41 motivation that students had in the language learning process. Biggs et al. (2001) reported that the Cronbach alpha coefficients were .73 for DA and .64 for SA, and they were .62 and .72, respectively, for DM and SM. These Cronbach alpha coefficients are acceptable given that each sub-scale contains only five items. The results indicate that the adapted questionnaire is reliable in terms of internal consistency and can be used for the present research. Data Collection Method and Procedures At first, the English teachers of the selected classes were informed that they were involved in the collection for academic research. The purpose was to investigate some factors about the students’ English learning. All teachers agreed to take part in. Because the target school is a boarding school, the teachers were represented as guardians for the students. On the day of collection, all English teachers received the questionnaire in the morning. The researcher had double-checked with the school and told them the purposes of collecting data from them. The survey was introduced, and the survey was explained in detail to their students. Students were informed that the survey was for investigating some factors they encountered when learning English. They were also told that their names and classes were not required. They were assured that there were no right or wrong answers as long as the answers were genuine. They were also told that if any of the participants had difficulties in understanding the survey, they could ask for help, and if any of the students did not want to participate, they were free to decline to participate in the survey. The time for filling out the survey was 20 minutes. Once the surveys were filled, the teachers collected them and handed the surveys to the researcher.
42 Ethical Considerations Since the study took place in junior high school, the researcher needed to obtain permission from the University internal review board (IRB). After receiving permission from IRB, further permission from the principal of the school was also needed. All participants were informed that their information was confidential, and their names were not required in the survey. Moreover, their English teachers would not get any information about them. The survey was only for academic purposes, which had nothing to do with their grades. Most importantly, if any students did not want to participate, they were free not to do so. Data Analysis Procedures The collected data were submitted to the statistical analysis software SPSS. Descriptive data were analyzed by calculating the Mean and Standard Deviation for the items on the survey. One-way ANOVA was used to determine if there were differences based on grade level, and T-test were conducted to determine if there were differences based on gender for the variables of this study; post hoc test was employed to clarify the specific difference by grade level and gender if there were a difference after one-way ANOVA and T-test. Lastly, Person correlation was used to assess the bivariate relationship between learning strategy, learning motivation, and learning anxiety. Conclusion The collection procedure was a successful attempt for further academic research to collect data in junior high boarding schools. However, the cluster sampling method had
43 weaknesses in this case: unbalanced sampling by grade level and gender, which could be seen in the demographic characteristics of the next chapter. In conclusion, the methodology of the current study has successfully obtained concrete data for the next chapter.
44 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the analyses for the research questions stated in this study. Learners' English learning strategies, learning anxiety, and learning motivation are first presented through descriptive analysis. Grade level and gender differences in learning strategies, anxiety and motivation are then explored. Finally, the relationships among the three major variables are reported. Participants’ Characteristics A total of 269 junior high students attending a private school in Anyang, China, participated in this study. Demographic characteristics of the students are presented in Table 1. Most of the participants are male (61.0%). Approximately 40% are in Grade 9. About a third (35.7%) are in Grade 7. Table 1. Demographic Characteristics Variable N Percentage Grade 7th 96 35.7% 8th 68 25.3% 9th 105 39.0% Gender Male 164 61.0% Female 105 39.0%
45 Reliability Estimates Scale score statistics and internal consistency reliability are reported in Table 2. All scales have skewness statistics within ± 1, and, therefore, considered normally distributed (Morgan, Griego, & Gloekner, 2001; George & Mallery, 2003). Cronbach’s alpha of .7 or greater is considered acceptable, while values lower than .7 are considered poor (Cortina, 1993; Taber, 2018). Table 2. Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Reliability Estimates (n=269) Variable M SD Items Skewness Cronbach’s alpha Memory 2.82 0.79 9 -.07 .78 Cognitive 2.97 0.73 14 -.07 .82 Compensation 3.11 0.79 6 -.22 .57 Metacognitive 2.90 0.88 9 .08 .86 Affective 2.80 0.88 6 .07 .73 Test Anxiety (TA) 2.86 0.59 15 .26 .61 Communication Apprehension (CA) 2.77 0.61 11 .17 .68 Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE) 2.98 0.90 7 .05 .74 Deep Motivation 3.13 1.03 5 -.02 .79 Surface Motivation 2.65 0.83 5 .59 .56 Results by Research Question Question 1: What English Learning Strategies Do Students Use? Descriptive statistics for the six learning strategies are reported in Table 3. This study adopted the Oxford (1990) scoring scheme in which averages ranging from 1.0 to 1.4 indicate that students “never use the English learning strategy”; averages ranging from 1.5 to 2.4 indicate that students generally do not use the English learning strategy; the averages of 2.5 to 3.4 indicate that students “sometimes use the English learning
46 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-scale in SILL (n=269) Strategies M SD Min Max Percentage Compensation 3.11 0.79 1.00 5.00 36.4 Cognitive 2.97 0.73 1.07 5.00 26.0 Social 2.94 0.92 1.00 5.00 28.6 Metacognitive 2.90 0.88 1.00 5.00 24.2 Memory 2.82 0.79 1.00 5.00 18.2 Affective 2.80 0.88 1.00 5.00 23.0 Note: Percentage with Mean of 3.5 or higher strategies”; the average of 3.5 to 4.4 represents “often use the English learning strategies”; and the average of 4.5 to 5.0 is “always use the English learning strategies”. The average of the six specific strategies with regard to frequency of use, ranges from 2.80 to 3.11 (see Table 3). It means that students use each of the strategies ‘sometimes.’ The mean of the use of compensation strategies is 3.11, which is the highest among the six strategies, suggesting that the compensation strategy is most commonly used by students. On the contrary, the mean of affective strategy is the lowest one with an average of 2.80, which indicates that students use affective strategy least frequently. Overall, there is not much difference between the frequency of the use of each strategy. Percent of students using the strategies ‘often’ and ‘always’ range from 18.2% for Memory to 36.4% for Compensation. Question 2: What is the Level of Students’ Learning Anxiety? According to Nurun and Ahmad (2017), students whose overall score is between 33 and 66 are categorized as having low levels of anxiety; those with scores between 133 and 165 as having high level anxiety; and the rest are categorized as having medium
