J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.

, 3(10)235-244, 2013 ISSN 2090-4304

Journal of Basic and Applied
© 2013, TextRoad Publication
Scientific Research
www.textroad.com

Motivational predictors of language learning autonomy among ESL

secondary school students in Malaysia
Maryam Foroutan1, Nooreen Noordin2, and Mohd Sahandri Gani bin Hamzah3

Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
Faculty of Education and Human Development, Sultan Idris Education University, Tanjong Malim, Perak Darul
Ridzuan, Malaysia
Received: July 7 2013
Accepted: August 19 2013

ABSTRACT

Drawing on self-determination theory (SDT), this study investigated secondary school students’ autonomy extent
and the motivation orientation for learning English in Malaysia. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship
between language learning autonomy and motivation in one of the eastern collectivist context, i.e. Malaysia. Going
more in-depth, the relationship between more self-determined and less self-determined forms of motivation and
autonomy in Malaysian context were explored. Additionally, by applying regression analysis categories of
motivation which can predict language learning autonomy are determined.
KEYWORDS: Autonomy, Motivation, Self-determination theory.

INTRODUCTION

Self-determination theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), is one of the theories which best
describe the necessity of autonomy and motivation in learning. Self-determination is defined as “the process of
utilizing one’s will”, and ‘Autonomy’, refers to freedom in making a choice and accepting responsibility for one’s
own learning (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
According to Deci and Ryan’s (1985, 1987) SDT, human beings have three basic psychological needs:
autonomy, competence and relatedness, which together predict motivation. Deci and Ryan (1985) hypothesized that
people will challenge, show interest and engagement in activities which they experience them volitionally.
Moreover, intrinsically motivated individuals engage in the activity for the sake of its own rather than for other
extrinsic motivation purposes.
Even though SDT has inspired many scholars to consider its basic concepts in students’ learning, the idea of
applying autonomy among eastern societies is still controversial and has aroused many criticisms by cross-cultural
psychologists (e.g. DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2004; Markus & Kitayama, 2003; Iyengar & Lepper, 1999). It is
alleged that SDT is limited to western societies and is irrelevant to non-western cultures. In fact, it is claimed that
eastern students belong to the “collectivist culture”, which “promotes interdependence, respect for authority,
hierarchical roles and relationships, and group consensus” (DeCapua and Wintergerst, 2004, p. 54) DeCapua and
Wintergerst (2004) differentiated the concept of “face” in collectivist and western context. In western context, ‘face’
is usually accompanied with pride, dignity, honor and self-esteem, whereas in most collectivist cultures, 'face'
collocates with “losing” as 'losing face'. Asking too many questions may cause losing face in front of other
classmates as it may show having lower proficiency and difficulty to understand teacher’s instruction. Moreover, if
the teacher does not know the answer to the questions, it may cause an embarrassing situation for the teacher. In
fact, in this culture, as DeCapua & Wintergerst (2004) mentioned, asking many questions may be regarded as threats
to the authority of the teacher who is believed to be the only one who talks during the whole class, while students are
expected to sit quietly and take notes.
In the argument of different cultures and authority of the teacher, Liu (1998) pointed up Asian cultures of
obeying the authority unconditionally, in which teacher is regarded as a 'fount of knowledge'. As such, developing
autonomy in Asian societies can be demanding for teachers due to the mismatch between students’ culture and
teacher’s instructions especially those Asian students studying in western societies.
Addressing this issue, the goal of the present research is to shed further light to the existing controversy and
moreover this research aims to investigate students’ extent of autonomy and motivation and further explore the
relationship between students’ language learning autonomy and language learning motivation.

*
Corresponding Author: Maryam Foroutan, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

