This article was downloaded by: [Kusumi Dhanapala]On: 24 April 2015, At: 17:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Click for updates

Reading PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

L2 Reading Motivation AmongSri Lankan University StudentsKusumi Vasantha Dhanapalaa & Yukiko Hirakawab

a Department of Media StudiesUniversity ofColombo, Sri Lankab Graduate School for International Developmentand CooperationHiroshima University, Hiroshima,JapanPublished online: 24 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Kusumi Vasantha Dhanapala & Yukiko Hirakawa (2015): L2Reading Motivation Among Sri Lankan University Students, Reading Psychology, DOI:10.1080/02702711.2015.1025163

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1025163

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

Reading Psychology, 00:1–28, 2015Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702711.2015.1025163

L2 READING MOTIVATION AMONG SRI LANKANUNIVERSITY STUDENTS

KUSUMI VASANTHA DHANAPALADepartment of Media Studies, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

YUKIKO HIRAKAWAGraduate School for International Development and Cooperation, Hiroshima

University, Hiroshima, Japan

This study investigated the extent of the motivational processes that facilitated thetext comprehension among 406 Sri Lankan university students in Sri Lanka.Students’ L2 text comprehension and reading motivation were assessed usinga reading comprehension test and a reading motivation and attitude question-naire. The Principal Componential Analysis identified four constructs of in-trinsic motivation and four constructs of extrinsic motivation. The relationshipbetween these constructs and text comprehension was examined using the Con-firmatory Factor Analysis. The final model fitted the data well, indicating thatonly intrinsic motivational constructs positively contributed to text comprehen-sion when associated with extrinsic motivation.

Reading Motivation in L1 and L2 Contexts

There exists a large body of research on second language learningmotivation in general based on a variety of theoretical approachesand traditions (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dornyei, 2001, 2003;Gardner 1985, 1996; MacIntyre et al., 2002; Weiner, 1992). In con-trast, motivation for second language reading has still been an un-derdeveloped research area. Motivation involves individuals’ in-ternal cognitive beliefs, values, expectations, and behaviors, whichare influenced by a range of social and contextual factors (Grabe,2009). First language (L1) cognitive theorists have developed anumber of motivational constructs such as self-efficacy, percep-tions of ability, task values, achievement goals, control beliefs, in-trinsic and extrinsic motivation, and achievement attributions to

Address correspondence to Kusumi Vasantha Dhanapala, Department of MediaStudies, Sri Palee Campus, University of Colombo, Wewala, Horana, Sri Lanka. E-mail:kvasandha@hotmail.com

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

2 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

describe how these constructs relate to various achievement be-haviors (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). How-ever, compared to the availability of full-fledged research on L1reading motivation, there has been a paucity of research on read-ing motivation in second language (L2) or English as a foreignlanguage (EFL) contexts.

Self-determination theory, social-cognitive theory, attributiontheory, achievement theory, and goal orientation theory areconsidered well-developed motivation theories (Schunk & Zim-merman, 2006) that researchers examining motivation in nativelanguage academic contexts have used to conceptualize differentmotivational constructs. Self-determination theory has been ex-tensively used in motivation in both L1 and L2 contexts. It sug-gests that human beings have innate tendencies toward psycholog-ical growth and development; however, these innate tendenciesdo not operate in an individual automatically, yet, the social en-vironment can, to varying degrees, externally support their needssatisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

The proponents of the self-determination theory distinguishdifferent constructs of motivation based on different reasons orgoals that give rise to an action (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &Deci, 2000a, 2002b). The most basic distinction is between in-trinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation refers to in-volving in an activity that gives satisfaction, enjoyment, interest,or challenge to the activity itself; conversely, extrinsic motiva-tion refers to participating in an activity due to external pres-sures, demands, or rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985). According tothis theoretical dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic mo-tivation, intrinsic motivation related to reading refers to an in-dividual’s enthusiasm or enjoyment of reading activities in freetime and based on personal interest (Wigfiled, 1997; Wigfield &Guthrie, 1997). In contrast, extrinsic reading motivation involvesan individual’s participation in reading activities based on exter-nal demands and values such as obtaining grades, rewards, orany other incentive, meeting requirements of the school or ex-pectations of teachers and parents, as well as the desire to avoidpunishment (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999, 2000; Wigfield & Guthrie,1997).

Various constructs of reading motivation have been ex-amined closely and subsequently modified to determine their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 3

relation to text comprehension by L1 reading theorists. Fol-lowing a review of motivation literature, Wigfield and Guthrie(1997) proposed a set of motivational constructs for reading inL1, which included reading efficacy, importance, curiosity, in-volvement, preference for challenge, recognition, grades, com-petition, social sharing of reading, compliance, and work avoid-ance. Based on this theoretical distinction as well as previousfindings, a two-factor (intrinsic and extrinsic) reading motiva-tion model has been proposed by Wang and Guthrie (2004)to explain variance in text comprehension. They hypothesizedthat the intrinsic motivation factor underlies three constructsof curiosity, involvement, and preference for challenge, whereasthe extrinsic factor underlies five constructs, namely recognition,grades, social reading, competition, and compliance. They usedthis two-factor motivational model to explain variance in L1 textcomprehension.

Thus, reading motivation has been viewed as a multidimen-sional construct with multiple constituents. L1 research (Wang &Guthrie, 2004; Wentzel, 1997; Wigfield, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie,1995; 1997) reports that students may possess simultaneous intrin-sic and extrinsic motivational goals to satisfy their own interestsand school requirements. In this respect, all facets of motivationare activating. However, within an individual, some aspects of mo-tivation are stronger than others (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In L1 set-tings, the degree of intrinsic reading motivation strongly predictsreading comprehension abilities (Guthrie et al., 2004; Wang &Guthrie, 2004).

