https://www.tuj.ac.jp/tesol/publications/working-papers/vol-14/mori.html.

The Role of Motivation in the Amount of Reading

Setsuko Mori
 
 
For many students in an EFL context, where actual contact with the target culture
is limited, reading can be the major source of input. As many researchers suggest,
(e.g., Krashen 1982; Eskey & Grabe 1988), students need to read in substantial
quantity not only in order to increase the amount of input but also to develop
reading skills and knowledge. However, their seemingly preferred way of reading,
namely word-by-word translation, sometimes appears to hinder some learners of
English from reading in a desirable manner. Consequently teachers who value
extensive reading have to make an attempt to convince their students that it is
important and useful to read more.

However, it seems that some students buy 'the sales pitch' whereas others simply
do not. It can be assumed that such differences may be somewhat attributed to their
motivation or attitudes toward learning English and/or reading in English. As
Skehan's (1989) internal cause hypothesis suggests, learners seem to bring a certain
quality of motivation to the learning situation. Most educators would intuitively
agree with this notion as they might have experience with both highly and less
motivated students. My initial interest in investigating EFL motivation was
prompted by the following question: what kind of students read more than others?
 As both researchers and educators recognize that motivation can be one of the key
predictors of success in second/foreign language learning, a large quantity of
research has been carried out in order to investigate what constitutes motivation
and how it works.

Research in motivation for second language learning had been dominated by the
socio-psychologically oriented work of Gardner and his associates until the early
1990s. They established a scientific research procedure for motivational studies by
developing a standardized motivation assessment instrument 'the
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)', which is still largely used in
motivation research. Gardner and Lambert (1959, cited in Crookes & Schmidt
1991) made a distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation using
the above mentioned instrument.  The integrative motivation associates desire to
learn with learners' attraction to the target culture or language whereas instrumental
motivation associates their desire with their recognition of more practical merits of
learning the target language. Gardner and Lambert (1972) further hypothesized that
integrative motivation was more effective than instrumental motivation in
promoting language learning success.
Although no one seems to argue against the importance of socio-psychological
aspects of motivation in language learning, a number of criticisms have been raised
against Gardner's socio-psychological approach to motivation. Together with
criticism that the definition of integrative motivation is ambiguous (e.g., Crooks
and Schmidt 1991), another criticism is attributed to the fact that studies carried
out in different contexts indicated contradictory results. Dornyei (1990), for
instance, developed a motivational questionnaire in order to investigate the
components of motivation in foreign-language learning, assuming that the
parameters created for second-language learning contexts are not directly
applicable. The results of the study indicated that integrative motivation was
weaker than instrumental motivation for predicting proficiency.

Schmidt, Boraie, and Kassabgy (1996) also argued in their study of Egyptian
learners of English that Gardner's model cannot be assumed appropriate to EFL
context where learners have limited interaction with the target language.

In Japan where a single language and culture dominates, anecdotal evidence is

often reported that some advanced students, especially returnees, purposely
downgrade their English due to their reluctance to stand out. Although it would be
rash to claim that all returnees have high integrative motivation, this phenomena
might suggest that there is a possibility that integrative motivation, especially an
inclination towards the target language culture, could have some negative impact
on language learning success.

Given the criticism of the Gardner model, the present study looked at motivation
referring to expectancy-value theories (Atkinson & Raynor, 1974, Pintrich &
Schunk, 1996, Wigfield 1994, cited in Dornyei 1998) instead of
instrumental/integrative motivation dichotomy. According to expectancy-value
theories, motivation to perform a certain task is strongly related to two
components: expectancy of success in a given task and the value the individual
associates with success in that task.

Eccles and Wigfield (1995) argued that the value associated with success consists
of four components: attainment value (or importance), intrinsic value (interest),
extrinsic utility value, and cost. Attainment value refers to the individual's
perception of importance of success in a given task. Intrinsic value refers to
enjoyment that task engagement brings about, whereas extrinsic utility value refers
to the usefulness of the task. Cost refers to extended effort, time and emotional
costs.

