Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:33:03.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN HOW LANGUAGE LEARNERS PURSUE GOALS

REGULATORY MODE PERSPECTIVE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2021

Yasser Teimouri Open the ORCID record for Yasser Teimouri [Opens in a new window] ,
Mostafa Papi Open the ORCID record for Mostafa Papi [Opens in a new window]  and
Somayeh Tahmouresi
Yasser Teimouri*
Affiliation:
Boğaziçi University
Mostafa Papi
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Somayeh Tahmouresi
Affiliation:
Florida State University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yasser Teimouri, Boğaziçi University, Faculty of Education, EF 309 İstanbul Bebek Mh.34342, Turkey. E-mail: yt329@georgetown.edu.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In two studies, we examined two functional dimensions of L2 learners’ self-regulation toward their motivational goals: assessment and locomotion. The assessment constitutes the aspect of self-regulation concerned with critically evaluating the relative quality of L2 states and goals and the means to achieve them. The locomotion mode constitutes the aspect of self-regulation concerned with uninterrupted movement from state to state toward L2 goals. We developed two scales to measure L2 self-regulatory modes. We also examined how L2 learners’ regulatory modes were associated with their emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency. Psychometric work attested to the reliability and validity of the two scales. Moreover, regression analyses revealed that each L2 self-regulatory mode has distinct emotional, motivational, and linguistic emphases. Finally, cluster analyses suggested that both L2 self-regulatory modes should work together for optimal L2 learning outcomes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 2022 , pp. 633 - 658
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Open Practices
Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

INTRODUCTION

In Reference Gardner and Lambert1959, Gardner and his advisor, Lambert, introduced the notion of motivation as a key factor determining the ultimate success in second language (L2) learning. Since then, the L2 motivation research in second language acquisition (SLA) has focused on classifying what motivates L2 learners and has studied the impact of those motivational goals on language learning behaviors and outcomes. Throughout the various chapters of its historical research trajectory (e.g., Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020; Dörnyei & Ryan, Reference Dörnyei and Ryan2015), the L2 motivation research has documented an array of social, psychological, and environmental factors as potential sources of L2 motivation. During the so-called social-psychological period (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020)—characterized by Gardner and his associates’ works in the Canadian context—the motivational power of one’s attitudes toward the target language and community took the central stage (e.g., Gardner, Reference Gardner1985, Reference Gardner, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). During the cognitive-situated period, the motivational power of situational factors inherent in the L2 learning context and their links to intrinsic and extrinsic types of motivation were emphasized (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020; Dörnyei & Ottó, Reference Dörnyei and Otto1998; Noels, Reference Noels2001; Noels et al., Reference Noels, Pelletier, Clément and Vallerand2000). During the sociodynamic period, the temporal and context-dependent nature of L2 motivation was highlighted (e.g., Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei2014, Reference Dörnyei, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020; Dörnyei & Ushioda, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2011; Hiver & Papi, Reference Hiver and Papi2019; MacIntyre & Legatto, Reference MacIntyre and Legatto2011; Mercer, Reference Mercer2011; Papi & Hiver, Reference Papi and Hiver2020). At the turn of the twenty-first century, L2 motivation was conceptualized based on the notion of selves (Higgins, Reference Higgins1987; Markus & Nurius, Reference Markus and Nurius1986) in what is well known as the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009)—which is currently the dominant L2 motivation theory in SLA (Boo et al., Reference Boo, Dörnyei and Ryan2015). In short, over 60 years of L2 motivation research has generated several motivational theories explicating what motivates learners to engage in L2 learning (for reviews, see Dörnyei & Ushioda, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2011; Ryan & Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ryan2015) and, consequently, how those motives influence their ultimate L2 achievement (see also Al-Hoorie, Reference Al-Hoorie2018).

What motivates L2 learners, however, only shapes one part of their motivation. How the L2 learners go about pursuing their motivational goals is another substantive part of their motivation. Not only do L2 learners possess different L2 learning goals but they also pursue them in different manners (Higgins, Reference Higgins2011; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010; Papi & Teimouri, Reference Papi and Teimouri2014). In other words, both the quality of their L2 motivational goals and the quality of the manners they pursue those motivational goals play substantial roles in their L2 learning behaviors and achievement. Thus far, however, the L2 motivation research has mainly focused on the former and has left the latter out of its investigative scope (Papi, Reference Papi2016, Reference Papi2018). The path from one’s actual self toward one’s L2 learning goals is a rocky one, and how L2 learners self-regulate through it plays a decisive role in reaching those goals (e.g., Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000; Pintrich & de Groot, Reference Pintrich and De Groot1990).

In this article, we test the theory of self-regulatory mode in L2 settings—as a complementary approach to the existing outcome-oriented theories of L2 motivation—by focusing on the motivational mechanisms underlying how L2 learners approach their motivational goals. Moreover, we investigate how those motivational mechanisms are differentially related to L2 learners’ emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency. In the following sections, we first offer a theoretical background on the theory of self-regulatory mode and its subcomponents (assessment and locomotion) with respect to L2 learning context. Then, we will focus on the limitations of each self-regulatory mode by discussing in detail the complimentary hypothesis, which emphasizes that both assessment and locomotion modes should work together for optimal goal-pursuits.

THE L2 SELF-REGULATORY MODES: A THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Language learning for many people is goal-directed. As such, most people decide to learn a language from a pool of competitive goals. Their decision to learn a new language has resulted from a thorough process of assessing and comparing each competing goal’s potential value and the means to achieve them (Papi & Hiver, Reference Papi and Hiver2020). After deciding to learn a new language, they then take action; for instance, by registering in a foreign language course, attending class sessions, and participating in class activities. Two motivational mechanisms are apparent here: (a) people assess the potential value of different goals and the means to reach them, and (b) people locomote, or move away, from their current state toward their desired end-states by taking action (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). Assessment and locomotion are two motivational functions underlying any motivated behaviors, and the theory of self-regulatory modes discusses individual differences of people with respect to these two motivational mechanisms (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000).

According to self-regulatory mode theory (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000), there are two distinct aspects of any self-regulation: assessment and locomotion. Assessment “constitutes the comparative aspect of self-regulation concerned with critically evaluating entities or states, such as goals or means in relation to alternatives in order to judge relative quality” (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, p. 794). In other words, high (vs. low) assessors want to consider all the options and possibilities before making a decision or taking action, even if the process takes time and delays the decision or action. In short, they want to “get it right” (Higgins, Reference Higgins2011). However, locomotion is “the self-regulatory aspect concerned with movement from state to state and with committing the psychological resources that will initiate and maintain goal-directed progress in a straightforward manner, without undue distractions or delays” (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, p. 794). The action is motivating for high (vs. low) locomotors, so when a task is initiated, they focus on sustaining its progress, without any disruptions, until it is completed. In short, they “just do it” (Higgins, Reference Higgins2011).