In contrast to the availability of a large volume of research onL1 reading motivation, there exists a little research on L2 contextand very little of it addresses reading achievement (Grabe, 2009;Grabe & Stoller, 2002). Bamford and Day (1998) were the first toattempt to create a theoretical model of L2 reading motivationbased on the components of expectancy and value. Expectancy isconnected to the constructs of reading materials (being interest-ing, linguistic levels, attractiveness, and availability) and L2 read-ing ability, whereas value is related to attitudes toward L2 readingand socio-cultural influences. They claimed that L2 materials andattitudes toward L2 reading are major influences on L2 readingmotivation. However, their model has not been researched and,hence, lacks empirical evidence.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

4 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

In addition, a few studies on L2 reading motivation measures(Dhanapala, 2007; Mori, 2002; Takase, 2007) have been carriedout with interesting results along the lines of L1 research (Deci& Ryan, 1985; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Wigfield & Guthrie,1995, 1997). Mori (1999) investigated 52 Japanese university stu-dents’ reading motivation with the use of a questionnaire. Shefound that the students who liked to read to obtain good grades,who were willing to go to the library to read, and who liked thematerials read relatively a larger amount of reading in L2 thanothers did. In an extended study, Mori (2002) investigated EFLreading motivational constituents with 447 Japanese female uni-versity students based on the theory of L1 reading motivation(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). The researcher obtained data froman original questionnaire proposed by L1 researchers’ (Wigfield,1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) theory of reading motivation.She hypothesized that motivation to read in a foreign languagemight be, to a certain degree, independent of general motiva-tional constructs; however, the findings did not support this hy-pothesis. Instead, results suggested that foreign language read-ing motivation was multi-dimensional and closely resembled moregeneral forms of motivation suggested by L1 reading theorists(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Wigfield, 1997). Results also suggestedthat motivation to read in English might be divided into four sub-components, namely intrinsic value of reading in English, attain-ment value of reading in English, extrinsic utility value of read-ing in English, and expectancy for success in reading in English.Her main aim was to examine whether the motivation in L1 read-ing could be validated in L2 reading motivation. Although Mori(2002) investigated what constituted foreign language readingbased on theories of L1 reading motivation, she did not assessit with the text comprehension level of Japanese students. Kim’s(2011) study, using 259 Korean EFL college students, investigatedthe underlying factors of L2 reading motivation based on the con-structs used by previous researchers (Mori, 2002; Takase, 2007;Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). She identified four factors (learn-ing goal-oriented motivation, utility value of reading, intrinsicmotivation, and avoidance of reading) and found that only thefirst two factors were correlated with Korean students’ L2 textcomprehension.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 5

In contrast, Dhanapala’s (2007) pilot study validated thequestionnaire she used, based on the intrinsic and extrinsic mo-tivation model proposed by Wang and Guthrie (2004) to assessthe L2 reading motivation of 247 Sri Lankan and Japanese uni-versity students in three proficiency levels. Her aim was to ex-amine the relationship among different motivational constructsbetween intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000a;2000b; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1995, 1997) and L2 reading behav-ior among Japanese and Sri Lankan university students. The re-sults supported the claims made by L1 researchers that intrinsicand extrinsic motivation had different relationships with text com-prehension. Consistent with the findings of L1 research (Wang& Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), results suggestedthat intrinsic motivational constructs were likely to empower SriLankan students’ cognitive engagement strongly in understand-ing texts and Japanese students’ engagement in L2 text compre-hension weakly. Results also supported the claims made by L1 re-searchers that students’ reading was influenced by integration ofboth intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Takase’s (2007) study was one example of interventional stud-ies that aimed to enhance EFL learners’ motivation to read. Sheinvestigated factors affecting reading motivation with 219 femalehigh school students who participated in an extensive readingprogram. The instruments used in the study were a pre- and post-reading comprehension test and a motivation questionnaire de-veloped by the researcher, based on three constructs: (a) moti-vation and attitudes towards reading in L2, (b) motivation andattitudes in L1, and (c) parents and family influences on readingin L1. Results showed that intrinsic motivation was the best pre-dictor of motivation for Japanese high school students to read inboth L1 and L2. Results indicated a positive relationship with thereading amount and text comprehension, but motivation did notcorrelate with L2 text comprehension.

Objectives of the Study and Research Questions

The paucity of motivation research in L2 context motivated us toinvestigate how cognitive, affective, and social factors affect read-ing motivational behavior among Sri Lankan university students

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

6 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

and how these motivational constructs affect their text compre-hension. Based on the literature on reading motivation in bothL1 and L2 contexts, we constructed a questionnaire on students’attitudes and beliefs on L2 reading engagement. Therefore, themain objective of this research was to investigate the underlyingstructure of reading motivation among L2 learners and the rela-tionship between students’ motivation and their text comprehen-sion. Similarly, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to ex-amine the hypothesized two-factor model of reading motivationthat described the relationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tion within SDT and text comprehension. The most modern read-ing motivation theories are Western oriented; however, the socialand cultural aspects of the Sri Lankan university context can re-ally alter the underlying factor structure within SDT. Hence, weformulated the following questions in this study:

1. What are the underlying constructs of reading motivationamong Sri Lankan university students?

2. How are these constructs related to each other and text com-prehension?

3. To what extent can the relationships described in the two-factor hypothesized model of reading motivation be confirmedby the structural model?

Method

Participants

A total of 406 participants completed the test and the ques-tionnaire. The sample group was made up of 215 (53%) fe-male and 191 (47%) male undergraduates from three Sri Lankanpublic universities: University 1 (n = 128 [32%]), University 2(n = 188 [46%]), and University 3 (n = 90 [22%]). These un-dergraduates from the first to third years were enrolled in differ-ent subdisciplinary courses related to arts and humanities, socialsciences, sciences, and medicine. They had been learning Englishfor nine years on average, mostly in primary, junior, and seniorhigh schools. The mean age of the participants were 22 years (ageranged from 20 to 24 years) and the majority of the participantswere specializing their respective majors in the English medium,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 7

whereas one third of the participants who were studying their ma-jor subjects in their native language, Sinhala, were taking generalEnglish language proficiency courses for three to four hours aweek. The participants’ home language background was eitherSinhala (90%) or Tamil (10%).

Instruments

READING COMPREHENSION TEST (RCT)The reading comprehension test (RCT) consisted of four

passages to measure the general reading comprehension abilitiesrather than on academic reading. There were 10 multiple-choice(MC) questions on each passage totaling 40 questions. The pas-sages ranged from 267 to 357 words in length, with an averageof 319 words. The readability levels varied somewhat across thepassages that were rather difficult for EFL learners. The averageFlesch Reading Ease value was 55.20 for the four passages. Thequestions in the RCT included items on vocabulary in context,identifying main ideas and summarization skills, generation of in-ferences and prediction, identifying supporting or specific detailsof texts, and knowledge of text structure and discourse organiza-tion. The participants took the one-hour test in a paper and pen-cil format during their regular English class time. The Cronbachalpha coefficient for 40 MC items in the RCT was .86.