Another issue addressed in the present study reflects the recent movement toward
further conceptualizing second/foreign language learning motivation and proposing
multi-dimensional models of motivation. Dornyei (1994, 1996), for instance,
divided motivation into three levels : language level, learner level and learning
situation level. According to Dornyei, motivation at the language level includes an
integrative motivational subsystem and instrumental motivational subsystem,
motivation at the learner level includes the need for achievement and self-
confidence, and the learning situation level includes course-specific motivational
components, teacher-specific motivational components and group-specific
motivational components.

Crooks and Schmidt (1991) also attempted to define motivation "in terms of
choice, engagement and persistence, as determined by interest, relevance,
expectancy, and outcomes" (p.502). Dornyei (1998) portrayed the recent shift in
motivational research as follows:
 

The reform articles expressed an explicit call for a more pragmatic, education-
centered approach to motivation research which would be more relevant for
classroom application. The main focus shifted from social attitudes to looking at
classroom reality, and identifying and analyzing classroom-specific motives
(p.125).
As a result of this shift, in recent motivational studies more emphasis is placed on
situation- and task-specific motivation. The present study also attempts to
investigate the relationship between general English learning motivation, task
specific motivation, and behavior on a certain task.

Additionally, one more component was included: reading motivation. Although in

the fields of psychology and educational psychology, the issue of the domain
specific motivation has been investigated extensively (Wigfield 1997), the concept
seems to have been neglected in SL learning. Wigfield, for instance, proposed a
multidimensional model of reading motivation. According to Wigfield, reading
motivation needs to be conceptualized from three perspectives: competence and
efficacy beliefs, achievement values and goals, and social aspects of reading.

Considering the above-mentioned points, the present study attempts to achieve the
following goals: (1) to identify the components of English learning motivation for
a population of university EFL learners in Japan, (2) to identify the components of
English reading motivation for the same population of EFL learners, (3) to identify
the components of task-specific motivation for the same population of EFL
learners, and (4) to identify the relationships between the components of
motivation and the amount of reading.
 
 

Method

Participants
The participants (N=52) in this experiment were first year non-English major
students at a four year women's university in Japan.  All of the students were in
intact groups taught by the researcher. Although the participants were separated
into two classes, they had all been placed into the intermediate section of a
required English reading/listening course based on their placement test. Therefore,
the students could be considered comparable at least in terms of their scores on the
placement test, which was an adapted version of the TOEIC.

However, in order to ensure that the students were equivalent on the basis of
reading ability, a reading proficiency test was administered prior to the onset of the
experiment, and then their mean scores were compared using a t-test. According to
their scores on the test, they were found to be statistically equivalent and should be
deemed as low intermediate readers of English although they were placed in
intermediate sections in the institution. Although there were 72 students total in the
two classes, omitting those who missed experiment day(s) left the total number of
participants at 52.

Materials

Measures. In order to ensure that all students were equivalent in terms of their
reading proficiency at the start, a reading section of SLEP test was administered
prior to the onset of the experiment.

SRA materials were used to acquire information regarding the amount of reading
done by the students. Each student submitted reading reports which consisted of a
graph indicating how much they read and a graph of their performance on reading
comprehension scores. Then the total number of words each student had read was
calculated.

A questionnaire was designed drawing upon some published motivational/attitude

scales (Gardner, 1985; Koizumi & Matsuo, 1993; Schmidt et al, 1996). However,
the majority of the questions were original. The questionnaire consisted of three
parts : part I - questions pertaining to motivation/attitudes toward reading in
English (20 items), part II - questions addressing general motivation/attitudes
toward learning English (30 items), and part III - questions investigating
motivation/attitudes toward the assigned task (24 items). The questionnaire was
developed and administered in Japanese (see appendix A and B for the details of
the questionnaire.)

The reliability scores of the three components (parts I, II and III) of the
questionnaire using Cronbach’s alpha were .89, .82 and .85 respectively.

Procedures
In the class session following the SLEP test, the first two parts of the
questionnaire, i.e. reading motivation/attitudes questions, and general
motivation/attitudes questions, were administered.

The students were expected to read SRA reading materials throughout the semester
which were placed in the library at their leisure. Decisions regarding the amount of
reading and reading speed were left up to them although they were all aware that
they had to hand in the reading reports which would be part of their grades. In the
middle of the semester approximately three months after the students started to
read, the participants submitted their reports. A week after they handed in their
report, the last part of the questionnaire which contained questions regarding their
motivation/attitudes toward the SRA reading materials was administered.
 
