Belief-Mediation Model:

Role of self-confidence beliefs in a latent factor model ofJapanese intermediate English as a foreign language learners
Akira Nakayama
English Education Center, Institute for Education and Student Support, Ehime University

Introduction

significant impact on the pursuit of the task (i.e., L2 andFL learning) and on the learning outcomes. For example,

In the interaction between socio-cultural andas several studies have shown, if a variable (x1) has a

educational contexts, various self-related experiences

stronger impact β than another variable (x2), teachers

might have an impact on one’s ideas and actions. Thisand researchers in this field should invest their efforts

assumption can be applied to adult second language (L2)in determining that particular variable (x1) to obtainand foreign language (FL) learning, which is beyond

students’learning outcomes as “y hat.” In educationalchild first language acquisition. This is because children

practice, it is apparently impossible for teachers to accessas toddlers are able to internalize their mother tongue

the mental organization of students that enables themlargely unconsciously using the mental organizationto acquire their native language. However, it is possibleof their language faculty. On the other hand, adults

for teachers to manipulate their affective variables ofconsciously study linguistic features such as vocabulary,

motivation and anxiety, cognitive variables of beliefs andpronunciation, and grammar, while also considering non-strategy, and other past language experience, which inlinguistic matters such as their goals and motives, worries

turn would help students succeed in L2 and FL learning.

and anxiety, ideas on how to study, and strategies forSpecifically, in FL settings, English as a foreign language

learning the target language effectively, as demonstrated(EFL) learners lack exposure to authentic English usage

by Bley-Vroman (1989) in the fundamental differences

and materials, and thus, they assume this exposure ishypothesis. The following multivariate regression formulanecessary for them to sustain their motivation to study

describes the abstract presupposition:

English, unlike learners in the L2 context. Therefore, thisfacet of EFL learning needs further research.

ŷ (outcomes) = β1 × x1 (variable) + β2 × x2 (variable) + βn × xn (variable)+ βn + 1 × xn + 1 (variable) +E (error)

Preceding Representative Models

Here, y,̂ pronounced as“y hat,”denotes a certain value ofin language learning (e.g., Chen, Warden, & Chang, 2005;

the estimate of learning outcomes obtained by summing

Dörnyei, 1990; Gardner, 1985; Kondo & Yang, 2003; Liu

all variables related to L2 and FL learning, including& Jackson, 2008) has dealt with the role of motivation assome errors indicated as E; β is the impact of eachwell as the debilitative role of anxiety, but has denied avariable x, but its exact value is unknown. Scientificdirect relationship between the affective variables andresearch should aim at discovering the true value of the

proficiency. Conversely, several studies on cognitive

impact β when the other variables are kept constant invariables of learning strategies (Gardner, Tremblay,

an ideal environment. On the other hand, in educational& Masgoret, 1997; Kubo, 1999) have indicated that

research, the goal is not just to uncover the true value ofstrategy use has both a positive and negative impact

the impact, but to present a hypothesis on the impact andon proficiency depending on the socio-cultural andthe estimation of learning outcomes, or to predict what

educational contexts in which the target language ishappens when teachers apply educational intervention

taught or learnt.

Most of the previous research on affective variables

on a certain variable, which might have a stronger and
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 2019

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 1

For an L2 environment, Gardner et al. (1997) proposed
1

2019/03/16 13:09

Akira Nakayama

a latent factor model called the Socio-Educational

affective state (not trait), that is, going from the state ofModel. The model was examined using structural“amotivation”to“motivation.”However, as a theoreticalequation modeling (SEM); the results indicate an

background for connecting the affective and cognitive

integrative motivation toward the target language and afactors of the four variables (i.e., motivation, anxiety,significant positive impact (β=.48) on L2 achievements.

beliefs, and strategy), the current study refers to Goal

Unexpectedly, it also indicated that the strategy factor

Theory (Dweck, 1986), which is one of the motivational

had a significant negative impact ( β =-.25) on L2

theories widely accepted in the field of educational

achievement.

psychology. The fundamental difference between Goal

Alternatively, for an EFL learning environment, Kubo

theory and Self-Determination Theory is that the former(1999) proposed the Orientation-Appraisal Model. This

sees motivation as a fixed variable, while the latter seesmodel was also examined using SEM, and the results

it as a state variable. In Goal Theory, goal orientations

indicate that motivation had a significant positive impact

are thought to be a relatively stable human trait thaton the strategy factor, and in turn, strategy had aemerges from more primal beliefs. This is also known assignificant impact on EFL achievement.

the “theory of intelligence.” This theory encapsulates
the ideas of “incremental theory” and “entity theory.”

