Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter illustrates the main purpose of this study. At the
beginning, the researcher emphasizes the importance and authority of learning styles,
learning motivation, and learning strategies concerning Business English course and
the relevance of this study with regard to this topic. In the end of the first chapter,
the researcher presents the specific terms and abbreviations used throughout this
study. The second chapter embodies the study of literature regarding learning styles,
cognitive style, learning strategies and learning motivation in Business English
curriculum. In the third to fifth chapter, it shows the methodology, findings,
conclusions, discussions, and recommendations.
1.1Background
English has become an international language and an important agent of
international communication in high-tech and business areas, especially in
cross-national trade since the 1990s (St. John, 1996). With mounting application and
extensive practice in international English, Business English bridges between the
worlds of school and work for English and International Business majors. Courses
regarding to Business English enormously extend students’ knowledge of English.
To most institutes in Taiwan, teaching targets at students’ general English abilities,
literature or linguistics; they put less emphasis on fostering their facilities in
1
professional fields to tackle future career. As a result, introduction of Business
English course forces Applied English and International Trade majors in schools to
apply what they have learned in order to get accustomed to the business world.
However, the individual performance of students on ESP programs reflects on
the classroom activities, academic achievement and feedback on teachers’
instruction. In the past thirty years, differences among second language learners
have been discussed by a great amount of researchers (Chamot & O’Malley, 1990;
Ellis, 1994; Oxford, 1990; Reid, 1995). The researchers have discovered that
students’ performance (academic achievement and feedback) on teacher’s instruction
were different from one another, showing teachers’ teaching strategies gradually
disaffect students’ learning process anymore. Therefore, the ideas of learning styles
affecting second language learners have been judged as one of the most important
factors that explain the individual differences in learning process (Oxford., 1990;
Reid, 1995). Researchers also indicated the early childhood stages of development
described by Piaget to emphasize the significance of learning styles (Lyon, 1984;
Perry, 1970; White, 1970). A basic progression influences the instructor and/ or
advisor of the student to search for alternatives to teach and advice by means of
thinking for a student during the college experience (Perry, 1970).
Meanwhile, as learning styles affect students’ learning ways, learning strategies
and learning motivation alternately have effects on students in Business English
curriculum. Learning strategy is the characteristic remedy to learning styles in
certain situation. Since cognitive styles appear to be fairly fixed characteristics of
individual trainees, it is possible for trainees to develop learning strategies to th em
make the most efficient use of the strengths and limitations of their particular
cognitive style (Riding & Sadler-Smith, 1997).
2
This study, engaged students in Applied English Department and International
Trade Department, at Southern Taiwan University, utilizes quantitative methodology
to examine how English and International Trade majors adapt themselves to the
diverse context and instruction of Business English course. In addition, students’
learning style, learning motivation as well as strategies mutually impact while
attaining knowledge of Business English.
1.2Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study investigates Applied English and International
Business majors’ cognitive learning styles, strategy use and motivation by adapting
the surveys designed by the researchers. Due to the prosperity of international trade,
Business English courses have been emphasized among institutes and universities.
As a result, numerous organizations struggle to build the link between English and
Business, especially for Applied English and International Trade majors. However,
on one hand, most students at the institutes of technology in Taiwan lack of language
proficiency and are deficient in subject-specific areas; they are requested to take
ESP courses they have not learned before. On the other hand, individual variables
put great impact on learning process, such as motivation leading to learning desire,
the use of learning strategy contributing to the ways or results of learning, as well as
learning styles triggering the formation of individual learning foundation. In
addition, research in the past has been focused on s single topic; this study is to
analyze the relationship among cognitive learning style, use of language learning
strategy, and language learning motivation in Business English courses. Specifically,
this study highlights the following: (a) the students’ mostly preferred cognitive
learning style, (b) the students’ frequently used learning strategy, (c) the student’s
language learning motivation, and (d) the relationship among students’ cognitive
3
style preference, use of language learning strategy, and language learning motivation
in Business English courses.
1.3 Significance of the Study
Although Business English courses have been offered for years, little research
has been done to scrutinize efficiency of Business English in Taiwan. This research
plans to provide an overall picture of the cognitive styles, use of learning strategy
and learning motivation activated in Business English courses. Students will have a
better understanding of their learning styles and adjust their learning behaviors. As
well, during the teaching process, teachers should face with the problems of
organizing information, such as knowing how to construct curriculum design or
materials. “Teachers should build on strategies students use by finding out their
current strategies and making students aware of the range of strategies used by their
classmates; should integrate strategy instruction with regular lessons; should plan
continues instruction in language learning strategies and employ the target language
as much as possible ( Chamot, 1998).” Education does not only transmit information
to students anymore; it also should help students gain problem-solving skills with
professional techniques and experiences.
1.4 Research Questions
In order to achieve the purposes, four cardinal research questions concerning
individual cognitive learning styles, use of language learning st rategy and language
learning motivation are addressed as the following:
(1) What is Applied English and International Trade majors’ separately
4
preferred cognitive learning style while learning Business English?
(2) What is Applied English and International Trade majors’ separately
preferred use of Business English learning strategies?
(3) What is the motivation of Applied English majors and International Trade
majors’ distinctively in Business English courses?
(4) What is the relationship among cognitive styles, use of language learning
strategy and language learning motivation in Business English course?
1.5 Definition of Terms
In order to be easily readable and avoid misinterpretation, the following terms
are explicitly defined for this study.
Learning Styles
Learning styles contain various approaches or ways of learning, especially
involving educating methods to individuals and reinforcing them to learning best.
Pask (1968) defined learning styles as individual preference of learning strategie s
being dispensed into overall and step-by-step; the former employed comprehensive
learning, the later used practical learning.
Cognitive Styles
Cognitive Styles (also referred to thinking style) is a term used in cognitive
psychology to describe the way individuals think, perceive and remember
information, or their preferred approach to using such information to solve
problems.
5
Learning Motivation
Motivation is the set of reasons that determines one to engage in a particular
behavior. The term is generally used for human motivation but, theoretically, it can
be used to describe the causes for animal behavior as well. This article refers to
human motivation. According to various theories, motivation may be rooted in the
basic need to minimize physical pain and maximize pleasure, or it may include
specific needs such as eating and resting, or a desired object, hobby, goal, state of
being, ideal, or it may be attributed to less-apparent reasons such as altruism, or
morality, or overcoming mortality.
Learning strategies
Language learning strategies are the procedures learners use in facilitating
their pairing processes to accomplish the goal of learning target languages.
Individual differences
Due to learners’ diverse characteristics, background, and maturity, everyone is
unique especially for thinking and learning styles.
Business English
Ellis and Johnson (1994) said, “Business English had to be seen in the overall
context of ESP (English for Specific Purpose), as it shared the important elements of
needs analysis, syllabus design, course design, and materials selection and
development which were common to all fields of work in ESP” (p.798). On the other
hand, Chen (1985) said,” Business English is the Art of selling one’s idea of doing
business, both domestic and international, by using MODERN English” (p.9). He
indicated that individuals without abundant business knowledge, good training, and
experiences can not be suitable for this kind of job. With the progress of business
6
terms, it is becoming harder to comprehend the major significance concerning
Business English.
ESP
English for Specific Purposes, that is, English teaching for specific learners in
specific professional domains. Examples are English for Legal Purpose, Business
English, and English for Medical Purpose.
EBP
English for Business Purposes. This acronym refers to the kind of language
skills related to learners’ day-to-day business, management or their working
environments.
Subject-specific knowledge
This term refers to the knowledge and skills of particular subject-matter areas
such as science, technology, and business.
1.6 Description of Business English Course
The Business English courses in Applied English and International Trade
Departments were 16-week long courses. The course was mainly designed for
vocation-based majors. They were two-hour weekly classes which encouraged
students attend these courses each week. English, especially, was regarded as the
vital component in international business; therefore, the goals of Business English
courses were to cultivate students with basic or advanced business knowledge like
terms in investment, finance or business.
In order to prompt students to familiarize with Business English knowledge, the
7
instructors set up several activities which inspired students with real situation. In the
learning process, students were required to do assignments, including business terms
and concepts. The instructors also utilized self-designed materials or textbooks to
carry out Business English curriculum. In addition, students were recommended to
read business articles and make oral presentation in mid-term or final term exams.
8
Chapter Two
LITERATURE REVUEW
This chapter separately presents an overview of learning styles, cognitive styles,
language learning strategies and L2 learning motivation. First of all, learners’
learning styles and variables related to learning styles are reviewed. In the
subsequent section, major categories of language learning strategy will be described;
L2 learning motivation is reviewed in the third section. In addition, the researcher
presents relationship among cognitive learning styles, frequency of language
learning strategy and L2 learning motivation.
2.1 Learning Styles
2.1.1 Identifying Learning Styles
In language learning studies, researchers have tried to define learning styles
since learning styles turned out to be students’ basic adjustment and evaluation of
learning effect. Table1 lists the definitions of language learning styles.
Learning style, from the social perspective, was social interaction which
depicted the different roles students played in the classroom activities with their
peers, teachers and course content (Ford, Wood, & Walsh 1994; Gregorc, 1984).
Furthermore, learning styles often were influenced by age, academic achievement
level, culture, gender, and wholist-analytic processing preferences (Riding & Rayner,
1998).
A person’s learning styles clung to an individual’s inherent, habitual and
9
preferred ways of absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills
(Keefe, 1979; Reid, 1995). Language learning styles were the general ways
employed to learn languages. For learners, learning styles were not just
characteristically cognitive, but affective and psychological behavior serving as
stable indicator of how learners perceived, interacted with and responded to the
learning environment (Ehrman& Oxford, 1990; Keefe, 1979). The styles used in
language learning might be the indication of the individual’s general learning styles,
commonly applied in learning and working situations.
Table1. Definition of Learning Styles
Researchers
Dunn & Dunn (1987)
Butler (1982)
Schemeck (1982)
McDermott (1984)
Messick (1987)
Reid (1992)
Heineman (1995)
Definition
Learning styles are the best learning ways of academic
performance; self-consciousness may be the index of
learning styles.
Learning styles unveil that individuals attempt to
employ the easiest, the most efficient, and the most
effective method to realize the relationship between
themselves and the exterior variables.
Learning styles represents that students are adapted to
using certain learning preference in various contexts.
Learning styles are unique ways for learners during
learning process, including observably strategic
solutions, performing behavior, responses to limitation
and expectation from others.
Learning styles are strategies which attributes to
particular types of task and situation.
Learning style refers to an individual’s natural,
habitual, and preferred ways of absorbing, processing,
and retaining new information and skills.
Learning styles are to realize the mutual relations in
learning environment while analyzing learning.
10
The knowledge of learning styles, most importantly, not only can help learners
in language learning, but also teachers to evaluate and observe individual diversity
in practical ways. Learning styles provide teachers more accessibility and
availability to value their materials and to conduct ways for learners to succeed.
2.1.2 Cognitive Learning Styles
The term “cognitive style’ can be traced back to the 1940s and 1950s, when
researchers (Witkin& Goodenough, 1981) started work on continuous and exquisite
definitions for cognitive style which was notably set upon physical processing,
personal aptitude, and practical execution. From the perspectives of physical
processing, cognitive style was consistent individual differences in preferred ways
of organizing, processing, recalling information and experiences (Dunn & Dunn,
1989; Riding& Rayner, 1998; Witkin, 1972). Although cognitive style has been
dominated by learning style, cognitive style was emphasized as one significant
component of learning style, constructing itself much more pervasive, stable, and
deep seated than learning style (Riding & Sadler-Smith, 1997).