 

Results

In order to determine the interrelationship among the items included in three parts
of the questionnaire, i.e. Parts I (reading motivation), II (general motivation) and
III (task-specific motivation), three principal components analyses were performed.

A factor analysis instead of principal components analysis is suggested when there

is a particular underlying model of the data in mind. However, principal
components analysis was chosen as a procedure for this study for the following
reasons:
 

1. the basic principle of expressing two or more variables by a single factor

remains the same though the computations become more involved for
analysis of multiple variables (STATISTICA 1989).
2. it can be used as an adjunct to other multivariate analysis procedures
(Dunteman 1989).

The number of factors to be extracted was based on the following criteria:

 

1. Minimum eigenvalues of 1.0

2. Each factor contained individual items with a minimum loading of .55

Following the administration of principal components analyses, multiple regression

analyses were computed based on factor scores obtained from principal
components analyses with the amount of reading as the dependent variable.
 

Principal Components Analyses

Part I : Motivation/Attitudes toward reading in English. After varimax

rotation, a six-factor solution was chosen, which accounted for 76.86% of the total
variance in the motivation subset of reading.

Table 1. Factor Analysis for Part I : Reading Motivation

 
Percent Cumulative
LABEL Eigenvalue
Explained Percent
Factor 1 Positive Intrinsic Value 7.45 37.18 37.18
Factor 2 Negative attainment value 2.91 14.56 51.75
Negative attainment value of
Factor 3 1.56 7.80 59.56
reading novels
Grade related extrinsic utility
Factor 4 value 1.30 6.53 66.09
of reading
Factor 5 Difficulty in reading 1.13 5.69 71.78
Factor 6 Positive extrinsic utility value 1.01 5.08 79.86

  Table 1 summarizes the results of the principal component analysis for part I.
Factors are assigned mnemonic names merely for the convenience of later
reference.

Three items loaded on factor 1:

 

Loading
I  like reading in English.  .75
It is fun to read in English.  .83
I’m interested in reading in English.  .61

Since all items are concerned with Ss' general interest in reading in English, factor
1 is labeled "positive intrinsic value".

Factor 2 consists of three items concerning Ss' negative perception of value (or
importance) of reading. Thus, it is labeled "negative attainment value".
 
 

Loading
Reading in English is important because it
will 
-.78
 broaden my view.
Reading in English is important because it
-.86
will 
 enhance my general education.
-.89
Reading in English is important because it
 
will 
 make me a more knowledgeable person.

Factor 3 consists of five questionnaire items, all concerning the negative value (or
importance) of S’s place on reading novels/magazines/newspapers. it is labeled
"negative attainment value of reading novels".
 
 

I like reading English novels. 

Loading
I like reading English newspapers 
-.72
 and magazines. 
-.55
I am learning to read in English because it
will 
-.87
 enable me to read English novels.
I am learning to read in English because it
-.91
will 
 
 enable me to read English newspapers and 
 magazines.
-.67
When I see someone reading an English
magazine 
 
 or a book, I think s/he is cool and would 
 like to be like her/him.

Since factor 4 consists of two items concerning Ss' perception of the usefulness of
reading in reaching their future goals, it might also be considered a sub-component
of extrinsic utility value, which is labeled "grade related extrinsic utility value of
reading".
 
 

Loading
I am learning to read in English merely
.85
because I would like to get good grades.
I am learning to read in English because I
-.67
would like to learn about opinions of various
 
people in the world.

Two items loaded on factor 5 include at least one item concerning Ss' perception of
difficulty in reading in English. Thus it is labeled “difficulty in reading”.
 
 
 

Loading
It is difficult to read in English.  .62
I am learning to read in English because I -.74
think 
 it will help my future career.

Factor 6 consists of two items which seem to be concerned with Ss' positive
perception of the usefulness of reading, and I labeled this factor "positive extrinsic
utility value”.
 
 

Loading
It is a waste of time learning to read in
-.60
English. 
-.70
I am tired of reading in English.

Part II - Motivation toward learning English. After a varimax rotation, a seven-

factor solution was chosen for part II, which accounted for 72.93% of the total
variance. Table 3 summarizes the results of a principal component analysis
computed for part II.

