Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

L2 Learners’ Motivation for Learning English in
Computer-Mediated Communication Activities
Satoshi Yoshida and Michiko Nakano

Graduate School of Education, Waseda University
satoshi-tko.jpn@akane.waseda.jp, nakanom@waseda.jp

Abstract
This study investigated students’ motivation for learning English in computer-mediated communication(CMC) activities provided for tertiary-level English courses by means of a questionnaire survey guided by
Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985). The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) toelucidate the types of students’ motivational predispositions toward the CMC activities, and (2) to examine
the motivational differences among 21 different English courses, especially focusing on the effect of course
types (i.e., elective vs. compulsory courses). The questionnaire used in this study was developed on the basisof the Language Learning Orientations Scale (Noels, Pelletier, Clement & Vallerand, 2000). The participants
were 365 Japanese university students enrolled in the target CMC activities as a part of their classroom
activities or extra-curricular activities. The results showed that the students’ motivational predispositions
could be roughly divided into three types: (1) predisposition toward autonomous learners, (2) predisposition
toward externally regulated learners and (3) Others. The results also indicated that the students in the elective
English courses were predisposed to be autonomous learners, whereas those in the compulsory courses werepredisposed to be externally regulated learners as found in our previous surveys.

Keywords
L2 Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Amotivation, Self-Regulation, Distance Learning,
Computer-Mediated Communication

1

Introduction

Since 2008, we have conducted a longitudinal study to investigate students’ motivation for learning English
in the context of computer-mediated communication (CMC) activities (Nakano & Yoshida, 2008; Nakano,
Yoshida, & Owada, 2008; Yoshida, 2010; Yoshida & Nakano, 2009, 2010, 2011). The activities, called
Cross-Cultural Distance Learning (CCDL) CMC activities, have been provided as one of the classroom or
extra-curricular learning activities for tertiary-level English courses relevant to a distance learning program
called CCDL program. The primary aims of our longitudinal study were (1) to evaluate the effectiveness of
CCDL program in terms of the participating students’ motivation toward the CMC activities, and (2) todiscuss the ideal learning environments that are thought to enhance the students’ motivation toward theactivities (e.g., Yoshida & Nakano, 2011). To address these motivational issues, we employed theoreticalframework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b, 2002; for details,
see section 2) and tested our research hypothesis that students’ motivation will be more satisfactory if they
opt to join the activities whereas their motivation will be less if they are forced to do so (Nakano, 2006), bymeans of questionnaire surveys. As a result, we found that the students in elective CCDL courses (i.e., those
who opted to join the activities) were likely to be autonomously motivated to join the CMC activities,
whereas the students in obligatory CCDL courses (i.e., those who were forced to join the activities) werelikely to be externally regulated, and thus, demotivated to do so. These findings provided supportive
evidence on our research hypothesis, suggesting the applicability of SDT framework to the research on the
motivational issues in the context of CCDL CMC activities.
On the basis of the findings in our previous surveys, the preset study aimed to further discuss the
motivational issues among 21 different CCDL courses from the perspective of SDT. The purpose of thisstudy was two-fold: (1) to elucidate the types of students’ motivational predispositions toward the CMC
activities and (2) to examine the motivational differences, especially focusing on the effect of course types,that is, elective versus compulsory courses, as in our previous surveys.

82Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

2

Self-Determination Theory

SDT is a motivation theory developed in the field of psychology (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b,
2002). Because of its comprehensive perspective on human motivation, the theory has been applied tovarious research fields, including the field of education (Deci et al., 1991; Reeve, 2002; Vallerand &Bissonnette, 1992), and second language acquisition (Noels, 2001a, 2001b, Noels et al., 2000; Park, 2006;
see also Dörnyei, 1994). The theory conceptualized three types of motivation called intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation and amotivation, each of which was assumed to be relating each other along with theself-determination continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985) as in Figure 1. The following sections briefly summarize
each of the three types of motivation.
Behavior
Type of
Motivation
Type of
Regulation
Locus of
Causality