Later, “cognitive style was a hypothetical construct which has been developed
to account for the process of mediation between stimuli and responses. Besides,
cognitive style referred to characteristic ways that individuals conceptually
organized the environment and an information transformation process whereby
objective stimuli were interpreted into meaningful framework (Goldstein&
Blackman, 1978).” Belfiore & Matriscican (1978) believed cognitive style stood for
“a cognitive strategy that can be defined in terms of the desired targ et.”
For learner, as well, learning styles put a great impact on individual learning
process as they find a teacher with similar cognitive styles; learners probably feel
11
more positive about their participation in the whole curriculum. Thoroughly
understanding students’ learning styles could reinforce teachers to care for the types
of learners in a class; realizing and identifying students’ learning styles was
important in that they could improve and develop their acquisition of a second
language (Rausch, 1996; Riding& Read, 1996).
In the past thirty years, researchers have confirmed and developed diverse kinds
of cognitive learning styles (Gorham, 1986; Kolb, 1984; Price, 2004; Riding, 1991;
Witkin et al., 1977). Curry (1983) ordered cognitive learning styles into three-level
schemes: the cognitive style, the information processing style, and the instructional
preferences. Gorham (1986) further distributed learning styles into: Instructional
preferences, Information processing style, and Cognitive personality elements. As
presented in Table 2, it lists a new model of cognitive learning style which merges
cognitive style dimensions relevant to learning style tests and online learning
features; they identified three categories (Perceptual, Cognitive Processing, and
Personality Types) containing 15 factors in this learning styles inventory.
Table 2. Dimension of Cognitive Style (Adapted from Kiu, Shih& Yeh, 2008)
Dimensions
Element
Perceptual Type
Text; Visual
Auditory; Active.
Cognitive Processing Type
Abstract; Concrete; Serial; Random
Holistic/Global; Analytic.
Personality Type
Study Alone/Study With Group;
Guided; Persistence; Observer.
12
2.1.3 Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory
Learning styles were not conceived as fixed personality traits but as
possibility-processing structures resulting from unique individual programming of
the basic bust flexible structure of human learning (Kolb, 1984). In 1984, Kolb
proposed Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and indicated learning process was a
consistent and cyclical process. As the Figure 2.1 shows, the learning style model is
constituted of the two dimensions intersected at the midpoint of each scale. It is
more possible to locate a point corresponding to each individual’s learning style via
mapping location on each dimension. At the beginning of the cycle, Concrete
Experience (CE) offers a bias for Reflective Observation (RO). Then, these
observations can be installed into Abstract Conceptualization (AC) which is active ly
examined with Experimentation. The step of Concrete Experience will start over the
learning cycle. Each quarter represents the four learning styles of Kolb’s model:
converger, diverger, assimilator, and accommodator.
Learning is a four-stage process (i.e. converger, diverger, assimilator as well as
accommodator) which consists of concrete experience, observation, and reflection,
formation of abstract concepts and generalization and the testing of the implications
of these concepts in new situations. For instance, a bulk of activities may be
represented as polarities with a dialect tension between concrete experience and
abstract conceptualization (a comprehension dimension) and between reflective
observation and active experimentation (a transformation dimension). Moreover,
Kolb mentioned that individual learners had particular strength forming the basis of
their preferred "learning style" and an individual's style may be identified by
assessing her or his position on each of these two bipolar dimensions u sing a
self-report inventory (Kolb, 1985).
13
Figure 1. Experiential Learning Model (Adapted from Kolb, 2005, p.3)
Concrete experience
Accommodator
Diverger
Active Experimentation
Reflective Observation
Converger
Assimilator
Abstract Conceptualization
Divergers (CE-RO)
Divergers are generally oriented by feeling and watching. They learn efficiently
on account of course material pertaining to daily experiences, interests, and future
careers. Imagination and brilliant observation from separate perspectives make
divergers more unique.
Assimilators (AC-RO)
As presented in Figure.1, Assimilators respond greatly to information given in a
systematic, logical way while reflecting. By use of watching and thinking,
assimilators sort out logical approaches, ideas and concepts.
Convergers (AC-AE)
Convergers seize chances to work actively in well-organized tasks and to learn
by trial-and-error in an environment which allows them to fail safely. By doing and
thinking, convergers handle practical problem and are in favor of tactical skills like
experimenting and simulation. Interpersonal issues, however, is their weakness.
14
Accommodators (CE-AE)
Accommodators are devoted to employing course material in new situations to
cope with problem. Through doing and feeling, accommodators promptly pay more
attention to new challenges and experiences. They, however, strongly rely on others
and aggressively set up targets to achieve tasks.
2.1.4 Dunn & Dunn’s Model
Learning style was the way that individuals began to concentrate on, process,
and obtain new and complicated materials (Dunn& Dunn, 1983). As Dunn& Dunn
(1998) believed, “learners learn things which were easy for them without employing
their learning styles, while learners could learn things as they capitalized on their
styles.” The interaction and combination of biological and experiential
characteristics contributed to learning and drove individuals in totally distinctive
ways.
As a result, in accordance with personal learning style preferences, Dunn &
Dunn in 1987 organized learning styles into six variables describing and affecting
individuals’ ability: Environmental Stimuli Preferences, Emotional Stimuli
Preferences, Sociological Stimuli Preferences, Physiological Stimuli Preferences,
and Psychological Stimuli Preferences. Individual learners promptly were impacted
by immediate environment, own emotionality. Sociological preferences,
physiological characteristics, and processing inclinations, these variables should be
deemed as crucial instructions constructing effective learners (Dunn& Dunn, 1992).
These six variables were complementarily developed and induced from 21 elements
(as shown in Table 3.).
15
Table 3. PEPS’s Five Dimensions (Adapted from Dunn & Dunn, 2000)
Stimuli Preference
Element
Environmental Stimuli Preferences
Sound; Light; Temperature; Design
Emotional Stimuli Preferences
Motivation;Persistence; Responsibility;
Structure
Sociological Stimuli Preferences
Self; Pair; Peer/Team; Adult; Varied
Physiological Stimuli Preferences
Perceptual; Intake; Time; Mobility
Psychological Stimuli Preferences
(Cognitive Processing Preferences)
Global/Analytic; Hemisphericity
Impulsive/Reflective
Additionally, Dunn& Dunn in 1998 indicated that no person could be affected
by all the learning-style elements; most learners might be affected by 6 to 14
elements while learning a specific curriculum. Therefore, learners with various
combinations of learning style preference might provide the reasons that no single
method, instruction, or resource was effective for all the learners. Dunn& Griggs in
2000 indicated that “Once learning style been identified, instructors could estimate
the approaches, methods and sequences that were likely to make learning relatively
comfortable for each person (cited from Lovelace, 2005, p.177)”
To sum up, Dunn& Dunn (1990) accumulated learning style dimensions which
previously were investigated by researchers and construct their own Learning Styles
Model based on several principles and theoretical assumptions:
1. Most people can learn.
2. Instructional environments, resources and approaches respond to diversified
learning style strengths.
16
3. Everybody has strengths, while different people have very different strengths..
4. Individual instructional preferences exist and can be measured reliably.
5. Given responsive environments, resources, and approaches, students obtain
statistically higher achievement and attitude test scores in matched, rather than
mismatched treatments.
6. Most teachers are able to learn to use learning styles as a cornerstone of their
instruction.
7. Many students can learn to capitalize on their learning style strengths when
concentrating on new or difficult academic material.
2.2 Learning Strategies
Besides language learning style, use of language learning strategy is another
significant component in language learning. Riding & Rayner in 1998 advocated
cognitive styles were made up of fixed characteristics adjacent to methods of
information processing and organization. Moreover, learning styles would not easily
be changed. Once if learners became adapted to their preferred ways of learning,
they undoubtedly executed their own ways to learn. On the contrary, learning
strategies was changeable and adaptive to the situations; that is, learners built up
their own frequent ways to master the target language as encountering various
challenges and language difficulties. In this way, individuals might change strategies
to make learning effective in a particular situation. Rubin (1987) believed
“successful language learners differed from less successful ones in a number of ways,
among which perhaps the most important was the frequency where they apply
learning strategies to solve tasks (cited from Yu, 2006, p.11).”
17
2.2.1 What is Learning Strategy?
Language learning strategy use signified learners’ behaviors and thoughts that
affected the learner’s encoding process. As a result, the aim of any particular
learning strategies influenced the learners’ motivational or affective state, or the
ways that learners chose, acquired, organized and integrated new knowledge (Oxford,
1990). As Chamot (1998) advocated, “learning strategy was the thoughts that
students possessed and acted that they took to assist their comprehension, recall,
production, and management of their language learning.” Students, for instance,
might use relevance and any clues to figure out the meanings of unfamiliar words
and phrases while they were reading certain context. Furthermore, by practicing and
identifying key phrases helpful for certain context, students could acquire the
significance in the target language.
On one hand, “learning strategies were operations utilized by the learner to aid
the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and use of information (Oxford, 1989, p.8).” Use
of language learning strategy was employed to enlarge, progress, observe, store and
checkup individuals’ acquired knowledge since language learning strategy was an
active, self-oriented tool, which enhances interaction and improves learning
achievement and self-confidence. Rubin (1987) also treated learning strategy as a
series of operations, steps, plans used by learners to facilitate what learners do to
learn and to reinforce their learning.
On the other hand, language learning strategy use is to make learning process
appealing, intriguing, rapid and efficient to transfer into practical contexts. For
learners, use of language learning strategy is to make language learning more
flexible, efficient, self-authorized and pleasant in learning environment. As Oxford
18
(1989) recalled, learners employed learning strategies to make learning easier, fas ter,
more enjoyable, more effective, and more transferable to new information.
“Strategies were the key to learner autonomy, and that one of the most essential
goals of language teaching should be in the facilitation of that autonomy (cited from
Yu, 2006, p.12).” Accordingly, language learning strategy contributes to acquisition,
observation, and accumulation of knowledge. Also, for completely understanding
use of learning strategy, L2 learners are able to expand the traditional limited
conception and information of what happens while learning foreign languages.
Aspects about language learning strategy have been discussed and categorized
in diverse ways within the past three decades. In order to make learning strategies
more comprehensive, more detailed, and more appropriate to recognize individuals’
four language skills, Oxford in 1990 advocated and divided language learning
strategies into two ways: direct and indirect strategies. The two sorts of language
learning strategies supported each other, and each strategy group connected with and
assisted every other group.
Direct strategies
Oxford (1990) indicated language learning strategies which directly involved
the target language were called direct strategies. Though all direct strategies
required mental processing of the language, the three strategies (memory, cognitive,
and compensation) did this processing differently and for various purposes (as
Figure 2.4 shown). All the direct strategies were mainly used to develop the four
language learning skills and work best as supported by indirect strategies.
Indirect strategies
The other three strategies (metacognitive, affective, and social) were called
19
indirect strategies for they support and manage language learning witho ut directly
involving the target language (Oxford, 1990). Moreover, indirect strategies were
useful in language learning situations and applicable to four language learning skills
(as Figure 2. shown).