Table 2. Factor analysis for Part II : General Motivation

 
Percent Cumulative
LABEL Eigenvalue
Explained Percent
Factor 1 Positive Attainment Value 9.15 30.52 30.52
Factor 2 Participation 4.08 13.60 40.12
Factor 3 Positive intrinsic value 2.58 8.60 52.72
Factor 4 Study habits 2.17 7.25 59.98
Factor 5 Understanding novels/movies 1.47 4.91 64.89
Factor 6 Residing/traveling overseas 1.34 4.46 69.36
Factor 7 Grade related extrinsic utility 1.06 3.56 72.93

Eight items loaded on factor 1. Since factor 1 consists of items concerning Ss'
positively perceived importance of learning English with reference to their
personal values and needs, factor 1 is labeled "positive attainment value".
 
 

Loading
I would like to continue learning English in .58
the future. .82
English is one of the important subjects.  .78
Learning English is useful.  .84
Learning English is important because it will 
 broaden my view. .84
Learning English is important because it will 
 enhance my general education. .80
Learning English is important because it will
make  .64
 me a more knowledgeable person. .71
I learn English because it will help my future  
career. 
I learn English because I would like to
communicate 
 with foreigners.

All seven items loading on factor 2 seem to be concerned with how

actively/inactively Ss participate in English classes, and I labeled this dimension
"participation".
 

Loading
I lose my interest in English classes.  -.66
I lose concentration in English classes. -.63
I try to study hard in English classes.  -.69
Even if homework in English is tiresome, I -.62
will 
 work hard on it. .76
I work on my assignments just to the extent
that  -.64
 I will not fail a class. .72
I actively participate in English classes.   
I take a chance in preparing for a test by
studying 
 only what I think is most likely to be asked.

Factor 3 seems to be easily interpretable as it consists of items all concerned with

how much Ss like or enjoy learning English. Thus it is labeled "positive intrinsic
value".
 

Loading
I enjoy learning English.  .79
Learning English is like a hobby for me.  .80
I like learning English.  .81
I don’t like learning English, but I think -.64
learning 
  English is important.

Factor 4 consists of three items related to “study habits”.

 

Loading
I study English according to a preplanned -.70
schedule. .77
I procrastinate about doing my homework/
assignments until right before the due date. -.87
I work on my assignments according to a  
preplanned schedule.

Since factor 5 includes at least one item concerning their negatively perceived
importance of learning English in relation with understanding English novels and
movies, it might be considered a subcomponent of attainment value. However, for
reasons of convenience, it is labeled "understanding novels/movies”.
 

Loading
I learn English because it will enable me to  -.56
 understand English novels and English
movies. -.66
I spend more time studying for English than  
for 
 other classes.

Both items loading on factor 6 concern with Ss' perceived usefulness of learning
English, which might be considered a sub-component of extrinsic utility value.
However, for reasons of convenience, it is labeled "residing/traveling overseas".
 

Loading
I learn English because I would like to live  -.86
 overseas in the future.
I learn English because it will help me when I  -.66
 travel overseas.  

Since factor 7 consists of only one item which is concerned with Ss' perception of
the usefulness of learning English in relation with getting good grades, it is labeled
"grade related extrinsic utility value”.
 
 

Loading
I learn English because I would like to get -.80
good 
 grades..

Part III : Task-specific motivation. After a varimax rotation, a eight-factor

solution was chosen, which accounted for 74.88% of the total variance. Table 5
summarizes the results of a principal component analysis computed for part III.

Table 3. Factor analysis for Part III : Task-specific Motivation

 
Percent Cumulative
LABEL Eigenvalue
Explained Percent
Ngative intrinsic value of
Factor 1 6.51 27.15 27.15
stories
Factor 2 Progress indication 2.62 10.95 38.11
Factor 3 Clear procedure 1.95 8.13 46.25
Factor 4 Rpetitious procedure 1.87 7.80 54.05
Factor 5 Cost 1.49 6.23 60.29
Factor 6 Positive extrinsic utility value 1.29 5.41 65.70
Factor 7 Intrinsic value of questions 1.16 4.83 70.59
Factor 8 Negative intrinsic valued 1.04 4.33 74.88

 Three items loaded on factor 1:

 

Loading
It is boring to read using SRA.  .68
Stories in SRA are easy to read as they are .67
short  -.78
I cannot feel a sense of accomplishment as
stories 
 are too short.