The Need for a New Model

According to Dweck (1986), the former refers to the idea

The significance of the Socio-Educational Modelthat “intelligence is malleable” (p.1041) and the latterdeveloped by Gardner and his colleague was in its

that “intelligence is fixed” (p.1041), and that individual

methodology–the introduction of SEM. The model

students’theory of intelligence appears to orient themattempted to account for a wide number of variables

toward different goals (orientations). By adopting Goal

and their interactions simultaneously and demonstrated

Theory, the dilemma of“which came first, the chicken or

the close relationship between motivation and L2

the egg?”can be shuffled off because it assumes that theachievement.

student’s theory of intelligence has been internalized in his

On the other hand, the Orientation-Appraisal Modelor her infancy, somewhat like a personality trait (Dweck,developed by Kubo (1999) viewed L2 learning from a

1999; Pintrich, 2000; Smiley & Dweck, 1994), making it

Japanese EFL perspective and showed how this strategy

relatively stable over the course of the student’s lifetime.

perspective could play a greater role in EFL classrooms

The premise is that goal orientations come first, orin Japan than those in North America.

at least before the other variables of learning beliefs,

However, neither of the two models identify any
intervening variables among motivation, anxiety, andanxieties, and strategies, which, on the other hand, easilychange because they are unstable (i.e., state variables).

strategy, that is, the role of learner beliefs in influencing

In Goal Theory, individual behaviors are consideredlearning behavior. Yang (1999), in studying learner beliefs,

rational and economic to achieve certain goals. Goals (e.g.,

examined the relationship between college EFL learners’

motivation) set by an individual influence the individual’s

beliefs about language learning and the strategies theycognition (e.g., beliefs), choice of strategy, methodology,

used, reporting that students’beliefs were related to theand the process for achieving those goals. Based on thelearning strategies they adopted. From this, he concluded

kind of goals of an individual student, Goal Theory canthat learner beliefs might be one of the factors thatbe used to predict that student’s learning behavior andinfluence learning behaviors. Furthering this viewpoint,

learning outcome (Dweck, 1986). According to Dweck

the current study claims that there is a need for a(1986), there are two types of goal orientations: Learning

new model that includes the variable of learner beliefs

Goal (LG) and Performance Goal (PG). The former

and examines the role of, and interactions among, allrefers to the orientation to increase competence andvariables.

understand something new, whereas the latter refers
to the orientation for being positively judged for one’s

Theoretical Background
Most motivational studies refer to the Self-

competence and avoid being negatively judged for thelack of it.

Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to account

Although this assumption is apparently in conflict withfor the interactions among affective variables and focus

the idea that anxiety and beliefs are more primal andon explaining the transition and variation of people’sthat self-concept and self-assessment determine the level2

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 2

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:09

Belief-Mediation Model: Role of self-confidence beliefs in a latent factor model of Japanese intermediate English as a foreign language learnersof motivation and goal orientation (Dörnyei, 2001), theconflict is only because of a difference in the theoretical
viewpoint. Moreover, this is also considered a geneticallydetermined trait, which implies that these are relatively
stable variables that teachers or parents cannot easilychange. Most likely, Dörnyei considers “beliefs” as theprimal beliefs assumed by the Goal Theory. However, it
is likely that some beliefs (including more general beliefs

Figure 1. The Belief-Mediation Modelor folktales) are influenced by motivations or orientations.
Advanced Statistical Analysis
Target Issues and Purpose of This Study

Previous three research studies conducted by the

In the current study, the primary assumption is that

author and his colleagues (Nakayama, 2007; Nakayama &the type of motivation (i.e., goal orientations) students

