Self-reward

The three types of English-learning goal orientations and English selfefficacy accounted for a significant portion of the variance (R2 = .167) in the strategy of self-reward. As shown in Table 5.2, both performance- approach goal orientation (fi = .260, p = .000) and performance-avoidance goal orientation (fi = .138, p = .004) were significant predictors of self-reward. Hence, students who were focused on getting good grades or not appearing incompetent reported greater use of self-reward. In addition, mastery goal orientation also explained a significant portion of the variance in students’ use of self-reward (fi = .115, p = .031). Therefore, students who focused on goals related to mastering or understanding the material in their English learning also tended to regulate their motivation using the strategy of self-reward. Self-efficacy was not a significant individual predictor of self-reward.

Negative-based Incentive

The variance in the strategy of negative-based incentive explained by the motivational beliefs was 14.9 %. As indicated in Table 5.2, three types of academic goals were all significant predictors of students’ use of negative- based incentive. The strongest predictor of negative-based incentive was mastery goal orientation (fi = .292, p = .000), less strong was performance- approach goal orientation (fi = .142, p = .013), and then performance- avoidance goal orientation (fi = .140, p = .004). Hence, students who were more focused on wanting to get good grades or avoiding demonstrating incompetence, and who expressed a greater orientation toward mastery goals tended to regulate their motivation by thinking about the negative consequences of doing poorly in their English learning. Self-efficacy was not an important predictor of negative-based incentive.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >