Report

報 告

An Analysis of Motivational Structure in Learning English
Rieko Matsuoka

David Richard Evans

National College of Nursing, Japan ; 1-2-1 Umezono, Kiyose-shi, Tokyo, 〒 204-8575, Japanmatsuokar@adm.ncn.ac.jp【Abstract】 In this study, a questionnaire was administered to a sample of 180 college students to investigate the motivational structure of learning
English in the Japanese college context. The exploratory principal components analysis was performed several times with a promax rotation inorder to extract the factors to probe the internal structure of motivation. The results showed seven factors; perceived competence, introversion,communication apprehension, motivational intensity, integrativeness, attitudes, and other-directedness with reasonable values of reliability.
Furthermore, their motivational structure was discussed based on the scores for these elicited factors.

【Keywords】 motivational structure, factor analysis, perceived competence, introversion, communication apprehension,
motivational intensity, integrativeness, attitudes, other-directedness

University in Cairo, performing factor analysis to identify
Introduction

the components of English learning motivation. The results
suggested that there are three basic dimensions, labeled as

According to Gardner（1985）, motivation is the combination

Affect, Goal Orientation, and Expectancy. Dörnyei（1990）

of effort and desire to achieve the goal of learning a language,

proposed a motivational construct consisting of（a）anand favorable attitudes toward learning it; furthermore,

instrumental motivational subsystem,（b）an integrative

motivation to learn a second or foreign language is as important

motivational subsystem with four dimensions; a general interestas language aptitude in order to acquire that language

in foreign languages, a desire to broaden one’s view and avoid

successfully, as researchers and teachers are aware. On the otherprovincialism, a desire for new stimuli and challenges and ahand, Keller（1983, cited in Schmidt et al., 1996）stated thattravel orientation,（c）need for achievement, and（d）attributions

ability and motivation are identified as the major sources ofabout past failure.
This study also investigates multifactor models of motivation,

variation in educational success. Ability refers to what a person

which can be extracted by principal components analysis fromcan do; motivation, to what a person will do.
As Schmidt et al.（1996）explicate, motivation has been

responses to a motivation questionnaire. By so doing, thetreated either as a single construct or as a list of different types

internal constructs of motivation in learning English amongof constructs. Among the researchers in this line, Gardner

Japanese college students, majoring in nursing, are examined.

and associates（e.g., 1972, 1985）established the discipline

Knowing their internal structure of English learning motivationof focusing on second language learning in motivation. A

will provide pedagogical implications such as in knowing what

dichotomous model featuring instrumental orientation andpoints in English they are eager to improve.

integrative orientation was the best known aspect in his
Methodmotivational research; however, Gardner and associates havebeen elaborating and expanding the internal structure of
motivation for second language learning, accounting for theParticipants
One hundred and sixty-four female and 16 male students

multiple constructs.
Schmidt et al.（1996）developed and administered amajoring in nursing participated in this study, out of 177

questionnaire to a sample of adult learners at the American

female and 18 male students who were invited to participate− 27 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 5 No. 1 2006

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Individual Difference Questionnaire Items（N = 178）
Item

