Comparative Analysis of
Motivation of Different
Language Learning Software

FINAL REPORT
Roumen Vesselinov, Ph.D.
Economics Department
Queens College | City University of New York
Roumen.Vesselinov@qc.cuny.edu(718) 997-5444
July 2009

RESEARCH TEAMCONTENTS• Roumen Vesselinov, PhD,
Economics Department,
Queens College, City University of New York

Executive summary

2

Introduction

3Part 1. Methodology

3Part 2. Sample description

8Part 3. Analysis

12• Brian Habing, PhD,
Statistics Department,
University of South Carolina

3.1. Scale reliability

12

3.2. Motivation and attitude

13• Amy Lutz, PhD,
Department of Sociology,
The Maxwell School of Citizenshipand Public Affairs, Syracuse University

3.3. Additional evaluation

20

Conclusion

21

References

22• John Grego, PhD,
Statistics Department,
University of South Carolina

Executive Summary
This study was designed to compare the motivation level and attitude for three language
learning software products: Rosetta Stone®
(RS), Auralog (AU) and Berlitz (BR). The
study utilizes three previously establishedand validated research instruments andmultivariate scales for measuring motivation
and attitude toward learning foreign language. The three scales also passed the test
for internal reliability based on our sample.
The sample was stratified using propensity
score calculations of the participants’ language ability. The analysis was based on a
stratified representative sample of 234 participants who used one of the three software
products for one full month.
The higher dropout rate of AU and BR
users and their smaller initial sample sizes(N=50, due to financial reasons) lead tosmaller sample size of the two groups andthis limited the statistical power for the
analysis in some cases.
The results are reported in two main
directions; first, we report the overall direction of the effect sizes and, second, we reportspecific statistically significant differences.
The importance falls primarily on the effectsizes findings because they are very consistent. Some of the tested differences were notstatistically significant due to the smaller
sample sizes. Nevertheless, since the effectsizes are in the same direction we can hypothesize that with a followup study withlarger samples for the AU and BR groups,
the results will be confirmed and statisticalsignificance will be established for all differences.

foreign language. The RS group was the best
performing group for all 6 subscales of the
AMS scale.

process of learning foreign language morethan the AU and BR groups did. The study
participants in the RS group exhibited more
perceived competence and were more satisfied with their performance at studying
Spanish than the other two groups.

2. After the study the RS users had the highest level of linguistic goals motivation. The
RS group results were the best in 5 out of 6
subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inven- • Th
 e RS group had better results than the AU
tory (IMI) scale.
group on “Motivational Intensity”, “Spanish
Course Anxiety” and “Spanish Use Anxi3. After the study the RS users had the highety”. This means that the RS software makes
est level of non-linguistic goals motivation.
the users study more regularly (e.g. “almost
The RS group results were the best in 9 out
every day”) than the AU, and the anxiety toof 12 subscales of the Attitude/Motivation
study and use Spanish language is lower in
Test Battery (AMTB).
the RS users compared to the AU users.
4. After the study there were very few dif- • There were two subscales for which the RS
ferences between the AU and BR groups. Ingroup performed better than both AU andgeneral the AU users had slightly better reBR. They were “Spanish Software Evaluasults than the BR users.
tion” and “Spanish Course Evaluation”.
Both differences RS-AU and RS-BR were
5. After the study the RS users were very satstatistically significant. This means that theisfied with the software with 90.2% ready to
RS users evaluate very high the software
recommend the software to others who are
product and the language course and thisinterested in studying Spanish. The other two
evaluation is higher that the AU and BR.
groups had considerably worse results with
only 32.4% recommending AU and 44.4% • The RS group had worse results than the BR
recommending BR software.
group on “Parental Encouragement”. Thismeans that in general the parents of the BR
SPECIFIC FINDINGS
group were encouraging their children toSpecific, statistically significant differences
learn foreign language more than the parwere found in the following areas.
ents of the RS group participants.
• The RS group had better post experimental
motivation than the BR group on “Intrinsic
motivation - toward accomplishment” and“Extrinsic motivation – introjected.”

We can conclude from this study that the
research instruments and multidimensional
scales worked well for the users of all threesoftware products. The results are convincing that we could expect overall higher mo• The RS group had better motivation than tivation and more positive attitude toward
MAIN DIRECTION OF EFFECT SIZES:
the AU and BR groups on “Interest/En- studying foreign language of the RS users in
1. Before the study all three groups (RS, AU,
joyment” and “Perceived Competence” comparison with the AU and BR users. AdBR) had the same level of motivation measubscales. The RS group also had better ditional research with more statistical power
sured by the Academic Motivation Scale
motivation than AU group on “Perceived will be necessary to validate some of the re(AMS). After the study the RS users had
Choice.” This means that the RS software sults and to test for statistical significance ofthe highest level of intrinsic and extrinsic
users were more interested and enjoyed the the differences.
motivation and attitude toward studying

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York2

Introduction

This study is designed to compare the motivation level of three different language
learning software packages. It follows in
the steps of another research study by thesame research team1. In the previous study
we developed and tested the instrument formeasuring the level of attitude and motivation for learning foreign language. In thecurrent study, we explore the possibility ofcomparing the motivation power of different
software products. One of the samples is thesame sample used in the first study on motivation (RS sample). The other two samples
were considerably smaller due to financial
reasons and this limited considerably thestatistical power of our analysis. The valueof this study is in estimation of the motivation level for three leading learning language
software products and the estimation of theeffect sizes, their direction, means and standard errors. This is invaluable information
for future comparative motivation studies,and estimating the size of the sample.
The study was commissioned by Rosetta
Stone® but the analysis was conducted independently by the research team. The study
took part in April-June 2009.
The analysis is based on a sample ofpeople who responded to an advertisementin Washington, DC area newspapers. To be
eligible for the study respondents had to be
between the ages of 18 and 65 and neither

Vesselinov, R., J.Grego, B.Habing, A. Lutz, 2009: “Measuring the Attitude and Motivation of Rosetta Stone”.

