THAI STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO SPEAK ENGLISH OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM AT ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Asia-Pacific International University THAI STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO SPEAK ENGLISH OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM AT ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION by Suwannee Lansri May 2019

i THAI STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO SPEAK ENGLISH OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM AT ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY A Master thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION By SUWANNEE LANSRI APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE Josephine Esther Katenga, PhD Josephine Esther Katenga, PhD Research Advisor Chair of Master Program Jimmy Kijai, PhD Naltan Lampadan Panelist Dean, Faculty of Education Dr. Surapee Sorajjakool, PhD External Examiner

ii ABSTRACT Master of Education Emphasis in Curriculum and Instruction Asia-Pacific International University Faculty of Education TITLE: THAI STUDENTS’ MOTIVATION TO SPEAK ENGLISH OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM AT ASIA-PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Researcher: Suwannee Lansri Research advisor: Josephine Katenga Date Completed: May, 2019 The purposes of this study were to explore the factors that motivated and those that discouraged students from speaking English outside of the classroom at AsiaPacific International University Mauk Lek Campus. The university offers undergraduate programs in both English and Thai medium. The majority of Thai students who were enrolled in both programs notably lived in the University dormitories, which exposed them to students from 32 different countries, yet were still hesitant to speak English. Using the convenience sampling method, 197 students were selected to participate in this study. A descriptive quantitative method and a selfadministered questionnaire were used to collect the data. The findings reveal that motivation for speaking English outside the classroom was mainly for instrumental motivational reasons (M=4.17, SD=0.59), followed by integrative motivational reasons (M=3.74, SD=0.67). Less clear reasons were intrinsic motivation (M=3.41,

iii SD=0.75) and extrinsic motivation (M=3.32, SD=0.82) motivations. The study also reported that factors such as inadequate vocabulary to speak effectively, insufficient knowledge of English grammar, and inability to speak English fluently and continuously, were perceived as hindering them from speaking English outside the classroom. Lastly, the study found statistically significant differences at the 0.05 level in instrumental motivation, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation when compared with gender, faculty, class status, a program of study, and period of learning. The recommendations for future research is threefold: to study learning approaches to a variety of vocabularies which would enhance students’ communication outside of the classroom; to study participants from other nationalities, and to use a larger sample using other types of sampling and data collection methods. Keywords: ,Integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, demotivation, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Praised be our Almighty God for helping me to complete my Master’s degree at Asia-Pacific International University. It has been a wondrous journey, though many challenges have come along the way. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to the people who have helped me throughout this journey and contributed to the work in this thesis. Specifically, I would like to hanks my advisor, Dr. Josephine Katenga, and my mentors Dr. Jimmy Kijai and Dr. Surapee Sorajjakool, for their patience, insightful comments, motivation, and tremendous support which was given even in the last months of writing this thesis. Furthermore, I appreciate Dr. Gilbert Valentine and Dr. Wayne Hamra provided guidance and motivation in this journey. Profound gratitude goes to Mrs. Veraliza Kirilov, who generously gone extra miles and energy to help me. She when they, found resources to edited my thesis. I am also hugely appreciative to Assistant Professor Dr. Wanlee Putsom, Dr. Paluku Kazimoto, and Mrs. Sajaporn Sankham for willingly sharing their statistical expertise. Special mention goes to all Thai students who have participated in this study. Finally, yet importantly, I would like to thank my family and close friends, who have provided unbelievable support through their constant prayers and love.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1 Background of the Study .............................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.............................................................................3 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................3 Research Questions......................................................................................3 Significance of the Study.............................................................................4 Definition of Terms......................................................................................4 Delimitations................................................................................................5 Limitation.....................................................................................................5 Organization of Thesis Chapter ...................................................................6 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................7 Role of Motivation in Learning English – Speaking Skill...........................7 Theories that Inform Language Learning ....................................................8 Self-Determination Theory..................................................................8 Gardner’s Motivation Theory............................................................11 Demotivation Issues in Speaking English..................................................12 Related Studies...........................................................................................13 3. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................17 Research Design.........................................................................................17 Research Setting and Participants..............................................................17 Research Instrument...................................................................................18 Data Collection and Procedures.................................................................19 Ethical Consideration.................................................................................20

vi Data Analysis.............................................................................................20 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................21 Demographic Characteristics of Participants.............................................21 Preliminary Data Analysis.........................................................................22 Data Analysis Results................................................................................23 Factors Motivating Students to Speak English Outside of the Classroom................................................................................................23 Factors Demotivating Students to Speak English Outside of the Classroom................................................................................................26 Differences between Variables toward Motivation to Speak English Outside the Classroom ...............................................................27 5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................36 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................36 Literature Review.......................................................................................36 Method .......................................................................................................39 Summary of Findings.................................................................................40 Demographic Characteristics of Participants ....................................40 Factors that motivating Thai student to Speak English outside the Classroom................................................................................................40 Research Question 1 ..........................................................................41 Factors Demotivating Thai students to Speak English......................42 Demographic Factors and Period of Learning English toward Motivation Variables...........................................................43 Research Question 2 ..........................................................................43 Gender Differences on Motivation Variables....................................43 Program Differences in Motivation Variables ..................................44 Year of Study Differences on Motivation Variables.........................44 Faculty Differences on Motivation Variables ...................................45 Motivational Differences by Period of Studying English ............................................................................................46 Conclusion .................................................................................................46 Limitations.................................................................................................47 Significance of the Study...........................................................................47 Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................48 REFERENCES LIST...................................................................................................49 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................55

vii LIST OF TABLES 1 Participants Demographic Characteristics................................................ 22 2 Variable Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates......................... 23 3 Extrinsic Motivation Item Mean and Standard Deviation ........................ 24 4 Intrinsic Motivation Item Mean and Standard Deviation ......................... 25 5 Instrumental Motivation Item Mean and Standard Deviation .................. 25 6 Integrative Motivation Item Mean and Standard Deviation ..................... 26 7 Factors Demotivating Student to Speak English Outside the Classroom. 27 8 Gender Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables............. 28 9 Program Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables........... 29 10 Year of Study Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables... 30 11 Post-Hoc Multiple Comparison of Year of Study..................................... 31 12 Faculty Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables............. 32 13 Post-Hoc Multiple Comparison of Faculty............................................... 33 14 Motivational differences by Period of Learning English.......................... 34 15 Post-Hoc Multiple Comparisons of Period of Learning English ............. 34

viii LIST OF FIGURES 1 Figure Motivation Conceptual Framework............................................... 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Since the world is now getting smaller because of globalization, English has become a means for international communication. It is used as a medium of communication in many countries within the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) namely Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. In 2015, the ASEAN community established a powerful single market system under the ASEAN Economics Community (AEC) and chose English as the official language. As a result, the Thai government has advocated developing greater fluency in the English language amongst Thai students. This would make the nation economically competitive not only within the AEC community but also worldwide. Therefore, the Ministry of Education (2015) directed that the English language implemented under the 2008 Basic Education Core Curriculum should be a mandatory subject for all students, from grades 1 to 12. The learning area for foreign languages is aimed at enabling learners to acquire a favorable attitude towards foreign languages, the ability to use foreign languages for communicating in various situations, seeking knowledge, engaging in a livelihood and pursuing further education at higher levels. (The Basic Education Core Curriculum, 2008, p. 252) This policy places greater emphasis on a framework for English learning standards time for learning and communication. The government also launched the “Thailand English Speaking Year” program in 2016. It is very clear how the