235
 Foroutan et al.,2013

Motivation
Research evidence suggests motivation affects students’ engagement and their success in academic
performance. Legualt, Green- Demers and Pelletier (2006) explained how student motivation decreases by their
progress in grades. They mentioned that student amotivation, which is complete lack of engagement; reaches the
highest peak at the high school level. As a result, high school teachers may face the problems related to their
students’ amotivation; while, the sources of amotivation among students are still unclear. As suggested by Johnson
(2008), amotivation should not be investigated under ‘student problem’, but ‘teacher problem’. This is the role of
teacher to apply innovative instruction to increase student motivation in learning. A self- determined classroom
environment where the priority is given to student’s choice may lead students to motivation in second language
learning (Johnson, 2008).
In their research of the rationale behind amotivation among high school students, Legault et al. (2006) found
that skill shortage or lack of confidence in doing a task, bring about despondency over learning and induce lack of
motivation and engagement in the activities. Obtaining required skills and abilities in order to achieve a goal by own
efforts are reflected in students’ autonomy in learning.
Research in the field of second language learning acknowledged that affective and cognitive factors influence
learner’s success in learning a second language. Until 1960s, research mostly concentrated on the effect of cognitive
factors on language learning, but since then researchers attempted to discover how affective factors like motivation
and anxiety could inhibit or foster second language learning (Gardner, 1985). Affective factors are defined as “those
that deal with emotional reactions and motivations of the learner” (Scovel, 1978, p.131).
Many researchers are congruent in considering the essential role of motivation in academic learning and
specifically in language learning (Hurd, 2006; Noels, Clement & Pelletier, 2001; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Gardner,
1985). Since the 1990s, issues related to motivation in second language (L2) learning and debates on the nature of
L2 motivation have gathered momentum among researchers. Gardner’s (1985) motivational theory is one of the
notable theories in which the relationship between motivation and orientation was mainly emphasized. Gardner
(1985) differentiated between motivation and orientation as motivation is the desire to learn a language and will be
obtained by learner’s own efforts, whereas orientation is the reason for learning another language. Gardner (1985)
defines L2 motivation as “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus
favorable attitudes toward learning the language.” (p. 10). Gardner’s (1985) orientations are classified into two
categories: integrative orientation and instrumental, where the former refers to the desire of the learner to learn a
language to interact with and identify members of the L2 community, whereas the latter refers to learning L2 to
attain an academic goal, receive job advancement, travel and pass the test. Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972)
hypothesized that the integrative orientation would better predict proficiency in language learning compared to the
instrumental orientation due to positive attitudes that learners experience.
However, research over this theory suggested limitations in applying this theory in different contexts and
societies. Although some researchers (e.g., Gardner & Lambert, 1959) claimed that integrative orientation was a
good predictor of other L2 variables; others noticed that instrumental orientation in different contexts can be a better
factor in predicting other variables such as achievement (e.g., Lukmani, 1972; Oller, et al. 1977). Lukmani (1972),
for instance, tested Marathi-speaking high school students on their English proficiency and the nature of their
motivation for learning English. The results of this study revealed that the learners were instrumentally motivated to
learn English in which their scores in English proficiency were correlated significantly with their instrumental
motivation scores. Therefore, these researches proved that in some contexts both orientations could sustain effort,
and even in some contexts, integrative orientation might not motivate some learners to learn second language.
Another limitation for this theory concerns having more orientations besides integrative and instrumental
orientations. For instance, Oxford and Shearin (1994) argued that some other orientations in learning a second
language can be “wish to learn L2 to be intellectually stimulated” or “to show off to their friends”. Other
orientations mentioned by researchers can be: the need for achievement and stimulation (Dornyei, 1994), desire to
assimilation (Graham, 1985), interest and curiosity (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991), travel, friendship, and knowledge
(Clement and Kruidenier, 1983), prestige-influence (Moise, Clement, and Noels, 1990), Identification-influence
(Noels and Clement, 1989).
Due to the above-mentioned limitations of Gardner’s (1985) motivational theory, researchers considered
another prominent theory namely self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan (1985) based on self-determination
theory categorized motivation into three types as: intrinsic, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Further, Vallerand,
Blais, Briere & Pelletier, (1989) categorized intrinsic motivation into three types: knowledge, accomplishment and
stimulation, and extrinsic motivation into: external regulation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation.
Deci and Ryan (2000) suggested a framework (figure 2) within which motivation categories lie on a continuum
from self-determined to non-determined, moving from intrinsic orientation to amotivation. At the least determined