1

native speakers of Spanish nor having advanced knowledge of Spanish.
The selected respondents were given theopportunity to use one of the three software
products for one full month. The products
were Rosetta Stone® Spanish Latin American online version (RS), Auralog® (AU) “Tell
Me More” online product and Berlitz® (BR)Spanish premier, CD product. At the beginning and at the end of the study information
was collected about the level of their motivation and attitude toward learning foreign
language. There were incentives for theparticipants who completed the study. They
received a 6 month free subscription for the
Rosetta Stone® Spanish web version softwareand a bonus of $100.

Part 1. Methodology
SAMPLEThe original pool consisted of 4656 people
who responded to a newspaper advertisement looking for participation in a Spanish
language study. We had basic demographic
information on everybody in the pool andwe excluded from consideration people who
were below the age of 18 or above 65, or wereadvanced or native speakers of Spanish.
We randomly selected 300 of the eligible
respondents and invited them to participate
in the study and required them to completea new demographic survey, initial motivation measures and Spanish evaluation test. The
study design was to allocate approximately 200
participants for RS, 50 for AU and 50 for BR.
In order to address the differences inlanguage skills we performed a propensity
scores matching and stratified the sample
before assigning the people to the different
samples. In the propensity score model theoutcome variable was the participants’ levelof Spanish ability evaluated by the webbased test WebCAPE. The independent
variables in the propensity score model werethe major demographic characteristics: gender, age, race, education, employment (fulltime or not), spouse speaks Spanish (Yes/
No), respondent knows some Spanish (Yes/
No), knowledge of another foreign language(Yes/No), reason for studying Spanish (work,
travel, other).

The predicted propensity scores werebased on the regression model described in
the previous paragraph. The whole sample(N=300) was stratified in 3 equal size clusters/strata (N=100 each): low, medium andhigh ability according to the predicted propensity scores. Then we randomly selectedfrom each strata with equal intensity to constitute the samples for this study. The starting
sample sizes were 200, 50 and 50 for RS, AU,
BR respectively. Three more people, originally assigned to other groups, were added
to the RS sample because they used Mac
computers which were not compatible withthe other products. Three new people wererandomly selected from the pool to replace
the ones moved to RS.
Since we had to work with a stratified
sample we used the appropriate statisticalmethods to account for the complex sampling.
We applied the stratified estimator (Cochran,1977) in the SAS® software procedure PROCSURVEYMEANS (SAS OnlineDoc, SAS Helpand Documentation). We performed pairwise
comparison tests (RS vs AU, RS vs BR, AU vsBR) with Bonferroni correction for multiple
comparison bias. The level of significance reported was unless otherwise specified.
Part of the analysis incorporates the useof difference scores (DS). DS are computedfor variables for which there were two measurements – at the beginning and at the endof the study. This is the case with one of the
motivation scales which was administeredonce at the beginning of the study and onceat the end of the study. DS are calculated as
the difference between the value of the variable at the end of the study and the initial valueof the variable. Negative values of DS would
mean that the variable level has decreased during the study, and positive values would meanthat the level has increased. Zero and close tozero values of DS would mean that the variablelevel during the study has not changed.
A useful tool in this analysis is the rankmeasure. The ranks are assigned instead of
the actual values in order to simplify theunderstanding and determine the patterns
in effect sizes. For example if the averagelevel for the three groups (RS, AU, BR) are
300, 500, 150 respectively, these values are
replaced with 2, 1, and 3. The ranks are interpreted simply as meaning that the first groupis ranked as 2, the second group as rank 1,
and the third group as rank 3 (1=Best or 1st
place, 2=Middle or 2nd place, 3=Worst, or
3rd place). It is possible two or three groups
to have the same rank if the mean values ofthe scale are the same. The interpretation of
the patterns is much easier using ranks as
opposed to their actual values. There is no
statistical significance related to the ranks;
they are meant to help establish common
direction of the effect sizes.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

3

SPANISH LANGUAGE EVALUATION TEST

In order to evaluate the level of Spanish
skills and knowledge of the participants weused the WebCAPE test (Web-based Computer Adaptive Placement Exam) developed by the Perpetual Technology Group(http://webcape.byuhtrsc.org).
This is a well established2 foreign language placement exam with good validity
and reliability (test-retest = 0.86). According to their website, more than 500 colleges
and universities use WebCAPE for language
courses placement. Among them are Harvard
University, Boston University, Vanderbilt

University, Brown University, Queens College, CUNY, University of South Carolina,
Cornell University, etc.
The maximum score for Spanish
achieved empirically for this adaptive test
had been 956. The scores are usually a positive number but it is possible to get zero or
negative score because of the weights on thequestions. A negative score can be interpreted
in the sense that the participant did not takethe test seriously or that there were other obstacles because the test is adaptive and every question depends on the answer to theprevious question. In that respect, preferably

negative scores should be set equal to zero.
WebCAPE creators suggest the following cutoff points for placement in a Spanish
college course depending on the length of thecourse measured by number of semesters.
A student at a college with 6 semester
Spanish course will need at least 204 points
on WebCAPE to move or be placed in Semester 2. Respectively a student at a collegewith 5 semester Spanish course will need atleast 234 points; with 4 semester Spanish
course – at least 270 points, and with 3 semester courses – at least 281 points.

Table 1. Suggested Calibration Scores

WebCAPE Suggested Calibration Scores

2

Spanish: (3) Courses

Spanish: (4) Courses

Spanish: (5) Courses

Spanish: (6) Courses

Sem 1

Below 280

Sem 1

Below 270

Sem 1

Below 324

Sem 1

Below 204Sem 2

218 - 351

Sem 2

270 - 345

Sem 2

234 - 311

Sem 2

204 - 288

Sem 3

Above 351

Sem 3

346 - 427

Sem 3

312 - 383

Sem 3

289 - 355

Sem 4

Above 427Sem 4

384 - 456Sem 4

356 - 434

Sem 5

Above 456Sem 5

435 - 497

Sem 6

Above 497

Personal correspondence with Dr. Jerry Larson, Professor of Spanish Pedagogy, Brigham Young University.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York4

MEASURING THE MOTIVATION
AND ATTITUDE

In this study we used three different setsof scales.
Scale 1: Academic Motivation Scale(Ams)

performing an activity for the pleasure andthe satisfaction that one experiences whilelearning, exploring, as trying to understandsomething new. For instance, students are
intrinsically motivated to know when theyread a book for the sheer pleasure that theyexperience while learning something new”
(Vallerand et al, 1992).

this form of IM. Students who go to classin order to experience the excitement of astimulating class discussion, or who reada book for the intense feelings of cognitive pleasure derived from passionate andexciting passages represent examples of individuals who are intrinsically motivated toexperience stimulation in education” (Vallerand et al, 1992).

This scale was developed first by Vallerandet al (1992, 1993). It measures motivation
to study a foreign language and contains IM-to-accomplish.
EM-identified
7 subscales assessing intrinsic motivation “Individuals interact with the environment
This type of motivation is external rather
towards knowledge, accomplishments and in order to feel competent, and to create
than internal. It is usually related to somestimulation, as well as external, introjected unique accomplishments. ... Thus, IM-toother life goals like career success. One typand identified regulation, and amotivation. accomplish things can be defined as the factical example is the following item: “Because
It contains 28 items assessed on a 7-point of engaging in an activity for the pleasure
I think that Spanish will help me better preLikert scale. The items are rated on a scale, and satisfaction experienced when one atpare for the career I have chosen.”ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) tempts to accomplish or create something.
to 7 (corresponds exactly). Each subscale Students who extend their work beyond the EM-introjectedconsists of four items so the score can range requirements of a term paper in order to This subscale is related to other feelings offrom 4 to 28. It can also be averaged so the experience pleasure and satisfaction while importance for life and career. A typicalscore is between 1 and 7 which makes the in- attempting to surpass themselves display prompt is: “Because of the fact that when I
terpretation easier. A high score will indicate IM toward accomplishments” (Vallerand et succeed in studying I feel important.”
a high approval/support for that particular al, 1992).
academic motivation. Subscales are related to
EM – external regulation
intrinsic motivation (IM), extrinsic motivation IM-to-experience stimulation.
This subscale is related to expectations for“IM-to experience stimulation is operative external guideline and directives, such(EM) and amotivation and are listed below.
when someone engages in an activity in as the following: “Because only with the
IM-to-know.
order to experience stimulating sensations language(s) I currently speak I would not
IM is performing an activity for itself, and (e.g., sensory pleasure, aesthetic experienc- find a high-paying job later on.”the pleasure and satisfaction derived from es, as well as fun and excitement) derived
participation. IM-to-know “… relates to from one’s engagement in the activity. Re- Amotivation
several constructs such as exploration, cu- search on the dynamic and holistic sensa- As the name shows it relates to the feelingriosity, learning goals, intrinsic intellec- tion of flow, on feelings of excitement in opposite to motivation. A typical case istuality, and finally the IM to learn. Thus, IM, on aesthetic stimulating experiences, “Honestly, I don’t know; I really feel that I
IM-to know can be defined as the fact of and peak experiences is representative of am wasting my time studying Spanish”

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York5

to be positive predictors of both self-reportand behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation, and pressure/tension is theorized to be
Scale Description3:
a negative predictor of intrinsic motivation.
“The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) Effort is a separate variable that is relevant
is a multidimensional measurement device to some motivation questions, so is used asintended to assess participants’ subjective ex- its relevant. The value/usefulness subscale isperience related to a target activity in labora- used in internalization studies (e.g., Deci ettory experiments. It has been used in several al, 1994), the idea being that people internalexperiments related to intrinsic motivation ize and become self-regulating with respectand self-regulation (e.g., Ryan, 1982; Ryan, to activities that they experience as useful or
Mims & Koestner, 1983; Plant & Ryan, 1985; valuable for themselves. Finally, the relatedRyan, Connell, & Plant, 1990; Ryan, Koestner ness subscale is used in studies having to do& Deci, 1991; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, with interpersonal interactions, friendship1994). The instrument assesses participants’ formation, and so on.”interest/enjoyment, perceived competence,
IMI has 37 items grouped in 6 subscales.
effort, value/usefulness, felt pressure and ten- Each item is evaluated by a 7-point Likert
sion, and perceived choice while performing scale from 1 (“Not at all true”) to 7 (“Verya given activity, thus yielding six subscale true”). The subscale score can be computed
scores. Recently, a seventh subscale has been by averaging the items scores so the total
added to tap the experiences of relatedness, score will be between 1 and 7 and thus isalthough the validity of this subscale has yet easier to interpret. The subscales are as folto be established. The interest/enjoyment lows:
subscale is considered the self-report measure of intrinsic motivation; thus, although Interest/Enjoyment
the overall questionnaire is called the Intrin- The subscale measures the interest and ensic Motivation Inventory, it is only the one joyment while studying a foreign language.
subscale that assesses intrinsic motivation, A typical item is: “While I was studying
per se. As a result, the interest/enjoyment Spanish, I was thinking about how much I
subscale often has more items on it that do enjoyed it.”the other subscales. The perceived choice andperceived competence concepts are theorized
SCALE 2. INTRINSIC MOTIVATIONINVENTORY (IMI)

3

Perceived Competence
For learners of a foreign language, it is important to gain some confidence regarding theircompetence. A typical item is: “I am satisfied
with my performance at studying Spanish.”Effort/ImportanceA substantial part of the motivation is related
to the perception of importance of the task at
hand. A typical item is: “It was important to
me to do well at studying Spanish.”
Pressure/Tension
Undoubtedly the process of learning aforeign language is stressful and a certain
amount of pressure and tension is inevitable. A typical item is: “I felt pressured while
studying Spanish.”
Perceived Choice
Even though the respondents for this study
volunteered it is still important to evaluate
whether they felt free to decide whether tostudy or not to study Spanish. A typical item
is: “I did study Spanish because I wanted to.”
Value/Usefulness
Last but not least, this subscale measures thevalue of learning a foreign language. A typical item is: “I believe studying Spanish could
be beneficial to me.”

