and linguistic reasons (Items 4, 8, 10),
as well as avoidance (Items 7, 11, 15, 20) of reading in Korean. The participants were
asked to respond to all the items in the first and second sections using a four-point
scale with the answer choices ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
The third section related to the participants background information such as
gender, age, academic major, grade, preferred reading style, willingness to take an
advanced reading course, travel experiences to English-dominant countries, and
how they would rate their English reading proficiency. Each item was written in
Korean. The participants were given the questionnaire during their regularly
1

Since the data for L1 reading motivation was recollected with a revised questionnaire based on
reviewers suggestion, 224 out of the 259 students participated in the survey related to L1 reading
motivation.

123

Reading motivation in two languages

867

scheduled class period at the beginning of the semester. English major participants,
however, were given the questionnaire by the investigator in the middle of the
semester.
English reading proficiency was measured by participants midterm (20 points)
and final (40 points) exam scores in their reading classes. The format of the two
exams was similar across all eight General English 1 and 3 classes using mainly
multiple-choice items. The content of these exams included vocabulary, grammar,
and reading comprehension questions based on several reading passages. For
English major participants, their midterm and final exams included items
concerning definitions of reading skills (e.g., skimming, scanning, and summarizing), identifying main ideas and writing summaries of given passages, and finding
requested information from given texts. These exams contained primarily short
answer and fill-in questions along with a few multiple-choice items. A maximum
possible score of English reading proficiency was 60 for all the classes.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standard deviations) were computed
for the participants responses to the items in the three questionnaires. Cronbach
alphas were calculated to estimate the reliability of the questionnaires in measuring
each reading motivation subscale in both L1 and L2. An exploratory factor analysis
was applied to identify how many factors were involved in participants responses
to the questionnaire for L1 and L2 reading motivation. The extracted factors were
used throughout the rest of the analyses. Correlations were computed to examine the
degree of interrelatedness between motivational scales in reading L1 and L2. t-tests
were run to examine whether there was any difference in reading motivation
variability in terms of the participants two different academic majors. Bonferronis
correction was included to adjust the alpha levels since multiple comparisons should
be performed simultaneously in the t-tests. Finally, ANOVA analyses including
Posthoc tests were adopted to examine whether L2 reading proficiency has an
influence on L2 reading motivation.

Results
The results are presented in four sections. In the first section, the results of the factor
analysis of reading motivation in the L2 are reported. The data from the analyses of
L1 reading motivation appear in the second section. In the third section, the
interrelationships between L1 and L2 reading motivation are highlighted. Finally,
the differences in L2 reading motivation between the two different major groups and
among three different L2 reading proficiency groups are discussed.
Reading motivation in L2 (English)
In order to determine the underlying constructs of reading motivation in English,
Principal axis factoring analysis with an oblique rotation (Promax) was conducted.

123

868

K. J. Kim

In measuring psychology constructs (e.g., motivation, attitudes, anxiety), there is

theoretical and empirical basis for assuming these constructs to be correlated to one
another. Principal axis factoring may thus yield a more accurate and realistic
representation of how motivational factors are likely to be associated with one
another than Principal components analysis (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fabrigar,
Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999; Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). The
number of factors to be extracted was based on the following criteria: eigenvalues of
1.0 or greater, the scree test, and the interpretability of the resulting solutions
(Thurstone, 1947, cited in Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). Five items were dropped
from the analysis for the following reasons. First, Items E17 (The speaking skill is
more important than the reading skill) and E30 (The listening skill is more
important than the reading skill) were excluded because both items had very low
communalities (.074 and .193, respectively).2 Second, E6 (Even if English reading
was not a required subject, I would take an English reading class) and E15
(Learning to read in English is important because it will be conducive to my general
education) were also dropped because they were crossloaded on multiple factors.3
Lastly, E14 (English reading is my weak subject) was a freestanding item loading on
the fifth factor, indicating that it did not seem to cluster together in motivation to
read in English, and thus it was also dropped. The remaining 25 items had a fourfactor solution that accounted for 53.39% of the total variance in English reading
motivation. The results of the four-factor solution including means and standard
deviations for each item are summarized in Table 1.
Factor 1 was associated with nine items and seemed to represent participants
reading motivation in relation to practical goals that they would achieve by learning
to read in English. Thus, this factor was called learning goal-oriented motivation for
L2 reading. Factor 2 had high loadings from seven items. A close examination of
the items showed participants fondness for, engagement in, and enjoyment of
reading English texts. Therefore, this factor was interpreted as intrinsic motivation
for L2 reading. An underlying component of Factor 2 is grounded in Gardners
(1985, 1988) notion of integrative motivation, as well as Deci and Ryans (1985,
1995) concepts of intrinsic motivation. Factor 3 was labeled as avoidance of L2
reading because the items in this factor reflected positive or negative perceptions
about and willingness to avoid English reading activities. Items assessing avoidance
of L2 reading closely paralleled amotivation, a concept proposed by Deci and Ryan
(1985, 1995). Factor 4 loaded on three items that were concerning the practical
value of reading in English such as getting good grades and prestigious jobs. This
factor was labeled utility value of L2 reading.
Based on the results of the factor analysis in this study, scale scores for each
factor of L2 reading motivation were computed by summing the scores on each item
in the factor and then computing the mean. Reliabilities of three factors, as shown in
2