2 government has underlined the attitude Thai students should have towards foreign languages. Given all these, however, Thai students’ English proficiency has remained virtually unchanged (The National Institute of Educational Testing Service, 2015). The English score in 2015 for Thai students on the Ordinary National Educational Test (O-NET) was 28.43 out of 100, and in 2017, the score was 28.31. The problem comes from the learning process itself, which includes lack of an environment for interacting in English because the medium of English instruction is not often used by Thai teachers. Also, large-class sizes may hamper students’ full participation in interacting in English. Moreover, the fact that Thailand had never been colonized influenced the way Thais perceive foreign languages. They are rarely involved in learning other languages. This makes them less interested in studying foreign cultures, and interacting in foreign languages (Richards & Renandya, 2002). Speaking a foreign language is difficult to deal with because it has something to do with language production that includes pronunciation, intonation, and vocabulary (Harmer, 1995, 2007). Learners cannot acquire proficiency in speaking a language if they are just passive users or barely use it. According to Wiriyachittra (2003), Thai students often find it problematic when they want to be active language users because they are anxious about making mistakes. This is due to a lack of confidence, lack of practice, and class time constraints. Learning a foreign language is not only a matter of learning the subject, but also how to engage in learning about the culture itself, where motivation plays a key role in the process (Gardner, 2007). Even if a learner’ ability is weak towards language learning, success can still be achieved through high motivation (Doran, 2011). Against this background of being in the ACE community, reluctance to implement a communicative-approach learning method, and a strong national identity,

3 it is interesting to find how Thai people in general - and students in particular - view speaking the English language. Statement of the Problem Asia-Pacific International University uses both English and Thai languages as mediums of instruction in its undergraduate programs. This exposure potentially helps students to use the English language; however, many of them hesitate to speak English. Another fascinating fact is that Thai students have the opportunity to learn English because foreign instructors teach most of the English program courses. These students find it hard to speak English and struggle with the English proficiency test. The majority of the students prefer to speak Thai or their dialects outside of the classroom. They speak English only when it is necessary. From this observation, the present study aimed to explore the underlying issues that affect Thai students’ motivation to speak English outside of the classroom at Asia-Pacific International University, a private university located in Muak Lek District, Saraburi Province, Thailand. Purpose of the Study There were two purposes for this study. The study aimed to to determine the factors that motivate or discourage students from speaking English outside of the classroom. The second aim was to find out whether the following variables, gender, program of study, faculty, class status, or period of learning English have a statistically significant influence on motivation and demotivation factors in speaking English outside of the classroom. Research Questions This exploratory study was guided by the following research questions:

4 1. What motivation and demotivation factors affect Thai students from English speaking outside the classroom. ? 2. Do gender, program of study, faculty, class status, or period of learning English have a statistically significant influence on motivation and demotivation factors to speak English outside of the classroom? Significance of the Study The findings of this study may provide a useful parameter for institutions to develop better strategies to improve students’ English-speaking ability and achieve a sufficient level of English. The findings may help to emphasize this skill in the English curriculum and to eliminate factors that are detrimental to studying the course, and. The recommendations from the study can benefit the English teachers to improve their teaching approaches and help students to overcome obstacles in speaking English. Lastly, from the findings, students will be able to have a better picture of factors that affect their motivation and attitudes towards speaking English. Definition of Terms The following terms are used in this study: Speaking English refers to an act of conveying a message or thoughts in the English language. Speaking English outside the classroom refers to areas within the parameters of an English-speaking institution, but outside of specific classrooms, such as interactions at home, in the dormitory, in the workplace, or during free time. Motivation refers to the desire that drives a person towards a goal that is based on individual needs. Demotivating refers to a state of being less interested or motivated to engage in

5 activities or tasks. Delimitations Asia Pacific International University has two campuses. One is located in Bangkok, which accommodates junior and senior Nursing students, and the second campus is in Muak Lek District, Saraburi Province, which caters to different majors in both International and Thai programs. This study was purposely conducted at the Muak Lek campus, as it only accommodated both Thai students, students from 32 other countries. This setting exposed to Thai students to an English-mediated environment and where students were expected to speak English on campus. Furthermore, this study was restricted to Thai students enrolled in all majors and class levels of the International and Thai programs. A survey method and quantitative analysis were utilized because the nature of the study captured demographic characteristics such as gender, age, major, study program, and period of being exposed to the English language. Limitation This quantitative research utilized a survey (five-Likert scale) to collect the data; however, in-depth response to identifying the study factors were restricted. Some respondents who have limited language skills may not have understood the questions. It is also possible that some of the questions did not fit each respondent’s particular situation. T. During the collection of data, students were studying and writing exams, therefore it was difficult to survey all students, and hence, having a convenience sample was the best option for sampling respondents. The drawback with convenience sampling is that the sample may not have represented the entire population equally and may contain sampling bias.

6 Organization of Thesis Chapter This study is divided into five chapters. The first chapter is an introduction that consists of the background, statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, definitions of key terms, delimitations, and limitation. The second chapter presents a review of motivation literature, demotivating factors, relevant studies, and a conceptual framework. In chapter three, the methodology is discussed and is categorized into several sections which include; the research design, settings, participants, data collection method, instrument, and procedure. The fourth chapter discusses the analysis and reveals the results of the study. The final chapter summarizes the first four chapters, and discusses the findings, conclusion, limitation, and recommendations for possible further studies.

7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The aim of this study was to explore Thai students’ motivation for speaking English outside of the classroom. This chapter shades light on literature and theories related to second language learning. The chapter consists of four sections: 1) Role of motivation in learning English-speaking skills, 2) Theories that Inform Language Learning, 3) Demotivating factors in speaking English, and 4) Related studies. Role of Motivation in Learning English – Speaking Skill Speaking is an oral exchange of information among people in a native or second language. In learning a language, one generally learns by imitation; similarly, in learning a foreign language, one learns by imitating those who speak it. It is very challenging because the learner has to use it actively to be able to speak fluently. Many students find it difficult, as typically they are just passive users (Scrivener, 2005). To succeed in learning a foreign language, it is important for learners to have motivation and determination. They need to know the factors that motivate them to speak English and the ones that hinder them from speaking or improving themselves. Motivation is a multidimensional concept related to behavior and a desire to speak the language. According to Gardner (2006), motivation consists of a desire and an effort to achieve the goal of learning the language. The process is dynamic, and it drives a person to become proactive as he initiates the action of learning (Harmer, 2007). The learner must be determined and persistent to learn (Dornyei, 2013).

