Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1129–1148 | Cite as

The effects of ideal and ought-to L2 selves on Korean EFL learners’ writing strategy use and writing quality

  • Younie Jang
  • Junkyu LeeEmail author
Article

Abstract

Despite awareness of the important role of motivation in second/foreign language (L2) learning, a thorough investigation into the motivational influence on the L2 writing processes and products has been neglected. In an attempt to fill this research gap, the present study explored the effects of different types of L2 self-related motivation (ideal and ought-to L2 selves) drawn from the theory of the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005) on writing strategy use and writing quality. Sixty-eight Korean undergraduates with a low level of overall English proficiency responded to questionnaires designed to measure their ideal and ought-to L2 selves and writing strategy use. They also completed a descriptive composition task aimed at assessing their writing quality. Regression analyses revealed that the ideal L2 self had a significant positive effect on both planning strategy use and writing outcomes, whereas the ought-to L2 self was merely correlated with revising strategy use. This study provides some empirical support for the potential of an idealized future L2 self-image to become a major determinant of writing processes and products. The results are discussed with reference to a promotion/prevention focus and a sensitivity of the ideal and ought-to L2 selves to positive/negative learning outcomes.

Keywords

L2 motivation Ideal L2 self Ought-to L2 self L2 writing strategy use L2 writing quality 

References

  1. Anderman, E. M. (1992, 12). Motivation and cognitive strategy use in reading and writing. The annual meeting of the national reading conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  2. Chae, S-E. (2011). Contributions of prior knowledge, motivation, strategies to Korean college students’ L2 writing development. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  3. Cho, M. (2015). The effects of working possible selves on second language performance. Reading and Writing, 28(8), 1099–1118.Google Scholar
  4. Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behavior: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  5. Csizér, K., & Lukács, G. (2010). The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System, 38, 1–13.Google Scholar
  6. Csizér, K., & Tankó, G. (2015). English majors’ self-regulatory control strategy use in academic writing and its relation to L2 motivation. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 386–404.Google Scholar
  7. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  9. Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63, 437–462.Google Scholar
  10. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P. (2003). Individual differences in second language learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 589–630). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: Future research directions. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 350–356). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  12. Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance. Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148–164.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  14. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1–20). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). A student’s contributions to second-language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1–11.Google Scholar
  16. Gupta, D., & Woldemariam, G. S. (2011). The influence of motivation and attitude on writing strategy use of undergraduate EFL students: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Asian EFL Journal, 13(2), 34–89.Google Scholar
  17. Hashemian, M., & Heidari, A. (2013). The relationship between L2 learners’ motivation/attitude and success in L2 writing. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 476–489.Google Scholar
  18. He, T.-H. (2005). Effects of mastery and performance goals on the composition strategy use of adult EFL writers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 407–431.Google Scholar
  19. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.Google Scholar
  20. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.Google Scholar
  21. Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 51–69.Google Scholar
  22. Islam, M., Lamb, M., & Chambers, G. (2013). The L2 motivational self system and national interest: A Pakistani perspective. System, 41, 231–244.Google Scholar
  23. Jong, Y. (2012). Korean students’ perspectives on and use of strategies in English critical writing. English Language Teaching, 24(2), 75–95.Google Scholar
  24. Jung, E-h, & Kim, S.-H. (2003). A study on the motivating factors and the strategy use by different levels of middle school students. Foreign Languages Education, 10(2), 227–250.Google Scholar
  25. Kang, J. Y. (2005). Written narratives as an index of L2 competence in Korean EFL learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 259–279.Google Scholar
  26. Khaldieh, S. A. (2000). Learning strategies and writing processes of proficient vs. less-proficient learners of Arabic. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 522–533.Google Scholar
  27. Kormos, J. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161.Google Scholar
  28. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.Google Scholar
  29. Lamb, M. (2012). A self-system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning, 62, 997–1023.Google Scholar
  30. Lee, H.-W. (2002). A study on the relationships between attitudes, motivation, and strategies in learning English. The Journal of English Language Teaching, 14(1), 189–212.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, M.-B. (2005). An investigation into the effects of integrative and instrumental orientations on language learning strategies. English Language & Literature Teaching, 11(1), 37–55.Google Scholar
  32. MacIntyre, P. D., Mackinnon, S. P., & Clément, R. (2009). The baby, the bathwater, and the future of language learning motivation research. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 43–65). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  33. MacIntyre, P. D., & Noels, K. A. (1996). Using social-psychological variables to predict the use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 373–386.Google Scholar
  34. Marcus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.Google Scholar
  35. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every good teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.Google Scholar
  36. Oxford, R., & Nyikos, M. (1989). Variables affecting choice of language learning strategies by university students. The Modern Language Journal, 73, 291–300.Google Scholar
  37. Pae, T.-I. (2009). L2 motivation and writing performance by proficiency level: A process approach to motivation. English Language Teaching, 21(3), 109–127.Google Scholar
  38. Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38, 467–479.Google Scholar
  39. Papi, M. (2016). Motivation and learning interface: How regulatory fit affects incidental vocabulary learning and task experience. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University, United States.Google Scholar
  40. Papi, M., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2012). Teacher motivational practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Language Learning, 62, 571–594.Google Scholar
  41. Papi, M., & Teimouri, Y. (2012). Dynamics of selves and motivation: A cross-sectional study in the EFL context of Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 287–309.Google Scholar
  42. Papi, M., & Teimouri, Y. (2014). Language learner motivational types: A cluster analysis study. Language Learning, 64, 493–525.Google Scholar
  43. Petrić, B., & Czárl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31, 187–215.Google Scholar
  44. Schmidt, R., & Watanabe, Y. (2001). Motivation, strategy use, and pedagogical preferences in foreign language learning. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 313–359). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.Google Scholar
  45. Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system amongst Chinese, Japanese, and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  46. Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 681–709.Google Scholar
  47. The International English Language Testing System. (1992). IELTS general training writing [writing task 2: Band descriptors]. Retrieved March 20, 2018 from https://www.ielts.org/-/media/pdfs/writing-band-descriptors-task-2.ashx?la=en.
  48. Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78–102.Google Scholar
  49. Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Task type as a moderator of positive/negative feedback effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1084–1105.Google Scholar
  50. Vandergrift, L. (2005). Relationships among motivation orientations, metacognitive awareness, and proficiency in L2 listening. Applied Linguistics, 26, 70–89.Google Scholar
  51. Waller, L., & Papi, M. (2017). Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 35, 54–65.Google Scholar
  52. Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wi, H. J., & Joh, J. S. (2010). The relationships among English learning motivation, learning strategy, and English achievement: A study of Korean high school students. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 10(4), 807–838.Google Scholar
  54. Yang, E.-M. (2011). Korean college students’ English learning motivation and listening proficiency. English Language & Literature Teaching, 17(2), 93–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hankuk University of Foreign StudiesSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations