4.

Results and Discussion

In this section, this study reports the results regarding the impact of gender and faculty on motivation and
use of strategy.
4.1. Intrinsic Motivation

Table 4.1: Results for intrinsic motivation

 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty 0.166*** 0.277 3.319 0.001

Gender 0.177*** 0.309 3.552 0.000

Const. 5.464*** 0.642 8.508 0.000

Adj. R2
0.060
F-statistic
13.232
F (p-value)
0.000
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is the intrinsic motivation and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.1 reports the results for intrinsic motivation by using multivariate regression analysis.
The explanatory variables are gender and faculty. The coefficients of both gender and faculty are
positive and statistically significant different from zero at 95% confidence interval with the p-
values of 0.000 and 0.000, respectively. This is consistent with existing literature and
supports/rejects the hypothesis. There is positive relationship between faculty, gender and
intrinsic motivation. The value of adj R² = 0.060 shows that about 6.0% of variation in intrinsic
motivation is caused by stated explanatory variables (gender and faculty) collectively. In other
words, intrinsic motivation is 6.0% explained by stated (gender and faculty) variables
collectively but remaining is not captured in this model and need to be explored. Finally it is
concluded that both gender and faculty increase intrinsic motivation among the students of AJK
university.
4.2. Integrative Motivation
Table 4.2: Results for integrative motivation
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.018 .485 -.345 .730

Gender .017 .539 .334 .739

Const. 21.373 1.120 19.084 .000

Adj. R2
-.005
F-statistic
.104
F (p-value)
.901
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is the integrative motivation and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.2 reports the results for integrative motivation by using multivariate regression analysis.
The explanatory variables are gender and faculty. The coefficient of both gender and faculty are
insignificant. This is consistent with existing literature and supports/rejects the hypothesis. There
is negative relationship between faculty and integrative motivation, whereas gender is positively
related with integrative motivation.
The value of adj R² = -0.005 shows that about -0.05% of variation in intrinsic motivation is
caused by stated explanatory variables collectively. The above table shows that there is no
statistical relationship between integrative motivation and the explanatory variables as the p-
value is greater than .05.

4.3. Instrumental Motivation

Table 4.3: Results for instrumental motivation
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty .047 .478 .933 .352

Gender -.202 .531 -4.002 0.000

Const. 23.824 1.103 21.592 .000

Adj. R2
.036
F-statistic
8.132
F (p-value)
.000
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is the instrumental motivation and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.3 the above table shows that the relationship of instrumental motivation with gander and
faculty. The test statistics to be used here is the multivariate regression analysis. The
explanatory variables are gender and faculty. The coefficient gender is negative and statistically
significant different from zero at 95% confidence interval with the p-values of 0.000 while the
other explanatory variable has no impact on instrument motivation. there is negative relationship
between gender and instrumental motivation while faculty is positively associated with
instrumental motivation. The value of adj R² = 0.036 shows that about 3.6% of variation in
instrumental motivation is caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.4. Ideal L2 Self

Table 4.4: Results for Ideal L2 Self-motivation
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty .101 .209 1.995 .047

Gender .136 .232 2.681 0.008

Const. 4.544 .483 9.410 .000

Adj. R2
.027
F-statistic
6.248
F (p-value)
.002
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is the ideal L2 Self and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.4 reports the results Ideal L2 self-motivation with faculty and gender. The coefficient of
both gender is positively related with ideal L2 Self-Motivation and statistically significant at
95% confidence interval with the p-values of 0.000. There is positive relationship between
faculty, gender and ideal L2 self-motivation. The value of adj R² = 0 .027 shows that about 2.7%
of variation in Ideal L2 self-motivation is caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.
4.5. L2 OUGHT TO SELF
Table 4.5: Results for Ideal L2 Self-motivation
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.047 .306 -.919 .359

Gender -.025 .340 -.478 0.633

Const. 10.758 .707 15.221 .000

Adj. R2
-.002
F-statistic
.592
F (p-value)
.554
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is the ideal L2 Self and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.5 shows the statistical association between faculty,gender and Ideal L2 Self
motivation.by using multivariate regression analysis The coefficient of both gender and faculty
are insignificant. The above data shows that both faculty and gender are negatively associated
with Ideal L2 Self Motivation . the P-value of Faculty is .359 and that of gender is .633. Hence
as the P-value is greater than .05 so both of them have shown no relationship between Ideal L2
Self Motivation. The value of adj R² = -0.002 shows that about -0.02% of variation Ideal L2 Self-
Motivation is caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.6. Anxiety
Table 4.6: Results for Anxiety
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty .176 .398 3.459 .001

Gender -.085 .442 -1.670 0.096

Const. 12.981 .916 14.176 .000

Adj. R2
.029
F-statistic
6.796
F (p-value)
.001
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is Anxiety and the independent
variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at 5% and 10%,
respectively.