Nonself-determined

Self-determined

Amotivaion

Extrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Motivation

Non-Regulation

External
Regulation

Inrojected
Regulation

Identified
Regulation

Integrated
Regulation

Intrinsic Regulation

impersonalExternal

Somewhat
External

Somewhat
Internal

Internal

Internal

Figure 1: The self-determination continuum (as cited in Deci & Ryan, 2000, p.237)

2.1
Intrinsic Motivation
SDT defined intrinsic motivation as a fully autonomous type of motivation with a “prototypical form of
self-determination” (Deci & Ryan, 1991, p.253); thus, this type of motivation is placed on the extreme,
Self-determined side. SDT further elucidated the feature of intrinsic motivation in terms of the following
exemplification; if one is intrinsically motivated toward a certain activity, he or she is expected to engage in
it “with a full sense of choice, with the experience of doing what one wants, and without the feeling of
coercion or compulsion” (p.253). In other words, intrinsically motivated behaviors can be said to be fully
endorsed by one’s own self, and thus, fully self-determined (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1991). It is also important
to note that previous studies conceptualized three subtypes of intrinsic motivation on the basis of
hypothesized triggers to enhance the sense of choice or self-determination; they are intrinsic motivation forknowledge, intrinsic motivation for accomplishment and intrinsic motivation for stimulation (for details, seeNoels et al., 2000; Vallerand, Pelletier, Blais, Briere, Senecal, & Vallieres, 1992; Vallerand, Pelletie, Blais,
Briere, Senecal, & Vallieres, 1993)
2.2
Extrinsic Motivation
SDT has discussed extrinsic motivation in terms of the four subtypes: external regulation, introjected
regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation (see Figure 1). These four types were categorizedon the basis of the quality or amount of internalization process, a hypothesized psychological process where
people actively transform their behavioral regulations from externally forced regulation to self-regulationthat is endorsed by the self (Deci et al. 1991; Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992; Deci, Ryan & Williams,
1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2002). In other words, perceived sense of self-determination accompanying eachof the four types was assumed to increase from external regulation to integrated regulation (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
2.3
Amotivation
SDT conceptualized amotivation, a type of motivation representing the lack of self-determination as well as
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). It is also important to note that the conceptual boundary between
amotivation and extrinsic motivation illustrated in Figure 1 indicates that amotivation is not associated with
one’s intentionality with respect to a given activity (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Therefore, the resulting behavior
can be regarded as non-self-determined.

3

Method

3.1
Questionnaire
The questionnaire used in this study contained 24 items which were developed on the basis of those in the
Language Learning Orientations Scale (LLOS: Noels et al., 2000; see also Park, 2006; Yoshida & Nakano,83

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

2011). These 24 items were designed to be one of the possible reasons for studying English in the CMC
activities and can be categorized into the following seven subscales (Information in the parentheses
represents the abbreviations for each of the seven subscales and the number of the items included,
respectively.)
Intrinsic Motivation for Knowledge (IMK: 3 items)
Intrinsic Motivation for Accomplishment (IMA: 3 items)
Intrinsic Motivation for Stimulation (IMS: 3 items)
Extrinsic Motivation-Identified Regulation (EMID: 4 items)
Extrinsic Motivation-Introjected Regulation (EMINTRO: 4 items)
Extrinsic Motivation-External Regulation (EMEX: 4 items)
Amotivation (AMOT: 3 items)
In responding to the items, the students were asked to indicate to what extent each of the 24 reasonscorresponded to one of the reasons why they study English in the activities, using 5-point Likert scale.
3.2
ParticipantsParticipants in this study were 365 Japanese university students1. These students were enrolled in one of 21
CCDL English courses where the target CMC activities were introduced as one of the classroom or
extra-curricular learning activities. Table 1 summarizes the information on each of the 21 courses, including
course types (i.e., elective vs. compulsory) and the number of participating students.
Table 1: Summary of 21 CCDL coursesnClass
Course TypesCOMP
Class127
ELECClass213
ELECClass3
14
COMP
Class4
9
COMPClass5
4
COMPClass6
9COMPClass7
13
COMPClass819
COMPClass915
COMPClass10
11
COMPClass11
9COMPClass1220
COMPClass1332
COMPClass1427
COMPClass15
23
COMPClass16
27
COMP
Class17
27
COMP
Class1825
ELECClass19
19
ELECClass208ELECClass21
14
Note: COMP and ELEC in the column named Course Types stand for compulsory and elective, respectively.