236
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(10)235-244, 2013

end, at the far left of the model, amotivation, refers to the level where learners are neither competence nor have
motive in doing actions. Deci and Ryan (1985, 2002) recognized three subcategories of extrinsic motivation,
namely: external regulation, introjected regulation, and identified regulation. Extrinsic motivation applies for
“actions carried out to achieve some instrumental end, such as earning a reward or avoiding a punishment” (p.39).
External regulation, the most extreme form of extrinsic motivation, refers to the pressure or reward from the
environment for doing an action. In educational context, external regulation can be getting good grades at the final
examination or passing the university entrance exam. This type of motivation drives the learner to persist learning as
long as the external incentive is present. Therefore, once the external incentive is taken away, the individual phases out
the engagement in the task. This type of extrinsic motivation is equalized to Gardners’s (1985) instrumental orientation.
Next degree on the continuum is Introjected regulation, where learners have internalized reasons for learning a
target language, such as being a good citizen or feeling ashamed in front of other people who can speak the target
language better than them. Although the source of motivation has been shifted to the self of the individual, “taking
in but not accepting a regulation as one’ own (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier and Ryan, 1991, p.329), since individual
engagement emerged from threatened sanctions or promise rewards (Deci and Ryan, 1991).
Identified regulation, the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, refers to learner’s personal choice
or the received values from the action. Identified-regulated individual engage in an activity by his own desire since
they comprehend the value of their learning. Individual do the activities freely “for personal reasons, rather than
external pressure” (Deci, et al. 1991, p. 330). This type of extrinsic motivation is not completely, but relatively self-
determined, as the motivation is based on the usefulness and instrumentality of the activity.
On the contrary to External motivation, Intrinsic motivation as the most self-determined motivation category, is
defined as “motivation to engage in an activity because that activity is enjoyable and satisfying to do” (Deci and
Ryan, 1985, p. 39). The first type of intrinsic motivation, IM-Knowledge, refers to the awareness stimulated by
disclosing new knowledge. In other words, learners learn English merely for the sake of learning a new language.
The second type of intrinsic motivation, IM-Accomplishment, associates the feeling with task fulfillment or goal
achievement. The third and last category of intrinsic motivation, IM-Stimulation, represents the feeling associated
with task contentment and pleasure. When individual chooses an activity by his own decision, he will look for
interesting and challenging activities (Noels, Pelletier, Clement and Vallerand. 2000).

Non-self-determined Self-determined

amotivation Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation

Non-regulation Identified Knowledge Accomplishment

External
regulation Introjected regulation
Stimulation
regulation

Figure 1. Orientation subtypes along the self-determination continuum

(adapted from Deci and Ryan, 2000, p. 72).

Deci and Ryan (2000) suggested that an individual who has high level of self-determination is likely to be
more autonomous in learning and will consequently have higher engagement and achievement. In spite of that,
extrinsic motivation does not suggest having no autonomy. Nunan (1997) indicated that autonomy is not a concept
of all-or-nothing, but a concept of degrees. Therefore, extrinsic motivation and its different types do not show lack
of self-determination, but show the extent to which they are internalized into the concept (Noels, et al. 2000).
Some researchers claimed that this theory is not applicable for Asian students. Kember et al. (1999) proposed
that Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-determination theory applicability in Asian context depends on students’
perception in considering career expectations as informational or controlling factors. Kember et al. (1999) concluded
that if extrinsic motivation is considered as informational and providing feedback factors, then it enhances intrinsic
motivation, whereas if extrinsic motivation is perceived as controlling factors, then intrinsic motivation will be
decreased. Kember et al. justified their findings by refereeing to Stipek’s internalized motivation (1988) where
internalized motivation happens when children learn specific behaviors according to their society values. Kember et
al. believed that Hong Kong students have internalized high status well-paid careers as a social value, and
consequently this extrinsic motivation make them more intrinsically motivated in their learning. Kember et al.
proposed that these findings are applicable to other Asian contexts.