M

SD

01. I am panicked when I cannot make myself understood in English.

4.85

1.01

02. I think that I study English harder than other students.

2.32

1.08

03. I frequently think over what I have learnt in my English class.

3.21

1.06

04. I feel worried when I hear other students speaking good English.

4.78

1.18

05. When I have assignments to do in English, I try to do them immediately.

3.46

1.34

06. If English were not taught at college, I would study it on my own.

3.68

1.36

07. Even when I have an opinion, I refrain myself verbalizing it in English.

4.17

1.23

08. I spend long hours studying English.

2.46

1.15

09. I am an extrovert.

3.56

1.35

10. During English classes I am absorbed in what is taught and concentrate on my studies.

3.98

1.06

11. I absolutely believe that English should be taught at school.

4.69

1.17

12. I would like to learn about the English-speaking world.

4.91

1.03

13. I prefer being silent rather than being embarrassed in speaking English.

2.95

1.27

14. I worry that my English proficiency is worse than other students.

4.56

1.31

15. I would rather work in my hometown.

3.60

1.55

16. I would like to live in a foreign country.

3.78

1.50

17. I want to work in an international organization such as the WHO.

3.54

1.48

18. I would rather avoid the kind of work that sends me overseas frequently.

2.85

1.45

19. I can speak English in one-to-one conversations.

2.58

1.20

20. I think that I am good at English.

2.28

1.17

21. I learn English to be more knowledgeable.

3.80

1.28

22. I would feel ashamed if I couldn’t speak to native speakers in English.

3.96

1.24

23. I have an aptitude for learning foreign languages.

2.34

1.08

24. I would like to get married to an English-speaking person.

2.52

1.21

25. I ask English teachers questions or talk to them outside of class.

3.31

1.27

26. I talk with friends or acquaintances outside of school in English.

2.15

1.29

27. I hope to be active in the international health services later on.

4.10

1.48

28. I feel nervous speaking English in front of a native speaker.

4.76

1.25

29. My English proficiency is superior to other Japanese in general.

2.14

0.94

30. I would like to make friends with English speaking people.

5.07

1.11

31. I think that I will have no problem when I visit English-speaking countries.

1.87

0.95

32. English is a must for me to succeed in the future.

5.14

1.05

33. I feel worried that other people may think that I am a poor speaker of English.

4.26

1.36

34. I have a“high”feeling when hearing or speaking English.

4.00

1.38

35. I feel embarrassed when I make a simple mistake speaking English.

4.00

1.32

36. I have a favorable impression of British people.

4.38

1.06

37. I learn English off campus.

2.39

1.44

38. I would like to study abroad if possible.

4.47

1.53

39. I have a favorable impression towards American people.

3.98

1.26

40. I think that speaking English should be required in Japan from now on.

5.16

1.00

国立看護大学校研究紀要 第 5 巻 第 1 号 2006 年− 28 −

Table 2 Component Correlation Matrix
Component

1

1

-

2

3

4

5

6

2

.31

-

3

.23

.48*

-

4

− .01

− .09

− .10

-

5

.30

.13

.18

.21

-

6

.30

.41*

.48*

.10

.32*

-

7

− .16

− .17

− .19

.01

.01

− .08

7

-

Note. * p ＜ .001

（response rate: 92.8％）. The research purposes and the proceduresof the factors that the questionnaire was hypothesized to measure,

were explained during the extra class session, and the students

the questionnaire was piloted with 226 Japanese students studying

who agreed to contribute their time for this study filled in theat four colleges in eastern Japan. As a result, 40 items remainedquestionnaire. The author clarified to the participants that there wasfor gauging individual differences constructing motivationalno risk attached to participation, and that longer-term benefits may

structure.

include the more effective teaching of English to students in Japan.
Results and Discussion

The students were assured and all records and data collected forthis study would be treated in the strictest confidence. The consent
from the participants was obtained, and the questionnaire wasData screening

filled out by them during the extra class session. The students

Potential univariate outliers were checked for using

who participated in this study passed a highly competitive

SPSS REGRESSION analysis, and none were detected.

entrance examination in order to enter this university. They

Then, multivariate outliers were examined by computing

have basic knowledge of English grammar and vocabulary as a

the Mahalanobis distance for each participant through SPSS

result of six years of study at the secondary level. Many of them

REGRESSION. Two cases were identified as multivariate outliers,

appear to be interested in English and its culture and to be highly

as their Mahalanobis distances exceeded Chi-square（50）＝86.66,

motivated to improve their English, particularly their speaking

p＜.001（107.3, 123.3）. These two cases were deleted, leaving

skills. However, despite their desire to improve, it is difficult for

178 cases for the analysis. Finally, multicollinearity was checked

many of them to communicate easily in English. Regarding theirfor in 40 questionnaire items using SPSS REGRESSION. The

level of English proficiency, the mean of the TOEIC scores fortolerance（1 - Squared Multiple Correlation）of all 40 items

the participants, which were estimated based on scores of theexceeded .30, a finding that indicated that no multicollinearity

Computerized Assessment System of English Communication

was present（Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001, p. 84）.

（CASEC）, was 526.75. This is above the average score of 425
for college students in 2004 in Japan. The participants werePrincipal components analysis
The assumptions underlying the principal components

aware that the CASEC scores were accessible to the author for

analysis were checked. The value of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkinthe research purposes as well as pedagogical purposes.

Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .84, which was adequate
Material

for conducting the analysis. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was

The motivation questionnaire was first piloted with 81 items

run in order to determine the association between the observedthat were collected and modified from a number of previous

variables. The significance level of .000 allowed for the rejection

studies（e.g., Gardner & Smythe, 1981; Yashima, 2002）. Theof the null hypothesis that the PCA analysis was inappropriate.

items, which were randomized in order to avoid any possible order

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the individual

effects（Brown, 2001）, were measured using a 6-point Likert

difference questionnaire items.

scale（1＝Strongly disagree; 2＝Disagree; 3＝Slightly disagree;

In order to determine the proper rotation for the analysis, a

4 ＝ Partly agree; 5 ＝ Agree; 6 ＝ Strongly agree）. The 6-point

correlation analysis was conducted because Promax rotation isscale was chosen in order to avoid including an undecided category.

recommended with correlated factors（cf., Tabachnick & Fidell,In order to reduce the number of items and to confirm the existence

2001; Toyoda, 2004）. As Table 2 shows, five of the extracted− 29 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 5 No. 1 2006

Table 3 Principal Components Analysis Results for the Individual Difference Questionnaire Items
Item

Factor loadings
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Q17

.78

.21

− .07

.09

− .01

− .16

.06

Q16

.78

− .14

.14

.05

− .12

.05

− .10

Q27

.77

.06

.07

.14

.01

− .05

− .05

Q38

.68

− .20

.13

− .16

− .05

.24

− .09

Q18

− .63

.04

.20

− .17

.07

.00

.48

Number

.55

− .09

.27

.01

− .04

.08

.23

Q32

＊

.52

.09

.07

.07

.43

− .12

.20

Q30

＊

.38

− .19

.23

− .05

.22

.29

− .09

Q20

.08

.86

− .02

− .20

− .01

.00

.10

Q23

− .11

.83

− .09

.02

.09

− .03

− .13

Q19

.17

.71

− .11

− .26

.04

.09

.24

Q29

.00

.65

.27

− .16

− .01

− .14

.00

Q31

− .06

.45

.16

− .12

.05

− .03

− .22

Q21 ＊

− .17

.33

.19

.05

.32

.07

.11

Q37

.01

− .14

.85

− .21

.09

− .10

− .06

Q8

.01

.27

.76

.28

− .14

− .06

.11

Q6

.15

.06

.71

.04

.01

− .10

− .04

Q26

.16

− .10

.70

− .26

.03

− .11

.10

Q2

− .04

.47

.52

.16

− .17

− .01

− .05

− .13

.14

.41

.28

.14

.15

− .08

.17

.02

.36

− .11

− .17

.28

.03

Q1

.11

− .12

.20

.69

− .11

− .19

− .02

Q33

.07

.00

− .11

.66

.05

.02

.21

Q28

.00

− .10

− .13

.61

.05

.02

.08

Q35

.07

.01

− .14

.44

.22

.15

.21

＊

.07

.37

− .03

.41

− .18

.33

− .03

Q11

− .16

− .03

− .01

− .14

.71

.13

− .13

Q22

.04

.01

.03

.24

.58

− .10

− .12

.22

.23

− .16

.07

.57

.08

.05

.41

.22

− .03

− .03

.46

− .04

− .09

Q14

− .03

− .42

.02

.41

.44

.06

.09

Q4

− .01

− .23

.10

.42

.43

− .17

− .04

Q39

.02

− .01

− .18

− .10

− .04

.98

− .04

Q24

Q3
Q25

Q5

＊

Q40
Q12

＊

− .02

− .04

− .03

− .04

.15

.86

.00

Q10

＊

− .17

.26

.13

.23

.22

.32

− .26

Q34

＊

.27

.15

.19

− .14

.09

.30

− .12

Q15

− .52

− .05

.22

.02

.03

.17

.58

Q7

.09

− .13

− .02

.27

− .28

.14

.55

Q13

.08

− .07

− .13

.45

− .15

− .07

.49

Q9

.01

− .12

.06

− .07

− .06

.24

− .49

Q36

Note. Items with asterisks were deleted after conducting the analysis because of either low or complex factor
loadings. Loadings over .40 in value are in bold.

国立看護大学校研究紀要 第 5 巻 第 1 号 2006 年− 30 −

Table 4 Component Correlation Matrix
Component

1

1

-

2

2

.28

-

3

.17

.45 ＊

3

4

5

6

7

-

4

.16

− .07

− .04

-

5

− .20

− .21

− .17

.19

-

.27

− .04

-

.28

.13

.02

6

.25

.30

.35

7

.02

− .12

− .19

＊

-

Note. * p ＜ .001

factors were statistically significantly correlated: components 2

it did not load strongly on the Motivational Intensity factor.

and 3（.48）, 2 and 6（.41）, 3 and 6（.48）, and 5 and 6（.32）.