Table 4.6 the above table shows the anxiety level of the students in relation with both gender
and faculty. The gender and the faculty have an impact on building the anxiety among the
students. The results shows that the is positive relationship between both the variables the faculty
and the gender with increasing and decreasing the anxiety among the students. By multivariate
regression analysis as the coefficient of faculty is positive and the gender is negative. As the P-
value is significant at 95% confidence interval. The value of adj R² = .029 shows that about 2.9%
of variation in anxiety is caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.7. Demotivation
Table 4.7: Results for lack of motivation
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.241 .320 -4.817 .000

Gender .069 .355 1.388 0.166

Const. 19.853 .737 26.929 .000

Adj. R2
.054
F-statistic
11.975
F (p-value)
.000
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is lack of motivation and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender,

Faculty

Table 4.7 depicted that both gender and faculty have direct or inverse impact on the motivation
level of the students. The coefficient of faculty is significant and negative on the other hand
coefficient of gender is insignificant. The value of adj R² = .054shows that about 5.4% of
variation in motivation is caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.
4.8. Memory strategies
Table 4.8: Results for memory strategies
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.054 .319 -1.053 .293

Gender .094 .648 1.827 0.068

Const. 13.303 .737 18.048 .000

Adj. R2
.005
F-statistic
2.036
F (p-value)
.132
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is memory strategies and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.8 shows the results of memory strategies with the explanatory variables. The reports of
the results for memory strategies by using multivariate regression analysis. The explanatory
variables are gender and faculty. The coefficient of faculty is negative and statistically
insignificant while the gender is positively associated with memory strategies different from zero
at 95% confidence interval with the p-values of .293 and 0.068, respectively.
The value of adj R² = .005 shows that about .05% of variation in memory strategies is caused by
stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.9. Cognitive strategies

Table 4.9: Results for cognitive strategies
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.028 .377 -.545 .586

Gender -.121 .419 -2.368 0.018

Const. 19.223 .870 22.089 .000

Adj. R2
.011
F-statistic
3.134
F (p-value)
.045
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is cognitive strategies and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.
Table 4.9 is the result of Cognitive strategies and its relationship with the faculty and gender by
using the multivariate regression analysis. The above table shows that the faculty and gender are
negatively related with Cognitive strategies. The P-value of gender is 0.018, which shows
significant impact of gender on cognitive strategies on the other hand the faculty has
insignificant.
The value of adj R² = .011shows that about 1.1% of variation in Cognitive strategies is caused by
stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.10. Compensation Strategies

Table 4.10: Results for compensation strategies

 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.214 .393 -4.259 .000

Gender .068 .437 -1.364 0.173

Const. 25.012 .907 27.567 .000

Adj. R2
.049
F-statistic
10.771
F (p-value)
.000
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is compensation strategies and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.10 the above table shows the multivariate analysis of compensation strategies with both
the gender and faculty. The explanatory variables are gender and faculty. The coefficient of both
gender is negative and statistically significant different from zero at 95% confidence interval
with the p-values of 0.000 and the other variable shows the insignificant relationship with
cognitive strategies as the p-value is .173.
The value of adj R² = .049shows that about 4.9% of variation in compensation strategies is
caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.11. Metacognitive strategies

Table 4.11: Results for metacognitive strategies

 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.121 .682 -2.372 .018

Gender .075 .758 -1.466 0.143

Const. 34.894 1.574 22.166 .000

Adj. R2
.017
F-statistic
4.324
F (p-value)
.014
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is metacognitive strategies and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.11 reports the results of metacognitive strategies by using multivariate regression analysis.
The explanatory variables are gender and faculty. As the coefficient of faculty significant and
negative where as there is no relationship between gender and metacognitive strategies
The value of adj R² = .017shows that about 1.7 % of variation in metacognitive strategies is caused
by stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.12. Affective Strategies

Table 4.12: Results for affective strategies
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty -.075 .359 -1.459 .145

Gender -.015 .399 -.293 0.769

Const. 16.884 .829 20.364 .000

Adj. R2
.001
F-statistic
1.168
F (p-value)
.312
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is affective strategies and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.

Table 4.12 reports the results for affective Strategies by using multivariate regression analysis
which is one of the techniques of multivariate analysis. The explanatory variables are gender and
faculty. The coefficient of both gender and faculty are negative and statistically insignificant.
The value of adj R² = .001shows that about .01% of variation in affective Strategies is caused by
stated explanatory variables collectively.

4.13. Social Strategies

Table 4.13: Results for social strategies
 Variables Coefficient Std. Error t-value Prob

Faculty .037 .522 .726 .468

Gender -.080 .580 -1.552 0.121

Const. 23.333 1.204 19.383 .000

Adj. R2
.002
F-statistic
1.361
F (p-value)
.258
Note: This table depicts the results for linear regression model. The dependent variable is social strategies and the
independent variables are gender and faculty. Furthermore, ***, ** denotes that the coefficient is statistically significant at
5% and 10%, respectively.
Table 4.13 Concluded the various social strategies that are effected by faculty having English
major and non-English major. The above table exhibited that the coefficient of faculty is positive
and insignificant . on the other hand the gender is also shows insignificant relationship with the
social strategies. The value of adj R² = .002shows that about .02% of variation in social
Strategies is caused by stated explanatory variables collectively.