System 72 (2018) 178e189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

L2 Motivational Self System, international posture and

competitiveness of Korean CTL and LCTL college learners: A
structural equation modeling approach
Ji Hyun Kong a, Jeong Eun Han b, Sungjo Kim c, Hunil Park d, Yong Suk Kim e,
Hyunjoo Park f, *
a
Arabic Department, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 107, Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea
b
Department of Chinese Interpretation and Translation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 107, Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul,
South Korea
c
Institute of Language Research and Education, Yonsei University, 50, Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea
d
English Department, Cyber Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, 107, Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, South Korea
e
School of Liberal Arts, Korea University of Technology and Education, Gajeon-ri, Byeongcheon-myeon, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si,
Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea
f
Department of English Language and Literature, Hongik University, 94, Wausan-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul, South Korea

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

Article history: The present study compares L2 learning motivation between commonly taught language
Received 18 July 2016 (CTL) and less commonly taught language (LCTL) learners in university settings in South
Received in revised form 20 November 2017 Korea, mainly focusing on Do € rnyei's (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System. A total of
Accepted 23 November 2017
1296 Korean college students, including 638 CTL and 658 LCTL learners, participated in a
Available online 4 January 2018
questionnaire survey, and the main analysis method was a multi-group structural equation
model (SEM). The results support the validity of Do € rnyei's L2 Motivational Self System in
Keywords:
comparing and explaining Korean CTL and LCTL learners' motivation. For both CTL and
L2 Motivational Self System
International posture
LCTL groups, L2 learning attitude appeared as the most influential factor influencing
Competitiveness learners' intended effort, followed by the ideal L2 self. The impact of the ought-to L2 self on
CTL/LCTL L2 learning effort was relatively low. Two variables, international posture and competi-
Korean socio-educational context tiveness, which were assumed to be influenced by the Korean socio-educational context,
were also observed in the SEM analysis. More specifically, their impact on the ideal L2 self,
L2 learning attitude, and the ought-to L2 self were compared between CTL and LCTL
groups. This comparison revealed the differing patterns of relationships among the vari-
ables between the two groups. This study provides pedagogical implications based on
these key findings.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In studies on the acquisition of a second language, such languages (L2) are often classified into commonly taught lan-
guages (CTLs) and less commonly taught languages (LCTLs) (Brown, 2009). A few comparative studies have been conducted to

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zahiya@hanmail.net (J.H. Kong), amoremio11@hanmail.net (J.E. Han), sungjo@yonsei.ac.kr (S. Kim), phunil@gmail.com (H. Park),
yongkim@koreatech.ac.kr (Y.S. Kim), hyunjoopark21@gmail.com (H. Park).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.11.005
0346-251X/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189 179

explore CTL and LCTL learners' motivation, identifying different motivational patterns between the two groups. Nevertheless,
previous L2 motivational studies have been mainly conducted with CTL learners, leaving LCTL learners' motivation as an
understudied area.
Do€rnyei's L2 Motivational Self System, which is considered a valid tool in explaining complex and multi-faceted L2
learners' motivation, has been tested on language learners, but with only a few exceptions (e.g., Xie, 2014), has been limited to
CTL learners. To overcome this imbalance and investigate its applicability to LCTL learners in addition to CTL learners, this
study compares the two groups' motivation using a multi-group structural equation modeling (SEM) in the framework of
Do€rnyei's System. It does so specifically by examining university students in South Korea (henceforth, Korea) learning CTLs
(English and Chinese) and LCTLs (Spanish and Arabic) as their L2.
It is a nation's educational policy and political, economic, and social situations that determine which languages are
classified as CTLs or LCTLs (Gor & Vatz, 2009). It therefore seems reasonable to pay attention to contextual variables that
strongly influence CTL and LCTL learners' motivation. Keeping this in mind, the present study has included two extra vari-
ables, international posture and competitiveness, in addition to the three key components of Do €rnyei's L2 Motivational Self
System. These two variables are expected to capture the prevailing socio-educational conditions in Korea and to provide
pedagogical implications specific to the two groups.

2. Literature review

2.1. CTLs and LCTLs in L2 education

The concept of CTLs and LCTLs exists globally, though there is no firm consensus among scholars regarding how to strictly
classify them. Various criteria have been adopted to determine whether an L2 should be considered a CTL or LCTL. In Magnan,
Murphy, and Sahakyan (2014), the classification criterion was whether they are taught at high schools, while Godwin (2013)
categorised them based on whether L2 learners have easy access to L2 learning opportunities at colleges. Brecht and Walton
(1994) used the number of L2 learners at educational institutions as a criterion and established more detailed LCTL sub-
categories such as principal less commonly taught languages, much less commonly taught languages, least commonly taught
languages, and rarely taught languages. As has been the case with these previous studies, generally accepted criteria in
classifying L2s into CTLs and LCTLs include the availability of or access to L2 learning opportunities and the number of L2
learners.
A few studies have been conducted to compare CTL and LCTL learners' L2 motivation and learner characteristics (e.g., Bao &
Lee, 2012; Brown, 2009; Magnan et al., 2014). Brown (2009) investigated students enrolled in 83 beginner level courses for 9
languages at a large American university and revealed that, while CTL learners showed high levels of short-term, extrinsic
motivation, LCTL learners' motivation tended to be long-term and intrinsic. Bao and Lee (2012) found lower anxiety, higher
integrativeness, and more positive attitudes toward the learning environment among LCTL learners compared to CTL learners.
Magnan et al. (2014) compared CTL and LCTL learners enrolled in 31 language courses at 11 American universities and found
that LCTL learners were more motivated in their L2 learning than CTL learners. Moreover, it was revealed that sociopolitical,
economic, historical, and geographical contexts of the L2 influenced the learners' motivation. These studies have collectively
identified motivational differences between CTL and LCTL groups, suggesting a need to develop and apply educational ap-
proaches tailored to the different motivational characteristics of each group.

