Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Classroom social climate, self-determined motivation, willingness to

communicate, and achievement: A study of structural relationships in
instructed second language settings
Hye-Kyoung Joe a, Phil Hiver a,⁎, Ali H. Al-Hoorie b,c
a
International Graduate School of English, Department of ELT, 89 Yangjae-daero 81-gil, Gangdong-gu, Seoul 05407, Republic of Korea
b
University of Nottingham, School of English, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
c
Jubail Industrial College, The English Language Institute, Jubail Industrial City 31961, P. O. Box 10099, Saudi Arabia

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

Article history: The purpose of this study is to integrate three related theoretical frameworks—classroom social climate,
Received 23 January 2016 self-determination theory (SDT), and L2 willingness to communicate (WTC)—and investigate connections
Received in revised form 14 November 2016 between key individual and situational factors for motivation and L2 achievement in a formal secondary-
Accepted 18 November 2016
school setting in Korea (N = 381). We propose a model of the impact of the classroom social climate on second-
Available online xxxx
ary school L2 learners' self-determined motivation and WTC, before extending our analysis to the effect of these
Keywords:
individual and contextual factors on L2 achievement. Structural equation modeling showed that self-determined
Basic psychological needs motivation was predicted by satisfaction of basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and related-
Classroom social climate ness), which are in turn predicted by positive classroom social climate. WTC was predicted strongly by satisfac-
Self-determination theory tion of basic psychological needs, and weakly by perceived competence and identified regulation, but not by
L2 willingness to communicate intrinsic motivation. L2 achievement was initially predicted significantly by identified regulation and perceived
L2 achievement competence, but after controlling for prior achievement only perceived competence remained a significant, but
weak (β = 0.07), predictor. These findings support the notion that context is an empirically relevant frame of
reference for the study of individual factors, and highlight the impact a classroom environment exerts on impor-
tant L2 learning outcomes. However, our findings also underscore the work remaining in the L2 learning field to
uncover robust predictors of L2 achievement. We hope this study will stimulate further research into the situated
and interrelated nature of motivation, WTC, and achievement that will both consolidate and refine current the-
oretical and empirical insights.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is driven by externally-regulated motives, the notion of individual voli-