Figure 2. Diagram of the Strategies System Showing Two Classes, Six Groups, and
Nineteen Sets (adopted from Oxford, 1990, p.17)
A. Creating mental linkages
B. Applying images and sounds
C. Reviewing well
D. Employing action
Ⅰ. Memory strategies
A. Practicing
B. Receiving and sending massages
C. Analyzing and reasoning
D. Creating structure for input and
output.
Ⅱ. Cognitive strategies
Ⅲ. Compensation strategies
A. Guessing intelligently
B. Overcoming limitations in speaking
and writing.
Ⅳ. Meta-cognitive strategies
A. Centering your learning
B. Arranging and planning
C. Evaluating your learning
Ⅴ. Affective strategies
A. Lowering your anxiety
B. Encouraging yourself
C. Taking your emotional temperature
Ⅵ. Social strategies
A. Asking questions
B. Cooperating with others
C. Emphasizing with others
20
2.3. Learning Motivation
2.3.1 What is Learning Motivation?
During language learning process, motivation has influenced students learning
the second language. Language learning motivation accounted for the production of
interior drive during learning curriculum, made individuals change their previous
attitudes and habits, and guided learners towards the same direction as well as the
target. L2 motivation was as the extent to which an individual worked or strived to
learn the language for a desire to learn the language and the satisfaction obtained in
the tasks (Gardner, 1985). Later, Dornyei (2001) proposed motivation mainly
originated from human behavior with two basic dimensions: direction and magnitude
(intensity). Direction, more precisely, meant the choice of a particular action (why
people decided to do something); magnitude suggested the effort expended on it and
the persistence with it (how hard they were going to pursue it and how long they
were willing to sustain this activity).
A quantity of researchers seized various interpretations towards the definition of
motivation on the basis of human behavior. Table 4. lists the definition of learning
motivation from different constructs. From psychological perspective, Atkinson
(1964) proposed three main motivational components: need for achievement, fear of
failure or success. Fear of failure or success mutually existed while individuals
selected or undertook certain work; the fore represented that individuals attempted
to avoid disappointment form work, the latter accounted for personal enthusiasm for
success. Need for achievement was relevant to personality; once if fear of fail was
beyond success, individuals would act more aggressively and passionately, or versus
(Atkinson, 1966).
21
Table 4. Constructs of Learning Motivation (Adapted from Li, 2005, p.26~p.30)
Perspective
Researchers
Theory
Sociology
Gardner (1968)
Integrative - Instrumental
Psychology
Atkinson (1966)
Achievement Motivation Theory
Ryan (1985)
Self-Determination Theory
Weiner (1972)
Attribution Theory
Locke (1968)
Goal Theory
Neurology
Schuman (1998)
Stimulus Appraisal
Process-oriented
approach
Dornyei (1996)
Preactional / Actional / Postactional
Stage
MacIntyre, Clement,
Willingness to communicate integrates
Dornyei,Noels
psychological and language motivation.
(1998)
Above and beyond, researchers probed language learning motivation from the
extrinsic, intrinsic, and both perspectives. Intrinsic motivation researchers believed
humans had inherent preference for seeking chances to develop their capability and
derive the pleasure from the experiences. Motivation must be the interior factors for
individuals to inspire themselves. Every movement that individuals t ook must be
induced into one reason, which accounted for one individual’s motivation;
motivation could be conscious and unconscious (Ely, 1986).
Extrinsic motivation was bound on extrinsic rewards; that is, rewards could be
praises from others. As Deci& Ryan (1988) recalled, “extrinsically motivated
behaviors learn the second language just for the activity itself, such as external
rewards, benefits, punishments, or obligations.” These external rewards could also
be expected to be a learner in a Business world; promotion, salary and punishments
might reinforce the instrumental and integrative motivation towards work.
22
Preference for easy work, pleasing a teacher/ getting grades, dependence on
teacher’s judgment about what to do, and external criteria for success greatly
influenced individual language learning motivation (Harter, 1982).
Interior impulsion and action were inspired as orientations to learn a second
language by certain events, features of the individual and exterior drive like strength
of achievement. Consequently, motivation was inherent action, impulsion, emotions
of individuals towards one certain event; this kind of force was extracted interior,
but the strength of achievement could be affected by the environment (Brown, 1989;
Dornyei, 1998; Heckhausen, 1991). Self-Determination Theory was principally
founded on the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as the
basic human need for autonomy. SDT represented that an individual must be capable
of initiation and regulation through personal choice and the effort expanded to
complete a task with the goal of being intrinsically rewarding (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
2.3.2 Integrative & Instrumental Motivation
The distinction between integrative and instrumental motivation which
influenced a great amount of L2 relevant studies was first conducted by Gardner and
Lambert (1959). Soon after, Gardner and Lambert began to distinguish between
distinct language learning motivations and Gardner in 1979 proposed L2 learning
motivation affected learners in two ways: integrative and instrumental motivation.
As Figure 3 shows, variables greatly influence motivation variables, mainly personal
attitudes and integrativeness towards the target language. An individual was a
member of any particular culture and the culture was comparably influenced by
individuals. Personal characteristics, attitudes, beliefs and expectation towards the
target language radically affected the willingness of integration into the target
23
culture. Moreover, motivation originated from attitude deriving from a subject’s
answers to a number of questions about an object. Foundation of attitude was subject
to all the normal worries of the validity of the instrument used and of the honesty of
the subject’s answers to the questions (Gardner, 2007).
Figure 3. Variables Affecting Learning Motivation (Gardner, 2007, p.13~p.15)
Other Support
Integrativeness
Other
Factor
Motivation
Attitudes towards
learning situation
Language
Achievement
Integrative Motivation
Language Aptitude
Integrative Motivation
According to Cohen& Dornyei (2002), integrative motivation denoted the
learners’ orientation in order to learn the second language; that is, individuals valued
the target language group with positive attitudes. Learners hungered for
identification and successfully integrated into the target language community.
Integrative motivation mirrored a positive tendency towards the L2 group and the
24
desire to engage with and even became intimate to valued members of the
community.
Furthermore, integrativeness was a complex of attitudes which involved more
than just the other language community. Integrativeness was relevant to emotional
identification with another culture group; the socio-educational model reflected an
integrative orientation toward learning the second language, a favorable attitude
towards the language community, and openness to other groups in general (Gardner,
1985). Learners with integrative motivation liked to obtaining internal significance
and enduring motivation for language study. Integrativeness and attitudes towards
the learning situation mainly influenced learners’ language learning motivation
(Gardner, 2004). More precisely, integrativeness and attitudes towards the learning
situation mutually had a great impact to each other at the same time.
Instrumental Motivaiton
Instrumentally oriented learners, in contrast, tended to sustain practical or
concrete techniques which brought them magnificent experiences from L2 learning.
Namely, instrumentally motivated individuals aimed to create social and economic
reward through second language achievement. Cohen and Dornyei (2002) indicated
“instrumental motivation represented that language learning was primarily
associated with the potential pragmatic gains of L2 proficiency, such as getting a
better job or a higher salary (cited from Hsian, p.27).”
25
2.4 The Relationship among Cognitive Styles, Language
Learning Strategy and Learning Motivation
After discussing and depicting the significance of cognitive learning style, use
of language learning strategy and language learning motivation separately, to
scrutinize the relationship among the three variables is compulsory. Research on
language learning has been focused on the separate discussion of individual
cognitive learning style, use of language learning strategy, or language learning
motivation with the goal to understand influential crux during learning process. In
particular, research concerning to learning motivation can be less than the other two
constructs due to its complexity, diverse factors, and more relevance with
psychology and sociology. An overview of cognitive style is significant and plays a
crucial role during learning process. Still, use of language learning strategy and
language learning motivation had great impacts on learners’ performance and
achievement as well.
Learning styles could not easily be transformed or changed; once if learners
were accustomed to their preferred ways of learning, they undoubtedly executed
their own ways to handle learning activities. Instead, the learning strategies were
more flexible and adaptive to the situations (Riding & Rayner, 1998). For that
reason, as learners likely employed their preferred learning ways, it revealed what
they preferred was inefficient and non-effective to cope with the situations.
“However, individuals might develop strategies to make effective in a particular
situation by three stages of learning strategy acquisition that individuals involved
within the training context: sensing and preferring, selecting, as well as strategy
development (Riding & Sadler-Smith, 1997, p.204).” For instance, an imager may
interpret a page of text into a diagram that represents the same information in visual
26
form; a verbalizer could describe a picture with words or phrases.
Use of language strategy often related to individual learning style preferences.
As Ehrman & Oxford (1989) unveiled, “When left to their own devices and if not
encouraged by the teacher or forced by the lesson to use a certain set of strategies ,
students typically used learning strategies that reflected their learning styles (cited
from Oxford, 2003, p2).” Teachers helped students by trying out some strategies that
reflected their primary learning style preferences; moreover, styles and strategies
mutually helped determine learners’ ability and willingness to work within the
framework of various instructional methodologies (Oxford, 2003).
As for language learning motivation, Csizer and Dornyei (2005) employed
Structural Equation Modeling in order to evaluate constructs of learning motivation
and construct modes of factor analysis, including self-confidence, vitality of the L2
community, attitudes towards the L2 speakers/ community, integrativeness, milieu,
cultural interest and instrumentality. Additionally, Gao et al. in 2007 investigated a
case study which targeted at Chinese students, conducted seven language learning
dimensions: intrinsic interest, immediate achievement, individual development,
information medium, going abroad, social responsibility, and learning situation.
These variables are hard to be changed by curriculum or materials. However,
once if the researcher can figure out the relationship among cognitive learning style
preference, use of language learning strategy and language learning motivation
during the learning process, this study may be beneficial to educators in selection of
teaching materials and design of language curriculum.
27
2.5 Relevant Studies
In Tsao (2002), relationship between perceptual learning style preference and
learning strategy use was explored. The subjects, 346 Taiwanese senior high school
students, were requested to complete Perceptual Learning Style Preference
Questionnaire (Reid, 1984) and Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford,
1989). The study indicated that it achieved significant correlations between
perceptual learning style preference and learning strategy use. It also presented
learners’ achievement and gender were significantly correlated to perceptual
learning style preference and learning strategy use. In addition, grade level achieved
no significant difference in learning strategy use but had a significant difference in
tactile learning style preference.
Hsu (2007) investigated a study on learning style preferences and strategy use
and their relationship with the students’ English learning achievement. The 380
third- to six- grade elementary school students from three schools in Taichung filled
out the Young EFL Learners’ Language Learning Style Preferences Questionnaire
and the Young EFL Language Learning Strategy Questionnaire developed and
devised by the researcher. According to the results, Pearson’s correlation indicted
visual, tactile and group learning style preference, and overall, memory, cogniti ve,
compensation, metacognitive, affective and social strategy use had positive but low
relationship with school English achievement. The results of stepwise multiple
regression also clarified memory strategy use and group learning style preference
were the significant variables to predict students’ English achievement. Besides, for
gender, although girls got higher mean scores in each of the categories, not any
significant differences were discovered.
28
Ko (2001) conducted a survey study on 161 junior high school students in
Tainan to discover the correlation among language learning achievement, language
learning strategy and perceptual learning styles. Perceptual Learning Preferences
Survey (Kinsella, 1993) and Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford,
1989) were used to carry out the study. It showed that the kinesthetic/ tactile
preference subjects reached the significant level in memory, compensation and
social strategies; visual/nonverbal subjects significantly preferr ed to memory
strategies and the multiple style preference employed affective strategy more than
the other strategies.