2.2. L2 Motivational Self System

Early studies on L2 motivation actively investigated L2 learners' integrativeness, the key concept of Gardner's (1985) socio-
educational model. However, this concept of integrativeness has been challenged by L2 motivation researchers (e.g., Do €rnyei,
2005, 2009; Lamb, 2004), who argued that it cannot fully explain complex and context-dependent characteristics of L2
motivation, especially failing to address an ever-diversifying L2 learning environment and emerging global English. In order
to determine an alternative approach ensuring a better understanding of L2 learners' motivation, Do €rnyei (2005, 2009)
proposed the L2 Motivational Self System, which consists of three key components: the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self,
and L2 learning experience or attitude.
The ideal L2 self refers to a positive future image of the L2 self. For example, learners who have developed a vivid ideal L2
self are likely to endeavour to learn an L2 by imagining themselves communicating fluently using the L2 in the future. On the
other hand, the ought-to L2 self is a passive self, imposed by external factors; in this case, learners learn an L2 in order to avoid
possible negative outcomes from learning failure or to merely satisfy expectations of important people in their lives, including
their parents. L2 learning experience is related to the learners' environment including teachers, peer groups, curriculum, and
their attitudes toward L2 learning.
Since the L2 Motivational Self System was proposed, there have been multiple empirical investigations on the framework
r & Kormos, 2009; Islam, Lamb, & Chambers, 2013; Kang, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2014; Kormos & Cisze
(e.g., Csize r, 2008; Kormos,
Kiddle, & Csize r, 2011; Lee & Ahn, 2013; Magid, 2009; Papi, 2010; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009; Xie, 2014; Yashima, 2009).
Those studies have confirmed its effectiveness in explaining L2 learners' motivation in various contexts. The impact of each of
the three key components on learners' intended effort or motivated behaviour in L2 learning can be summarised as follows.
180 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189

1) Ideal L2 self: An array of studies have reported significantly higher impact of the ideal L2 self on effort than the ought-to L2
r & Kormos, 2009; Kim & Kim, 2014; Kormos et al., 2011; Lee & Ahn, 2013; Magid, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009; Xie,
self (Csize
2014).
2) Ought-to L2 self: Some studies revealed that the impact of the ought-to L2 self on effort was insignificant (Kormos et al.,
2011), or negative (Lee & Ahn, 2013), while others have found it positive but relatively low (Csize r & Kormos, 2009; Magid,
2009; Papi, 2010).
3) L2 learning experience or attitude: All of the aforementioned studies have reported the positive impact of attitude on
r and Kormos (2009), Kang (2014), Papi (2010), Islam et al. (2013), and Taguchi et al. (2009) showed that
effort. Csize
attitude, among the three key components, had the largest impact on effort.

2.3. International posture

International posture is a notion developed by Yashima (2002, 2009) ‘to capture a tendency to relate oneself to the in-
ternational community rather than any specific L2 group’ (Yashima, 2009, p. 145). The key characteristics of international
posture are described as an interest in global issues or international affairs, a willingness to travel, stay, or work abroad, and a
readiness to interact with foreigners or foreign cultures.
A majority of the previous studies that explored the relationships between the three components of Do € rnyei's System and
international posture reported that the ideal L2 self was highly related to international posture (Csize r & Kormos, 2009; Kim
& Lee, 2015; Kormos & Cisze r, 2008; Kormos et al., 2011; Lee & Ahn, 2013; Magid, 2009; Xie, 2014; Yashima, 2009). As for the
ought-to L2 self, while it was found not to correlate with international posture in some studies (Csize r & Kormos, 2009;
Kormos et al., 2011), it exhibited a weak correlation with international posture in others (Kim & Lee, 2015; Lee & Ahn, 2013).
Though the concept of international posture was originated to explain the motivation of learners of English (Yashima,
2002, 2009), Siridetkoon (2015) discovered that the relationship between international posture and motivation was not
limited to English only, but that international posture was significantly linked to motivation to learn Chinese and Korean. She
argued that learners of L2s other than English would be able ‘to obtain intercultural orientation and have future self-image in
imagined international community’ (p. 182) through learning their L2s. Her research opened the applicability of international
posture to learners of foreign languages other than English.

2.4. Competitiveness

Bailey (1983) defines competitiveness as ‘the desire to excel in comparison to others’ (p. 96) and contends that a learner
constantly compares oneself with one's idealised self-image or with other learners, feels pressured to out-do other students,
and shows a tendency to be preoccupied with tests or scores. According to Yan and Horwitz (2008), while competition acts as
either a facilitating or debilitating factor, learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) may experience a decrease in their
motivation due to excessive pressure from competition. Bailey also considers competitiveness a source of anxiety. Language
classroom anxiety can be caused and aggravated by learners' competitiveness when they perceive themselves as less pro-
ficient than other classmates (Long, 1979).
Competitiveness has been highlighted as a key factor reflecting L2 learning environment in Korea (Kim, 2006, 2010). Kim
considers competitive motivation to be different from instrumental motivation as the former presupposes peers or classmates
against whom L2 learners compete. The competitive motivation factor indicates that students learn foreign languages
because of their desire to occupy a better social position than their peers. This is because, in the Korean context, foreign
languages are generally considered to be a tool for climbing the social ladder, and this causes intense competition among
Korean students. As for its relationship with L2 proficiency, competitive motivation was not significantly correlated with
English proficiency test scores in Kim (2006). In Kim (2010), competitiveness was similarly not a significant predictor for
English achievement. Accordingly, he suggested that, even though competitive motivation is prevalent among Korean stu-
dents, this type of motivation may not play a facilitating role in EFL learning in Korea.