Source: University of Rochester: Self Determination Theory web page http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

6

SCALE 3. ATTITUDE/MOTIVATION TESTBATTERY (AMTB)AMTB was developed by Gardner (1985).
The version used in this study was adaptedfrom the English-language version of the
AMTB for use by students studying English
as a foreign language.
Scale Definition4“The goals of any second language program
are partly linguistic and partly nonlinguistic. The linguistic goals focus on developing
competence in the individual’s ability to read,
write, speak and understand the second language, and there are many tests available withwhich to assess these skills. Non-linguistic
goals emphasize such aspects as improved
understanding of the other community, desire to continue studying the language, aninterest in learning other languages, etc. Veryfew tests have been made available to assess
these non-linguistic aspects.
The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
has been developed to fill this need. Its development follows more than 20 years of
research…”
The scale has 104 questions defining 12
subscales. Each item requires an answer on a
6 point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly
Disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). The total
score for each subscale can be expressed as
the average of the items’ scores and it will
also range between 1 and 6. The subscales
are as follows:parents felt that it was very important for me “Studying Spanish is important because I will
to learn a foreign language.” For our sample be able to interact more easily with speakers
this encouragement measurement may not of Spanish.”be very closely related to the current situation because the average age is about 40 years 9. Desire to Learn Spanishof age but it is still valuable information.
A typical example is, “I have a strong desire
to know all aspects of Spanish.”
3. Motivational Intensity
The understanding that foreign language is 10. Spanish Course Evaluation
better studied every day or even more in- This is another validated measure that helps
tensely is measured by this subscale. A typi- with the overall evaluation of the foreign
cal example is, “I keep up to date with Span- anguage learning process. A typical example
ish by working on it almost every day.”is, “I enjoy the activities of my Spanish coursemuch more than those of other courses
4. Spanish Course Anxiety
I had before.”
Anxiety is typically present in all types ofstudy not only language study. It may have 11. Spanish Use Anxiety
a negative connotation in the sense that it is Anxiety is expected in the learning process
better to have lower level of anxiety rather but it would be preferable for a student tothan high level. A typical example is, “It have a lower level of anxiety when using theworries me that other students who study foreign language. A typical example is, “I
Spanish as much as I do, may speak Spanish would get nervous if I had to speak Spanish
better than I do.”to a tourist.”
5. Spanish Software Evaluation
This subscale is a validated measure for assessing the language learning software. A
typical example is, “My Spanish software isa great source of inspiration to me.”
6. Attitudes toward Learning Spanish
Motivation can be obviously helped by apositive attitude toward learning a foreign
language. A typical example is, “I really enjoy
learning Spanish.”

12. Instrumental Orientation
The reason behind the desire to learn a foreign language is very relevant to the level ofmotivation of the person. A typical example
is, “Studying Spanish is important because I
will need it for my career.”

The three sets of scales AMS, IMI, and AMTB
although related are used for slightly different purposes. AMS is used to evaluate thelevel of motivation to study foreign language
1. Interest in Foreign Languages
before the actual study begins and repeatedThis interest is obviously very important in 7. Attitudes toward Spanish-speaking people after the study is completed. IMI is focused
the overall evaluation of the motivation and This is a measurement of one of the “non-lin- on the intrinsic and extrinsic linguistic goals
attitude. The bigger the interest is the big- guistic” goals. It may not be directly related motivation after the study is completed. It is
ger the motivation. A typical example is, “I to the ability to speak a foreign language but specifically developed to evaluate the postwish I could speak many foreign languages it is a very important component of the mo- experimental motivation. AMTB measures aperfectly.”
tivation. A typical example is, “I wish I could wide variety of non- linguistic goals motivahave many native Spanish speaking friends.” tion and attitudes.
2. Parental Encouragement
It is interesting to see what the role of parents 8. Integrative Orientation
was in the general orientation and attitudes Another “non-linguistic” goal that is very
towards learning a foreign language. A typi- important for the overall characteristic ofcal example is, “When I was in school, my the learning process. Typical example is,4

R. C. Gardner, The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery: Technical Report (1985), University of Western Ontario.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

7

Part 2. Sample Description
The full starting sample for this study(N=303) was predominantly female(67.3%) and the racial decomposition wasBlack/African American (24.0%), White(65.2%) and Other (10.8%). The majorityof participants (84.1%) had a B.A. degree
or higher. The average age was 40.0 years
with the youngest being 19 years old andthe oldest being 65 years old.
Part of the respondents (39.1%) had
some knowledge of Spanish, and 12.6% of
the sample had spouses who spoke Spanish.
A third (38.1%) of the sample knew anotherforeign language. Only four people (1.3%)
reported having parents, grandparents or
great grandparents who speak Spanish.
The reasons for studying Spanish were
diverse: work (29.5%), travel (16.9%), general interest (44.7%), and other reasons(7.9%). Some of the other reasons were:“All of the above.”“Many Spanish people around me.”Most of the respondents worked full time demographics, language ability and moti(71.9%) and their household income was vation for foreign language learning. Thissignificantly larger than the nation’s me- is an expected but important result which
dian, with 78.9% of them having more than shows that there were no known differ$50,000 annual household income.
ences between the three samples before the
There were no statistically significant beginning of the study.
differences between the three groups on
Table 2. Comparison by Initial Sampling Groups (N=303)*
Descriptives

RS
N=203

AU
N=50

BR
N=50

Percent
42.9

40.0

44.0

Black

24.6

27.1

18.1

White

67.3

56.3

66.0

Other

8.0

16.7

16.0

82.3

86.0

90.0

Male
Race

Education (BA or above)“To help my kids learn Spanish.”Mean“To communicate with son-in-law
and his family.”

Age

41.1

38.5

37.1

“Relocation.”

Initial WebCAPE

104.8

104.4

93.4

“Enhance communication withstudents at my job and residents
in my neighborhood.”

Academic Motivation Scale AMS
1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

3.8

3.8

3.8

“It’s the second language spoken
in the US. The need to learn it
has become evident.”