Heffernan, 2013; Nakayama, Heffernan, Matsumoto, andhave influences their anxiety and beliefs, and these

Hiromori, 2012) only used categorical regression analysis

in turn influence the type of learning strategies they

under the assumption that the categorical data wereselect. Within the theoretical model of this assumption,

thought to have the significant impacts on the dependent

this study aims to examine the roles and interactions ofvariables as well we continuous variables, then the wholeselected variables of Japanese university students’pastdata were analyzed simultaneously. However, the results

language studies and their overseas experiences, whichof the studies indicated that the impact of the categorical

could have a bearing on their English learning, and tovariables on the participants’use of strategies werediscuss the implications for practice and further research.

scarce.

The impact of learners’use of strategies on their

In the current study, therefore, the categorical data

achievement depends on the environment in whichwere excluded, and the assumption is updated as thatthey live. Nakayama (2006) reported that the goodness

the interactions of independent variables and the indirectof fit index (GFI) of the hypothesis model improved

effects of them has some impact on the dependentwhen intermediate variables such as learning belief

variables. Thus, for re-analyzing the previous dataand strategy were included in the model, according towithout the categorical data by using advanced statisticalwhich student motivation has no impact on proficiency.

approach, structural equation modeling, new findings

However, some variables of past experience have not

and knowledge on the complexed relationship among the

been included in the former models, and the influence ofindependent variables will be extracted.

those variables remain unexamined. By including thesevariables in the present study, it might be possible topropose a far more persuasive latent model, that is, arevised version of the Belief-Mediation Model (Nakayama,2006).

MethodParticipants
Data used were from the previous research studies
conducted by the author and his colleagues (Nakayama,

Hypothesis for Confirmatory Analysis

2007; Nakayama & Heffernan, 2013; Nakayama et al,

In the current study, the primary assumption is that2012). There were 375 participants in the study, who

the types of goal orientation students have influence

were all non-English majors at a Japanese national

their anxiety and beliefs, which in turn influence theuniversity in the Kanto area. All participants weretype of strategies they select. A schematic depicting theenrolled in the English foundation course class (credit-assumptions of the current study is as shown in Figure 1.

bearing), which was compulsory for all freshmen. Ranging

In Figure 1, the four circles represent the four latent

from 18 to 32 years (96.5% were under 21), the majority

factors of the Belief Mediation Model: Goal Orientation,of the participants (92.3%) had never visited a foreign

Beliefs, Anxiety, and Strategy. These should becountry, and 25.8% of them had studied English from theinterpreted from left to right. The one-way arrows

elementary school stage.

indicate both the direction of the causation and theimpact of one variable on another.
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 2019

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 3

3

2019/03/16 13:09

Akira Nakayama

Instruments

Inventory (BALLI). To assess participants’Beliefs about

The participants were asked to complete and sign aEnglish learning, an EFL version (Nakayama, 2005) ofconsent form, and then asked to answer a questionnaire

the BALLI was used. It consisted of nine items on beliefs

that included the questions and scales mentioned below.

about language learning in Japan. The original BALLI

There were a total of 56 items (except for qualitative andwas developed by Horwitz (1987) for North American

open-ended questions), all of which were to be marked

learners of foreign languages. To assess General Learning

on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree toBeliefs, Ueki’s (2002) scale was used without modification.

strongly agree, except the ones related to gender, age majors,

It consisted of nine items on General Learning Beliefs.

and English-learning background.

Anxiety Scales. To assess participants’anxiety in English

Revised Version of the Goal Orientation Scale. To assesslearning and use, the Language Learning Anxieties Scale

Goal Orientation, a revised version of the Mokuhyo Tassei

developed by Mori (2003) was employed. It consisted of

Keikou Shakudo, which is translated as“Goal Orientation

six items on anxiety in English language learning and use

Scale,” was used. The original version developed byin Japan.