Although common magnitudes of communalities in the social sciences are low to moderate, a
communality of less than .40 indicates that the items may not be related to the other items (Costello &
Osborne, 2005).

A crossloading item refers to an item that loads at .32 or higher on two or more factors (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001, cited in Costello & Osborne, 2005). Item E6 loaded on F3 and F4 with loadings of -.390
and .368, respectively. Item E15 loaded on F1 and F3 with loadings of .361 and -.301, respectively.

123

Reading motivation in two languages

869

Table 1 Four-factor solution for reading motivation in English

Loading M

SD

Factor 1: Learning goal-oriented motivation for L2 reading

20. Learning to read in English is important because it will broaden my view

.746

3.00 .77

5.

By being able to read in English, I hope to understand the culture of English .680
speaking countries more deeply

3.01 .75

4.

I am learning to read in English because I might study abroad in the future

.664

3.16 .82

.603

3.07 .83

22. Reading in English is important because it will make me a more knowledgeable .521
person

3.15 .74

16. By learning to read in English, I hope to learn about various opinions in the
world

.456

3.02 .77

1.

By learning to read in English, I hope I will be able to read English texts

.450

3.02 .82

3.

Learning to read in English is important in order to cope with globalization

.421

3.51 .60

21. By learning to read in English, I hope to search information on the Internet

.418

2.90 .83

11. By learning to read in English, I hope to be able to read English newspapers

and/or magazines

Factor 2: Intrinsic motivation for L2 reading

12. It is fun to read in English

.719

2.53 .84

13. I like reading English newspapers and/or magazines

.713

2.22 .75

9.

I am good at reading in English

25. I tend to get deeply engaged when I read in English

.523

2.09 .73

.517

2.24 .75

18. Its worth reading difficult English passages

.514

2.53 .79

2.

.508

2.64 .81

.494

2.04 .73

I get immersed in interesting stories even if they are written in English

10. I like reading English texts

Factor 3: Avoidance of L2 reading
24. I would not voluntarily read in English unless it is required as homework

.887

2.16 .87

23. It is a waste of time to learn to read in English

.604

1.59 .73

29. I dont like to read English books that have difficult expressions

.569

2.65 .80

26. It is a pain to read in English

.494

2.21 .88

8.

.437

2.36 .87

.413

1.97 .83

27. I am reading English books to get a better job in the future

.697

3.20 .67

28. I am reading English books to succeed in the exam

.643

3.10 .72

7.

.493

2.68 .86

I am taking an English reading class merely because it is required

19. I do not have any desire to read in English even if the content is interesting
Factor 4: Utility value of L2 reading

I am learning to read in English merely because I like to get good grades

Table 2, represented reasonably good internal consistency having a value greater

than .70. Utility value of L2 reading scale was the only one with low reliability.
Paired t-tests indicated that all the means of the four factors were statistically
significantly different from one another with p values of .001 except for the
difference between Factor 1 and Factor 4 which had p values less than .05.
Furthermore, the mean scores on learning goal-oriented motivation and utility value
of L2 reading were above the median score of 2.5 indicating that the participants
characterized themselves as motivated in relation to these two factors (see Baker &