Chang & Huang (1999), who investigated a research concerning Taiwanese
English learners’ learning motivation and learning strategy, proposed evidence that
demonstrated interaction between learning strategy and learning motivation. The
results revealed total learning strategies are associated with motivation intensity,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Also, Yu (2006) conducted a study of the
relationship between learning motivation and learning strategy use among 133 junior
high school students with different levels of academic achievement and found the
relationship among learning motivation, learning strategy and achievement was
positively correlated; most importantly, learning motivation and learning strategy
use magnificently correlated with each other.
In Li (2005), the relationship among language learning motivation, learning
strategy and learning achievement was investigated. The subjects, 1400 six-grade
elementary school students in Pingtung County were requested to complete learning
motivation and learning strategy survey designed by the researcher. This study
showed that learning motivation and learning strategy significantly influenced
learners’ learning achievement and achieved significant level in learning
29
environment. Furthermore, language learning motivation significantly correlated
with learning strategy use in positive correlations; it indicated language motivation
and learning strategy mutually influenced each other in language learning
curriculum.
This present study on cognitive style preferences appeared apart from other
similar studies since the researcher categorized style preferences into three types:
social, think, emotion style preferences. Instead, the research on cognitive learning
style in Taiwan mainly discussed the six preferences on learning. Therefore, few
studies could support the part of cognitive style.
30
Chapter Three
RESEARCH DESIGNAND METHODOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, it described research design and methodology. Besides, the
researcher depicted the course, instruments, procedures and methods of data analysis.
At the beginning, this study provided overall picture of participants’ characteristics.
Furthermore, this study introduced the instruments utilize and steps this study
implemented. At the end of the study, this study explained and discussed the
methods to code the collected data.
3.1 Methodology
This study investigated Business English course set up by Applied English
Department (AED) and International Business Department (IBD) at Southern Taiwan
University. This quantitative design was selected to answer the research questions.
The research focused on how cognitive learning style, language learning motivation,
and use of language learning strategy considerably affected students’ academic
performance on Business English courses in AED and IBD in Southern Taiwan
University. In this chapter, this researcher adapted questions separately from original
versions and conducted a self-designed survey. The first section of the survey
showed participants’ fundamental demographic information like majors, genders,
ages, and experience of learning Business English. Despite demographic information,
content of the survey embodied sixty close-ended questions independently in
31
relation to cognitive learning style, frequency of language learning strategy use and
language learning motivation. These close-ended questions mainly explored how the
three constructs mutually influenced learners in Business English course.
3.2 Subjects
The researcher surveyed two 203 Applied English majors and 179 International
Trade majors in Southern Taiwan University (STU), one of the vocation-based
universities in Southern Taiwan. They were sophomore, junior and senior students.
These subjects, basically, should have taken Business English course before or they
were currently taking the courses. Business English courses were obligatorily
elective courses mainly to vocation-based undergraduate students in Applied English
Department and International Business Department at Southern Taiwan University.
The researcher randomly selected undergraduate students from sophomore, junior
and senior classes in Applied English Department as well as from junior and senior
classes in International Trade Department. The final sample ended up with 382 cases.
Twenty-five cases were unusable because of incomplete and inconsistent responses
to the questionnaire.
Table 5 and 6 represented the fundamental analysis of all the subjects.
According to Table 3.1, the sample population in this study was 382 subjects: (1).
112 from sophomore classes, 51 from junior classes and 40 from senior classes
(Applied English Department). (2). 77 from junior classes and 102 from senior
classes (International Trade Department). Table 3.2 presented the sample population
in this study: male (43) and Female (160) from Applied English Department; male
(34) and female (145) from International Trade Department.
32
Table 5. Subjects by Department & Academic Levels
Academic Levels
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
total
Applied English
112 (55.2%)
51 (25.1%)
40 (19.7)
203 (100%)
International Trade
0
77 (43%)
102 (57%)
179 (100%)
total
112
128
142
382
Table 6. Subjects by Gender & Department.
Department
Gender
Male
Female
total
Applied English
International Trade
total
43 (55.8%)
34 (44.2%)
77 (100%)
160 (52.5%)
145 (47.5%)
305(100%)
203
179
382
3.3 Instruments
In order to investigate the relationship among cognitive learning style, learning
strategy and learning motivation, the researcher employed a self-designed
questionnaire for data collection. The questionnaire consisted of four parts:
Demographic information, the blend of Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1985) and
Productivity Environmental preference Survey (Dunn & Dunn, 1989), Language
Strategy Use Inventory (Oxford, 1989), as well as Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
33
(Gardner, 2004) (see Appendix A& B).
The questionnaire was given to the participants in order to identify individuals’
preferred ways regarding to their cognitive styles, use of language leaning strategy,
and language learning motivations with a 5-point LIKERT scale ranging from
“Strongly Disagree” (1 point) to “Strongly Agree” (5 points). This survey concerning
cognitive style adapted 20 questions from Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and
Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS). In order to make data
collection easier, the researcher combined eight learning style preferences into three
learning types: alone/pair work, think and emotion preferences. Moreover, the
researcher transformed these questions into LIKERT scale for computation. Then,
the researcher adapted 20 items from Language Strategy Use Inventory to
understand personal learning strategies and 20 items from Attitude/Motivation Test
Battery (Gardner, 2004) to identify individual learning motivation. In order to avoid
misunderstanding or confusion about the contents, the researcher translates the items
into Chinese version (see Appendix B).
3.3.1 Cognitive Style Survey
In order to examine the participants’ cognitive learning styles, the researcher
extracted 20 questions from Learning Style Inventory (Kolb, 1985) and Productivity
Environmental Preference Survey (Dunn & Dunn, 1989). Learning Style Inventory
(See Appendix A), which described the way individuals learned and how individuals
dealt with ideas as well as daily situations, was a self assessment consisted of 12
sentences with a choice of four endings. Individuals should rank and choose the
endings for each sentence, starting with 4 for the sentence describing best ho w you
learn, down to 1 for the sentence ending that least like the way that you would learn;
34
no two endings in a set could be chosen the same ranking.
The Productivity Environmental Preference Survey (PEPS) (See Appendix A)
was designed and published in1979 by Rita Dunn collaborating with Kenneth and
Gary Price. PEPS mainly identified adult preference for conditions in working or
learning environment. The self-reported inventory was composed of 100 rating items
which required students to complete within 20 to 30 minutes; the inventory also
recommended students take the assessment in good conditions. This inventory
consisted of 5 elements (made up of 15 factors) to explore students’ learning
preference. Also, the original version utilized LIKERT scale starting with 5 for the
sentence describing the most like you, down to 1 for the sentence that least like the
way you learn; the scores demonstrated the learning preference of participants while
learning.
The researcher adapted these 20 questions and transformed them into LIKERT
scale. The answers are given 1 for “Strongly Disagree,” 2 for “Disagree,” 3 for
“Mutually,” 4 for “Agree,” 5 for “Strongly Agree. In addition, Kolb (1985) focused
on the learning process without learning preference; Dunn & Dunn exquisitel y
specified affective variables (circumstance, psychology, mentality, sociology) during
learning process. The researcher merged the similarities of the two models and typed
8 styles into 3 learning preferences: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 investigating
Social preference; Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12, Q13 Think preference; and Q14, Q15,
Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20 Emotion preference.
Table 7 indicated the reliability coefficients of the Cognitive Style
Questionnaire in this study. For the whole questionnaire, Cronbach’s alpha achieved
a coefficient of 0.766. In addition, the coefficients of the three cognitive style
35
preferences in the Cognitive Style Questionnaire were all above 0.70.
Table 7. Reliability Coefficients for the Cognitive Style Questionnaire
Cognitive Style Category
Reliability Coefficients
Social preference ( item 1 to item 7)
0.781
Think preference ( item 8 to item 13)
0.718
Emotional preference ( item 14 to item 20)
0.779
Overall styles
0.766
3.3.3 Language Strategy Use Inventory
Language Strategy Use Inventory (See Appendix A) was the instrument for
identifying participants’ frequency of language learning strategy use and was
originated from Oxford (1989). Language Strategy Use Inventory effectively guided
and explored appropriate language learning strategy use towards ESL/ EFL students.
The original version 7.0 consisted of 50 items: direct strategies (memory, cognitive,
and compensation strategies) and indirect strategies (meta-cognitive, affective, and
social strategies). In order to employ this instrument in this study, this researcher
made some modifications on the original questions so that it was available for data
analysis. Owing to the culture distinctiveness and learning background in Taiwan,
some questions were directly adapted and modified to be compatible with individual
English learning situation. For example, Q20 of the modified survey, “I practice
Business English with other students,” and Q16 of the modified survey, “I talk about
my feeling with others while learning Business English,” both reflected aggressive
competition and less cooperation with other students during learning curriculum in
Taiwan.
36
There were twenty items in this self-reporting instrument dispatched into six
constructs: Q1, Q2, Q3 investigating memory strategies, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 Cognitive
Strategies, Q8, Q9, Q10 compensation strategies, Q11, Q12,Q13, Q14 Metacognitive
strategies, Q15, Q16, Q17 Affective strategies, and Q18, Q19, Q20 Social strategies.
The answers in the survey were conducted in LIKERT Scale and given 1 for
“Strongly Disagree,” 2 for “Disagree,” 3 for “Mutually,” 4 for “Agree,” 5 for
“Strongly Agree.” As Table 8 shown, the overall reliability coefficient of the SILL
was 0.88. And, the coefficients of the six strategy categories in the SILL
questionnaire were all above 0.70.
Table 8. Reliability Coefficients for the SILL Questionnaire
Strategy Category
Reliability Coefficients
Memory strategies ( item 1 to item 3)
0.752
Cognitive strategies ( item 4 to item 7)
0.724
Compensation strategies ( item 8 to item 10)
0.701
Metacognitive strategies ( item 11 to item 14)
0.794
Affective strategies ( item 15 to item 17)
0.749
Social strategies ( item 18 to item 20)
0.744
Overall strategies
0.88
3.3.4 Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB)
Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) has been used in different ways and
the original formulation concepts as well as items were designed by Gardner (1958,
1960), and expanded by Gardner and Lambert (1972). The researcher utilized the
version adjusted by Gardner (2004) and adapted 20 questions to identify individual
37
learning motivation. AMTB consisted of 104 items which centered on personal
attitudes and language learning motivation. As well, since the original version used
LIKERT scale, the researcher directly adapted them into the questionnaire. Out of
104 items, 20 items were adapted from original AMTB because they fit and
disclosed students’ actual language learning motivation while learning English,
especially Business English.
This survey was self-reporting and composed of two major dimensions which
arranged to assess language learning motivation. Participants were requested to
check each question on LIKERT Scale from 1 “Strongly Disagree” to 5 “Strongly
Agree”. This instrument consisted of 20 questions: Integrative motivation (Q1, Q2,
Q3, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q.9, and Q.10) and Instrumental motivation (Q11, Q12,
Q13, Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, and Q20).
Table 9 indicated the reliability analysis of the AMTB questionnaire in this
study. Cronbach’s alpha achieved a coefficient of 0.903 for the entire learning
motivation questionnaire. In addition, the coefficients of the two categories in the
AMTB questionnaire were all above 0.70.