3. The study

3.1. Korean context

Korea, a focus of this study, is a monolingual society; Koreans learn the Korean language as their native tongue (Lee, 1997).
Since the mid-1960s, Korea has pushed forward export-driven economic development policies. This government policy has
made foreign languages important sources of economic development, with globalisation taking its roots firmly as a dominant
form of national discourse in Korean society (Cho, 2013).
As globalisation progresses, Koreans' contacts with foreigners and foreign cultures have increased significantly. The
number of Korean travellers who went overseas for travel increased by about 14 times since 19901 (The Ministry of Culture,

1
Data available from the first year after the government allowed Koreans to travel overseas.
 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189 181

Fig. 1. Hypothesised model.

Sports and Tourism, 2016). At the same time, foreign expatriates registered in the Korean census have soared by over 10 times
over the last two decades (Statistics Korea, 2015). Increased exposure to foreigners and foreign cultures has enhanced Ko-
reans' genuine interest in global affairs, openness to other cultures, and readiness to stay or work in other countries. In the
21st century, which has been mainly characterised by accelerating global competition, Korean college students aspire to
become competent global players by acquiring advanced knowledge and technologies from abroad using foreign languages.
At the same time, ‘credentialism’ has been prevalent in the Korean society (Yoon, 2011), propagating the general
perception among Koreans that better academic performances in a competitive peer group can ensure success in lives and
careers. This has led to enormous competition on college entrance exams, of which foreign language subjects are critical. For
example, Kim (2006) argues that there is intense competition among Koreans to enter prestigious universities by earning
good grades in L2, which has been revealed as a unique motivational factor in Korea.
In this Korean socio-educational context, the two variables, international posture and competitiveness, are expected to
strongly influence Korean L2 learners' motivation. In a quasi-longitudinal study, Kim and Kim (2016) reported that both
international posture and competitiveness had been continuously observed in L2 learners over an extended period of time.
However, these two variables have been mainly researched in CTL learners, especially focusing on English learners. We expect
that this study on LCTL learners, along with CTL learners, will provide some distinct results and important implications.

3.2. CTLs and LCTLs in the study

Given that the availability of L2 learning opportunities is a key criterion for classifying L2s into CTLs and LCTLs, this study
designated English and Chinese as CTLs and Spanish and Arabic as LCTLs based on the number of universities with established
L2 or L2-related departments. As of 2014,2 there were 224 universities with English language or related departments, which
attests to the formidable status of English as a representative foreign language in Korea. Along with English, Chinese is
emerging as an important CTL, as the number of universities with Chinese language or related departments soared to 146 as of
2014. On the other hand, there were only 18 universities with Spanish or related departments in 2014, and the number of
universities teaching Arabic stood at only 5 in the same year (Korea Educational Statistics Service, 2014).

3.3. Research questions and the initial hypothesised model

To compare the multi-dimensional L2 motivation of Korean CTL and LCTL learners and to validate the applicability of
Do€rnyei's L2 Motivational Self System to this population, the present study posed the following research questions:
1. Is ‘the L2 Motivational Self System’ a valid tool for understanding and explaining the L2 motivation of Korean CTL and
LCTL learners?
1-1 Which of the three motivational components of the L2 Motivational Self System best predicts the efforts of CTL and
LCTL learners?
1-2 Does the ideal L2 self better explain the efforts of CTL and LCTL learners than the ought-to L2 self?
2. How does the impact of international posture and competitiveness on the three motivational components of the L2
Motivational Self System differ between CTL and LCTL groups?
To answer these questions, a hypothesised model was developed (see Fig. 1). Based on the previous studies on the L2
Motivational Self System, this model was structured with three levels. International posture and competitiveness are posi-
tioned at the first level. Attitude, the ideal L2 self, and the ought-to L2 self are located on the joint level. The last level
comprises effort. In accordance with Do € rnyei's (2005) model and similar models presented in relevant studies (e.g., Magid,
2009; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009), the paths between the variables were hypothesised as follows. First, three ante-
cedent variables (attitude, the ideal L2 self, and the ought-to L2 self) were all linked to effort (i.e. attitude / effort, the ideal L2
self / effort, the ought-to L2 self / effort), and only previously validated paths were applied between the three antecedent
variables themselves (the ideal L2 self / attitude, the ought-to L2 self / attitude). Second, to investigate the impact of the

2
As of 2014, there were 189 four-year universities nationwide. Some universities run more than one English language or related department.
182 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189

two variables (international posture and competitiveness) on attitude, the ideal L2 self, and the ought-to L2 self, the two first-
level variables were then linked to all of the three joint-level variables.