3.3
Analytic Procedure
First, we checked descriptive statistics for the 24 items in our questionnaire. Second, we conducted
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the data. In EFA, we employed Maximum Likelihood method followed
by Promax rotation for factor extraction, referred to Kaiser’s criterion as well as the results of test of
goodness of fit in determining the number of factors to be extracted, and regarded factor loadings of above|0.35| as meaningful in discussing the internal structures of factors extracted. Third, we computed individual
factor scores in terms of Regression Method and then, averaged the scores for each of 21 different classes.
1

Those who did not answer more than 3 items on the questionnaire were excluded from the analysis.

84Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Lastly, screening each of the mean factor scores among the 21 classes, we discussed the types ofmotivational predisposition as well as motivational differences.

4

Results and Discussion

4.1
Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for 24 questionnaire items.
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for 24 items
M
SD
M+1SD
M-1SD
Item
Label
item1
IMA3
3.03
1.06
4.10
1.97
item2
EMID4
3.38
1.13
4.50
2.25
item3
IMS3
3.53
1.14
4.67
2.38
item4
EMEX4
2.11
1.11
3.22
1.00
item5
IMK1
3.78
1.04
4.82
2.74
item6
EMID3
3.59
1.12
4.71
2.47
item7
EMINTRO4
2.18
1.13
3.32
1.05
item8
EMEX3
2.91
1.19
4.10
1.72
item9
IMK2
3.72
1.06
4.78
2.66
item10
EMEX2
3.07
1.24
4.31
1.83
item11
IMA2
3.02
1.15
4.17
1.87
item12
AMOT3
2.18
1.14
3.32
1.04
item13
AMOT1
1.98
1.12
3.10
0.87
item14
EMINTRO3
2.49
1.09
3.59
1.40
item15
IMA1
3.26
1.06
4.32
2.21
item16
IMS1
2.96
1.12
4.08
1.85
item17
EMID2
3.56
1.12
4.68
2.43
item18
IMS2
3.35
1.15
4.50
2.20
item19
EMID1
3.63
1.10
4.74
2.53
item20EMINTRO2
2.87
1.09
3.95
1.78
item21
AMOT2
1.77
1.05
2.82
0.72
item22
IMK3
3.77
1.11
4.88
2.66
item23
EMEX1
2.26
1.26
3.52
0.99
item24
EMINTRO1
2.46
1.11
3.58
1.35
Note: The column named Label shows the subscale and the individual item number within the subscales.

Although the resulting values of mean minus 1 standard deviation (i.e., M-1SD) indicated that floor effectmight occur in Items 13, 21 and 23, we decided to retain them and discussed whether they could cause some
negative effect in the process of EFA.
4.2
Results of EFA
As a result of EFA, we extracted 6 factors, χ2 = 199.53, df = 114, p < .0012. Table 3 shows the resulting
pattern matrix. According to each of the componential items, we named 6 extracted factors as follows.
Factor 1: Motivation for Accomplishment3
Factor 2: Autonomous Motivation for Knowledge
Factor 3: Motivational Transition from External Regulation to Introjected Regulation
Factor 4: Amotivation (AMOT)
Factor 5: Extrinsic Motivation- Introjected Regulation (EMINTRO)
Factor 6: Intrinsic Motivation for Stimulation (IMS)
The resulting 6 factors were said to be almost congruent with those found in our previous surveys (Nakano &Yoshida, 2008; Yoshida, 2009; Yoshida & Nakano, 2009, 2010, 2011). This result suggested the replicability
as well as stability of the internal structures of motivation construct to be assessed by the questionnaire.
2

Although the results of test of goodness of fit indicated that there might be more latent factors to be extracted, we
stopped the analysis at this stage because further extraction was found to cause Heywood case.
3
As in our previous surveys (Nakano & Yoshida, 2008; Yoshida, 2009; Yoshida & Nakano, 2009, 2010, 2011),we
refrained from using the term “intrinsic ” in naming Factor 1 because it contained some EM items that potentiallyreflected some instrumentality with respect to one’s engagement to the target activities (Deci et al., 1991).