This discrepancy indicates that this item can be confusing andAccording to Tabachnick and Fidell（2001）, a good sample

interpreted in different ways; therefore, it was deleted. Item

size for factor analysis is at least 300; however, solutions that10（During English classes I am absorbed in what is taught

have several marker variables that load on factors over .80,

and concentrate on my studies）, which was an indicator ofwhich is the case in this study, do not require such large sample

motivational intensity in Yashima’s study, loaded at .32 on Factor

sizes and about 150 cases should be sufficient（Tabachnick &6 and somewhat more weakly on a number of other factors, andFidell, 2001）. Therefore, the sample size of this study, 178, is

was therefore deleted. Item 34（I have a“high”feeling when

considered acceptable.

hearing or speaking English）, which was taken from Noel’s

The number of factors to be extracted was based on three（2001）questionnaire and was hypothesized to be an indicator

criteria. First, factors with minimum eigenvalues of 1.2 wereof intrinsic motivation, loaded only at .30 on Factor 6 and at .27

sought. Most researchers using factor analysis or principal

on Factor 1. Therefore, it was deleted. Item 12（I would like tocomponents analysis use the criterion of a minimum eigenvaluelearn about the English-speaking world）was deleted as it wasof 1.0 for the inclusion of a factor; however, a scree plot for thiscomplex with loadings of .41 on Factor 1 and .46 on Factor 5.
Item 14（I worry that my English proficiency is worse thananalysis showed a break at an eigenvalue of approximately 1.2.
Second, each factor needed to be made up of individual items

other students）loaded on Factor 2（Perceived Competence）

with a minimum loading of .40. Third, the number of factors

at − .42, on Factor 4（Communication Apprehension）at .41,

predicted by prior research was considered. The PCA results are

and on Factor 5 at .44. Although Item 14 was complex, thisshown in Table 3.

item represents other-directedness, a psychological state caused

Eight items were deleted. In Factor 1, Item 32（English isby socio-cultural factors that may lead to competitiveness anda must for me to succeed in the future）loaded heavily on two

compulsivity（Wen & Clément, 2003）. As this is an importantfactors, .53 on Factor 1 and .43 on Factor 5. Therefore, Item 32

factor in this study, this item was retained.

was deleted. Item 30（I would like to make friends with English

After these eight items were deleted, another principal

speaking people）, loaded weakly on Factor 1 at .38, which wascomponent analysis was conducted. Prior to this final principal

below the cut-off point of .40, and the item had a high z-scorecomponent analysis, a correlation of the components was（3.54）during data screening. Therefore, item 30 was deleted.

examined again in order to determine the proper rotation for

Item 21（I learn English to be more knowledgeable）was deleted

the analysis. Table 4 shows that two combinations of extracted

because it loaded on Factor 2 at .33, which was below the .40

factors were statistically significantly correlated. The correlation

cut-off point. Item 25（I ask English teachers questions or talkcoefficient of components 2 and 3 is .45 and the correlation

to them outside of class）loaded on Factor 3 at .36, which wascoefficient of components 3 and 6 is 0.35. Therefore, Promax

below the cut-off point, so this item was deleted. Item 5（When I

rotation was selected.

have assignments to do in English, I try to do them immediately）
was complex as it loaded strongly on three factors. In Yashima’s

The criteria for the number of factors to be extracted was（2002）study, where no factor analysis was conducted for her

based on the number of factors predicted by the PCA before

sample, this item was included in the category of motivationaldeleting eight items. The PCA results are shown in Table 5.

intensity（Gardner & Smythe, 1981）; however, in this analysis,− 31 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 5 No. 1 2006

Table 5 Principal Components Analysis Results for the Individual Difference Questionnaire Items
after Deleting Eight Items
Item

