順天堂グローバル教養論集第一巻20160325
31/158

27Motivational self-regulatory capacity in L2 writing4.37 (SD = .97) for their environment control sub-scale scores. While all of the ve subscales fell be-tween four (slightly agree) and ve (agree), partici-pants scored relatively lower for metacognitive and emotional control subscales compared to the com-mitment and environmental control subscales. This tendency may indicate the general picture of L2 stu-dents who pursue their degrees in an American uni-versity. With the information provided through the com-putation of the means, I computed a mean of means of the ve subscales as the scale score of the moti-vational SRC for each participant. As a group, the mean of the scale was 4.22 with the standard devia-tion of .80. This scale scores were distributed nearly close to normal; this may indicate the possibility to treat motivational SRC as an individual difference variable. Finally, I explored the relationships between the motivational SRC and the learner prole criteria (e.g., the last writing course they attended, current majors, and current academic status). As the last EAP course divided the participants clearly into two advanced groups, I performed an independent samples t-test for each subscale and scale score. The results indicate that the graduate students who completed the ad-vanced course scored higher than those who com-pleted undergraduate advanced courses (Table 4). 7. Discussion The present study revealed four issues that should be accounted for when developing and validating the questionnaire in my future research. First of all, involving learners in the process of questionnaire development is essential. In Tseng et al. (2006), the researchers conducted two focus group interviews with students to develop their item pool before reviewing the literature. In the present study, I conducted a free-writing session with 15 participants in order to see what aspects of self-mo-tivation strategies would be validated in this re-search context after potential items were gathered. The information from the participants greatly in-formed me about what appeared signicant to the target learners. The present study also had an open-ended question; the participants’ comments also in-formed me of the overlooked motivational SRC as-pects in this context. Particularly, many respondents used their experience as former students and left comments about their needs and requests for strat-egy training in the EAP program. At the same time, ideas from the participants have suggested that Dörnyei’s (2001) ve facets of the motivational SRC are unclear. In many cases, the learners combined some of the controls (particularly emotion and satiation controls), and they often re-ported external solutions (e.g., asking for help for others, choosing topics of their interests, learning goals, and changing environments). If I had another chance to repeat the rst two research phases, I would involve learners in the different stages of item analysis. For example, before the piloting phase, the study could have asked learners to review the nal item selection. Also, while reducing the number of items, results of the second phase could be reviewed by the participants retrospectively. In all cases, the data could be analyzed qualitatively in more systematic ways and reporting such phases would be signicant for future questionnaire devel-opment and validation studies. Secondly, the present study attempted to follow the procedures described in Tseng et al.’s study as fully as possible. Two methods of item discrimina-tion analysis reported here identied different num-bers of unreliable items; on one hand, it is useful to identify the least reliable items in multiple methods. On the other, the results suggested that we should be careful in choosing discrimination methods and de-leting items for the item analysis. Also, although the reliability analysis identied items that did not cor-

元のページ 

10秒後に元のページに移動します

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です