8 Theories that Inform Language Learning There are many theories that provide a framework for viewing language learning. In assessing students’ motivation, the literature review of related studies revealed a conceptual framework of factors that affect learning a second language. These theories include the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) by Deci and Ryan (1985) and Gardner’s Motivation Theory (GMT, 1985). The concept map (Figure I) incorporates these theories, including Gardner’s demotivating factors that impede language learning. This concept map outlines the many variables that affect the speaking of English outside the classroom. Self-Determination Theory Deci and Ryan (1985), who established this theory, addressed the basic psychological needs in motivation. It is the essence of taking control of one’s life by making the right choices. Deci and Ryan (1985) believe factors that affect one’s desire to learn are influenced by external and internal factors. Through this theory, they distinguish two motivation types: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation In Deci and Ryan’ motivation theory, intrinsic motivation is described as a self-curiosity-driven stimulus to gain internal rewards, which are associated with positive experiences, because there is no pressure from outside to learn the language and the individual has autonomy and control over the process. This motivation is not about external rewards and external pressures, but the need to learn because of an individual’s goals. This theory is important for students who want to achieve a goal

9 Figure 1: Conceptual Framework on Motivation Motivation Factors Intrinsic Instrumental Integrative Extrinsic Internal Rewards External Rewards Speaking English outside Classroom Demotivation Factors Language Anxiety Language Attitude Autonomy Mastery Relatedness Receive Praise Recognition Influence Avoid Punishment High salary Higher social status Well-paid job To communicate with members of the target language. To integrate within the culture of the target language

10 they have – in this case, the goal of speaking English outside of the classroom. Deci and Ryan (1985) specifically describes intrinsic motivation in this way: Intrinsic motivation is in evidence whenever students' natural curiosity and interest energizes their learning. When the educational environment provides optimal challenges, rich sources of stimulation and a context of autonomy, this motivational wellspring in learning is likely to flourish. (p. 245) It is clear that teaching methods and classroom environments should promote the intrinsic motivation of learners (Ellis, 1997). The more enjoyable and interesting the methods of teaching, the more students’ motivation to learn the second language increases. Nurturing intrinsic motivation can be a long-lasting process, but often leads to a higher level of success in learning The self-determination theory contrasts intrinsic motivation, which is important in learning English, with extrinsic motivation. Deci and Ryan’s (1985) extrinsic motivation is one’s desire to do a task to get the acknowledgment and avoid punishment. It is not merely for self-satisfaction, but it seeks outside stimuli, and often there is no autonomy in decision making because outside stimuli cannot be controlled. Extrinsic motivation is associated with both negative and positive experiences. The Oxford Review Dictionary refers to extrinsic motivation as one’s action that is derived from an external stimulus. In other words, in this type of motivation, there is a need for external rewards in a material form such as money, or a non-material form such as recognition (Arnold, 2000). Those who are driven by extrinsic motivation may not enjoy the behavior, but it is done for approval. However, extrinsic motivation can have tangible results and satisfaction, but the satisfaction may be short-lived, as there is always a desire for more, which increases the frequency of action (McCullers, 1978). Extrinsic motivation is used in education to

11 encourage students to learn. For example, students take part in class activities because they want to have rewards, such as good grades, from the teachers. Extrinsic motivation is beneficial to second language learners because it can encourage them to study hard to get good grades. This motivation usually occurs for a limited period and does not continue in some cases after the individual receives either the rewards or punishment (McCullers, 1978). Gardner’s Motivation Theory The motivation theory established by Gardner has two different orientations: integration motivation and instrumental motivation. According to Gardner (1985), integrative motivation is one’s attitude towards members of the target language. The learner in this situation wants to integrate directly with the language community and learn the culture as well. Gardner (1985) indicates that this integrative motivation is associated with students’ attitudes, response to the class atmosphere, and the teachers’ approaches, and it drives the students to learn the language. Baker (1998) found that students with high integrative motivation have more exposure to the target language and more persistence to learn. The students are self-directed to learn the language from the targeted group itself (Noels, 2001). Even though those who have integrative motivation have very high success, this type of motivation may not be appropriate for all language learning circumstances because there are fewer opportunities in life for interacting with the native speakers of foreign languages. Instrumental motivation, on the other hand, is an act of doing a task stimulated by practical purposes such as getting a better job and salary (Gardner, 1985). External rewards such as community recognition, prestige, and money from well-paid jobs, passing the examination, or traveling abroad are the driving forces of this motivation (Ellis 1997). Learners are more task-oriented; they avoid routines and punishment,

12 are profit-minded and believe that mastering the second language will help them have a bright future. Like extrinsic motivation, those who are instrumentally motivated seek tangible results and may learn English to avoid punishment from teachers or get good grades (Gardner, 2003). However, this practical way of learning language leaves out the autonomous decision, as one is controlled by circumstances (Wang, 2008), and these learners may have less integration with the language society if their emphasis is on the instrumental motivation itself. Demotivation Issues in Speaking English Gardner (1985) stated that one’s attitude would determine the success and failure in language acquisition, as it might hinder one’s motivation to learn. Based on Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics and Pedagogy (2002), attitude and a learner’s language approach play a role in learning a language. The attitude that hinders one’s motivation may come from different factors, such as classroom atmosphere, public humiliation, devastating test results, or conflict with peers (Dornnyei, 2001). Soureshjani & Riahipour (2012) found that students only learn if they like the teacher. They also discovered that teachers did not provide the right environment to motivate students to learn English. Specifically, they identified teachers’ warmth, understanding, and expectations as de-motivators. Teachers who do not provide clear expectations, or did not understand student’s problems in learning the language, may hinder students from speaking the language outside of the classroom. Demotivation comes because students lack intrinsic motivation. When students are only motivated to pass exams, in the absence of examinations, they do not make any effort to learn to speak (Li & Bo, 2016).

13 Another demotivating factor in learning English as revealed by Lopez and Tun (2017) is having no confidence, and the fear of not “measuring up.” The students who feel this way, constantly compare themselves with their peers and are fearful of being ridiculed. When learners experience one of these factors, they will feel overwhelmed, anxious because they do not want to be ridiculed, and thus hesitate to speak the language. Related Studies Jin, Dai, Liu, and Zhao (2003) conducted a study on motivation and speaking English by using Self-determination Theory guidelines. The study showed that motivation and speaking success were correlated with each other and that higher language ability to speak English is related to intrinsic and integrative motivations. Their study also revealed that students with low achievement would speak English just to avoid punishment, whereas higher achievement students do it to be able to make friendships with international students and travel abroad. A study conducted by Berwick and Ross (1989) on the relationship between motivations and learning a foreign language by Japanese students showed that students twere instrumentally motivated. This finding is similar to the study of Noels, Clement, & Pelletier (2001), who examined French Canadian students’ perception of autonomy and competence, and motivation to pursue English language studies. It revealed that student’ reasons to learn English was related totheir goal to get tangible rewards, such as jobs or course credits. This finding parallels the findings from a study conducted by Ghanea et al. (2011). Ghanea et al. (2011) studied the relationship between motivation and learning a foreign language among Iranian students using Gardner’s motivation theory. Their study revealed that students are instrumentally motivated.