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward
accomplishment

3.5

3.5

3.3

3. Intrinsic motivation - toexperience stimulation

2.6

2.6

2.4

4. Extrinsic motivation - identified

2.5

2.3

2.2

5. Extrinsic motivation - introjected

3.2

3.2

3.0

6. Extrinsic motivation - external
regulation

1.9

1.7

1.8

7. Amotivation

1.0

1.0

1.1

“To communicate with myneighbors better.”“I live in a large Spanish-speaking
community.”“Daughter married Costa Rican.”* None of the differences (RS-AU, RS-BR, AU-BR) were statistically significant.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York8

Dropout rate

There were 303 people that started this study, 69 dropped out and 234 of them finished. This makes the overall dropout rate 28.0%.
The lowest dropout rate was for RS group and the highest for AU group
We compared the people who dropped out to the people who stayed in the study and we did not find any statistically significant difference
except for education, with less educated people more likely to drop out of the study (p=.008).
Table 3. Dropout Rate
StartedDroppedDropout Rate

Final Sample

RS

203

39

19.2%

164

AU

50

16

32.0%

34

BR

50

14

28.0%

36

Total

303

69

22.8%

234

Table 4. Dropped Out Group Comparison
Descriptives

In the study
N=234

Dropped out
N=69
Percent

41.0

47.8

Black

21.3

32.8

White

67.8

56.7

Other

10.9

10.7

87.2

73.9*

Male
Race

Education (BA or above)

Mean
Age

40.5

38.1

Initial WebCAPE

109.0

82.1

1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

3.8

3.7

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

3.5

3.3

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

2.5

2.6

4. Extrinsic motivation - identified

2.3

2.6

5. Extrinsic motivation - introjected

3.2

3.1

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

1.8

1.9

7. Amotivation

1.0

1.0

Academic Motivation Scale AMS* Significant difference (p=.008)
Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

9

Final Sample Characteristics

The main descriptives of the final sample (N=234) of people who completed the study are presented below.
The sample was predominantly female (59.0%), with racial decomposition of Black/African American (21.3%), white (67.8%) and other(10.9%). It is very educated sample with 87.2% having a B.A. degree or higher with average age of 40.5 years. The initial Spanish language
skills on average were well below the threshold for second semester of Spanish with average score of 109 out of a maximum of 956.

Table 5. Description of the Final Sample (N=234)
Descriptives

In the study
N=234
Percent

Male

41.0

Race
Black

21.3

White

67.8

Other

10.9

Education (BA or above)

87.2
Mean

Age

40.5

Initial WebCAPE (mean)

109.0

Academic Motivation Scale AMS 1 (low) – 7 (high)
1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

3.8

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

3.5

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

2.5

4. Extrinsic motivation - identified

2.3

5. Extrinsic motivation - introjected

3.2

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

1.8

7. Amotivation

1.0

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York10

We tested for differences between the final three sample groups and the comparison is presented below.
The final samples for the three software products did not differ on any of the descriptive and initial characteristics: demographics, Spanish
language skill level and initial motivation level measured by AMS scale. .

Table 6. Comparison of Final Sampling Groups (N=234)*
Descriptives

RS
N=164

AU
N=34

BR
N=36

42.7

38.2

36.1

Black

22.2

21.9

16.7

White

69.8

56.3

69.4

Other

8.0

21.9

13.9

85.4

94.1

88.9

Percent
Male
Race

Education (BA or above)

Mean

Mean

Age

41.5

39.7

37.1

Initial WebCAPE (mean)

108.3

123.4

98.2

1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

3.8

3.8

3.8

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

3.5

3.5

3.4

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

2.6

2.5

2.3

4. Extrinsic motivation - identified

2.4

2.2

2.2

5. Extrinsic motivation - introjected

3.2

3.2

2.9

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

1.8

1.6

1.7

7. Amotivation

1.0

1.0

1.1

Academic Motivation Scale AMS 1 (low) – 7 (high)* None of the paired differences was statistically significant.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York11

Part 3. Analysis
3.1. SCALE RELIABILITY

We tested the internal reliability of the scales included in this analysis using the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). Usuallya scale with Alpha close to 0.7 or above is considered reliable. Also Alpha of 0.7 is often viewed as acceptable for making decisions aboutgroups of students, while Alpha of 0.9 is typically thought good enough for making individual decisions.
The results of the reliability tests are presented below.
According to the Cronbach’s Alpha all but one of the subscales had good internal reliability. Only one subscale with a Cronbach’s Alphaof .610 did not reach the desired level. This was the Pre- “Amotivation” subscale of AMS. For that reason the amotivation subscale will be
excluded from the analysis. This exclusion is not a problem for the analysis because it is based on the individual scales which are not affectedby the presence or absence of some scales.
Table 7. Reliability of pre- and post level of motivation (N=234)
Academic Motivation Scale AMS

Cronbach’s Alpha
Pre AMS

Post AMS

1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

.807

.833

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

.889

.909

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

.847

.852

4. Extrinsic motivation - identified

.889

.923

5. Extrinsic motivation - introjected

.860

.879

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

.846

.896

7. Amotivation

.610

.674

Table 8. Reliability of Post-experimental AMTB (N=234)
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)

Cronbach’s Alpha

Table 9. Reliability of Post-experimental IMI (N=234)
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

Cronbach’s Alpha

1. Interest in Foreign Languages.707

1. Interest/Enjoyment.913

2. Parental Encouragement.949

2. Perceived Competence.877

3. Motivational Intensity.769

3. Effort/Importance.851

4. Spanish Course Anxiety.790

4. Pressure/Tension.745

5. Spanish Software Evaluation.951

5. Perceived Choice.726

6. Attitudes toward Learning Spanish.864

6. Value/Usefulness.873

7. Attitudes toward Spanish-speaking people.820

8. Integrative Orientation.780

9. Desire to Learn Spanish.828

10. Spanish Course Evaluation.913

11. Spanish Use Anxiety.877

12. Instrumental Orientation.725

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York12

3.2. MOTIVATION AND ATTITUDEINTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION (PRE- AND POST)

The AMS scale was used to determine the level of motivation at the beginning and the end of the study (pre- and post). The amotivation
subscale did not reach the desired level of reliability and was excluded from the analysis.
There were no statistically significant differences for the initial levels of AMS scale (pre ) by the three sample groups and only two significant
differences for the AMS post levels. RS group had better post experimental motivation than BR group on “Intrinsic motivation - toward
accomplishment” and “Extrinsic motivation – introjected”. The rest of the differences for the Post- AMS were not statistically significant.
Changes in Motivation

The changes in the level of motivation are measured by the difference scores computed as AMS score at the end of the study minus the
AMS score at the beginning of the study.
Table 10. Pre- and Post AMS Results
MeasureMean

Pre-level*

Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)
1 (Low) – 7 (High)Post-level*

