Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Presentation (1)

207

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
207
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Why are college foreign language student’s selfefficacy, attitude, and motivation Presenter: Yin-Jin Lin so different? Advisor: Dr. Pi-Ying Hsu October 14, 2013 1
  • 2. Citation Hsieh, P. (2008). Why are college foreign language student’s selfefficacy, attitude, and motivation so different? ProQuest Education Journals, 38(1), 76-94. 2
  • 3. Contents Introduction Literature Review Methodology Results Discussion Reflection 3
  • 4. Introduction • Among several motivational constructs within the area of learners’ beliefs, self-efficacy has contributed substantially to our understanding of students motivation and achievement. 4
  • 5. Introduction • Students’ motivation can be seen through their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional engagement on academic tasks. (Fredicks, Bluemenfeld & Paris, 2004) 5
  • 6. Introduction AMTB= Attitude/Motivation Test Battery interest attitude motivation integrative orientation anxiety instrumental orientation 6
  • 7. Background As foreign language learning is considered a challenge subject where many learners fail to do well, learner’s motivation in language is therefore especially important to examine. 7
  • 8. Research Questions I How well do foreign language student’s selfefficacy, interest, attitude, motivation, and anxiety predict their foreign language achievement? II Do successful and unsuccessful foreign language students and students with varying levels of self-efficacy differ in their endorsement of the different AMTB variables? III What is the interaction between heritage connection and group status on student’s endorsement of the different AMTB variables? 8
  • 9. There are at least three basic indicators of learner motivation: (1) learner’s effort (2) learner’s desire to learn the language (3) learner’s satisfaction with learning (Gardner, 1985) 9
  • 10. • Instumental • Ex: To get a good job • Integrated • Ex: To develop better communicate skills 10
  • 11. Self-efficacy has contributed substantially Theto our understanding ofself-efficacy beliefs researchers supported that student are proposed to influence student’s motivation and motivation and achievement. achievement are good predictors of success. (Bandura, 1986) (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pajares, 1996, 1997; Pajares & Urdan, 2006; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004) 11
  • 12. There are four leading sources for how learners develop self-efficacy for a given task, there are: (1) Learner’s past performance (2) Observations of how well others do (3) Verbal persuation from others (4) Physiological indexes. (Schunk, 1991) 12
  • 13. Research Gap Simply acknowledging the importance of learner motivation and how motivation relates to learners’ achievement does not allow us to understand fully how students develop motivation or how we can motivate students and sustain their level of motivation. 13
  • 14. Purpose • The study was to examine the relationship between educational psychology theories (self-efficacy beliefs) and foreign language learning motivation. 14
  • 15. Methodology 53% male 249 students 47% female 44% Spanish 32% German 24% French 15
  • 16. Methodology successful group Classified by students themselves unsuccessful group 16
  • 17. Methodology Texas 1. 7-scores questionnaire 2. AMTB Median age of 20 year-old During the Fall semester 17
  • 18. Procedure I • Fall semester after received grades from mid-term exam II • Completed two questionnaires during the beginning of one class period • of 7-scores questionnaire 1. A list Students asked to fill out some background information IIISelf-efficacy was measured by asking participants to circle “yes” or “no” • The instructors provided students’ final Ex: course 2. Attitude/Motivation Test Batteryof the semester IV 1. Gender grades at the end (AMTB) 2. Do they had heritage connection to the language Motivation, attitude, anxiety, instrumental they were learning. orientation, and integrative orientation 18
  • 19. Research Question 1 How well do foreign language student’s selfefficacy, interest, attitude, motivation, and anxiety predict their foreign language achievement? 19
  • 20. Research Question 1 AMTB In addition to student’s self-efficacy beliefs, their attitude and anxiety were also good predictors of language achievement. 20
  • 21. Research Question 2 Do successful and unsuccessful foreign language students and students with varying levels of self-efficacy differ in their endorsement of the different AMTB variables? 21
  • 22. Research Question 2 AMTB Unsuccessful students 1. Instrumental orientation 2. Higher anxiety 3. Negative attitude successful students 1. Integratied orientation 2. Higher self-efficacy 3. Higher interest in learning 22
  • 23. Research Question 3 What is the interaction between heritage connection and group status on student’s endorsement of the different AMTB variables? 23
  • 24. Research Question 3 AMTB The two groups of heritage students reported having equally high positive attitudes toward the language they were learning. 24
  • 25. Discussion 1. Higher self-efficacy can influence effort, persistence, and achievement. 2. Successful students reported being more integratively oriented and wanting to learn foreign language so as to interact with individuals of target culture. 3. Unsuccessful students reported significantly more anxiety toward foreign language class. 4. No difference in the endorsement of integrative orientation between successful and unsuccessful nonheritage students. 25
  • 26. Future Study November Beginning Mid-term AMTB Questionnaire 7-scores Questionnaire December Collecting Questionnaires Data Analysis December Conducting the study January Proposal Defense January 26
  • 27. 27

×