237
 Foroutan et al.,2013

A follow-up research by Thang (2004) in testing Kember et al. (1999)’s results and investigating Malaysian
university students’ motivational orientation revealed that extrinsic motivation has negative connotation to learning
and is accompanied with ineffective approaches. The findings of Thang’s study showed extrinsic motivation is
correlated to controlling factors and does not lead students towards intrinsic motivation nor increased perception of
self-determination or competence.
In the relationship between motivation and autonomy, previous literature has not reached to common
conclusion to decide which one: autonomy or motivation comes first. Some researchers believe that autonomy lead
students to be more motivated. Dickinson (1995) in the literature review of autonomy and motivation suggested that
learners who are active and independently involved (engaged) in their own learning are more motivated in learning
and consequently learn effectively. Moreover, Dornyei and Csizer (1998), also in their “ten commandments” of
motivation proposed that promoting learner autonomy is one of the ‘commandments’ to students’ motivation in
learning. Therefore, teachers need to develop autonomy among students in order to motivate them into their
learning.
On the other hand, Spratt et al. (2002) in their article “Autonomy and motivation: which comes first?”
discussed the notion of priority of motivation to autonomy whereas autonomy mostly in the literature is introduced
as the product of motivation. In line with this, Spratt et al. (2002) conducted a larger-scale study of Hong Kong
tertiary students to investigate which one: autonomy or motivation comes first. Five hundred and eight participants
from nine different parent departments were surveyed through a questionnaire. The aim of this study was to assess
students’ readiness for learner autonomy in language learning by examining their perception of accepting
responsibility for themselves or those of their teachers’, their self-confidence in studying and acting autonomously
as well as their assessment of their motivation level in learning English. The results of this study showed learner
motivation played a crucial role in students’ readiness towards autonomy. Therefore, the researchers concluded that
teachers must try to promote motivation before training students to become autonomous.
While increased student motivation has been found to enhance student autonomy in western context, the
relationship between these variables in Asian context is still unclear. Identifying the relationship between students’
language learning motivation and autonomy level will assist English teachers in instructing and applying appropriate
programs. Thus, the current study attempts to answer the following research questions:

1. To what extent are students autonomous?

2. To what extent are students motivated in their language learning?
2.1. What are the extents of each subcategories of motivation among ESL secondary school students?
3. Is there any relationship between students’ language learning autonomy extent and their motivation level?
4. Is there any relationship between each subcategories of motivation and language learning autonomy extent?
What are the best motivational predictors that are most effective in predicting students’ language learning
autonomy? How much variance in language learning autonomy can be explained by the set of best
predictors?

METHOD
Participants
In sampling procedure, some criteria such as: the achievement of school and students in English, race and
gender were considered. The participants of this study were Lower Form 6 students in Selangor State Malaysia. This
study applied a multi-staged, area cluster, stratified, random sampling design in which almost equal number of
participants from Malay, Chinese and Indian were chosen. Besides, the researcher stratified the gender factor to
minimize the potential errors. According to the data obtained from Malaysia Ministry of Education 2011- 2012
academic year, there were 5512 Lower Form 6 students in the educational year 2011-2012 in Selangor state
secondary schools. Based on Krajcie and Morgan (1970), 361 Lower Form Six students were determined as the
sample size representative. There were 218 (60.6 %) female and 142 (39.4 %) male, while 120 (33.3%) were Malay,
142 (39.4%) were Chinese, and 98 (27.2 %) were Indian. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 19 years old.
In order to have equal number of participants in each district, the data was collected from different districts in
Selangor such as: Seri Kembangan, Shah Alam, Cheras, Klang, Kajang, Subang Jaya, and Petaling Jaya and
Puchung. Due to confidentiality of the number of each race, the researcher was not able to obtain any statistics about
the number of each race from the Malaysian ministry of education. Therefore, the researcher by asking local
teachers determined which schools might have more number of each race in these schools. The schools having more
Malay, more Chinese, and more Indian students were randomly chosen. From each school, only 50 percent of Lower
form 6 students were considered.