To better understand the motivational functions of self-regulatory modes in L2 learning, let’s focus on the motivational mechanisms involved in the L2 motivational self system as an example. The L2 motivational self system (Csizér, Reference Csizér, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020; Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009) assumes that a discrepancy between language learners’ actual self and their future L2 self-guides—conceived as ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self—will create a sense of discomfort that, in turn, generates the motivational force to reduce this psychological gap (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009; Papi et al., Reference Papi, Bondarenko, Mansouri, Feng and Jiang2019; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017). Like other outcome-oriented theories of motivation, the L2 motivational self system theory assumes that the assessment of the discrepancy between one’s actual L2 self and future L2 self and the movement from one’s actual L2 self toward the future L2 self operate interdependently. In other words, the movement will not begin unless a discrepancy is detected by assessing one’s present state and desired future end-state.

The self-regulatory mode theory, by contrast, emphasizes each self-regulatory mode’s independence (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). That is, in any goal-directed pursuits, there may be a strong emphasis on assessment but a weak emphasis on movement, or a strong emphasis on movement and a weak emphasis on assessment, or a strong or weak emphasis on both (Higgins, Reference Higgins2011; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010). Intriguingly, these two motivational functions may even work in opposition to each other under certain conditions (e.g., time pressure), leading to the predomination of one over the other (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Orehek, Higgins, Pierro, Shalev and Hoyle2010). In the presence of a discrepancy, for instance, an individual may start mulling over the past failures or adopt a pessimistic view over the attainability of the goal or the means to reach it; consequently, such an assessment will stagnate the movement (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010; Higgins, Reference Higgins2011). Therefore, self-regulatory modes complement outcome-oriented theories such as the L2 motivational self system by throwing accurate light on the motivational mechanism involved on the paths toward one’s L2 goals.

Assessment and locomotion (movement) represent motivational states that vary across individuals and situations. Assessment and locomotion may differ across individuals chronically; that is, we have individuals who are chronically (a) high in assessment and low in locomotion; (b) low in assessment and high in locomotion; (c) high in assessment and high in locomotion; and (d) low in assessment and low in locomotion. Moreover, assessment and locomotion can act as situational variables. In certain situations, for instance, time pressure will heighten locomotion tendencies, and, in other situations, the presence of a critical observer will heighten assessment tendencies. In the following sections, we will describe the implications of each self-regulatory mode on people’s attitudes, emotions, and motivation.

Assessment Mode

Because high (vs. low) assessors are highly concerned with making the right choice and decision, they are more inclined to worry about making mistakes (Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Giacomantonio, Pica, Kruglanski and Higgins2011). Several studies have exhibited that the assessment mode is positively related to fear of failure (e.g., Herman, Reference Herman1990), fear of invalidity (e.g., Webster & Kruglanski, Reference Webster and Kruglanski1994), and social anxiety and stress (e.g., Lucidi et al., Reference Lucidi, Pica, Mallia, Castrucci, Manganelli, Bélanger and Pierro2016). Kruglanski and his associates found that high (vs. low) assessors are more sensitive to social criticism due to their obsession with critically evaluating themselves against strict social norms and standards (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Orehek, Higgins, Pierro, Shalev and Hoyle2010). Research has also shown that high (vs. low) assessors are more likely to exhibit emotional instability.

Because people with strong assessment tendencies carry out activities for external reasons, constantly evaluate their progress against external factors, and are highly sensitive to social comparisons and feedback, assessment mode should be associated with extrinsic types of motivation. In fact, past research has confirmed such a connection (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Orehek, Higgins, Pierro, Shalev and Hoyle2010). The assessment mode also moderates the path between subjective norms and intention. That is, high assessors are more likely to form an intention to follow an activity based on a strong social norm. Although people with a strong assessment tendency put a higher value on an activity or goal, their intentions to follow that activity or goal may not translate to action. Mannetti et al. (Reference Mannetti, Pierro, Higgins and Kruglanski2012), for instance, showed that people with strong assessment tendencies rate the potential value of physical activities higher than other people, but their intention to pursue those physical activities did not turn into reality.

Locomotion Mode

High (vs. low) locomotors are concerned with moving from state to state, and because the notion of movement represents a sense of progress, they are more inclined to experience positive emotions like joy and less prone to feeling negative emotions like anxiety (Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Giacomantonio, Pica, Kruglanski and Higgins2011). The results of Di Santo et al.’s (Reference Di Santo, Baldner, Pierro and Kruglanski2018) study, for instance, revealed that high (vs. low) locomotors entertain positive attitudes toward gaining novel experiences and possess a sense of optimism toward the future, which, as a result, help them protect themselves from negative emotions like hopelessness and regret.

Because sustained activity, constant movement, and progress are critical ingredients of locomotion orientation, and because task involvement is an end in itself, locomotion mode should be related to the more intrinsic types of motivation (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti and Higgins2012). Research indeed has shown that locomotion mode and intrinsic motivation are positively correlated (e.g., Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Kruglanski and Higgins2006). Moreover, people with stronger locomotion are more likely to translate their intention to do an activity into action, although they may not put much value on the activity (Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Kruglanski and Higgins2006).

Complementarity Hypothesis: It Takes Two to Tango

The complementarity hypothesis states that both aspects of self-regulatory modes should work together for optimal results in most domains because each self-regulatory mode has its own limitation (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010). Too much focus on assessment, for instance, will delay the action: Looking but not leaping (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). Too much focus on action, however, may lead to misguided behaviors and waste of time, energy, and resources (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000).

Complementarity of regulatory modes can occur at various levels: (a) within individuals, when an individual is chronically high in both assessment and locomotion preferences; (b) between individuals, when one individual is predominantly high in assessment but the other individual is predominantly high in locomotion; and (c) across levels of social structures, when an individual group member is high in assessment, but all the other group members are high in locomotion—or the reverse. The results of several studies in various domains have lent support to the complementarity hypothesis (e.g., Hamstra et al., Reference Hamstra, Orehek and Holleman2014; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, Reference Kruglanski, Orehek, Higgins, Pierro, Shalev and Hoyle2010; Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Pica, Mauro, Kruglanski and Higgins2012). For instance, in educational contexts, past research has shown that students who were high in both assessment and locomotion modes received higher grades than those who were high only in one of the regulatory modes (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). In business contexts, research findings have suggested that employees who were high in both self-regulatory modes exhibited better job performance than those who were high only in assessment or locomotion (Hamstra et al., Reference Hamstra, Orehek and Holleman2014; Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Giacomantonio, Pica, Kruglanski and Higgins2011).