85

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Table 3: Pattern matrix
Factors
Label
EMID4
IMA2
EMEX2
IMA3
IMA1
IMK2
IMK1
IMK3
EMID2
EMID3
IMS3
EMINTRO4
EMEX4
EMEX3
EMEX1
AMOT1
AMOT3
AMOT2
EMINTRO2
EMINTRO3
IMS1
IMS2% of variance

1

2

3

4
5
.862
.006
.056
-.016
-.003
.778
-.036
.073
.086
-.162
.704
-.072
-.014
.010
.084
.637
-.068
.022
-.029
-.010
.528
.004
-.020
.015
.113
.967
-.002
.112
.035
-.027
.963
-.050
.063
.036
-.008
.790
-.106
-.045
.135
-.084
.448
.161
-.082
-.100
.134
.365
.447
-.056
-.043
.063
.375
.393
-.023
-.039
.002
.827
-.043
-.001
-.087
.143
.735
-.079
.027
.072
-.067
.646
.185
.127
-.070
-.092
.545
-.034
-.136
.129
-.001
.947
.070
.035
-.089
-.012
.806
-.051
.125
-.014
.060
.522
.034
-.040
.217
.087
.776
.018
-.010
.022
-.103
.661
-.013
-.053
-.040
.251
.406
-.079
.030
.096
-.038
.099
.243
.028
-.175
.058
35.05411.229
4.094
3.410
2.426
Note: Factor loadings of above |0.35| were highlighted in boldfaced type.

6
-.249
.193
.007
.130
.200
-.081
-.134
.168
.158
-.007
.044
.016
.075
-.016
-.009
.019
.001
-.014
-.028
.015
.637
.499
1.969

Table 4 shows the resulting inter-correlations among the 6 factors. In this matrix, all the 6 factors areordered along with the self-determination continuum, so that, from left to right, both the degree ofself-determination and the amount of motivation are expected to increase as hypothesized in SDT. The values
in diagonal elements are Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient computed for each of the 6 factors.
Table 4: Correlation matrix among 6 factors
AMOT(Factor4)
AMOT
EMEX toEMINTROEMINTRO
Accomplishment
AM forKnowledge
IMS(.812)EMEX toEMINTRO(Factor3)
0.65(.770)

0.01

Accomplishm
ent(Facor1)-0.54

AM forKnowledge(Factor2)
-0.53

0.02

-0.39

-0.48

-0.18

(.647)

0.46(.885)

0.39
0.72

0.42
0.52

(.903)

0.54

EMINTRO(Factor5)

IMS(Factor6)-0.22(.764)

Note: EMEX to EMINTRO, Accomplishment, AM for Knowledge in the matrix stand for Motivational transition fromEMEX to EMINTRO, Motivation for Accomplishment, Autonomous Motivation for Knowledge, respectively.

As in Table 4, the inter-correlations were found to be quasi-simplex pattern, which can be regarded as areflection of the self-determination continuum (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This result provided a piece of evidencewith respect to construct validity of our questionnaire.
4.3
Motivational Predispositions
In order to examine the types of students’ predisposition toward the CMC activities, we computed averaged
factor scores for the 21 CCDL English courses. Table 5 summarizes the results.

86Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

Table 5: Mean factor scores for 21 English courses
Mean Factor Scores
Factor 4
Factor 3
Factor 5
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 6
Class
Course Types
AccomplishAM for
EMEX toAMOT
EMINTRO
IMS
ment
Knowledge
EMINTRO
COMP
0.17
0.11
-0.13
-0.11
0.05
Class10.06
ELECClass2
-0.31
-0.32
0.35
0.68
0.54
0.44
ELEC
Class3
-0.54
-0.46
0.74
1.00
0.76
0.51
COMP
Class4
0.42
0.54
-0.40
-0.65
-0.92
-0.62
COMP
Class5
-0.25
0.19
0.53
0.16
0.31
0.58
COMP
Class6
0.36
-0.01
-0.13
-0.46
-0.69
-0.39
COMP
Class7
0.55
0.47
-0.49
-0.88
-0.59
-0.39
COMP
Class8
0.75
0.22
-0.04
-0.61
-0.24
-0.31
COMP
Class9
-0.55
-0.71
0.09
0.73
0.82
0.38
COMP
Class10
-0.82
-0.68
0.54
0.50
0.80
0.29
COMP
Class11
-0.67
-0.59
0.19
0.23
0.78
0.20
COMP
0.36
Class12
-0.04
0.24
-0.18
-0.18
-0.07
COMP
Class13
-0.13
-0.33
-0.04
-0.26
-0.38
-0.10
COMP
Class14
0.34
0.30
-0.13
-0.30
-0.42
0.04
COMP
Class15
0.45
0.58
0.05
-0.23
-0.17
0.14
COMP
-0.06
Class16
0.07
-0.18
0.05
-0.12
-0.27
COMP
Class17
-0.18
0.01
-0.26
0.15
0.01
-0.11
COMP
Class18
0.53
0.73
-0.12
-0.38
-0.29
-0.13
ELEC
Class19
-0.83
-0.15
0.42
0.69
0.30
-0.85
ELEC
Class20
-0.46
-0.58
-0.04
0.55
0.44
0.30
ELEC
Class21
-0.33
-0.22
0.65
0.33
0.25
0.55
Note: COMP and ELEC in the column named Course Types stand for compulsory and elective, respectively. All the 6
factors are ordered along with self-determination continuum (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Figures representing each of the 21
courses are shown in Appendix.

The results in Table 5 suggested that, among the 21 courses, the students’ motivational predisposition can beroughly divided into the following three types (see also Figures 5-25 in Appendix).
(1) Predisposition toward autonomous learners: Mean factor scores on autonomous types ofmotivation (Factors 1, 2, and 6) were higher than 0 (i.e., the grand mean), whereas the scores oncontrolled types of motivation (Factor 3 and 4) were lower than 0.
(2) Predisposition toward externally regulated learners: Mean factor scores on controlled types ofmotivation (Factors 1, 2, and 6) were higher than 0 (i.e., the grand mean), whereas the scores on
autonomous types of motivation (Factors 1, 2, and 6) were lower than 0.
(3) Others: Mean factor scores on the 6 factors were found to be almost equal to 0 (i.e., the grandmean).
On the basis of the above three types, we can categorize the 21 courses into 3 Class Types as follows.
Class Type (1): On average, the students were predisposed toward autonomous learners. Classes 2, 3,
5, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20 and 21 belong to this type.
Class Type (2): On average, the students were predisposed toward externally regulated learners.
Classes 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15 and 18 belong to this type.
Class Type (3): There must be each of the three types of students discussed above. Classes 1, 13, 16
and 17 belong to this type4.
4

A fact that relatively large number of the students participated in the classes might be one of the possible reason tocause this result.

87Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

On the basis of three class types, we recomputed the mean factor scores. Table 6 summarizes the results.
Table 6: Mean factor scores computed for Class Types (1) (2) and (3)EMEX toAccomplishAM for
EMINTROIMSEMINTROment
Knowledge(Factor 5)(Factor 6)(Factor 3)(Factor 1)(Factor 2)
Class Type (1)107-0.564-0.531
0.552
0.299
0.627
0.390
Class Type (2)
145
0.471
-0.087-0.412-0.364-0.141
0.372
Class Type (3)113-0.071-0.1720.006-0.127-0.1880.025
Note: EMEX to EMINTRO, Accomplishment, AM for Knowledge in the matrix stand for Motivational transition fromEMEX to EMINTRO, Motivation for Accomplishment, Autonomous Motivation for Knowledge, respectively.
Class Typesn

AMOT(Factor 4)

Figures 2-4 represent the graphs of the results in Table 6.
Class Type (1)
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO (Factor
3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment (Factor 1) AM for Knowledge (Factor
2)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

Figure 2: Mean factor scores for Class Type (1)Class Type (2)
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO (Factor
3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment (Factor 1) AM for Knowledge (Factor
2)

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

Figure 3: Mean factor scores for Class Type (2)88

IMS (Factor 6)

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
Class Type (3)
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO (Factor
3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment (Factor 1) AM for Knowledge (Factor
2)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

Figure 4: Mean factor scores for Class Type (3)As Figures 2-4 show, each of the outstanding features as well as the apparent differences among the 3 Class
Types still remained in the recomputed mean factors scores. The result provided a piece of supportive
evidence on our classification of the students’ motivational predispositions.
4.4
Class Comparison Between Elective Courses and Compulsory Courses
To compare the motivational differences between elective courses and compulsory courses, we summarized acontingency table as in Table 7.
Table 7: Contingency table between elective classes vs. compulsory and 3 Class Types
Class Type (1)
COMP
ELEC

Class Type (2)459Class Type (3)
8
0
8

Total
4
0
4

16
5
21

Table 7 shows that all the elective courses were categorized into Class Type (1). This result suggested thatthe students in elective courses were predisposed to be autonomous learners. On the other hand, as we
expected on the basis of our previous surveys, 8 out of the 12 compulsory courses were categorized into
Class Type (2), suggesting that the students in compulsory courses were likely to be externally regulated
learners. These results were congruent with those in our pilot surveys (e.g., Yoshida & Nakano, 2010).
It is also important to note that 4 out of 15 compulsory courses were categorized not into Class Type (2),but into Class Type (1). One of the potential reasons behind this exceptional result can be found in a fact that
3 out of the 4 courses were conducted by the same teacher, who must be autonomy supportive rather thancontrolling (Reeve, 2002; Yoshida & Nakano, 2010). Along with the notions in SDT, the result implies that,as an environmental factor, teaching style of teacher can be one of the good predictors of the students’motivational predispositions. On the other hand, however, although Classes 4 and 5 were both compulsory
courses and conducted by the same teacher, Class 4 was categorized into Class Type (2) whereas Class 5 into
Class Type (1). The result suggested that it is necessary to examine how teaching style of teacher exerts theeffects on the students’ motivation and to investigate the existence of other environmental factors such as
differences in students’ fundamental reason for learning English.

5

Summary

To sum up the findings in this study, we found that the students’ motivational predispositions can be roughly
divided into three types: (1) predisposition toward autonomous learners, (2) predisposition toward externallyregulated learner, and (3) Others. The results also indicated that the students in the elective CCDL courses
were predisposed to be autonomous learners, whereas those in the compulsory CCDL courses werepredisposed to be externally regulated learners as found in our pilot surveys (e.g., Yoshida, 2010).
Acknowledgement
We would like to express our sincerest thanks to Hiroki Mori (Distance Learning Center, Waseda University)
89

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

and all the CCDL instructors.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum Press.
Deci, E .L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: integration in personality. Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation 1990, vol. 38.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and theself-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan R. M. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, N.Y.:
University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patric, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: theself-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 1, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (1996). Need satisfaction and the self-regulation of learning.
Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 3, 165-183.
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.
Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Understanding L2 motivation: On with the challenge! Modern Language Journal, 78,
515-523.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.)., Sage.
Nakano, M. (2006). General Framework: CCDL. In M. Nakano, & CCDL research center (Eds.)
Cross-Cultural Distance Learning teacher’s manual volume 1 (pp.7-16). Media Mix, Waseda University.
Nakano, M. & CCDL Research Center (Eds.) (2006). Cross-Cultural Distance Learning teacher’s manual
volume 1. Media Mix, Waseda University.
Nakano, M. and Yoshida, S. (2008). A Pilot Study: Exploring a Relationship between Four Kinds ofMotivation and Self-regulations for Second Language Learning among Japanese University Students in
Cross-Cultural Distance Learning Contexts. Proceedings of the 13th Conference of Pan-Pacific
Association of Applied Linguistics, 91-94 .
Nakano, M., Yoshida, S. and Owada, K. (2008). Cross-Cultural Distance Learning (CCDL) Programs andProgram Assessment. Proceedings of 9th Distance Learning and the Internet Conference 2008, 189-198.
Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Why are you learning a second language?
Motivational orientations and Self-Determination Theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
Noels, K. A. (2001a). Learning Spanish as a second language: Learner’s orientations and perceptions of theirteachers’ communicative style. Language Learning, 51, 107-144.
Noels, K. A. (2001b). New orientations in language learning motivation: Toward a model of intrinsic,
extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivationand second language acquisition (Technical Report #23, PP. 43-68). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i,
Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Park, H. S. (2006). Motivation in a foreign language context: The effect of gender issues in a Korean social andeducational context. Unpublished Doctorial Dissertation, Korea University.
Rigby, C. S., Deci, E.L., Patric, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy:
self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 3, 165-185.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and Information in the intrapersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 3, 450-461.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialecticalperspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.) Handbook of self-determination research (pp.3-33).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Vallerand, R. J. & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of
behaviors: A perspective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C. & Vallieres, E.F. (1992). The academic
motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Education andPsychological Measurement, 52, 1003-1017.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E.F. (1993). On the90