One cannot think of successful second or foreign language (L2) de-
velopment occurring without at least some form of motivation on the
part of the learner (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). Motivation governs the di-
rection and magnitude of behavioral choices regarding what goals to
avoid or pursue (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), and provides an indication
of the quality and quantity of goal-directed effort. As such, the question
of how to get and keep learners motivated through the dips and peaks of
language development may be a priority of much of L2 instruction.
However, the majority of L2 learning worldwide occurs in formal class-
room settings involving long hours of intense preparation to succeed in
compulsory examinations. Without debating the relative merit of these
characteristics, we believe this indicates that learners are presented
with little need to use the target language apart from achieving good
grades. Thus, while there may be learners whose L2 learning behavior
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: philiphiver@igse.ac.kr (P. Hiver).
tional action to communicate in the L2—considered one of the most de-
sirable outcomes of learning a second language—is arguably absent
from these settings (MacIntyre, 2007).
A longstanding emphasis within this field is a focus on contextual
features of the L2 classroom, conditions which are thought to play a
key part in initiating and sustaining L2 learning motivation due to the
distributed nature (i.e., between people) of engagement and goal-di-
rected behavior in classrooms (Wedell & Malderez, 2013). The notion
that classrooms have distinct psychological environments, which may
in turn affect individuals' thought and action, has been around for the
better part of a century (Greeno, 2015). In the realm of L2 learning
and use, this is even more pronounced because of the understanding
that learner characteristics, behavior, and development can be influ-
enced by various competing temporal and situational factors (e.g.,
Batstone, 2010; Kramsch, 2008; Larsen-Freeman, 2015; van Lier,
2004). Integrating various situative and individual constructs or pro-
cesses offers a way to examine learning and development beyond the
individual, thus explaining why “individuals take up practices in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005
1041-6080/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
134 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144
particular contexts as a function of their ongoing participation in social
practices” (Nolen, Horn, & Ward, 2015, p. 235).
In this study we build on recent research showing the importance of
a situated perspective of L2 learners' willingness to communicate (e.g.,
Cao, 2011; Khajavy, Ghonsooly, Hosseini Fatemi, & Choi, 2016; Peng,
2014; Yashima, 2012) to investigate the relationships between individ-
ual and situational factors that impact L2 willingness to communicate
(WTC) and L2 achievement in a formal classroom setting. Noels (2009)
has proposed that self-determination theory (SDT) is a core model for
addressing both the individual learner's agency in a formal classroom
setting and the social context of language learning. The constructs of
SDT and WTC address not only how satisfaction of basic psychological
needs (e.g., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) can lead to auton-
omous forms of motivated behavior in the language classroom, but they
are also well-suited to integrating situational factors—such as the class-
room social environment—into a combined framework for investigating
cognitive choices and behavioral outcomes in L2 instructional settings.
Our primary aim in this article, extending work by Deci et al. (2001)
which proposes that autonomy support contributes to needs satisfaction
and predicts key outcomes, is to capture theoretical and empirical in-
sights in constructing an integrative framework of the structural rela-
tionships between these aspects. To do so, we propose a novel model
of the impact of the classroom social climate on secondary school L2
learners' self-determined motivation and subsequent influence on
WTC, before extending our analysis to the effect of these individual
and contextual factors on L2 achievement.
2. Literature review
2.1. Context and the classroom social climate
A growing body of evidence suggests that the classroom social cli-
mate plays a significant role in what actually happens in the process of
learning, and the way that the people in the classroom group think
and behave (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Klem & Connell, 2004). Inter-
personal relationships, modes of communication between individuals,
and other group processes that exist in the context of a classroom can
be seen as part of this classroom social climate (Dörnyei & Murphey,
2003). On an individual-focused level, the way students perceive various
aspects of the classroom social environment relates to their self-beliefs,
which are associated with the use of adaptive self-regulatory strategies
that in turn influence the nature and extent of their engagement and
achievement in academic tasks (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011). Howev-
er, even learners' engagement, conventionally thought of as involving
primarily cognitive involvement and affective connections, has begun
to be explored in ways which foreground the inherently social nature
of educational and intellectual endeavors (Wentzel, 2012). Philp and
Duchesne (2016, p. 57) term this outcome “mutuality” or the effort, ac-
tive participation, and responsiveness that occurs when learners partake
in reciprocal social interactions in L2 classroom settings.
Research into the social climate of the classroom posits three com-
plementary constructs (Patrick & Ryan, 2005): teacher academic sup-
port, teacher emotional support, and classroom mutual respect.
Teacher academic support refers to student perceptions of the teacher
helping them to master the learning content rather than encouraging
competitiveness between learners; teacher emotional support relates
to a student's perceptions of the teacher caring for them as a person
and supporting their overall well-being; classroom mutual respect con-
cerns the students' perceptions of their teacher encouraging mutual re-
spect and peer help in classroom interactions (see also Patrick, Ryan, &
Kaplan, 2007). The premise of these dimensions of the social climate of a
classroom is that the extent to which students sense emotional support
from their teacher, feel personally valued and able to contribute through
interactions with their peers, and perceive their teacher as being com-
mitted to supporting their learning is an important precursor to
students' effort, engagement, and achievement in the classroom (Ryan
& Patrick, 2001).
With respect to classroom social climate and L2 learning in particular,
research conducted by Noels and colleagues (Noels, 2001; Noels, Clément,
& Pelletier, 1999) is noteworthy as their results indicate an important link
between students' perceptions that their teachers' instructional style was
autonomy-supportive, on the one hand, and positive language learning
outcomes on the other. This has also been explored with regard to
learners' self-determined motivation (Noels, 2009; Reeve & Jang, 2006)
and L2 willingness to communicate (Peng & Woodrow, 2010). More re-
cent research has reported not only that a teacher providing informative
feedback about learning progress was associated with increased intrinsic
motivation but also, conversely, that the more the students perceived
their teachers to be controlling, the lower the students' intrinsic motiva-
tion (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2013). Because an op-
timal social environment is likely to facilitate activities and interactions
that promote L2 learners' psychological well-being, we expect the class-
room social climate to influence basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy,
competence, and relatedness) that lead to more autonomous forms of
motivation. We build on this idea in the next section.
2.2. Self-determined motivation and L2 learning
Self-determination theory (SDT) has been described as a compre-
hensive theory of human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000), developed
on the premise that when basic psychological needs are satisfied as a
function of interpersonal dynamics and social settings human beings
naturally develop growth-oriented propensities—namely, internaliza-
tion and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Noels, 2009). SDT the-
orists argue that when these basic psychological needs are met humans
are able to internalize motivated behaviors—that is, they become self-
determined and autonomously initiated (Deci & Ryan, 2002). We,
thus, expect the more self-determined types of motivation to be influ-
enced by satisfaction of basic psychological needs in classroom settings
as these position learners to engage in more autonomously motivated
pursuits (e.g., Carreira, 2012; Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009).
Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are thought to exist on a continu-
um of self-determination (Reeve, 2002). On this continuum, amotivation
is the absence of any kind of motivation. Types of extrinsic motivation
range from the least self-determined form external-regulation, to
introjected-regulation (i.e., when external forces of control have been
internalized to some extent), identified-regulation (i.e., when an inter-
nalized sense of the personal value of an activity is achieved), and inte-
grated-regulation (i.e., when performing an activity becomes a means
of expressing core aspects of one's identity). Although it originates exter-
nally, integrated-regulation shares several characteristics with intrinsic
motivation, given that it stems from values that are fully congruent
with aspects of a learner's self (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan,
1991). Particularly with beginning adolescent L2 learners, however,
this type of regulation is not easily distinguished from identified regula-
tion because the source of motivation originates from outside (Noels,
2001; Pintrich, 2003). Because our sample is adolescent L2 learners,
we do not examine integrated regulation, and instead focus on identified
regulation and intrinsic motivation in the rest of this article.
While SDT research has demonstrated that both intrinsic and identi-
fied self-regulations are associated with successful learning outcomes
(Burton, Lydon, D'Alessandro, & Koestner, 2006), the continuum view
of self-regulatory styles positions individuals' acceptance of the value
and importance of a behavior and its integration into the self (i.e., iden-
tified regulation) further away from the autonomous end than individ-
uals freely choosing to perform an activity for its own sake out of an
underlying sense of interest and enjoyment (i.e., intrinsic regulation)
(Carver & Scheier, 2000). Some scholars have concluded that because
identified regulation has stronger associations with investment of effort
and persistence, it is key to the successful regulation of behaviors that
are highly valued socially but not necessarily fun, and thus a more
 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144
significant determinant of performance outcomes (Gagné & Deci, 2005;
Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senècal, 2007). On the other hand, in-
trinsic motivation may be more closely linked to enjoyable experiences
such as L2 communication (Pae, 2008) as it is the form of activity regu-
lation most closely associated affective drives that relate to happiness or
satisfaction while engaging in an activity.
With its unique focus on internalization as a process of transformation,
the direct implication of SDT for L2 pedagogy is that extrinsically motivat-
ed students can develop toward more self-determined types of motivation
given optimal environments which encourage choice in the learning activ-
ity, support learners' efforts in meeting new challenges and help foster
learners' sense of competence in their abilities (Dörnyei & Ushioda,
2011; Noels & Giles, 2009). Existing research indicates that individuals
who report learning an L2 for more self-determined reasons generally dis-
play greater motivational intensity, a heightened desire for L2 learning,
more positive attitudes toward L2 study, and higher L2 achievement
(Noels et al., 1999; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2000; Pae,
2008). We, thus, expect WTC and L2 achievement to be influenced by
these more self-determined types of motivation, and test the influence
of these two self-regulatory styles on our outcome variables separately.
2.3. L2 willingness to communicate
The construct of WTC has, and continues to attract considerable in-
terest in the L2 learning research (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014). WTC
is generally defined as a volitional decision to initiate communication
in the second language in a particular situation with a particular person
at a particular moment in time (MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels,
1998). Whereas willingness to communicate in one's first language
was originally conceptualized more as a stable trait-like difference, L2
WTC takes into account dynamic contextual factors as well (MacIntyre
& Legatto, 2011). L2 WTC is commonly associated with the sub-factors
perceived communicative competence and communicative apprehen-
sion. The first of these is an individual student's own confidence in his
or her communicative competence, which has been shown to have a ro-
bust link to WTC (e.g., Fallah, 2014; Öz, Demirezen, & Pourfeiz, 2015).
Communicative apprehension, on the other hand, refers to the level of
anxiety or fear of communicating in the second language and is found
to be negatively related to WTC across most research (Yashima, 2012).
WTC, on a fundamental level, is often more directly related to
subjective self-evaluation of an individual's ability to communicate
rather than an objective measure (Gregersen & MacIntyre, 2014, p.
214). This self-evaluation includes not only one's confidence in
their capacity to construct meaning through language that is linguis-
tically accurate, but extends also to using coherent and cohesive dis-
course, achieving functional intentions, communicating in a social
and contextually appropriate way, and compensating strategically
for gaps in this competence. Scholars, for instance, have acknowl-
edged the significance of self-evaluation and perceived communica-
tive competence for individuals enacting WTC (MacIntyre, 2007),
with some finding a common tendency for apprehensive learners
to underestimate their communicative competence respective to
their actual competence (MacIntyre & Doucette, 2010). This empha-
sizes WTC as an act of self-determined volition on the part of learners
to initiate communication in the L2. We, therefore, expect—as
outlined previously—a direct effect on WTC from the more self-de-
termined forms of motivation, but also that greater satisfaction of
learners' basic psychological needs, particularly perceptions of com-
petence, will influence WTC directly (e.g., Peng & Woodrow, 2010).
Scholars working primarily within the SDT tradition have noted that
“aspects of context shape the learner's experience, and, reciprocally,
how the learner shapes the context to meet her needs and aspirations”
(Noels, 2009, p. 299). With regard to WTC, this links to evidence from an
intriguing line of research exploring WTC in L2 classrooms settings. This
body of work suggests that the characteristics of many L2 classroom set-
tings predispose learners to particular attributions, orientations, and
135
attitudes that either encourage or inhibit their willingness to engage
in communication (Cao, 2011; Khajavy et al., 2016). Learners in these
studies, relying on experiential perceptions of the classroom environ-
ment, reported that the mood, emotions, or climate sensed and shared
by the class group, what might also be referred to as the classroom at-
mosphere, is one of the most prominently influential contextual factors
(Peng, 2014). The fundamental aim of language classroom instruction is
often framed as enhancement of WTC (MacIntyre, Baker, Clément, &
Donovan, 2003; Öz et al., 2015).
Willingness to communicate functions as a conduit to language
learning because higher levels of WTC contribute to more frequent L2
use, and this increased interaction is thought to promote successful L2
development (Kang, 2005; Yashima & Zenuk-Nishide, 2008). We test
not only this assumption in our model, but we also expect the classroom
social environment to provide the necessary pre-conditions for greater
self-determination that will lead to enhanced WTC.
2.4. Hypotheses
We have reviewed three interrelated theoretical frameworks (i.e.,
classroom social climate, SDT, and L2 WTC) in an attempt to formalize
connections between key individual and situational factors that have
to date been discussed largely separately in the literature. These factors
are summarized conceptually in Fig. 1. To be more specific, the over-
arching hypotheses that we test in our study are as follows:
(a) positive classroom social climate promotes the satisfaction of
learners' basic psychological needs (Patrick et al., 2007, 2011),
(b) satisfaction of basic psychological needs in turn leads to stronger
self-determined motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified
regulation) (Deci & Ryan, 2012; Jang et al., 2009), and
(c) self-determined motivation subsequently influences WTC and
achievement positively (Pae, 2008; Peng & Woodrow, 2010).
In addition to these overall connections in Fig. 1, we also anticipate
more specific links:
(d) satisfaction of basic psychological needs also has a direct effect on
WTC (Cao, 2011; Carreira, 2012),
(e) perceived competence facilitates both WTC and achievement di-
rectly (Fallah, 2014; Khajavy et al., 2016), and
(f) WTC influences achievement positively (Gregersen & MacIntyre,
2014; MacIntyre, 2007).
If a model fits the data, it is still possible that other competing
models might fit the same data equally well or even better (Kline,
2015; Shah & Goldstein, 2006). Therefore, the second purpose of this
study is to test a plausible alternative model that might explain the re-
lationships among the factors we are investigating. This competing
model (Fig. 2) posits a reversed pathway whereby the self-determined
forms of motivation predict the way students perceive the classroom
environment. According to this model, interpretation of the classroom
social climate is relational to (i.e., a function of) one's motivation and
satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Whatever the actual classroom
social climate, motivated learners will perceive it as enjoyable while
others will be left dissatisfied.
Finally, motivation researchers do not typically control for prior
achievement. This is unfortunate considering that finding significant as-
sociations between motivational factors and outcome variables would
mean little if these associations simply disappear once we control for
prior achievement levels. Because motivational factors would serve lit-
tle purpose if they do not add to our prediction of a variable (e.g.,
achievement) over and above our knowledge of its existing state (e.g.,
prior achievement), the third purpose of this study is to add prior
achievement to the model in order to investigate which associations
would remain significant and which would not.
136 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144