14 In addition, in a studyon age and gender effects on motivation and attitudes in learning German by Polish students, Okuniewski (2014) found differences in age and gender that were significant at the 0.05 level. Older students were more integrative in learning German than were their younger counterparts. In the Thai context, a study by Choomthong and Chaichompoo (2015) showed that Thai English majors at Chiang Mai University had significantly higher instrumental motivation in learning a second language compared to non-English majors. This was somehow similar to the findings of a study conducted by Nuchnoi (2008), whichrevealed that Thai English majors at Rangsit University were instrumentally motivated to study English because of the goal to pass the Foundational English course compared to the non-English major students. Related studies in speaking English revealed that a majority of Thai students found that speaking was the most problematic skill to learn compared to other skills. A study conducted by Juhana (2012) showed that culturally, it was easy for Thai students to become anxious in making mistakes when speaking English. He found that Thai students felt uncomfortable when confronted with speaking intonation and pronunciation matters. These findings were similar to Romwapee’s (2012), which stated that a lack of practice in pronouncing words, along with mastering grammatical structure and vocabulary, had affected Thai students in their efforts to speak fluent English. A study by Chainontee (2010) examined the problems with five English skills faced by first-year Education majors at Donburi Rajabhat University. She found that students considered speaking as the most problematic English language skill. At the same time, Chootanon (2008) surveyed students at Suan Dusit Rajabhat University to study factors affecting speaking English by fourth-year students. The results revealed

15 that students’ motivation to speak English was very high, but they did not have enough chance to be exposed to English active usage, except in the classroom setting only. Furthermore, a study of third-year tourism students conducted by Nuttawat (2008) revealed that students found it difficult to speak English spontaneously because they did not know how to pronounce the words or phrases, and they did not have adequate vocabulary for expressing themselves. Khamkhien (2010) concluded in his study that Thai students’ ability in speaking English is considered low because there is pressure to make native-like speaking sounds as much as possible. When considering if there is a statistically significant effect on motivation to speak English between genders, Jindathai (2015) stated that male students of ThaiNichi Institute of Technology were instrumentally motivated to speak English at a higher level rather than their female counterparts. However, Amengual-Pizarro (2017) revealed that female students score significantly higher in integrative motivation towards learning the English language than did males. Jindathai (2015) also found differences in the types of motivation to speak English among freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior students that were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Freshmen had higher instrumental and integrative motivations compared to sophomores and juniors, but not seniors. However, freshmen and juniors had slightly lower intrinsic motivation compared to seniors and sophomores. A study by Pengnate (2014) on low-graded students’ motivation, attitude and English learning behavior conducted at the same institution as Jindathai’s revealed that in total, there was no statistically significant differences in motivation and English learning behavior by genders. However, there were statistically significant

16 differences at the 0.05 level in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and English learning behavior among students from the Automotive Engineering and Business Information majors. In relation to programs of study, Thongmark (2012) revealed that Thai students from Thaksin University’s Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences were more instrumentally motivated to speak English than were those from other faculties. However, this finding was contrary to that of Degang (2010), who found that Thai Business English majors at Assumption University were slightly more integratively motivated to speak English than students from other majors. Prakorngchat (2007) conducted a study of Thai Public University freshmen on factors related to the use of language learning strategies . She found that students with more than eight years of language learning experience applied language learning strategies, improved their skills, and used their English knowledge more than those with eight years or less of English language learning expereince.

17 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was mainly to explore the factors that motivated and discouraged Thai students from speaking English outside of the classroom. This exploratory study was guided by the following research questions: 1. What motivation and demotivation factors affect Thai students from English speaking outside the classroom? Do gender, program of study, faculty, class status, and period of learning English have a statistically significant influence on motivation and demotivation factors to speak English outside of the classroom? The hypothesis of this study was that students’ speaking would improve when they know the underlying obstacles that hinder them from speaking the language. Research Design The researcher used a descriptive quantitative method, as the nature of this research was to explore factors that affected students’ motivation and demotivation to speak English. A questionnaire was used to collect the data, and descriptive statistics summarized the sample. In addition, statistical parameters such as mean, standard deviation, t-test, and p-value were utilized to find differences between gender, the program of study, class status, and period of learning English on motivational variables and demotivation factors. Research Setting and Participants

18 This study was conducted at Asia-Pacific International University, Muak Lek Campus, which is located in Muak Lek District, Saraburi Province, Thailand. The target population of this study was 356 Thai students who were enrolled in seven International and Thai programs. The sample was comprised of both males and females who were freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Due to the difficulty of tracking students’ class schedules, the researcher used a convenience sampling method. This method allowed the researcher to select participants because of their accessibility. Out of a target population of 356, the researcher was able to persuade 197 students to participate in the survey. Research Instrument The questionnaire was the instrument used to collect data to find out the motivation and obstacles that discourage Thai students from speaking English. This self-administered questionnaire was adapted from Chongpensurklert (2011), using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, using the following scoring criteria: 5 means ‘Strongly Agree’ 4 means ‘Agree’ 3 means ‘Indifferent’ 2 means ‘Disagree’ 1 means ‘Strongly Disagree.’ The questionnaire was comprised of three segments: 1. The first part involved participants ‘personal information such as gender, age, the program of study, faculty, year of study, and period of learning English. 2. The second part consisted of 31 questions: seven items for extrinsic, intrinsic, and integrative motivations, and 10 items for instrumental motivation.

19 3. The last part of the questionnaire contained 10 questions regarding demotivating factors that hindered them from speaking English outside of the classroom. The criteria used for scoring was a five-point Likert scale as follows: 5 means ‘Most affect’ 4 means ‘More affect’ 3 means ‘Indifferent’ 2 means ‘Less effect’ 1 means ‘The least effect’ To ensure its content validity, maximum objectivity, and clarity for this study, the questionnaire was revised in agreement with the advice of expertsfrom the Graduate Studies Program faculty. Internal consistency analysis of the items measured by the Likert scale were evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha (Polit and Beck, 2010). This analysis provided information on which items needed rewording or removal from the instrument. Data Collection and Procedures Altogether 197 participants responded to the questionnaire, which was distributed directly to them in the month of January 2019. Participants were informed that their contribution was voluntary, and to answer the questionnaire based on their own feelings and understanding. They were given one week to complete the questionnaire, and the researcher gathered all the questionnaires directly from the participants. All responses were treated confidentially.

20 Ethical Consideration Permission to conduct this study and to distribute the surveys to students was obtained from the university’s Research Ranking Development Committee, and from the Faculty of Education Graduate Program at Asia-Pacific International University. The participants’ rights were protected, and confidentiality was assured to all participants and their responses. Data Analysis Data of this study overall was analyzed with computer software. The sequences used to analyze the data are outlined as follows: 1. Data concerning the participants’ general backgrounds was categorized and tabulated. The calculation of the data produced descriptive statistics, which are presented in frequencies and percentages. 2. The results of motivation and demotivating factors to speak English outside the classroom are presented by showing Mean (x̅) scores. The scale value of the mean for each question is as follows; Very Low (1.00 – 1.50), Low (1.51 – 2.50), Medium (2.51 – 3.50), High (3.51 – 4.50), and Very High (4.51 – 5.00). 3. The differences between variables were analyzed by t-test, F-test, and Scheffe’s method when factor differences remained.

