A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN LEARNING STRATEGY, LEARNING ANXIETY, AND LEARNING MOTIVATION AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ANYANG, CHINA

i A CORRELATIONAL STUDY BETWEEN LEARNING STRATEGY, LEARNING ANXIETY, AND LEARNING MOTIVATION AMONG JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ANYANG, CHINA By JIAO ZIYI A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Education Emphasis in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Faculty of Education Asia-Pacific International University Year 2022

ii Thesis Title: A Correlational Study Between Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation among junior high school students in Anyang, China Author: Jiao Ziyi Thesis Principal Advisor: Dr. Amanda Simon Thesis Co-advisor: Dr. Josephine Katenga Program: Master of Education with Emphasis in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Academic Year: 2022

iii ABSTRACT Many studies have examined strategies, anxieties, and motivation in learning English as a second language. A few have investigated these three variables together, and the results have been inconsistent. None have examined them among Chinese junior high school students attending a private boarding school. Thus, this study aimed to examine the extent to which learning strategies are related to learning anxieties and motivations among junior high school students attending a private boarding school in Anyang, China. A questionnaire consisting of the Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL), Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Sale (FLCAS), and Learning Motivation Questionnaire (LMQ) was administered to selected 7th through 9th-grade students during regular class times. Students took approximately 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire, after which they were returned to the teacher and forwarded to the researcher. Learning strategies ranged from a mean of 2.80 (SD=0.88) for Affective to a high of 3.11 (SD=0.79) for compensation. Learning anxieties ranged from 2.77 (SD=0.61) for communication apprehension to 2.98 (SD=0.90) for fear of negative evaluation. Motivation for learning English appears to be deep (M=3.12, SD=1.03). Females (M=3.26, SD=0.82) used compensation strategy more than males (M=3.01, SD=0.76) while males (M=3.07, SD=0.94) used social strategy more than females (M=2.75, SD=0.87). Grade 9 students (M=3.32, SD=0.69) used the compensation strategy more often than 7th-grade students (M=2.92, SD=0.87). There are no grade level or gender

iv differences for learning anxieties. There are also no grade level differences in learning motivation. However, males (M=2.74, SD=0.84) had significantly higher surface motivation than female students (M=2.50, SD=0.78). Structural equation modeling results suggest that learning strategies is not related to learning anxiety (β=.08); learning motivation is not related to learning motivation (β=.06); but learning strategies are highly related to learning motivation (β=.79). Learning motivation is primarily defined by deep motivation (β=.84) while learning strategies is defined mainly by metacognitive (β=.89), cognitive (β=.87) and memory (β=.82) strategies. In this study, Chinese junior high school students appear to not use any specific English learning strategy and are only moderately anxious when learning English. Students’ motivation for learning English seemed deep. Keywords: English learning strategy; English learning anxiety; English learning motivation.

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people I owe gratitude to for helping me make my research dream a reality. The first and foremost among them is my honorable supervisor, Dr. Amanda, who deserves a special tribute for her extensive guidance, encouragement, and support throughout my master's study. The study could not have been completed without her constant guidance, kind support and encouragement, and professional expertise. I am also indebted to all the teachers of the Faculty of Education who taught me pre-requisite and Master’s courses and broadened my knowledge. They include Dr. Josephine, Dr. Kijai, Dr. Darrin, Dr. Kham Khai, and Mr. Edwardson. Their useful lectures increased my knowledge in the field of education immensely. I am also thankful for my lovely peers in my Master’s study journey. Without them, I would not have had a deeper understanding of the knowledge from classroom lectures, and the motivation to keep learning. Lastly, my special gratitude goes to my family. My parents, who mentally and financially supported my studies abroad in Thailand, always prayed for my success and offered me their best wishes. My wife also deserves a special mention for always standing by my side, encouraging and supporting me in achieving my goal. Jiao Ziyi

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................iiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1 Background Information ................................................................................................ 1 Rationale and Statement of the Problem........................................................................ 5 Purpose of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6 Research Questions........................................................................................................ 6 Benefits to be derived from the Study............................................................................ 7 Scope and Delimitation of the Research ........................................................................ 8 Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................... 10 Learning Strategy......................................................................................................... 10 Definition of Learning Strategy .............................................................................. 10 Classification of Leaning Strategy .......................................................................... 11 Relevant Studies of English Learning Strategy....................................................... 13 Learning Anxiety ......................................................................................................... 16 Definition of Learning Anxiety............................................................................... 16 Classification of Learning Anxiety ......................................................................... 17 Relevant Studies of English Learning Anxiety ....................................................... 18 Learning Motivation..................................................................................................... 21 Definition of Learning Motivation.......................................................................... 21 Classification of Learning Motivation .................................................................... 22 Relevant Studies of English Learning Motivation .................................................. 25 Previous Correlation Studies of Learning Strategy with Learning Anxiety and Learning Motivation..................................................................................................... 27 Correlation between Learning Strategy and Learning Anxiety............................... 27

vii Correlation between Learning Strategy and Learning Motivation.......................... 29 Theories and Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 32 Ellis’ Model............................................................................................................. 32 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 34 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................... 36 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 36 Research Design and Questions................................................................................... 36 Population and Participants.......................................................................................... 37 Research Instruments................................................................................................... 37 Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL).................................................... 38 Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS).......................................... 39 Learning Motivation Questionnaire (LMQ)............................................................ 40 Data Collection Method and Procedures ..................................................................... 41 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 42 Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................ 42 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 42 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS ........................................................................ 44 Participants’ Characteristics......................................................................................... 44 Reliability Estimates .................................................................................................... 45 Results by Research Question...................................................................................... 45 Question 1: What English Learning Strategies Do Students Use?.......................... 45 Question 2: What is the Level of Students’ Learning Anxiety?.............................. 46 Question 3: What Type(S) Of Learning Motivation Do Students Use? ................. 48 Question 4. Is there a difference in learning strategy, learning anxiety, and learning motivation by grade level and gender? ......................................... 48 Difference in Learning Strategy by Grade Level. .............................................. 48 Difference in Learning Strategy by Gender. ...................................................... 49 Difference in Learning Anxiety by Grade Level................................................ 51 Difference in Learning Anxiety by Gender........................................................ 52 Difference in Learning Motivation by Grade Level........................................... 52 Difference in Learning Motivation by Gender................................................... 53

viii Question 5. To what Extent are Learning Strategies Related to Learning Motivation and Anxiety?............................................................................. 53 Correlation of Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation. ........ 56 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............. 61 Summary of the Study.................................................................................................. 61 What English Learning Strategies Do Students Use? Is There Any Difference by Grade Level and Gender?..................................................... 61 What Is the Level of Their Learning Anxiety? Is There Any Difference by Grade Level and Gender?............................................................................ 62 What Type(S) Of Learning Motivation Do Students Use? Is There Any Difference by Grade Level and Gender?..................................................... 62 To What Extent are Learning Strategies Related to Learning Motivation and Anxiety? ...................................................................................................... 62 Discussion of the Study................................................................................................ 63 Discussion of the Current English Learning Strategy that Students Use ................ 63 Discussion of the Current English Learning Anxiety Level ................................... 64 Discussion of the Current Types of English Learning Motivation that Students use................................................................................................. 65 Discussion of the Differences in Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation by Grade Level and Gender ...................................... 66 Discussion of the Correlation Among Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation............................................................................. 68 Implications.................................................................................................................. 69 Limitations of the study ............................................................................................... 70 Recommendations........................................................................................................ 70 For Practice ............................................................................................................. 70 For Future Research ................................................................................................ 71 REFERENCE...................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDICE ................................................................................................................... 86 Appendix A: Research Questionnaire......................................................................... 87 Appendix B: Research Questionnaire - Chinese Version ............................................ 94

ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Demographic Characteristics.............................................................................. 44 Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Reliability Estimates (n=269) ............................................................................................................... 45 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-scale in SILL (n=269) .......................................... 46 Table 4. Overall Level of Learning Anxiety..................................................................... 47 Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-scale in FLCAS (n=269) ...................................... 47 Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-scale in LMQ (n=269).......................................... 48 Table 7. Descriptive Analysis of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Grade Level................................................................................................................... 49 Table 8. ANOVA of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Grade Level .................... 50 Table 9. Multiple Comparisons of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Grade Level................................................................................................................... 50 Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Learning Strategies by Gender .................................. 50 Table 11. Descriptive Statistics & Independent T-test of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Gender ................................................................................... 51 Table 12. Descriptive Statistics of the Specific Learning Anxiety by Grade Level ......... 52 Table 13. Descriptive Statistics of the Specific Learning Anxiety by Gender ................. 52 Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of the Specific Types of Learning Motivation............... 53 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics & Independent T-test of the Specific Types Learning Motivation........................................................................................... 54 Table 16. Pearson Correlations......................................................................................... 55 Table 17. Target and Model Fit Indices............................................................................ 57 Table 18. Path Coefficients (0)......................................................................................... 59 Table 19. Path coefficients for Re-specified Model (Model 1) ........................................ 59

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Ellis’ Second Language Acquisition Model...................................................... 33 Figure 2. Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 34 Figure 3. Hypothesized Model.......................................................................................... 56 Figure 4. Structural Model (Model 0) with Path Coefficients.......................................... 58 Figure 5. Re-specified model (1) ...................................................................................... 60

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Information English is an extremely vital language tool in modern society and has become more important since the 1950s. It is widely used all over the world in almost all the fields such as science, engineering, and technology, medicine, trade, and commerce, scientific research, education, tourism, internet, banking, business, advertising, film industry, transportation, pharmacy and to name a few (Rao, 2019). Without a doubt, English is the number one “lingua franca” worldwide (Bordet, 2018) and is an indispensable communication tool in the international community that plays a pivotal role in globalization. To better adapt to the times' needs and society's development, the China Ministry of Education (MOE) has chosen English as the only second language to teach mandatorily from elementary school to higher education. Meanwhile, with the rise of humanistic psychology, a focus on learning strategies and affective attitudes has provided a new direction that focuses more on the learners in English teaching. In the 1950s, humanistic psychology rose in the United States. Some scholars proposed the concept of “personal-centered therapy” and the educational thought of “holistic human,” which has greatly impacted the field of psychology and pedagogy. The development of psychology, educational psychology, and cognitive psychology made researchers realize that learners are not simply information receiving containers; instead,

2 learning is a complex psychological process in which learners actively recognize and process information (Willing, 1989). Since then, people have gradually realized that the success of language learning mainly depends on the learners themselves rather than the teachers. Consequently, scholars of second language acquisition began to shift their attention from “how to teach” to “how to learn” (Wang, 2014). They began to shift research focus from teachers and teaching to learners and the learning process (Ni, 2008). Hence, the study of individual learning differences among language learners came into being. It is believed that cognitive and affective factors affect every language learner. Cognitive factors include learning style, intelligence, and learning strategies, while affective factors include learning attitude, motivation, and learning anxiety Ellis (1994). Ellis also proposed ten individual learning differences that affect language learning, including intelligence, working memory, language aptitude, learning styles, personality, motivation, anxiety, willingness to communicate, learners’ beliefs, and learning strategies. Ten years earlier, he had pointed out that second language acquisition is very complicated because it is affected by many factors (Ellis, 1985). Therefore, it is necessary to study related factors regarding second language learning to have a clear and comprehensive understanding of students’ English learning. One of the most important factors affecting language learning is learning strategies. Language learning strategies are the methods and means language learners adapt to obtain a second language. Since the 1970s, the study of language learning strategies has received widespread attention. Different scholars have given different definitions and classifications to learning strategies (Ni, 2008), such as Rubin (1981), O’ Malley and Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990). Among them, the most widely accepted

3 is Oxford’s (1990) view, which explicitly states that language learning strategies are “behaviors or actions taken by learners to make language learning more successful, more purposeful, and more enjoyable” (p. 36). Learning strategies are an essential part of language learning. The study of the correlation between language learning strategies and academic performance began in the 1980s. Over the years, researchers have found significant differences in the frequency and types of learning strategies used by language learners (Gu, 2007), which may affect learning results. Most results show that language learning strategies positively relate to academic performance, while some show no significant correlation between learning strategies and academic performance. Mastering effective foreign language learning methods and strategies is a winning magic weapon for good foreign language learning results. With the development of humanistic psychology, the affective factors in education have been paid more and more attention. Language learning anxiety, as an important affective factor, is a relatively complex psychological phenomenon produced by individuals in the process of language learning. Horwitz et al.(1986) first proposed the concept of foreign language anxiety in the mid-to-late 20th century. They are defined as the unique and complex self-awareness, beliefs, emotions, and behaviors produced in the process of foreign language learning by learners. The definition is due to the uniqueness of foreign language learning. Based on this, a foreign language classroom anxiety scale was constructed to measure the degree of anxiety in foreign language learning. Brown (1973) also clarified the relationship between affective factors and second language acquisition, pointing out that anxiety is one of the main affective factors influencing the

4 learning effect of second language learners. Since the 1970s, language learning anxiety has become an important research topic in second language acquisition. However, there is limited agreement on the relationship between anxiety and learning. Some researchers argue that anxiety facilitates language learning, while some studies show that anxiety has a negative impact on language learning (Ellis, 1994). Some scholars also insist that “language anxiety is the result of difficulties with learning rather than their causes” (Ellis, 1999, p.694). In the study by Von Worde (2003), numerous studies have confirmed that widespread foreign language learning anxiety can hinder second language learning. The term ‘motivation’ is frequently talked about when language teachers describe successful or unsuccessful language learners, which shows that in the process of mastering a second/ foreign language, the learners’ commitment, persistence, and enthusiasm are the decisive factors for success or failure (Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013, p.5). L2 learning achievement has become the focus of research to examine what factors might promote and facilitate the L2 learning process and improve good L2 achievement. It is widely accepted that L2 motivation is one of the most important factors to influence L2 learners’ learning in their process and in their results therefore, a great number of L2 studies are conducted to investigate how to promote L2 motivation (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009; Ushioda, 2017). There are few English-speaking communities in non-English speaking countries, so L2 learning often occurs in classrooms. Therefore, more classroom-based research has been conducted to investigate what strengthens L2 motivation. The findings indicate that teacher motivation, teacher motivational strategies, and learner attitudes are the most influential factors affecting learners’ L2 motivation. (Guilloteaux & Dörnyei,