The complementarity hypothesis has also been tested concerning group performance. For instance, in groups with predominant locomotion concerns, the addition of a person with predominant assessment concerns would enhance the group’s performance on various tasks and activities. However, the performance of groups with either strong assessment or locomotion tendencies would be enhanced by adding individuals with the other predominant mode. In a study conducted by Mauro et al., (Reference Mauro, Pierro, Mannetti, Higgins and Kruglanski2009), it was found that all-locomotor groups were faster than all-assessors groups in doing their work tasks, and all-assessors groups were more accurate than all-locomotors groups concerning their task outcomes; however, those groups who were high in both assessment and locomotion modes were as fast as all-locomotors groups and as accurate as all-assessor groups.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

In two separate studies, we investigated the links between the L2 learners’ self-regulatory modes and their emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency. In Study 1 (N = 459), we first developed and validated an instrument to measure L2 learners’ L2 self-regulatory modes. We also examined how L2 learners’ self-regulatory modes were differentially related to their emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency. In Study 2 (N = 459), we reexamined the psychometric properties of the instrument measuring the L2 self-regulatory modes and their relationships with L2 learners’ emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency. Next, we combined the data from Study 1 and 2 (N = 918) to test the complementarity hypothesis. We ran cluster analyses to see if any distinct motivational profiles of L2 learners would emerge based on the strength of their L2 self-regulatory modes, and if so, how those distinct motivational profiles of L2 learners would differ in terms of their emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency. The present study aimed to answer the following research questions:

  1. 1. How reliable and valid is the instrument developed to measure learners’ L2 self-regulatory modes of assessment and locomotion?

  2. 2. How are L2 Learners’ assessment and locomotion modes differentially related to their emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency?

  3. 3. Do any distinct motivational profiles emerge based on the strength of learners’ L2 self-regulatory modes? And if so, how do those distinct motivational profiles differ in terms of emotional experiences, motivation, and language proficiency?

STUDY 1

METHOD

Participants

A total of 459 Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) learners from two private English institutes in Iran agreed to participate in the study. The sample consisted of 163 males and 296 females, whose ages ranged from 11 to 55 years old (M = 19.1; SD = 6.7). On a scale from 1 (absolute beginner) to 5 (upper-intermediate), the students self-reported their English language proficiency below intermediate on average (M = 3.67; SD = .92).

Instrument

We collected the data by using a questionnaire consisting of two sections (see Supplementary Materials). The first section of the questionnaire contained 35 items measuring seven motivational and emotional variables. All the items used a six-point Likert scale with 1 showing strongly disagree or not at all and 6 showing strongly agree or very much. The second part of the questionnaire elicited background information, such as age, gender, and perceived language proficiency (see Supplementary Materials for a copy of the questionnaire). The questionnaire was developed in Farsi, the official language of Iran. The following is a detailed list of the variables included in the questionnaire along with sample items.

L2 Self-Regulatory Modes

We first generated a pool of 16 items measuring L2 learners’ assessment and locomotion orientations in L2 settings by following the theoretical guidelines set by Kruglanski et al.’s (Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). Eight items were developed to measure L2 assessment mode and eight items to measure L2 locomotion mode. As noted, assessment mode refers to the aspect of self-regulation involving a critical evaluation of entities and states, such as goals or means. Learners with strong L2 assessment tendencies, for instance, are more preoccupied with the accuracy and suitability of their L2 output (e.g., I often analyze the structures of my sentences before speaking English). However, locomotion mode refers to the aspect of self-regulation involving movement from state to state and making continuous progress. Learners with strong L2 locomotion tendencies, for instance, are more preoccupied with the act of communication, that is, initiating and sustaining meaningful communicative acts (e.g., I often actively and energetically participate in my English learning activities in my class).

L2 Anxiety

L2 anxiety has a long history in SLA research with a great many studies showcasing its negative effects on L2 learners’ motivation (e.g., Papi, Reference Papi2010; Papi & Teimouri, Reference Papi and Teimouri2014; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017), willingness to communicate in an L2 (e.g., Khajavy et al., 2018; Shirvan et al., Reference Shirvan, Khajavy, MacIntyre and Taherian2019), and language achievement (e.g., Teimouri et al., Reference Teimouri, Goetze and Plonsky2019). Four items were adopted from Taguchi et al. (Reference Taguchi, Magid, Papi, Dörnyei and Ushioda2009) to measure learners’ anxiety level during L2 learning and use in English class (e.g., how worried would you get if the teacher asks you a question in English?)

L2 Joy

Emotion research in SLA has recently shifted toward studying the role of positive emotions in students’ motivation and language achievement (e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre, Reference Dewaele and MacIntyre2014, Reference Dewaele, MacIntyre, MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2016; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017). Dewaele and MacIntyre (Reference Dewaele and MacIntyre2014, Reference Dewaele, MacIntyre, MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2016) offered evidence that L2 learners, in fact, experience positive emotions much more often than negative emotions in class. MacIntyre and Gregersen (Reference MacIntyre and Gregersen2012) also pinpointed the merits of positive emotions in L2 learning, such as broadening learners’ attention and thinking, countering the effects of negative emotions, promoting resilience to stressful events, building personal resources, and leading toward greater well-being. Four items were adopted from Teimouri (Reference Teimouri2017) to measure learners’ positive feelings of joy related to the use and learning of L2 (e.g., do you enjoy learning English?).

Intended Effort

Intended effort assesses students’ intention to invest time and effort in learning the target language (Taguchi et al., Reference Taguchi, Magid, Papi, Dörnyei and Ushioda2009). This construct has been used frequently in L2 motivation research as an essential indicator of students’ overall motivation (e.g., Al-Hoorie, Reference Al-Hoorie2018; Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009; Taguchi et al., Reference Taguchi, Magid, Papi, Dörnyei and Ushioda2009). Research has shown that intended effort is closely related to the actual effort (Lake, Reference Lake, Apple, Silva and Fellner2013). Three items (six-point Likert-type scale) were adopted from Taguchi et al. (Reference Taguchi, Magid, Papi, Dörnyei and Ushioda2009) to measure students’ intended effort (e.g., I would like to spend lots of time studying English).

Second Language Willingness to Communicate

Second language willingness to communicatae (L2 WTC) refers to students’ “readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person, using a L2” (MacIntyre et al., Reference MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei and Noels1998, p. 547). It represents students’ intention to use the target language voluntarily in class and has been used as an important criterion variable in SLA research (Shirvan et al., Reference Shirvan, Khajavy, MacIntyre and Taherian2019). Past research has shown that L2 WTC is positively related to L2 use (Hashimoto, Reference Hashimoto2002). Four items (six-point Likert-type scale) were adopted from Yashima (Reference Yashima2002) to measure the students’ L2 WTC (e.g., if you were free to choose, how much would you like to speak English in the class?).