21 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was mainly to explore the factors that motivated and discouraged Thai students from speaking English outside the classroom. This chapter presents the results of data analysis, which are divided into four parts. The first part highlights the participants’ general information using descriptive statistics, and the second part discusses the preliminary analysis. The third part presents major analysis arranged one by one in the same order as the research questions, while the last part lists a summary of the major findings. Demographic Characteristics of Participants Altogether 197 Thai students participated in this study; they were enrolled in International and Thai programs during the second semester of the 2018-2019 academic year. They were a mixture of freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior students from seven different faculties, of both genders. Table 1 indicates that females represented 67.5% of the sample study, while 32.5% were male. Participants who were between 20 to 23 years old accounted for 65.5% of the total, followed by 31% aged between 17-19 years old, and 3.6% above 23 years old. A majority of the students representing 73.1% were studying in the Thai program, and only 26.9% were from the International program. Moreover, most participants came from the Faculty of Arts and Humanities (37.6%), followed by Faculty of Nursing (34.5%), Faculty of Business Administration (11.7%), Faculty of Education (7.1%), Faculty Religious Studies (4.6%), and Faculty of Science (3.6%).

22 Table 1 Participants Demographic Characteristics Demographic Characteristics Frequency (n=197) Percentage (%) Gender Male Female 64 133 32.5 67.5 Age 17 – 19 years old 20 – 23 years old More than 23 years old 61 129 7 31.0 65.5 3.6 Study Program International Thai 53 144 26.9 73.1 Faculty Arts and Humanities Business Administration Education Information Technology Nursing Religious Studies Science 74 23 14 2 68 9 7 37.6 11.7 7.1 1.0 34.5 4.6 3.6 Level of Study Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior 79 73 27 18 40.1 37.1 13.7 9.1 Period of Study Less than 12 years 12 – 14 years More than 14 years 80 63 54 40.6 32.0 27.4 The smallest numbers of participant came from the Faculty of Information Technology (1%). In addition, freshmen represent a majority of the study sample (40.1%), followed by sophomores (37.1%). The remainder consisted of 13.7% who were juniors, and 9.1% who were seniors. Of all the students who partook in this study, 40.6% of participants had learned English for less than 12 years, 32% had learned English for between 12 to 14 years, and 27.4% had studied English for more than 14 years. Preliminary Data Analysis There were two stages in analyzing the quantitative data from the questionnaire. The first stage includes data screening to check for and correct any errors found,

23 whereas Cronbach’s alpha was used to analyze each questionnaire item’s reliability, and choose which items to omit or reconstruct. The second stage analyzed the differences among variables by using descriptive statistics such as means, frequencies, standard deviations, t-test, and p-value. Data Analysis Results Data extracted from the questionnaire is presented in different tables. Table 2 reports motivation variable means, standard deviations, skewness and reliability estimates. With skewness statistics about ±1.0 (George & Mallory, 2008), we can assume that these variables are normally distributed. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from a low of 0.74 for integrative motivation to a high of 0.92 for extrinsic motivation. These are larger than 0.70, the cut-off for acceptable reliability estimates. Table 2 Variable Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Estimates (n=197) Variable M SD #items Skewness Cronbach’ s Alpha Extrinsic 3.32 0.82 7 -0.63 0.92 Intrinsic 3.41 0.75 7 -0.33 0.85 Instrumental 4.17 0.59 10 -1.09 0.89 Integrative 3.74 0.67 7 -0.10 0.74 Obstacles 3.30 0.85 10 -0.35 0.91 Factors Motivating Students to Speak English Outside of the Classroom There are 31 items related to factors motivating students to speak English outside the classroom: 1. Extrinsic: 7 items 2. Intrinsic: 7 items

24 3. Instrumental: 10 items 4. Integrative: 7 items Table 3 summarizes extrinsic reasons for speaking English. With the highest mean of 3.46 (SD=1.05) for ‘answering questions in class” and the lowest mean of 3.16 (SD=1.10) for “chatting English in social media”, it appears that most students are neutral about extrinsic reasons for speaking English outside the classroom. Table 3 Extrinsic Motivation Item Means and Standard Deviations (n=197) Statements M SD Answering questions in class. 3.46 1.04 Join speaking activities in class. 3.41 1.01 Taking a speaking exam. 3.39 0.91 Asking and answering questions in English. 3.34 0.92 Doing oral presentation in English. 3.25 0.99 Talking to foreigners. 3.22 1.00 Chatting English in social media (e.g., messenger, line, etc.). 3.16 1.10 Intrinsic motivation for speaking English outside the classroom is reported in Table 4. Intrinsic reasons for speaking English are mainly defined by listening and singing English songs (M=3.98, SD=0.94), studying the English language (M=3.85, SD=0.96) and watching English movies (M=3.65, SD=0.98). Participants were neutral about writing English stories (M=2.81, SD=1.17) as a reason for learning English. Table 5 reports item level statistics for instrumental motivation. The majority of the participants agreed with the statement, “the ability to speak English allows one to meet and talk to people in other countries” (M = 4.54, SD = 0.681), followed by “to

25 travel or survive abroad, one should be able to speak English” (M = 4.53, SD = 0.689). Two items had the same mean score: “being able to speak English increases Table 4 Intrinsic Motivation Item Means and Standard Deviations (n=197) Statements M SD I like to listen to and sing English songs. 3.98 0.93 I like to study the English language 3.85 0.96 I love to watch English movies. 3.65 0.98 I like to speak English with foreigners. 3.35 1.09 I like to read English books aloud. 3.33 1.06 I like to read English books (e.g., Novels/fictions). 2.93 1.05 I like to write English stories. 2.81 1.16 Table 5 Instrumental Motivation Item Means and Standard Deviations (n=197) Statements M SD The ability to speak English allows one to meet and talk to people in other countries. 4.54 0.68 To travel or survive abroad, one should be able to speak English. 4.53 0.68 To pursue higher education, one should be able to speak English. 4.45 0.74 Being able to speak English increases the chance of getting a better job. 4.45 0.75 Ability in speaking English assists a person's achievement and improvement. 4.22 0.87 Ability in speaking English helps increase a person's confidence. 4.20 0.85 Society respects a person who can speak English. 3.98 0.88 To be westernized, you must be able to speak English. 3.93 0.92 The new generation should be able to speak English. 3.84 0.91 A person who can speak English is an educated person. 3.55 0.98

26 the chance of getting a better job” (M = 4.45, SD = 0.751), and “to pursue higher education, one should be able to speak English” (M = 4.45, SD = 0.745). Other instrumental reasons for speaking English included “the new generation should be able to speak English” (M = 3.84, SD = 0.917), and “a person who can speak English is the educated person” (M = 3.55, SD = 0.981). Table 6: Integrative Motivation Item Means and Standard Deviations (n=197) Statements M SD English is very useful when going abroad and traveling. 4.48 0.83 English is very important for future careers. 4.35 0.83 I would like to pursue a Master's degree overseas. 4.14 1.03 I would like to work in an international organization. 3.79 1.13 English is very useful for higher education. 3.78 1.02 I am influenced by English environment, making international friends. 3.47 1.15 My parents use English at home and at work. 2.15 1.42 Item statistics for integrative motivation are reported in Table 6. The majority of the participants agreed, “English is very useful when going abroad and traveling” (M=4.48, SD=0.83), “English is very important for future careers” (M=4.35, SD= 0.84), and “I would like to pursue a Master’s degree overseas” (M=4.14, SD=1.04). However, participants disagreed that their parents use English at home and at work (M=2.15, SD=1.42). Factors Demotivating Students to Speak English Outside of the Classroom Table 7 reports on the perceived obstacles to speaking English outside the classroom. These obstacles include inadequate vocabulary to speak effectively (M=3.73, SD=1.09), “can’t speak English fluently” (M=3.50, SD=1.16), insufficient knowledge of English grammar (M=3.50, SD =1.06), and not being to speak English