4. Method

4.1. Participants

A total of 1296 students, 638 CTL (English and Chinese) and 658 LCTL (Spanish and Arabic) learners, participated in this
study. The participants, from freshmen to seniors, were enrolled in 11 universities located in Seoul and its surrounding
metropolitan area. Among them, 856 students were female and 440 were male. As shown in Table 1, the participants' mean
age was 22.94 years for the CTL group and 21.31 years for the LCTL group. In terms of L2 distribution among the participants,
361 were English learners, 277 Chinese learners, 257 Spanish learners, and 401 Arabic learners. Among the 638 CTL learners,
495 (77.6%) were learning the L2 as their college major, and among the 658 LCTL learners, 353 (53.6%) were L2 majors.

4.2. Instruments

For the present study, a 37-item questionnaire was developed (see Appendix). The first part of the questionnaire consists
of four questions on the participants' background information (i.e. gender, age, college year, and academic major), and the
second part contains 33 items on learners' motivation and attitudes towards L2 learning. In designing the questionnaire,
international posture was adopted from Yashima (2002), competitiveness from Kim (2010), and the remaining four factors
from Taguchi et al. (2009). A five-point Likert scale was used, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree).
Table 2 shows the number of items and internal reliability for each factor before and after the item deletion.

4.3. Procedure

The questionnaire was translated into Korean and piloted with ten college students. In addition, the ten students were
asked whether there were any confusing expressions or problematic items. Based on the students' feedback, some prob-
lematic items were reworded. From April to June 2015, the researchers in this study administered the final version of the
questionnaire to the students that were registered in the courses they were teaching. In addition, hard copies of the ques-
tionnaire were personally delivered to lecturers of 11 colleges, who then administered it during their classes and returned the
completed questionnaires to the researchers.

Table 1
Profile of respondents.

English (CTL) (%) Chinese Spanish Arabic CTL LCTL

(CTL) (%) (LCTL) (LCTL) (%) (%) (%)
(%)
N of respondents 361 277 257 401 638 658
Gender Male 133 (36.8) 74 (26.7) 53 (20.6) 180 (44.9) 207 (32.4) 233 (35.4)
Female 228 (63.2) 203 (73.3) 204 (79.4) 221 (55.1) 431 (67.6) 425 (64.6)
Age (years) 23.21 22.60 19.60 22.46 22.94 21.31
Major Yes 245 (67.9) 250 (90.3) 69 (26.8) 284 (70.8) 495 (77.6) 353 (53.6)
No 116 (32.1) 25 (9.0) 188 (73.2) 113 (28.2) 141 (23.1) 301 (45.7)
No answer 0 (0) 2 (0.7) 0 (0) 4 (1.0) 2 (0.3) 4 (0.7)

Note. Unit: N of respondents.

Table 2
Variables with Cronbach alpha coefficients.

Variables Before item deletion After item deletion

N of Item Cronbach's a N of Item Cronbach's a

Ideal L2 self 4 0.926 4 0.926
Ought-to L2 self 7 0.844 5 0.829
International posture 6 0.551 3 0.818
Competitiveness 6 0.834 4 0.843
Attitude 4 0.813 3 0.845
Effort 6 0.827 2 0.718
 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189 183

4.4. Data analysis

The quantitative data were processed using SPSS 18.0 and AMOS 18.0 for the SEM analysis. SEM provides a dependable
framework that allows researchers to analyse latent variables by relating them with observed variables. It also enables path
analysis, which allows researchers to investigate relationships between the latent variables. As our dataset had two sets of
samples (i.e. CTL and LCTL groups), we conducted multi-group SEM with maximum likelihood estimation. We set out by using
all the observed variables in Table 2 and eliminated the ones with factor loadings below 0.5 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &
Tatham, 2006). Then, using the modification indices provided by AMOS, covariances between error terms, which were sig-
nificant at the 0.05 level, were added to the final model.

5. Results

The construct reliability indicates how well a latent variable is reflected by its observed variables. As can be seen in Table 3,
all the construct reliability values in this study were above the 0.7 level.
The goodness-of-fit indices in SEM reflect whether the model being analysed is acceptable for explaining the current data.
As each index has its limitations, recommendations are to use a range of indices from different classes. In this study, we
analysed all three classes of fit indices including the absolute fit indices, the incremental fit indices, and the parsimonious fit
indices, as presented in Table 4.
Concerning the absolute fit indices, although the chi square to df ratio was over the acceptable value of 3 (Carmines &
McIver, 1981), the SRMR and RMSEA values were below 0.08 and 0.06, respectively, and regarded as acceptable levels
(Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, GFI was above 0.80 and close to 0.90, which makes it acceptable as well (Bentler & Bonett,
1980). All of the incremental fit indices except RFI were above the suggested level of 0.09 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hair

Table 3
Factor loadings and construct reliability of the final model.

Factor Loading Construct Reliability

International posture -> ip4 0.758 0.794
International posture -> ip5 0.635
International posture -> ip6 0.843
Competitiveness -> co2 0.631 0.843
Competitiveness -> co4 0.727
Competitiveness -> co5 0.862
Competitiveness -> co6 0.815
Attitude -> at1 0.813 0.827
Attitude -> at2 0.895
Attitude -> at3 0.597
Ideal L2 self -> id1 0.873 0.884
Ideal L2 self -> id2 0.884
Ideal L2 self -> id3 0.844
Ideal L2 self -> id4 0.819
Ought-to L2 self -> ou1 0.720 0.805
Ought-to L2 self -> ou2 0.794
Ought-to L2 self -> ou3 0.769
Ought-to L2 self -> ou4 0.675
Ought-to L2 self -> ou6 0.583
Effort -> ef2 0.860 0.736
Effort -> ef5 0.656

Table 4
Joint goodness-of-fit indices for the final model.