Attention

The attention scale measures students’ motivation in terms of their actual level of mental attentiveness in class, such as how much attention they pay to their teachers, classmates, and class activities (Crookes & Schmidt, Reference Crookes and Schmidt1991; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2018). The results of Tremblay and Gardner’s (Reference Tremblay and Gardner1995) study have evidenced attention as highly reflective of students’ motivation. Four items (six-point Likert-type scale) were adopted from Teimouri (Reference Teimouri2018) to measure students’ attention in class (e.g., how much attention do you pay to your teacher when she is speaking in class?).

Data Analysis

Initially, we ran item analysis to examine the composite item characteristics and the coherence of each L2 self-regulatory mode scale. Next, we checked the item-total correlations of each self-regulatory scale; items with item-total correlations below .30 were considered questionable (Field, Reference Field2013). We then ran Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to examine the construct validity of the L2 assessment and L2 locomotion scales (Plonsky & Gonulal, Reference Plonsky and Gonulal2015). Finally, to explore the relations between the L2 self-regulatory functions and the other motivational, emotional, and language-related variables, a series of multiple regression analyses were run. The main assumptions underlying each statistical analysis were also examined (see Supplementary Materials).

Procedure

First, the managers of three language institutes in a metropolitan city in Iran were contacted to gain approval for data collection. We fully informed the managers about the purpose of our study and its administrative procedures. After receiving permission from two managers to collect the data at their language centers, we distributed the questionnaires to the students during their class time. Before administering the questionnaires, students were informed about the study’s purpose and were ensured about the confidentiality of their responses. The voluntary nature of the participation in the study was also emphasized. Students completed questionnaires in about 15 minutes on average.

RESULTS

The results of item-total correlations showed that three items from the L2 assessment scale and four items from the L2 locomotion scale did not reach the .30 threshold (Field, Reference Field2013) and, as a result, were excluded from the scales. After the initial analyses, nine items measuring L2 assessment mode (4 items) and L2 locomotion mode (5 items) were retained. As seen in Table 1, both L2 assessment and L2 locomotion scales yielded Cronbach’s alphas beyond .70, suggesting good reliability (Field, Reference Field2013; Plonsky & Derrick, Reference Plonsky and Derrick2016).

TABLE 1. The results of descriptive and reliability analyses of the variables

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS

In the next step, all the nine items measuring L2 self-regulatory modes were submitted to factor analysis using PCA with oblimin rotation. As seen in Figure 1, the scree plot is indicative of two components. We further examined the number of significant components in our data by running parallel analysis (PA) (Plonsky & Gonulal, Reference Plonsky and Gonulal2015; also, see Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2018; Teimouri et al., Reference Teimouri, Plonsky and Tabandehin press). The PA results (Table 2) revealed that the eigenvalues of components 1 and 2 are greater than their corresponding PA values. In sum, the PCA and PA results verified the existence of two components with Component 1 and Component 2 each explaining 29.8% and 24.3% of the variance in the data, respectively (54.1% of the variance, overall). A closer look at each component’s composite items showed that the items representing L2 assessment and L2 locomotion modes were neatly and strongly loaded onto their respective scales (Table 3). The two components were found to be uncorrelated (r = .10, 95% [–.004 .20]).

FIGURE 1. The scree plot of the eigenvalues.

TABLE 2. The results of principle component analysis and parallel analysis

TABLE 3. The results of principal component analysis: Item loadings

Note: N = 532. All the factor loadings > .30 are reported in the table. Factor loadings are obtained using principal component extraction with both direct oblimin rotations.

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

A set of multiple regression analyses using the Enter method was run to examine the power of the L2 self-regulatory modes in predicting students’ emotional experiences (i.e., L2 joy and L2 anxiety), motivation (i.e., intended effort, attention, and L2 WTC), and English language proficiency. The effect sizes for each regression model (f2 ) were also calculated (Soper, Reference Soper2020). Based on Cohen’s (Reference Cohen1988) guidelines, f2 ≥ 0.02, f2 ≥ 0.15, and f2 ≥ 0.35 indicate small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively.

As presented in Tables 4 and 5, although both L2 self-regulatory modes positively predicted L2 joy, the L2 locomotion mode had much stronger (almost twice) effects than the L2 assessment mode. Moreover, the L2 locomotion mode negatively but the L2 assessment mode positively predicted L2 anxiety. Both L2 assessment and L2 locomotion modes predicted intended effort and attention with similar positive effects. The L2 locomotion mode predicted L2 WTC with large effect sizes, whereas the L2 assessment mode had negligible effects on L2 WTC. Finally, the L2 locomotion mode positively and the L2 assessment mode negatively predicted English language proficiency of the L2 learners. Considering the effect sizes (f2 ), the L2 self-regulatory modes, overall, had quite large effects in predicting dependent variables in each regression model except the model with the language proficiency as the dependent variable, in which the L2 self-regulatory modes had medium predictive effects (Cohen, Reference Cohen1988; Plonsky & Ghanbar, Reference Plonsky and Ghanbar2018).

TABLE 4. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with L2 joy and L2 anxiety as the criterion measures

*** p ≤ 0.001.

TABLE 5. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with intended effort, attention, L2 WTC, and language proficiency as the criterion measures

* p ≤ 0.05; ***p ≤ 0.001.

STUDY 2

METHOD

In study 2, we provided more evidence on the L2 self-regulatory mode scales’ reliability and validity. We further examined the relations between learners’ L2 self-regulatory modes and their emotional experiences, motivation, and English proficiency. Next, we combined the data from Study 1 and 2 (N = 918) to test the complementarity hypothesis (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2012). That is, we aimed to examine if distinct motivational profiles would emerge based on the strength of L2 self-regulatory modes and, if so, how these motivational profiles would differ in terms of emotional experiences, motivation, and English language proficiency.

Participants

A total of 459 English-major undergraduate university students were surveyed in this study. The sample consisted of 377 females and 78 males, and their ages ranged from 18 to 50 years old (M = 24.4; SD = 4.95). Most of the students self-reported their language proficiency as intermediate or upper-intermediate (M = 3.85; SD = .92). The language-learning experience of the students ranged from 1 to 240 months (M = 26; SD = 34.23).

Instrument

For the data collection, we used the same questionnaire that was used in Study 1. The questionnaire had two sections: The first section of the questionnaire contained 35 items measuring seven emotional and motivational variables; all the items used a six-point Likert scale with 1 showing strongly disagree or not at all and 6 showing strongly agree or very much. The second part of the questionnaire elicited background information, such as age, gender, and perceived language proficiency.

Data Analyses

We first ran descriptive analyses and reliability analyses to calculate the means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas of all the scales. To further examine the construct validity of the L2 self-regulatory modes, confirmatory factor analysis was run using AMOS version 18.0. Next, a series of multiple regression analyses were run to examine the links between students’ L2 self-regulatory modes, on the one hand, and their emotional reactions in class, language learning motivation, and self-reported language proficiency, on the other hand. Finally, to test the complementarity hypothesis, we ran cluster analysis (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, Reference Kaufman and Rousseeuw2009) on the whole data from Study 1 and 2 (N = 918). A series of one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were also run to verify significant between-group differences of the composite variables.