238
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(10)235-244, 2013

Instrumentation
The Questionnaire for the capacity of students’ autonomy
Lai (2001) called for adopting more analytical approach to assess the capacity of learner autonomy.
Autonomous learning capacity is defined as “the learner’s ability to set realistic goals for learning, identify scope of
learning, relevant materials to work with and related activities to engage in, and skillfully employ them for
monitoring their own learning, set their own pace for learning, and conduct self-assessment” (Lai, 2001; p.39).
Having an extensive reading of the literature on learner autonomy and taking Malaysia’s ESL teaching and learning
context into careful consideration, the researcher developed a questionnaire which included two aspects:
metacognitive strategies (Wenden, 1991) and ability to work individually (Benson, 2001) to measure students’
autonomy capacity. This questionnaire was translated into Malay, the national language, in order to enhance
students’ understanding of the questionnaires. The Malay version of the questionnaires were given to two lecturers
who had experience in translation and interpretation, and they were asked to back-translate these questionnaires to
English. Finally, after going through many revisions, some minor changes were done and the translators and the
researcher agreed upon the final versions. The value of reliability for Autonomy Extent was .827.
The Questionnaire for Language Learning Motivation
Language Learning Orientations Scale- Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation (LLOS-
IEA) developed by Noels, Pelletier, Clement and Vallerand (2000) was used to probe students’ language learning
motivation level. This questionnaire contains 21 items, which each section contains three questions for each of
different subscales: Amotivation, External regulation, Introjected regulation, Identified regulation, Intrinsic
Motivation-knowledge, Intrinsic Motivation-Accomplishment and Intrinsic Motivation-Stimulation. Through this
questionnaire, students in this study were asked to rate the items based on the extent to which the proposed reasons
corresponded with their own reasons for learning English, using a 4-point scale that ranged from ‘strongly disagree’
to ‘strongly agree’. In the current study, since the participants were English language learners, therefore second
language learning were changed to English learning to be applied for this specific population.
In order to obtain the extent of students’ motivation and to determine its correlation with the extent of
autonomy, general mean was considered. The negative items for Amotivation category were reversed into positive
items, i.e. the higher mean the higher motivated student is. The value of reliability for Language Learning
Orientations Scale- Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Amotivation was .759.

RESULTS

Research Question 1: To what extent are students autonomous?

The first objective of this study was to identify students’ autonomy extent. To obtain the mean and standard
deviation for students’ language learning autonomy extent, descriptive statistics was run. An average mean of
between 1- 1.75 of autonomy extent shows low autonomy, a mean of between 1.76- 2.51 indicates a moderately low
autonomy, a mean of between 2.52- 3.27 indicates a moderately high autonomy, and at last a mean of between 3.28-
4.00 shows high autonomy. The obtained result for students’ language learning autonomy extent showed that the
mean (2.49) was considered as moderately low autonomous. In short, Lower Form 6 students had moderately low
autonomy in their language learning (Refer to table 1).

Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviation of language learning autonomy extent

Variable No of Items M SD
Autonomy Extent 18 2.49 .39

Research Question 2: To what extent are students motivated in their language learning?
To determine the extent of students’ language learning motivation, descriptive statistics was applied. The mean
score of 1-2.66 was considered as low motivation, a mean score of 2.67-3.51 was considered as moderately low,
mean scores of 3.52-4.77 and 4.78-6.00 were considered as moderately high and high motivation respectively. The
results from the descriptive statistics, as shown in table 2, showed that the students’ motivation mean score and
standard deviation were 4.47 and .47 respectively. It showed moderately high motivation level in studying English
among secondary school students in Malaysia.
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviation of language learning motivation
Variable N. of Items M SD

Overall Motivation 21 4.47 .47

239
 Foroutan et al.,2013

Research Question 2.1. What are the extents of each subcategories of motivation among ESL secondary school
students?

To determine the extent of each motivation subcategories, descriptive statistics was applied (table 3).

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of each subcategory of Motivation scale

Category No. of Items M SD
External Regulation 3 (6,15,18) 4.77 .92
Intrinsic Motivation (11,19,20,16,3,21,9,12,13) 4.26 .68
Introjected Regulation 3(2,10,17) 4.16 .90
Identified Regulation 3 (5,8,14) 3.86 .60
Amotivation 3 (1,4,7) 1.71 .81

Table 3 displays the mean and standard deviation for Motivation subcategories from the highest to the lowest as
External Motivation (M= 4.77, SD=.92), Intrinsic Motivation (M= 4.26, SD=.68), Introjected Motivation (M= 4.16,
SD=.90), Identified Regulation (M= 3.86, SD=.60), and finally Amotivation (M=1.71, SD=.81).

Research Question 3. Is there any relationship between students’ language learning autonomy extent and
their overall motivation level?

Based on the Pearson product moment correlation results (Table 4) and the magnitude of association guidelines
(0.70 to 0.99= very strong association, 0.50 to 0.69= substantial association, 0.30 to 0.49= moderate association,
0.10 to 0.29 = low association, and 0.01 to 0.09= negligible association) adopted from Davis (1971), there was a
negligible relationship between students’ language learning autonomy and their motivation level (r = .094, n = 360,
p < .076).

Table 4. Relationship between students’ language learning autonomy extent and their motivation level
Variable Autonomy Motivation
1.Language learning autonomy Pearson Correlation 1 .094
extent
Sig. (2-tailed) .076
N 360 360
2.Overall motivation Pearson Correlation .094 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .076
N 360 360
**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Research Question 4. Is there any relationship between each subcategories of motivation and language
learning autonomy extent?