27 continuously (M=3.46, SD=1.18). Less of an obstacle is not wanting “to lose face in front of my peers” (M=2.65, SD=1.25). Table 7: Demotivation Item Means and Standard Deviations (n=197) Statements M SD I do not know enough vocabulary words to speak effectively. 3.73 1.08 I do not have enough grammar knowledge to speak effectively. 3.50 1.06 I cannot speak English fluently. 3.50 1.16 I cannot speak English continuously. 3.46 1.18 I feel nervous about making mistakes. 3.32 1.18 I do not know how to stress words correctly. 3.29 1.06 I cannot pronounce words and consonants correctly. 3.27 1.07 I cannot speak with intonation like a native speaker. 3.21 1.16 I feel shy and lack confidence in speaking English. 3.07 1.22 I do not want to lose face in front of my peers. 2.65 1.24 Differences between Variables toward Motivation to Speak English Outside the Classroom Statistical parameters such as mean, standard deviation, t-test, and p-value were utilized to find differences between gender, program of study, class status, faculty, and period of learning English on motivation variables and demotivation factors. Gender effects on motivation and obstacles to speaking English outside the classroom are reported in Table 8. There are statistically significant gender differences in instrumental motivation (t=-2.749, df=193, p=0.007, ES (d)=0.42), intrinsic motivation (t=3.034, df=193, p=0.003, ES(d)=0.46), and extrinsic motivation (t=2.116, df=193, p=0.036, ES(d)=0.32). Females (M=4.25, SD=0.56) had significantly higher instrumental motivation than males (M=4.00, SD=0.62).

28 However, females (M=3.31, SD=0.77) have significantly lower intrinsic motivation than males (M=3.65, SD=0.66). Females (M=3.24, SD=0.84) also have lower Table 8: Gender Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables. Variables Gender N M SD t df p ES(d) Extrinsic Motivation 1 Male 63 3.50 0.75 2.116 193 0.036 0.32 2 Female 132 3.24 0.84 Intrinsic Motivation 1 Male 63 3.65 0.66 3.034 193 0.003 0.46 2 Female 132 3.31 0.77 Instrumental Motivation 1 Male 63 4.00 0.62 -2.749 193 0.007 0.42 2 Female 132 4.25 0.56 Integrative Motivation 1 Male 63 3.84 0.74 1.480 193 0.141 0.23 2 Female 132 3.69 0.63 Demotivation to Speaking English 1 Male 63 3.24 0.84 -0.604 193 0.546 0.09 2 Female 132 3.32 0.85 extrinsic motivation than males (M=3.50, SD=0.75). No gender differences were found for integrative motivation and demotivation (obstacles to speaking English). Program differences on motivation variables are reported on Table 9. Statistically significant program of study differences were found for all five factors: extrinsic motivation (t = -2.886, df = 188, p = 0.004, ES(d) = 0.47), intrinsic motivation (t = 2.619, df = 188, p = 0.010, ES(d) = 0.43), integrative motivation (t = 2.095, df = 188, p = 0.038, ES(d) = 0.34, instrumental motivation (t = -1.257, df = 188, p = 0.0210, ES(d) = 0.20), and demotivation (t = -3.020, df = 188, p = 0.003, ES(d) = 0.49). Students in the International program (M = 3.60, SD = 0.81) had significantly higher extrinsic motivation than those in the Thai program (M = 3.22, SD = 0.81). In addition, International program students (M = 3.66, SD = 0.71) had higher significantly higher intrinsic motivation than did Thai program students (M =

29 3.35, SD = 0.73). Besides that, International program (M = 3.91, SD = 0.69) students had significantly higher integrative motivation than did their Thai program Table 9: Program Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables Variables Program N M SD t df p ES(d) Extrinsic Motivation International 52 3.60 0.81 2.886 188 0.004 0.47 Thai 138 3.22 0.81 Intrinsic Motivation International 52 3.66 0.71 2.619 188 0.010 0.43 Thai 138 3.35 0.73 Instrumental Motivation International 52 4.09 0.56 -1.257 188 0.210 0.20 Thai 138 4.21 0.57 Integrative Motivation International 52 3.91 0.69 2.095 188 0.038 0.34 Thai 138 3.69 0.64 Demotivation to Speaking English International 52 3.00 0.87 -3.020 188 0.003 0.49 Thai 138 3.41 0.80 counterparts (M = 3.66, SD = 0.64). However, Thai program students (M = 3.41, SD = 0.80) had significantly higher demotivation than did International program students (M = 3.66, SD = 0.71). Year of Study descriptive statistics and results of one-way analysis of variance are reported in Table 10. There are significant class differences for instrumental motivation (F(3,192)=4.86, p=0.003, η2 =0.07), integrative motivation (F(3,192)=2.76, p=0.044, η2 =0.02), extrinsic motivation F(3,192)=3.64, p=0.001, η2 =0.08) and obstacles to speaking English (F(3,192)=3.69, p=0.001, η2 =0.08). Less than 10% of the variations in these motivation variables can be accounted for by post-hoc multiple comparisons. A procedure using the least significant differences (LSD) indicated that juniors (M=3.80) have lower instrumental motivation than did freshman (M=4.24) or sophomores (M=4.25). Freshman (M=3.84) also have

30 higher integrative motivation than had juniors (M=3.47), and seniors (M=3.92), but not with sophomores (M=3.66). Freshman (M=3.20) and sophomores (M=3.20) have lower extrinsic motivation than did seniors (M=3.97) but not with juniors (M=3.54). Obstacles to speaking English are higher among freshman (M=3.38) and sophomores (M=3.47) than juniors (M=2.80) and seniors (M=2.97). Table 10 Year of Study Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables Variables Class Status N M SD F df1, df2 p η2 Extrinsic Motivation Freshman 79 3.20 0.79 3.64 3, 192 0.001 0.08 Sophomore 73 3.20 0.76 Junior 26 3.54 0.81 Senior 18 3.97 0.88 Intrinsic Motivation Freshman 79 3.43 0.69 1.30 3, 192 0.275 0.02 Sophomore 73 3.29 0.76 Junior 26 3.60 0.86 Senior 18 3.52 0.78 Instrumental Motivation Freshman 79 4.24 0.46 4.86 3, 192 0.003 0.07 Sophomore 73 4.25 0.55 Junior 26 3.80 0.79 Senior 18 4.02 0.71 Integrative Motivation Freshman 79 3.84 0.58 2.76 3, 192 0.044 0.04 Sophomore 73 3.66 0.66 Junior 26 3.47 0.84 Senior 18 3.92 0.71 Demotivation to Speaking English Freshman 79 3.38 0.79 3.69 3, 192 0.001 0.08 Sophomore 73 3.47 0.79 Junior 26 2.80 0.93 Senior 18 2.97 0.87