RESULTS

Table 6 illustrates the results of descriptive and reliability analyses. The students reported moderately high scores on both L2 assessment and L2 locomotion scales, although their assessment scores (M = 4.51) were slightly higher than their locomotion scores (M = 3.90) (t(458) = 9.90, p = .000). The students also felt joy (M = 5.10) much more often than anxiety (M = 3.76) in class (t(458) = 18.02, p = .000). The students rated high their intended effort, L2 WTC, and attention. All the scales depicted from good to excellent internal consistencies with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .77 to .88.

TABLE 6. The results of descriptive and reliability analyses of the variables

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSES

We ran confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the construct validity of L2 self-regulatory modes. The maximum likelihood method was used to estimate the model’s parameters, and the expectation-maximization algorithm was applied to handle the missing data. Because of the large sample size (N = 459), the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df) was used to measure the overall model fitness. Factor loadings, residuals, and the overall model fit indices were employed to examine the model’s fitness. The results can be seen in Table 7.

TABLE 7. Selected fit measures for the final model

Note: GFI = Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; NFI = Normal Fit Index; IFI = Incremental Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Figure 2 demonstrates a schematic representation of the measurement model along with the factor loadings. As seen, the observed variables loaded neatly on the latent variables with acceptable values. The chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (χ2/df) displays a value below the proper level of 3. Furthermore, all the fit indices exceeded the acceptable criteria. L2 locomotion and L2 assessment modes were uncorrelated, too (r =. 04, ns).

FIGURE 2. A schematic representation of the L2 self-regulatory model with factor loadings.

Note: Loco = locomotion, Asses = Assessment

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES

A series of multiple regression analyses using the Enter method were run to examine the power of the L2 self-regulatory modes in predicting students’ emotional experiences (i.e., L2 joy and L2 anxiety), motivation (i.e., intended effort, attention, and L2 WTC), and English language proficiency. As seen in Tables 8 and 9, the results echoed the findings of Study 1: (a) Both L2 self-regulatory modes positively predicted L2 joy with L2 locomotion having more substantial effects than L2 assessment mode; (b) the L2 locomotion mode negatively but L2 assessment mode positively predicted L2 anxiety; (c) both L2 self-regulatory modes predicted intended effort and attention with similar positive effects, but only the L2 locomotion mode predicted L2 WTC with large effects; and (d) only the L2 locomotion mode positively predicted language proficiency of the students. The L2 self-regulatory modes, overall, had quite large effects in predicting dependent variables in each model except the one with the language proficiency as the dependent variable, in which the L2 self-regulatory modes had medium predictive effects (Cohen, Reference Cohen1988; Plonsky & Ghanbar, Reference Plonsky and Ghanbar2018).

TABLE 8. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with L2 joy and L2 anxiety as the criterion measures

*** p ≤ 0.001.

TABLE 9. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with intended effort, attention, L2 WTC, and language proficiency as the criterion measures

*** p ≤ 0.001.

CLUSTER ANALYSES

We ran cluster analysis to group students based on the strength of their L2 regulatory modes of assessment and locomotion. As noted, locomotion and assessment modes hold an orthogonal relationship; that is, an individual can be high or low in both modes, or high in one mode and low in the other mode (four possible motivational profiles). Therefore, we ran cluster analysis using the K-mean method in which we set the number of clusters at four. A series of one-way ANOVAs were also conducted to confirm the between-groups differences for each measured variable (Csizér & Dörnyei, Reference Csizér and Dörnyei2005; Papi & Teimouri, Reference Papi and Teimouri2012, Reference Papi and Teimouri2014). Tables 10 and 11 illustrate the results of cluster analyses and one-way ANOVAs.

TABLE 10. The means of L2 self-regulatory modes along with the one-way ANOVA results

Note: A = assessment; L = locomotion; – = low; + = high.

TABLE 11. The means of motivational, emotional, and language proficiency scales along with the one-way ANOVA results

Note: A = assessment; L = locomotion; – = low; + = high.

As seen in Table 11, Group 1 has the lowest and Group 4 has the highest scores in both L2 self-regulatory modes. Group 2 reported higher L2 assessment mode scores, whereas Group 3 reported higher L2 locomotion mode scores. We further examined the group differences in terms of motivational, emotional, and linguistic criterion measures. As seen in Table 11, Group 4 learners (high L2 locomotion and high L2 assessment) outperformed learners in the other groups in terms of intended effort, L2 WTC, and attention, and reported the highest level of L2 joy. In sharp contrast, Group 1 learners (low L2 locomotion and low L2 assessment) had the lowest score in terms of intended effort, L2 WTC, and attention, and reported the lowest level of L2 joy. Groups 2 and 3 also exhibited some intriguing differences: Group 3 learners (high L2 locomotion and low L2 assessment) reported higher scores in L2 WTC, attention, and L2 joy, whereas Group 2 (low L2 locomotion and high L2 assessment) reported higher L2 anxiety. Both Groups 2 and 3 had similar scores concerning their intended effort. Of note, Group 2 learners perceived their English proficiency to be the lowest compared to learners of the other groups.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In two separate studies, we tested the theory of self-regulatory mode in L2 settings to explain learners’ motivational processes on their paths toward their language learning goals. To that end, we first developed an instrument to measure learners’ locomotion and assessment tendencies in L2 settings. As such, our first research question addressed the psychometric properties of the newly developed instrument. The results of both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the construct validity of L2 self-regulatory modes. Lack of a relationship between the L2 locomotion and L2 assessment modes further corroborated the independence of each L2 self-regulatory mode (e.g., Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). The reliability analyses further substantiated the internal consistency of the scales in measuring L2 self-regulatory modes of learners. Differential relations of L2 self-regulatory modes with a host of motivational, emotional, and linguistic measures in both studies also evidenced the predictive validity of each L2 self-regulatory mode.