Absolute Fit Indices Chi square to df ratio 4.462

SRMR 0.074
GFI 0.892
RMSEA 0.052
Incremental Fit Indices NFI 0.904
RFI 0.882
IFI 0.924
TLI 0.906
CFI 0.923
Parsimonious Fit Indices PGFI 0.661
PCFI 0.752
PNFI 0.736
184 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189

et al., 2006). Finally, all the parsimonious fit indices were above the suggested level of 0.5 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). As most (10
of 12) fit indices from the three different classes presented an acceptable or good fit, we concluded that the final model being
analysed was acceptable.
Figs. 2 and 3 show the final SEM models with standardised regression weights for each of the CTL and LCTL groups. In the
figures, non-significant paths are represented with dotted lines. As seen in Figs. 2 and 3, three non-significant paths were

Fig. 2. CTL learners' final model. Note. *p < 0.05; **

p < 0.01; ***
p < 0.001.

Fig. 3. LCTL learners' final model. Note. *p < 0.05; **

p < 0.01; ***
p < 0.001.
 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189 185

found, one in the CTL model (the ought-to L2 self / attitude) and two in the LCTL model (the ought-to L2 self / attitude, the
ideal L2 self / attitude).
As can be seen in Figs. 2 and 3, among the three components in the L2 Motivational Self System, attitude turned out to have
the largest impact on effort in both the CTL and LCTL models. Additionally, it was revealed that the ideal L2 self had a stronger
impact on effort than the ought-to L2 self in both models. In particular, the ideal L2 self had a total effect of 0.426 (direct path:
0.363, indirect path: 0.128
0.495) on effort in the CTL model.
Stark differences were found between the two models in certain paths. First, the ideal L2 self had a statistically significant
impact on attitude in the CTL model (b ¼ 0.128), whereas the same path was non-significant in the LCTL model. Second,
international posture had a significantly stronger impact on the ideal L2 self in the CTL model (g ¼ 0.743) compared to the
LCTL model (g ¼ 0.242). Third, although international posture had a negative impact on the ought-to L2 self in the CTL model
(g ¼ 0.445), it had a positive impact (g ¼ 0.129) in the LCTL model. Fourth, competitiveness had a lower impact on the ideal
L2 self in the CTL model (g ¼ 0.080) than in the LCTL model (g ¼ 0.216). Finally, competitiveness had a higher impact on the
ought-to L2 self in the CTL model (g ¼ 0.605) than in the LCTL model (g ¼ 0.220).

6. Discussion

The present study supports the validity of Do €rnyei's L2 Motivational Self System (2009) in comparing and explaining
Korean CTL and LCTL learners' motivation. The structural models in this study showed that attitude and the ideal L2 self had a
significant positive impact on effort, in both CTL and LCTL groups. According to our SEM model, the more the students enjoy
L2 learning, and the more they imagine their positive future selves, both CTL and LCTL learners in Korea are likely to put more
effort in their L2 learning. In particular, attitude proved to be the most influential factor on effort for both groups, as was the
case in previous studies with Iranian (Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009), Japanese (Taguchi et al., 2009), and Korean (Kang, 2014)
L2 learners. This result is also consistent with the results of Bao and Lee’s (2012) study, which reported a positive correlation
between learning motivation and attitude for both CTL and LCTL learners. As for the comparison of the impact of the ideal L2
self and the ought-to L2 self on effort between the CTL and LCTL groups, the impact of the ideal L2 self was considerably higher
than that of the ought-to L2 self for both groups. This result supports Do €rnyei's (2005, 2009) argument that motivated
behaviour is closely related to the ideal L2 self, rather than to the ought-to L2 self.
An important finding of the present study was that the impact of the ideal L2 self and the ought-to L2 self on attitude
differed between the CTL and LCTL groups. While the impact of the ought-to L2 self on attitude was insignificant for both CTL
and LCTL groups, which had previously been confirmed in multiple studies (e.g., Magid, 2009; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al.,
2009), a significant positive impact of the ideal L2 self on attitude was observed only in the CTL group. This implies that
the development or possession of positive future self-images of fluently speaking their L2 contributes to CTL learners'
enjoyment of learning, whereas LCTL learners are less likely to experience such a positive contribution of the ideal L2 self to
their attitudes toward L2 learning. According to Brown (2009) and Pratt et al. (2014), LCTL learners, relative to CTL learners,
are faced with more challenges such as a lack of teachers, an underdeveloped curriculum, and a high degree of learning
difficulty. We can assume that, although LCTL learners may have developed a positive L2 self, its impact on attitude is limited
due to such challenges.
As for international posture's role in Korean CTL and LCTL learners' learning, this study found a highly significant impact of
international posture on effort via the ideal L2 self or attitude, which coincides with the results reported in previous studies
r & Kormos, 2009; Kormos et al., 2011; Lee & Ahn, 2013; Xie, 2014; Yashima, 2009). It is noteworthy that, in the
(e.g., Csize
present study, international posture contributed to motivating LCTL learners as well as CTL learners. This result is supported
by Siridetkoon’s (2015) finding that international posture is linked to motivation to learn foreign languages other than
English.
More importantly, however, several differences were found in the impact of international posture on the ideal L2 self, the
ought-to L2 self, and attitude between the CTL and LCTL groups. In the case of the CTL group, the strongest impact that in-
ternational posture exerted was on the ideal L2 self, followed by its relatively strong impact on attitude. On the other hand,
the impact of international posture on the ought-to L2 self was found to be negative (g ¼ 0.445), which confirmed the
findings of previous studies (e.g. Noels, 2009; Ushioda, 2001; Yashima, 2009). This finding suggests that Korean CTL learners
who are highly interested in international news and who can easily imagine themselves actively engaging in an international
career are quite likely to imagine future selves fluent in L2 and thus enjoy L2 learning. It also suggests that they are likely to be
less likely influenced by external pressure or intervention.
In the case of the LCTL group, international posture had a strong impact on forming a positive attitude toward L2 learning,
similar to what was seen in the CTL group. However, in terms of the impact of international posture on the ideal L2 self, its
regression weight in the LCTL group was only 0.242, which is less than a third of the impact (0.743) in the CTL group. In fact,
the mean scores of the international posture of the two groups showed no significant difference (In CTL, M ¼ 3.69, SD ¼ 0.98;
In LCTL, M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 0.73; t ¼ 0.24, p ¼ 0.81). This lack of difference in the mean scores of international posture indicates
that both groups have a similar level of interest in international affairs or enthusiasm for working in international careers. The
stark difference in its impact on the ideal L2 self between the two groups, however, suggests that LCTL learners, even though
they have high levels of international posture, are less likely to relate themselves to future self-images of speaking their L2
fluently than CTL learners are. This difference may stem from various unfavourable circumstances for LCTL learners such as a
lack of Korean role models fluently using LCTLs and lower expectations for using LCTLs in international careers.
186 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189