Since the three items seem to be related in the way that students see the stories in
SRA easy yet boring, "negative intrinsic value of stories".

Factor 2 consists of three items which seem to be related in the way that they
address the way SRA indicates the degree of progress. Therefore, I labeled this
factor "progress indication".
 
 

Loading
It is easy to see a progress as stories are .82
graded according to their difficulty. 
SRA provides a good indicator of my reading .57
ability as stories are graded according to their
difficulty. .66
SRA is good as I can read at my own leisure. 

Since factor 3 includes at least one item concerning the procedure of SRA, it is
labeled “clear procedure”.
 

Loading
Stories are boring.  -.60
The procedures of SRA are easy to .81
understand. 

Factor 4 is labeled “repetitious procedure” because it consists of two items which

seem to be related in the way that they address repetitious nature of SRA
procedure.
 

 It is easy to use SRA as procedures are Loading

repetitious.  .83
 It is boring to use SRA as procedures are .75
repetitious. 

Since factor 5 includes at least one item which is concerned with S’s perception of
the cost of going to the library, it is labeled “cost”.
 

Loading
 Stories are childish.  -.73
 It is a pain to go and read in the library.  -.70

Factor 6 consists of only one item which is concerned with S’s perception of the
usefulness of learning to read using SRA, and I labeled “positive extrinsic utility
value”.
 

Loading
 SRA is a useful material to learn to read. -.89
Factor 7 is labeled “positive extrinsic utility value” as it includes at least two items
concerning S’s perception of the questions in SRA.
 

Loading
Although I don’t like to learn to read with
.56
SRA, 
 I do it in order to get good grades. 
.80
Questions in SRA are difficult. 
.78
It is fun to answer questions in SRA.

Since factor 8 includes at least two items concerning S’s negative perception of the
usefulness of SRA, it is labeled “negative intrinsic value”.
 

Loading
It is a waste of time to learn to read using
.63
SRA.
.59
I voluntarily learn to read using SRA.
.66
I am tired of answering questions in SRA. 

Multiple Regression Analyses

In order to investigate which of the 22 factors chosen for parts I, II and III are
significant predictors of the amount of reading, a stepwise multiple regression
analysis was computed (Table 4).

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of factors pertaining to motivation

variables in relation to the amount of reading
 
 
Step Multiple 2
Factor Entered R F
# R
8.57
1 *G factor 5 = understanding novels/movies .38 .14
df=1,50
6.75
2 *T factor = cost .46 .21
df=2,49
6.29
3 *R factor = Progress indication .53 .28
df=3,48
5.33
4 *R factor 5 = Difficulty in reading .55 .31
df=4,47
G factor 7 = Grade related extrinsic utility 4.74
5 .58 .34
value df=5,46
 R factor 4 = Grade related extrinsic utility 4.55
6 .61 .37
value of reading df=6,45
4.33
7 F factor 1 = positive intrinsic value .63 .40
df=7,44
                                                                                                                                     
               p<.05

* Note: G factor represents a factor chosen for general motivation, R factor

represents a factor chosen for reading motivation, and T factor represents a factor
chosen for task-specific motivation.
 

The results of the multiple regression indicate that three of the reading motivation-
related factors (difficulty in reading, grade related extrinsic utility value of reading,
and positive intrinsic value), two of the general motivation-related factors
(understanding novels/movies, and grade related extrinsic utility value), and two of
the task-specific motivation-related factors (cost and progress indication)
contributed to the prediction of variance in the amount of reading at .05 levels.
 
 

Discussion

In order to identify the components of motivation, three principal components

analyses were computed for the three components of motivation (reading
motivation, general English learning motivation, and task-specific motivation) on
the assumption that they might be independent components of motivation.
Although some items, especially these in part III, reflected specific characteristics
of the SRA reading program, most questions in the motivational questionnaire
were created with reference to four sub-factors of motivation: attainment value (or
importance), intrinsic value (interest), extrinsic utility value, and cost. The
principal components analysis identified six, seven and eight sub-factors of
reading, general English learning and task-specific motivation respectively.