In our second research question, we queried about the potential links between L2 self-regulatory modes and a set of emotional, motivational, and linguistic factors. We initially hypothesized that because high (vs. low) assessors are concerned with doing the right thing, they engage themselves in strict critical evaluations of their actions against numerous internal and external norms and standards (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010) and, consequently, become more sensitive to negative emotional reactions such as anxiety (e.g., Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Pierro and Kruglanski2002; Hong et al., Reference Hong, Tan and Chang2004; Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Leder, Mannetti, Higgins, Kruglanski and Aiello2008). For instance, an L2 learner may continuously (re)assess linguistic features of his or her L2 speech before, during, or after an interaction to produce the most appropriate and accurate target output; as a result, the learner is more likely to feel anxious about making mistakes and how those mistakes may send the wrong impressions to others. Conversely, high (vs. low) locomotors are concerned with moving from state to state, and because constant movement signals a sense of progress, they are more likely to feel positive emotions such as joy. For instance, an L2 learner may be overly enthusiastic about engaging in any communicative act whenever an opportunity arises; as a result, the learner is more likely to enjoy initiating and sustaining meaningful conversations with others. Our findings validated these hypotheses regarding the emotional emphases of each L2 self-regulatory modes: (a) L2 anxiety was positively related to L2 assessment mode and negatively related to L2 locomotion and (b) L2 joy was very strongly correlated with L2 locomotion mode but negligibly but positively related to L2 assessment mode. These findings also reflected past research findings in social psychology regarding emotional experiences of people with high (vs. low) assessment and locomotion tendencies in various domains (for a review, see Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Orehek, Higgins, Pierro, Shalev and Hoyle2010).

How are L2 learners’ self-regulatory modes related to their motivation to engage in various L2 learning activities and tasks? In a general sense, individuals with predominant locomotion concerns spend greater effort on and pay more attention to activities that afford actions and movement. However, individuals with predominant assessment concerns spend greater effort on and pay more attention to activities that afford comparisons and critical evaluations (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010). Taylor and Higgins (Reference Taylor and Higgins2002), for instance, demonstrated that activities like playing sports, exercising, dancing, and partying are primarily related to locomotion mode, whereas activities like thinking, corresponding, doing academic work, and financial tasks are closely associated with assessment mode. Activities like traveling were found to be associated with both locomotion and assessment modes.

L2 learners also engage in a wide range of activities and tasks in the L2 classroom. Some activities and tasks stress assessment and evaluations, such as reading comprehension tasks or grammar exercises. Some activities and tasks stress movements and actions, such as role-plays and group discussions. And some activities and tasks stress both assessment and actions, such as an argumentative task in which L2 learners first reflect on reasons for or against an issue and then discuss their thoughts with class. In the present study, we measured the students’ motivation in terms of intended effort, attention, and L2 WTC. The intended effort scale (e.g., I am prepared to expend a lot of effort in learning English) and attention scale (e.g., How would you rate your mental attentiveness during English class activities) measure L2 learners’ effort and attention in relation to any types of class activities and tasks. Because class activities may stress either assessment or locomotion—or both—each L2 self-regulatory mode should positively correlate with intended effort and attention. However, L2 WTC represents learners’ intrinsic motivation to use the L2 in classroom through different channels, such as participating in role-plays or group discussions (e.g., If you were free to choose, how much would you like to participate in a group discussion in your English class?). In other words, L2 WTC exemplifies the behavioral intention of those students with a strong desire to engage in action. As such, locomotion mode should positively correlate with L2 WTC. The regression analysis results lent strong support to our hypotheses: Both L2 assessment and locomotion modes moderately and positively predicted intended effort and attention, whereas only locomotion strongly and positively predicted L2 WTC.

In our third research question, we asked whether distinct motivational profiles of L2 learners may emerge based on the strength of their L2 self-regulatory modes; if so, what is the optimal combination of L2 modes for reaching L2 goals (i.e., complementarity hypothesis). As noted, the independence of L2 self-regulatory modes allows the dominance of one over the other. As such, theoretically, four motivational profiles of learners should exist: (a) those with strong L2 locomotion and L2 assessment; (b) those with weak L2 locomotion and weak L2 assessment; (c) those with strong L2 locomotion and weak L2 assessment; and (d) those with weak L2 locomotion and strong L2 assessment (Higgins, Reference Higgins2011; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). The results of cluster analyses (along with one-way ANOVAs) attested to the validity of this theoretical assumption.

The complementarity hypothesis further emphasizes the benefits of both locomotion and assessment modes working together because each mode has its own limitations. Assessment mode improves the goal attainment chances by acting as a guide directing the self on the right path toward a specific goal. But an individual with a predominant assessment mode may get engaged in excessive critical thinking and evaluations that may postpone the action. For instance, an L2 learner with predominant assessment tendencies may find himself hesitant to speak up in class due to an obsession with his utterances’ accuracy. By contrast, locomotion mode improves the chances of goal attainment by emphasizing action toward the specific goal. But an individual with a predominant locomotion mode may get engaged in excessive activities and movement without any particular purpose in mind. For instance, an L2 learner with predominant locomotion tendencies may jump at any opportunities for speaking up with less concern for her utterances’ accuracy, resulting in repeating similar mistakes. Thus, optimal self-regulation builds on both modes of the self-regulatory system with assessment mode acting as a guiding constraint on locomotion mode (Higgins, Reference Higgins2011; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010). The results of cluster analyses verified the complementarity hypothesis: L2 learners with strong L2 locomotion and L2 assessment modes outperformed other learners who were high in either L2 self-regulatory modes in terms of emotional, motivational, linguistic criterion measures.

LIMITATIONS

In this article, we introduced an additional direction into L2 motivation research by focusing on how differently L2 learners pursue their motivational goals. Before addressing the theoretical and pedagogical implications of this complementary motivational perspective, several unique limitations of the study need to be noted. First, the reliability and validity of the newly developed instrument measuring L2 self-regulatory modes should be further investigated in other FL/SL contexts. The concurrent validity of the domain-specific instrument, for instance, can be assessed in relation to the general-domain measure of self-regulatory modes (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000). Moreover, we used self-reported measures to assess L2 learners’ language proficiency and motivation in class. Although past research has shown the merits of well-developed self-reported scales in measuring L2 learners’ language proficiency (e.g., Blanche & Merino, Reference Blanche and Merino1989; Li & Zhang, Reference Li and Zhang2021), and how they can be used as a criterion measure to pinpoint individual differences of L2 learners (e.g., Teimouri et al., Reference Teimouri, Goetze and Plonsky2019), the use of more objective measures of language proficiency is desirable (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Plonsky and Teimouri2018). Likewise, objective measures of students’ motivation can complement self-reported motivation measures used in our study (also, see Teimouri et al., Reference Teimouri, Plonsky and Tabandehin press).

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In this article, we shifted the focus from what motivates L2 learners to how L2 learners pursue their motivational goals. We argued that not only the quality of the learners’ goals but also the quality of the manners they pursue those goals affect their language learning behaviors and achievement. Future research thus should bridge the gap between students’ motivational orientations and self-regulatory modes. For instance, how are students’ future L2 self-guides (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009; Papi et al., Reference Papi, Bondarenko, Mansouri, Feng and Jiang2019; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017) related to self-regulatory modes?

Motivation and emotions are closely linked. Future research can use the L2 self-regulatory modes of the students to explain emotional experiences of learners in L2 settings. (Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009; Dörnyei & Ushioda, Reference Dörnyei and Ushioda2009; MacIntyre & Gregersen, Reference MacIntyre and Gregersen2012; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017). Past research in SLA has shown that the quality of students’ motivational goals triggers different emotional responses in students (Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017). Likewise, the quality of manners that students adopt to achieve their motivational goals generates diverse emotional experiences. The L2 self-regulatory modes provides a solid theoretical context to study the intricate links between language learners’ motivations and emotions.