Intrinsic
Motivation

Classroom
Mutual
Respect

Teacher Basic
Classroom Willingness to
Academic Psychological
Support Social Climate communicate
Needs
Teacher
Emotional
Support

L2 Achievement

Competence
Relatedness
Autonomy

Identified
Regulation

Fig. 1. The hypothesized model.

3. Method 3.2. Instruments

3.1. Participants
The participants were 381 (female = 266, male = 115) Korean sec-
ondary school learners of English as a foreign language. We recruited
these L2 learners using quota sampling in order to ensure representa-
tion of various geographic regions, socioeconomic strata, and the entire
age range of secondary school (age range = 13–18 years old, M = 14.3,
SD = 2.7). Ninety-five participants (24.9%) were from secondary
schools in the capital, located in educationally competitive school dis-
tricts with a higher than average socioeconomic status. An additional
172 learners (45.1%) were from suburban schools located in the most
densely populated regions immediately surrounding the capital. The
final 114 participants (29.9%) were from rural schools in provinces fur-
ther south and southwest of the capital. Compared to the capital, these
areas differ considerably with respect to educational investment and
socioeconomic status. Korea is typical of many foreign language con-
texts with mandated high-stakes tests, and most (85.5%) of the partici-
pants reported engaging in regular independent L2 study outside of the
compulsory classroom setting. The majority (87.9%) indicated no study
abroad experience in the L2.
The participants responded to 5-point Likert scale items adapted
from the literature (see Appendix A). As a first step, the items were sub-
mitted to Mokken scale analysis using MSP 5 (Molenaar & Sijtsma,
2000) in order to minimize the risk of spurious over-dimensionalization
which factor analysis, both exploratory and confirmatory, is prone to
when using questionnaire data (see van der Eijk & Rose, 2015). Confir-
matory factor analysis was then conducted to test the measurement
model using Amos 22 (Arbuckle, 2013).
Mokken scale analysis pointed to seven factors underlying the data.
Mokken also calculates the homogeneity (H; N 0.30 weak, N0.40 medi-
um, N0.50 strong) and reliability (rho) for each scale. The results are
presented next.
Classroom Social Climate (9 items, H = 0.63, rho = 0.92, α = 0.92)
was adapted from Patrick et al. (2011) and Patrick et al. (2007). Originally,
this scale consisted of three subscales: Teacher Academic Support, Teacher
Emotional Support, and Classroom Mutual Respect. The Mokken results sug-
gest that it is not appropriate to treat these as three distinct latent vari-
ables, at least in this context. Each of these three subscales was
therefore aggregated and used as an indicator of Classroom Social Climate
(Teacher Academic Support, 3 items, α = 0.84; Teacher Emotional

Intrinsic Willingness to
Motivation communicate

Autonomy

Basic
Classroom
Competence Psychological
Social Climate
Needs
Relatedness

Identified
Regulation L2 Achievement
Classroom

Emotional
Academic
Teacher

Teacher
Respect

Support

Support
Mutual

Fig. 2. The competing model with reversed pathways.