Hayamizu, Ito, and Yoshizaki (1989) was designed

English learning Background. An English learningfor younger Japanese students’ Goal Orientations inbackground questionnaire obtained data on whether

accordance with the basic tenets of Goal Theory. For

the participants had studied abroad and their overall

this study, the original version was modified to suit older

proficiency in English.

students, particularly for Japanese university students.
The revised version consisted of 11 randomized items,

Procedureeach of which stated a possible reason for achievement or

The questionnaires were administered to several

learning. Based on the framework of Dweck (1986), threeclasses of English as a foundation course (generalof the items were related to a Learning Goal Orientation,

education subjects) toward the end of the 2nd semesterand six other items were related to a Performance Goalof the 2005-2006 academic year. The students signed a

Orientation.

consent form and completed the survey in 30 minutes at

Revised Version of the Strategy Inventory for Language

the end of one lesson. Of the 400 collected questionnaires,

Learning (SILL). To assess participants’ use of direct

since the others were incomplete, only 375 could be used.

strategies for studying vocabulary in a reading andgrammar class, their metacognitive strategy, and social

Data Analysis

strategy, a revised version of SILL, initially developed

To test the hypothesis of the current study, theby Oxford (1990), was used by modifying it to suit thefollowing two analyses were conducted. First, item

EFL context of the study (Nakayama, 2005). It consisted

analysis was performed to find the value of Cronbach’sof 21 items, each involving a statement describing theα for the reliability of the scales, the mean (M), and thestrategy used. SILL has six categories of language

standard deviation (SD), which reveal a respondent’s

learning strategies. The categories are memory

general tendency. Second, to test the hypothesized model

strategies, cognitive strategies, compensation strategies,(the Belief-Mediation Model), structural equation modelingmetacognitive strategies, affective strategies, and social

was carried out. Structural equation modeling (SEM),

strategies. Although Oxford (1990) introduced SILL as

including other latent factor modeling techniques, isa generalized inventory, Robson and Midorikawa (2001)

becoming increasingly popular to differentiate dependent

reported two problems with the factor construction ofvariables from independent variables in the fields of

SILL. One is that despite the high degree of reliability

both second and foreign language education research,of SILL overall, it has six independent subsections in its

especially in studies on learner motivation and strategy

factor construction. Second, the results of factor analysis(e.g., Chen et al., 2005; Gardner et al., 1997; Kubo, 1999).

do not confirm Oxford’s six-strategy categories evenThis is because it enables one to treat the unobservable

when attempting to force the analysis into a six-factor

variables (e.g., motivation, beliefs, strategy, and anxiety)solution. To overcome these problems, the author had toas latent factors. Structural equation modeling techniquesdevelop a strategy inventory for Japanese EFL learners

also allow researchers to evaluate the plausibility of aby revising SILL.

hypothesized model of any related variable of language

Revised Version of Beliefs about Language Learning
4

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 4

learning in a statistical format, by testing the model using
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:09

Belief-Mediation Model: Role of self-confidence beliefs in a latent factor model of Japanese intermediate English as a foreign language learners

a simultaneous analysis of the entire system of variables

one of the Frequent Use Strategy (FUS) items“S5”alsoto determine the extent to which it is consistent with theshowed the ceiling effect, since it is about the frequency

variable data extracted from self-report questionnairesof their use of the target strategy as a dependent variable(Byrne, 2001).

and it is a significant variable, it was included for the final
analysis.

Results

Structural Equation Modeling

Item Analysis

Figure 2 displays the result of the final structural

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of theequation modeling, and the overall goodness-of-fit indexes

items that were used in further statistical analyses and(GFI = .973; CFI = .993; CMIN/df = 1.122; RMSEA = .018)

includes the item’s description as well. It can be inferredindicate that the hypothesized model fits with the data infrom Table 1 that the participants overall tended to feelan inferential statistical format. This implies that, to someanxiety at the prospect of using English abroad in theextent, it is possible to predict the dependent variables infuture (Mean average of A1 = 5.80 and that of A2 =the model by the independent variables.

5.78); besides, they tended not to use the Media Strategy

The final structural equation modeling is comprised of(Mean average of those strategy variables < 4.00). Even

configurations of four types of symbols: circles, squares,

though the anxiety items (A1 and A2) showed the ceilingone-way arrows (referred to as causations), and two-way

effect (>7.0), these two items were included in the further

arrows with dotted lines (referred to as correlations).

analysis because it was one of the purpose of this study

The seven circles represent the seven latent factors, andto investigate whether the level of students’anxiety caneach of the fourteen observable variables is associatedbe explained within the model or not. In addition, thoughwith one latent factor. Statistically, latent factors are

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics (N=375)

Item Description

M

SD

Learning Goal Orientation ( α = .844)
G4

I study because I enjoy finding new means of problem-solving.