Factor loadings
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Q17

.79

− .08

.17

− .01

.04

− .02

− .01

Q16

.78

.21

− .06

.05

.12

− .13

.01

Q27

.76

.09

.08

.11

.01

− .02

.08

Q38

.69

− .17

.15

− .08

− .06

.20

− .14

Q18

− .65

.08

.16

.04

.35

− .08

− .27

Q15

− .56

.00

.22

.03

.50

.11

− .12

Q24

.55

− .06

.28

.03

.25

.08

− .11

Q20

.06

.87

.02

− .03

.08

− .01

− .17

Q23

− .13

.83

− .08

.05

− .19

.05

.17

Q19

.15

.77

− .09

− .01

.21

.06

− .29

Q29

− .03

.66

.26

− .06

− .08

− .06

− .02

Q31

− .04

.41

.18

.07

− .26

.00

− .07

Q37

− .01

− .41

.82

.07

− .19

− .04

− .13

Q8

.02

.22

.77

− .02

.13

− .02

.25

Q6

.15

.02

.70

− .01

− .08

− .03

.13

Q26

.17

.07

.68

.06

.03

− .11

− .30

Q2

− .04

.41

.54

− .13

− .03

.05

.28

Q3

− .12

.07

.44

.08

− .09

.27

.35

Q22

.05

.11

.06

.74

− .14

− .13

.01

Q11

− .11

.02

.05

.69

− .23

.15

− .35

Q4

− .03

− .18

.09

.62

− .08

− .13

.22

Q14

− .03

− .37

.05

.62

.09

.09

.11

Q40

.18

.29

− .14

.52

− .08

.15

− .03

Q35

.07

.10

− .09

.45

.31

.07

.12

Q7

.05

− .13

− .04

− .28

.64

.20

.17

Q13

.05

− .04

− .12

.12

.62

− .14

.11

Q9

.04

− .07

.05

.03

− .46

.16

.04

Q39

.04

.03

− .11

− .09

− .02

.95

− .09

Q36

− .01

.01

.03

.08

− .03

.88

− .04

Q1

.06

− .11

.15

.02

.07

− .08

.76

Q28

− .01

.00

− .10

.30

.23

− .05

.40

Q33

.07

.00

− .07

.29

.35

.30

.40

NumberNote. Loadings over .40 in value are in bold.

国立看護大学校研究紀要 第 5 巻 第 1 号 2006 年− 32 −

Factor 1 received strong loadings from items 15, 16, 17, 18,

speaking can be projected as a requirement when the learners

24, 27, and 38. This group of items implies Integrativeness, theare concerned about how much people in other nations are

psychological state of desiring to be identified as an L2 member

able to communicate in English. This may be interpreted as

or integrated into the L2 community. Factor 1 is made up of thethe inner effect of strong belongingness as being Japanese that

following seven items（α＝ .82）.

results from Other-directedness. The items that construct Other-

15．I would rather work in my hometown.（reverse coded）

directedness are as follows;
4．I feel worried when I hear other students speaking good

16．I would like to live in a foreign country.
17．I want to work in an international organization such as

English.
11．I absolutely believe that English should be taught atthe WHO.
18．I would rather avoid the kind of work that sends me

school.
14．I worry that my English proficiency is worse than otheroverseas frequently.（reverse coded）
24．I would like to get married to an English-speaking

students.
22．I would feel ashamed if I couldn’t speak to native

person.
27．I hope to be active in the international health services

speakers in English.
35．I feel embarrassed when I make a simple mistakelater on.
38．I would like to study abroad if possible.

speaking English.
40．I think that speaking English should be required in Japan

Factor 2, which received strong loadings from the following
five items, was labeled Perceived Competence（α＝ .84）.

from now on.

19．I can speak English in one-to-one conversations.

No prior L2 WTC studies have included Other-directedness

20．I think that I am good at English.

or a similar factor as a predictor of L2 WTC; however, Wen and23．I have an aptitude for learning foreign languages.

Clément（2003）designated other-directed self as an important

29．My English proficiency is superior to other Japanese infactor to influence L2 WTC and to delineate the socio-culturalgeneral.

and psychological trait of the Chinese. In the Japanese context,

31．I think that I will have no problem when I visit Englishspeaking counties.

some researchers（e.g., Berque, 1992; Kuwayama, 1992）statedthat the Japanese concept of self is other-directed. Maynard

Factor 3, which received strong loadings from the following（1997）pointed out the other-oriented self designation as one of

six items, was labeled as Motivational Intensity（α＝ .81）.

the features of Japanese communication. Furthermore, the other-

2．I think that I study English harder than other students.

directed self may be caused by the interdependent interpersonal

3．I frequently think over what I have learnt in my English

relationship among Japanese people. Markus and Kitayama（1991）suggested that interdependence leads Japanese to regard

class.
6．If English were not taught at college, I would study it on
my own.

themselves as part of social relationship and to recognize that
their behavior is determined by what is perceived to be the

8．I spend long hours studying English.

thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship（p.

26．I talk with friends or acquaintances outside of school in

225）.

English.