Table 5. Comparison of Sub-components of Three Components of Motivation

 
Reading General Task
Factor 1 Positive intrinsic value Positive attainment value Negative intrinsic
      value of 
reading stories
Factor 2 Negative attainment value Participation
Progress Indication
Factor 3 Negative attainment value of Positive intrinsic value
  reading novels   Clear Procedure
 
Factor 4 Grade related extrinsic utility Study habits
  value of reading   Repititous procedure
 
Factor 5 Difficulty in reading Understanding
novels/movies Costs
Factor 6 Positive extrinsic utility value
  Residing/traveling Positive extrinsic
Factor   overseas utility value
7   
  Grade related extrinsic Intrinsic value of
  utility  questions
Factor 8 value  
 
Negative intrinsic
value

In comparing the structural sub-factors of the three principal components of

motivation, some similarities and differences should be noted. Although the data
need to be interpreted with caution as each part of the questionnaire consisted of a
unique set of question, intrinsic value, attainment value and extrinsic utility value
appeared as independent factors of two or more principal components of
motivation (table 5).

Intrinsic value emerged as an independent factor of all three principal components

of motivation (they are labeled “positive intrinsic value”, negative intrinsic value
of stories”, “intrinsic value of questions” and “negative intrinsic value) whereas
attainment value emerged as an independent factor of the principal components of
reading and general motivation (they are labeled “negative attainment value” and
“negative attainment value of reading novels”, and “positive attainment value” and
“understand novels/movies”).

Items indicative of extrinsic utility value also emerged as two independent factors
of both reading motivation and general English learning components. These were
labeled, “grade related extrinsic utility value of reading” and “positive extrinsic
utility value”, and “residing/traveling overseas” and " grade related extrinsic utility
value” of reading negative attainment value of reading” respectively. Especially,
the appearance of "grade-related extrinsic utility value” as an independent factor of
both components of motivation might reflect the fact that all participants were
required to take the English class in which the experiment was carried out, and that
the task itself was part of their grades.

Another interesting finding is that all intrinsic, extrinsic and attainment values
emerged both in a positive and negative sense. This may indicate that positive and
negative intrinsic, extrinsic utility and attainment values are independent
constructs. If so, they may need to be treated separately.

Following the identification of the above-mentioned sub-factors of motivation

using principal components analyses, a multiple regression analysis was
administered in order to investigate the relationship between those sub-factors of
motivation and the amount of reading. The results of regression analysis indicated
that only seven out of 21 factors found in the study were significant predictors of
the amount of reading. Out of all factors to be found significant predictors of the
amount of reading, two were the factors indicative of general learning English
motivation, three were the factors indicative of reading motivation, and two were
the factors indicative of task-specific motivation. This finding suggests that it is
necessary to establish a reliable multi-dimensional models of motivation instead of
simpler and more general models represented by the instrumental/integrative
dichotomy. The seven significant factors were as follows: 1) S’s perceived
difficulty in reading; 2) grade related extrinsic utility value of reading; 3) positive
intrinsic value of reading; 4) negative attainment value of learning English in
relation with understanding novels/movies; 5) grade related extrinsic utility value
of learning English;  6) S’s positively perceived cost of going to the library, and 7)
S’s preference for tasks in which they can easily see their progress.

In other words, the results of the multiple regression analysis suggest that the more
grade-oriented motivation to read students have, and the more they like reading,
the more they read. This finding seems to be fairly straightforward especially
considering the fact that the task was part of their grade.  However, the results of
the multiple regression analysis also indicate that the more students see reading as
difficult, the less they think it is useful to study English in order to understand
novels/movies, the less grade-oriented motivation to study they have, the more
they read.  Since some of the results seem to be contradictory, it is obvious that
further investigation using both qualitative and quantitative techniques is necessary
to clarify the results of the study.