 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144
Support, 4 items, α = 0.84; Classroom Mutual Respect, 2 items, α = 0.71).
Three additional items were excluded because the Mokken results indi-
cated that they do not load on the Classroom Social Climate construct.
Basic Psychological Needs were assessed through the following scales,
all adapted from Carreira (2012). Autonomy (3 items, H = 0.65, rho =
0.82, α = 0.81) was concerned with learners' sense of ownership of
the learning process in the classroom; Competence (3 items, H = 0.59,
rho = 0.81, α = 0.78) was related to students' perceptions of their com-
petence as language learners; Relatedness (2 items, H = 0.64, rho = 0.74,
α = 0.71) was concerned with interpersonal involvement with
teachers and peers. Each of these three subscales was aggregated
and used as an indicator of Basic Psychological Needs in the model.
One original item from Relatedness was omitted because it did not
load on that construct.
Self-Determined Motivation was assessed through two scales, both
adapted from the Language Learning Orientations Scale developed by
Noels et al. (2000). Identified Regulation (2 items, H = 0.53, rho =
0.71, α = 0.68) was related to self-selected, personally important pur-
poses for language learning behavior; Intrinsic Motivation (5 items,
H = 0.66, rho = 0.88, α = 0.89) was concerned with language learning
behavior that is interesting, enjoyable, and self-actualizing. One item
from each scale was excluded because they did not load on their respec-
tive constructs.
As educational outcomes, the following two measures were used.
Willingness to Communicate (12 items, H = 0.67, rho = 0.95, α =
0.95) was adapted from Pae (2011), a scale previously used with Korean
L1 respondents. These items were concerned with willingness to com-
municate in the L2 with friends (4 items, α = 0.85), acquaintances (4
items, α = 0.85), and strangers (4 items, α = 0.83). Each of these
three subscales was aggregated and used as an indicator of Willingness
to Communicate. Note that these three subscales are distinct from the
Autonomy scale mentioned above. While the Autonomy scale ad-
dressed voluntary participation inside the classroom, these three sub-
scales were concerned with willingness to communicate outside the
classroom with friends, acquaintances, and strangers. The correlations
between these three subscales and Autonomy were only moderate,
rs = 0.40, 0.41, and 0.40, respectively.
L2 Achievement. We obtained two measures of L2 achievement for
each participant. One was their exam results from the previous year
(taken about six months before the study) to serve as a measure of
their prior achievement level, and one for the final exam (taken approx-
imately four months after the study).
The questionnaire scales were then submitted to confirmatory factor
analysis in order to test the measurement model. The results showed
that the model had good fit, χ2(94) = 207.861, p b 0.001, χ2/df =
2.211, CFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.056, PCLOSE = 0.147. With the excep-
tion of Competence (0.46), all factor loadings were significant and over
0.50, and most of them were over 0.70. Most standardized residuals
were also below ±2, and none exceeded ±3, indicating the observed
covariance terms reasonably fitted the estimated covariance terms.
Table 1 also presents the construct reliability and average variance ex-
tracted (AVE) values, showing that the model, with the possible excep-
tion of Basic Psychological Needs, had generally satisfactory convergent
and discriminant validity. There were no missing data to handle.
Table 1
Reliability and validity of the constructs in the measurement model and their inter-con-
struct correlations.
CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5
1. Intrinsic motivation 0.88 0.59 0.77
2. Identified regulation 0.70 0.54 0.52 0.74
3. Willingness to communicate 0.97 0.93 0.41 0.35 0.96
4. Basic psychological needs 0.63 0.37 0.67 0.40 0.59 0.61
5. Classroom social climate 0.90 0.76 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.55 0.87
Note. CR = construct reliability, AVE = average variance extracted. Values in the diagonal
are the square roots of their respective AVE.
137
3.3. Procedure
The questionnaire items were adapted to the present context and
translated into the students' L1 (Korean) by a non-affiliated researcher fa-
miliar with the principles of questionnaire construction and both lan-
guages in question, and then back-translated by the authors. Following
initial IRB approval, we approached school administration and teaching
faculty in the locales of interest to obtain written institutional consent
and verbal participant assent. Students from the schools that agreed to par-
ticipate completed the survey outside of their regular class time. They were
informed by the research assistant administering the questionnaire about
the purpose of the survey, reminded that participation was entirely volun-
tary, and assured of the confidentiality of their responses. Throughout, the
participants were treated in accordance with APA ethical guidelines.
4. Results
The residuals of Intrinsic Motivation and Identified Regulation were
allowed to covary due to being at the same level of self-determined mo-
tivation. The model had a good fit, χ2(107) = 227.280, p b 0.001, χ2/
df = 2.124, CFI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.054, PCLOSE = 0.222. However,
the modification indices suggested a path from Teacher Emotional Sup-
port to Competence that we did not anticipate. Adding this path im-
proved the model fit significantly, Δχ2(1) = 34.907, p b 0.001,
ΔRMSEA = 0.002. Although this additional path was exploratory, it
had hardly any impact on the remaining coefficients in the model, and
so none of our conclusions were affected by it. The results of this
model are in Fig. 3, χ2(106) = 192.373, p b 0.001, χ2/df = 1.815,
CFI = 0.980 RMSEA = 0.046, PCLOSE = 0.710.
The results confirmed most of our hypotheses. However, only Compe-
tence and Identified Regulation were significant predictors of L2 Achieve-
ment. Neither WTC nor Intrinsic Motivation could predict it. The
exploratory path from Teacher Emotional Support to Competence was
negative. One explanation may be that the social dimensions of a class-
room that promote emotional well-being are incongruent with these L2
students' perceptions of competence stemming from social comparison
and normative criteria (i.e., test scores as a measure of L2 achievement),
particularly if those individuals define competence as the superiority of
their ability in relation to their classmates (e.g., Pintrich, Conley, &
Kempler, 2003; Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011). Still, this find-
ing and its interpretation remain tentative, and might be specific to this
Asian context. Therefore, we are cautious not to over-interpret it.
Competence also predicted WTC and L2 Achievement directly. This
indicates that Competence predicts these two variables over and above
its shared variance with the other two indicators of Basic Psychological
Needs. This is not surprising considering the role that perceived compe-
tence plays in human motivation and performance, which has been
established experimentally (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1997). What might
have also contributed to this direct path is the fact that Competence
had the lowest loading on Basic Psychological Needs (see also Fig. 4),
suggesting that some of its variance is not captured by this latent vari-
able. This also explains the relatively low AVE value reported in Table 1.
We then tested the competing model, in which the effect of Basic
Psychological Needs and Self-Determined Motivation is mediated by
perception of the Classroom Social Climate (see Fig. 2). The competing
model (AIC = 473.256, BIC = 642.796) fit less well than the primary
model (AIC = 286.373, BIC = 471.685). This suggests that the first
model (Fig. 3) better accounts for the empirical data.
The best fitting model was then reanalyzed after controlling for Prior
L2 Achievement (Fig. 4). This model had a good fit, χ2(117) = 217.105,
p b 0.001, χ2/df = 1.856, CFI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.047, PCLOSE = 0.654.
As for the first outcome, WTC, the results showed that neither perceived
Competence nor actual Prior L2 Achievement could predict it directly.
Instead, WTC was most strongly predicted by Basic Psychological
Needs (one of which is Competence). Additionally, WTC was predicted
only weakly by Intrinsic Motivation and Identified Regulation. As for the
138 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144