123

870
Table 2 Reliabilities and
descriptive summary for L2
reading motivation scales

K. J. Kim

Factor

Number of
items

Alpha M

SD

Learning goal-oriented
motivation

.84

3.10 .51

Intrinsic motivation

.80

2.33 .52

Avoidance of reading

.80

2.16 .59

Utility value of L2 reading

.62

3.00 .56

Wigfield, 1999). Therefore both learning goal-oriented motivation and utility value
of L2 reading were strongly endorsed by the participants. On the other hand,
intrinsic motivation and avoidance of reading had relatively low mean scores. Thus,
compared to the other motivation factors the participants did not seem to be
motivated to read in English for intrinsic reasons (M = 2.33), although they did not
tend to avoid English reading activities (M = 2.16).
Reading Motivation in L1 (Korean)
In the second factor analysis similar procedures were used to examine the structure
of the L1 reading motivation. Item 7 (I feel relaxed if I read books) and item 8 (I can
develop reading ability if I read books) showed quite different characteristics from
the other items indicating very low communalities (.207 and .079, respectively).
They were therefore removed from the factor analysis. The remaining 22 items were
factor analyzed to determine if the data fell into distinct clusters. With Direct
oblimin rotation, four factors were extracted by way of principal axis factoring
analysis as shown in Table 3.4
Factor 1 had high loadings on seven items and accounted for 25.66% of the total
variance. These items concerned perceived usefulness of L1 reading as explained in
expectancy value theory; therefore, this factor was labeled utility value of L1
reading. Factor 2 was associated with five items concerning the students interest in
L1 reading or their perception of enjoyment in L1 reading. Thus, this second factor
was named intrinsic motivation for L1 reading and explained an additional 15.62%
of the total variance. Factor 3 loaded strongly on three items that were related to the
desire to avoid reading activities or lack of efficacy. This third factor explained
another 8.72% of the variance and was labeled avoidance of L1 reading. Factor 4
was dominated by five items that addressed the purpose of reading, such as getting
information or obtaining different perspectives. This fourth category was labeled
information-related motivation for L1 reading and explained 6.18% of the total
variance. The four factors explained 56.18% of the variance for the participants
reading motivation in Korean.
Scale scores for each of the four factors in L1 reading motivation were
constructed for further analyses. As shown in Table 4, four of the scales had
4
Item 10 (I can improve my sensitivity to the Korean language if I read books) which was crossloaded
and Item 23 (I can become more sophisticated if I read books) which had a low-loading were eliminated
from the factor analysis.

123

Reading motivation in two languages

871

Table 3 Four-factor matrix for reading motivation in Korean

Loading M

SD

Factor 1: Utility value of L1 reading

1.

.770

3.02 .73

13. Eventually reading books will enable me to enter the job market in a field
that I like

Reading books will help me better prepare for the career I chosen

.734

2.69 .76

5.

.732

2.76 .82

Reading books is useful to get a good grade in class

17. I read books to show myself that I am an intelligent person

.656

2.84 .78

21. I believe that reading books will improve my competence as a student

.652

3.12 .67

19. Reading books will help me make a better choice regarding my career
orientation

.589

2.97 .75

4.

.396

3.20 .73

I can acquire vocabulary and Korean knowledge if I read books

Factor 2: Intrinsic motivation for L1 reading

16. I read books for the pleasure that I experience when I read interesting literature -.697

3.24 .63

22. I read books for the pleasure that I experience in broadening my knowledge
about Korean language and literature

-.684

2.85 .82

3.

-.576

3.29 .64

I experience pleasure while reading books

12. I feel refreshed if I read books

-.476

2.86 .67

24. Reading books allows me to continue to learn about many things

that interest me

-.426

3.31 .63

Factor 3: Avoidance of L1 reading

15. Reading books is troublesome

.816

1.87 .75

20. Frankly, reading books is dull

.799

1.82 .70

11. Honestly, I feel tired if I read books

.788

2.00 .78

Factor 4: Information-related motivation for L1 reading

-.722

3.72 .45

14. I get to know about different perspectives if read books

2.

I can get various information if I read books

-.688

3.48 .60

9.

-.639

3.48 .65

18. Reading books will allow me to meet and converse with more and varied
people

-.489

3.01 .81

6.

-.393

3.74 .44

I can get to know about new ways of thinking if I read books

I can acquire broad knowledge if I read books

Table 4 Reliabilities and

descriptive summary for L1
reading motivation scales

Factor

Number of items Alpha M

SD

Utility value of L1 reading

.84

2.94 .53

Intrinsic motivation

.79

3.11 .50

Avoidance of L1 reading

.90

1.90 .68

Information-related motivation 5

.70

3.49 .41

reliabilities greater than .70 indicating good internal consistency. Furthermore, the
reliability of Factor 3 was .90 indicating the homogeneity of the participants
responses to the items of this factor. Since some L1 reading motivation factors were
stronger than others, paired t-tests confirmed that all means of the four scales were
statistically significantly different from one another (p \ .001). The mean scores on