To determine the relationship between language learning autonomy and the five dimensions of motivation, each
dimension was plotted against language learning autonomy and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients
were computed. The results showed no curvilinear relationships were apparent from the plots. The results of the
correlational analyses as shown in Table 5, based on the magnitude of association guidelines (0.70 to 0.99= very
strong association, 0.50 to 0.69= substantial association, 0.30 to 0.49= moderate association, 0.10 to 0.29 = low
association, and 0.01 to 0.09= negligible association) adopted from Davis (1971), indicated that two categories of
motivation, as predicted, intrinsic motivation (r=123, n=360, p= .020) and identified regulation (r= .132, n=360, p=
.012) correlated positively with language learning autonomy; whereas, amotivation (r=-.263, n=360, p= .001),
external regulation (r=-.055, n= 360, p= .297) and introjected Regulation (r= -.115, n=360, p= .028) were correlated
negatively with language learning autonomy.

Table 5. Correlation between Amotivation, External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Indentified

Regulation and Intrinsic Motivation with language learning autonomy

1 2 3 4 5 6

1.Autonomy PC 1 __
Sig.

240
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(10)235-244, 2013

N 360
2.Intrinsic PC .123* 1 __
Sig. .020
N 360 360
3.Identified PC .132* .228** 1 __
Sig. .012 .000
N 360 360 360
4.Introjected PC -.115* .360** .066 1 __
Sig. .028 .000 .214
N 360 360 360 360
5.External PC -.055 .374** .272** .265** 1 __
Sig. .297 .000 .000 .000
N 360 360 360 360 360
6.Amotivation PC -.263** -.211** -.116* -.041 -.114* 1
Sig. .000 .000 .028 .436 .030
N 360 360 360 360 360 360
**Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Research Question 5. What are the best motivational predictors that are most effective in predicting
students’ language learning autonomy? How much variance in language learning autonomy can be
explained by the set of best predictors?

Stepwise multiple linear regression procedures were applied to determine the best predictors of autonomy
extent among subcategories of motivation. Dimensions of language learning motivation were entered into the
regression equation according to their degree of relationship with language learning autonomy. Examining the best
subset of motivational predictors to language learning autonomy, model 4 in Table 8 displays that four motivational
orientations can best predict language learning autonomy. These variables include: identified, introjected, intrinsic
and external regulation. Identified regulation was the best predictor (Beta= .131, p=.012) of autonomy extent,
followed by introjected regulation (Beta= -.163, p= .003), intrinsic motivation (Beta=.197, p= .001) and external
regulation (Beta= -.121, p=.001).

As shown at table 8, the relationship between the predictors and autonomy extent was R= .259, and the predictors
explained 67% of the variability in autonomy extent (R2= .067, Adjusted R2=.0.56, p=.001).

Table 8. Multiple Regression Results of Autonomy Extent and motivation subcategories

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 F Beta Sig.
a
1 .132 .017 .015 6.320 .131 .012a
2 .181b .033 .027 6.058 -.163 .003b
3 .235c .055 .047 6.924 .197 .001c
4 .259d .067 .056 6.367 -.121 .001d
a. Predictor: Identified
b. Predictors: Identified, Introjected,
c. Predictors: Identified, Introjected, Intrinsic,
d. Predictors: Identified, Introjected, Intrinsic, External

The first predictor (identified regulation) explained 1.5 % of the variation with a p-value of .012 showing that
if one unit of identified regulation adds on, .131 unit of autonomy extent will increase. The second predictor
(Introjected Regulation) explained 1.2 % of the variation with a p-value of .003, indicating decrease of -.163 unit of
autonomy extent if one unit of introjected regulation adds on. The third predictor (Intrinsic motivation) explained
2.0 % of the variation showing increase in one unit of autonomy if .197 unit of intrinsic motivation adds on, and the
last predictor, i.e. external Regulation explained 0.9 % of the variation and with p-values of .015, indicating decrease
of each unit of autonomy extent if .121 of external regulation adds on.
Multiple regression analysis showed that the independent variables of this study collectively explained only 5.6
% of the variance of the dependent variable. This indicated that 5.6% percent of the variance in language learning
autonomy can be predicted from the variables: 1) amotivation, 2) introjected regulation, 3) intrinsic motivation and
4) external.