READING MOTIVATION AND ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIREThe Reading Motivation and Attitude Questionnaire

(RMAQ) consisted of 60 items. We utilized some constructs ofreading motivation developed by L1 reading researchers onthe dichotomous reading constructs of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation based on the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,1985). Some items in Wigfield and Guthrie’s (1997) study werenot considered relevant to adult participants; therefore, the itemswere modified to suit to the Sri Lankan context. Similarly, weincluded some items on students’ affective feelings toward L2reading because attitudes would affect students’ engagementin L2 reading particularly when they read texts in a foreignlanguage. L1 researchers (Alexander & Filler, 1976; McKenna,2001) also have emphasized that students’ attitudes relatedto reading influence their reading engagement. These items

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

8 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

were based on reading motivation and attitudes in L2 context(Dhanapala, 2007; Kim, 2011; Yamashita, 2007). Some itemswere modified, and new items were included to suit to the SriLankan context. These items were designed to represent severaltheoretical dimensions of reading motivation (see Table 1).The format for all items was a 6-point Likert scale, rangingfrom 1 (completely disagree) through 6 (completely agree).Before administering these questionnaires, they were translatedinto students’ native language, Sinhala, by an expert translatorand subjected to a back-translation procedure to confirm theprecision of the translation, expert judgment/evaluation, andpilot testing on a group of students.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures

The RCT was completed during the regular class time that lastedapproximately one hour. The participants also completed theRMAQ after the reading comprehension test. Before, administer-ing the RMAQ, proper instructions were given how the partici-pants should answer the questionnaire items. To analyze the data,descriptive and inferential statistics were computed using the ver-sion of 19.0 of the SPSS. Principal component analysis (PCA) wasused to identify the factors for motivational and attitudinal items.Correlational analysis was used to examine the intercorrelationsof the variables while structural equation modeling (SEM) wasused to examine the hypothesized model.

Results

Research Question 1: The Underlying Constructs of Reading Motivation

For the final analysis, data with no outliers were used, and scoresof both the RCT and RMAQ were normally distributed. The pre-liminary analysis indicated that the Bartlett’s test of sphericity wassignificant (p < .000) and the KMO value was .88, which suggestedthat factor analysis was appropriate. Then, PCA was conducted on60 items with Promax rotation to identify potential factors, as it isconsidered “psychometrically sound and mathematically simpler;and it avoids the issues with ‘factor indeterminacy’ associated withfactor analysis” (Stevens, 1996, pp. 362–363).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

TA

BL

E1

Sum

mar

yof

Exp

lora

tory

Fact

orA

nal

ysis

Res

ults

for

the

RM

AQ

Com

pon

ents

and

Item

s1

23

45

67

89

FAC

TO

R1:

UT

ILIT

YV

AL

UE

OF

RE

AD

ING

1.R

eadi

ng

En

glis

hm

ater

ials

will

impr

ove

sear

chin

gin

foon

the

Inte

rnet

..8

3−.

01−.

01−.

04−.

03.1

0−.

03−.

04−.

01

2.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

impr

ove

my

abili

tyto

acqu

ire

muc

hvo

cabu

lary

..8

2.0

4.0

3−.

12.0

3.0

0−.

04.0

9−.

05

3.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

hel

pm

ew

rite

bett

er.

.79

.06

.02

−.14

.00

.01

−.05

.20

−.06

4.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

hel

pim

prov

em

yE

ngl

ish

com

mun

icat

ion

abili

ty.

.78

.11

.04

−.06

−.01

.03

.00

.02

.01

5.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

hel

pm

eim

prov

em

yac

adem

icpe

rfor

man

cein

my

maj

or.

.71

.05

.11

−.15

.04

−.16

−.02

−.02

.05

6.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

broa

den

my

wor

ldvi

ew.

.70

.03

.08

.06

−.02

.07

−.08

.08

.05

7.I

can

deve

lop

read

ing

abili

tyif

Ire

gula

rly

read

En

glis

hm

ater

ials

..7

0.0

8.0

5.0

1−.

04−.

07.0

7−.

12.0

4

8.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

isus

eful

tosh

ape

my

pers

onal

ity.

.70

−.15

.04

.09

.06

−.07

−.02

−.04

−.03

9.I

wan

tto

read

inE

ngl

ish

beca

use

Ipl

anto

geta

job

that

requ

ires

adva

nce

dsk

ills

inre

adin

gin

En

glis

h.

.69

−.12

−.07

.08

.06

.18

.07

−.05

−.13

10.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

hel

pm

ebe

com

ea

know

ledg

eabl

epe

rson

..6

8.1

2.0

8−.

17−.

07−.

16.1

0−.

03−.

12

11.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

isus

eful

toge

tago

odgr

ade

incl

ass.

.67

−.15

−.12

.14

−.01

.14

.07

.00

.06

12.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

isim

port

ant,

asw

en

eed

toco

pew

ith

inte

rnat

ion

aliz

atio

n.

.65

−.08

−.13

.16

.01

.14

−.08

−.15

.20

(Con

tinue

don

next

page

)

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

TA

BL

E1

Sum

mar

yof

Exp

lora

tory

Fact

orA

nal

ysis

Res

ults

for

the

RM

AQ

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pon

ents

and

Item

s1

23

45

67

89

13.R

eadi

ng

inE

ngl

ish

will

hel

pm

ebe

com

ea

crit

ical

thin

ker.

.53

−.04

−.05

.01

−.10

−.20

−.02

−.01

.25

FAC

TO

R2:

CU

RIO

SIT

YA

ND

INV

OLV

EM

EN

T14

.Ien

joy

read

ing

En

glis

hbo

oks

abou

tpeo

ple

indi

ffer

entc

oun

trie

s..0

2.8

2.0

2−.

05.1

4.0

6−.

00−.

11.0

1

15.I

read

En

glis

hn

ewsp

aper

s.−.

00.7

7.0

5−.

00.0

2.1

5−.

09−.

00.0

516

.Ire

adin

En

glis

hab

outm

yh

obbi

esto

lear

nm

ore

abou

tth

em.

.06

.77

−.01

−.14

−.13

.07

.17

−.10

.06

17.I

read

clas

sica

lboo

ks,m

ater

ials

,jou

rnal

set

c.in

En

glis

h.

−.05

.71

.13

.25

.01

−.02

−.07

−.23

.12

18.I

mak

epi

ctur

esin

my

min

dw

hen

Ire

adin

En

glis

h.

.02

.69

.03

−.00

.02

−.07

−.08

.23

−.08

19.I

hav

ean

En

glis

hbo

okn

earb

yan

dre

adit

wh

enev

erti

me

perm

its.

−.09

.66

−.15

.02

.07

.10

.15

−.08

−.03

20.I

fIam

read

ing

abou

tan

inte

rest

ing

topi

cin

En

glis

h,I

geti

mm

erse

din

it.

−.01

.62

−.03

−.10

−.05

−.15

.14

.29

−.21

21.I

hav

efa

vori

tesu

bjec

tsth

atI

like

tore

adab

out

inE

ngl

ish

..0

1.6

1.0

8−.