5 2008; Papi & Abdollahzadeh, 2012; Moskovsky. et al., 2013. Indeed, in most of the studies, L2 learners with high motivation are known to achieve success in language learning, regardless of their language aptitude. In contrast, even the brightest learners without enough motivation are not likely to persist in their studies long enough to achieve success (Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013, p.5). Recently, many empirical studies have investigated the current situation of students' learning strategies, learning anxiety levels among students, and types of learning motivation the students have. The results vary in regard to different sampling. Meanwhile, scholars have examined the relationship between strategies, anxiety, and motivation. The results also seem to be inconsistent due to the different environments. Rationale and Statement of the Problem Junior high is an important stage between primary school and high school learning, and it is also the starting stage for formal English learning. Compared with elementary English, the English system of junior high school is more systematic and complete. At the same time, junior high school students are in the budding stage of adolescence and are sensitive at this stage. Therefore, The Compulsory Education English Curriculum Standard (2011 Edition) requires teachers to consciously and purposefully help students form their learning strategies at the junior high school stage. Educators are also required to assist in reducing students' learning anxiety, improving students' learning efficiency, and helping students develop the ability to learn independently, all of which will lay a solid foundation for the next stage of learning (Ministry of Education, 2011, p.8). in light of the above requirements, it is necessary to determine the current situation regarding students’ learning strategies, motivation categories, and anxiety levels.

6 Recent scholarly work focuses mainly on the study of the relationship between L2 learning strategies, learning autonomy, learning motivation, and learning anxiety with learning achievement. Although there are empirical studies examining the relationship between strategies, anxiety, and motivation, the results seem to be inconsistent due to the different samples and environments. For example, most scholars have found positive relationships between learning strategy and learning motivation. However, some findings indicate that different types of strategies have different correlations with motivation. It is, therefore, worth conducting further studies on the relationship between these variables in language learning to enrich the pool of empirical studies in the Chinese context. Moreover, most of the research in China has been conducted in big cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai, and Suzhou, and done at the tertiary education level. Thus, there is a need to collect empirical data among junior high students in a small city context. Purpose of the Study This study focuses on the use of English learning strategies, learning motivation among junior high school students, as well as their levels of anxiety. Moreover, the study investigates and explores the correlations among these three variables to enrich concrete data for education. Research Questions This empirical study explores the relationship between English learning strategies, learning anxiety, and learning motivation in a junior high school. 1. What English learning strategies do students use? 2. What is the level of students learning anxiety? 3. What type of learning motivation do students use?

7 4. Is there a difference in learning strategy, learning anxiety, and learning motivation by grade level and gender? 5. What is the correlation between learning strategy, learning motivation, and learning anxiety? Benefits to be derived from the Study For junior high school teachers, correct understanding of learning anxiety, appropriate skills in guiding learning motivation, and proper knowledge of students learning strategies can help reduce learning anxiety and improve learning effectiveness among students. Therefore, the significance of this study lies in the following three points. From a theoretical perspective, this study could provide concrete data and cases for related research on second language acquisition by explaining the current situation of junior high students with regards to English learning strategies, anxiety levels, and motivation types and discussing the relationship among them. From a practical perspective, the participants in this study are junior high students, so the analysis of the relationship between the three learning factors has a certain reference value for junior school teachers in their choice of teaching strategies. The research results may help English teachers to adjust teaching methods, improve teaching activities, and boost the effectiveness of English teaching within junior high schools. From a social perspective, students start learning English systematically at the stage of junior high, which is a critical period of English learning. A thorough understanding of learning anxiety and motivation and the proper application of learning

8 strategies can effectively reduce learning anxiety and help improve junior high students' English learning initiative and autonomy. Paying close attention to the psychological growth of adolescents while emphasizing the effectiveness of learning has a particular social and practical significance. Scope and Delimitation of the Research This study investigates the current situation concerning learning strategy, learning anxiety, and motivation among junior high school students in a small city in China. It explores the relationships between these three factors of English learning to provide feasible suggestions for students’ learning and teachers’ teaching. Even though many research studies have been conducted in these research areas, only a few are concentrated on the junior high stage; thus, the study has been limited to junior high school students to enrich the data at this level. As mentioned in the research questions, the population is junior high school students from grade 7 to grade 9 in a local private school, and the study will examine the differences by grade level and gender. Lastly, due to time constraints and difficulties getting permission from other schools, the survey for this study was administered at only one school. As a result, the data might not represent the entire city; however, the participants from one school are significantly meaningful for the target school to understand the students’ current English learning. Organization of the Study This study contains five further chapters: Chapter two is the literature review which includes three sections that explore the study of learning strategies, learning anxiety, and learning motivation, as well as the study of the relationship between learning strategy and learning motivation at the same time learning strategy and learning anxiety.

9 Chapter three is the methodology which describes and justifies the research design, research instrument, data collection, and analysis and outlines the ethical concerns in the study. Chapter four contains the study's results and mainly includes descriptions of the current use of learning strategies and learning motivation, as well as levels of learning anxiety. Most importantly, the chapter will present an analysis of the correlation among these variables. Chapter five discusses the possible factors behind the data and connects with other field studies. Chapter six summarizes the findings, outlines the main conclusions, and highlights the contribution of this study to the field. The limitations of the study will also be highlighted in this chapter. In addition, the final chapter includes implications and suggestions for future research.

10 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter aims to review the theoretical and empirical literature related to the three variables, namely learning strategy, learning motivation, and learning anxiety in the last decades, because nowadays, scholars are no longer looking into the study of the specific variable. At the same time, their different versions of classifications and the relevant studies are expanded. Lastly, the correlation study of learning strategy with learning anxiety and learning motivation is investigated to understand the study in the field. Learning Strategy Definition of Learning Strategy The strategy usually means a plan or a stratagem, a series of schemes that achieve a goal. Learning strategy was first proposed in Rubin and Stern’s passage in 1975. Rubin (1975) defined it as the specific techniques and means used by learners in the process of obtaining knowledge. As learning strategies involve psychology, neurology, sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, there are various versions of its definition., Researchers define it differently later. Bialystok (1981) defines learning strategies as “the process of students’ learning. O’ Malley & Chamot (1990) hold that learning strategies should be the special thoughts and actions learners use to understand knowledge and remember new information. It is also thought that the English learning strategies represent the actions or

11 measures that learners take to make learning successful, autonomous, and enjoyable (Wenden, 1999). Oxford (1993) considered that learning strategies should be the actions, behaviors or techniques that students use to promote second-language learning and that learners are conscious in most situations. These strategies can promote learners’ internalization, storage, retrieval, and application of the learned language. Cohen (2006) stated that learning strategies refer to learners’ conscious or semiconscious behaviors and their psychological activities and have two clear roles. One role is to make it easier to learn language and linguistic skills. The other role is to use the language fluently or make up for learners' linguistic knowledge. This study defines learning strategies as the actions, behaviors or techniques that students use to promote second-language learning and those learners are conscious in most situations (Oxford, 1993). later, Oxford designed the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning survey based on the definition adopted and used in the current study. Classification of Leaning Strategy There are various classifications of learning strategies in previous studies. Oxford (1990) classified learning strategies into two parts according to the interaction between it and language materials. They are direct strategies and indirect strategies. The direct strategies are the use of these strategies are directly related to the materials of the learned language and they are divided into three subcategories: memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and compensation strategies. Memory strategies include creating information in the brain, using images and sound, planning reviews, and using actions to memorize. Cognitive strategies are practicing, receiving and transmitting messages, analyzing and reasoning, and founding principles as inputting and outputting. The last kind involves

12 guessing and overcoming deficiencies in writing and speaking actively. Indirect strategies mean no direct relationship between the use of the strategies and the language being studied, including metacognitive, affective, and social strategies. Metacognitive strategies include active learning of key points, arrangements and plans for learning, and evaluating learning outcomes. Affective strategies include overcoming anxiety, estimating oneself, and controlling emotions. Social strategies include asking questions, working with others, and understanding others. These strategies are learner centered. On the basis of the information processing model, O’ Malley and Chamot (1990) divided strategies into three kinds: metacognitive, cognitive, and social affective. Metacognitive strategies are high-level execution skills. That means the individual eng means planning, monitoring, evaluation, and a series of activities for monitoring, mediating, and self-adjusting language behavior. Metacognitive strategies include prior planning, functional preparation, selective attention, self-management, self-monitoring, and self-assessment. Cognitive strategies are related to specific language tasks and the strategies for learners to learn knowledge and concept, including the use of reference, repetition, grouping, reasoning, images, aural reproduction, keywords, associations, transformations, inferences, taking notes, summaries, regrouping, and translation. Affective strategies refer to the learners’ use of various opportunities to learn a foreign language and learners’ control of their emotions during learning, including asking, cooperating, and self-encouraging. Cohen (2006) classified strategies into three types. The first includes language learning strategies (e.g., translating, memorizing) and language use strategies (e.g., retrieval, communicative). The second includes metacognitive strategy, cognitive

13 strategy, and social-affective strategy. The third includes four essential skills for learning language, vocabulary, and translation strategies. Others include strategies for proficiency levels by a specific culture or language. Though there are differences in learning strategy classifications, there are also some similarities between them. They all include cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies. Among these classifications, Oxford has proposed a classification model of language learning strategies based on the synthesis of the previous work on good language learning strategies and has been used widely to collect data from language learners worldwide. (Green & Oxford, 1995; Wharton, 2000; Hsiao & Oxford, 2002; Lan & Oxford, 2003). Therefore, this study will adopt Oxford’s direct and indirect strategies classification. Relevant Studies of English Learning Strategy Language learning strategies have been researched about many factors that contribute to their selection and deployment (Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Griffiths & Oxford, 2013). According to Ellis (1994), the choice of strategies depends on individual learner differences as well as situational and social factors, also known as contextual factors. The former includes beliefs about language learning, emotional states, learning experiences, and learner factors such as age, ability, learning style, and motivation. In addition, Takeuchi, Griffiths, and Coyle (2007) included personality type and cultural and linguistic achievement as individual variables that may influence strategy choice. Later, Griffiths (2015) added a learning goal to the list. The contextual factors influencing strategy choice include the learning situation and the learner's environment. According to Ellis (1994), they include the task performed, the environment, and the target language.

14 Griffiths & Oxford, 2013) also pointed out teaching methods that that may trigger the use of different strategies. In addition, she highlights another factor that determines the choice of strategy, the purpose of second language learning. For example, a learner studying L2 for a written exam may use different strategies than a learner studying L2 purely for communication. Therefore, target-specific second language learning may also influence the choice of strategies. At the same time, evidence shows that more effective learners used strategies more “appropriately, with greater variety, and in ways that helped them complete the task successfully” (Chamot & Kupper, 1989, p. 17). Successful language learners use learning strategies more flexibly and appropriately (Ellis, 1997). O'Malley, Chamot, StewnerMazanares, Russo, and Kupper (1985) found that junior and intermediate students used more cognitive and metacognitive strategies. However, intermediate students still used more metacognitive strategies than junior students, suggesting that strategy use may be related to proficiency. Students at both levels preferred to take notes, repeat, collaborate and ask for clarification. Older or more advanced learners use more complex strategies, and some strategies are often identified by advanced learners (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). Chamot and El-Dinary (1999) expressed that low achieved students prefer using cognitive strategies while high achieved students are most likely to use metacognitive strategies. Ellis (1997) argued that good language learners are always good at using metacognitive strategies. Phillips (1991) explored 141 Asian adults who are learning English in the U.S. He found that higher proficiency students are better at setting goals, paraphrasing, or avoiding verbatim translation. This confirmed the findings from Abraham and Vann (1987) that successful learners use a greater variety of learning

15 strategies and they preferred guessing the meaning, paraphrasing, and using more strategies. High achievement students employed more strategies than low achievement group; meanwhile, low achievement students were more likely to use the same strategies available (Pape & Wang, 2003). There is evidence that proficiency levels are associated with the choice of language learning strategy (Griffiths & Oxford, 2013), Ehrman and Oxford’s (1995) research suggests that the correlation between language learning strategy and proficiency ratings is significant but low. In some studies (e.g., Park, 1997), cognitive and social strategies can predict proficiency scores more. In others (e.g., Nisbet, Tindall, & Arroyo, 2005), only metacognitive strategies are reported to correlate significantly with language proficiency results. Gender is another factor investigated in the use of learning strategies. Here, the results of studies are not as consistent as is the case with those concerning the proficiency level. Several studies have revealed that males use fewer strategies than females (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989; Green & Oxford, 1995; Chang et al., 2007; Ghee et al., 2010; Hashemi, 2011). Most of these studies indicate that females make greater use of particular types of strategies. For example, compensation and affective strategies (Ghee et al., 2010; Hashemi, 2011); cognitive strategies, metacognitive strategies, and social strategies (Chang et al., 2007); or communicative and interactional strategies (Ehrman & Oxford, 1989). However, findings from other studies do not confirm significant differences in the number of learning strategies used by males or females (Griffiths, 2003) or even state that males use language-learning strategies more frequently than females (Tercanlioglu, 2004).

16 It is a consensus among teachers that learners should be given training on how to use effective strategies to promote learner autonomy (Wenden, 1999). Teachers are encouraged to select appropriate learning strategies for students and teach them to understand learning strategies (Reder & Strawn, 2001). Learning Anxiety Definition of Learning Anxiety As a natural human reaction, anxiety may be experienced by any learner at any stage of the learning process. In the study of second language acquisition, Brown (1973) first proposed the affective domain and focused on the study of learners' individual characteristics. In the 1980s, Horwitz et al. (1986) first introduced foreign language learning anxiety as an independent anxiety phenomenon since this time, research on learner characteristics has been widely investigated. MacIntyre and Gardner (1994)describe language anxiety as "the feeling of tension and apprehension specifically associated with second language contexts, including speaking, listening, and learning" (p. 284). Horwitz (1986) points out that foreign language learning anxiety is “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs, feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness of the language learning process" (p.128). From their perspectives, English learning anxiety is complex that involves both emotion and behavior within the individual learning and is also stern from the use of English. Similarly, from a psychological perspective, Shao (2008) believed that anxiety is a strong, lasting, and negative emotional experience caused by external, vague, and dangerous stimuli and is accompanied by corresponding physical and behavioral changes.

17 And as for these physical and behavioral changes, the combination of emotions and behaviors, Jia (2010) collectively referred to as complex emotional states intertwined with feelings of tension, worry, and expectation. Specifically, complex emotional states include content with different emotional meanings, such as tension and expectation. Different emotions lead to different behaviors. In short, from the perspective of emotion and behavior, anxiety in English learning is still common in recent research. For example, Zhou (2015) argued that learning anxiety emphasizes unreasonable cognition and unreasonable self-learning attribution, leading to uncomfortable emotions and behaviors. This study adopted Horwitz’s definition of learning anxiety which is a complex that involves both emotion and behavior in relation to the language learning process. Classification of Learning Anxiety The classification of foreign language learning anxiety generally involves the effects of anxiety, the causes of anxiety, and the manifestations of anxiety. However, only the effects of anxiety and causes are related to the current study. From the perspective of anxiety’s effects, Scovel (1978) divides anxiety into two categories, facilitating anxiety and debilitating anxiety (Wang, 2017). Facilitating anxiety is beneficial to foreign language learning and can improve learning effectiveness. Debilitating anxiety is not conducive to the process of foreign language learning and even has a negative impact on learning effectiveness. With regards to the causes of anxiety, Ellis (1994) claimed that anxiety includes trait anxiety, state anxiety, and situation-specific anxiety. According to Scovel (1978, p. 137), trait anxiety occurs when a person has a persistent tendency to anxiety. State anxiety is a temporary worry response to a specific anxiety-inducing stimulus, for

18 example, a pop quiz (Spielberger, 1983). Trait and state anxiety are closely related. People with high trait anxiety are more likely to experience more intense state anxiety (Spielberger, 1983). Situation-specific anxiety is derived from certain situations or events, such as public speaking (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994a). The classification by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986) was later widely used by researchers. They further compiled the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS), the most authoritative scale specifically used to measure foreign language anxiety (Meng & Chen, 2014), which was adopted in this study as well. Relevant Studies of English Learning Anxiety The research on language learning anxiety stems from the study of individual learner differences. Before the 1970s, individual learner differences mainly focused on the study of intelligence and language aptitude, ignoring the significance of affective factors. However, the complex process of foreign language learning cannot be explained from a cognitive perspective alone. With the development of humanistic psychology and Krashen’s Affective Filtering Hypothesis, affective factors became more and more important in education (Li & Lin, 2007). Though there are a number of different languages learning anxiety sources, they can be categorized into those grounded internally and externally (Ohata, 2005; Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008). Internal anxiety, firstly, may originate from social anxiety, which “occurs when people become concerned about how they are being perceived and evaluated by others” (Leary & Kowalsky, 1995, p. 6), in other words, internal anxiety can emerge from a consideration of ‘face’ and the saving of ‘face’. Second, the sources of language anxiety also comprise language learners’ beliefs about language learning which

19 “have been recognized as a significant contributory factor in the learning process and ultimate success” (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005, p. 1). Moreover, Language anxiety may stem from how a learner perceives himself or herself in a language learning context or in the face of other learners or a teacher. Lastly, competitiveness and perfectionism (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002) are also reported to cause language anxiety. The second main source of language anxiety is the learner's external factors. The way a second language learner views the teacher, their behavior in the classroom, their teaching style, classroom procedures, and tests are all crucial. Teachers' perceptions of their role in the classroom and their beliefs about teaching are critical to the behaviors and procedures they adopt in front of learners (Piechurska-Kuciel, 2008, p. 69). This, in turn, may interact with learners' level of language anxiety. Language anxiety levels may rise if the teacher's teaching style is far from the learner's beliefs. For example, if the teacher thinks an authoritarian role is appropriate and adopts it, this may trigger higher anxiety levels in learners who do not believe in authoritarianism. Other teacher behaviors that heighten the level of language anxiety include continuous error correction and error correction methods (Von Worde, 2003; Gkonou, 2013; Pawlak, 2014), the overuse of teachers' talking time, and the way they interact with students in the classroom (Young, 1991). Besides, teacher perceptions of their roles and approaches to error correction may be a source of language anxiety (Von Wörde, 2003). The next potential source of language anxiety is learners’ perception of classroom procedures and language tests (Gkonou, 2013). The processes that cause high anxiety are mainly those that require performance in front of other learners and those in which the learner thinks that the teacher feels he/she is not competent enough to use the target

20 language freely. In general, oral presentations in a classroom setting in front of the teacher can cause anxiety that is not conducive to an individual’s presentation (Young, 1991; Feigenbaum, 2007). In addition, language testing can trigger test anxiety, which solidifies into one of the previously discussed forms of language anxiety. Increased anxiety levels are a response to unfamiliar test items, specific test formats or question types, or to the novelty and ambiguity of the test situation (Young, 1991). Besides the sources of learning anxiety, the correlation between anxiety and achievement is another area that has been widely investigated. Wei’s (2017) research showed that anxiety has a negative impact on foreign language learning. Bollinger (2017) also found that high anxiety is significantly negatively related to foreign-language performance. Scholars have examined the effects of student anxiety on their learning in English listening, speaking, reading, and writing, respectively, and the results are the same. Saito, Horwitz, and Garza (1999) conducted empirical studies concerning the correlation between foreign language reading anxiety and reading achievements, along with the correlation between foreign language listening anxiety and listening scores, and the results showed that reading or listening anxiety negatively related to academic performance. Lv’s (2010) results showed that students with high levels of oral anxiety have lower test scores. In terms of reading anxiety, Cao and Zheng-Kui (2015) found that significant anxiety during reading affects students’ understanding of the main idea of the materials. As for listening anxiety, Deng (2005) found that high listening anxiety contributes to a lower listening score. In writing anxiety, Li (2013) explored the relationship between foreign language writing anxiety and students’ writing scores and found that students’ writing scores continue to decline in general as their writing anxiety

21 increases. In summary, learning anxiety can be caused by internal and external factors and significantly negatively impact language learning. However, Shi and Xu (2013) pointed out that most studies on learning anxiety have focused on undergraduates or graduate students, this indicates that there are fewer studies on primary and secondary students. According to the China English Curriculum Standards, the initial age of English learning has shifted from the age of 13 down to the age of 9, which means that English learning anxiety is affecting younger groups and therefore it is an issue that is worth investigating within the secondary schooling context. Learning Motivation Definition of Learning Motivation Motivation was first introduced into the field of psychology by American psychologist Woodworth in 1918. Motivation is one vital factor influencing second and foreign language learning speed and can affect learner autonomy. As for the concept of motivation, scholars define it differently. Learning motivation is a psychological concept, which means the students’ inter impetus and desire that can inspire students to acquire knowledge (Bindra, 1968). Some psychologists define learning motivation as a desire or need., Ausubel (1968) gave six kinds of needs which include the need for research, the need to control and change the environment, the need for spiritual and bodily labor, the need to be stimulated by things like the environment, other people, opinions, thoughts and emotion; need of longing or knowledge; need of being known, need of being approved and acknowledged.

22 Later, Gardner and Macintyre (1993) putted forward a related theory that divides one’s motivation into three parts: desire to achieve his goal, effort paid for his target, and satisfaction of achieving his objectives. Johnstone (1999) considered motivation to be a driving force for pursuing goals.” Ellis (1999) said that “motivation is the degree of effort in the process of learning a foreign language when people are willing to promote themselves by means of learning knowledge. In China, Liu (2002) thought that when learning a foreign language, the motivation includes three aspects: the goal of learning the language, the effort paid out on the way to achieve this goal and the endurance of this effort. Chen and Liu (2007) indicated that motivation is a kind of tendency that can motivate and maintain learning. This tendency usually refers to three aspects. First, what is the specific action that motivates the study; second, why the specific action only focuses on the specific goal; last, what factor motivates this specific action. It can be concluded that language learning motivation is an internal driving force that inspires learners to achieve English learning goals. Thus, knowing how to motivate and maintain learners’, English learning motivation is important. In this study, Ellis’s (1993) definition of learning motivation is adopted: motivation is the degree of effort in the process of learning a foreign language when people are willing to promote themselves by means of learning knowledge. This definition is appropriate to explain the survey for motivation in the study. Classification of Learning Motivation Generally, learners form their learning motivation under the impact of education and social life. The response of learning motivation in learners’ minds is very complicated, so its classification also varies. Experts generally hold that the English

23 scores correlate with English learning motivation, so they divide learning motivation from cognitive and social psychology. Therefore, three classic classifications of motivation are proposed: extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, integral and instrumental motivation, and surface and deep motivation. Noels (1999) and other researchers divided motivation into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation based on self-determination theory. Extrinsic motivation means that the behavior of the learner is based on external rewards such as winning awards or avoiding punishment. It is divided into three categories, external regulation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation. First, external regulation is the type of motivation with the lowest level of internalization, which is entirely determined by external factors. If the external factors disappear, such as the driver of economic interests, so does the motivation. Second, the introjected regulation is caused by some kind of external pressure, such as affected self-esteem. The individual takes action and converts the pressure into internal needs, forcing themselves to perform their tasks. Third, the degree of internalization of identified regulation is the highest. In order to achieve the goals of personal value, learners internalize them into their own goals and take corresponding actions. For example, a student who understands the importance of oral English decides to exercise speaking the language. Intrinsic motivation means that individuals are interested in the learning activities themselves and feel satisfied in these activities. It can be further divided into three categories: knowledge-based intrinsic motivation, accomplishment-based intrinsic motivation, and stimulation-based intrinsic motivation. The first kind refers to raising the level of knowledge to explore new knowledge, the second refers to accomplishing a

24 specific task or goal, and the third is stimulating the learning process, such as excitement or pleasure. Many successful learners have both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. After short-term goals are achieved, they work toward long-term goals. Gardner and Lambert (1972) classified motivation into integral and instrumental from the aspect of social psychology. Integral motivation means that the learner wants to know or has a special interest in the culture of the target language community, hopes to interact with them, and sincerely hopes to integrate into the life of that community. Instrumental motivation means learning a foreign language for its practical value or benefits, such as getting a good job or pursuing a profitable life. In general, integral motivation enables learners to: learn a foreign language with a high level of awareness, pay attention to the comprehensive development of a foreign language, and work harder and more persistently. Learners with instrumental motivation are more passive. Their development of various language skills is also incomplete due to the different purposes of learning. Such learners have to work hard for a short period and will usually give up after reaching the goal. According to Biggs (Wen, 2001), “learning motivation is classified into two kinds: surface motivation and deep motivation from the aspect of educational psychology. Surface motivation generally has a direct relationship with individuals’ prospects for external motivation. Deep motivation generally has no direct relationship with individuals’ prospects or economic interests but for motivation and interests in English or its culture. Learners could have both deep and surface motivation at the same time, and scholars can measure the tendency of learners’ learning motivation through this classification.

25 The classification of learning motivation by Biggs was adopted in the current study because it measures the learner’s motivation rather than categorizing students into learning motivation. This classification could provide solid information about the current learning motivation among the participants based on the requirements from MOE. Relevant Studies of English Learning Motivation In the fields of pedagogy and psychology, there are some controversies surrounding learning motivation and English learning. Some think motivation can directly promote academic achievement, but some do not think so. However, most psychologists hold that their relationship is not direct but positively dependent on certain learning behaviors. Atkinson (1975) concluded that there is a linear relationship between the intensity of learning motivation and the time spent on learning. Suchunk (1990) found that the stronger the learning motivation of students, the higher the learning efficiency and the better the learning effect. In Iran, Dashtizadeh and Farvardin (2016) studied the relationship between language learning motivation and foreign language achievement through the participation of 400 high school sophomore students. The results show a moderate positive correlation between learning motivation and academic performance, indicating that the higher the level of language motivation of learners, the higher the level of language achievement. The results of a study by Fatehi and Akbari (2015) are the same as those of Dashtizadeh and Farvardin (2016). The results showed that motor learners scored higher, indicating a positive correlation between motivation and language performance. Tsai et al. (2017) investigated whether learning motivation was a good indicator of academic performance after an 8-week English learning intervention based

26 on mobile games. A total of 38 vocational high school students in Taiwan participated in the study. First, play-based English learning can significantly improve students' motivation and academic performance. In addition, the results show that motivation is a significant predictor of English post test scores. These results indicate that a good learning environment significantly impacts learners' learning motivation, improving their test scores. Rahman and Deviyanti (2012) also investigated the relationship between students' learning motivation and oral English ability. Most of the students had good motivation to learn, and their oral English test results showed that the students also had good oral English ability. The highly motivated students worked harder and were more determined to reach their goals, which directly improved their oral performance. In contrast, the less motivated students did not show the same performance. The above studies show that learning motivation does affect learners' performance. Considerable research has shown that male and female learners differ from each other in their level of motivation to learn a language. Various studies report that women are more motivated to learn a second language than men (Williams, Burden & Lanvers, 2002; Mori & Gobel, 2006; Henry, 2011). On the other hand, Yeung and McInerney (2005) explained that these differences may stem from gender role stereotypes. Boys are reported to be more motivated than girls in science and math, even though their grades may not be higher than girls in their class. Likewise, girls are reported to be more selfcompetent than boys in terms of language skills (Midgley & Middleton, 2001). Conversely, Al-Bustan and Al-Bustan's (2009) research showed that men are more motivated than women in the Kuwaiti language learning environment. On the other hand, a study in the United States by Sung and Tsai (2014) showed

27 that participants’ gender had little or no effect on their motivation. In the Japanese context, Mori and Gobel (2006) also investigated 453 college students with regard to the gender differences in English learner motivation. The findings showed that male and female students differed significantly in only one aspect of motivation, 'combination.' Female learners showed greater interest in the cultures and people of their target language communities were more willing to make friends with them and were more interested in traveling abroad. The situation is similar in South Korea, where boys are less motivated to learn English than girls (Kang, 2004; Kim, 2009). Kim and Kim (2011) also found that Korean female learners scored higher on the ideal second language self and were more motivated. On the other hand, the findings differed in the Pakistani EFL setting. Rahman, Jumani, and Basit (2010) investigated the relationship between motivation and gender differences in second language learning in Pakistan and found that boys scored higher than girls on the motivation scale. Similarly, Shahbaz, Islam, and Malik (2017) also studied gender differences in L2 learning motivation in Pakistan. They found that boys showed more positive attitudes towards L2 communities and had a strong cultural interest. In a word, there is a controversy in learning motivation by gender in terms of locations and nationalities. Previous Correlation Studies of Learning Strategy with Learning Anxiety and Learning Motivation Correlation between Learning Strategy and Learning Anxiety Naveh-Benjamin, McKeachie, Lin, & Holinger (1981) found that students with high anxiety levels were mainly affected by their inappropriate use of learning strategies

28 in the learning process. MacIntyre (1994) established the Social Psychological Model of Strategy Use. He believed that learners who were originally motivated to use certain learning strategies would abandon the use of the strategies when they are affected by anxiety factors and multiple social factors. Similarly, Ellis (1994) also proposed that a series of individual learner differences such as learning experience, affective state, and many social factors such as teaching environment and teaching methods determine the choice and use of learning strategies. In a correlation study between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies, Warr and Downing (2000) found that foreign language learning anxiety and learning strategy use have a significant negative correlation in that learners with low levels of foreign language anxiety will use learning strategies more actively and appropriately. In the study of the correlation between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies in China, many scholars have also found a negative correlation between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies (Hu, 2017; Peng, 2018). In addition, Chinese researchers have conducted an in-depth analysis with various research subjects such as vocational students, high school students, undergraduates, graduate students, and even ethnic minority groups in an attempt to more objectively and comprehensively verify the negative relationship between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies. A study conducted by An (2013) used higher vocational students as research subjects and found that more effective use of memory strategies, cognitive strategies, and affective strategies resulted in lowering their English learning anxiety. Students’ compensation, metacognitive, and social strategies are not related to English learning

29 anxiety. Feng (2016) conducted a questionnaire survey and found that high school students’ English learning anxiety was significantly negatively related to English learning strategies. English learning anxiety had the lowest correlation with compensation strategies, while communication apprehension was the main cause of students’ anxiety. Feng (2014) tested 70 college undergraduates and found that college students' use of English learning strategies was significantly negatively related to English learning anxiety. Cognitive strategies, memory strategies, and metacognitive strategies are significantly negatively related to English learning anxiety; while even compensation strategies and affective strategies are different at different levels of English learning anxiety, their correlations are not significant. Pan (2015) used a combination of quantitative and qualitative research to test 603 postgraduates with Horwitz’s (1986) Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale and Oxford's (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning, besides interviews with twenty graduate students. She found that English learning anxiety was negatively related to English learning strategies. Among them, English learning anxiety had the strongest correlation with cognitive strategies. He (2016) investigated the correlation between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies and found that English learning strategies were significantly negatively related to English learning anxiety. In summary, the research on the correlation between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies provides a negative relationship between English learning anxiety and English learning strategies. Correlation between Learning Strategy and Learning Motivation In earlier, Oxford and Nikos (1989) conducted a study that explored if learning

30 motivation could effect strategy use in the United States. According to their findings, the degree of motivation was found to be the most influential variable affecting participants' choice of strategy. On the opposite side of motivation influencing strategy selection, Chen (2018) found that the use of strategies also affects learning motivation. Other scholars' literature on the definition, classification, and research of learning strategies concluded that learning strategies influence and determine learning achievement, which in turn affects learners' confidence. Furthermore, confidence affects and determines learners' learning motivation to a certain extent. Later, scholars made a relatively stable inference that there is a direct and positive relationship between learning strategy and learning motivation. Wen and Wang (2003) proposed that emotion-related strategies are directly related to motivation. Flemens (2008) surveyed 206 American students learning romance language to explore the relationship between learning motivation, strategies, and performance. Based on Krashen's second language acquisition theory, this study found a significant positive correlation between learning motivation and learning strategies. In 2011, Xu (2011) found from a sample of 300 graduate students that their learning motivation was significantly correlated with their use of learning strategies. The more motivated students tended to use more strategies. A few years later, Chang and Liu (2013) showed that metacognitive and cognitive strategies were more correlated with motivation. Similarly, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) noted that motivated students actively regulate their learning through cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies. This suggests that these strategies play a mediating role in the influence of motivation on learning outcomes. In addition, Chang and Liu (2013)

31 found that the correlation between compensation strategies and motivation was low. The frequency of strategy use is positively correlated with motivation. Another study conducted by Liao (2000) on junior high students in Taiwan showed that these students lacked deep motivation to learn English and tended to be extroverted when they happened to be motivated. The results also showed that most students did not regularly report using broad categories of learning strategies. Therefore, their low motivation in English learning is significantly correlated with low use of learning strategies. Like Liao, Peng (2001) studied 326 Taiwanese high school students and explored the relationship between foreign language learning motivation and strategy use. There are significant differences in motivation intensity, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and demand motivation in strategy use. Demand motivation is significantly negatively correlated with strategy use and learners' academic performance. Therefore, high school students who are forced to learn English (requiring motivation) will use strategies significantly less frequently. Another study by Chang and Huang (1999) found that intrinsic motivation was significantly related to language learning strategies, especially cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Pong (2002) found that extrinsic motivation was significantly correlated with cognitive and affective strategies, while intrinsic motivation was significantly correlated with cognitive and metacognitive strategies, which confirmed the findings of Chang and Huang. According to the above research results, we can draw the conclusion that motivation as a psychological construction does influence the use of learning strategies. However, the mode of action of this influence varies, and different types of motivation will affect the use of different types of strategies in different learning

32 environments. Therefore, a junior high school context in the current study is meant to enrich academic research data for this field. Theories and Conceptual Framework The current study is derived from Ellis's Second Language Acquisition Model, which provides the basis for the conceptual framework for the study. Ellis’ Model In studying the influencing factors of second language acquisition, Ellis (1994) believes that individual learner differences and social context factors collectively constrain learners' strategic choices; therefore, he proposed a second language acquisition model, as shown in the figure below. This model shows that the choice of learner's learning strategy will be affected by the individual differences of learners and social factors. In other words, it means that this theory explains the relationship between learning anxiety, learning motivation, and learning strategies. In this model, the choice of learner strategy and the final learning result is also a pair of complexes that affect each other and complement each other. Specifically, the learner's learning strategy choice will affect the progress and level of language acquisition. If the selected learning strategy is reasonable and effective, it will accelerate the speed of language acquisition and improve the level of language acquisition. In turn, a higher level of language acquisition will also promote the optimization of learners' learning strategies. The optimization of learning strategies can continue to promote the process of language acquisition. The learning strategy and language acquisition results can form a positive cycle of mutual promotion and cooperation. Individual learners' differences, learning strategies, and learning outcomes

33 influence each other interactively (Peng, 2018). This shows that the relationship between the learner's individual characteristics and the learner's learning strategy choice is mutual. Among them, affective states and learners’ factors, as part of individual learner differences, also affect learning strategies. For example, anxiety as an affective factor changes learners' learning strategy. The change in learning strategy also affects the degree of learners' anxiety. Learning anxiety and learning strategies are firmly linked. Therefore, combined with this study, Ellis' Model can assist in explaining the relationships between learning strategies learning motivation, and learning anxiety in various dimensions. In Ellis' Model, learners' choice of learning strategy is at the center and is affected by other factors and affective states. Figure 1. Ellis’ Second Language Acquisition Model

34 Conceptual Framework It can be seen from Ellis' second language acquisition model that learners' affective states and personal factors influence their choice and use of learning strategies. Based on the theory, the conceptual framework of the correlation among learning strategy, learning anxiety, and learning motivation in this study is shown in Figure 2, in which learning anxiety and learning motivation are related to learning strategy. Figure 2. Conceptual Framework Conclusion Based on the evidence presented in this chapter, it is clear that there are many empirical studies investigating the current situation of learning strategies, including learning anxiety levels among students, and the types of learning motivation the students

35 have., The results vary according to different sampling methods. Scholars have also examined relationship between strategies, anxiety, and motivation, and the results seem inconsistent due to the different learning environments.