47 anxiety. By using these criteria, 2.60% of the students were identified as having high anxiety when learning English, 88.85% of them were at a medium level, and the remaining 8.55% of the participants had low anxiety (See Table 4). It can be concluded that most students have medium anxiety. Table 4. Overall Level of Learning Anxiety Anxiety level N Percentage M SD High anxiety 7 2.60% 141.14 6.18 Medium anxiety 239 88.85% 95.49 14.76 Low anxiety 23 8.55% 59.52 7.06 Total 269 100.00% 93.60 18.98 Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of each sub-scale of the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). The mean ranges from 2.77 to 2.98, which indicates that, on average, students’ English learning anxiety is only at a moderate level. Between 4.5% (Test Anxiety) to 12.3% (Communication apprehension) of the students have high anxiety. Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-scale in FLCAS (n=269) Variable M SD Min Max Percentage FNE 2.98 0.90 1.00 5.00 5.6 TA 2.86 0.60 1.00 4.53 4.5 CA 2.77 0.61 1.18 4.64 12.3 Note: Percentage ‘High’ anxiety
48 Question 3: What Type(S) Of Learning Motivation Do Students Use? Table 6 reports the descriptive statistics for English learning motivation. The overall mean for learning motivation is 2.88, indicating that the students’ overall level of learning motivation is moderate. Students are at the medium level in both deep motivation (M=3.13, SD=1.03) and surface motivation (M=2.68, SD=0.83). It appears that students use deep motivation higher than surface motivation, suggesting that students are more likely to learn English due to their interest in the language rather than just having to learn English as an academic subject. Table 6. Descriptive Statistics of Sub-scale in LMQ (n=269) Variable M SD Percentage Deep Motivation 3.12 1.03 35.7 Surface Motivation 2.65 0.83 13.0 Overall Motivation 2.88 0.72 Note: Percentage of ‘high’ (frequently and always / almost always true) motivation Question 4. Is there a difference in learning strategy, learning anxiety, and learning motivation by grade level and gender? Difference in Learning Strategy by Grade Level. Scale means and standard deviations of each learning strategy by grade level are reported in Table 7. With the mean around 3.0 for each strategy among the three grade levels, it appears that students use these strategies ‘about half the time’. Grade 7 students appear to use metacognitive strategy (M=3.00, SD=.1.04) most frequently, while 8th graders seem to mostly use compensation strategy (M=3.02, SD=0.73). The results also suggest that 9th grade
49 students use social (M=3.39, SD=0.93) and compensation (M=3.32, SD=0.69) strategies most frequently. Table 7. Descriptive Analysis of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Grade Level Strategies 7 th (n=96) 8 th (n=68) 9 th (n=105) M SD M SD M SD Memory 2.96 0.94 2.64 0.67 2.80 0.69 Cognitive 2.97 0.84 2.87 0.68 3.02 0.65 Compensation 2.92 0.87 3.02 0.73 3.32 0.69 Metacognitive 3.00 1.04 2.74 0.71 2.91 0.82 Affective 2.85 0.95 2.68 0.83 2.83 0.85 Social 2.91 0.97 2.85 0.84 3.39 0.93 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to explore grade level differences in the use of specific learning strategies (See Table 8). At α=.01, grade level differences were found only on the compensation strategy (F(2,266)=7.31, p<.001, η2 =.052). About 52% of the variance in compensation strategy can be explained by grade level differences. Post hoc comparison (See Table 9) using the Bonferroni procedure indicated that Grade 9 students (M=3.32, SD=0.69) used compensation strategy significantly at a higher level than 7th grade students (M=2.92, SD=0.87). No differences were found between Grade 8 and Grade 9 students or between Grade 8 and Grade 7 students. Difference in Learning Strategy by Gender. The means and standard deviations of the six learning strategies by gender are reported in Table 10. Except for compensation, it appears that female students used the other five strategies less frequently than male students. Male students seem to use social strategy (M=3.07, SD=0.94) the
50 most while female students use compensation strategy (M=3.26, SD=0.82) the most. Table 8. ANOVA of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Grade Level Variable Grade Level M SD F df p η 2 Compensation 7th (n=96) 2.92 0.87 7.31 2,266 .001 .052 8th (n=69) 3.02 0.73 9th (n=105) 3.32 0.69 Table 9. Multiple Comparisons of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Grade Level Variable (I) Grade (J) Grade p Compensation 7 8 .374 9 .000 8 7 .374 9 .015 9 7 .000 8 .015 Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Learning Strategies by Gender Strategies Male (n=164) Female (n=105) M SD M SD Memory 2.86 0.77 2.75 0.82 Cognitive 3.04 0.70 2.85 0.77 Compensation 3.01 0.75 3.26 0.82 Metacognitive 2.98 0.87 2.77 0.90 Affective 2.86 0.87 2.70 0.89 Social 3.07 0.94 2.75 0.87
51 Gender differences on learning strategies were examined using independent samples t-test. At α=.01, differences were found only for compensation and social strategies. The results are reported in Table 11. Female students (M=3.26, SD=0.82) used compensation strategy at a significantly higher level than male students (M=3.01, SD=0.76). However, male students (M=3.07, SD=0.94) used social strategy at a significantly higher level than female students (M=2.75, SD=0.87). With effect sizes (Cohen’s d) around 0.3, the magnitude of the group differences is quite small. Table 11. Descriptive Statistics & Independent T-test of the Specific Learning Strategies Use by Gender Gender N M SD t df p ES(d) Compensation Male 164 3.01 0.76 -2.65 1,267 .008 -0.33 Female 105 3.26 0.82 Social Male 164 3.07 0.94 2.80 1,267 .006 0.35 Female 105 2.75 0.87 Difference in Learning Anxiety by Grade Level. The means and standard deviations for each of the learning anxiety variables are reported in Table 12. Anxiety items were scaled along a 5-point Likert scale from 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree. Based on this scale, it appears that students, on the average, experience moderate anxiety in learning English. At α=.05, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results indicated that there are no statistically significant grade level differences on all three learning anxieties. Effect sizes (η2) were very small at less than .02.
52 Table 12. Descriptive Statistics of the Specific Learning Anxiety by Grade Level Anxieties 7 th (n=96) 8 th (n=68) 9 th (n=105) M SD M SD M SD TA 2.88 0.66 2.82 0.54 2.87 0.56 CA 2.87 0.68 2.68 0.52 2.73 0.58 FNE 3.08 0.90 2.98 0.82 2.90 0.94 Difference in Learning Anxiety by Gender. Means and standard deviations for each type of anxiety by gender are reported in Table 13. With variable means around 3.0, both male and female students appear to be quite neutral about learning anxieties. In addition, independent samples t-test results indicated that, at α=.05, there are no gender differences on any of the three types of anxieties. Table 13. Descriptive Statistics of the Specific Learning Anxiety by Gender Anxieties Male (n=164) Female (n=105) M SD M SD TA 2.84 0.60 2.89 0.58 CA 2.76 0.58 2.80 0.65 FNE 2.86 0.83 3.18 0.97 Difference in Learning Motivation by Grade Level. Table 14 reports the means and standard deviations for deep and surface motivations by grade level. Motivation items were scaled along a 5-point Likert scale from 1-never or only rarely true of me to 5-always/almost always true of me. With means ranging from 2.56 for surface motivation to a mean of 3.17 for deep motivation among 7th grade students, it appears that students in the study are at best only moderately motivated to learn English.
53 The use of deep learning appears to be higher than surface learning. Table 14. Descriptive Statistics of the Specific Types of Learning Motivation Motivation 7 th (n=96) 8 th (n=68) 9 th (n=105) M SD M SD M SD Deep 3.17 1.08 3.09 1.02 3.11 1.00 Surface 2.56 0.88 2.73 0.82 2.67 0.77 One-way ANOVA results indicated no grade level differences for deep motivation (F(2,2666)=0.121, p=.886, η2 <.009) or surface motivation (F(2,266)=1.00, p=.369, η2 =.007). Difference in Learning Motivation by Gender. Independent samples t-test was used to compare learning motivation between male and female junior high school students. The results are reported in Table 15. Males seemed to have higher deep motivation than females. This apparent difference was not statistically significant (p=.106). However, there was a significant gender difference for surface motivation (t(267)=2.33, p<.05, d=0.29). Male (M=2.74, SD=0.84) had significantly higher surface motivation than female students (M=2.50, SD=0.78). The magnitude of the differences is small (Cohen’s d=.29). Question 5. To what Extent are Learning Strategies Related to Learning Motivation and Anxiety? Table 16 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients among learning strategies, learning anxieties, and learning motivation variables. Coefficients among learning strategies range from a low of .277 (between memory and compensation) to a high of
54 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics & Independent T-test of the Specific Types Learning Motivation Gender N M SD t df p ES(d) Surface Male 164 2.74 0.84 2.33 267 .021 0.29 Female 105 2.50 0.78 Deep Male 164 3.21 1.00 1.62 267 .106 0.20 Female 105 3.00 1.08 0.764 (between cognitive and metacognitive). Correlation among anxiety variables ranges from moderate (r=.620 between test anxiety and communication apprehension) to high (r=.731 between test anxiety and fear of negative evaluation). Surface and deep motivations appear to be uncorrelated (r=.114). With coefficients ranging from -.017 (between test anxiety and social strategy) to .287 (between communication apprehension and affective strategy), learning strategies appear to have little correlation with learning anxieties. Except for compensation, learning strategies appear to be moderately correlation with deep motivation (r=.49 to r=.60). However, learning strategies have little correlation with surface motivation (r=.048 to r=.18). And learning anxieties seem to have little correlation with motivation (r=.046 to r=.36).
Table 16. Pearson Correlations 1 2 3 4 5 1 Memory 1 2 Cognitive .726** 1 3 Compensation .277** .426** 1 4 Metacognitive .727** .764** .315** 1 5 Affective .620** .569** .228** .691** 1 6 Social .596** .642** .326** .672** .632** 7 CA .261** .268** .254** .250** .287** 8 FNE .109 .083 .127* .083 .145* 9 TA .034 .033 .118 .029 .121* 10 Deep .553** .581** .274** .600** .491** 11 Surface .048 .111 .151* .118 .176** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
55 6 7 8 9 10 11 * 1 * .222** 1 .039 .689** 1 -.017 .620** .731** 1 * .507** .241** .046 .051 1 * .148* .342** .357** .291** .114 1
56 Correlation of Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation. The inter-relationships among learning strategies, anxieties, and motivations are represented by the conceptual framework in Figure 2 (see p.30). The hypothesized model representing the framework is presented in Figure 3. In this model, both learning anxiety and motivation are hypothesized to influence learning strategies. Structural equation modeling using AMOS 24 was used to test the validity of this model. Figure 3. Hypothesized Model The results of the analysis are shown in the structural model (SEM) represented in Figure 4. Target fit indices (Meyers, Gamst, and Guarino, 2017) and fit statistics for this model are summarized in Table 17, and path coefficients and their statistical significance are reported in Table 18. An examination of the fit indices for the initial model (Model 0) suggests that the data does not adequately support the hypothesized model. None of the absolute fit indices (χ2, GFI, SRMR, RMSEA) or the relative fit indices (CFI, NFI, TLI)
57 meet their target values. Table 17. Target and Model Fit Indices Fit indexes Targ et Model 0 (Fig.4) Model 1 (Fig.5) χ2 p>.0 5 χ2(41)=146.127, p<.001 χ2(17)=25.742, p=.079 χ2/df ≤5.0 0 3.564 1.514 GFI ≥ .95 0.912 0.977 RMS EA ≤ .06 0.098 0.044 SRM SR ≤ .10 0.093 0.034 CFI ≥ .95 0.931 0.992 NFI ≥ .95 0.908 0.977 TLI ≥ .95 0.908 0.987 GFI – Goodness of fit RMSEA – Root mean square error of approximation SRMSR – Standardized root mean square residual CFI – comparative fit index NFI – Normed fit index TLI – Tucker Lewis index Path coefficients, as reported in Table 18 and shown in Figure 4, indicate that learning anxiety is not a significant predictor of learning strategies (β=.081, p=.132). Additionally, the correlation between motivation and anxiety is negligible (r=.059, p=.43). Deleting learning anxiety from the structural model should improve model fit.
58 Figure 4. Structural Model (Model 0) with Path Coefficients The fit indices of the re-specified model is reported iin Table 19. Both absolute fit indices (χ2, GFI, SRMR, RMSEA) and the relative fit indices (CFI, NFI, TLI) meet their target values. Path coefficients of the re-specified model are reported in Table 19 and shown on Figure 5. The result indicates that learning strategies is highly related to motivation (β=.83, p<.001). Approximately 68% (R2=.68) of the variance in learning strategies can be explained by learning motivation. 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.
59 Table 18. Path Coefficients (0) Paths b S.E. β p Strategies <--- Anxiety 0.082 .055 .081 .132 Strategies <--- Motiv 0.568 .178 .793 .001 Memory <--- Strategies 1.000 .820 Cognitive <--- Strategies 0.961 .058 .852 *** Compensation <--- Strategies 0.474 .074 .392 *** Metacognitive <--- Strategies 1.221 .068 .892 *** Affective <--- Strategies 1.011 .074 .745 *** Social <--- Strategies 1.080 .077 .759 *** DeepMotiv <--- Motiv 1.000 .880 SurfaceMotiv <--- Motiv 0.179 .072 .196 .012 Fear <--- Anxiety 1.000 715 ComApprehen <--- Anxiety 0.835 .068 .882 *** TestAnxiety <--- Anxiety 0.770 .063 .836 *** Note: *** = p<.001 Table 19. Path coefficients for Re-specified Model (Model 1) Paths b S.E. β. p Strategies <--- Motiv 0.620 .185 .827 *** Memory <--- Strategies 1.000 .820 Cognitive <--- Strategies 0.975 .058 .865 *** Compensation <--- Strategies 0.436 .075 .360 *** Metacognitive <--- Strategies 1.214 .068 .890 *** Affective <--- Strategies 1.049 .074 .772 *** Social <--- Strategies 1.080 .076 .759 *** DeepMotiv <--- Motiv 1.000 .839 SurfaceMotiv <--- Motiv 0.197 .072 .206 .006 Note: *** = p<.001
60 These analyses suggest that (a) learning anxieties do not explain learning strategies, (b) learning anxieties are not correlated with learning motivation, and (c) learning strategies are strongly related to motivation, particularly deep motivation. Figure 5. Re-specified model (1)
61 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study aimed to investigate the relationships among learning anxiety, motivation, and English learning strategies among junior high school students attending an international boarding school in Anyang, China. In this chapter, the results are summarized and discussed. Implications, limitations, and recommendations for practice and future research are then offered. Summary of the Study What English Learning Strategies Do Students Use? Is There Any Difference by Grade Level and Gender? The mean for students’ learning strategies (2.80 for affective to 3.11 for compensation) show that most students employ learning strategies with medium frequency. Of the six learning strategies, compensation strategy (M=3.11, SD=0.79) rank first, followed by cognitive (M=2.97, SD=0.73) and social (M=2.94, SD=0.92) strategies. Metacognitive (M=2.90, SD=0.88), memory (M=2.82, SD=0.79) and affective (M=2.80, SD=0.88) strategies are used the least frequently. 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).
62 What Is the Level of Their Learning Anxiety? Is There Any Difference by Grade Level and Gender? On average, students reported medium of anxiety when learning English. They were most anxious about the fear of negative evaluation (M=2.98, SD=0.90) and less anxious about test anxiety (M=2.86, SD=0.59) and communication apprehension (M=2.77, SD=0.61). There are no grade level or gender differences for learning anxieties. What Type(S) Of Learning Motivation Do Students Use? Is There Any Difference by Grade Level and Gender? With means from 2.73 (SD=0.82) for surface motivation to 3.09 (SD=1.02) for deep motivation, students appear to be moderately motivated to learn English. 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). To What Extent are Learning Strategies Related to Learning Motivation and Anxiety? Except for compensation, learning strategies appear to be moderately correlation with deep motivation (r=.49 to r=.60). However, learning strategies have little correlation with surface motivation (r=.048 to r=.18). And learning anxieties seem to have little correlation with motivation (r=.046 to r=.36). 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),
63 cognitive (β=.87) and memory (β=.82) strategies. Discussion of the Study Discussion of the Current English Learning Strategy that Students Use The researcher found that most students use medium-frequency learning strategies (from 2.80 to 3.11). Of the six learning strategies, the compensation strategy (M=3.11, SD=0.79) is the main strategy that is being used by students. Many researchers have investigated the use of English learning strategies in the Chinese context. Although there are differences in the research results, most agree that the frequency of students’ language learning strategies use is not high. This is likely to be due to certain limitations such as lack of strategy awareness and improper use of strategies. This is especially the case with students who are poor at using social and affective strategies (Li, 2002; Hou, 2004; Niu, 2013). Among these studies, Hou (2004), and Niu (2013) found that students used compensation strategies most frequently. On the contrary, Li (2002) found that students rarely use compensation strategies. According to Oxford (1990), compensation strategies enable learners to use familiar language to overcome their gaps in knowledge. When learning English, when one method fails, they will use other ways to solve English learning problems, such as guessing the meaning of a word to make up for their lack of language knowledge. In communication, other words with similar meanings are often used. Instead, gestures and body language are also used to make up for the weakness of language knowledge, especially in terms of vocabulary expression. The frequency of compensation strategy may be explained by English teachers’ conscious and unconscious assistance in daily
64 training. The reason for the lower frequency of affective strategy use can be attributed to the exam-oriented education in junior high schools in China. The primary purpose of junior school English education is to improve English exam scores, which diminishes students’ interest in learning the English language itself. Additionally, most of the students are at a medium level of anxiety. Therefore, it is not necessary to use affective strategy to control emotions to overcome anxiety. Discussion of the Current English Learning Anxiety Level Students in this study reported moderate level (occurs 88.85%) of anxiety when learning English. They were most anxious about the fear of negative evaluation (M=2.98, SD=0.90) and less anxious about test anxiety (M=2.86, SD=0.59). The result of anxiety level is same as the findings from Zhang (2004); however, there is a difference from the results obtained by Xiong (2005), Xiong & Tan (2007) and Yu (2007). Their results show that students' English anxiety level is relatively high, and anxiety is common in English learning. The difference in results may be due to different sampling. The sample in the current study was taken from a junior high school in Anyang, and only one school was selected, as a result, the data is relatively closed. Moreover, the school is a top-ranked private school in the local area, which has its foreign teachers on campus, and the students' family financial background is relatively superior. This means that the students have more opportunities to contact foreigners, foreign cultures, and English at an early stage, which has no doubt reduced the pressure of learning English. As of the three dimensions of learning anxiety, the fear of negative evaluation is
65 the highest, showing that students are most anxious about other people, including teachers and classmates, negatively evaluating them. One possible explanation for this is that students generally have a strong consideration of ‘face’ and are afraid of making mistakes in front of others. At the age of adolescence, they attach much importance to the remarks, comments and evaluations concerning their English performance from peers and teachers. The other probable reason is that students are expecting too little or too much of themselves, so they will be anxious if they cannot reach their goals or if they are immersed in self-deprecation in the English learning process. Communication apprehension has the lowest scores, perhaps because students have opportunities to communicate with English native speakers at school; moreover, their English teachers always give students chances to have English conversations in pairs or in groups, as a result, students are likely to be less anxious about communicating in English. Discussion of the Current Types of English Learning Motivation that Students use Motivation for learning English among students in this study is moderate (SM=2.73, DM=3.09) which, according to Oxford (1990), reflects the learning motivation among junior high school students. Zhang’s (2020) research also found that junior high students had a medium motivated status. However, this kind of result is inconsistent with Wang and Huang (2011), Wang (2017), whose findings indicate the students have a relatively high level of learning motivation. This phenomenon may be explained by looking at the locations where the studies were conducted. Wang, Huang and Wang’s samples were from big cities. The students in big cities will have more opportunities to get more exposure to the foreign culture and language environment, it may foster the desire to have the relevant skills and experience to study abroad in the
66 future. Another possible reason is the heightened pressure of competition among students in big cities. To enter the top-ranked high school, students have no option but to study hard; therefore, they are relatively highly motivated compared to those who study in smaller cities in China. In Biggs’ category, English learning motivation is divided into two dimensions, deep motivation and surface motivation. Comparing these two subcategories, the results revealed that the mean of deep motivation is higher than that of surface motivation, which means that the students generally are interested in learning English by themselves. This finding contrasts with most of the studies in China (Wang & Huang, 2011; Luo, 2015; Wang, 2017; Zhang, 2020). Recent research found that students' extrinsic (surface) motivation is stronger than intrinsic (deep) motivation. This may also be explained by students’ family financial backgrounds and medium anxiety level in the present study. Fortunately, the students of this study can get exposure to English movies, songs, and comics easily; their parents can afford extracurricular English tutors for them; most importantly, the competition in the local area is relatively low; therefore, the purpose of learning English to get a higher score is not common among the students in this study, rather they like learning English due to their own interest. Discussion of the Differences in Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation by Grade Level and Gender Ninth graders used a compensation strategy significantly higher than seventh graders. One possible reason for this is that they are in the last year of junior high school, and their academic performance is closely related to whether they can go to a good high school or not; thus, they will use various compensation strategies to get a higher score to
67 improve their academic performance. Female students use compensation strategies higher than male students, which indicates that female students are willing to use various methods to get better grades and compensate for what they do not know. For example, they make up new words to replace the right ones or use gestures when conversing with others. Male students use social strategies significantly more than female students, suggesting that males prefer learning English by seeking help from their peers. There are no grade level differences in terms of learning anxieties. This is inconsistent with Spielberger (1983), Jiang (2013), and Su (2017). However, the current study reported that seventh-grade students have the highest anxiety in all aspects. This finding is related to junior high school students' learning characteristics and their psychological characteristics. From the perspective of students' learning characteristics, 7th grade students have just transferred from primary school to junior high school; at first, they might feel confused because of the changes in the methods and content in English learning. At the same time, they are in the first year of junior high study, and the desire to be perfect might lead to the consequence of higher anxiety in fear of negative evaluation. This study has no gender differences in the three sub-scales of learning anxieties. This is inconsistent with the findings of Qiao (1992) and Lu (2009), who suggested that the emotional factors of girls in junior high school was significantly stronger than that of boys; specifically, girls were more concerned about how they appeared to others resulting in more anxiety than boys. Learning motivation appears to be similar among junior high school students.
68 Interestingly, deep motivation exists least, and surface motivation exists most among 8th graders. One possible reason for the situation is that this is the beginning of the period of adolescence, and concerns and care for learning may not be a priority. Instead, they are interested in exploring relationships with peers, sports, games, etc. The results of the T-test suggest that male students have more motivation to learn English both at the surface and deep level than female students. In particular, there is a significant difference in surface motivation. Though the students are not highly motivated to study English, the results show that male students desire to study in order to achieve a good grade. Discussion of the Correlation Among Learning Strategy, Learning Anxiety, and Learning Motivation The structural equation modeling (SEM) results indicated that learning anxiety for this sample junior high school students does not explain learning strategies. However, learning strategies are mainly explained by learning motivation, particularly deep motivation. This suggests that students who use deep motivation for learning English are more likely to use cognitive, metacognitive, and memory strategies and, to a lesser extent, affective and social strategies. According to Biggs’ definition (Wen, 2011), deep motivation refers to anyone who has strong interest in English or its culture. Therefore, students need to employ memory strategies to learn new vocabularies, cognitive strategies to broaden their knowledge of English, metacognitive strategies to plan the learning path, affective strategies to regulate emotions, and lastly, social strategies to seek extra help from others. In short, all these strategies promote better English learning at school.
69 Implications Based on the findings, students sometimes use learning strategies. As for guiding students to make efficient use of related strategies in English learning, teachers could raise students’ awareness of the importance and effect of English learning strategies and integrate learning strategies into the class. One thing to be emphasized is that learning strategies can be adjusted and amended in accordance with different tasks. To achieve this, teachers should understand every learning strategy well first; then, provide specific guidance on which strategies could be used in particular tasks and how they can possibly be applied. Moreover, female students need more support in the use of learning strategies. With respect to learning anxiety, most students are moderate. That is to say, the current teaching methods and environment are adequate for students to learn English. In terms of medium learning motivation, English teachers should be aware that they should help students set up achievable learning goals at the junior stage, especially for female students, so that students will have lasting motivation to learn. The students who have a better financial background could also go abroad or participate in English summer camp. Through these experiences, they are able to understand the culture of English, which increase their interest in learning English. At the same time, by enhancing their interest in the classroom, students probably will have a great interest in English learning and promote the production of autonomous learning, which is the ultimate goal of education. Lastly, fostering the use of memory, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies will help students generate deep motivation, which could fulfill the requirements of learning independently from MOE.
70 Limitations of the study In the current study, certain limitations need to be considered. First, though the researcher selected 300 participants to take part in the current study, only 269 completed the questionnaire. These participants represent less than 10% of the total student population in the school. In addition, the participants are only from one single school in the local area. Consequently, the findings of this study may have limited generalizability. Second, many factors can influence the use of strategies when learning English as a second language. This study hypothesized only learning anxieties and motivations to explain learning strategies. Clearly, the influence of other factors on learning strategies should be examined. Third, is study explored the relationship among English learning strategies, anxiety, and motivation from a comprehensive perspective instead of investigating their relationships with certain English learning skills, such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Recommendations For Practice As for guiding students to make efficient use of related strategies in English learning, several suggestions are put forward. First, raise students’ awareness of the importance and effect of English learning strategies. Second, integrate learning strategies into the class and cultivate students’ habits of utilizing strategies. Third, encourage students to use meta-cognitive and cognitive strategies frequently and make wise and flexible use of affective strategies. To sum up, one thing to be emphasized is that learning strategies can be adjusted and amended in accordance with different tasks.
71 Concerning anxiety reduction, teachers should lead students to analyze their anxiety-inducing factors and give specific suggestions in accordance with individual situations. In terms of learning motivation, teachers facilitate students to find the appropriate way to study; help students establish effective learning goals; make learning more interesting for students, and enable students to develop autonomous learning ability. In conclusion, English teachers should help students to set up achievable learning goals at the junior stage so that students will have lasting motivation to learn. By enhancing their interest in the classroom, students will hopefully develop a great interest in English learning. For Future Research The influence of learning anxiety and motivation on learning strategies should be examined in the context of test grades, education, family background, and different types of schools. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence the use of learning strategies. Learning strategies may be different for specific language skills such as writing, reading, speaking, and listening. The influence of learning anxiety and motivation on learning strategies may be different for learning different language skills. Psychological variables such as self-esteem, self-regulation, and risk-taking abilities may mediate the influence of anxiety and motivation on learning strategies. The influence of these psychological variables on learning strategies should be investigated. In recent years, online learning has been prevalent in Chinese education. Future research can be directed to analyzing the relationship between these three variables based
72 on the internet teaching environment. Comparative analysis should be conducted between traditional and online teaching models concerning strategies choice, anxiety level, and their correlations with learning motivation. A longitudinal approach should be investigated to identify the exact change in the use of learning strategies, the level of learning anxiety, and the types of learning motivation throughout the three years of junior high school. Further investigation can also be performed to examine whether the methods of guiding students to use certain strategies, reducing severe anxiety, and enhancing learning motivation are effective or not. Finally, the use of qualitative and/or mixed methods approaches using focus and individual interviews, classroom observations, and examinations of classroom records may provide researchers with a clearer and more detailed understanding of the dynamics that take place while learning English as a second language.
REFERENCE
74 REFERENCE Abraham, R. G., & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 85-102. New York: Prentice-Hall. Al-Bustan, S. A., & Al-Bustan, L. (2009). Investigating students' attitudes and preferences towards learning English at Kuwait University. College Student Journal, 43(2), 454-463. Alico, J. C. (2016). Writing anxiety and language learning motivation: Examining causes, indicators, and relationship. Communication and Linguistics Studies, 2(1), 6-12. Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 207-215. Amiryousefi, M., & Tavakoli, M. (2011). The relationship between test anxiety, motivation and MI and the TOEFL iBT reading, listening and writing scores. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 210-214. An, W. Y. (2013). A Study on the correlation between English learning anxiety, strategies and performance in vocational colleges. Chinese Journal of Education, 4, 3-6. Atkinson, R. C. (1975). Mnemotechnics in second language learning. American Psychologist, 30(8), 821–828. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077029 Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: a cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York. Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs about language learning: Current knowledge, pedagogical implications, and new research directions. TESL-EJ, 9(1), 1–21. Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language proficiency. Modern Language Journal, 65(1), 24-35. Bindra, D. (1968). Neuropsychological interpretation of the effects of drive and incentive-motivation on general activity and instrumental behavior. Psychological Review, 75(1), 1–22. Bollinger, A, (2017). Foreign language anxiety in traditional and distance learning foreign language Classrooms. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. Liberty University Press. Bordet, G. (2018). Review of the book Language Contact and the Future of English by Ian MacKenzie: Retrieved from http://journals.openedition.org/asp/5209. DOI: 10.4000/asp.5209 Brown, H. D. (1973). Affective variables in second language acquisition. Language
75 Learning, 23, 231-244． Cakici, D. (2016). The correlation among EFL learners' test anxiety, foreign language anxiety and language achievement. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 190-203. Chamot, A. U., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1999). Children's learning strategies in language immersion classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 319–338. Chamot, A., & Kupper, L. (1989). Learning strategies in foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 22, 13-24. Chang, C. H., & Liu, H. J. (2013). Language learning strategy use and language learning motivation of Taiwanese EFL University students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10(2), 196-209. Chang, C., Liu, S., & Lee, Y. (2007). A study of language learning strategies used by college EFL learners in Taiwan. Retrieved June 25, 2021, from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.545.2982&rep=rep1&t ype=pdf Chang, S. M., & Huang, S. H. (1999). Taiwanese English learners' learning motivation and language learning strategies. Proceedings of the sixteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 111-128. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., & McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 268-274. Chen, Q. & Liu, R. D. (2007). Contemporary Educational Psychology. Beijing Normal University Press. Child, D. (2004). Psychology and the teacher (7th ed.). London; Continuum International Publishing Group. Cohen, A. (2006). Strategies in responding to the new TOEFL reading tasks. ETS Research Reports series, 1, i-162. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. Dai, X., & Zhao, Y. (2007). English learning anxiety and the correlation with language achievement in secondary students. Primary English Teaching and Research, 2, 47-49. Dashtizadeh, P., & Farvardin, M. T. (2016). The relationship between language learning motivation and foreign language achievement as mediated by perfectionism: the case of high school EFL learners. Journal of Language and Cultural Education,
76 4(3), 86-102. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self-system. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Ehrman, M. E., & Oxford, R. (1989). Effects of sex differences, career choice, and psychological type on adult language learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal 73, 1-3. El-Dib, M. A. B. (2004). Language learning strategies in Kuwait: Links to gender, language level, and culture in a hybrid context. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 85-95. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5-12. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Fatehi, M., & Akbari, O. (2015). An experimental analysis of errors in light of language learning and language use and the role of executing involvement to increase motivation in the English language classroom. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 51, 82-88. Feigenbaum, E. (2007). The role of language anxiety in teacher-fronted and small-group interaction in Spanish as a foreign language: How is pronunciation accuracy affected? Unpublished M.A. Dissertation. University of Pittsburgh, PA. Retrieved June 28, 2021, from http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/7691/ Feng, J. (2014). A study on the correlation between English learning strategies and learning anxiety in college Students' language autonomous learning center. M.A. Thesis. Hubei University of Technology. Feng, S. (2016). A study on the correlation between High school students' English learning anxiety and learning strategy use. Master's thesis. Guangzhou University.
77 Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Flemens, K. (2008). Motivation, language-learning, and course performance anmang English -speaking college students learning a romance language. Doctoral Dissertation. Lynn University. Gardner, R. C., & Macintyre, P. D. (1993a). A student’s contribution to second language learning. Part I: Cognitive variables. Language Teaching, 25, 211-220． Gardner, R. C., & Macintyre, P. D. (1993b). A student’s contributions to second language learning. Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26, 1-11. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Ghee, T. T., Ismail, H. N., & Kabilan, M. K. (2010). Language learning strategies used by MFL students based on genders and achievement groups. US-China Foreign Language, 8(1), 50–58. Gkonou, C. (2013). A diary study on the causes of English language classroom anxiety. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 51–68. Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2): 261-297. Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 562–570. Griffiths, C. (2003). Patterns of language learning strategy use. System; 31,367-383. Griffiths, C., & Oxford, R. (2013). The twenty-first century landscape of language learning strategies: Introduction to this Special Issue. System, 43, 1-10. Griffiths, C. (2015). Language learning strategies: An holistic view. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3,473-493. Gu, Y. Y. (2007). A tentative study of the relationship between foreign language anxiety and language learning strategy use. M. A. Thesis. Nanjing Normal University. Guilloteaux, M, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroomoriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation TESOL Quarterly, 42. (1), 55-77. Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2013). Conditions for the motivating capacity of vision. Part1. Research and resources l teaching: Motivating learning. p. 5. Pearson Education Limited. Harlow: United Kingdom
78 Hashemi, M. (2011). The impact of gender on language learning strategies of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 10–46. Retrieved June 25, 2021, from http://www.ijar.lit.az/pdf/10/2011(10-46).pdf He, S. Y. (2016). A study on English learning strategies and anxiety of students in Yili Normal University. Asia-pacific Education, 31, 108. Henry, A. (2010). Contexts of possibility in simultaneous language learning: Using the L2 motivational self system to assess the impact of global English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(2), 149-162. Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., ＆ Cope, J. (1986). Foreign Language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70, 125-132. Hou, Z. X. (2004). Cohesion of English learning strategies for college freshmen. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, 4, 15-17. Hsiao, T. Y., & Oxford, R. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning strategies: A confirmatory factor analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 368-383. Hu, T. T. (2017). Study on the relationship between English learning strategies and English classroom learning anxiety of junior middle school students. M.A. Thesis. Chongqing Normal University. Jain, Y., & Sidhu, G. K. (2013). Relationship between anxiety, attitude and motivation of tertiary students in learning English as a second language. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 114-123. Jia, G. J. (2010). Basic Theory of English Teaching. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Jiang, X. G. (2013). The relationships among English learning anxiety, language learning strategies and English achievement. Huazhong Normal University. Johnstone, K. (1999). Research on language learning and teaching. Language Learning, 32(3),137-156. Kang, D. (2004). Gender effects and situational factor in the socio-educational model. Research Journal of Dongeui University, 40, 213-227. Kim, T-Y. (2009). Korean elementary school students' perceptual learning style, ideal L2 self, and motivated L2 behaviour. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 9(3), 461-486. Kim, Y-K, & Kim, T-Y. (2011). Gender differences in Korean secondary school students' learning Styles and L2 motivation. Foreign Languages Education, 18(2), 51–71. Kirova, S., Petkovska, B., & Koceva, D. (2012). Investigation of motivation and anxiety
79 in Macedonia while learning English as a second/foreign language. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3477-3481. Koch, A. S., & Terrell, T. D. (1991). Affective reactions of foreign language students to Natural Approach activities and teaching techniques. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom implications (pp.109-126). Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. Lan, R., & Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning strategy profile of elementary school students in Taiwan. IRAL. 41, 339-379. Lavasani, M. G., Weisani, M., & Ejei, J. (2011). The role of achievement goals, academic motivation, and learning strategies in statistics anxiety: Testing a causal model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1881-1886. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). Social anxiety. New York: Guilford. Li, J. Y. (2002). The concept and application of Chinese students' second language learning strategies -- an empirical study. Foreign Language Teaching, 23(1), 42- 49. Li, J. Y., & Lin, S. S. (2007). Thirty years of foreign language learning anxiety. Foreign Language Teaching abroad 4 : 57-63. Liao, Y. (2000). A study of Taiwanese junior high school students’ EFL learning motivation and learning strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan Liu, D. L. (2002). Some thoughts on motivation in foreign language teaching. Foreign Language Teaching 7(4):58-62. Liu, X. Y. (2020). An Empirical Study on the Relationship among Foreign Language Learning Strategies, Learning Anxiety and Academic Achievements of NonEnglish Majors. Unpublished master’s thesis. Harbin Institute of Technology. Lv, H. Y. (2010). The Correlation between non-English major college students' oral English anxiety and oral English learning strategies. Foreign Language Studies 5: 65-71. MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Toward a social psychological model of strategy use. Foreign Language Annals, 27 (2), 185-195. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305. MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994a). The effects of induced anxiety on three stages of cognitive processing in computerised vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 1-17.
80 Magelinskaitė, Š., Kepalaitė, A., & Legkauskas, V. (2014). Relationship between social competence, learning motivation, and school anxiety in primary school. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 2936-2940. Naveh-Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y.-g., & Holinger, D. P. (1981). Test anxiety: Deficit in information processing. Educational Psychology, 73(6), 816- 824. McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 78–96. Mendi, H. B. (2009). The relationship between reading strategies, motivation and reading test performance in foreign language learning. Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey. Meng, C. G., & Chen, L. P. (2014). Intervention of College Students' foreign language learning anxiety: a case study. Foreign Languages 4 : 21-29. Meyers, L., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: design and interpretation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications Inc. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-86. Ministry of Education. (2011). English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education. Beijing Normal University Publishing Group, Beijing. Mori, S., & Gobel, P. (2006). Motivation and gender in the Japanese EFL classroom. System, 34(2), 194-210. Morgan, G. A., Griego, O. V., & Gloeckner, G. W. (2001). SPSS for Windows: An introduction to use and interpretation in research. Mahwah, N. J: L. Erlbaum Associates. Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S., & Ratcheva, S. (2013). The effects of teachers’ motivational strategies on learners’ motivation: A controlled investigation of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 63 (1), 34-62. Ni, Q. Q. (2008). An overview of forty years' research of foreign language learning strategies. Journal of Sichuan International Studies University, 6, 134-138. Nisbet, D. L., Tindall, E. R., & Arroyo, A. A. (2005). Language learning strategies and English proficiency of Chinese university students. Foreign Language Annals in Proquest Journal, 38(1), 100-108. Niu, Z. H. (2013). English learning strategies of Junior middle school students and its Influencing factors. M.A. Thesis. Suzhou University.
81 Noels, K., Clement A. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communication style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83, 23-34. Nyikos, M., & Oxford, R. (1993). A factor analytic study of language-learning strategy use: Interpretations form information-processing theory and social psychology. Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 11-22. O’ Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’ Malley, J., Chamot, A., Stewner-Manzanaraes, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35, 21-46. Ohata, K. (2005). Potential sources of anxiety for Japanese learners of English: Preliminary case interviews with five Japanese college students in the USA. TESL-EJ, 9(3), 1–21. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House. Oxford, R. (1993). Research on second language learning strategies. Annual Review of applied linguistics, 13: 175-187. Öztürk, G., & Gürbüz, N. (2013). The impact of gender on foreign language speaking anxiety and motivation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 654-665. Pan, B. B. (2015). A study on English learning anxiety and learning strategy use among non-English major senders. Fuzhou University. Pape, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Middle school children’s strategic behavior: Classification and relation to academic achievement and mathematical problemsolving. Instructional Science, 31, 419-449. Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38(3), 467-479. Papi, M. & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2012). Teacher Motivational Practice, Student Motivation, and Possible L2 Selves: An Examination in the Iranian EFL Context. Language Learning. 62. Park, G. (1997). Language learning strategies and English proficiency in Korean university students. Foreign Language Annals, 30 (2), 211-221. Pawlak, M. (2014). Investigating learner engagement with oral corrective feedback: Aims, methodology, outcomes. In A. Łyda & K. Szcześniak (Eds.), Awareness in action. The role of consciousness in language acquisition, (pp. 69–84). Springer
82 International Publishing. Peng, I, (2001). EFL motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school learners. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Peng, J. H. (2018). A study on the relationship between English learning anxiety and learning strategy use in Senior High School students. M.A. Thesis. Huaibei Normal University. Phillips, V. (1991). A look at learner strategy use and ESL proficiency. The CATESOL Journal, 4(1), 57-67. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2008). Language anxiety in secondary grammar school students. Opole University Press. Pong, G. (2002). EFL motivation and strategy use among Taiwanese senior high school learners. National Taiwan University of education. Qin, X., & Wen, Q. (2002). The inner structure of learning motivation for learners of nonEnglish majors. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(1), 51-58. Rahman, A., & Deviyanti, R. (2012). Correlation between student motivation and their speaking ability. Journal Ilmiah Essay, 6(1), 1-18. Rahman, F., Jumani, N. B., & Basit, A. (2010). Motivating and de-motivating factors among learners. International Journal of Academic Research, 2(1), 206- 212. Rao, S, P. (2019). Ther of English as a global language. Research Journal Of English, 4(1). 65-79. Reder, S., & Strawn, C. (2001). The K-12 school experiences of high school dropouts. Focus on Basics, 4(D), 12-13. Rubin, J. (1975). What the "good language learner” can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1): 41-51. Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 117-131. Saito, Y. E., Horwitz., & Garza, T. (2009). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 83, 202-218. Schwartz, L. L. (1972). Educational psychology: Focus on the learner. Holbrook Press. Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research. Language Learning, 28, 128-142. Shahbaz, M., Islam, M., & Malik, M. A. (2017). Role of gender differences and parents' education in shaping L2 motivation of Pakistani students. Journal of Research &
83 Reflections in Education (JRRE), 11(2), 210-223 Shao, X. G. (2008). A study on college students' English learning anxiety under network multimedia environment. Audio-visual Teaching of Foreign Languages, 5 : 28-32. Shi, Y., & Xu, J. F. (2013). Research on foreign language anxiety at home and abroad for forty years -- Based on the statistics and analysis of papers in 29 SSCI journals and 12 CSSCI journals over 40 years (1972-2011). Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 60-65. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Inventory STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden. Strack, J., Lopes, P., Esteves, F., & Fernandez-Berrocal, P. (2017). Must we suffer to succeed? When anxiety boosts motivation and performance. Journal of Individual Differences, 38(2), 113-124. Su, N. L. (2017). The Relationship Between Junior high school students’ Oral English Anxiety and Language Learning Strategies. Chongqing Normal University Suchunk, D. H. (1990). Introduction to section and efficacy. Journal of Education Psychology, 1,:3-6. Sung, K. Y., & Tsai, H. M. (2014). Motivation and learner variables: Group differences in college foreign language learners' motivations. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 3(2), 43-54. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2 Takeuchi, O., Griffiths, C., & Coyle, D. (2007). Applying strategies to contexts: The role of individual, situational and group differences. Language learner strategies: Thirty years of research and practice, 69-92. Tercanlioglu, L. (2004). Exploring gender effect on adult foreign language learning strategies. Issues in Educational Research, 14(2), 181–193. Retrieved June 25, 2021, from http://www.iier.org.au/iier14/tercanlioglu.html Tsai, C. H., Cheng, C. H., & Yeh, D. Y. (2017). Can learning motivation predict learning achievement? A case study of a mobile game-based English learning approach. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 2159–2173. Ushioda, E. (2017). The impact of global English on motivation to learn other languages: Toward an ideal multilingual self. The Modern Language Journal, (3, (3) 469- 482.
84 Von Worde, R. (2003). Students' perspectives on foreign language anxiety. Inquiry, 8(1). Wang, M. M. (2014). A study of the correlation between English learning anxiety and learning strategies in senior schools. M. A. Thesis. Shandong Normal University. Wang, X. Y. (2017). A Survey on English learning Anxiety of junior high school students. M. A. Thesis. Henan Normal University. Wang, Z., Shakeshaft, N., Schofield, K., & Malanchini, M. (2018). Anxiety is not enough to drive me away: A latent profile analysis on math anxiety and math motivation. PloS One, 13(2) 1-16. Warr, P., & Downing, J. (2000). Learning strategies, learning anxiety and knowledge acquisition. British Jo1rnal Psychology, 91 (3), 311-33. Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448–457. Wei, B. (2017). A study of the relieving strategies of junior students’ English learning anxiety in classroom. Teaching management and education research, 21, 39-41. Wen, Q. F. (2001). The change of motivation, concept and strategy in English learning. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3, 105-110. Wenden, A.L. (1999). Commentary. An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: beyond the basics. System, 27(4), 435-441. Wharton, G. (2000). Language learning strategy use of bilingual foreign language learners in Singapore. Language Learning, 50, 203-243. Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). French is the language of love and stuff': Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British Research Journal, 28(4), 503-508. Willing, K. (1989). Teaching how to learn- learning strategies in ESL. Sydney: Machuarie University Press. www.mdu.edu.tw/*ged/other%20download/bulletin/20070319/11.pdf Xiong, S, C., & Tan, H. J. (2007). English learning anxiety and its differential factors in high school students. Jiangxi Education and Research, 11, 15. Xu, X. (2011). The Relationship between language learning motivation and the choice of language learning strategies among Chinese graduates. International Journal of English Linguistics. 1, (2), 203-212. https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/view/12067 Yeung, A. S., & McInerney, D. M. (2005). Students' school motivation and aspiration over high school years. Educational Psychology, 25, 537-554.
85 Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does language anxiety research suggest? The Modern Language Journal, 75, 426–439. Zhang, M. (2020). English language teacher educators’ views on face-saving practices: A case study. (Graduate Certificate of Education), Deakin University, Australia. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351437992_Zhang_M_2020_English_la nguage_teacher_educators'_views_on_facesaving_practices_A_case_study_Graduate_Certificate_of_Education_Deakin_Uni versity_Australia Zhang, P. Q., Huang, W. B., & Liu, Q. Q. (2007). Empirical research on English learning strategies. Advanced Engineering Education Research. Zhang, X. (2004). Language Anxiety and its Effect on Oral Performance in Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264844780_Language_Anxiety_and_its _Effect_on_Oral_Performance_in_Classroom/citations Zhao, D., & Xie, Y. (2013). A study of the relationship between Japanese learners’ learning motivation and anxiety and the need of cooperative learning. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 20(3), 53-58. Zhou, J. Y. (2015). A study on learning anxiety among academic graduate students. M. A. Thesis. Yunnan University. Zhou, Z., & Ying, L. (2011). Affective factors and English teaching of English majors in high vocational college. Journal of Jiangxi Institute of Education, 32(1), 105-107.
APPENDICE
87 Appendix A: Research Questionnaire A Correlational Study Between Learning Strategy, Learning Motivation,and Learning Anxiety --- based on junior high school English learning Greeting! Students! This questionnaire has a number of questions about some aspects of your English language studies. There is no right or wrong answer, all depends on your own thinking. It is important that you answer each question as honestly as you can. Please note, this is a research study that you are being asked to take part in it; however, you have the authorities to choose whether participating or not. Please also be aware of that as you decide to take part in, your answers are CONFIDENTIAL. Thanks for your cooperation. Instructions: Below are about how you learn English, please choose the one most appropriate response to each question. Fill the blank with “✔” that best fits your immediate reaction. Do not spend a long time on each item: your first reaction is probably the best one. Please answer each item. Do not worry about projecting a good image. Numbers: 1 = Never or almost never true of me 2 = Usually not true of me 3 = Somewhat true of me 4 = Usually true of me 5 = Always or almost always true of me Grade: 7 8 9 Gender: Male Female Statements 1 2 3 4 5 1 I think of relationships between what I already know and new things I learn in English. 2 I use new English words in a sentence so I can remember them.
88 3 I connect the sound of a new English word and an image or picture of the word to help remember the word. 4 I remember a new English word by making a mental picture of a situation in which the word might be used. 5 I use rhymes to remember new English words. 6 I use flashcards to remember new English words. 7 I physically act out new English words. 8 I review English lessons often. 9 I remember new English words or phrases by remembering their location on the page, on the board, or on a street sign. 1 0 I say or write new English words several times. 1 1 I try to talk like native English speakers. 1 2 I practice the sounds of English. 1 3 I use the English words I know in different ways. 1 4 I start conversations in English. 1 5 I watch English language TV shows spoken in English or go to movies spoken in English. 1 6 I read for pleasure in English. 1 7 I write notes, messages, letters, or reports in English. 1 8 I first skim an English passage (read over the passage quickly) then go back and read carefully. 1 9 I look for words in my own language that are similar to new words in English. 2 0 I try to find patterns in English. 2 1 I find the meaning of an English word by dividing it into parts that I understand. 2 2 I try not to translate word-for-word.
89 2 3 I make summaries of information that I hear or read in English. 2 4 To understand unfamiliar English words, I make guesses. 2 5 When I can' t think of a word during a conversation in English, I use gestures. 2 6 I make up new words if I do not know the right ones in English. 2 7 I read English without looking up every new word. 2 8 I try to guess what the other person will say next in English. 2 9 If I can' t think of an English word, I use a word or phrase that means the same thing 3 0 I try to find as many ways as I can to use my English. 3 1 I notice my English mistakes and use that information to help me do better. 3 2 I pay attention when someone is speaking English. 3 3 I try to find out how to be a better learner of English. 3 4 I plan my schedule so I will have enough time to study English. 3 5 I look for people I can talk to in English. 3 6 I look for opportunities to read as much as possible in English. 3 7 I have clear goals for improving my English skills. 3 8 I think about my progress in learning English. 3 9 I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using English. 4 0 I encourage myself to speak English even when I am afraid of making a mistake. 4 1 I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in English.