Another notable difference in the role of international posture was observed in the impact of international posture on the
ought-to L2 self between CTL and LCTL groups. While the impact of CTL learners' international posture on their ought-to L2
self was negative, that of LCTL learners was positive, albeit lower than the impact of LCTL learners' international posture on
the ideal L2 self. These results may indicate that LCTL learners with higher international posture tend to pay more attention to
the opinions or expectations of important people in their lives (e.g., parents, teachers, or friends), while CTL learners with
higher international posture tend to focus less on those factors. A possible explanation for such a difference is that, unlike CTL
learners, most of the LCTL learners in Korea start learning their L2 after they enter college; LCTL learners' learning period
tends to be relatively short, and their opportunities to experience L2 culture or interact with L2 speakers tend to be limited.
Consequently, LCTL learners rely more on significant others who have more knowledge and experience on L2 or L2 culture
than themselves.
One of the most interesting findings in the present study was the different impacts of competitiveness on the ideal and
ought-to L2 selves between the CTL and LCTL learners. The model in this study showed that competitiveness exerted a strong
impact (0.605) on CTL learners' ought-to L2 selves and a very weak impact (0.080) on their ideal L2 selves. This result implies
that competitive motivation is likely to play a debilitating role for CTL learners, which aligns with Kim's findings (2006, 2010).
However, in the case of LCTL learners, competitiveness has similar positive impacts on their ideal L2 (0.216) and ought-to L2
selves (0.220). These similar positive impacts suggest that competitive motivation of LCTL learners plays both a facilitating
and a debilitating role in their learning efforts, as argued by Yan and Horwitz (2008).
The different impacts of competitive motivation on the two groups may be explained by the different mean scores of
competitiveness between them in this study (In CTL, M ¼ 3.84, SD ¼ 0.72; In LCTL, M ¼ 3.64, SD ¼ 0.64; t ¼ 5.04, p ¼ 0.00).
This difference was a predictable finding of the present study in the Korean socio-educational context. Compared to LCTL
learners, CTL learners' L2s to be learned exert a relatively stronger influence in college entrance exams or employment after
graduation in Korea. Influenced by this atmosphere, it is probable that CTL learners face more pressure or anxiety in learning
their L2s. Yan and Horwitz (2008) found that only a certain amount of competitiveness was helpful; too much competi-
tiveness decreased both L2 learners' interest and motivation. Our finding permits us to assume that a higher level of
competitive motivation of CTL learners plays a debilitating role and has a strong impact on their ought-to L2 selves, while a
lower level of competitiveness of LCTL learners plays a dual role and has impacts of similar degree on both ideal and ought-to
L2 selves.
Since the present study was conducted using quantitative methods, it may have some limitations in identifying and
exploring the possible reasons for the differences between CTL and LCTL learners. To overcome the potential limitations, more
in-depth follow-up studies are required, including qualitative interviews and longitudinal studies, on L2 motivation. In
addition, since the scope of this study is limited to Korean CTL and LCTL learners, it may be difficult to generalise the key
findings of this study to CTL and LCTL learners in different contexts. Finally, in terms of analytical integrity, as a few goodness-
of-fit indices are at a borderline level, our model may not be perfect. However, it is still acceptable and meaningful, as it offers
an alternative perspective that can explain the different contexts facing CTL and LCTL learners. Despite these limitations, the
importance of this study lies in that it serves as a starting point to initiate future in-depth investigations into the L2 Moti-
vational Self System of CTL and LCTL learners at a broader scale in various countries, presenting a necessity for different
approaches in L2 education depending on L2 learning context.