31 Table 11 Post-Hoc Multiple Comparison for Year of Study (Least Significant Differences) Variables Class Status M Sophomore Junior Senior Extrinsic Freshman 3.20 *** Sophomore 3.20 *** Junior 3.54 Senior 3.97 Instrumental Freshman 4.24 *** Sophomore 4.25 *** Junior 3.80 Senior 4.02 Integrative Motivation Freshman 3.84 * Sophomore 3.66 Junior 3.47 * Senior 3.92 Demotivation to Speak English Freshman 3.38 ** Sophomore 3.47 *** * Junior 2.80 Senior 2.97 Note. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Differences among Faculties are reported on Table 12. There are statistically significant Faculty differences in instrumental motivation (F(5,191)= 3.29, p =0.007, η2 =0.08), intrinsic motivation (F(5,191)=4.21, p=0.001, η2 = 0.10), and extrinsic motivation (F(5,191)=7.66, p <0.001, η 2 = 0.17). Pairwise comparison procedure results using least significant differences (LSD) are reported in Table 13. Compared to other Faculties, the Faculty of Nursing (M=4.37) was higher in instrumental motivation, while lower in intrinsic motivation (M=3.11) and extrinsic motivation (M=2.92). The Faculty of Arts and Humanities (M=3.67) was higher than Business Administration (M=3.28) and Education (M=3.16) in extrinsic motivation.

32 Table 12 Faculty Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables Variable Faculty N M SD F df1, df2 p η2 Extrinsic Motivation Arts & Humanities 74 3.67 0.75 7.66 5, 191 <0.001 0.17 Business Administration 23 3.28 0.97 Education 14 3.16 0.46 Science & IT 9 3.65 0.47 Nursing 68 2.92 0.71 Intrinsic Motivation Arts & Humanities 74 3.61 0.74 4.12 5, 191 0.001 0.10 Business Administration 23 3.52 0.76 Education 14 3.70 0.57 Science & IT 9 3.56 0.55 Nursing 68 3.11 0.72 Religious Studies 9 3.25 0.78 Instrumental Motivation Arts & Humanities 74 4.04 0.65 3.29 5, 191 0.007 0.08 Business Administration 23 3.98 0.69 Education 14 4.19 0.47 Science & IT 9 3.96 0.57 Nursing 68 4.37 0.45 Religious Studies 9 4.37 0.48 Integrative Motivation Arts & Humanities 74 3.87 0.67 1.92 5, 191 0.094 0.05 Business Administration 23 3.57 0.89 Education 14 3.82 0.60 Science & IT 9 3.87 0.48 Nursing 68 3.59 0.60 Religious Studies 9 3.97 0.72 Extrinsic Motivation Arts & Humanities 74 3.67 0.75 7.66 5, 191 <0.001 0.17 Business Administration 23 3.28 0.97 Education 14 3.16 0.46 Science & IT 9 3.65 0.47 Nursing 68 2.92 0.71 Religious Studies 9 3.48 1.04 Obstacles to Speaking English Arts & Humanities 74 3.20 0.90 1.58 5, 191 0.169 0.04 Business Administration 23 3.00 0.97 Education 14 3.28 0.54 Science & IT 9 3.46 0.74 Nursing 68 3.49 0.77 Religious Studies 9 3.31 0.90

33 Table 13 Post-Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Faculty (Least Significant Differences) Variable Faculty M Bus Ad Educ SC/IT Nurs Rel Extrinsic Motivation Arts & Humanities 3.67 * * *** Business Administration 3.28 * Education 3.16 Science & IT 3.65 ** Nursing 2.92 Religious Studies 3.48 * Intrinsic Motivation Arts & Humanities 3.61 *** Business Administration 3.52 * Education 3.70 ** Science & IT 3.56 Nursing 3.11 Religious Studies 3.25 Instrumental Motivation Arts & Humanities 4.04 *** Business Administration 3.98 ** Education 4.19 Science & IT 3.96 * Nursing 4.37 Religious Studies 4.37 Note. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 Table 14 summarizes the results for motivational differences by period of studying English. There were significant differences in instrumental motivation (F(2,194) = 5.06, p=0.007, η2 = 0.05), integrative motivation (F(2,194) = 4.24, p =0.016, η2 = 0.04), and obstacles to speaking English (F(2,194) = 4.82, p =0.009, η2 = 0.05). The results of a post-hoc multiple comparison procedure using least significant differences (LSD) are reported on Table 15. Participants who had learned English for 12-14 years (M=4.26) and over 14 years (M=4.29) had higher instrumental motivation than those who had learned the language for less than 12 years (M=4.01). Those who had learned English for over 14 years (M=3.96) had higher integrative motivation

34 Table 14 Period of Learning English Differences on Motivation and Demotivation Variables Variable Years N M SD F df1, df2 p η2 Extrinsic Motivation < 12 80 3.21 0.88 2.81 2, 194 0.062 0.03 12-14 63 3.27 0.62 > 14 54 3.54 0.90 Total 197 3.32 0.82 Intrinsic Motivation < 12 80 3.29 0.76 1.98 2, 194 0.141 0.02 12-14 63 3.47 0.72 > 14 54 3.54 0.74 Total 197 3.41 0.75 Instrumental Motivation < 12 80 4.01 0.67 5.06 2, 194 0.007 0.05 12-14 63 4.26 0.49 > 14 54 4.29 0.51 Total 197 4.17 0.59 Integrative Motivation < 12 80 3.65 0.75 4.24 2, 194 0.016 0.04 12-14 63 3.66 0.61 > 14 54 3.96 0.58 Total 197 3.74 0.67 Obstacles to Speaking English < 12 80 3.23 0.86 4.82 2, 194 0.009 0.05 12-14 63 3.56 0.73 > 14 54 3.10 0.90 Total 197 3.30 0.85 Table 15 Post-Hoc Multiple Comparisons for Period of Learning English (Least Significant Differences) Variable Years M 12-14 >14 Instrumental Motivation < 12 4.01 ** ** 12-14 4.26 > 14 4.29 Integrative Motivation < 12 3.65 ** 12-14 3.66 * > 14 3.96 Demotivation to Speaking English < 12 3.23 * 12-14 3.56 ** > 14 3.10 Note. **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

35 than those who reported less than 12 years (M=3.65) or those who had learned it for 12-14 years (M=3.66). Obstacles were lower for those who had learned English over 14 years (M=3.10) than those who had learned it for less than 12 years (M=3.23), and those who had learned it for 12-14 years (M=3.56).