DISCUSSION

241
 Foroutan et al.,2013

This research aimed to determine the extent of language learning autonomy and motivational orientations as
well as the relationship between these variables. The best motivational orientation predictors for language learning
autonomy were additionally investigated. According to self-determination theory, self-determined forms of
motivation and autonomy in western society are highly and positively correlated. However, the relationship between
these variables in eastern context is still unclear and deem necessary to be evaluated.
The results of Descriptive Statistics showed moderately low autonomy and moderately high motivation among
language learners in Malaysia. Analyzing the data showed that the highest mean score among different motivational
orientations belonged to external regulation. The correlational analysis also showed there was no relationship
between students’ language learning autonomy and their total score of motivation level. The results reveal the fact
that motivation does not contribute to autonomy. In other words, those having high motivation would not inevitably
show high level of autonomy. However, based on self-determination theory, autonomy implies motivation, bringing
about initiative of action by doers’ interest. The motive of doing action is believed to make learners autonomous in
their learning. The results of this study can be justified as students are more externally motivated in their learning.
Students’ low autonomy is most likely due to high motivation to external orientations such as exams, getting more
prestigious job later on, or getting better salary in future.
The findings of this study is concurrent with a study by Habibah, Sharifah, Samsilah and Sidek (2011) in which
among various motivational predictors for academic performance, future time reference was observed to be the
strongest predictor. Students are aware of the importance of getting higher scores in order to further their studies in
higher education; therefore, they are motivated to study harder. In their study, the findings suggested that self-
determination had a significant negative relationship with examination performance. Students who had higher level
of autonomous regulation had lower final examination scores. In other words, students achieve higher in
examination if they are receiving controlled regulation in order to study.
The result of the relationship between language learning autonomy extent and each categories of motivation
showed that two categories of motivation, i.e., intrinsic motivation and identified regulation had positive but low
relationship with language learning autonomy, whereas, the relationship between language learning autonomy and
each of amotivation, introjected regulation and external regulation showed negative and low relationship. The
findings of these relationships suggest that students’ autonomy can enhance through intrinsic and identified
regulation types of motivation as suggested by Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory. Students’ lack of
autonomy, as discussed, can be explained by their motive for external regulation, i.e. examination in order to
achieve better in exams. External motivation limits their autonomy in learning since students are obliged to follow
their teacher. Students consider their teacher as the ‘fount of knowledge’ whom they should obey. Therefore, they
do not feel having more responsibility in their learning, but follow their teacher and get high scores in exams.
In line with the findings of this study, investigating Malaysian university students’ motivational orientation,
Thang (2004) also found out that Extrinsic Motivation had negative connotation to learning and accompanied with
ineffective approaches. The findings of Thang’s study showed extrinsic motivation is correlated to controlling factors
and does not lead students towards intrinsic motivation nor increased perception of self-determination or competence.
This research showed that four motivational orientations predictors, i.e. identified regulation, introjected
regulation, intrinsic motivation and external regulation seem to be the best predictors in explaining language
learning autonomy. Among the best set of four motivational predictors, identified was found to be the strongest
predictor, whereas external regulation placed at the last position showing that students should be encouraged to be
intrinsically motivated in language learning in order to develop autonomy. Supporting self-determination theory
while acknowledging its appropriate application for eastern context, the findings of this study suggest that
encouraging students into their learning will most likely enhance students’ language learning autonomy.

Acknowledgment
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest in the research.

REFERENCES

Clement, R., and Kruidenier, B. G. 1983. Orientations in second language acquisition: I. The effects of ethnicity, milieu,
and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33: 273-291.
Crookes, G., Schmidt, R. 1991. Motivation: Reopening the Research Agenda. Language Learning 41.
DeCapua, Andrea and Wintergerst. 2004. Crossing Cultures in the Language Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. NY: Plenum Press.

242
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(10)235-244, 2013

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53: 1024-1037.
Deci, E. L. And Ryan, R. M. 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well- being. American Psychologist, 55: 68-78.
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R.M. 1991. Motivation and education: The self-determination
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26: 325-346.
Dickinson, L. 1995. Autonomy and motivation: A literature review. System, 23 (2):165-174.
Dörnyei, Z. & Csizér, L. 1998. Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study.
Language Teaching Research, 2.3: 203-229.
Gardner,R.C. 1985. Social Psychology and second-language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London,
England: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. 1959. Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of
Psychology, 13: 266-272.
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. 1972. Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Graham, C. R. 1984. Beyond integrative motivation: The development and influence of assimilative motivation. Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC), ED274173.
Habibah, E., Sharifah, M.S.M., Samsilah, R., and Sidek, M.N. 2011. Motivational predictors of academic performance in
end year examination. The 2nd International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology. Elsevier,
Procedia social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 1179-1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.352.
Hurd, S. 2006. Towards a better understanding of the dynamic role of the distance language learner: Learner perceptions
of personality, motivation, roles, and approaches. Distance Education, 27, 303-329.
Iyengar, S.S., & Lepper, M.R. 1999. Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,349-366.
Johnson, L. 2008. Relationship of instructional methods to student engagement in two public high schools. American
Secondary Education, 36(2), 69-87.
Kember, D., Wong, A. & Leung, D.Y.P. 1999. Reconsidering the dimensions of approaches to learning. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 323-343.
Krejcie, R. V. and Morgan, D.W. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological
measurement. 30: 607-610.
Lai, J. 2001. Towards an analytic approach to assessing learner autonomy. In Dam, L. (ed.): The AILA Review, 15: 34-44.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. G. 2006. Why do high school students lack motivation in the classroom?
Toward an understanding of academic motivation and social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3),
567-582.
Liu, D. 1998. Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs of international TESOL students. ELT
Journal 52/1. 3-10.
Littlewood, W. 2000. Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1).
Lukmani, Y. M. 1972. Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22, 261-273.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 2003. Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In V.
Murphy-Berman & J.J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol.49. Cross-cultural differences in
perspectives on the self (pp.1-57). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Moise, L.C., Clement, R., & Noels, K. A. 1990. Aspects motivationnels de I’ apprentissage de I’espangnol au niveau
universitaire [Motivational aspects of learning Spanish at the university level]. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 46, 689-705.
Noels, K.A., Clement, R., & Pelletier, L. G. 2001. Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French Canadian
learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 424-442.

243
 Foroutan et al.,2013

Noels, K. A., & Clement, R. 1989. Orientations to learning German: The effect of language heritage on second
language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 45, 245-257.
Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L. G., Clement, R., & Vallerand, R. J. 2000. Why are you learning a second language?
Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
Nunan, D. 1997. Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In Benson, Phil & Voller, Peter (eds.).
1997. Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman: 192-203.
Oller, J.W., Jr., Hudson, A. J., & Liu, P.F. 1977. Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: a sociolinguistic study of
native speakers of Chinese in the United States. Language Learning. 27: 1-27.
Oxford, R., Shearin, J. 1994. Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical frame work. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 12-28.
Ranjit Kaur, & Mohamed Amin Embi 2007. Learner autonomy through computer mediated communication (CMC).
Jurnal Teknologi, 46(E), 105-118. University Teknologi Malaysia.
Spratt, M., Humphreys, G., & Chan, V. 2002. Autonomy and motivation: which comes first? Language Teaching
Research, 6(3), 245-266.
Thang, S. M. 2004. Learning English in Multicultural Malaysia: Are Learners Motivated? Journal of Language and
Learning. 2(2).
Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. 1989. Construction and validation of the motivation toward
education scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science Revue Canadienne, 21, 323-349.

Notes on contributors
Maryam Foroutan holds a doctoral degree from Universiti Putra Malaysia in the field of Teaching English as a
Second Language. She has been teaching English for several years. She received her master in TESL from UPM.
Her research interest is applying CMC (Computer Mediated Communication) and autonomy in teaching and
learning English.

Dr. Nooreen Noordin holds a doctoral degree from Universiti Putra Malaysia in the field of Teaching English as a
Second Language. She was appointed as a lecturer at the Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia.
Currently, she is a TESL lecturer in the Department of Language Education and Humanities, Faculty of Educational
Studies.

Mohd Sahandri Gani bin Hamzah is the Professor and Director of Educational Research Laboratory, Sultan Idris
Education University, Tanjung Malim. He is a competent and experience professional with extensive “hands on”
expertise combined with wide knowledge and skill in the area of research, planning, administration, supervision and
teaching (schools, colleges and universities), versatile researcher and active as educational consultant.

244