7. Conclusion and implications

This study lent support to the theoretical validity of Do €rnyei's L2 Motivational Self System to understand and explain CTL
and LCTL learner's motivation in the Korean context. This study also showed that the three key components of the system,
that is, the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self, and attitude, play important roles in incentivising both CTL and LCTL learners in
Korea to make more efforts to learn their L2, although the impacts of the three come in varying degrees.
In addition, the impacts of international posture and competitiveness on the three key components differed between the
CTL and LCTL learners in this study. First, in the case of CTL learners, international posture exhibited a strong positive in-
fluence on their ideal L2 self and attitude, while it affected their ought-to L2 self negatively. For LCTL learners, the strongest
impact of their international posture was identified on their attitude, followed by its lower impact on their ideal L2 self and
ought-to L2 self. More importantly, the impact of competitiveness showed a starker difference between the two groups.
While CTL learners' competitiveness exerted a strong impact only on their ought-to L2 self, the impact of LCTL learners'
competitiveness on ideal and ought-to L2 selves turned out to be equally positive to a similar degree. These findings suggest
that CTL and LCTL learners, although in the same broader category of L2 education, require slightly different educational
approaches. First of all, Korean college students' L2 learning, both for CTLs and LCTLs, seems to be highly affected by their
attitude and ideal L2 self. This suggests that L2 teachers need to create a positive classroom environment conducive to
developing students' more vivid ideal L2 selves (see Do € rnyei, 2008; Kim, 2015a). For example, L2 teachers can show videos of
other students from higher level classes speaking the L2, or introduce pictures of other students in study abroad settings
interacting with native speakers of L2. Second, diverse approaches for strengthening international posture (see Brown, 2009;
Ueno, 2005) are also expected to play an important and helpful role in learners' L2 learning. In particular, CTL teachers are
advised to take educational approaches conducive to strengthening students' international posture, which may contribute to
lowering the ought-to L2 self of CTL learners. LCTL teachers also need to apply various types of approaches that help enhance
LCTL learners' international postures as a means to facilitate positive learning attitudes. For example, teachers can invite
 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189 187

graduates of the institution who studied the same L2 to report to the class on how their L2 contributed to their success in
international careers. Teachers can also introduce some volunteering opportunities or cultural events where students can
interact with native speakers of the L2 who are residing in Korea. Third, competitiveness requires teachers of the two learning
groups to take different approaches. For example, as competitiveness among CTL learners exerts a strong influence on their
ought-to L2 self, it is highly likely to play a debilitating role. This implies that CTL teachers need to actively explore and apply
possible strategies in order to prevent CTL learners from excessively focusing on competition in the classroom (see Chen,
2005; Kim, 2015b). For LCTL teachers, a more prudent approach needs to be taken, because competitiveness plays both
facilitating and debilitating roles for LCTL learners. It is advisable that LCTL teachers make efforts to exploit the good effects of
competitiveness in order to guide their students to study harder, paying heed to the reverse effects from stressful competition
(see Yan & Horwitz, 2008).
In conclusion, all the variables in this study turned out to affect both CTL and LCTL groups in varying degrees. Although in-
depth studies are needed to verify these conclusions in other contexts and populations, it is important that practitioners
teaching CTLs and LCTLs consider the findings of the present study when making pedagogical and methodological decisions
to offer their students the best motivational tools.

Acknowledgements

We appreciated insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript from two reviewers and the editorial board.

Appendix. Questionnaire

Ideal L2 self (4 items)

1. I can imagine myself living abroad and having a discussion in my L2.

2. I can imagine myself speaking my L2 with international friends or colleagues.
3. I can imagine myself speaking my L2 as if I were a native speaker of my L2.
4. Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using my L2.

Ought-to L2 self (7 items)

1. I study my L2 because close friends of mine think it is important.

2. Learning my L2 is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do so.
3. I consider learning my L2 important because the people I respect think that I should do it.
4. Studying my L2 is important to me in order to gain the approval of my peers/teachers/family/boss.
5. It will have a negative impact on my life if I don't’ learn my L2.
6. Studying my L2 is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to speak it.
7. Studying my L2 is important to me because other people will respect me more if I have knowledge of it.

International posture (6 items)

1. I want to make friends with international students studying in Korea.

2. I would feel somewhat uncomfortable if a foreigner moved in next door. (reverse-coded)
3. I want to participate in a volunteer activity to help foreigners living in the surrounding community.
4. I am interested in an international career.
5. I often read and watch news about foreign countries.
6. I have thoughts that I want to share with people from other parts of the world.

Competitiveness (6 items)
188 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189

1. I want to survive in the future.

2. I don't want to be an illiterate person.
3. I want to succeed in life.
4. Other people will consider me an elite if I have a good command of an L2.
5. I don't want to place behind any of my friends.
6. I want to have a head start on other people.

L2 learning Experience or Attitudes (4 items)

1. I like the atmosphere of my L2 classes.

2. I find learning my L2 really interesting.
3. I always look forward to my L2 classes.
4. I really enjoy learning my L2.

Learners' Intended Effort or Motivated Behaviour in L2 Learning (6 items)

1. If an L2 course were offered in the future, I would like to take it.

2. I am prepared to expend a lot of efforts in learning my L2.
3. I think I am doing my best to learn my L2.
4. I would like to spend lots of time studying my L2.
5. I would like to concentrate on studying my L2 more than any other topic.
6. Compared to my classmates, I think I study my L2 relatively hard.