Table 9. Reliability Coefficients for the AMTB Questionnaire
Motivation Category
Reliability Analysis
Integrative motivation ( item 1 -10)
0.845
Instrumental motivation ( item 11- 20)
0.914
Overall motivation
0.903
38
3.4 Procedures
The procedures of the study were managed through two stages. Each stage was
demonstrated as followed:
Stage 1: The subjects were asked to take self-designed cognitive learning style,
language learning strategy and learning motivation questionnaires.
Stage 2: The researcher gathered scores of the three surveys and investigated the
relationship among cognitive styles, frequency of language learning strategy
and language learning motivation.
Based on the four stages, Figure 4 is given to demonstrate the flow chart.
Ask participants to take self-designed cognitive style survey, language learning
strategy inventory, and learning motivation survey.
Compute the scores of the three different questionnaires to investigate individual
cognitive learning style, use of learning strategy and learning motivation.
Investigate the relationship among cognitive learning style, use of learning
strategy and learning motivation
39
3.5 Data Analysis
The researcher utilized SPSS 12.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science) to
compute the data and answer the questions. For this study, the significant level was
set at P<0.05 for all statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics were used to determine the cognitive learning styles,
learning strategy use and learning motivation of the subjects. Mean scores, standard
deviations, and frequency were computed to determine and compare the differences
in cognitive learning styles, learning strategy use and learning motivation in order to
present the whole picture between Applied English and International Trade majors.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient reliability was executed to determine the internal
consistency of the three learning style preferences in the cogniti ve style
questionnaire, the six strategy categories in the SILL and the two motivation
categories in the AMTB.
Independent sample t-test was performed to determine the effects of variables
and the significance on learners’ mean scores and standard deviations of cognitive
style on the three style categories, strategy use on the six strategy categories in the
SILL, and learning motivation on the two motivation types in the AMTB.
One-ANOVA was executed in order to investigate the significant differences on
cognitive style, learning strategy and learning motivation in different academic
levels. Besides, Bivariate Correlation was performed to determine whether it
achieved any significant correlation among cognitive style, language learning
strategy and language learning motivation in Business English curriculum.
40
Chapter Four
Results and Discussions
This study was to separately investigate Applied English and International
Trade majors’ cognitive learning preference, use of learning strategy and learning
motivation in Business English course. It also aimed to explore the relationship
among cognitive learning style, language learning strategy as well as learning
motivation. This chapter demonstrated the results of the study and discussed the
findings.
Above and beyond, descriptive statistics (mean scores, standard derivations, and
frequencies) scrutinized the learners’ responses to the Cognitive Style questionnaire,
the SILL, and the AMTB in order to separately present the style preferences, use of
learning strategies and learning motivation in different majors and academic levels.
Independent sample t-test and One-way ANOVA were performed to answer research
question one to three. Then, the means of subjects’ style preferences, frequency of
strategy use and motivated inclination for the two different majors were listed with
the goal to provide a general scheme for teachers in Business English curriculum
design. In addition, a Bivariate Correlation was performed to answer research
question four in order to determine the relationship among cognitive style, use of
learning strategy and language learning motivation. The significant level was set at
p<0.05 for all statistical analyses.
41
4.1 Background Analysis
In this section, there were several discussions of descriptive statistics in the
background analysis. This study aimed to investigate the cognitive style preference,
learning strategy and learning motivation of Applied English and International Trade
majors in Business English courses. And, the subjects’ background was analyzed by
four different variables: gender, department, academic level and learning experience.
400 surveys were given out to Applied English and International Trade majors in
Southern Taiwan University. The study finally ended up with 382 surveys since 18
cases were incomplete and inaccessible. The results of the background information
analysis were existed as the following:
Gender: In this study, most of the subjects wee female. There were 305 female
subjects with the high percentage 79.8 %.
Department: The amount of Applied English majors was 203 with the percentage
53.1%. The total number of International Trade majors was 173 with the
percentage 46.9%.
Academic Level: Senior group was the largest group with percentage 37.2%. The
number of junior was 128 with the percentage 33.5%. And, sophomore group
was the least group with the percentage 29.3%.
Language Experience: 309 subjects with the high percentage 81% thought that they
were great language learners. However, there were still 43 subjects
considering themselves to be great language learners.
42
4.2 Research Question One
This section was aimed to explore the cognitive style preferences for all the
subjects in different majors (Applied English and International Trade majors) and in
academic levels. Firstly, all the subjects’ responses on the cognitive style survey
were analyzed by computing the mean scores and standard deviation. The
descriptive statistics analysis of Cognitive Style Survey were employed to
investigate the subjects’ three cognitive style preferences including social style,
think style and emotion style as revealed in Table 10. After that, independent sample
t-test and one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) were used to investigate
the significant differences on the three cognitive styles for all the subjects in
different majors and academic levels. The post-hoc test was conducted when it was
found to achieve any significant difference.
The subjects were divided into the two groups: Applied English and
International Trade majors. Table 10 listed the mean scores of the three cognitive
style preferences which illustrated Applied English and International Trade majors ’
separately preferred ways in learning Business English. The mean sco re of overall
cognitive style for all the subjects was 3.39 with standard deviation 0.35. For
Applied English majors, the mean score of social style was 3.26, emotion style was
3.53 which was slightly higher than the mean of think style. Obviously, Applied
English majors highly preferred emotion style more than the other two styles in
Business English courses; social style was the least preferred ways for Applied
English majors. Likely, as to International Trade majors, the mean score of
emotion style was 3.47, think style was 3.42 and social style was 3.24. Accordingly,
emotion style had the highest level of the three cognitive style preferences. Based
on the results, the researcher could assume that both Applied English and
43
International Trade majors preferred emotion style as they took Business English
courses.
The results clearly presented the there was no significant difference on social
preference (F=0.001, P> 0.05), emotion preference (F=0.00, P>0.05) and think
preference (F=2.75, P>0.05) between the two groups (see Table 10). The result
showed that Business English learners in different majors differed neither social
preference, think preference, nor emotion preference. Therefore, this indicated that
there were no significant differences in cognitive style preferences among Business
English learners with different majors. Applied English majors had no significantly
higher level of cognitive style preferences than International majors.
Table 10. Independent sample t-test for Cognitive Style in Difference Majors
Subscale
Department
Mean
Std. Dev
t
Social preference
Applied English
3.26
0.41
0.63
International Trade
3.24
0.39
Applied English
3.48
0.47
International Trade
3.42
0.54
Applied English
3.53
0.49
International Trade
3.47
0.48
Think preference
Emotion preference
Sig.
1.25
1.21
P<0.05*
In order to explore the cognitive style preferences among Business English
learners in different academic levels, the researchers employed descriptive analysis
44
and One-way ANOVA. Based on different academic levels of all the subjects on
this survey, the researcher categorized the subjects into three academic groups:
sophomore, junior and senior groups. As revealed in Table.11, emotion preference
for all the subjects in different academic levels had the highest mean scores of the
three style categories. Conversely, social preference turned out to be the least
preferred style for these students in academic levels. Then, one-way ANOVA was
computed and Table 11 indicated that there was no significant difference on social
style and think style scores. However, it achieved significant difference on emotion
style (F=3.81, P<0.05) between group 1 and group 2. Namely, the subjects in group
2 specifically preferred emotion style more than group 1 in taking Business English
courses. This revealed that subjects in group 2 had significantly higher level of
emotion preference than group 1 in Business English curriculum.
Table 11. One-way ANOVA for Cognitive Style Survey in Academic Levels
Subscales
Social
Think
Emotion
Academic Level
N
M
Std.
F
(1)Sophomore
112
3.28
0.39
0.52
(2)Junior
128
3.22
0.38
(3)Senior
142
3.26
0.43
(1)Sophomore
112
3.40
0.43
(2)Junior
128
3.52
0.51
(3)Senior
142
3.43
0.54
(1)Sophomore
112
3.44
0.42
(2)Junior
128
3.59
0.49
(3)Senior
142
3.46
0.50
P<0.05*
45
Scheffe
1.94
3.81*
(2)>(1)
4.3Research Question Two
The descriptive analysis of Language Strategy Use Inventory (SILL) was used
to explore the subjects’ learning strategy use including memory, cognitive,
compensation, metacognitive, affective, social strategy categories. The researcher
computed the mean scores and standard deviation which illustrated the subjects’
learning strategy use in Business English courses. After that, independent sample
t-test and one-way ANOVA were performed with the goal to discover the significant
differences on the six strategy categories among the subjects in different majors and
academic levels. The research question two was to separately investigate the use of
language learning strategy for Applied English and International Trade majors. The
question is, “What is Applied English and International Trade majors’ separately
preferred use of Business English language strategies?”
First of all, the descriptive statistics analysis and independent sample t-test
represented the means of the overall learning strategy and the six strategy categories
between Applied English and International Trade majors. The mean score of overall
learning strategy use for all the subjects was 3.38 and the standard deviation was
0.44. In order to separately investigate the strategy use of the two majors, the
researcher divided into Applied English and International Trade majors for analysis
(see Table.12).
The means of memory strategy was 3.36, cognitive strategy was 3.38,
compensation strategy was 3.52, meatcognitive strategy was 3.71, affective strategy
was 3.41 and social strategy was 3.34. Metacognitive strategies were visibly the
most frequently used strategies for Applied English majors; social strategies and
cognitive strategies were least adapted in learning Business English. As a result, the
46
researcher might assume Applied English majors adapted metacognitive strategies
more frequently as they dealt with Business English. Then, according to Table 12,
the two most frequently used strategies by International Trade majors were
metacognitive strategies (M=3.49) and compensation strategy (M=3.33).
Alternatively, cognitive strategy and social strategies were the least preferred
strategies while International Trade majors took Business English courses.
Then, the researcher executed t-test so as to discover whether there was any
significant difference among the six learning strategy categories between Applied
English and International Trade majors (see Table 12). The results revealed it
achieved statistically significant difference on the six learning strategy categories:
memory strategy (F=3.118, P<0.05), cognitive strategy (F=0.832, P<0.01),
compensation strategy (F=0.432, P<0.01), metacognitive strategy (F=0.205,
P<0.001), affective Strategy (F=1.758, P<0.05), and social strategy (F=0.243,
P<0.05). From the result, it stated that frequency of learning strategy use within the
two groups was significantly deferent in learning Business English; that is, in
accordance with the means of strategy categories, Applied English majors had
significantly higher level than International Trade majors in Business English class
especially metacognitive strategy.
Table 12. Independent sample t-test for Strategy Categories in Different Majors
Strategy
Department
N
M
Std.
Memory
Applied English
203
3.36
0.55
International Trade
179
3.22
0.61
t
Sig.