The two other task-related factors found to be significant predictors of the amount
of reading are also interesting: the less students think it is a pain to go to the
library, and the more they like the way the task is structured because they can see
their progress easily, the more they read. This finding seems to have important
pedagogical implications if one believes that general learning motivation and
possibly reading motivation are more of a trait, and thus difficult to change
whereas task-specific motivation is more of a state, and thus easier to change.
Especially with university learners of English who are likely to have established
certain beliefs concerning and attitudes toward learning English in their previous
schooling, it is very challenging for the teacher to change such established traits of
motivation. On the other hand, it could be easier for the teacher to encourage
his/her students to actively engage in a certain task possibly by choosing and/or
modifying the task according to students' needs and values. For instance, the
results of this study imply that the step-by-step nature of the task which clearly
indicated Ss' progress has encouraged the students to read more.

Despite the above-mentioned possible implications, there are some limitations to

the present study. One obvious limitation is the sample size. Some statisticians
(e.g. Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996) suggest that sample size for factor analyses
should be at least 300 in order for correlations to be reliably estimated.

Another limitation concerns attrition. Although there were 72 students total in the
two classes, only 52 students attended all classes in which the experiment was
carried out. Therefore, if those who were absent from any/all of the classes shared
certain characteristics, there is a possibility that the pattern of dropping out itself
could be a variable which influenced the results.

Also bear in mind that since all the participants were in intact groups in a single
institution and share certain characteristics such as gender, academic background,
nationality, first language, and proficiency level, the generalizability of the
findings are limited. It will be interesting to see whether different populations
engaged in different tasks show similar patterns of correlation between
motivational variables and amount of reading. Although the present study
completely relied on students’ self-reports, future studies need to utilize a wider
variety of qualitative techniques including observation and interviews in order to
investigate students’ motivation.

References

 Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research

agenda. Language Learning, 41  (4), 469-512.
 Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language
Learning, 40 (1), 45-78.
 Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 78 (3), 273-284.
 Dornyei, Z. (1996). Moving language learning motivation to a larger platform for theory
and practice. In R.L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation: Pathways to the new
century (89-101). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching &
Curriculum Center.
 Dornyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language
Teaching Research, 31, 117-135.
 Dunteman, G. (1989). Principal Components Analysis. Sage university series paper on
quantitative applications in the social sciences. Paper 07-069. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 Eccles, S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: the structure of adolescents’
achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 215-225.
 Eskey, D., & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language reading:
Perspectives on instruction. In P. L.Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds), Interactive
Approaches to Second Language Reading(pp. 223-238). Cambridge : Cambridge University
Press.
 Gardner. R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
 Koizumi, R., & Matsuo, K. (1993). A longitudinal study of attitudes and motivation in
learning English among Japanese seventh-grade students. Japanese Psychological Research,
35 (1), 1-11.
 Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York
: Pergamon.
 Pintrich, L., & Schunk, H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
 Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O. (1996). Foreign language motivation internal
structure and external connections. In R.L. Oxford (Ed.), Language learning motivation:
Pathways to the new century (pp. 9-700. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second Language
Teaching & Curriculum Center.
 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning.  London: Edward
Arnold.
 STATISTICA for the Macintosh, (1994). Volume II. StatSoft, Itc. Tulsa: Oklahoma.
 Tabachnick, G., & Fidell, S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics(3rd ed.) HarperCollins
College Publishers. New York: New York.
 Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49-78.
 Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation : A domain-specific approach to
motivation. Educational psychologist, 32 (2), 59-68.
 

Appendix A. QUESTIONNAIRE

Part I : Questions pertaining to motivation/attitudes toward reading in

English

M SD
1 I like reading in English.  2.56 1.02
2 It is fun to read in English.  2.64 .93
3 I’m interested in reading in English.  2.95 .98
4 Even if reading were not a required  subject, I would take a 2.47 1.15
reading class anyway. 
5 It is a waste of time to learn to read in English.  3.83 .94
6 I am tired of reading in English.  2.46 1.11
7 It is difficult to read in English  1.92 1.03
8 It is boring to read in English  3.02 .85
9 I like reading English novels.  2.58 1.14
10 I like reading English newspapers and magazines.  2.25 1.03
11 Reading in English is important because it will broaden my 3.98 .85
12 view.  3.90 .82
Reading in English is important because it will enhance my 
13 general education.  3.85 .78
Reading in English is important because it will make me a
14 more knowledgeable person.  2.63 .66
I am learning to read in English merely because I would like
 to get good grades.
15 I am learning to read in English because I think it will help 3.12 .98
my future career. 
16 I am learning to read in English because I would like to learn 3.33 .88
about opinions of various people in the world. 
17 I am learning to read in English because it will enable me to 2.75 1.10
read English novels. 
18 I am learning to read in English because  it will enable me to 2.79 1.11
read English  newspapers and magazines. 
19 When I see someone reading an English  magazines or a 3.60 1.16
book, I think s/he is  cool and would like to be like her/him. 
20 I am learning to read in English because I would like to 2.17 .98
  study abroad in the future.     