References

Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger, & M. H. Long
(Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 67e102). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bao, M., & Lee, L. (2012). Personality, motivation, and language attitudes of learners of CTLs and LCTLs. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly
Taught Languages, 12, 1e36.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588e606.
Brecht, R., & Walton, R. (1994). National strategic-planning in the less commonly taught languages. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 532(1), 190e212.
Brown, A. V. (2009). Less commonly taught language and commonly taught language students: A demographic and academic comparison. Foreign Language
Annals, 42, 405e423.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt, & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current
issues (pp. 65e115). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Chen, I. J. (2005). Using games to promote communicative skills in language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, 11(2). Retrieved May 20, 2015 http://iteslj.
org/Techniques/Chen-Games.html.
Cho, Y. G. (2013). English as an international language and second language motivation: A case study of Korean university students. Journal of the Korea
English Education Society, 2(3), 111e134.
r, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian
Csize
secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Do €rnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98e119). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Do€rnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Do€rnyei, Z. (2008). New ways of motivating foreign language learners: Generating vision. Links, 38, 3e4.
Do€rnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Do €rnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9e42). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Godwin, R. (2013). The technological imperative in teaching and learning less commonly taught languages. Language Learning & Technology, 17, 7e19.
Gor, K., & Vatz, K. (2009). Less commonly taught languages: Issues in learning and teaching. In M. H. Long, & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of second
language teaching (pp. 234e249). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Uppersaddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Islam, M., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2013). The L2 motivational self system and national interest: A Pakistani perspective. System, 41(2), 231e244.
Kang, D. (2014). Effects of L2 motivation on motivated behavior in English movie classrooms. STEM Journal, 15(2), 35e50.
Kim, T.-Y. (2006). Motivation and attitudes toward foreign language learning as socio-politically mediated constructs: The case of Korean high school
students. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 3(2), 165e192.
Kim, T.-Y. (2010). Ideal L2 self and sensitization in L2 learning motivation: A case study of two Korean ESL students. Korean Journal of English Language and
Linguistics, 10(2), 321e351.
Kim, T.-Y. (2015a). Enhancing English learning motivation and creating English self through languaging activities in Korean elementary and secondary
schools: A mixed-methods approach. The Journal of Modern British & American Language and Literature, 33(2), 147e175.
Kim, T.-Y. (2015b). The sociocultural meaning of English learning and its implication to English education: Four sociological approaches. Studies in English
Language & Literature, 41(3), 105e134.
Kim, T.-Y., & Kim, Y.-K. (2014). A structural model for perceptual learning styles, the ideal L2 self, motivated behavior and English proficiency. System, 46,
14e27.
Kim, T.-Y., & Kim, Y.-K. (2016). A quasi-longitudinal study on English learning motivation and attitudes: The case of South Korean students. The Journal of
Asia TEFL, 13(2), 138e155.
Kim, C., & Lee, H. (2015). The interaction of L2 motivation constructs and learner variables in Korean middle school learners of English. Modern English
Education, 16(1), 81e105.
Korea Educational Statistics Service. (2014). Statistical yearbook of education. Retrieved June 20, 2016 http://kess.kedi.re.kr/index.
 J.H. Kong et al. / System 72 (2018) 178e189 189

Kormos, J., & Cisze r, K. (2008). Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves, and motivated learning
behavior. Language Learning, 58(2), 327e355.
Kormos, J., Kiddle, T., & Csize r, K. (2011). Systems of goals, attitudes, and self-related beliefs in second-language-learning motivation. Applied Linguistics,
32(5), 495e516.
Lamb, M. (2004). It depends on the students themselves: Independent language learning at an Indonesian state school. Language. Culture and Curriculum,
17(3), 229e245.
Lee, I. S. (1997). The Korean language. Seoul, Korea: Singumunhwasa.
Lee, Y. S., & Ahn, K. J. (2013). English learning motivation and English academic achievement of Korean elementary school students: The effects of L2 selves,
international posture, and family encouragement. Modern English Education, 14(1), 127e152.
Long, M. H. (1979). Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in research on teaching. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of international teachers of
english to speakers of other languages (TESOL), Boston, MA.
Magid, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system from a Chinese perspective: A mixed methods study. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6, 69e90.
Magnan, S. S., Murphy, D., & Sahakyan, N. (2014). Student goals and expectations by more and less commonly taught languages. The Modern Language
Journal, 98, 163e192.
Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism. (2016). The number of overseas travelers. Retrieved June 29, 2017 http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/
EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd¼1655.
Noels, K. A. (2009). The internalization of language learning into the self and social identity. In Z. Do €rnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self (pp. 295e313). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38, 467e479.
Pratt, C., Sadikova, A., Wei, T., Wang, Y., Dan, Y., & Zaier, A. (2014). Investigating the primary orientations and principal majors of learners of less commonly
taught languages. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(3), 41e53.
Siridetkoon, P. (2015). Motivation, anxiety and international posture of multiple language learners in Thailand. PhD Thesis. Birkbeck: University of London.
Statistics Korea. (2015). Registered Aliens. Retrieved June 29, 2017 http://www.index.go.kr/potal/main/EachDtlPageDetail.do?idx_cd¼2756.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In
Z. Do €rnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66e97). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ueno, J. (2005). An analysis of learner motivation of less commonly taught languages. Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Language, 2,
45e72.
Ushioda, E. (2001). Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Do € rnyei, & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second
language acquisition (pp. 93e126). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Xie, Y. (2014). L2 self of beginning-level heritage and nonheritage postsecondary learners of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals, 47(1), 189e203.
Yan, J. X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners' perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and instructional factors to influence their achievement in
English learners in China: A qualitative analysis of EFL. Language Learning, 58(1), 151e183.
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54e66.
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL Context. In Z. Do € rnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity
and the L2 self (pp. 144e163). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Yoon, M. J. (2011). The study of Korean education in the context of political-sociological viewpoint. Social Theory, 39, 159e188.