2.48 *
(continued next page)
47
Cognitive
Compensation
Metacognitive
Affective
Social
Applied English
20
3.38
0.59
International Trade
179
3.18
0.64
Applied English
203
3.52
0.59
International Trade
179
3.33
0.64
Applied English
203
3.71
0.58
International Trade
179
3.49
0.57
Applied English
203
3.41
0.54
International Trade
179
3.28
0.56
Applied English
203
3.34
0.63
International Trade
179
3.19
0.63
3.19 **
2.96 **
3.81 ***
2.32 *
2.31 *
P<0.05*, P<0.01**, P<0.001*
Furthermore, based on different academic levels for all the subjects on this
Language Strategy Use Inventory (SILL), all the subjects were divided into three
groups in proportion to academic levels: sophomore, junior and senior groups. The
researcher performed One-Way ANOVA in order to scrutinize whether there was
any significant difference on the six strategy categories. As revealed in Table 13,
the result did not show significant difference on the five strategy categories except
memory strategy category (F=5.35, P<0.05). That is, it achieved significant
difference on memory strategy category between group 3 (M=3.41) and group 2
(M=3.18). In other words, this also indicated that Business English learners in
group 3 had significantly higher level of memory strategy category. Subjects in
48
group 3 adapted memory strategy category as frequently as group 2 in learning
process. The results in Table 13 also revealed that metacognitive strategies were
the most frequently used by the subjects in the three academic levels; on the other
hand, these students rarely employed social strategies and affective strategies in
Business English curriculum.
Table 13. One-way ANOVA of Learning Strategy Use in Academic Levels
Strategy
Memory
Cognitive
Academic Level
N
M
Std.
F
Scheffe
(1) Sophomore
112
3.29
0.48
5.35*
(3)>(2)
(2) Junior
128
3.18
0.60
(3) Senior
142
3.41
0.62
total
382
3.30
0.58
(1) Sophomore
112
3.32
0.52
(2) Junior
128
3.20
0.62
(3) Senior
142
3.35
0.68
total
382
3.29
0.62
112
3.46
0.49
(2) Junior
128
3.42
0.66
(3) Senior
142
3.41
0.67
total
382
3.43
0.62
112
3.59
0.54
(2) Junior
128
3.63
0.61
(3) Senior
142
3.60
0.60
total
382
3.61
0.59
Compensation (1) Sophomore
Metacognitive (1) Sophomore
2.31
0.27
0.16
(continued next page)
49
Affective
Social
(1) Sophomore
112
3.40
0.52
(2) Junior
128
3.28
0.59
(3) Senior
142
3.37
0.55
total
382
3.35
0.56
(1) Sophomore
112
3.31
0.56
(2) Junior
128
3.16
0.70
(3) Senior
142
3.34
0.62
total
382
3.27
0.64
*P<0.05
50
1.63
3.25
4.4 Research Question Three
Learning motivation categories contained integrative and instrumental
motivation. Descriptive analyses of learning motivation including integrative and
instrumental motivation were displayed due to the investigation of learning
motivation in Business English courses among the subjects in different majors and
academic levels. The researcher also executed independent sample t-test and
one-way ANOVA with the goal to explore whether there was any positively or
negatively significant difference on learning motivation. As previously proposed, the
research question is, “What is the learning motivation of Applied English majors and
International Trade majors distinctively in Business English courses?”
At the beginning, the mean scores of language motivation were computed to
carry on the investigation of learning motivation in Business English courses. The
mean score of overall learning motivation was 3.19 with standard deviation 0.65 for
all the subjects (see Table 14). All the subjects, afterward, were dispatched into two
majors: Applied English and International Trade majors. As presented in Table 14,
Applied English majors’ had lower mean score of integrative motivation (M=3.34,
SD=0.57) than that of instrumental motivation (M=3.49, SD=0.71); while
International Trade majors had higher level of integrative motivation (M=2.99) . It
was found that Applied English majors possibly were instrumentally oriented in
English courses; International Trade majors were in tendency of integrative
motivation. Then, the results in independent-samples t-test (see Table 14) presented
there were significant differences on motivation types for the subjects in different
majors. This indicated that Applied English majors have greater level of language
learning motivation than International Trade majors.
51
Table 14. Independent sample t-test of Learning Motivation in Department
Subscales
Department
N
M
Std.
Integrative
Applied English
203
3.34
0.57
International Trade
179
2.99
0.70
Applied English
203
3.49
0.71
International Trade
179
2.87
0.91
Instrumental
t
Sig.
5.23 ***
7.39 ***
P<0.05*, P<0.01**, P<0.001
Furthermore, paired sample t-test was performed in order to examine the exact
orientation in Business English courses among all the subjects with different majors.
According to Table 15, the result of paired sample t-test showed that there was
significant difference between integrative and instrumental motivation f or Applied
English (t=-2.78, P<0.01). It illustrated that Applied English majors were possibly
instrumentally motivated in learning Business English. On the contrast , it did not
achieve any significant difference on motivation types for International Trade majors
(t =1.83, P>0.05). This signified that International Trade majors were not
specifically oriented on either integrative or instrumental motivation in learning
Business English; that is, instrumental motivation and integrative motivation might
be equivalently important to International Trade majors. In accordance with the
results, the researcher might assume that Applied English majors could be more
instrumentally oriented rather than integratively motivated in learning Business
English. International Trade majors had no obvious orientation on motivation
categories as they took Business English courses.
52
Table 15. Paired Sample T-test for Mean Difference between Motivation Types for
the Two Groups
Pair
Difference
df
Applied English
Integrate- Instrument
202
International Trade
Integrate- Instrument
178
t
Sig.
-2.78** 0.006
1.83
P<0.05*, P<0.01**, P<0.001***
In addition, based on the different academic levels, all the subjects were
divided into three academic groups: sophomore, junior and senior groups. One-Way
ANOVA analysis that explored there was significant difference in integrative
motivation scores were performed among the three groups (see Table 16). It
achieved more significantly different between Business English learners in group 3
and group 2 than group 1 and group 3. This illustrated that group 3 had the highest
significant level of the three groups, whereas students in group 1 was less
integratively motivated than group 3. That is, senior students were more
integratively oriented in Business English courses than the other two groups. The
results of means also indicated that Business English learners in group 1 (M=3.35,
SD=0.57) and group 2 (M=3.10, SD=1.16) were in tendency of instrumental
motivation; students in group 3 (M=3.30, SD=0.59) were possibly oriented in
integrative motivation during Business English learning.
53
Table 16. One-way ANOVA of Learning Motivation in Academic Level
Motivation
Academic Level
N
M
Std.
F
Scheffe
Integrative
(1) Sophomore
112
3.26
0.60
9.44*
(3)>(2), (1)>(2)
(2) Junior
128
2.98
0.75
(3) Senior
142
3.30
0.59
total
382
3.18
0.67
112
3.35
0.57
(2) Junior
128
3.10
1.16
(3) Senior
142
3.19
0.72
total
382
3.21
0.86
Instrumental (1) Sophomore
54
2.4
4.5 Research Question Four
Research question four proposed to investigate the relationship among cognitive
learning style, use of learning strategy and learning motivation in Business English.
The research question is, “What is the relationship among cognitive style, use of
learning strategy and language learning motivation in Business English course?”
In order to understand the relationship among the subjects’ cognitive style
preferences, learning strategy use and their learning motivation towards Business
English courses, the researchers employed Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient to determine whether there was statistically significant relationship
among cognitive styles( alone/pair style, think style and emotion style), learning
strategy use( memory strategy, cognitive strategy, compensation strategy,
metacognitive strategy, affective strategy, and social strategy) , and learning
motivation ( integrative motivation and instrumental motivation). Additionally, the
researcher distributed into three learning aspects in order to investigate the
relationship among the three language factors.
As shown in Table 17, the results asserted all the six learning strategy variables
were significantly correlated with social, think and emotion style preferences at
P<0.05. These significant variables in the correlation model in this study presented
positive relationship with the three cognitive learning style preferences. The overall
strategy use and the use of the six strategy categories significantly and positively
correlated with the learners’ three different learning style variables. Social strategy
correlated with the social style preference in medium correlation coefficients (r=0.34,
P<0.01). Learners with higher social style indicated the greater frequency of social
strategy use in Business English curriculum. Then, memory (r=0.34, P<0.01),
55
cognitive (r=0.31, P<0.01), and metacognitive strategies (r=0.38, P<0.01) had
correlation with think style preference in medium correlation coefficients. It meant
that Business English learners who preferred think style were likely to use memory,
cognitive and metacognitive strategies in Business English courses. Moreover,
metacognitive had the greatest correlation with emotion style preference among the
six strategy categories in high correlation coefficients (r=0.50, P<0.01). This might
suggest that students with higher overall cognitive style preference especially
emotion preference had the higher frequency of metacognitive strategy use.
Table 17. Correlation between Cognitive Style Preferences and Learning Strategy
Social
Preference
Think
Preference
Emotion
Preference
Memory Strategy
0.27**
0.34**
0.35**
Cognitive Strategy
0.21**
0.31**
0.41**
Compensation Strategy
0.22**
0.29**
0.29**
Metacognitive Strategy
0.21**
0.38**
0.50**
Affective Strategy
0.25**
0.21**
0.39**
Social Strategy
0.34**
0.25**
0.38**
P<0.05*, P<0.01**
Table 18 exposed that overall cognitive style had significant correlation with
overall learning motivation in medium coefficients (r=0.35, P<0.01). Integrative
motivation achieved significant correlation with the overall cognitive style, social
preference, think preference and emotion preference in medium correlation
coefficients. It illustrated that Business English learners with most or least preferred
cognitive style preferences did matter their learning motivation especially the
56
integrative motivation. On the contrary, instrumental motivation had correlation with
the overall motivation, think preference and emotion preference except social
preference (r=0.07, P>0.05). This disclosed that social preference had no influence
on instrumental motivation among learners while learning Business English.
Table 18. Correlation between Cognitive Styles and Learning Motivation
Social
Preference
Think
Preference
Emotion Overall
Preference Style
Integrative
Motivation
0.25**
0.34**
0.40**
0.44**
Instrumental
Motivation
0.07
0.10*
0.25**
0.19**
Overall Motivation
0.17**
0.24**
0.37**
0.35**
P<0.05*, P<0.01**
The relationship between learning strategy use and learning motivation was
presented in Table 19. Integrative motivation had significant correlation with overall
strategy (r=0.68, P<0.01) and the six strategy categories. It had significantly higher
correlation with cognitive strategy (r=0.58, P<0.01), metacognitive s trategy (r=0.56,
P<0.01) and social strategy (r=0.58, P<0.01) especially. This unveiled that Business
English learners with higher or lower learning motivation obviously mattered the use
of learning strategy especially cognitive, metacognitive and social s trategies.
Besides, instrumental motivation was significantly correlated with overall learning
strategy (r=0.20, P<0.01) and four strategy categories. It achieved no significant
correlation with compensation strategies (r=0.09, P>0.05) and affective strategies
(r=0.09, P>0.05). This indicated that Business English learners with higher or lower
instrumental motivation possibly had no direct use compensation and affective
57
strategies. Like Yu’s (2006) findings, which illustrated that language learning
motivation and strategy use positively correlated with language learning
achievement; learning motivation had strongly significant correlations with learning
strategy use. This present study found that learning motivation clearly mattered the
strategy of language learners. However, unlike Yu’s, this present study focused on
instrumental motivation and integrative motivation.