01.0

5−.

02−.

12.1

9.1

1

22.I

read

En

glis

hfi

ctio

n.

−.03

.56

.07

.21

.06

−.14

−.20

.18

−.15

FAC

TO

R3:

NE

GA

TIV

EA

FFE

CT

IVE

AT

TIT

UD

ES

23.I

feel

anxi

ous

ifI

amn

otsu

rew

het

her

Iun

ders

tan

dw

hat

Ire

adin

En

glis

h.

.01

−.02

.86

.02

−.03

−.15

.04

−.05

.15

24.I

feel

tire

dw

hen

Ih

ave

tore

adlo

ng

and

diffi

cult

En

glis

hm

ater

ials

..0

1.0

3.8

1−.

08−.

06−.

09.0

5.1

3.0

7

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

25.T

he

diffi

cult

wor

dsan

dgr

amm

arpu

tme

off,

thou

ghI

like

tore

adE

ngl

ish

book

s..0

8.0

8.8

1.0

3−.

00−.

05.0

5−.

09−.

10

26.I

feel

tire

dif

Ire

adan

yE

ngl

ish

mat

eria

l.−.

02.0

1.7

4.0

7−.

03−.

01−.

03.0

9.0

127

.Wh

enI

read

En

glis

hm

ater

ials

,Iea

sily

get

dist

ract

ed.

.020

.00

.54

.02

.05

.33

.01

−.08

−.07

28.I

hav

en

ode

sire

tore

adin

En

glis

hev

enif

the

con

ten

toft

he

En

glis

hm

ater

ials

isin

tere

stin

g..0

2.1

8.4

6.0

3.0

0.2

6.0

8−.

25−.

06

FAC

TO

R4:

PO

SIT

IVE

BE

HAV

IOR

OF

RE

AD

ING

29.I

goto

libra

ryto

read

orbo

rrow

En

glis

hbo

oks.

−.12

−.12

.16

.87

−.05

−.06

−.00

.09

.12

30.I

buy

En

glis

hbo

oks

from

the

book

shop

sto

read

duri

ng

leis

ure

tim

e.−.

21−.

00−.

08.7

7−.

04.0

9.0

4.0

6.0

9

31.I

regu

larl

yre

adso

me

kin

dof

En

glis

hm

ater

ial.

.09

.04

.08

.76

−.05

−.13

.04

−.04

.01

32.W

hen

Ire

adE

ngl

ish

mat

eria

ls,I

ofte

nke

epre

adin

gfo

ran

exte

nde

dpe

riod

.−.

00−.

03.1

1.5

9−.

01.0

8.1

4.2

4−.

26

33.I

enjo

yre

adin

gE

ngl

ish

book

sdu

rin

gm

yle

isur

eti

me.

.14

.19

−.27

.52

.12

−.08

.07

−.12

−.06

34.I

fin

ish

read

ing

the

enti

reE

ngl

ish

mat

eria

l..2

3.0

9−.

25.5

0−.

11.0

2−.

01.1

0−.

0735

.Rea

din

gE

ngl

ish

ison

eof

my

hob

bies

..1

1.1

7−.

21.4

7.0

5−.

21.0

2−.

02−.

01

FAC

TO

R5:

AT

TIT

UD

ES

TO

WA

RD

RE

CO

GN

ITIO

N36

.Ilik

eh

avin

gm

yfr

ien

dsso

met

imes

tell

me

Iam

ago

odE

ngl

ish

read

er.

.00

.10

−.00

−.08

.89

−.05

.03

−.02

.09

37.I

like

hav

ing

my

pare

nts

tell

me

wh

ata

good

job

Iam

doin

gin

read

ing

inE

ngl

ish

..0

1−.

13.0

3.0

4.8

6−.

11.0

9−.

01.0

7

38.I

like

hav

ing

the

teac

her

say

Ire

adw

elli

nE

ngl

ish

..0

4.0

9−.

02−.

04.8

2.0

2−.

00.1

3.0

1

39.I

like

tobe

rew

arde

dfo

rth

ekn

owle

dge

gain

edth

roug

hre

adin

gin

En

glis

h.

−.06

.10

−.10

−.07

.76

.09

−.00

−.02

.11

(Con

tinue

don

next

page

)

11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

TA

BL

E1

Sum

mar

yof

Exp

lora

tory

Fact

orA

nal

ysis

Res

ults

for

the

RM

AQ

(Con

tinue

d)

Com

pon

ents

and

Item

s1

23

45

67

89

FAC

TO

R6:

CO

MP

LIA

NC

E40

.Ial

way

sdo

my

En

glis

hre

adin

gw

ork

exac

tly

asth

ete

ach

erw

ants

it.

.02

−.04

−.10

−.08

.00

.91

−.03

.20

.04

41.I

read

inE

ngl

ish

beca

use

Ih

ave

to.

.00

.06

−.08

−.05

−.02

.84

−.10

.12

−.06

42.I

alw

ays

try

tofi

nis

hm

yE

ngl

ish

read

ing

onti

me.

.02

.23

−.09

−.10

−.14

.67

.26

.10

.17

43.I

read

En

glis

hm

ater

ials

only

wh

enI

amre

quir

edto

doas

hom

ewor

kor

clas

sas

sign

men

t.

.00

−.04

.34

.05

.09

.56

−.06

−.05

−.09

44.I

take

anE

ngl

ish

read

ing

clas

sbe

caus

eit

isa

requ

ired

subj

ect.

.06

−.06

.31

.17

.06

.55

.00

−.10

−.21

FAC

TO

R7:

SOC

IAL

SHA

RIN

GO

FR

EA

DIN

G45

.Ire

adE

ngl

ish

book

sin

orde

rto

mee

tmy

pare

nts

’exp

ecta

tion

s..0

2.0

1.0

3.0

5−.

13.0

9.7

9.0

8.2

0

46.I

like

tote

llm

yfa

mily

abou

twh

atI

amre

adin

gin

En

glis

h.

.04

−.13

−.01

.07

.15

−.00

.75

−.06

−.00

47.I

ofte

nlik

eto

hel

pm

yyo

unge

rbr

oth

eror

sist

erin

En

glis

hre

adin

g.−.

05−.

06.0

5.0

7.1

6−.

09.7

4.0

7−.

23

48.I

like

tota

lkto

my

frie

nds

abou

twh

atI

amre

adin

gin

En

glis

h.

−.05

.19

.09

.00

−.09

−.03

.66

. 04

.29

FAC

TO

R8:

CH

AL

LE

NG

EFO

RR

EA

DIN

G49

.Ilik

eh

ard,

chal

len

gin

gbo

oks

inE

ngl

ish

.−.