123

872

K. J. Kim

each of the factor scales of L1 reading motivation were generally above the median
score of 2.5 with the exception of avoidance of L1 reading (M = 1.90), suggesting
that the participants were motivated to read in Korean for utility value, intrinsic
value, and information-related reasons. Furthermore, information-related motivation
had the highest mean score while avoidance had the lowest score. Thus, the
participants seemed to be strongly motivated to read in Korean for getting
information or for broadening knowledge base. Also, a desire to avoid work was not
present in L1 reading.
Relationships between L1 and L2 reading motivation
Reading motivation scales between the two languages had similar patterns in some
aspects. The participants had high scores on learning goal-oriented motivation and
utility value of L2 reading but low scores on avoidance of reading with respect to
the L2 reading. They had high scores on utility value and information-related
motivation but low scores on avoidance of L1 reading. However, they had
contrasting patterns in terms of intrinsic motivation; it was low on L2 (M = 2.33),
whereas it was high on L1 (M = 3.11).
Correlations among the eight scales for L1 and L2 reading motivation are
presented in Table 5. Most of the correlations were positive and in the relatively low
to moderate range. All of the correlations among L2 reading motivation scales were
statistically significant at the .01 level or better with the exception of those involving
utility value of L2 reading. Likewise, all correlations among L1 reading scales were
statistically significant at the .01 level or better except correlations involving
avoidance of L1 reading. The strongest correlation was between learning goaloriented motivation for L2 reading and avoidance of L2 reading (r = -.556,
p \ .001). The lowest correlation was between avoidance of L2 reading and L1
information-related motivation (r = -.026, p = .701). The avoidance scales in
both L1 and L2 reading motivation related negatively to all of the other scales.
In regard to the relationships of reading motivation between L1 and L2, utility
value of L1 reading (r = .158), intrinsic (r = .175) and avoidance of L1 reading
(r = -.164) showed statistically significant correlations with learning goalTable 5 Intercorrelations of the motivation scales and L2 reading proficiency
Scale

L2 reading E1
proficiency

Learning goal (E1)

.149*

Intrinsic (E2)

.352**

Avoidance (E3)

-.270**

E2

E3

K2

K3

.380**

Utility value (E4)

-.054

.272** -.075

-.103

-.022

.158*

.064

-.036

.175**

.184** -.177**

Intrinsic (K2)

.042

Avoidance (K3)

.035

-.164*

Information (K4)

.017

.081

123

K1

-.556** -.469**

Utility value (K1)

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01

E4

-.097
.086

.109
.091

.178**

.212** -.126 -.112

-.026

.071

.314**

-.549**
.409** -.180*

Reading motivation in two languages

873

oriented motivation for L2 reading. The relationship between intrinsic motivation

for L1 and avoidance of L2 reading was negatively significant (r = -.177). The
relationships between corresponding L1 and L2 constructs were as follows: while
the L1 and L2 intrinsic (r = .184) and avoidance (r = .212) scales were
significantly correlated in a positive direction, L1 and L2 utility value (r = .109)
was not significantly related.
Differences in L2 reading motivation by major and L2 proficiency
To examine whether there is any difference in L2 reading motivation between
English majors and non-English major participants t-tests were conducted. As
shown in Table 6, there were statistically significant differences in all the scales
except utility value of L2 reading, indicating that English participants showed
significantly higher mean scores in learning goal-oriented motivation and intrinsic
motivation. Non-English participants meanwhile displayed significantly higher
scores in avoidance of L2 reading. English participants presented a slightly higher
score in utility value of L2 reading than their non-English counterparts but the
differences between the two groups were not statistically significant. Furthermore,
in order to correct inflation of the Type I error rate from the multiple t-tests, the
alpha level was adjusted to .012 by dividing the number of tests by .05 based on
Bonferronis correction. The more stringent alpha level of .012 also revealed
statistically significant differences in the same scales.
Correlations of the participants L2 reading proficiency to their four motivation
scales in the L2 are also presented in Table 5. All of the correlations were
statistically significant with the exception of utility value of L2 reading which was
negative and only .054 (p = .438). Learning goal-oriented motivation (r = .149,
p = .031) and intrinsic motivation (r = .352, p \ .001) were correlated positively,
whereas avoidance of L2 reading was negatively related to L2 reading proficiency
(r = -.270, p \ .001). All correlations of L2 reading proficiency with L1 reading
motivation scales had an absolute value less than .10 and all the associations were
not statistically significant.
To determine if reading motivation differs across levels of L2 reading
proficiency, the participants were divided into different proficiency groups based
on z-scores on the sums of their midterm and final exams. Two intact classes
(n = 38), however, did not provide the requested information to gain access to their
exam scores. Also twelve participants did not declare their identification numbers,
Table 6 Differences in L2 reading motivation by academic major
Factor

English (n = 55)

Non-English (n = 204)

Sig.

