A mixed-methods approach to investigating motivational regulation strategies and writing proficiency in English as a foreign language contexts

This empirical study used a mixed-methods approach to examining the relationship of writing proficiency levels and motivational regulation strategies in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Data were collected from a total of 389 Chinese undergraduates through a writing task and a self-repo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inSystem (Linköping) Vol. 88; pp. 102182 - 12
Main Authors Teng, Lin Sophie, Yuan, Rui Eric, Sun, Peijian Paul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.02.2020
Elsevier Science Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This empirical study used a mixed-methods approach to examining the relationship of writing proficiency levels and motivational regulation strategies in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Data were collected from a total of 389 Chinese undergraduates through a writing task and a self-report questionnaire. Among the participants, 30 students from high writing-proficiency (n = 15) and low writing proficiency (n = 15) groups were invited to complete follow-up semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data of this study revealed that the high writing-proficiency students reported using more mastery and performance self-talk, interest enhancement, and emotional control than the low writing-proficiency students. Likewise, the semi-structured interviews indicated that the high writing-proficiency group demonstrated more maturity and flexibility in deploying some motivational regulation strategies (e.g., interest enhancement and mastery self-talk) while the low writing-proficiency group reported limited understanding and use of these strategies. In addition, knowledge about learning strategies, writing instruction, learning motivation, and academic self-efficacy were major factors affecting the use of motivational regulation strategies between the two proficiency groups.
ISSN:0346-251X
1879-3282
DOI:10.1016/j.system.2019.102182