RS

AU

BR

RS

AU

BR

1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

3.8

3.8

3.8

5.3

5.2

5.0

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

3.5

3.5

3.4

4.8**

4.4

4.2**

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

2.6

2.5

2.3

3.3

3.3

3.0

4. Extrinsic motivation – identified

2.4

2.2

2.2

3.0

2.8

2.4

5. Extrinsic motivation – introjected

3.2

3.2

2.9

4.3***

4.0

3.6***

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

1.8

1.6

1.7

2.5

2.2

2.0

* No statistically significant differences for all pre- comparisons..
** Statistically significant difference RS-BR (p=.040 with Bonferroni correction).
*** Statistically significant difference RS-BR (p=.031 with Bonferroni correction).
There were no statistically significant differences in the DS for the three groups. But we are still interested in the direction of the effectsizes. If there is a pattern in the effect sizes this could be a justification to design a larger study that can test the statistical significance of
these differences again.
Table 11. Difference Scores (DS) for AMS
Mean DS*

Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)

95CI*

RS

AU

BR

RS

AU

BR

1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.3-1.6

1.0-1.7

0.8-1.6

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

1.3

0.9

0.9

1.1-1.5

0.6-1.3

0.4-1.3

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

0.7

0.8

0.6

0.5-0.9

0.5-1.2

0.2-1.0

4. Extrinsic motivation – identified

0.6

0.6

0.2

0.5-0.8

0.2-1.1-0.1-0.5

5. Extrinsic motivation – introjected

1.1

0.8

0.7

1.0-1.3

0.4-1.2

0.3-1.1

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

0.6

0.6

0.3

0.5-0.8

0.2-1.0

0.01-0.5* No statistically significant differences of the mean difference scores.
** Stratified estimates.
Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

13

The following patterns can be defined based on the rank table. RS has the best results (mean rank=1.0) for the post levels of the motivation
measured by post AMS scale. This is true also for all 6 subscales of AMS. AU has the second best results (mean rank=1.8) and BR is at the lastplace (mean rank=3).
Table 12. Post AMS Ranks
MeasureRank

Post level AMS

Difference Score

Academic Motivation Scale (AMS)

RS

AU

BR

RS

AU

BR

1. Intrinsic motivation - to know

1

2

3

1

1

3

2. Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment

1

2

3

1

2

2

3. Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation

1

1

3

2

1

3

4. Extrinsic motivation – identified

1

2

3

1

1

3

5. Extrinsic motivation – introjected

1

2

3

1

2

3

6. Extrinsic motivation - external regulation

1

2

3

1

1

3

Average Rank (Mean)

1

1.8

3

1.2

1.3

2.8

The patterns are identical for the change in levels measured by the difference scores. RS has the lead (mean rank=1.2) followed closely by
AU (mean rank=1.3) and BR as distant third (mean score of 2.8). This pattern of the effect size could be tested further with samples withmore statistical power.

Figure 1. Post Experimental Motivation (AMS)

Rank (Best=1)

Intrinsic motivation - to know
Intrinsic motivation - toward
Intrinsic motivation - to experience
Extrinsic motivation - identified
Extrinsic motivation - introjected
Extrinsic motivation - external regulation
0

1
RS

2
AU

3
BR

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

14

Table 13. Post IMI Results N=234

LINGUISTIC GOALS MOTIVATION

The level of post experimental motivation
was measured by the IMI inventory. All thesubscales except Pressure/Tension can beinterpreted in a positive direction. In otherwords the higher the score of the subscales,
the better the motivations and attitude of
the respondent. For example the higher thescore of Interest/Enjoyment subscale, i.e.
higher level of interest and enjoyment, thebetter the results are.
The Pressure/Tension subscale should
be interpreted in the opposite direction;
the lower the score, i.e. the lower level ofthe pressure/tension is, the better the result
is. IMI has a 7 point scale (1-7) with the
midpoint of 4 (neutral).
There were five statistically significant differences. RS group had better motivation
than AU and BR groups on “Interest/Enjoyment” and “Perceived Competence”. RS
group also had better motivation than AU
group on “Perceived Choice.” This meansthat RS software users were more interested
and enjoyed the process of learning foreign
language more than the AU and BR groups
did. The RS group exhibited more perceived competence and was more satisfied
with their performance at studying Spanish
than the other two groups.
The rest of the differences were not statistically significant.

MeanIntrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
RS
AU
BR
				

Statistically Significant
Differences*

1 Interest/Enjoyment
5.9
5.2
5.3
				

RS-AU (p=.007)
RS-BR (p=.015)

2. Perceived Competence
4.7
4.0
4.2
				

RS-AU (p=.009)
RS-BR (p=.05)

3. Effort/Importance

5.1

4.8

4.7

4. Pressure/Tension (lower is better)

2.6

2.9

2.5

5. Perceived Choice

6.5

6.1

6.4

6. Value/Usefulness

5.7

5.7

5.6

RS-AU (p=.04)* With Bonferroni correction.

Table 14. Post IMI Confidence Intervals
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

95% CI*

RS

AU

BR

1. Interest/Enjoyment

5.8-6.1

4.7-5.7

4.8-5.7

2. Perceived Competence

4.6-4.9

3.5-4.5

3.8-4.6

3. Effort/Importance

4.9-5.3

4.4-5.3

4.3-5.2

4. Pressure/Tension

2.4-2.8

2.5-3.4

2.1-2.9

5. Perceived Choice

6.4-6.6

5.7-6.4

6.1-6.6

6. Value/Usefulness

5.6-5.9

5.3-6.1

5.2-6.0* Stratified estimates.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

15

Based on the rank results it is evident
that the same pattern is present here as it
was with post AMS motivation. RS users
showed the best results (mean rank=1.2)
followed by BR (mean rank=2.2) and AU(mean rank=2.5). This means that on average RS users exhibit the highest averagelevel of post experimental linguistic goals
motivation. This pattern of course has to betested further with much larger sample.

Table 15. Post IMI Ranks

Rank

Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

RS

AU

BR

1. Interest/Enjoyment

1

3

2

2. Perceived Competence

1

3

2

3. Effort/Importance

1

2

3

4. Pressure/Tension

2

3

1

5. Perceived Choice

1

3

2

6. Value/Usefulness

1

1

3

1.2

2.5

2.2

Average Rank (Mean)

Figure 2. Post Experimental Linguistic Goals Motivation (IMI)
Rank (Best=1)
Interest/Enjoyment
Perceived Competence
Effort/ImportancePressure/Tension
Perceived Choice
Value/Usefulness
0

1

2
RS

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

AU

3

BR

16

NON-LINGUISTIC GOALS MOTIVATION

The level of the motivation and attitude related to the non-linguistic goals was measured by the AMTB scale. AMTB works
with a 6 point scale (1-6) with no neutral
point so scores equal or below 3 (Strongly
Disagree to Slightly Disagree) will be interpreted as a negative finding, or lack of motivation for a particular subscale. And, accordingly, scores above 3 (Slightly Agree toStrongly Agree) will be interpreted in favor
or as presence of motivation.

There were 8 statistically significant
differences. They showed that RS group had
better results than AU group on “Motivational Intensity”, “Spanish Course Anxiety”
and “Spanish Use Anxiety”. This means that
RS software makes the users study moreregularly (“every day”) than AU, and theanxiety to study and use Spanish language
is lower in RS users compared to AU users.
RS group had lower results than BR
group on “Parental Encouragement”. Thismeans that in general the parents of BR

group were encouraging their children tolearn foreign language more than the parents of RS group participants.
There are two subscales for which RS
group performs statistically better than both
AU and BR. They are “Spanish Software Evaluation” and “Spanish Course Evaluation”.
The two differences RS-AU and RS-BR are
statistically significant. This means that RS
users very highly evaluate the software product and the language course and that thisevaluation is higher than both AU and BR.

Table 16. Post AMTB Results (N=234)
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)
RS
AUBR								Statistically Significant 		Differences*

1. Interest in Foreign Languages		

5.3

5.4

5.2

2. Parental Encouragement			

3.1

3.5

3.9

RS-BR (p=.015)

3. Motivational Intensity			

4.8

4.2

4.4

RS-AU (p<.001)

4. Spanish Course Anxiety (lower is better)

3.2

3.6

3.4

RS-AU (p=.037)

5. Spanish Software Evaluation		
5.3
3.4
3.8
								RS-AU (p<.001)
RS-BR (p<.001)

6. Attitudes toward Learning Spanish		

5.4

5.2

5.1

7. Attitudes toward Spanish-speaking people

4.5

4.6

4.5

8. Integrative Orientation			

5.3

5.3

5.2

9. Desire to Learn Spanish			

5.3

5.1

5.0

10. Spanish Course Evaluation		
5.2
4.2
4.5
								RS-AU (p<.001)
RS-BR (p<.001)

11. Spanish Use Anxiety (lower is better)

3.5

4.0

3.6

RS-AU (p=.046)

12. Instrumental Orientation			

3.7

3.6

3.4

* With Bonferroni correction.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York17

Based on the rank presentation we can confirm that the same pattern emerges here.
The RS user exhibit on average the best
results (mean rank=1.3) followed by AU(mean rank=2.2) and BR (mean rank=2.3).
Here again further tests with much larger
sample are necessary.

Table 17. Post AMTB Confidence Intervals
Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)

95% CI*

RS

AU

BR

1. Interest in Foreign Languages

5.2-5.4

5.2-5.6

5.0-5.5

2. Parental Encouragement

2.9-3.4

2.9-4.0

3.4-4.3

3. Motivational Intensity

4.7-4.9

3.9-4.5

4.1-4.7

4. Spanish Course Anxiety

3.1-3.3

3.3-3.9

3.1-3.7

5. Spanish Software Evaluation

5.2-5.4

2.8-3.9

3.3-4.3

6. Attitudes toward Learning Spanish

5.3-5.5

4.9-5.4

4.8-5.4

7. Attitudes toward Spanish-speaking people

4.4-4.6

4.3-4.8

4.3-4.7

8. Integrative Orientation

5.2-5.4

5.1-5.6

5.0-5.4

9. Desire to Learn Spanish

5.2-5.4

4.8-5.4

4.7-5.3

10. Spanish Course Evaluation

5.1-5.3

3.7-4.6

4.1-4.8

11. Spanish Use Anxiety

3.3-3.6

3.6-4.3

3.2-4.0

12. Instrumental Orientation

3.5-3.8

3.2-4.0

3.0-3.8

Table 18. Post AMTB Ranks

Rank

Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)

RS

AU

BR

1. Interest in Foreign Languages

2

1

3

2. Parental Encouragement

3

2

1

3. Motivational Intensity

1

3

2

4. Spanish Course Anxiety

1

3

2

5. Spanish Software Evaluation

1

3

2

6. Attitudes toward Learning Spanish

1

2

3

7. Attitudes toward Spanish-speaking people

2

1

2

8. Integrative Orientation

1

1

2

9. Desire to Learn Spanish

1

2

3

10. Spanish Course Evaluation

1

3

2

11. Spanish Use Anxiety (low is better)

1

3

2

12. Instrumental Orientation

1

2

3

Average Rank (Mean)

1.3

2.2

2.3

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York18

Figure 3. Post Experimental Non-Linguistic Goals Motivation (AMTB) Scale 1-6.
Rank (Best=1)
Interest in Foreign Languages
Parental Encouragement
Motivational Intensity
Spanish Course Anxiety
Spanish Software Evaluation
Attitudes toward Learning Spanish
0

1

2
RS

AU

3

BR

Figure 4. Post Experimental Non-Linguistic Goals Motivation (AMTB) Scale 7-12.
Rank (Best=1)
Attitude toward Spanish-speaking people
Integrative Orientation
Desire to Learn Spanish
Spanish Course Evalutation
Spanish Use Anxiety (low is better)
Instrumental Orientation
0

1

2
RS

AU

3

BR

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York19

3.3. ADDITIONAL EVALUATION

The participants in this study were asked
a series of single questions which did notconstitute a scale. The purpose was to extract additional simple information about
their evaluation of the software.

Q1 (Easy). Rosetta Stone Spanish is easy
to use.
Q2 (Helpful). Rosetta Stone Spanish is
helpful in teaching me the language.
Q3 (Enjoyed). I enjoyed learning Spanish
with Rosetta Stone.
Q4 (Satisfied). I am satisfied with

Rosetta Stone Spanish.
Experience.
Q5 (Recommend). I would recommend
All participants after using the software for
Rosetta Stones software to others who are
one month were asked to evaluate 5 stateinterested in learning Spanish.
ments about their experience with the software with possible answers ranging from If we consolidate the “Agree” and “Strongly
1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”). Agree” we get the results in Table 20.