4.80

1.68

G5

I study because I enjoy the thought of knowing that I can do it.

5.20

1.51

Self-Confidence Belief ( α = .705)
B7

I have foreign language aptitude.

3.34

1.66

B8

I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak this language very well.

4.20

1.67

Future Use Anxiety ( α = .934)
A1

I feel anxious about the extent to which I can use English abroad.

5.80

1.45

A2

I feel anxious about how much I can make myself understood in English abroad.

5.78

1.45

Metacognitive Strategy ( α = .731)
S16

I look for as many opportunities as possible to read books written in English.

3.54

1.77

S17

I try to find out how to be a better learner of English.

4.22

1.75

Media Strategy ( α = .748)
S13

I study English through movies.

3.39

1.93

S14

I study English through radio programs.

3.49

1.93

S15

I study English through TV news programs.

2.63

1.78

Organization Strategy ( α = .514)
S1

I connect words to other words that can be used in the same context.

3.71

1.72

S3

I associate words with their conjugated forms.

4.64

1.62

Frequent Use Strategy ( α = .675)
S5

I learn words outside the class by using them as much as I can.

5.72

1.30

S6

I learn words by using the words I know in many different ways.

5.10

1.54

Imaging Strategy ( α = .620)
S11

I look at new words and phrases over and over again so that I can form an image of the words in my mind.

4.06

1.78

S12

I connect words to other words and phrases so that I can associate the target words with other words.

4.02

1.89

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 2019

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 55

2019/03/16 13:09

Akira Nakayama

Figure 2. Final structural equation model: The influence of motivational, belief, and strategy variables on change inEnglish proficiency level (N =375).

implied by the covariance among two or more observable(ProF)”receives three one-way arrows from“Overseas

variables. The latent factor“Goal Orientation (GO),”forExperience (OvE),”“B7, one of the ScB items (I haveexample, has two observable variables, and the variations

foreign language aptitude),”and“S16, one of the McS itemsof the variance of these two variables are accounted for(I look for as many opportunities as possible to read booksby the latent factor“GO.”The indicators accompanying

written in English.).” This indicates that these variables

the one-way arrows show the regression coefficients

have an effect on a student’s proficiency, but they only

(where the latent factor is considered to be the cause of

explain 9% of the total variance of the observable variable

those observable variables).

“Proficiency (ProF).”

In turn, one-way arrows between latent factors

Relating to the correlation among observable variables,

represent the impact of one latent factor on another. The“S16 (I look for as many opportunities as possible to readlatent factor“GO,”for instance, has two one-way arrows

books written in English.)”has a negative correlation withassociated with the two latent factors of“Metacognitive“S5, one of the FUS items: I learn words outside the class

Strategy (McS)”and“Self-confidence Beliefs (ScB).”Here,by using them as much as I can.).” Item S16 refers to the“GO”has a positive impact on“ScB (β = .33)”and“McS

development of receptive skills in the target language,(β = .39)”. The value of the β indicates the standardized

and item S5 refers to enriching vocabulary, which

regression coefficients, which means that it is possible toconnects to the productive skills. We can assume that forcompare the impacts on them.

learners both strategies are time-consuming endeavors;

The values of r-squared (R ), accompanied with the2latent factors, is the coefficient of determination that

thus, focusing on one may mean that the learner does nothave sufficient time for the other.

indicates how much the variance of the latent factors

On the other hand,“S17, one of the McS items (I try to

can be explained by the other one or ones. The following

find out how to be a better learner of English.)”has a weak

examples demonstrate this: 13% of the total variance ofcorrelation with“S11, one of the Imaging Strategy items

the latent factor“ScB (R = .13)”can be accounted for by(I look at words and phrases over and over again so that I canthe latent factor“GO”; 43% of the total variance of theform an image of the words in my mind.)”. Contrary to thelatent factor“McS (R = .43)”is explained by the latent

relationship between S16 and S5, this weak correlation isfactors“GO”and“ScB”; and 61% of the total variancefree from the issue of time that was highlighted above.