36 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Introduction This study focuses on the use of English learning strategies and learning motivation among junior high school students, as well as levels of anxiety; then, the study investigates the correlations among the three variables which are mentioned above. To address the research questions listed below, quantitative research was employed to measure and analyze the relationship between language learning strategy, learning motivation, and learning anxiety. This chapter presents the methodology in terms of the research design and questions, the participants in the research, the instruments used to measure the variables and the procedure of the study, ethical considerations, and the data analysis procedure. Each aspect of the methodology will be described in detail and justified. Research Design and Questions This study employed a cross-sectional survey design with a correlational analysis because the researcher could only collect the data at a single time. Meanwhile, the study constitutes an empirical study to explore the relationships between English learning strategy, learning motivation, and learning anxiety. The research questions that underpin this study are as follows: 1. What English learning strategies do students use?

37 2. What is the level of students’ learning anxiety? 3. What type(s) of learning motivation do students use? 4. Is there a difference in learning strategy, learning anxiety, and learning motivation by grade level and gender? 5. What is the correlation between learning strategy, learning anxiety, and learning motivation? Population and Participants Based on the research questions, the researcher had chosen a private junior high school in Anyang as the target school. It is a top-ranked local school with its own foreign teachers on campus, and the students' family financial background is relatively superior. The target population was students in Grade 7 to Grade 9; however, due to time concerns, only two classes were chosen each. According to a large number of students in the school, cluster sampling was the most appropriate method for this study. All classes in the same grade were written on the lots and then put into a box. The researcher asked a teacher to pick up two lots from the box. The numbers presented on the lots were the classes involved in the study. Finally, a total of 300 students participated in the study. Research Instruments This section introduces the three instruments employed to measure the variables throughout the research. Three questionnaires will be adopted as the instruments of the study to investigate students’ general situation of language strategy, learning motivation, and the use of learning anxiety. Referring to Oxford’s (1990) SILL, Horwitz’s (1984) FLCAS, and Biggs’ (2001) LMQ.

38 Strategies Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) To make it easier for Chinese students to answer, SILL was translated into Chinese. The SILL’s structure inherits the categorization of learning strategies classified by Oxford (1990). That is to say, the sub-scales are memory strategies (item 1-9), cognitive strategies (item 10-23), compensation strategies (item 24-29), meta-cognitive strategies (item 30-38), affective strategies (item 39-44) and social strategies (item 45- 50). It consists of 50 items all together, and all statements follow the general format “I do such and such”. Students respond on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never true of me) to 5 (Always true of me). The range of the questionnaire was from the lowest 50 to the highest 250. The higher the specific strategies' scores, the more frequent the students use the strategies. To guarantee the usefulness of this adapted questionnaire, its reliability and validity were tested first. According to Qin and Wen’s (2003) explanation in Quantitative Data Analysis in Foreign Language Teaching Research, the closer the KMO value is to 1.0, the more common factors there are between variables in factor analysis, indicating that the data is more suitable for factor analysis. The KMO value of the whole scale reaches 0.9, and that of all the sub-scale exceeds 0.6, which indicates that the data is suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett tests the degree of correlation between variables, and the significance level is less than 0.05, indicating that the correlations between the various items in this scale are strong and the items on this research scale have reasonable validity. To guarantee the reliability of the adapted questionnaire, an internal consistency

39 check was performed. It consists of two aspects, the internal consistency reliability of the total items of the questionnaire and on the three dimensions of the questionnaire, respectively. The results of the internal consistency of the adapted SILL are presented as follows. The alpha on the dimension of meta-cognitive strategies is 0.753; the alpha on the dimension of affective strategies is 0.746; the alpha on the dimension of metacognitive strategies is 0.714; the alpha on the dimension of cognitive strategies is 0.714; the alpha on the dimension of social strategies is 0.700; the alpha on the dimension of compensation strategies is 0.608. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the total items of the adapted SILL is 0.907. The results indicate that the adapted one is reliable in terms of internal consistency and can be used in the present research. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) The instrument for foreign language anxiety used in this study was FLCAS which was developed by Horwitz (1984). The FLCAS is a self-report measure with a total of 33 items, with three sub-scales, communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation. Specifically, communication apprehension (marked as CA hereafter) were items 51, 54, 59, 64, 65, 68, 74, 77, 79, 80, 82; test anxiety (marked as TA hereafter) were numbered 53, 55, 56, 58, 60 ,61, 62, 66, 67, 70, 71 ,72, 75, 76, 78; items for fear of negative evaluation (Marked as FNE hereafter) were number 52, 57, 63, 69, 73, 81, 83. It was scored by a five-point Likert scale, which ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), assessing the degree of anxiety that is specific to language. The total range of the questionnaire is from the lowest 33 to the highest 165. The higher scores the students got, the more anxious the student felt. Similarly, the validity and reliability of FLCAS were tested. According to the

40 factor analysis, the KMO value of the whole scale should reach 0.939, which is close to 1, and that of all the sub-scale should exceed 0.8, which suggests that the items are suitable for factor analysis. Bartlett tests the degree of correlation between variables, and the significance level is less than 0.05, indicating that the correlations between the various items in this scale are strong and the items on this research scale have reasonable validity. Regarding the internal consistency test of FLCAS, the results are presented as follows. The alpha on the dimension of communication apprehension is 0.883; the alpha on the dimension of test anxiety is 0.855; the alpha on the dimension of fear of negative evaluation is 0.788. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the total items of the adapted FLCAS is 0.939. The results indicate that the FLCAS is reliable in terms of internal consistency and can be used in the present research. Learning Motivation Questionnaire (LMQ) The instrument of language learning motivation in this study is a revised version of R-SPQ-2F developed by Biggs et al. (2001). The self-report R-SPQ-2F contains 20 items on two scales: the deep learning approach (DA) and the surface learning approach (SA) scales. Each scale was comprised of the sub-scales of learning motivation and learning strategy. Only the learning motivation items were selected, which contain ten items in total. Thus, the instrument had two subscales: deep learning motivation (DM) and surface learning motivation (SM). Each scale contained five items. Specifically, deep motivation was the items 84, 86, 88, 90, and 92; surface motivation were numbered 85, 87, 89, 91, and 93. A 5-point Likert scale (from never or only rarely true of me” to “always or almost true of me”) was used for scoring and assessing the types of