SD

SD

Learning goal-oriented

3.25

.44

3.05

.53

2.58

Intrinsic

2.59

.50

2.26

.51

4.27

.001

Avoidance

1.91

.53

2.22

.59

-3.59

.001

Utility value of L2 reading

3.02

.57

2.99

.56

.42

.678

.011

123

874

K. J. Kim

meaning that they did not want to release their English reading test scores. Thus,
data for these students were removed from the analysis. Furthermore, separate
analyses were conducted for the English and non-English majors because they took
different exams.
As shown in Table 7, non-English major participants reading scores varied from
the lowest at 5 to the highest at 60. Those who scored approximately in the bottom
one-third (34.0%) were regarded as the Low group and their z-scores were lower
than -.25. Those who scored approximately in the top one-third (32.1%) with
z-scores of .59 and higher were considered as the High group. Those whose z-scores
ranged between -.25 and .58 were regarded as the Medium group.
One-way ANOVAs were applied to examine the proficiency group differences in
four L2 reading motivation scales. As presented in Table 8, a statistically significant
proficiency effect was found on intrinsic and avoidance of L2 reading. In contrast,
no group differences appeared in learning goal-oriented motivation and utility value
scales among the three groups. Tukeys Posthoc tests also showed that there were
statistically significant differences in intrinsic and avoidance scales. The Low
groups intrinsic motivation was significantly lower than that of the Medium
(difference = -.26, p = .014) and High groups (difference = -.39, p \ .001).
Avoidance of the Low group, in contrast, was found to be significantly higher than
that of the High group (difference = .37, p = .003). Differences in paired means
between Medium and High groups revealed no significant differences in all four
reading motivation scales.

Table 7 Non-English participants grouping by level of L2 reading proficiency

Group

Min

Max

SD

Low

53

34.0

39

29.49

10.97

Medium

53

34.0

40

48

44.40

2.97

High

50

32.1

49

60

52.76

2.62

Total

156

100.0

60

42.01

11.76

Table 8 L2 Reading motivation and L2 reading proficiency for Non-English majors

Factor

Low (n = 53)

Medium (n = 53)

High (n = 50)

SD

SD

SD

Learning goal-oriented

2.95

.58

3.04

.50

3.10

.34

1.23

Intrinsica,

2.01

.45

2.27

.56

2.40

.41

8.85*

Avoidancec

2.39

.64

2.19

.52

2.02

.51

5.55*

Utility value

3.03

.63

2.91

.52

2.94

.46

.76

* p \ .01
a

Significant difference in intrinsic between Low and Medium at p \ .05

Significant difference in intrinsic between Low and High at p \ .01

Significant difference in avoidance between Low and High at p \ .01

123

Reading motivation in two languages

875

Table 9 English participants grouping by level of L2 reading proficiency

Group

Low

18

Medium

17

High
Total

Min

Max

SD

34.0

21

40

34.39

4.72

32.0

41

47

43.59

2.03

18

34.0

49

60

53.83

3.22

53

100.0

21

60

43.94

8.80

Table 10 L2 Reading motivation and L2 reading proficiency for English majors

Factor

Low (n = 18)

Medium (n = 17)

High (n = 18)

SD

SD

SD

Learning goal-oriented

3.21

.37

3.40

.35

3.12

.55

2.00

Intrinsica,

2.25

.47

2.89

.48

2.65

.36

9.38**

Avoidance

2.03

.57

1.79

.38

1.92

.62

.83

Utility valuec

3.28

.40

2.92

.46

2.83

.72

3.28*

* p \ .05. ** p \ .01
a

Significant difference in intrinsic between Low and Medium at p \ .01

Significant difference in intrinsic between Low and High at p \ .05

Significant difference in utility value between Low and High at p \ .05

Proficiency grouping for the English majors is presented in Table 9. All means
for each of the different groups for the English majors were higher than non-English
majors except in the Medium group.
The results of the ANOVA analysis for the English majors are presented in
Table 10. A statistically significant proficiency effect was found on intrinsic and
utility value of L2 reading, while no group differences were found in learning goaloriented motivation and avoidance scales. Tukeys Posthoc tests showed that the
Low groups intrinsic motivation was significantly lower than that of the Medium
(difference = -.64, p \ .001) and High groups (difference = -.40, p = .025).
Utility value of the Low group, in contrast, was significantly higher than that of the
High group (difference = .44, p = .046). Differences in paired means between
Medium and High groups revealed no significant differences in all four scales.
Discussion
The present study identified L2 reading motivational factors and examined whether
motivation to read in the L2 is associated with L1 motivation and if there is transfer
from L1 reading motivation to L2 reading motivation. It further explored the
differences in L2 reading motivation in terms of academic majors and L2 reading
proficiency.
The analyses identified four factors suggesting that the participants had
multifaceted motivation to read in English. These multidimensional characteristics
of reading motivation supported Wigfield and Guthries (1997) claim. However, in