2of the latent factor“Direct Strategy (DS) (R = .61)”can

Item S17 refers to the indirect strategy; one possible

be accounted for by the latent factor“McS.”

way to carry out the indirect strategy (S17) is by using

2

2

On the causation among the observable variables

the direct strategy (S11) － or at least, those who try toin the model, the observable variable “Proficiency

memorize words and phrases in English believe that this6

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 6

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:09

Belief-Mediation Model: Role of self-confidence beliefs in a latent factor model of Japanese intermediate English as a foreign language learners

is what a good learner of English should do.

more likely to have confidence in learning English in an
EFL context, and therefore, are more likely to try to

Discussion

learn English in more varied ways, while using different
strategies.

These results offer some unique observations andThese findings lead to another implication in the link

have strong implications in the field of EFL in Japan.

between direct strategy and proficiency. No significant

With regards to the hypothesis of the current study, thepositive correlation and causation between any of direct

results support the validity of the Belief-Mediation Model,

strategies and proficiency was found in the final SEM.

except for the role of anxiety, as represented in the SEM

This does not always mean that strategy would not havedone for this study; that is, the Belief-Mediation Modelan effect on proficiency. One interpretation for this result

fit the data and the causations drawn in the model wereis the absence of the strategy items that the participantsalso supported by the data. It is noteworthy that Self-

use. Along similar lines, the negative causation between

confidence Belief mediates the effects of Goal Orientation

strategies and proficiency that Gardner et al. (1997)

on Strategy variables of Metacognitive Strategy, and inreported occurs simply because of the limitations

turn, Metacognitive Strategy mediates the effects of Goal

associated with asking the participants to report their

Orientation and Self-confident Belief on Direct Strategy.

strategies.

This means that educational intervention in Selfconfidence Belief would have an effect on the investmentof Metacognitive Strategy. Students’preferences for

Limitations and Further Researchusing certain strategies imply that they stick to theirThis study has a few limitations. First, Gardner

beliefs when it comes to language learning (Nakayama,(1985) pointed out the limitations of research using2005). Therefore, the results confirm the associations

the structural equation modeling technique, which is

between learner belief and strategy in the EFL context.

directly applicable to this study, as follows: “Just as a

The findings, however, denied the role of anxiety infactor analytic solution is only one of an infinite number

the model, which seems particularly informative whenof possible solutions which can also reproduce thewe consider the preceding results of the categoricalcorrelation matrix, so too is any particular causal model

regression analysis that was reported in the previous

only on of many” (Gardner, 1985, p.155). In addition,

two studies conducted by the author and his colleague

inferences drawn from the results of this study are(Nakayama, 2007; Nakayama & Heffernan, 2013;

limited by the nature of the particular sample used,

Nakayama et al, 2012). No significant correlations andwhich consisted solely of students at one university incausations between anxiety and the other latent variables

the Kanto area of Japan. Therefore, the Belief-Mediation

were found in the SEM, but as a dependent variable inModel only applies within the Japanese EFL context, andthe categorical regression analysis previously reported by

the participants of the study were aged 19 years (ageNakayama et al (2012), the degree of anxiety would varyrange: 18-20). Therefore, further research related to thisin proportion to the period of time the students stayed

model should test other contexts, as well as EFL learners

abroad. Moreover, Self-confidence beliefs were positivelyof varying levels of proficiency and backgrounds.

affected by their overseas experiences while students’future use anxiety was negatively affected, which means

References“reduced”, by their overseas experiences. These findings

Bley-Vroman, R. (1989). What is the logical problem of foreignindicate that the more overseas experience a student

language learning? In Gass, S., & Schachter, J. (Eds.)

has, the more self-confidence they gain, and they feel less

Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition, 41–68.

anxious about using English in the future (Nakayama et

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

al, 2012). EFL learners, like Japanese university students
at the intermediate level, generally feel anxious about
the prospect of using English abroad. However, not all
students are pessimistic about being successful learnersof English. The students of the Learning Goal orientationand those who have experienced studying abroad are
大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 2019

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 7

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chen, J., Warden, C., & Chang, H. (2005). Motivators that do
not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and theinfluence of culture on Motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4),7

2019/03/16 13:09

Akira Nakayama
609–633.