Future research should also investigate the links between students’ motivation and characteristics of their spoken or written output (e.g., Dörnyei, Reference Dörnyei, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and Ryan2020; Papi, Reference Papi2018; Ushioda, Reference Ushioda2016). Outcome-oriented theories of L2 motivation may not be appropriate for studying individual differences of L2 learners regarding features of their target output, such as fluency and accuracy. Because the L2 self-regulatory modes target motivational processes involved in pursuing L2 learning goals, it provides a better fit for linking L2 learners’ motivation to their target language features. Past research has shown that on tasks with speed/accuracy trade-off, people with predominant assessment concerns are more accurate and people with predominant locomotion concerns are more fluent (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti and Higgins2012). Future research, thus, should investigate features of L2 learners’ target language in relation to L2 self-regulatory modes.

How are L2 learners’ self-regulatory modes related to their task performance? In his dynamic theory of task motivation, Dörnyei (Reference Dörnyei and Robinson2002) highlighted three motivational mechanisms involved during task performance: task execution, appraisal, and action control. Task execution refers to the learners’ actual task-supportive learning behaviors; appraisal refers to the learners’ continuous processing of multitudes of stimuli and compassion of their progress toward the desired outcomes; and action control is also defined as a self-regulatory process that is called into force to enhance, scaffold, and protect learning-specific actions. In short, task performance is a function of action and assessment, which are coordinated through self-regulation. Exploring the links between L2 self-regulatory modes and task performance will increase our understanding of students’ differential task engagement (see Pierro et al., Reference Pierro, Presaghi, Higgins, Klein and Kruglanski2012); for instance, in a group activity, why are some more active in sharing their thoughts than the other group members?

How do teachers’ self-regulatory modes influence their instructional styles? Past research has shown that teachers’ instructional styles are closely related to their self-regulatory modes. In a series of studies, Pierro and associates (Reference Pierro, Presaghi, Higgins and Kruglanski2009) uncovered that teachers with higher locomotion concerns were inclined toward creating autonomy-supporting class atmospheres. In contrast, teachers with higher assessment concerns were inclined toward creating controlling class atmospheres. Intriguingly, students with stronger locomotion tendencies preferred autonomy-supporting classes, and students with stronger assessment tendencies preferred controlling classes. When the students observed a fit between teachers’ instructional styles and their own motivational orientations, they felt better about their class performance. Investigating the interactions between teachers’ and students’ self-regulatory modes and their teaching and learning styles opens up an interesting research line with important pedagogical implications.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

One of the main findings of our study was that both L2 self-regulatory modes should work together for optimal results in L2 learning. As such, we favor a motivational approach that aims to enhance both L2 self-regulatory modes of learners. Teachers may want to take advantage of L2 self-regulatory modes’ situational aspects to enhance one mode over the other (whenever needed) by manipulating certain aspects of an L2 task (e.g., Avnet & Higgins, Reference Avnet and Higgins2003; Higgins et al., Reference Higgins, Kruglanski, Pierro and Zanna2003; Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000, 2010). For instance, if in a writing task a student who is thought to be highly assessive is spending too much time on planning rather than writing, the teacher may want to heighten his locomotion mode by reducing the allotted time for planning. Conversely, if a student who is thought to be highly locomotive is spending too much time on writing rather than planning, the teacher may want to heighten her assessment mode by increasing the allotted time for planning. Another situational strategy to balance the students’ L2 self-regulatory modes is to put students in groups with mixed modes. Students with strong assessment tendencies, for instance, can be placed in groups with students with strong locomotion tendencies. Past research has shown that groups of students with mixed self-regulatory modes outperform groups with students who are all strong in only one of the modes (e.g., Mauro et al., Reference Mauro, Pierro, Mannetti, Higgins and Kruglanski2009).

Consciousness-raising activities is also another strategy that teacher may want to use in class to make students aware of the strengths of their own self-regulatory modes. For instance, teachers, can help students determine their own motivational orientations by asking students to (a) fill out the L2 self-regulatory modes questionnaire and calculate their scores for each mode or (b) reflect upon their performance in tasks and evaluate their self-regulatory modes based on the speed/accuracy criteria (see also Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Orehek, Higgins, Pierro, Shalev and Hoyle2010). Next, teachers should remind students of each mode’s advantages (and disadvantages) and emphasize how both self-regulatory modes should work together for better L2 learning and performance. Such consciousness-raising activities will be helpful for the L2 learners to better understand the motivational mechanisms underlying their own behaviors in various L2 settings. More specifically, these activities can help students consciously make the necessary adjustments whenever one of the self-regulatory modes is felt to be dominating their learning behavior. Considering the previous examples, the students with predominant assessment or locomotion tendencies—who are also fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their own self-regulatory modes—can allocate a certain amount of time for planning and writing so that they take advantage of both self-regulatory modes during the learning task.

CONCLUSION

Past L2 motivation research has focused on documenting what motivational goals direct and energize students on their L2 learning path (Papi, Reference Papi2016, Reference Papi2018; Teimouri, Reference Teimouri2017). As such, learner differences were discussed with respect to the quality of L2 motivational goals. In this study, we discussed learner differences with respect to the quality of manners students pursue their L2 learning goals. By drawing on Kruglanski et al.’s (Reference Kruglanski, Thompson, Higgins, Atash, Pierro, Shah and Spiegel2000) theory of self-regulatory modes, two motivational constructs—L2 assessment and L2 locomotion—were operationalized and validated in the study. Moreover, the implications of these two independent motivational functions were discussed in terms of learners’ emotional states, motivation, and English language proficiency. The study revealed that both locomotion and assessment modes should work together for optimal L2 outcomes.

Supplementary Materials

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000413.