04.0

6−.

05.0

2.0

7.2

2.0

1.8

1.0

550

.Ift

he

En

glis

hm

ater

iali

sin

tere

stin

g,I

can

read

diffi

cult

mat

eria

l.−.

05.1

6−.

13.1

0−.

04.1

7−.

06.7

6.0

4

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

51.I

usua

llyle

arn

diffi

cult

thin

gsby

read

ing

inE

ngl

ish

..1

1−.

20.0

4.0

5.0

0−.

10.2

9.7

0−.

12

52.H

owh

ard

the

En

glis

hre

fere

nce

mat

eria

lsre

com

men

ded

bym

yte

ach

ers

are,

Ire

adth

em.

−.01

.02

.22

.30

−.01

.02

−.16

.45

.27

FAC

TO

R9:

AT

TIT

UD

ES

TO

WA

RD

GR

AD

ES

53.I

look

forw

ard

tofi

ndi

ng

outm

yE

ngl

ish

grad

e..0

5.0

2.0

2−.

00.0

7−.

02−.

01−.

01.8

454

.Ilik

em

ypa

ren

tsto

ask

me

abou

tmy

En

glis

hgr

ade.

−.05

.04

−.03

.03

.11

−.05

.15

−.01

.75

55.I

like

tore

adE

ngl

ish

toim

prov

em

ygr

ades

..1

3−.

13.1

0−.

04.2

2.0

7−.

00.3

2.5

1

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

14 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

An initial analysis was run to obtain Eigen values for each fac-tor of the data. Initially 12 factors were loaded according to PCAanalysis; however, some items were loaded in three factors veryinconsistently and had extremely low loadings. Nine factors hadeigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of one. The scree plot showedinflexions that would justify retaining either seven or nine fac-tors. We retained nine factors because of the large sample size,interpretability of the resulting solution, and the convergence ofthe scree plot and the Kaiser’s criterion on this value. Table 1shows the factor loadings after rotation. All nine factors explained60.65% of the total variance of Sri Lankan students’ reading moti-vation. The internal consistency reliability of the 55-item question-naire (only loaded items on different factors; originally 60 items)as measured by Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

The first factor had high loadings on 13 items and accountedfor 20.49% of the total variance. These items were related to theimportance or value of L2 reading and, thus, named as utility valueof reading. These items were related to the advantages reading inEnglish bestows on the participants. (e.g., “Reading in English willhelp me improve all four skills of the English language; readingin English will help me be a knowledgeable person”). The nineitems, loaded into the second factor accounting for 10.26% of thetotal variance, were related to students’ enjoyment, involvementor desire to learn (Wigfield, 1997); hence, it was interpreted as cu-riosity and involvement in reading (e.g., “I enjoy reading fiction; if Iam reading about an interesting topic in English, I get immersedin it”). The six items in the third factor with 7.46% of the totalvariance were related to students’ negative affect toward readingL2 texts, an aspect that concerns what students say they do notlike about reading (e.g., The difficult words and grammar put meoff, though I like to read; I feel tired when I have to read long anddifficult English materials”) and were named as negative affective at-titudes. The seven items loaded into the fourth factor accountingan additional variance of 5.63% referred to students’ positive be-havior of reading, which arise from their constant engagement toreading (e.g., “I go to the library to read or borrow English books;I regularly read some kind of English material; when I read En-glish materials, I often keep reading for an extended period”).Therefore, it was labeled as positive behavior of reading. Factor 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 15

loaded strongly on four items related to students’ attitudes to berecognized by their parents, teachers, and peers or the satisfac-tion in receiving a tangible form of appreciation for success inreading (e.g., “I like having my friends sometimes tell me I ama good English reader; I like to be rewarded for the knowledgegained through reading in English”). It accounted 4.38% of thetotal variance and was named as attitudes toward recognition. Factor6, with five items accounting 3.71% of the total variance, was re-lated to students’ reading due to university course requirementsand the pressure placed upon them by teachers to read L2 texts(e.g., “I read English materials only when I am required to doas homework or class assignment”). Hence, they were labeled ascompliance (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). Factor 7, with four items,accounted 3.58% of the total variance and was concerned with stu-dents’ reading activities situated in the social context or social rea-sons for reading, i.e. reading to meet the expectations of others(Wigfiled & Guthrie, 1997). Hence, it was labeled as social sharingof reading (e.g., “I often like to help my younger brother or sisterin English reading; I like to talk to my friends about what I amreading in English”). Factor 8, with three items and an additionalvariance of 2.84%, was named as challenge for reading (Guthrie &Wigfield, 1997) because reading engagement requires challengeto read difficult materials particularly when they read academictexts in L2 (e.g., “How hard the English reference materials rec-ommended by my teachers are, I read them; If the English mate-rial is interesting, I can read difficult material.”). The last factor,accounting 2.30% of the total variance, was related to students’perceptions on reading that affected their grades or the desire tobe positively evaluated by the teacher (e.g., “I like to read Englishto improve my grades”). Therefore, these three items were namedas attitude toward grades. Based on the previous research and the-ory related to L1 and L2 reading motivation (Dhanapala, 2007;Takase, 2007; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield, 1997; Wigfield &Guthrie, 1997), utility value of reading, curiosity and involvementin reading, positive behavior of reading, challenge for readingwere considered as intrinsic motivational constructs, whereas neg-ative affective attitudes, attitudes toward recognition, compliance,social sharing of reading, and attitude toward grades were consid-ered as extrinsic motivational constructs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

16 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

Research Question 2: Interrelationship Among Variables

The correlations between variables, mean scores, standard devia-tions and reliability of the factors are shown in Table 2. As shownin Table 2, Sri Lankan university students’ text comprehensionwas positively correlated with curiosity and involvement (r = .28,p < .001), challenge for reading (r = .20, p < .001), utility valueof reading (r = .17, p < .001), and positive behavior of reading (r= .20, p < .001). Conversely, text comprehension was negativelycorrelated with compliance (r = −.25, p < .001) and negative af-fective attitudes (r = −.15, p < .001). Similarly, recognition andgrades were negatively correlated (all non-significant correlationshave p > .05), and social sharing of reading had no significantrelationship with text comprehension; however, it was positive. Itwas interesting to observe that both compliance and negative af-fective attitudes were highly correlated (r = .54, p < .001), andnegatively correlated either significantly or non-significantly withall other variables.