IM1 IM2 IM3 IM4 IM5

.81***
.80*** .69***
.88*** .66***

Intrinsic
Motivation Strangers Acquaint Friends
.07
.96*** .96***

.97***
Classroom –.03
Mutual .61***
Respect .86***

Teacher Classroom .55*** Basic .39***

Academic Social Psychological Willingness to
Support .92*** Climate Needs Communicate

Teacher .83***
Emotional .71*** .65***
Support .10†
.37***
.03
.68***
–.33***

Competence
Relatedness

.41***
Autonomy

L2 Achievement

.13*
.12*

Identified
Regulation

.95*** .54***

IR2 IR1

Fig. 3. Results of the final model without controlling for prior achievement. Error terms and their covariances were omitted for simplicity. The full model is in Appendix B. Note. †p b 10,
*p b 0.05, ***p b 0.001.

second outcome variable, L2 Achievement, adding Prior L2 Achievement 5. Discussion

to the model resulted in that no variable was now able to predict Final
L2 Achievement except Competence, and only very weakly. Prior 5.1. Revisiting our hypotheses
Achievement alone accounted for about 65.6% of the variance (directly
and indirectly; see Table 2), thus leaving just under 35% of the variance From its beginnings, L2 WTC has been conceptualized as a “complex
potentially explainable by the other variables. Competence explained system” of sorts (MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547), and the overall purpose
only 0.5% of this variance. A more detailed comparison of the coeffi- of this study was to examine empirically the relationships between the
cients before and after controlling for Prior L2 Achievement is presented contextual and psychological factors that might influence L2 learners'
in Table 3. WTC and achievement in a formal classroom setting. To this end, we

IM1 IM2 IM3 IM4 IM5

.88*** .79*** .69***
.80***
Prior L2 Achievement .12* .65***
.04
.78***
.11*
.34*** .21*** Intrinsic
Motivation
.07 Strangers Acquaint Friends

.96*** .96***
–.03 .97***
Classroom .58***
Mutual
Respect .86***

Teacher Classroom .55*** Basic .39***

Academic Social Psychological Willingness to
Support .91*** Climate Needs Communicate

Teacher .83***
Emotional .09
Support .71*** .51***
.00
–.26*** .68*** .33***
Competence
Relatedness
Autonomy

.07* Final L2 Achievement

.13*

.05

Identified
Regulation

.96*** .54***

IR2 IR1

Fig. 4. Results of the final model after controlling for prior achievement. Error terms and their covariances were omitted for simplicity. The full model is in Appendix B. Note. *p b 0.05,
***p b 0.001.
 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144 139

Table 2
Standardized direct, indirect and total effects on the two primary outcome variables.

WTC Final Achievement

Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

Prior achievement 0.04 0.16⁎⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎⁎ 0.78⁎⁎⁎ 0.03⁎ 0.81⁎⁎⁎

Classroom social climate 0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.26⁎⁎⁎ –0.003 –0.003
Teacher emotional support –0.02 –0.02 0.02⁎ 0.02⁎
Basic psychological needs 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.13⁎ 0.51⁎⁎⁎ –0.02 –0.02
Competence 0.09 0.09 0.07⁎ 0.00 0.07⁎
Identified regulation 0.13⁎ 0.13⁎ 0.05 0.00 0.05
Intrinsic motivation 0.07 0.07 –0.05 0.00 –0.05
Willingness to communicate 0.003 0.003

Note. Indirect effects were computed for each of 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Significance was tested based on the 95% confidence interval.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎⁎ p ≤ 0.001.

set out to integrate a number of frameworks (see Fig. 1) in an attempt to
account for how contextual factors affect the quality of individuals' mo-
tivation and in turn positively influence instructed L2 learners' WTC and
achievement. Our overarching goal, represented in the integrated
model in Fig. 3, has been to investigate the extent to which the social
context of the L2 classroom functions as a key factor in determining
the quality of student motivation, thus contributing to WTC and success
in L2 learning more broadly.
Consistent with our first hypothesis, our main findings indicate that
the classroom social climate was a significant predictor of learners' basic
psychological needs. These results illustrate how context is an empiri-
cally relevant frame of reference for the study of individual factors in
the field. Furthermore, they add support for the idea that students' per-
ceptions that their teacher cares about their learning and is invested in
their well-being and success, on the one hand, and their feelings of sup-
port, caring, and encouragement from peers, on the other, will promote
the necessary need satisfaction (Patrick et al., 2011). In fact, classroom
situations in which individuals feel under-valued, overly constrained,
or threatened are likely to elicit defensive or aggressive student reac-
tions. Dimensions of the social climate of the classroom that build relat-
edness may include learners' feelings of affiliation, group cohesion, and
fair and positive interactions. A predictable learning environment fea-
turing moderately challenging tasks, necessary instructional support,
and regular experiences of success are likely to promote a sense of com-
petence. Furthermore, transparency, and the potential for choice over
learning tasks, teams, and techniques that learners are involved in will
engender autonomy. Our model also indicated that teacher emotional
support predicted competence negatively; however, this result remains
tentative as it is based on an exploratory path.
With regards to our second hypothesis, need satisfaction in the L2
classroom was significantly related to self-determined forms of motiva-
tion, and in addition to this our model confirmed that basic psycholog-
ical needs contribute positively to learners' WTC. As with the previous
hypothesis, the strength of these effects remained virtually unchanged
before and after controlling for prior L2 achievement. The finding that
satisfaction of basic psychological needs has a powerful direct influence
on WTC may be a result of individuals' greater engagement, well-being,
and self-endorsement that are precursors to agentically committing
oneself to volitional action such as L2 communication. Need frustration,
conversely, has been found to have the opposite effect on WTC in
instructed L2 settings (Cao, 2011).
However, although we hypothesized that intrinsic motivation would
better predict learners' WTC, we found evidence for a stronger link from
identified regulation instead. These results, whose implications we dis-
cuss at length below, provide support for what Noels (2009) refers to as
the somewhat counterintuitive superiority of identified regulation in
certain contexts or with certain activities, and confirms a point made
previously that due to its close association with investment of effort
and persistence, identified regulation may better predict the successful
regulation of behaviors that are highly valued socially but not necessar-
ily fun—including, for instance, classroom L2 learning. This illustrates
that the characteristics and salience of social contexts, including the

Table 3
Standardized and unstandardized coefficients, standard errors, and critical ratios for the two final models.