Some participants in this study, who are perceived as serious

37．I learn English off campus.

learners of English and are expected to use good English, statedFactor 4 received strong loadings from six items. This factor isthat they are aware of the importance of speaking English andmade up of the following six items（α＝ .70）. The questionnaire

feel frustrated and even ashamed of themselves because they are

items intended for gauging Communication Apprehension（Items

not proficient in oral English. This psychological condition may

4, 14, 22, and 35）and Instrumentality（Items 11 and 40）createdwell be caused by Other-directedness.

one factor. The psychological feature that may generate both

Factor 5, which was labeled Introversion, received strong

Communication Apprehension and Instrumentality is referred toloadings from three items. Item 7 may be interpreted as

as Other-directedness. For instance, the learners are likely to be

reticence, which is defi ned as“avoidance of social, verbal

apprehensive in communication when they are concerned about

interaction”（Phillips, 1968, p. 40）, and Item 13 may bewhat other learners may think of their way of communication.

regarded as shyness, which is defined as“discomfort, inhibition,

This may be interpreted as a face-protected orientation resulting

and awkwardness in social situations”（Buss, 1984, p. 39）.

from Other-directedness（Wen & Clément, 2003）. English

Taking into account that these two items are included in a

− 33 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 5 No. 1 2006

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics for the Averaged Raw Factor Scores（N = 178）
Item

PC

MI

IN

IG

ADT

OTD

CA

Minimum

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.14

1.00

2.17

1.67

Maximum

4.80

5.67

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

6.00

Mean

2.24

2.70

3.52

3.71

4.18

4.52

4.62

SD

0.84

0.89

0.90

1.04

1.09

0.76

0.91

Skewness

0.61

0.92

− 0.20− 0.31− 0.59− 0.50− 0.49

SES

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

0.18

− 0.16

0.94

0.09

0.01

0.31

− 0.12

0.15

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.36

Kurtosis
SEK

Note. PC = Perceived Competence; MI = Motivational Intensity; IN = Introversion; IG = Integrativeness;
ADT = Attitudes; OTD = Other-directedness; CA = Communication Apprehension.

single factor of Introversion, reticence and shyness may well

Other-directedness,（e）Introversion,（f）Attitudes, and（g）

be conceptually similar to Introversion. As shown by previous

Communication Apprehension.

communication research on WTC, Introversion is an important

Other factors that were not included on the questionnaire

predictor of WTC and both reticence and shyness were regarded

could be involved, but as the above factors were based on bothas the foundation of the WTC construct（e.g., McCroskey &theory and previous empirical findings, there is reason to believe

Richmond, 1990）; therefore, this factor is a strong candidate tothat they play an important role in their classroom behavior in

predict WTC. The following three items make up Factor 5（ αlearning English and their speaking performance of English.

＝ .52）.
7．Even when I have an opinion, I refrain myself

Factor scores
The averaged raw factor scores were calculated in order toverbalizing it in English.
9．I am an extrovert.（reverse coded）

examine the way in which the factors identified by the principal

13．I prefer being silent rather than being embarrassed incomponents analysis make up the participants’motivational
structure. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics of the factor

speaking English.
Factor 6, which was labeled Attitudes, received loadings fromonly two items 36 and 39（α＝ .86）.

scores in ascending order of their mean score. Perceived
Competence produced the smallest scores, and it was followed

36. I have a favorable impression of British people.

by Motivational Intensity, Introversion, Integrativeness,

39. I have a favorable impression towards American people.

Attitudes, Other-directedness, and fi nally, Communication

Factor 7, which received strong loadings from three items,

Apprehension, which had the largest mean factor score.

was named Communication Apprehension. This term has

The average factor score for Perceived Competence wasbeen used by communication researchers（e.g., McCroskey &2.24（SD ＝ 0.84）, which was the lowest among the six factors

Richmond, 1990）because the items specify apprehension in

extracted in this study（see Table 6）. This finding indicates that

communicating in English. The following three items make up

in general the participants in this study did not feel confident

Factor 7（α＝ .63）.

in speaking English and nor did they perceive themselves as

1．I am panicked when I cannot make myself understood inbeing capable users of English. This lack of confidence in theirown oral proficiency may have partially been the result of theirEnglish.
28．I feel nervous speaking English in front of a native

high expectations regarding their own competence. Many ofthe participants had graduated from competitive high schools

speaker.
33．I feel worried that other people may think that I am aand had studied hard. Although they may have met their highexpectations in English as an academic subject while highpoor speaker of English.
The results of the principal components analysis suggested

school students, some of them may have found it difficult tothat the motivational construct of nursing students inmeet their expected levels of oral proficiency and they becomelearning English is made up in part of（a）Integrativeness,

self-degrading in their judgments of their English proficiency.