These results are very convincing that
Rosetta Stone® Spanish is extremely easy touse, very helpful, satisfying, and enjoyable
to work with. Finally, 90.2% of the users of
Rosetta Stone software will recommend it
to others.
There is a big gap in the results for the
RS group and the other two groups. The
users of AU and BR in general seem to beless satisfied, and they did not give highevaluations for the two respective products.
Finally, only 30%-40% would recommend
the software to others.

Table 20. Software Evaluation. Percent “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”
Percent
Evaluation

RS

AU

BR

Easy

92.1

44.1

66.7

Helpful

94.5

41.2

66.7

Enjoyed

91.5

44.1

55.6

Satisfied

86.0

26.5

47.2

Recommend

90.2

32.4

44.4

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York

20

Conclusion
In this study, we were able to find a very
sic motivation - toward accomplishment”
clear pattern in the comparison of the moand “Extrinsic motivation – introjected.”
tivation and attitude for the RS, AU and BR• The RS group had better motivation thangroups. Overall the RS users have clear adthe AU and BR groups on “Interest/Enjoyvantage and their results are better in mostment” and “Perceived Competence” subcases but the lack of statistical power limits
scales. The RS group also had better mothe ability to determine the statistical sigtivation than the AU group on “Perceived
nificance of some of these differences. For
Choice.” This means that the RS software
example, the RS users had the highest post
users were more interested and enjoyedexperimental level of intrinsic and extrinthe process of learning foreign language
sic motivation and attitude. The RS was themore than the AU and BR groups did. The
best performing group for all 6 subscales
RS group exhibited more perceived comof the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS).
petence and was more satisfied with their
The RS users had the highest level of post
performance at studying Spanish than theexperimental linguistic goals motivation
other two groups.
level. The RS group results were the best in
5 out of 6 subscales of the Intrinsic Moti- • The RS group had better results than thevation Inventory (IMI) scale. The RS users
AU group on “Motivational Intensity”,
had the highest post experimental level of“Spanish Course Anxiety” and “Spanish
non-linguistic goals motivation. The RS
Use Anxiety”. This means that the RS softgroup results were the best in 9 out of 12
ware makes the users study more regularly
subscales of the Attitude/Motivation Test(e.g. “almost every day”) than the AU, andBattery (AMTB).
the anxiety to study and use Spanish lanThere were some cases in which theguage is lower in the RS users comparedgroup differences were statistically signifito the AU users.
cant and they are listed below.
• There were two subscales for which the• The RS group had better post experimental
RS group performed better than both AU
motivation than the BR group on “Intrinand BR. They were “Spanish Software

Evaluation” and “Spanish Course Evaluation”. Both differences RS-AU and RS-BR
were statistically significant. This meansthat the RS users evaluate very high thesoftware product and the language course
and this evaluation is higher that the AU
and BR users.
There were very few differences between
the AU and BR groups. In general AU users
had slightly better results than BR users.
The RS users were very satisfied withthe software with 90.2% ready to recommend the software to others who are interested in studying Spanish. The other twogroups had considerably worse results with
only 32.4% recommending AU and 44.4%
recommending BR software.
We can conclude from this study thatthe research instruments and multidimensional scales worked well for the users of
all three software products. The results areconvincing that we could expect higher motivation and more positive attitude of the
RS users in comparison with the AU and
BR users. Additional research with morestatistical power and sample size is necessary to validate some of the results and test
for statistical significance.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York21

References
Cochran, W. G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, Third Edition,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cronbach L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests, Psychometrika 1951;16:297-333.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994).
Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Fairchild, A.J., S.J. Horst, S.J. Finney, K.E. Barron, Evaluating
New and Existing Validity Evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale, James Madison University.
Gardner, R. C. & Tennant, J. (1998, May). Attitudes,
motivation and anxiety in learning French: Their relation toclassroom experiences and achievement. Paper presented
at the Trends/Tendances 98 conference, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Canada.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London:
Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C. (1996). Motivation and second language
acquisition: Perspectives. Revue de l’ACLA/Journal of the
CAAL, 18, 19-42.
Gardner, R. C. (2000). Correlation, causation, motivationand second language acquisition. Canadian Psychology, 41,
10- 24.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning.
Language Learning, 43, 157-194.
Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation,
research agendas, and theoretical frameworks. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 359-368.

Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1995). On motivation:
Measurement and conceptual considerations. The Modern
Language Journal, 78, 524-527.

Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied formsof persistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsicallymotivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.

Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., & Moorcroft, R. (1985). The
role of attitudes and motivation in second language learning:
Correlational and experimental considerations. Language
Learning, 35, 207-227.

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of
reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic
motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
736-750.

Gardner, R.C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1998). Specificity of affective
variables and the trait/state conceptualization of motivationin second language acquisition. In R. Agnihotri, A. L. Khanna,& I. Sachdev (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on
second language learning (pp. 31-52). New Delhi, India:
Sage.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in acompetitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation andthe effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and egoinvolvement: An investigation of internally-controlling styles.
Journal of Personality, 53, 435-449.
Ratelle, C.F., F. Guay, R. J. Vallerand, Autonomous, Controlled,
and Amotivated Types of Academic Motivation: A PersonOriented Analysis, (2007), Journal of Educational Psychology,
2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 734–746
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.

SAS Help and Documentation, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC:
SAS Institute Inc., 2002-2004.
SAS OnlineDoc, SAS Institute Inc., , Cary, NC: SAS InstituteInc., 2002-2005.
Tsigilis, N., & Theodosiou, A. (2003). Temporal stability of theIntrinsic Motivation Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
97, 271-280.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R, Brière, N.M., Senécal, C., & Vallières, E.F. (1992). The academic motivation
scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in
education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52,
1003-1017.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R, Brière, N.M.,
Senécal, C., & Vallières, E.F. (1993). On the assessment of
intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation in education: Evidence
on the concurrent and construct validity of the academic
motivation scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159-172.

Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Plant, R. W. (1990). Emotions in
non-directed text learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 1-17.

Comparative Analysis of Motivation of Different Language Learning Software | Queens College, City University of New York22