Path β B SE CR

Classroom social climate → Basic psychological needs 0.55 (0.54) 0.446 (0.434) 0.052 (0.051) 8.619⁎⁎⁎ (8.441⁎⁎⁎)
Teacher emotional support → Competence –0.33 (−0.26) –0.383 (−0.296) 0.064 (0.059) 5.961⁎⁎⁎ (5.034⁎⁎⁎)
Basic psychological needs → Intrinsic motivation 0.61 (0.58) 0.949 (0.886) 0.109 (0.110) 8.708⁎⁎⁎ (8.060⁎⁎⁎)
Identified regulation 0.37 (0.33) 0.352 (0.315) 0.082 (0.080) 4.305⁎⁎⁎ (3.953⁎⁎⁎)
WTC 0.39 (0.39) 0.555 (0.545) 0.127 (0.123) 4.360⁎⁎⁎ (4.449⁎⁎⁎)
Competence → WTC 0.10 (0.09) 0.094 (0.084) 0.052 (0.055) 1.814† (1.535)
Final L2 achievement 0.41 (0.07) 0.412 (0.075) 0.050 (0.036) 8.186⁎⁎⁎ (2.103⁎)
Intrinsic motivation → WTC 0.07 (0.07) 0.068 (0.061) 0.900 (0.067) 0.368 (0.907⁎)
Final L2 achievement –0.03 (−0.05) –0.028 (−0.053) 0.062 (0.040) 0.457 (1.332)
Identified regulation → WTC 0.13 (0.13) 0.197 (0.194) 0.084 (0.084) 2.342⁎ (2.301⁎)
Final L2 achievement 0.12 (0.05) 0.193 (0.074) 0.094 (0.060) 2.060⁎ (1.239)
WTC → Final L2 achievement 0.03 (0.00) 0.033 (0.003) 0.058 (0.038) 0.561 (0.082)
Prior L2 achievement → Intrinsic motivation (0.12) (0.113) (0.050) (2.249⁎)
WTC (0.04) (0.040) (0.047) (0.868)
Final L2 achievement (0.78) (0.763) (0.033) (23.180⁎⁎⁎)
Identified regulation (0.11) (0.068) (0.034) (1.989⁎)
Basic psychological needs (0.21) (0.136) (0.037) (3.712⁎⁎⁎)
Competence (0.34) (0.326) (0.045) (7.306⁎⁎⁎)

Note. Values outside brackets are for the model before controlling for prior L2 achievement (i.e., Fig. 3) while values inside brackets are for the model that controls for prior L2 achievement
(Fig. 4).
†
p b 0.10.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001
140 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144
need satisfaction they promote, can either nurture or hinder students'
growth-oriented propensities and relate strongly to their motivation
and learning outcomes (Carreira, 2012).
Turning to our more detailed hypotheses, we did not find support for
the hypothesis that perceived competence would contribute positively
to WTC. This result is inconsistent with some previous WTC research
(Peng & Woodrow, 2010), but suggests that it may not be competence
per se that facilitates WTC but satisfaction of basic psychological needs
more generally. In addition, there is evidence that learners often fail to
interact in the L2 despite their ability to do so (MacIntyre & Doucette,
2010). It is also possible that individuals' appraisals of their WTC may
not adequately reflect the situated and dynamic nature of this volition
to communicate. Because WTC is a volitional process that is inherently
social, there are real-time approach and avoidance tendencies that de-
pend much more on the social contexts and on psychological conditions
of those settings (Yashima, 2012). For instance, the level of anxiety and
perceived distance induced by the interactional setting may result in
lower volition to communicate on particular timescales. Thus, in the so-
cial setting of the secondary-level language classroom a focus on norma-
tive L2 assessment criteria may encourage detrimental comparisons of
competence and a common orientation of visibly outperforming others,
instead of encouraging development of skills and knowledge through
collaborative interaction in the L2 (Pae & Shin, 2011).
Finally, our results did not support the claim that L2 learners with
higher WTC perform better in formal educational settings, even before
controlling for prior achievement level. Instead, our model indicated
that WTC did not exert an influence on final L2 achievement. This may
be because having higher levels of WTC does not automatically lead to ac-
tual opportunities to communicate in the L2—something which would be
required for any language development to occur through interaction.
Therefore, in addition to consideration of the “probability of initiating
communication given choice and opportunity” (MacIntyre, 2007, p.
567) in classroom settings, WTC needs to be accompanied by consider-
ation of the amount and nature of actual opportunities to use the lan-
guage, particularly as these are the mechanisms thought to spur L2
development. In combination, these results could be interpreted in light
of broader moves in psychology and the learning sciences to view thought
processes and action as a convergence of both the person and the environ-
ment. Our findings that WTC and L2 achievement are determined both in-
dividually (i.e., through basic psychological needs and self-determined
motivation) as well as situationally (i.e., through the indirect influence
of classroom social climate) are consistent with the critical nature that sit-
uational aspects are now understood to represent in WTC in L2 instruc-
tional settings, in some instances even directly predicting this outcome.
We turn now to a more thematic discussion of our results, highlighting
what we see as key implications for L2 practitioners and researchers.
5.2. Implications
The first implication is concerned with learners' levels of autonomous
regulation. The results of our study provide some support for the superi-
ority of identified regulation over its intrinsic counterpart in this and sim-
ilar L2 contexts. We see this as a key implication for L2 classroom settings
characterized by a high-degree of structure and competitive assessments:
more self-determination may not necessarily lead to more successful out-
comes because students in formal school settings (i.e., classrooms where
L2 study is compulsory) generally do not exhibit greater autonomous
regulation, let alone specifically intrinsic motivation. Brophy (2009) has
proposed that “SDT would benefit from breaking free of the lingering
constraints of its original focus on intrinsic motivation” (p. 151), and
this has importance for formal instructional settings. Primarily, the
focus on intrinsic regulation is better suited to play or recreational activ-
ities, rather than work or learning activities, and in certain instances may
not involve a competence dimension at all. In L2 learning contexts, adap-
tively varying the degree of internalization depending on the task de-
mands, or complementing high levels of identified regulation with
intrinsic motivation may be necessary in order to reap the full benefits
of self-determined motivation. Furthermore, while previous research
has established that teachers' interpersonal styles can positively contrib-
ute to students' experience of self-determination (Jang et al., 2010), given
the constraints of most L2 instructional settings teachers are unlikely to
be able to create and maintain individualized enjoyable experiences for
the majority of their learners as a matter of routine. Thus, the primary
issue facing teachers may be related more to helping learners transition
from the more controlled types of regulation to identified or integrated
(i.e., autonomous) regulation than about fostering intrinsic motivation
per se (Wentzel & Brophy, 2014). For these reasons, we would suggest
that shifting attention from an exclusive focus on intrinsic motivation to
include other more productive forms of extrinsic regulation is likely to in-
crease the applicability and implications of these dimensions.
The second implication relates to the causality of contexts. It is clear that
in communicative situations that draw on one's WTC, individuals both op-
erate on, and are operated on, by the world (Ushioda, 2009). And, because
learning contexts afford members critical opportunities for participation in
valued social practices and outcomes (i.e., WTC and L2 achievement), our
investigation of the network of relationships of WTC in instructed settings
illustrates the interdependence between the classroom environment, the
individuals studied within that context, and the phenomena of interest
(Yashima, MacIntyre, & Ikeda, 2016). Indeed, as Nolen et al. (2015) pro-
pose, the analytic shift toward learners-in-context results in the realization
that learning processes (e.g., WTC) and outcomes (L2 achievement) come
about in a negotiated relationship with the social world. We would suggest
that this entails an ontological shift requiring a more sophisticated concep-
tualization of context than one of a monolithic essentialized, external vari-
able that suggests a simple, linear relationship. Contexts, such as L2
classroom environments, should be seen as “intrinsic, core, fundamental
parts” of individual motivated thought, action, and of important learning
outcomes (Mercer, 2016, p. 25). We see parallels in our current results
and the assumptions of a situative perspective—namely that actions, learn-
ing, and cognition are always situated. The main implication of this notion
for WTC is the focus on the co-constitutive nature of WTC and the class-
room context: Learning environments are shaped adaptively and relation-
ally through the actions and responses of individuals embedded in them,
and these reciprocally provide the necessary conditions for WTC to devel-
op. The results of our integrative framework with its various links indicate
that the personal is in fact situational and provide substantiating evidence
for this reticulated view of the individual and the contextual.
From a research methodological perspective, perhaps the most in-
triguing aspect of the present results is the effect of controlling prior
achievement. Just as most language motivation literature fails to test com-
peting models that might account for the data at least equally well—a
form of confirmation bias (Robles, 1996)—language motivation re-
searchers also do not routinely control for prior achievement when
attempting to predict future achievement. Worse, many studies have
used retrospective reports of prior achievement as the criterion
measure—a practice that leads to severe interpretational issues. Because
retrospective achievement precedes the motivation measure chronologi-
cally, it would be illogical to assume that this motivational variable was
helpful and contributed to achievement. Without adequate controls,
such as baseline achievement, researchers would be at risk of obtaining
spurious results. In our case, the initial model suggested that both per-
ceived competence and identified regulation predict final achievement.
After controlling for prior achievement, however, perceived competence
dropped drastically (from β = 0.41 to β = 0.07), while identified regula-
tion dropped to non-significance (cf. Table 3).Therefore, because re-
searchers in our field routinely fail to control for prior achievement, we
would not be surprised if it turns out that many of the observed signifi-
cant effects in the literature are mere statistical artifacts.
One possibility for why hardly any motivational variable could predict
achievement is that motivational variables need more time to have an ef-
fect. However, in our case there was a gap of about 10 months between
the two assessments, with the questionnaire administered in the middle
 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144 141