Research Question 3: Confirmation of the Intrinsic and ExtrinsicModel with Text Comprehension

On the basis of the interpretation of the reading motivation liter-ature in both L1 and L2 contexts (Dhanapala, 2007; Takase, 2007;Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield, 1997; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997),it was hypothesized that motivational variables underlie two mo-tivational constructs, which were intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-tion. Similarly, we expected reading motivation to be associatedwith text comprehension. Previous research suggests that bothintrinsic and extrinsic motivation contribute to text comprehen-sion differently (Dhanapala, 2007; Kim, 2011; Takase, 2007; Wang& Guthrie, 2004). In the hypothesized model, we assumed thatnot only attitudes toward grades, social sharing, recognition, andcompliance but also negative affective attitudes would contributeto students’ extrinsic motivation because it would bring negativeachievement-related processes. On the other hand, utility valueof reading, positive behavioral attitudes to reading, curiosity andinvolvement, and challenge for reading were hypothesized to bepredictors of intrinsic motivation. Similarly, both motivational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

TA

BL

E2

Inte

rcor

rela

tion

sA

mon

gR

eadi

ng

Mot

ivat

ion

Subs

cale

sw

ith

Mea

ns,

SDs,

and

Cro

nba

ch’s

Alp

ha

Rel

iabi

lity

Vari

able

12

34

56

78

910

1.Te

xtco

mpr

ehen

sion

2.C

urio

sity

and

invo

lvem

ent

.28∗∗

3.C

hal

len

gefo

rre

adin

g.2

0∗∗.4

9∗∗

4.A

ttit

udes

tow

ard

reco

gnit

ion

−.06

.24∗∗

.31∗∗

5.A

ttit

ude

tow

ard

grad

es−.

03.2

2∗∗.3

9∗∗.4

9∗∗

6.So

cial

shar

ing

ofre

adin

g.0

2.1

9∗∗.2

3∗∗.1

8∗∗.2

2∗∗

7.C

ompl

ian

ce−.

25∗∗

−.21

∗∗−.

19∗∗

−.08

−.06

−.17

∗∗

8.U

tilit

yva

lue

ofre

adin

g.1

7∗∗.1

9∗∗.3

8∗∗.2

1∗∗.3

0∗∗.2

5∗∗−.

16∗∗

9.Po

siti

vebe

hav

ior

ofre

adin

g.2

0∗∗.4

3∗∗.3

8∗∗.2

6∗∗.1

6∗∗.2

7∗∗−.

39∗∗

.28∗∗

10.N

egat

ive

affe

ctiv

eat

titu

des

−.15

∗∗−.

14∗∗

−.06

−.04

−.07

−.07

.54∗∗

−.01

−.30

∗

Mea

ns

22.9

23.

424.

044.

544.

714.

283.

225.

153.

323.

95SD

7.41

1.05

.97

1.04

1.00

1.23

1.13

.69

.97

.98

Cro

nba

ch’s

α.8

6.8

8.7

3.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

8.9

1.8

6.8

0

17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

18 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

FIGURE 1 The Hypothesized Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.

constructs would contribute to text comprehension. Figure 1 dis-plays the path diagram for the hypothesized model.

A SEM approach with AMOS program was used to test if thetwo-factor model adequately explains the hypothesized model ofSri Lankan students’ reading motivation. There were no missingvalues and data were normally distributed. We used the maxi-mum likelihood estimation and evaluated the tested model by twogoodness-of-fit indices: the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and theRoot Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). The CFIvalues range from 0 to 1, with values close to 1.00 being indicativeof good fit. If it is greater than .95, it is considered as an excellentmodel fit, whereas if RMSEA value (which ranges from 0 to 1) is.07 or less, it is considered as acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Based on the theory of reading motivation associated withL1 and L2 settings, the two-factor motivational measurementmodel was first tested to observe the fit of the data. The re-sults initially suggested that the chi-square value of the two-factormodel (28, n = 406) was 88.92, p < .000, indicating a relativelypoor fit to the data (CFI = .89, RMSEA = .07 with the 90%

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 19

confidence interval ranging from .06 to .09). It was observed thatboth negative affective attitudes and compliance were negativepredictors of extrinsic motivation; similarly, negative affective at-titudes did not predict extrinsic motivation significantly. There-fore, the two-factor structure was again examined deleting thesenon-significant constructs. The results showed χ2 (18, N = 406)= 49.26, p < .000 (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .06 with a 90% confi-dence interval of .04 to .09), indicating a better fit than that of theearlier model. Examination of modification index results showedthat the residuals between curiosity and involvement and utilityvalue of reading were significantly correlated but negatively in-dicating that though university students are highly aware of theutility value of reading, their curiosity and involvement was lower.This finding is consistent with Kim’s study (2011) in which Koreanparticipants’ utility value of reading was very high in spite of theirreading proficiency, but utility value was negatively correlated withintrinsic factors. In our study, as is shown in Table 1, curiosity andinvolvement was correlated with utility value of reading at .19 (p< .001) in the correlational analysis. Based on the very high meanscores of utility value of reading and moderate mean values oncuriosity and involvement, we allowed the residuals between cu-riosity and involvement and utility value of reading to covary inthe measurement model. This procedure led to fit the model ex-ceptionally well, χ3 (17, N = 406) = 30.50, p < .023 (CFI = .97,RMSEA = .04 with a 90% confidence interval of .02 to .07). Thetwo factors were correlated at .71, indicating that students possessboth intrinsic and extrinsic motivational drives to read L2 materi-als. The two-factor model with the error specifications had smallerchi-square values compared to the model 2 (�χ2 [1] = 18.76) andfitted to the data well. These fit measures reveal that there was arelatively good fit to the structural model.

As is shown in Figure 2, the motivational constructs weresignificantly associated with their latent factor as the test statis-tics (Z value) of each factor loading was greater than 3.35. Thestrength of association among curiosity and involvement, chal-lenge for reading, and utility value of reading were higher thanthat of positive behavior of reading, while all the variables in ex-trinsic motivation had equally associated with it. The structuralmodel showed that intrinsic motivation had a positive direct asso-ciation with Sri Lankan students’ text comprehension (standard

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

20 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

FIGURE 2 The Structural Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.

path coefficient = .86, p < .001), while extrinsic motivation had anegative association with text comprehension (standard path co-efficient = −.73, p < .001). Results of the SEM analysis indicatedthat intrinsic and extrinsic motivation accounted for variation ofindividual differences in Sri Lankan students’ reading motivationand L2 text comprehension. It is important to mention here thatthe correlation between extrinsic motivation and text comprehen-sion according to the correlation analysis was small (see Table 2).However, after the structural testing, the standardized path coef-ficient between these two variables was negative (−.74, p < .01).This was due to the high correlation between intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation and the strong and positive effect of intrinsic moti-vation on text comprehension. In other words, the relatively highcorrelation between extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivationinduced a positive spurious effect of extrinsic motivation on textcomprehension, and the remaining effect of extrinsic motivationand text comprehension was negative.

Discussion

The objective of this research was to examine the underlyingstructure of Sri Lankan university students’ reading motivationand how these motivational constructs affected their text com-prehension. Results showed that both intrinsic and extrinsic mo-tivation predicted text comprehension in different ways. While

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 21

intrinsic motivation had a positive relationship, the extrinsic moti-vation had a negative relationship with their text comprehension.Both motivational constructs accounted 14% of the variance of SriLankan students’ text comprehension.

In this study, intrinsic motivation was observed by four con-structs: curiosity and involvement, challenge for reading, positivebehavior of reading, and utility value of reading. These motiva-tional constructs empower Sri Lankan students’ engagement inunderstanding L2 texts. Sri Lankan students read not only gen-eral reading materials such as newspapers and fiction availablein the local market but also the academic related materials. Themore they engaged in reading these materials, the higher their en-hancement of their text comprehension was. Similarly, the higher-level readers preferred to engage in reading hard and challengingmaterials since they perceived that they could improve reading byreading those difficult materials. In Sri Lanka, for many of thestudents who participated in the study and were learning in theEnglish medium, reading academic texts, journals, articles, andso forth is rather challenging; however, they have to read thosematerials in order to obtain good grades in academic courses. Ac-cording to Wigfield and Guthrie (1997), one aspect of intrinsicmotivation is involvement in the reading activity where studentsexperience losing track of time and engagement in an “intenseand highly energized state of concentrated attention” (Nell, 1988,p. 263). This aspect of readers’ experience was described by Csik-szentmihalyi (1990) as the flow of experience. In this study, thecomposite picture of Sri Lankan students’ curiosity and involve-ment, challenge for reading, and positive behavior of reading, ex-cept their perceptions on the utility value of reading, is ratherbleak compared to that of the extrinsic motivational constructs(attitudes toward recognition, social sharing, and attitude towardgrades). If they exert their efforts in increasing their interestsor pleasure in reading, it will positively affect their text compre-hension. Their positive behavior of reading is highly correlatedwith their curiosity and challenge for reading, implying that themore they grow their reading habits, the more their curiosity andinvolvement and challenge for reading will be. Commitment toreading both general and academic materials and engagementin frequent reading is fundamental to the development of read-ing competence and boost the flow of reading (Csikszentmihalyi,1990). However, further analyses showed that both curiosity and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

22 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

involvement and challenge for reading of high-level readers weregreater than those of their counterparts with lower levels of com-prehension. The implication here is that the greater the low-levelreaders’ engagement in reading is, the higher their improvementof their text comprehension, similar to their peers who possesshigher text comprehension. Similar to the findings of the studiesdone in L2 contexts (Kim, 2011, Yamashita, 2004), in spite of theirreading proficiency levels, Sri Lankan students’ perceptions thatEnglish is important in their academic activities, as well as for theirfuture, is highly visible in this study. They were aware that readingin English would help them acquire L2 linguistic skills (vocabu-lary, writing skills, and communication skills) that, in turn, affecttheir academic performance. Similarly, they were aware that read-ing is essential in this globalized world to gain the required worldknowledge and to be a critical thinker.

In this study, though we considered recognition, attitudestoward grades, social sharing of reading, compliance, and nega-tive attitudes toward reading as extrinsic motivational constructsin our hypothesized model, the CFA did not confirm it. Instead,only three constructs—recognition, attitudes toward grades, andsocial sharing of reading—were confirmed as constructs of ex-trinsic motivation. Sri Lankan students’ extrinsic motivation wasnegatively correlated with reading comprehension. Results of thestructural model confirmed the correlation results, indicating thatthough students are both intrinsically and extrinsically motivatedin reading academic and general reading materials, their extrinsicmotivational drives do not affect their text comprehension pos-itively. The fact that Sri Lankan students’ perceptions on recog-nition, grades, and social sharing were rather high could be ex-plained with regard to their cultural and educational practices.In Sri Lanka, the education is highly competitive, and from pri-mary schools, there is no automatic promotion to the next grade;those who perform well go up the educational ladder. Good per-formers in the school from the elementary level are highly recog-nized at the end of the year by rewards in the school system. Evenin the university system, good performers are awarded by offer-ing them first- and second-class divisions. In such an increasinglycompetitive educational context, many students in Sri Lanka mayvalue grades and recognition. However, this study showed thatmerely perceiving grades and recognition without engagement inreading activities does not contribute positively to their L2 text

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 23

comprehension. Similarly, in Sri Lankan culture, family membersare interdependent rather than individually oriented. Parents andadults in the family are considered experienced individuals andare expected to guide the young. In such a culture of collectivism,students may share what they read with peers and family; the edu-cated adult family members may guide or help their siblings in ed-ucational activities. In Sri Lanka, students are in a context wheresocial values are more emphasized than personal interest and aremore open to social sharing of reading.

Moreover, the highly extrinsically motivated students tend toread for external rewards and positive outcomes. Further analy-sis indicated that low-level comprehenders’ perceptions on recog-nition and grades were higher, implying that they depended onexternal rewards and social aspects of reading activities ratherthan overcoming challenges of reading and engaging in furtherreading. Those who read for more social and external reasonsmay lack intrinsic interest in learning from text. When interpret-ing L2 learners’ reading motivation, we cannot forget that thefact that mostly lower-level students, who lack sufficient linguis-tic skills, tend to distract their attention toward the material theyread and pay attention to only limited aspects of the text with-out employing deeper cognitive strategies and overcoming chal-lenges during reading. This was further confirmed by the twofactors loaded separately: compliance and negative affective atti-tudes, which were highly correlated to each other. Though thesetwo constructs do not significantly contribute to our structuralmodel, they indicate us an important finding in this study. Whenstudents have high negative emotional attitudes toward reading,they affect their compliance, which in turn, negatively affects theircuriosity and involvement in reading, their challenge for read-ing, their positive behavior of reading, and finally, their text com-prehension. Further analysis showed that students scoring higheron these factors tended to score lower on text comprehension.This could be attributed to the fact that lower-level students lackrequired vocabulary and grammar knowledge necessary for textcomprehension. The reading skills—inferencing skills, identify-ing text structure and discourse organization, identification ofmains ideas in texts and summarizing skills—were found to belower among the students who scored less in text comprehension.Many participants mentioned in the open-ended questionnairethat lack of sufficient vocabulary (both technical and general) and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

24 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

complex grammar knowledge hinders their interest in continu-ing reading and ultimately leads to giving up reading though theywanted to read more. Previous research in both L1 and L2 con-texts indicate that reading is interlinked with a variety of diversemotivations (Dhanapala, 2007; Kim; 2011; Takase, 2007; Wang &Guthrie, 2004; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). This study, consistentwith the previous findings, showed that students’ intrinsic moti-vation was highly correlated with their extrinsic motivation. Thatmeans that students are motivated in reading for multiple rea-sons. They read for both personal enjoyment as well as externalexpectations such as getting a good grade in the class, furtheringtheir education, or finding a job that requires higher reading pro-ficiency. In short, the Sri Lankan context gives them the impetusin reading in English both intrinsically and extrinsically. However,only their intrinsic motivation would contribute to their text com-prehension positively. In other words, those who had less intrinsicmotivation were less likely to be successful in text comprehension.The model in this study indicated that intrinsic motivation com-posed of four factors (curiosity and involvement, challenge forreading, positive behavior of reading, and utility value of reading)is productive to the efficient text comprehension of Sri Lankanstudents.