123

876

K. J. Kim

line with findings of previous studies (Mori 2002; Takase, 2007; Watkins & Coffey,
2004) certain sub-components of reading motivation proposed by Wigfield and
Guthrie did not cluster in factors in the present study. For example, items
concerning Wigfield and Guthries reading compliance (Item E8. I am taking an
English reading class merely because it is required and Item E24. I would not
voluntarily read in English unless it is required as homework) and challenge (Item
E29. I dont like to read English books that have difficult expressions) were found to
be related to avoidance of L2 reading in the present study. It can be concluded that
the participants, most of whom were enrolled in a compulsory English reading
course, would like to avoid reading in English unless it relates to their class grades
as assigned homework or it is not a required subject. Therefore, course requirements
for reading in English can be an important motivation for English reading. Another
possible interpretation concerns the significant correlations among factors of L2
reading motivation. Aspects of reading motivation can be grouped conceptually in
terms of important constructs in the motivation literature (Wigfield & Guthrie,
1997). According to Wigfield and Guthrie, recognition and grades scales can be
grouped together in extrinsic motivation, whereas curiosity and involvement aspects
are tied clearly to the notion of intrinsic motivation. The results of this study support
this conclusion. In the factor analysis of the study, Wigfield and Guthries
importance scale loaded with the learning goal-oriented motivation scale. From a
theoretical perspective, however, importance is tied more to intrinsic motivation.
Thus further research is needed to clarify the nature of the motivational factors in L2
reading.
In regard to the primary L2 reading motivation, the results indicated that learning
goal-oriented motivation and utility value of L2 reading were the two strongest
indicators for the participants desire to read in English. It is therefore not be
surprising that the correlation between these two scales were positive and
statistically significant (r = .272, p \ .001). This finding reflects a role of English
in college classrooms in Korea. There is a widespread belief that English
proficiency is a benefit for career opportunities and for advancement in classes.
Drawing on this belief, the participants may perceive a need to study English and
may therefore set goals or expectations based on rewards to be gained from an
improved English proficiency. Consequently, the participants perceptions of the
goals to be achieved by learning English play a crucial role in motivating them to
study or read in English. The nature of these two factors, as mentioned above, is
closely linked to the concepts of instrumental motivation (Gardner, 1985, 1988) and
extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995). In addition, participants lack of
intrinsic motivation toward L2 reading indirectly suggests that they have practical
reasons for reading English such as overseas study, coping with globalization, and
finding appropriate information written in English on the Internet. Participants
strong tendency to be extrinsically motivated in English reading concurred with the
results of their practical reasons for L1 reading.
This study provided empirical evidence concerning the transfer of reading
motivation from L1 to L2, but also demonstrated that there are fairly different
motivational patterns and characteristics between the two languages. The present
study found statistically significant correlations between intrinsic motivation for L1

123

Reading motivation in two languages

877

reading and all of the L2 reading motivation scales except utility value of L2
reading. Furthermore, utility value of L1 reading and avoidance scales were also
significantly related to learning goal-oriented motivation toward L2 reading. This
finding may be in line with the claims from previous studies that there are
connections between L1 and L2 affective factors of reading (Camiciottoli, 2001;
Kamhi-Stein, 2003; Yamashita, 2004, 2007). The statement about the relationship
between L1 and L2 motivation, however, must be tentative. The amount of
explained variance (R2) of the relationships revealed that only 16.7% variance in L2
reading motivation could be accounted for by L1 reading motivation.5 This small
amount of variance may indicate limited practical meaningfulness, demonstrating
that the contribution of L1 reading motivation to L2 reading motivation was
insignificant.6 Furthermore, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the
findings of the correlations. In summary, it can be said that the L2 reading
motivation factors are similar in some aspects to those of L1. Therefore, more
research is needed to confirm this transfer issue and to discover how L1 reading
motivation relates to L2 reading motivation.
It is not surprising that English reading motivation for English major participants
was found to be generally higher than that of non-English majors. In contrast, the
two major groups similarities in utility value of L2 reading are noteworthy. The
participants in the present study were from a college whose students academic
levels were at or below the national norm, although there was a great deal of
variability in academic competence among the sample. This possibly caused both
groups lack of self-confidence in their reading competence in English although
both acknowledged the importance of English reading and felt that English reading
skills can help them attain higher grades and better career opportunities. Also,
English participants might choose their major based on positive feelings or attitudes
towards English that could have been shaped by their past experiences relevant to
English learning (Yamashita, 2007). Accordingly, the English participants showed
significantly higher intrinsic motivation but significantly lower avoidance of
reading in English than non-English majors.
In line with previous research suggestions (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Brantmeier,
2005; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009; Takase, 2007; Wigfield &
Guthrie, 1997), this study revealed that intrinsic motivation and avoidance were
significantly related to reading proficiency for non-English majors group. Such
relationships are also consistent with a claim in the field of general L2 motivation
that intrinsic motivation is an important factor for L2 achievement (e.g., Csizer &
Dornyei, 2005; Kim, 2004). It is understandable that students with higher L2
reading proficiency could feel more confident in their reading ability and thus are
less likely to avoid reading challenging English texts and more likely to enjoy L2
reading in general. By contrast, students with lower level of reading proficiency
5

The 16.7% of the variance in L2 reading motivation was calculated by the combination of the explained
variance (R2). Each L2 motivation scale was regressed on four L1 scales and the R2 values for four L2
motivation scales were .054, .035, .052, and .026, respectively. The sum total of the R2 for the L2 reading
motivation was .167.
6

There are no clear criteria concerning what effect sizes are meaningful. The judgment is made by the
researchers value system in regard to the research context (Thompson, 2000).

123

878

K. J. Kim

would be more likely to avoid L2 reading activities due to their lack of L2 reading
proficiency and sense of efficacy.
On the other hand, the non-significant difference found in the avoidance scale
among three different proficiency groups of English majors can be explained by the
characteristics of the English major sample. English majors might recognize English
reading as compulsory for their major so they have no chance to avoid it under any
circumstance regardless of L2 proficiency. Their awareness of English reading as a
class requirement did not involve aversive feelings toward reading in English.
Furthermore, utility value was significantly higher for the Low English majors than
the High ones. The low achieving English majors strong tendency toward utility
value might be from the competitiveness in the job market after their graduation
from colleges. English proficiency is one of the primary requirements in order to
enter the job market. The students might believe in the usefulness of English reading
and feel compelled to read English despite their relatively low achievement in their
major. This situation is a basis for Korean college students motivation to read in
English.
Meanwhile, the posthoc analyses indicated that there were no differences in any
L2 reading motivation scales between the Medium and High groups for both
English and non-English majors. The mean differences of the L2 reading scores
among the three proficiency groups varied from 8.36 (HighMedium) to 23.27
(HighLow). It appears that a considerable degree of difference in L2 proficiency
is needed to observe differences in reading motivation characteristics. This finding
suggests that L2 reading proficiency may not play a crucial role in the formation of
L2 reading motivation. This result is in agreement with Yamashita (2004, 2007)
who reported that L2 reading proficiency did not have a strong influence on L2
reading attitudes. It is not difficult to understand that students perceptions about
learning goal-oriented motivation and utility value of L2 reading were very similar
regardless of their level of reading proficiency.

Conclusion
The results of this study have pedagogical implications for teaching L2 learners.
This study indicated that students were motivated to read in L2 for different reasons
or purposes. Therefore, students should not be regarded simply as either motivated
or unmotivated to read in the L2. Instead, they are motivated to read for purposes
related to their motivation to read L1 and reading proficiency in the L2. Although
students intrinsic motivation and avoidance of reading were not primary factors in
encouraging or discouraging themselves to read L2, those who had higher intrinsic
motivation and were low in avoidance were more likely to be proficient L2 readers.
Therefore, teachers should encourage students to be engaged in L2 reading activities
and to approach reading tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as obstacles
to be avoided. In addition, teachers can facilitate intrinsic motivation by suggesting
interesting reading materials at an appropriate level for students. Furthermore, as
Schunk (1996) mentioned, students with clear and personally relevant L2 learning
goals are more likely to be motivated to engage in learning activities. Thus, teachers

123

Reading motivation in two languages

879

should help students set personalized reading goals and provide them with
personalized instruction to attain their goals. At the same time, teachers should
become attuned to students expectations and be ready to explain whether or not
their goals are consistent with those of the L2 reading program.
The results presented above must be interpreted in light of several limitations.
The first relates to methodological problems in the questionnaires used to examine
students L1 and L2 motivation. Myriad factors, which were not included in the
questionnaires, can affect students reading motivation. The use of qualitative data
along with the questionnaire would facilitate the identification of reliable patterns of
reading motivation. Another methodological limitation concerns data analyses. The
current study investigated the relationship between L1 and L2 reading motivation
using correlation analyses; therefore, any definitive statements about causal
relationships between the two should not be made in this study. It further remains
unclear why L1 related to participants L2 reading motivation. Furthermore, there
were large individual differences in the participants L2 reading proficiency within
groups. Thus, the third limitation has to do with the generalizability of the findings.
Although inferential statistics were used in presenting data, extrapolation to other
institutions or populations must remain assumed.
The studys findings lead to a number of implications for further investigations.
The multidimensionality of both L1 and L2 reading motivation suggests the
feasibility of examining general trends across language learning contexts through
replicated studies. For further evidence concerning the relationship or transfer
between L1 and L2 reading motivation, future studies should examine this issue
more carefully using parallel L1 and L2 questionnaire items and factor solutions the
present study yielded. In order to form a more comprehensive picture of students
L2 reading motivation, future research will need to consider a large number of
factors. For example, considering contextual factors such as institution, reading
curriculum, characteristics of the students, in conjunction with in-depth interviews
should permit cross-validation of the questionnaires and contextualize motivation
patterns identified in quantitative data. It is hoped that replications of reading
motivation research, involving various language learning settings, academic levels,
and cultural differences, will help us understand individual and societal foundations
of reading motivation.
Acknowledgements The study reported herein was supported by research fund from Chosun
University, 2010. The author of this manuscript thanks the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
comments and suggestions.