of this period. One would think that this is a sufficient duration for moti-
vational variables to exert their impact, especially in formal educational
settings where some stakeholders may find this too long to wait for inter-
ventions to have tangible effects. We propose calling the delay between
the implementation of an intervention and the emergence of its effects
the incubation period (following early psychotherapy tradition, e.g.,
Eysenck, 1968; Golin, 1961). We would encourage future research to
first of all control for prior achievement and test alternative models, but
also to more explicitly investigate this incubation period, as such temporal
awareness might shed some light on some conflicting results found in the
literature (cf. Dörnyei, 2003).
6. Conclusion
The purpose of this study has been to integrate the related theoreti-
cal frameworks of the classroom social climate, SDT, and L2 WTC. This
was achieved by examining whether the classroom social climate
would exert an effect on the satisfaction of learners' basic psychological
needs, thereby positively influencing the development of the more au-
tonomous forms of motivation which, in turn, would predict higher
levels of WTC and achievement. Our findings generally supported
these hypotheses. Two noteworthy findings were, first, that only com-
petence was a significant, though weak, predictor of L2 achievement,
and, second, that neither WTC nor intrinsic motivation nor identified
regulation exerted any effect on L2 achievement.
Several limitations exist with regards to our research methodology.
Our use of structural equation modeling implies causal relationships
among our constructs. Although this is actually the position expressed
in much of the existing literature reviewed above, these reports do not
typically substantiate their claims through experimental designs. Our
study intended to test whether hypothesized relationships between in-
dividual and situational factors for motivation and L2 achievement are
plausible given our empirical data, and further experimental research
is undoubtedly needed. Another potentially valuable avenue for future
research would be to investigate the reciprocal causality between self-
determined motivation, achievement, and WTC using longitudinal
modeling methods. Furthermore, we have said little about the temporal
stability of patterns of dynamic change that these individual and
contextual factors might show at much smaller scales of granularity.
Despite these limitations, by consolidating theoretical and empirical
insights in a structural model of the relationships between key indi-
vidual and situational factors, this study is expected to contribute to
current understanding and open potential avenues for continued ad-
vances in this domain. We believe that it is only through this type of
integrative study of L2 learners in context that the field can move
forward.

Appendix A. Questionnaire items

Teacher emotional support

Our English teacher respects our opinions.

Our English teacher really understands how we feel about things.
Our English teacher tries to help us when we are sad or upset.
We can count on our English teacher for help when we need it.

Teacher academic support

Our English teacher cares about how much we learn.

Our English teacher wants us to do our best in school.
Our English teacher likes to help us learn well.

Classroom mutual respect

My English teacher wants us to respect each other's opinions.

My English teacher wants all students to feel respected.
*My English teacher does not allow students to make fun of other students' ideas in class.
*My English teacher makes sure that students do not say anything negative about each other in class.
*My English teacher does not let us make fun of someone who gives the wrong answer.

Autonomy

I am willing to participate in English lessons.

I voluntarily speak during English lessons.
I voluntarily participate in English lessons in my own way.

Competence

I consider myself good at English.

I often consider myself bad at English. (reversed)
I fully understand what I have been taught in English lessons.

Relatedness

Everybody in the class enjoys English lessons.

I enjoy studying with teachers and classmates during English lessons.
* I learn cooperatively with classmates during English lessons.
142 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144

Identified regulation

I choose to be the kind of person who can speak more than one language.
I think learning English is good for my personal development.
*Speaking English is necessary for me to be who I want to be.

Intrinsic motivation

I experience pleasure in knowing more about English speakers as a group.

I get a satisfied feeling from finding out new things.
I experience pleasure when I surpass my previous performance in my language studies.
I experience a “high” feeling while speaking in the English language.
I get pleasure from hearing the English language spoken by native speakers.
*I experience enjoyment when I grasp a difficult concept in the second language.

Willingness to communicate with strangers

I would like to present a talk in English to a group of strangers.

I would like to talk in English in a small group of strangers.
I would like to talk in English with a stranger while standing in line.
I would like to talk in English in a large meeting of strangers.

Willingness to communicate with acquaintances

I would like to talk in English with an acquaintance while standing in line.

I would like to talk in English in a large meeting of acquaintances.
I would like to talk in English in a small group of acquaintances.
I would like to present a talk in English to a group of acquaintances.

Willingness to communicate with friends

I would like to talk in English in a large meeting of friends.

I would like to talk in English with a friend while standing in line.