Table 19. Correlation between Learning Strategy and Learning Motivation
Integrative
Motivation
Instrumental
Motivation
Overall
Motivation
Memory Strategy
0.44**
0.12*
0.31**
Cognitive Strategy
0.58**
0.18**
0.41**
Compensation Strategy
0.38**
0.09
0.25**
Metacognitive Strategy
0.56**
0.20**
0.42**
Affective Strategy
0.44**
0.09
0.28**
Social Strategy
0.58**
0.15**
0.40**
Overall Strategy
0.68**
0.20**
0.48**
P<0.05*, P<0.01**
58
4.6 Discussions of the Results
Cognitive Style Preference
As showed in the quantitative results, it was interpreted that Applied English
and International Trade majors relied on self-motivation, persistence and
responsibility rather than analysis of events or social relations. Think preference
could be the least preferred cognitive style preference for the two departments. I t
might indicate both Applied English and International Trade majors were not used
to learn Business English courses by analyzing and thinking. Besides, subjects in
different academic levels also appeared to prefer emotion style in learning Business
English. This present study appeared to be different from others since the
researcher made the diverse classification on cognitive style preference: social,
think, emotion style. The researchers, in contrast, who investigated cognitive style
preference in Taiwan (Ko, 2002; Liao, 2008) mainly had classification into four
style preferences: visual/verbal, visual/nonverbal, auditory, and kinesthetic/ tactile
preference.
Unlike language learners in western countries, students in Taiwan have
drastically counted on teachers’ instruction and have been imposed to do what
instructors asked during learning process. Hence, students were requested to
oversee their academic achievement which forced these students to center more on
their own learning process without thinking or working with peers. As well, pursuit
of academic achievement made Taiwanese students apart from group wo rk. In this
present study, the subjects with different majors had no significant difference on
Cognitive Style Survey in Business English courses. This illustrated that Applied
English majors in learning Business English had no statistically significant higher
59
style preference scores than International Trade majors in Business curriculum. On
the other hand, the subjects with different academic levels in Business English
curriculum achieved significant difference on emotion style category. This
indicated that junior group in Business English curriculum was significantly higher
emotion style preference than sophomore students in Business English courses.
According to these findings, it was hoped that Business English instructors
could understand what students in different majors or academic levels preferred
during learning process. This helped instructors to change their teaching styles or
teaching strategies in order to develop these students’ learning preferences in
language learning.
Learning Strategy Use
According to the quantitative questionnaire,
the results reported that
metacognitive strategies were the most frequently used for Applied English and
International Trade majors. It was interpreted that the two majors learned Business
English by the means of centering, arranging, planning, and evaluating their
academic achievement. It also illustrated that some of the two majors have not used
suitable strategies and noticed the available strategies that they could use. All the
subjects in different academic levels preferred to use metacognitive strategy in
Business English curriculum. The findings of this present study were not consistent
with the previous studies on learning strategy use in Taiwan (Ko, 2002; Li, 2005;
Wang, 2005, Huang, 2005). Some of these studies were aimed to target at the
strategy use of elementary school and junior high school students; this present study
mainly discussed the strategy use of undergraduate students. Although Wang’s and
Huang’s studies also were to investigate the strategy use of undergraduate students,
the findings were completely distinctive from this present study.
60
The findings of the questionnaire demonstrated that the strategy use in different
majors and academic levels. It was found that there was positively significant
difference between Applied English and International Trade majors. Applied English
majors had the significant level of learning strategy use than International Trade
majors. Students in different academic levels were found to have no statistically
significant difference in their use of overall learning strategy but have significant
difference in use of memory strategy
As above-mentioned, it was hoped that instructors inspired students with broad
range of language learning strategies and guided them to use appropriate strategies
in order to handle Business English learning. For example, introduction and
explanation of appropriate strategy use by instructors could be helpful in improving
and encourage students’ strategy use with the goal to do better in Business English
learning.
Learning Motivation
The results showed that the learning motivation towards Business English
learning for Applied English and International Trade majors were distinctive. As
reported in Table 14 and 15, it was surprisingly found that Applied English majors
had significantly higher level of instrumental motivation. It could be interpreted that
deficiency of professional business knowledge and Business English instructors
were the central drawbacks for Applied English majors. Most foreign language
departments in Taiwan still focused on instruction of the targeted culture, literature,
or linguistics; however, Business English courses frequently were deemed as
elective courses for English majors. In order to acquire more business information,
English majors must take business-related courses in International Trade Department.
Blur business knowledge and teaching styles gradually wrecked English majors’
61
interests or motivation in learning Business English. International Trade majors have
equipped themselves with fundamental or advanced business knowledge more than
Applied English majors. However, appropriate use of language could be the
significant issue for International Trade majors. Then, as illustrated in Table 16, the
difference on learning motivation was highly significant in different academic levels,
especially the integrative motivation. The findings presented that senior and
sophomore students had higher integrative motivation than junior group. The senior
group had the significantly highest level among the three groups.
The Relationship among Cognitive Style, Learning Strategy and Learning
Motivation
The researcher performed Pearson product-moment correlations to compute the
relationship among cognitive style, learning strategy use and learning motivat ion on
Business English learning. Firstly, based on the results of Table 17, it obviously
indicated that cognitive style preferences mutually affected the subjects’ use of
strategy in Business English. It was especially found that emotion style preference
significantly correlated with metacognitive strategy in high coefficients. For
example, according to the result in Table 17, learners who preferred emotion style
might adapt metacognitive strategies in learning Business English. Specifically,
metacognitive strategies and emotion style preference targeted at students’ plans,
arrangement and motivation of learning situation in Business English.
Next, the result in Table 18 interpreted that there was significant correlation
between cognitive style categories and learning motivation types in general. In
particular, the researcher explored that it achieved no significant correlation between
social style and instrumental motivation. This might indicate that the essence of
social preference contradicted with instrumental motivation since social preference
62
principally was based on social relations. Conversely, learners who were
instrumentally oriented aimed to pursue the exterior rewards or praises from others.
Besides, according to the results, the strategy use and learning motivation had
positively significant correlations in Business English learning. This indicated that
students with higher learning motivation perfectly were good at strategy use.
Although the relationship between overall strategy use and learning motivation
significantly achieved correlations, compensation and affective strategies had no
significant correlation with instrumental motivation. These findings showed that the
correlation of instrumental motivation was not significantly correlated with
compensation and affective strategies. It revealed that instrumental motivation did
not affect learners using compensation and strategies while learning Business
English curriculum. Compensation and affective strategies should be carried out
with team work, which was discrepancy to the inherent of instrumental motivation.
As a result, compensation and affective strategies used in Business English rarely
had impacts on instrumentally oriented motives.
Finally, like Yu’s (2006) and Li’s (2005) Chang & Huang’s (1999) findings,
which indicated that language learning motivation had strongly positive correlation
with learning strategy use, this present study also found that learners with high or
low learning motivation could elicit the selection of strategy use. As described in the
three phases of learning motivation (Dornyei & Otto, 1998), learners typically set up
goals which activated intention of language learning; then, language learners began
to execute their action with variables, evaluated what they have accomplished, and
again started the cycle. Similarly, language learners chose strategies as soon as they
were motivated in language learning. Once if they found the strategies inappropriate,
they might elaborate and explore better strategies for their learning.
63
Simultaneously, language learning motivation indirectly affected cognitive style
since strategy use mutually influenced style preferences. Oxford in 2004 believed
that personal learning style led to the appropriate strategy use which reflected
personal learning style simultaneously. Furthermore, the efficiency of strategy use
counted on personal attitude and style preference towards learning context. It was,
however, difficult for learners to consciously notice their learning styles and strategy
use since they were used to learning in their fixed modes. As a result, instructors
should assist that learners used strategies suitable to them and extended learners’
learning style preferences in order to adapt assorted strategies in language learning
(Oxford, 2004).
64
Chapter Five
CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the subjects’ cognitive learning style preferences, use of
language strategy and language learning motivation of Applied English and
International Trade majors as well as the relationship among the three language
learning factors in Business English courses. Based on the data analysis and results,
this chapter concludes the study about the learners’ cognitive learning style
preferences, learning strategies, learning motivation and the relationship among
cognitive style, learning strategy and learning motivation.
5.1 Summary of Findings
As the results of data analysis presented in the chapter four, some major
findings were discovered and summarized in the following four points:
Cognitive Style Preferences
As presented in the chapter four, all the subjects significantly preferred
emotion preference more than social preference and think preference in learning
Business English (see Table 10). The results in Table 10 also indicated that it did
not achieve any significant difference in the three cognitive style preferences
between Applied English and International Trade majors; specifically, there was
not any difference on learning styles in different majors in learning Business
65
English. Conversely, as reported in Table 11, emotion style preference in different
academic levels was found to achieve statistically significant difference but the
other two style preferences have no significant difference. Subjects in different
majors also were found to prefer emotion style in Business English courses.
Use of Learning Strategy
Applied English and International Trade majors in Business Englis h courses in
Southern Taiwan University were found to employ metacognitive strategies more
frequently than compensation, affective, cognitive, memory, and social strategies.
Social strategies were the least frequently used strategies among the six strategy
categories. In addition, it achieved significant difference on learning strategy use
between Applied English and International Trade majors (see Table 12). Students in
different academic were found to have significant difference on memory strategy
use and to use metacognitive strategies more frequently than the others. (see Table
13).
Learning Motivation
The result revealed there was significant difference in learning motivation
between Applied English and International Trade majors in Business English
courses; it might suggest that International Trade majors were less motivated in
learning Business English than Applied English majors. Through the results of
paired sample test, it was surprisingly found that Applied English majors were
possibly instrumentally motivated in learning Business English. It was also found
that there was significantly different on integrative motivation for students in
different academic levels (see Table 16). Compared to sophomore and junior
students, senior Business English learners were possibly integrative motivation
towards Business English courses.
66
Relationship among Cognitive Style, Learning Strategy and Learning Motivation
The results of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient showed that
cognitive learning style in Business English courses basically had significant
correlation with learning strategy and learning motivation. As for cognitive learning
style, the three style preferences had significant effects on the overall strategy use,
the six strategy categories, the overall motivation, integrative and instrumental
motivation ( however, alone/pair preference did not significantly affect instrumental
motivation). The overall strategy and the six strategy categories achieved significant
correlation with the overall learning motivation and integrative motivation. However,
the overall strategy, memory, cognitive, metacognitive, and social strategy
categories had correlation coefficients with instrumental motivation.
5.2 Pedagogical Implication
The findings of this study provided practical pedagogical implication for
Business English teachers in order to understand of cognitive learning preferences,
language strategies instruction and factors of learning motivation. This study was
hoped that teachers could discover the importance of individual cognitive learning
preference, learning strategy use, learning motivation and could adapt their teaching
direction to guide students in learning process.
First of all, as reported in Table 10, it demonstrated that Applied English and
International Trade majors both preferred emotion style in learning Business English
more than the other style preferences. For that reason, it was suggested that teachers
offered more opportunities which made the other two style preferences used in
Business English curriculum. Social style was the least preferred style for Applied
English majors in Business English. This showed that Applied English and
67
International Trade majors were not used to social relation or group work. As
indicated in Appendix A, Social, item7, “I don’t like learning Business English with
friends” was the least preferred style. Most language learning students in Taiwan
took too much care on their own academic achievement in order to compete with
peers. Students, in this way, increasingly and gradually relied on their own work.
Therefore, role plays, group work or team activities relevant to Business English
might motivate students’ interests towards Business English. In addition, instructors
could employ structural activities in Business English curriculum like critical
thinking or analysis on current international situation.