Japanese university EFL students: goals, anxieties, beliefs,

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-and strategies. A dissertation presented to the division ofdetermination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Education, the graduate school of International Christian

Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign
language learning. Language Learning, 40, 45–78.

University, for the degree of doctor of philosophy.
Nakayama, A. (2007, July). The Influence of Past Language

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second

Studies Experience on Current English Learning. Poster

language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied

presented at ALAA Congress 2007 in Wollongong, from July

Linguistics, 21, 43–59.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

1–3, Australia.
Nakayama, A., & Heffernan, N. (2013). The influence of goal
orientations and language experiences on the behaviors of

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: The role in motivation, personality,

Japanese university students learning English as a foreignand development. New York: Psychology Press, Taylor andlanguage. Journal of Faculty and Staff Development in Higher

Francis.

Education, (11), 11–18

Gardner, R. C., Tremblay, P. F., & Masgoret, A. (1997).

Nakayama, A., Heffernan, N., Matsumoto, H., & Hiromori,Towards a full model of Second Language Learning: An

T. (2012). The influence of goal orientation, past language

empirical investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3),studies, overseas experiences, and gender differences on

344–362.

Japanese EFL learners’beliefs, anxiety, and behaviors.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language
learning: the role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward
Arnold.

Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, Vol 6, 2, 19-39.
Oxford, R, L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every
teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.

Hayamizu, T., Ito, A., & Yoshizaki, K. (1989). Chuugakusei

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective

no tassei mokuhyou keikou [Junior high school students’on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research.

tendencies of achievement goals]. Bulletin of Division of
Education of Nagoya University, 36, 55–72.
Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language
learning. In Wenden, A. L., Rubin, J. (eds.), Learner Strategies
in Language Learning. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
119–129.
Kondo, S., Yang, Y. L. (2003). The English Language classroom
anxiety scale: Test construction, reliability, and validity. JALT
Journal, 25(2), 187–196.
Kubo, N. (1999). Orientation-appraisal model for Japanese
university students’ learning of English: Relation among
learning motives, cognitive appraisal, learning behavior, andContemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.
Robson, G., & Midorikawa, H. (2001). How reliable and valid is
the Japanese version of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning. JALT Journal, 21(2), 202–226.
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences inachievement goals among young children. Child Development,
65, 1,723–1,743.
Ueki, R. (2002). Structure of high-school students’beliefs about
learning. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 301–
310.
Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’
beliefs and learning strategies use. System 27, 515–535.

performance. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 47,
511–520.
Labov, W. (1991). The interaction of sex and social class in thecourse of linguistic change. Language Variation and Linguistic
Change, 2, 205–251.
Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL
learners’unwillingness to communicate and foreign
language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71–86.
Mori, M. (2003). Anxieties related to foreign language learning.
Unpublished master’s thesis, International Christian
University, Tokyo.
Nakayama, A. (2005). Testing a hypothesized model of English
language learning: Japanese university students' goal
orientation, beliefs, and learning strategies. Japanese Journalof Educational Psychology, 53(3), 320–330.

Additional Notes
The raw data analyzed in the current study is identicalto that used in the paper titled“The influence of goal
orientations and language experiences on the behaviors ofJapanese university students learning English as a foreign
language,”published by Nakayama and Heffernan (2013,
Journal of Faculty and Staff Development in Higher Education,
11, 11–18). Structural Equation Modeling, an advanced
statistical analysis, was not used in the aforementioned
study; however, it has been used in the current study.
In addition, this work was supported by MEXT Japan,
KAKENHI (No. 17720139) and (No. 16K01139).

Nakayama, A. (2006). Affective and cognitive factors among

8

01_Akira NAKAYAMA.indd 8

大学教育実践ジャーナル 第17号 20192019/03/16 13:09