Fig. B1. The full model without controlling for prior L2 achievement. †p b 0.10, *p b 0.05, ***p b 0.001.
 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144
Fig. B2. The full model after controlling for prior L2 achievement. *p b 0.05, ***p b 0.001.
I would like to present a talk in English to a group of friends.
I would like to talk in English to a small group of friends.
Note. All items were administered in Korean.
*Items with an asterisk were excluded following Mokken analysis
because they did not load on their respective constructs.
Appendix B. The full models
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2013). IBM® SPSS® Amos™ 22 user's guide. Meadville, PA: Amos Develop-
ment Corporation.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Batstone, R. (Ed.). (2010). Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language
learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Brophy, J. (2009). Connecting with the big picture. Educational Psychologist, 44, 147–157.
Burton, K., Lydon, J., D'Alessandro, D., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of in-
trinsic and identified motivation on wellbeing and performance: Prospective, exper-
imental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 91, 750–762.
Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second lan-
guage classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468–479.
Carreira, J. M. (2012). Motivational orientations and psychological needs in EFL learning
among elementary school students in Japan. System, 40, 191–202.
Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (2000). Autonomy and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
284–291.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuit: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialec-
tical perspective. In E. Deci, & R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research
(pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded
social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In E. Deci, & R. Ryan
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
143
Deci, E., Vallerand, R., Pelletier, L., & Ryan, R. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-
determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.
Deci, E., Ryan, R., Gagné, M., Leone, D., Usumov, J., & Kornazheva, B. (2001). Need satisfac-
tion, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc
country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.
Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning: Ad-
vances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53, 3–32.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Eysenck, H. J. (1968). A theory of the incubation of anxiety/fear responses. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 6, 309–321.
Fallah, N. (2014). Willingness to communicate in English, communication self-confidence,
motivation, shyness and teacher immediacy among Iranian English-major under-
graduates: A structural equation modeling approach. Learning and Individual
Differences, 30, 141–147.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Golin, S. (1961). Incubation effect: Role of awareness in an immediate versus delayed
test of conditioned emotionality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63,
534–539.
Greeno, S. (2015). Commentary: Some prospects for connecting concepts and methods of
individual cognition and of situativity. Educational Psychologist, 50, 248–251.
Gregersen, T., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). Capitalizing on language learners' individuality:
From premise to practice. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what
underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically-oriented
South Korean adolescents? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644–661.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not au-
tonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 588–600.
Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emo-
tional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79, 491–525.
Kang, S. -J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a
second language. System, 33, 277–292.
Khajavy, G. H., Ghonsooly, B., Hosseini Fatemi, A., & Choi, C. (2016). Willingness to com-
municate in English: A microsystem model in the Iranian EFL classroom context.
TESOL Quarterly, 50, 154–180.
144 H.-K. Joe et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 53 (2017) 133–144
Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.
Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language
Teaching, 41, 389–408.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Saying what we mean: Making a case for ‘language acquisi-
tion’ to become ‘language development’. Language Teaching, 48, 491–505.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Under-
standing the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal,
91, 564–576.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control.
System, 38, 161–171.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to com-
municate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect.
Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willing-
ness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation.
The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Sex and age effects on will-
ingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among
junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 53, 137–166.
Mercer, S. (2016). The contexts within me: L2 self as a complex dynamic system. In J. King
(Ed.), The dynamic interplay between context and the language learner (pp. 11–28).
Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Molenaar, I. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2000). MSP5 for windows: A program for Mokken scale anal-
ysis for polytomous items (version 5.0). Groningen, The Netherlands: ProGAMMA.
Noels, K. A. (2001). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners' orientations and
perceptions of their teachers' communication style. Language Learning, 51, 107–144.
Noels, K. A. (2009). The internalization of language learning into the self and social iden-
tity. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 295–313). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Noels, K. A., & Giles, H. (2009). Social identity and language learning. In W. C. Ritchie, & T.
K. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 647–670).
London, England: Emerald.
Noels, K. A., Clément, R., & Pelletier, L. (1999). Perceptions of teachers' communicative
style and students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal,
83, 23–34.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. (2000). Why are you learning a sec-
ond language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language
Learning, 50, 57–85.
Nolen, S., Horn, I., & Ward, J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educational Psychologist, 50,
234–247.
Öz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners in
Turkish context. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269–275.
Pae, T. (2008). Second language orientation and self-determination theory: A structural
analysis of the factors affecting second language achievement. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 27, 3–27.
Pae, T. (2011). A study on the structural model of willingness to communicate in the L2.
English Teaching, 66, 307–327.
Pae, T., & Shin, S. -K. (2011). Examining the effects of differential instructional methods on
the model of foreign language achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 21,
215–222.
Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. (2005). Identifying adaptive classrooms: Dimensions of the class-
room social environment. In K. A. Moore, & L. H. Lippman (Eds.), What do children
need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development
(pp. 271–287). New York, NY: Springer.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom
social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99, 83–98.
Patrick, H., Kaplan, A., & Ryan, A. (2011). Positive classroom motivational environments:
Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103, 367–382.
Peng, J. (2014). Willingness to communicate in the Chinese EFL university classroom: An eco-
logical perspective. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Peng, J., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the
Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834–876.
Philp, J., & Duchesne, S. (2016). Exploring engagement in tasks in the language classroom.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 50–72.
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
Pintrich, P., Conley, A., & Kempler, T. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory
and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319–337.
Ratelle, C., Guay, F., Vallerand, R., Larose, S., & Senècal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled,
and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 734–746.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. Deci, & R.
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy dur-
ing a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218.
Robles, J. (1996). Confirmation bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3, 73–83.
Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adoles-
cents' motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38, 437–460.
Senko, C., Hulleman, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the cross-
roads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational
Psychologist, 46, 26–47.
Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations
management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations
Management, 24, 148–169.
Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2013). School goal structure: Associations with students' per-
ceptions of their teachers as emotionally supportive, academic self-concept, intrinsic
motivation, effort, and help seeking behavior. International Journal of Educational
Research, 61, 5–14.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and
identity. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 215–228). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
van der Eijk, C., & Rose, J. (2015). Risky business: Factor analysis of survey data –
Assessing the probability of incorrect dimensionalisation. PLoS One, 10(3), e0118900.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspec-
tive. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Wedell, M., & Malderez, A. (2013). Understanding language classroom contexts. London,
England: Bloomsbury.
Wentzel, K. (2012). Socio-cultural contexts, social competence, and engagement at
school. In S. L. Christenson, R. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on
student engagement (pp. 479–488). New York, NY: Springer.
Wentzel, K., & Brophy, J. (2014). Motivating students to learn (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Yashima, T. (2012). Willingness to communicate: Momentary volition that results in L2
behavior. In S. Mercer, M. Williams, & S. Ryan (Eds.), Psychology for language learning:
Insights from research, theory and practice (pp. 119–135). Basingstoke, England:
Palgrave.
Yashima, T., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008). The impact of learning contexts on proficiency,
attitudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined international community.
System, 36, 566–585.
Yashima, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Ikeda, M. (2016). Situated willingness to communicate in
an L2: Interplay of individual characteristics and context. Language Teaching Research.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168816657851 (Advance Online Access).