Part II : Questions pertaining to motivation/attitudes toward learning English

M SD
1 I enjoy learning English. 2.73 .91
2 Learning English is like a hobby to me. 1.94 .98
3 I like learning English. 2.56 .87
4 English is one of the important subjects. 3.75 .90
5 Learning English is useful. 3.42 1.02
6  I try to study hard in English classes. 3.75 .95
7 I would like to continue learning English in the future. 3.04 .97
8 I don’t like learning English, but I think learning English is important. 4.00 .81
9 I lose my interest in English classes. 3.19 .84
10 I lose concentration in English classes. 3.38 .89
11 Learning in English is important because it will broaden my view. 3.98 .70
12 Learning in English is important because it will enhance my  3.90 .69
general education.
13 Learning in English is important because it will make me a more  3.86 .63
knowledgeable person.
14 I learn English merely because it is a required subject. 3.13 1.07
15 I learn English because I would like to get good grades. 2.67 .81
16 I learn English because I would like to live overseas in the future. 2.52 1.09
17 I learn English because it will help me when  I travel overseas. 3.50 1.02
18 I learn English because it will enable me to understand English novels 3.25 1.12
and movies.
19 I learn English because it will help my future career. 3.44 .98
20 I learn English because I would like to  communicate with foreigners. 3.23 1.16
21 I study English according to a preplanned schedule. 1.69 .76
22 I try to study hard in English classes. 3.79 .98
23 Even if homework in English is tiresome, I will work hard on it. 3.81 .95
24 I procrastinate about doing my homework/ assignments until right 3.27 1.27
before the due date.
25 I work on my assignments according to a preplanned schedule. 2.52 1.20
 Even if there were no homework, I would try to study outside the
26 class. 2.58 1.04
27 I actively participate in English classes. 2.75 .84
28 I work on my assignments just to the extentthat I will not fail a class. 3.23 .96
29 I spend more time studying for English than for other classes. 2.81 .91
30 I take a chance in preparing for a test by studying only what I think is 2.13 .86
  most likely to be asked.

Part III: Questions pertaining to motivation/attitudes toward the assigned

task.

M SD
1 I enjoy learning to read using SRA. 3.06 .85
2 I like learning to read using SRA. 2.88 .90
3 It is boring to read using SRA. 3.27 .91
4 It is a waste of time to learn to read using SRA. 3.86 .77
5 SRA is useful material to read. 3.90 .77
6 Although I don’t like to learn to read with SRA, I do it in 2.65 .95
order to get 
7 good grades. 2.77 .88
Although I don’t like to learn to read with SRA, I do it
8 because I think  3.12 .88
9 it is useful. 3.46 .75
10 I voluntarily learn to read using SRA. 3.54 .83
11 Stories are interesting. 3.86 .82
12 Stories in SRA are easy to read as they are short. 3.40 .82
13 I cannot feel a sense of accomplishment as stories are too 3.52 .90
14 short. 2.77 .78
15 Stories are boring. 2.62 .77
16 Stories are childish. 2.75 .76
17 Questions in SRA are difficult. 3.44 .70
18 I am tired of answering questions on SRA. 3.36 .82
19 It is fun to answer questions in SRA. 3.33 .73
20 The procedures of SRA are easy to understand. 3.77 .51
It is easy to use SRA as procedures are repetitious.
21 It is boring to use SRA as procedures are repetitious. 3.67 .62
It is easy to see a progress as stories are graded according to
22 their difficulty. 3.44 .67
SRA provides a good indicator of my reading ability as
23 stories are graded 4.08 .65
24 according to their difficulty. 2.75 1.25
I feel a sense of accomplishment when I read with SRA  
because stories are graded according to their difficulty.
SRA is good as I can read at my own leisure.
It is a pain to go and read in the library.