Footnotes

The experiment in this article earned an Open Materials badge for transparent practices. The materials are available at https://www.iris-database.org/iris/app/home/detail?id=york%3a939352

References

REFERENCES

Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8, 721–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche, P., & Merino, B. J. (1989). Self-assessment of foreign-language skills: Implications for teachers and researchers. Language Learning, 39, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. V., Plonsky, L., & Teimouri, Y. (2018). The use of course grades as metrics in L2 research: A systematic review. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 763––778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csizér, K. (2020). The L2 motivational self system. In Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., & Ryan, S. (Eds.), Palgrave Macmillan handbook of motivation for language Learning (pp. 71–93). Palgrave.Google Scholar
Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learners’ motivational profiles and their motivated learning behaviour. Language Learning, 55, 613–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. (2014). The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2016). Foreign language enjoyment and foreign language classroom anxiety: The right and left foot of FL learning. In MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 215–236). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Santo, D., Baldner, C., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2018). A “bridge” over troubled water: Implications of the effect of locomotion mode on hopelessness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 675–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2002). The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 137–158). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: Retrodictive qualitative modelling in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2020). From integrative motivation to directed motivational currents: The evolution of the understanding of L2 motivation over three decades. In Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., & Ryan, S. (Eds.), Palgrave Macmillan handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 39–69). Palgrave.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: a process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London), 4, 43–69.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Longman.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. (1985) Social psychology and second language learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C. (2020). The socio-educational model of second language acquisition. In Lamb, M., Csizér, K., Henry, A., & Ryan, S. (Eds.), Palgrave Macmillan handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 21–38). Palgrave.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamstra, M. R., Orehek, E., & Holleman, M. (2014). Subordinate regulatory mode and leader power: Interpersonal regulatory complementarity predicts task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, Y. (2002). Motivation and willingness to communicate as predictors of reported L2 use: The Japanese ESL context. Second Language Studies, 20, 29–70.Google Scholar
Herman, W. E. (1990). Fear of failure as a distinctive personality trait measure of test anxiety. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23, 180–185.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T. (2011). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: Locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, volume 35 (pp. 293–344). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Cross-cultural validation of psychological distinction between locomotion and assessment modes. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (2019). Complexity theory and L2 motivation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 117–137). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, R. Y., Tan, M. S., & Chang, W. C. (2004). Locomotion and assessment: Self-regulation and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P. J. (2009). Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis (Vol. 344). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Orehek, E., Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Shalev, I. (2010). Modes of self-regulation: Assessment and locomotion as independent determinants in goal-pursuit. In Hoyle, R. (Ed.) Handbook of Personality and Self-Regulation (pp. 374–402). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Higgins, T. E. (2012). The distinct psychologies of “looking” and “leaping”: Assessment and locomotion as the springs of action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, J. (2013). Positive L2 self: Linking positive psychology with L2 motivation. In Apple, T. M., Silva, D. D., & Fellner, T. (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 71–225). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2021). A meta-analysis of self-assessment and language performance in language testing and assessment. Language Testing, 38, 189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucidi, F., Pica, G., Mallia, L., Castrucci, E., Manganelli, S., Bélanger, J. J., & Pierro, A. (2016). Running away from stress: How regulatory modes prospectively affect athletes’ stress through passion. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 26, 703–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gregersen, T. (2012). Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 2, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2012). Maintaining physical exercise: How locomotion mode moderates the full attitude–intention–behavior relation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauro, R., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). The perfect mix: Regulatory complementarity and the speed-accuracy balance in group performance. Psychological Science, 20, 681–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercer, S. (2011). Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System, 39, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noels, K. A. (2001). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learners’ orientations and perceptions of their teachers’ communication style. Language Learning, 51, 107–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety, and motivated behavior: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 38, 467–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papi, M. (2016). Motivation and learning interface: How regulatory fit affects incidental vocabulary learning and task experience. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Papi, M. (2018). Motivation as quality: Regulatory fit effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40, 707–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papi, M., Bondarenko, A. V., Mansouri, S., Feng, L., & Jiang, C. (2019). Rethinking L2 motivation research: The 2 × 2 model of L2 self-guides. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 337–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papi, M., & Hiver, P. (2020). Language learning motivation as a complex dynamic system: A global perspective of truth, control, and value. The Modern Language Journal, 104, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papi, M., & Teimouri, Y. (2012). Dynamics of selves and motivation: A cross-sectional study in the EFL context of Iran. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papi, M., & Teimouri, Y. (2014). Language learner motivational types: A cluster analysis study. Language Learning, 64, 493–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). On the psychology of time in action: Regulatory mode orientations and procrastination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: effects of “locomotion” and “assessment” on intrinsic and extrinsic task-motivation. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 20, 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierro, A., Leder, S., Mannetti, L., Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Aiello, A. (2008). Regulatory mode effects on counterfactual thinking and regret. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierro, A., Pica, G., Mauro, R., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2012). How regulatory modes work together: Locomotion-assessment complementarity in work performance. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 19, 247–262.Google Scholar
Pierro, A., Presaghi, F., Higgins, E. T., Klein, K. M., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2012). Frogs and ponds: A multilevel analysis of the regulatory mode complementarity hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pierro, A., Presaghi, F., Higgins, T. E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). Regulatory mode preferences for autonomy supporting versus controlling instructional styles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 599–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Derrick, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language research. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal, 102, 713–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirvan, M. E., Khajavy, G. H., MacIntyre, P. D., & Taherian, T. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 willingness to communicate and its three high-evidence correlates. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48, 1241–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soper, D. S. (2020). Effect Size Calculator for Multiple Regression [computer software]. http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc Google Scholar
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system amongst Chinese, Japanese, and Iranian learners of English: A comparative study. In Dörnyei, Z. & Ushioda, E. (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 66–97). Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory mode and activity orientations. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 681–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teimouri, Y. (2018). Differential roles of shame and guilt in L2 learning: How bad is bad? The Modern Language Journal, 102, 632–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teimouri, Y., Goetze, J., & Plonsky, L. (2019). Second language anxiety and achievement: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 363–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teimouri, Y., Plonsky, L., & Tabandeh, F. (in press). L2 grit: The passion and perseverance for L2 learning. Language Teaching Research.Google Scholar
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ushioda, E. (2016). Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 49, 564–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1. The results of descriptive and reliability analyses of the variables

Figure 1

FIGURE 1. The scree plot of the eigenvalues.

Figure 2

TABLE 2. The results of principle component analysis and parallel analysis

Figure 3

TABLE 3. The results of principal component analysis: Item loadings

Figure 4

TABLE 4. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with L2 joy and L2 anxiety as the criterion measures

Figure 5

TABLE 5. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with intended effort, attention, L2 WTC, and language proficiency as the criterion measures

Figure 6

TABLE 6. The results of descriptive and reliability analyses of the variables

Figure 7

TABLE 7. Selected fit measures for the final model

Figure 8

FIGURE 2. A schematic representation of the L2 self-regulatory model with factor loadings.Note: Loco = locomotion, Asses = Assessment

Figure 9

TABLE 8. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with L2 joy and L2 anxiety as the criterion measures

Figure 10

TABLE 9. Regression analyses of the L2 self-regulatory modes with intended effort, attention, L2 WTC, and language proficiency as the criterion measures

Figure 11

TABLE 10. The means of L2 self-regulatory modes along with the one-way ANOVA results

Figure 12

TABLE 11. The means of motivational, emotional, and language proficiency scales along with the one-way ANOVA results

Supplementary material: File

Teimouri et al. supplementary material

Teimouri et al. supplementary material

Download Teimouri et al. supplementary material(File)
File 21.9 KB