We also emphasize that most modern motivation theories areWestern-oriented and the local context, values, attitudes, and be-liefs of individuals can really alter the underlying factor structureof reading motivation within self-determination theory. The pro-ponents of the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002) em-phasized that individuals’ innate tendencies and need satisfactionare externally supported by social aspects (e.g., peers and class-mates, home, school) and broader cultural aspects (e.g., societalvalues, beliefs, culture influenced goals, cultural norms, and prac-tices) of specific contexts that they are exposed to. The findingsof this study supported this claim, and the reading motivation ofSri Lankan undergraduates is associated with and shaped by con-stant (re)appraisal and balancing of the various cognitive, social,and cultural influences embedded in the local context.

Further Research and Implications

Further investigation on the relationship between reading strate-gies and reading motivation may reveal their relationships.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 25

Similarly, qualitative measures such as interviews and observa-tions, together with longitudinal research, may reveal how stu-dents’ reading motivation changes across the time while they areadvancing to higher grades and how reading motivation affectstheir achievement behaviors. As Grabe (2009) pointed out, weneed to have more replication research with larger subject poolsand direct measures to reading achievement.

In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that intrin-sic motivation is fundamental to successful text comprehensionamong Sri Lankan university students. The implication to theclassroom practitioners to improve reading intrinsic motivationis particularly noteworthy. First, learners need greater scaffold-ing with L2 linguistic skills for their engagement in reading L2materials and to decrease their negative attitudes toward read-ing L2 materials. L2 readers require more “effective motivationalsupport from teachers and the curriculum itself” (Grabe, 2009,p. 191): promoting students’ autonomy, encouraging studentsfrom learning texts, and increasing their confidence in copingwith challenges in reading benefit their success in reading. Useof various interesting and challenging tasks in the classroom on aconsistent basis and teachers’ constant support to overcome dif-ficult tasks may increase students’ involvement in reading. Sim-ilarly, we need instructional treatment studies to examine howlong-term instruction affects students’ engagement in L2 readingand their text comprehension. Dhanapala’s (2009) interventionalstudy on reading strategy instruction and reading motivation forJapanese university students demonstrated that intrinsic motiva-tion for reading could be enhanced through instruction and thatmotivation impacts text comprehension. This study empiricallysupported that, in addition to cognitive processes, students needtheir motivational processes enriched by the situated social andcultural influences in successful text comprehension.

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants and lecturers in respective universitieswho helped us collect data for this research. We also thank theanonymous reviewers of the Reading Psychology journal on the ear-lier version of this paper. This work was supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Number 23-001014.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

26 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

References

Alexander, J. E., & Filler, R. C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark, DE:International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.getcited.org/pub/101673895

Bamford, J., & Day, R. R. (1998). Teaching reading. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics, 18, 124–141.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York,NY: Harper and Row.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002) Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,NY: The University of Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: hu-man needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227–268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in hu-man behavior. Rochester, NY. The University of Rochester Press.

Dhanapala, K. V. (2009). Multi-component reading strategy instruction: an in-terventional study on text comprehension, metacognitive awareness of strat-egy use and reading motivation in EFL context (Doctoral dissertation). Hi-roshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.

Dhanapala, K. V. (2007). Motivation and L2 reading behaviors of university stu-dents in Japan and Sri Lanka. Journal of International Development and Coopera-tion, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan, 13, 153–164.

Dornyei Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivationresearch. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43–59.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learn-ing: Advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning,53(S1), 3–32.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. AnnualReview of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role ofattitudes and motivation. London, UK: Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (1996). Motivation and second language acquisition: Perspec-tives. Journal of the CAAL, 18(2), 19–42.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. New York,NY: Longman.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science of read-ing. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 199–205.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading.Handbook of Reading Research, 3, 403–422.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis,M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagementthrough concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 96, 403–423.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

L2 Reading Motivation 27

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

Kim, K. J. (2011). Reading motivation in two languages: an examination of EFLcollege students in Korea. Reading and Writing, 24(8), 861–881.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S., Clement, R., & Donovary, L. (2002). Sex and age ef-fects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2motivation among junior high school French immersion students. LanguageLearning, 52, 537–564.

McKenna, M. C. (2001). Development of reading attitudes. In L. Verhoeven andC. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals andgroups (pp. 135–158). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mori, S. (1999). The role of motivation in the amount of reading. Temple Uni-versity Japan, Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 14, 51–68.

Mori, S. (2002). Redefining motivation to read in a foreign language. Reading ina Foreign Language, 14(2), 91–110.

Nell, V. (1988). The psychology of reading for pleasure: Needs and gratifications.Reading Research Quarterly, 23 (1), 6–50.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Clas-sic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1),54–67.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitationof intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psycholo-gist, 55(1), 68–78.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Competence and control beliefs:Distinguishing the means and ends. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 2,349–367.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Takase, A. (2007). Japanese high school students’ motivation for extensive L2reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 19(1), 1–18.

Wang, J. H. Y. U., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motiva-tion, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievementon text comprehension between US and Chinese students. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 39(2), 162–186.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of per-ceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411–419.

Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading motivation: A domain-specific approach to motiva-tion. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 59–68.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement mo-tivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of Children’s Motivations forReading: An Initial Study. Reading Research Report No. 34. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno = ED384010

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015

28 K. V. Dhanapala and Y. Hirakawa

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for read-ing to the amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 89(3), 420–432.

Yamashita, J. (2004). Reading attitudes in L1 and L2, and their influence on L2extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16(1), 1–19.

Yamashita, J. (2007). The relationship of reading attitudes between L1 andL2: An investigation of adult EFL learners in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1),81–105.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kus

umi D

hana

pala

] at

17:

09 2

4 A

pril

2015