（b）Perceived Competence,（c）Motivational Intensity,（d）国立看護大学校研究紀要 第 5 巻 第 1 号 2006 年− 34 −

The averaged factor score for Motivational Intensity was2.70（SD ＝ 0.89）, which was the second lowest among the six

Likert scale while eight students selected 6（always very

factors（see Table 6）. This score illustrates that the participants

apprehensive）. In a cross-cultural study on communication

did not perceive themselves to be hard workers, despite the fact

apprehension in East Asian contexts, Klopf（1984）found thatthat they appear to take their studies quite seriously. It is possible

Japanese had the highest level of communication apprehension,that their expectations are higher that their actual performance, aChinese the second highest, and Koreans the lowest. Highcombination that makes them perceive themselves to be studying

levels of communication apprehension or anxiety in the foreign

less hard than they actually are.

language classroom may be typical in Japan.

The average factor score of Introversion was 3.52（SD ＝0.90）out of 6.00, a finding that indicated that the participants

Concluding Remarksin this study were moderately extroverted as a whole. In somestudies of Japanese culture（e.g., Matsumoto, 1994; McCroskey,

As Irie（2003）posited, the way of understanding a multifaced

Gudykunst & Nishida, 1985）, Japanese are described assystem of motivation is to identify a set of relevant underlying

introverted because traditional Japanese thought is said toconstructs. In this study, as in other studies（e.g., Sawada,

deemphasize verbal expression, and to value silence or nonverbal

2004）, principal component analysis was conducted in ordercommunication. However, this characteristic does not hold true

to investigate the motivation structure of learning English

for leaders, who are expected to be extroverted（e.g., Reischauer,

among Japanese nursing college students. As a result, seven1978）. In school activities, students who become leaders should

factors were identified as a motivational structure and labeled

be extroverted and capable of persuading other students and（a）Integrativeness,（b）Communication Apprehension,even teachers. Many of the participants in this study reported（c）Perceived Competence,（d）Motivational Intensity,（d）that they had positions of leadership in their high schools, which

Attitudes,（e）Other-directedness, and（f）Introversion. Inmight have encouraged them to be more extroverted than otheraddition the scores for each component delineated the features ofstudents.

their motivational constructs, which can be applied and utilized

The factor score of Integrativeness in the present study wasto the language learning contexts. In a future study, pedagogical3.71（SD ＝ 1.04）out of 6.00, which means that the participants

implications such as reducing the level of Communication

have moderately strong desire to integrate themselves in the

Apprehension will be suggested, based on the results of the

English-speaking community. Because International Nursing ispresent study.

emphasized in the institution where the participants are studying,some of them have considerable interest in the international■ Refefences

community and are eager to become more proficient in English.

Berque, A.（1992）. Identification of the self in relation to

By the same token, a high factor score（4.18 out of 6.00）of

the environment. In N. R. Rosenberger（Ed.）, JapaneseAttitudes indicated that the participants have highly favorable

sense of self（pp. 93-104）. New York: Cambridge

attitudes towards English-speaking people.

University Press.

The mean factor score of Other-directedness, which was 4.52
（SD ＝ 0.76）out of 6.00, was the second highest of all seven

Brown, J. D.（2001）. Using surveys in language programs. NY: Cambridge University Press.

factors（see Table 5）. This indicates that the participants in

Buss, A. H.（1984）. A conception of shyness. In J. A. Daly

this study are other-directed and concerned about the way in& J. C. McCroskey（Eds.）, Avoiding communication:

which they are perceived by others, based on the proposition that

Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehension

English is a must in the present international community and（pp. 40-51）. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dörnyei, Z.（1990）. Conceptualizing motivation in foreignthat they are required to improve their English.
T h e ave r a g e d r aw fa c t o r s c o r e o f C o m m u n i c a t i o nlanguage learning. Language Learning, 40（1）, 45-78.

Apprehension in this study was 4.62（SD ＝ 0.92）out of 6.00,

Dörnyei, Z.（2001）. Teaching and researching motivation.

which was the highest of all individual difference variables.
This indicates that the participants’level of Communication
Apprehension was generally quite high. Thus, the majority ofHarlow, England: Longman.
Gardner, R. C.（1985）. Social psychology and second
language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

the participants appeared to feel highly apprehensive about

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E.（1972）. Attitudes andcommunicating in English. In terms of frequency, only one

motivation in second language learning. Rowley, MA:

student had a mean of 1（apprehension free）on the 6-point

Newbury House.