References
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C.
Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 127). New York: Longman.
Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Baker, L., Afflerbach, P., & Reinking, D. (1996). Developing engaged readers in school and home
communities: An overview. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged
readers in school and home communities (pp. xiiixxvii). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

123

880

K. J. Kim

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of childrens motivation for reading and their relations to
reading activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452477.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationship between L1 and L2 reading:
Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 1534.
Brantmeier, C. (2005). Nonlinguistic variables in advanced second language reading: Learners selfassessment and enjoyment. Foreign Language Annals, 38, 494504.
Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 27, 565584.
Brunstein, J. C., & Maier, G. W. (2005). Implicit and self-attributed motive to achieve: Two separate but
interacting needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 205222.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2001). Extensive reading in English: Habits and attitudes of a group of Italian
university EFL students. Journal of Research in Reading, 24(2), 135153.
Clarke, M. A. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language
Learning, 29, 121150.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved August 10, 2009 from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf.
Csizer, K., & Dornyei, Z. (2005). Language learners motivational profiles and their motivated learning
behavior. Language Learning, 55, 613659.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children.
Review of Educational Research, 49, 459472.
Davis, J. N., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud
protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77, 459472.
Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis
(Ed.), Efficacy, agency and self-esteem (pp. 3138). New York: Plenum.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III, pp. 10171095). New York: Wiley.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628644.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272299.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and
motivation. Baltimore, MD: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second-language learning: Assumptions, findings,
and issues. Language Learning, 38, 101126.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, W. E. (1991). An instrumental motivation in language study: Who says it
isnt effective? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 5772.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403422).
New York: Erlbaum.
Hedgcock, J., & Atkinson, D. (1993). Differing reading-writing relationships in L1 and L2 literacy
development? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 329333.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2003). Reading in two languages: How attitudes toward home language and beliefs
about reading affect the behaviors of underprepared L2 college readers. TESOL Quarterly, 37,
3571.
Kim, H., & Krashen, S. (1997). Why dont language acquirers take advantage of the power of reading?
TESOL Journal, 6(3), 2629.
Kim, K. J. (2004). A structural model for English achievement based on motivation, gender, and
academic majors. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20, 5980.
Lee, J., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading
ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 713739.

123

Reading motivation in two languages

881

Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22, 261273.
McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Childrens attitudes toward reading: A national
survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934956.
Mori, S. (2002). Redefining motivation to read in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language,
14(2), 91110.
Nishino, T. (2005, May). Japanese high school students L2 reading motivation. Paper presented at the
4th Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, Tokyo, Japan.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theories, research, and applications.
Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swifts electric factor analysis machine.
Understanding Statistics, 2(1), 1343.
Pretorius, E. J., & Mampuru, D. M. (2007). Playing football without a ball: Language, reading and
academic performance in a high-poverty school. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 3858.
Schmidt, R., Boraie, 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. 1487). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Current emphases and future trends. Mid-Western
Educational Researcher, 9(2), 511, 36.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational and cognitive
variables on reading comprehension. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 85106.
Takase, A. (2007). Japanese high school students motivation for extensive L2 reading. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 19, 118.
Tang, H. (1997). The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1 and L2. Reading
Psychology, 18, 249301.
Thompson, B. (2000). Canonical correlation analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading
and understanding more multivariable statistics (pp. 285316). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brie`re, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallie`res, E. F. (1992). The
academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 10031017.
van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R., de Glopper, K., & Hulstijin, J. (2007). Development of
adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of
constituent components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 477491.
Watkins, M. W., & Coffey, D. Y. (2004). Reading motivation: Multidimensional and indeterminate.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 110118.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of childrens motivations for reading: An initial study.
(Research Rep. No. 34). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of childrens motivation for reading to the amount and
breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420432.
Yamashita, J. (2004). Reading attitudes in L1 and L2, and their influence on L2 extensive reading.
Reading in a Foreign Language, 16, 119.
Yamashita, J. (2007). The relationship of reading attitudes between L1 and L2: An investigation of adult
EFL learners in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 81105.

123