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics

assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, amotivation in education: Evidence on the concurrent and constructvalidity of the academic motivation scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159-172.
Yoshida, S. (2010). An Experimental Study of Social Skills and Motivation in Cross-Cultural Distance
Learning Context. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Waseda University.
Yoshida, S., & Nakano, M. (2009). Cross-Cultural Distance Learning (CCDL) and the learner’s motivation
toward the CCDL CMC activities: A survey on three types of CCDL classes. Proceedings of the 14th
conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 357-362.
Yoshida, S. & Nakano, M. (2010). A Comparative Study of Motivation toward Cross-Cultural Distance
Learning (CCDL) Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) Activities. Proceedings of the 15th
Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 454-461.
Yoshida, S. & Nakano, M. (2011). A Pilot Study on the Relationship between Learning Climate in English
Classroom and Students’ Motivation toward the Classroom Activities, Proceedings of the 16th
Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 357-364.
Appendix
Mean factor scores for Classes 1-21. Numbers ①② and ③ represent Class Types (1), (2) and (3) respectively.
1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

AMOT (Factor 4)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

③

Figure 5: Class 1 (n = 27)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)GL（（根岸） n=14

E1-2_Speech_A
1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)①

Figure 6: Class 2 (n=13)

1.00

0.00

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

n=9

0.00

AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

AMOT (Factor 4)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

①

Figure 7: Class 3 (n = 14)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

IMS (Factor 6)②

Figure 8: Class 4 (n = 9)

1.00

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20
0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

AMOT (Factor 4)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.20

EMEX to EMINTRO EMINTRO (Factor 5)(Factor 3)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

-0.40
-0.40

-0.60
-0.60

-0.80
-0.80

-1.00
-1.00

Figure 9: Class 5 (n = 4)①

Figure 10: Class 6 (n = 9)91②

IMS (Factor 6)

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

AMOT (Factor 4)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

②

Figure 11: Class 7 (n =13)
TOEIC_A

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)②

Figure 12: Class 8 (n = 19)

n=15
1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

AMOT (Factor 4)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

-1.00

①

Figure 13: Class 9 (n = 15)

Figure 14: Class 10 (n = 11)

1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

①

0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

AMOT (Factor 4)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

①

Figure 15: Class 11 (n = 9)
1A

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

Figure 16: Class 12 (n = 20)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

②

n=32

1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

AMOT (Factor 4)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

Figure 17: Class13 (n = 32)③

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

Figure 18: Class 14 (n = 27)

92

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)②

IMS (Factor 6)

Selected Papers of the 17th Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics
1C

n=23

1D

1.00

n=27

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

②

Figure 19: Class 15 (n = 23)
1E

Figure 20: Class 16 (n = 27)

③

n=27

1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

AMOT (Factor 4)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

-1.00

Figure 21: Class 17 (n = 27)③

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

Figure 22: Class 18 (n = 25)

1.00

1.00

0.80

0.80

0.60

0.60

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)②

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

AMOT (Factor 4)

-0.20

-0.20

-0.40

-0.40

-0.60

-0.60

-0.80

-0.80

-1.00

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)-1.00

Figure 23: Class 19 (n = 19)①

Figure 24: Class 20 (n = 8)

中野ゼミ n=14
1.00

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
AMOT (Factor 4)

EMEX to EMINTRO(Factor 3)

EMINTRO (Factor 5)

Accomplishment(Factor 1)

AM for Knowledge(Factor 2)

IMS (Factor 6)

-0.20

-0.40

-0.60

-0.80

-1.00

Figure 25: Class 21 (n = 14)

①

93

①

IMS (Factor 6)