36 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter concludes the purpose of the study, literature review, summary of major findings and interpretation, conclusion, limitation, implications of the study, and the recommendations for further research. Purpose of the Study The purposes of this study were to explore the factors that motivate and discourage AIU students from speaking English outside of the classroom. It also aimed to find if there’s a statically significant difference between gender, age, a program of study, year of study, and period of learning English as they affect students’ motivation to speak English. This exploratory study was guided by the following research questions: 1. What motivation and demotivation factors affect English speaking outside the classroom by Thai students? 2. Do gender, program, class status, and period of learning English have a statistically significant influence on motivation and demotivation factors to speak English outside of the classroom? Literature Review It is important to note that learning a foreign language particularly learning how to speak is different from learning other skills. . Using a second language in conversation is an anxiety-provoking skill because it involves several elements that learners find challenging. Being able to speak fluent English is one thing, and being

37 able to engage in on-going conversation is another. Many scholars agree that motivation is one of the essential factors to succeed in learning because it determines a learner’s desire to carry out tasks. According to Gardner (2006), motivation is a multidimensional concept related to behavior, which consists of desire and effort in achieving the goal of learning a language. It is a dynamic process that drives a person’s initiative (Harmer, 2007), actions, or performance of actions, and it encourages a person to persist with it (Dornyei, 2013). In assessing students’ motivation, the conceptual framework was based on Deci and Ryan’s SelfDetermination Theor, and Gardner’s Motivation Theory of learning second languages. Deci and Ryan (1985), who addressed the basic psychological needs in motivation, establish the Self-Determination Theory. They believe external and internal factors influence factors that affect one's desire to learn. This theory distinguishes two motivation types: intrinsic and extrinsic. According to Deci and Ryan’s motivation theory, intrinsic motivation is described as self-driven motivation to gain internal rewards. This type of motivation is associated with positive experiences, as the individual is not pressured to achieve. He has the autonomy to control what happens. This motivation exists inside the individual instead of wishing for external pressures or a need for thought. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), extrinsic motivation is one’s desire to do a task to get the acknowledgement and avoid punishment. It is not merely for selfsatisfaction but has extrinsic value, and the individual has no autonomy over his actions. This type of motivation can be associated with both negative and positive experiences. In the classroom context, students take part in class activities because they look for rewards such as good grades from the teachers. These rewards are important to second language learners because they can encourage them to study hard

38 to get good grades. This motivation usually occurs for a limited period and does not continue in some cases after the individual receives either the rewards or punishment. Gardner’s Motivation Theory established (1985) has two different orientations: 1) integration motivation and 2) instrumental motivation. Based on Gardner (1985), integrative motivation is one’s attitude towards members of the target language. According to Baker (1998), students with high integrative motivation have more exposure to the target language and are more persistent in learning the language. Although the success of learning the language through integrative motivation is higher, this motivation may not be appropriate for all language-learning circumstances, because the learner may not have the opportunity to interact with native speakers. Instrumental motivation, on the other hand, is doing an act, which is stimulated by utilitarian purposes such as getting a better job and salary (Gardner, 1985). External awards such as community recognition, prestige, and money are the driving forces. Learners are more task-oriented, prefer to avoid routines and punishment, and they are more profit-minded. Learners believe that mastering the second language will help them have a bright future. Concerning demotivation issues in speaking English, Gardner (1985) stated that one’s attitude would determine the success or failure in language acquisition, as it might hinder one’s motivation to learn. What hinders students’ motivation to speak a the English language may come from different factors, such as classroom atmosphere, public humiliation, devastating test results, and conflict with peers (Dornnyei, 2001). Lopez and Tun (2017) stated that in speaking English, students mostly have no confidence and my have the fear of not “measuring up.” Therefore, they constantly compare themselves with their peers, and are fearful of being ridiculed. When learners

39 experience one of these factors, they feel overwhelmed and anxious. Previous studies revealed that motivation and successful speaking of a foreign language were correlated with each other (Choomthong & Chaichompoo, 2015; Berwick & Ross, 1989; Jin, Dai, Liu, & Zhao 2003).They found that participants’ reasons to speak English were to make friendships with international students, travel abroad, and get a better job. In a Thai setting, various studies revealed that the majority of Thai students found that speaking was the most problematic skill to learn, compared to listening, writing, reading, and grammar (Chainontee, 2010; Juhana, 2012; Romwapee, 2012). . The reason given for this problem was the lack of knowledge in vocabulary and grammar. The study found that participants had difficulties in conveying basic expressions, and had problems with pronunciation. Students found it difficult to speak English because they have limited access to English-speaking environments. In addition, making the sounds and speaking phonetically like native-language speakers was daunting. Method This study was conducted at Asia-Pacific International University, Muak Lek Campus, which is located in Muak Lek District, Saraburi Province, Thailand. The target population was 356 Thai students who were enrolled in seven AIU International and Thai programs. However, 197 Thai students who had enrolled in the second semester of the 2018-2019 Academic Year at the Muak Lek Campus participated in this study. The sample a mixture of freshmen, sophomore, junior, and senior students. Both genders were sampled. A convenience sampling method was used due to the difficulty of tracking students because of class schedule differences. This method allowed the researcher to survey selected participants because they were conveniently accessible. Descriptive methods were used to summarize student

40 demographics, and to explore factors that affected students’ motivation and demotivation to speak English. A questionnaire was used to collect the data, and other tests such as t-test, F-test, and Scheffe’s method were applied to identify the statistical differences. The questionnaire was adapted from Chongpensuklert (2011), who had developed a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was comprised of three parts. The first part described the demographic characteristics of participants, the second part consisted of motivation factors, which comprised 31 questions, and the last part was 10 questions regarding the demotivating factors to speak English outside the classroom. Summary of Findings The major results of the study are organized and summarized according to the research questions. Demographic Characteristics of Participants The study revealed that the majority of participants were enrolled in the Thai programs (73.1%), and most of them were female students (67.5%). The participants’ ages were between 20-23 years old (65.5%); the smallest group was above 23 years old (3.6%). The largest group were studying English majors (37.6%), followed by Nursing (34.5%). Freshmen (40.6%) and sophomore students (37.1%) dominated the participants in this study. The data also showed that most participants had studied English for less than 12 years (40.6%), followed by between 12-14 years (32%), and followed by those had studied English more than 14 years (27.4%). Factors that motivating Thai student to Speak English outside the Classroom

41 The first purpose of the study was to explore the factors that affect students’ motivation, as stated in research question 1 below: Research Question 1 What motivation and demotivation factors affect Thai students English speaking outside the classroom ? The study’s findings revealed that motivation for speaking English outside the classroom was mainly for instrumental reasons (M=4.17, SD=0.59), followed by integrative reasons (M=3.74, SD=0.67). Less clear reasons were intrinsic (M=3.41, SD=.75), and extrinsic (M=3.32, SD=0.82) motivations. The results are in agreement with findings from the study conducted by Arnold (2000), who stated that the benefit of learning English is to get external rewards. The findings also parallel the findings of Choomthong and Chaichompoo (2015), Ghanea et al. (2011), Noels, Clement, & Pelletier (2001) which revealed that students in their study had a higher instrumental motivation to speak English. This finding could be credited to the fact that students realize the significance of the English language as a means for accessing a better life. The study showed two dominant instrumental reasons that motivated students to speak English. Speaking English would allow students to meet and speak to people from other counties, and those who speak English would be able to survive abroad. Students also believed that being able to speak English would increase their chances of getting a better job, and allow them to pursue higher education. Participants also acknowledged that the integrative reasons to speak English were similar to the instrumental reasons. People who speak English are to able to travel abroad, can have better careers in future, and can pursue a Master’s degree overseas. However, a majority of the students disagreed that having parents who use English at home or at work is the reason for them to speak English.