− 35 −J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol. 5 No. 1 2006

Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C.（1981）. On the development

Noels, A.（2001）. New Orientations in language learningof the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery. The Canadianmotivation : Toward a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, andModern Language Review, 37 , 510-525.

integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei

Irie, K.（2003）. What do we know about the language& R. Schmidt（Eds.）, Motivation and second language

learning motivation of university students in Japan?

acquisition（pp.43-68）. Honolulu : University of Hawai’Some patterns in survey studies. JALT Journal, 25（1）,i Press.
Phillips, G. M.（1968）. Reticence: Pathology of the normal

86-100.
Kim, Y. Y.（1991）. International communication competence:

speaker. Speech Monographs, 35 , 35-49.

A system theoretic view. In Ting-Toomy & F. Korzenny

Phillips, G. M.（1984）. Reticence: A perspective on social（Eds.）, Cross-cultural interpersonal communication（pp.

withdrawal. In J. A. Daly & J. C. McCroskey（Eds.）,

259-275）. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, andKlopf, D. W.（1984）. Cross-cultural apprehension research:
A summary of Pacific basin studies. In J. A. Daly & J. C.
McCroskey（Eds.）, Avoiding communication: Shyness,
reticence, and communication apprehension（pp.
146-157）. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

communication apprehension（pp. 51-66）. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Reischauer, E. O.（1978）. The Japanese. Tokyo : Carles E.
Tuttle.
Sadawa, M.（2004）. Adult EFL learner motivation: Learning

Kuwayama, T.（1992）. The reference other orientation. In

English as lifelong learning. JACET Bulletin, 39 , 59-72.

N. R. Rosenberger（Ed.）, Japanese sense of self（pp.

Schmidt, R., Boraie, D., & Kassabgy, O.（1996）. Foreign

121-151）. New York: Cambridge University Press.

language motivation internal structure and externalMarkus, H., & Kitayama, S.（1991）. Cultural variation in theconnections. In R. L. Oxford（Ed.）, Language learning

self-concept. In J. Strauss & G. R. Goethals（Eds.）, The

motivation: Pathways to the new century（pp. 9-70）.

self: interdisciplinary perspectives（pp. 18-48）. New

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
SPSS 12.0J for Windows（2003）.［Computer software］,

York: Springer.
Matsumoto, K.（1994）. English instruction problems inJapanese schools and higher education, Journal of AsianTokyo: SPSS.
Tabachnick, G., & Fidell, S.（2001）. Using multivariate
statistics（4th ed.）. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Pacific Communication, 5 , 209-214.
Maynard, S. K.（1997）. Japanese communication: Language

Toyoda, H.（2004）. Kyobunsan Kozo Bunseki: Kozo

and thought in context. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i

Hoteishiki Modeling. [Covariate structural analysis:

Press.

Structural equation modeling] Tokyo: Asakura Shoten.

McCroskey, J. C., Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T.（1985）.

Wen, W. P., & Clément, R.（2003）. A Chinese conceptualization

Communication apprehension among Japanese students

of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture

in native and second language. Communication Researchand Curriculum, 16 , 18-38.

Reports, 2 , 11-15.

Yashima, T.（2002）. Willingness to communicate in a second

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P.（1990）. Willingness
to communicate: A cognitive view. Journal of Social

language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern
Language Journal, 86 , 54-66.

Behavior and Personality, 5 , 19-37.

英語習得における動機構造の分析
松岡里枝子
David Richard Evans
国立看護大学校；〒 204-8575 東京都清瀬市梅園 1-2-1【要旨】 本研究では，180 名の大学生を対象に質問紙調査をした結果に基づき，日本の大学生の英語学習に対する動機構造がいかなるものであるかを考察した。動機の内部構造を探る手がかりとして探索的主成分分析を，プロマックス回転を用いて数回行い，因子を抽出した。抽出されたのは，自信，内向性，コミュニケーション懸念，動機強度，統合的動機，態度，および他意識の 7 因子であり，それぞれ妥当な信頼性を得た。さらに，これら抽出された因子のスコアに基づき，動機構造の内部を考察した。

国立看護大学校研究紀要 第 5 巻 第 1 号 2006 年− 36 −