Second, the results in Table 12 indicated that Applied English and International
Trade majors used metacognitive strategies more frequently than the other five
learning strategies. “Metacognitive strategies provided a way for learners to
coordinate their own learning process. Metacognitive strategies included three
strategy sets: Centering Your Learning, Planning and Arranging Your Learning and
Evaluating Your Learning (Oxford, 1990, p.136).” Teachers should encourage
students to use the other learning strategies in Business English curriculum.
Furthermore, appropriate instruction and guidance in class activities may force
students to use them unconsciously.
Third, by understanding Applied English and International Trade majors’
integrative motivation and instrumental motivation from this study, teachers might
provide them with clear goals in learning Business English. For example, teachers
could provide business-related materials or practices to these subjects in Business
English courses. Furthermore, simulation at the workplace might be effective and
interesting for all the subjects to enhance their learning motivation.
68
Forth, background knowledge might be the significance between Applied
English and International Trade majors. Teachers in Business English courses should
take care of the subjects in learning professional Business English. For example, use
of proper English for International Trade majors ought to be adjusted in learning
Business English. And, fundamental business knowledge should be cultivated and
fortified for Applied English majors. To sum up, as aforementioned, teachers ought
to elicit students’ motivation in business knowledge and to encourage students with
distinctive strategy use which coincided with students’ style preferences since the
three constructs in language learning mutually achieved correlation.
5.3 Limitations of the Study
This study targeted at the cognitive style, use of learning strategy, learning
motivation of Applied English and International Trade majors in Business English
and the relationship among the three language learning constructs. These
questionnaires had smoothly been conducted, but it still had several limitations in
this study.
At the beginning, this study was limited on sample selection. The subjects in
this study were Applied English and International Trade majors in Southern Taiwan
University. The findings could not be generalized to other institutes, educational
levels or other regions in Taiwan. Second, the curriculum goals and designs in
Business English learning and teaching could vary from colleges or institutes.
Business English courses in Applied English and International Trade in Southern
Taiwan University were founded on basic or advanced business knowledge like
business terms or concepts, which could be totally apart from other institutes. Third,
the measurement of cognitive style preferences was slightly different from other
69
instruments and might be questioned since the researcher merged the Learning Style
Inventory (Gardner, 1985) and Productivity Environmental Preference Survey
(Dunn& Dunn, 1985) into a self-designed mode.
5.4 Suggestions for Further Studies
The researcher provided the following suggestions for the further research due
to the limitation of the present study. First of all, research on Business English
learners’ cognitive style preferences, learning strategy use and learning motivation
ought to cover the students from distinctive colleges. The study of the three various
surveys may need to be performed in other parts of Taiwan instead of only in
Southern Taiwan University. This study will provide a more complete and exquisite
picture of learners’ cognitive style preferences, learning strategy use and learning
motivation once if the research may be executed in more institutes.
Besides, instruments for assessing cognitive style preferences, learning strategy
use and learning motivation can be employed and transformed to discover more
acceptable results. Other instruments such as classroom observation or personal
interview can also probe more information about learner’s learning process in
Business English courses. As above-mentioned, the findings can be more workable
and suitable to the future research.
5.5 Conclusions
The study intended to separately investigate Applied English and International
Trade majors’ cognitive learning style, learning strategy, learning motivation in
Business English curriculum as well as the relationship among cognitive style, use
70
of learning strategy and learning motivation. The researcher adapted the three
different questionnaires to answer the four research questions. Generally speaking,
both Applied English and International Trade majors preferred to emotion style, used
metacognitive strategy more frequently than others. Also, Applied English majors
were possibly instrumental motivation towards Business English courses.
Al last, the researcher hoped this study might become a reference to help
learners discover their own cognitive learning style, use of learning strategy and
learning motivation. Moreover, the three constructs helped learners learn more
effectively in Business English courses and offer a general picture of students’
learning problem and could be effective for teachers’ teaching or curriculum plans.
71
References
Atkinson, J.W., & Feather, N.T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Belfiore, N. P., Matrisciano, A. (1978). An investigation on the students’ learning
styles in an advanced Applied Mechanics courses. Department of Mechanics
and Aeronautics, Retrieved 1 December 2009 from
http://dma.ing.uniroma1.it/users/m_appl1_c1/569.pdf
Chamot, A.U. (1998). Teaching learning strategies to language Students. Center
for Applied Linguistics. Center for International Education (ED), Washington,
DC.
Chamot, A.U., & O’Malley, J. (1990). Learning strategies in Second Lan guage
Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Csizer, K. & Dornyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning
motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The
Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19-36.
Chang, J. (1988). A study of Taiwanese students’ language learning styles and their
relationship to EFL proficiency。The Proceedings of the 7 th International
Symposium on English Teaching. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Chang, S.M, & Huang, S.H. (1999). Taiwanese English learners’ learning motivation
and language learning strategies. Papers from the 16 th Conference on English
72
teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane Publishing Co.
Cohen, A.D. (2003). The learner’s side of foreign language learning: Where do
styles, strategies, and tasks meet? International Review of Applied Linguistics
in Language Teaching, 41(4), 279-291.
Cohen, A.D. & Dornyei, Z (2002). Focus on the language learner: motivation, styles
and strategies. In N. Schmitt (ed.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistic,
170-190. London: Arnold.
Curry, L. (1983). An organization of learning styles theory and constructs. In: Curry
L. (ed.) Learning Styles in Continuing Medical Education. Ottawa: Canadian
Medical Association, 115-223.
Dunn & Dunn (2003). Learning styles/ teaching styles: should they… Can they be
matched? Educational Leadership, 36(4), 238-244.
Dunn, R. (1983). Learning style and its relation to exceptionality at both ends of the
spectrum. Exceptional Children, 49, 496-506.
Dunn, R. (1990). Commentary: teaching students through their perceptual strengths
and preferences. Journal of Reading, 31(4), 304-309.
Dunn, R. (1990). Rita Dunn answers questions on learning styles. Educational
Leadership, 48(2), 15-19.
Dunn, R. (2000). Learning styles: theory, research, and practice. National Forum of
Applied Educational Research Journal, 13(1), 3-22.
73
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Attitudes, orientation, and motivations in language learning:
advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning, 53, 3-32.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation
research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.
Dornyai, Z.,& Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2
motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69. London: Thames
Valley University.
Dudley-Evans, A. (1984). The team-teaching of writing skills. In R. Williams, J.M.
Swales and J. Kirkman (Eds.), Common ground: shared interest in ESP and
communication studies. ELT Documents, 117, 127-133.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M.(2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
54-67.
Davies, J., & Graff, M. (2006). Wholist-Analytic cognitive style: a matter of
reflection. Personality and Individual Difference, 41(6), 989-997.
Ehrman, M., & Leaver, B. L. (2003). Cognitive styles in the service of language
learning. System, 31(3), 393-415.
Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language styles and strategies in an
intensive training setting. The Modern Language Journal, 74, 311-327.
74
Ellis, M., & Johnson, C. M. (1994). Teaching business English. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ely, M. (1986). Language learning motivation: a descriptive and causal analysis. The
Modern Language Journal, 70(1), 28-65.
Ford, N., Wood, F., & Walsh, C. (1994). Cognitive styles and searchin g. Online &
CD-ROM Review, 18(2), 79-86.
Gardner, R.C. (2001). Language learning motivation: the student, the teacher, and
the researcher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1-18.
Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M. (2004). Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: a meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.
Language Learning Quarterly, 33(4), 167-204. USA: Michigan University.
Gardner, R. C. (1968). Attitudes and motivation on their role in second language
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 2(3).
Gardner, R. C. (1985). The Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery: Technical Report.
Ontario: Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.
Gardner, R.C. (2007). Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum
8, 9-20. University of Western Ontario.
Gorham, J. (1986). Assessment classification and implication of learning styles as
instructional interactions. Communication Education, ERIC Reports, 35(4),
411-417.
75
Gao, Y., Zhao, Y.,& Zhou, Y. (2007). Relationship between English learning
motivation types and self-identity changes among Chinese students. TESOL
Quarterly, 41(1), 133-155.
Gregorc, A. F. (1984). Style as a symptom: a phenomenological perspective. Theory
into Practice, 23(1), 51-55.
Goldstein, K. M. & Blackman, S. (1982). Cognitive styles and learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(2), 106-115.
Hutchinson, T., & Waters, A. (1987). English for Specific Purposes: a
learner-centered approach. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hsu, Y.L. (2007). Elementary school EFL students’ learning style preferences and
strategy use and their relationship with the students’ English learning
achievement. Master’s Thesis, Providence University, Taiwan, ROC.
Huang, S.C. (2005). A study of factors affecting Applied English majors’ use of
language learning strategy. Master’s Thesis, Southern Taiwan University,
Taiwan, ROC.
Islam, M. (2007). The impacts of nation on employees’ learning style Preferences: a
Taiwan-India perspective. Master’s Thesis, Ming Chuan University, Taiwan,
ROC.
Kolb, A.Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2005) The Kolb Learning Style Inventory-Version 3.1
2005 Technical Specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experimental learning: experience as the source of learning and
76
development prentice hall. New York: Englewood Cliffs.
Kolb, D.A. (1985). Learning Style Inventory (LSI): Technical Manual. Boston:
McBer and Co.
Kolb, D.A., Boyatzis, R.E. & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential Learning Theory:
previous research and new directions in Sternberg R.J. & Zhang L.F. (eds)
Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. The educational
psychology series, 227-247. Laurence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Keefe, J.W. (1979). Learning style: an overview in Keefe J. W. (eds) Learner
learning styles: diagnosing and prescribing programs NASSP, Reston.
Ko, Y.W. (2002). Perceptual style preference and their relationship to English
achievement and learning strategies of junior high EFL learners in Taiwan.
Master Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan, ROC.
Liu, Y. C., Shih, Y. C., & Yeh, R. W. (2008). The development of online Learning
Style Inventory: An Exploratory Study. National Science Council of Taiwan,
Taiwan, ROC.
Lovelace, M.K. (2005). Meta-analysis of experimental research based on the Dunn
and Dunn Model. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(3), 176-183.
Lee, P.Y. (2008). A study of EFL learning strategy used by cadets in Taiwan.
Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, ROC.
Liao, K.L. (2008). The relationships among perceptual learning style, vocabulary
77
learning strategies, and vocabulary achievement of junior high school students.
Master’s Thesis, National Yunlin University of Science & Technology, Taiwan,
ROC.
Li, C.L. (2005). The study of elementary school children’s English learning
motivation, learning strategy and learning achievement: An analytical case of
Pintung County. Doctor’s Thesis, National Pintung University of Education.
Oxford, L.R. (1990). Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Oxford, L.R. & Burry-Stock (1995). Assessing the use of language learning
strategies worldwide with the ESL/ EFL version of the Strategy Inventory for
Language Learning (SILL). System, 23(2), 153-175.
Oxford, L.R. & Hsiao, T.Y. (2002). Comparing theories of language learning
strategies: a confirmatory factor analysis. Modern Language Journal, 86(3),
368-383.
Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: an overview. GALA,
2003. Retrieved 10 October 2009 from:
http://www.education.umd.edu/EDCI/SecondLangEd/TESOL/People/Faculty/D
r.%20Oxford/StylesStrategies.doc
Oxford, R.L. (2004). Changing the face of EFL instruction through learning styles
and strategies. Selected Papers from the Thirteenth International Symposium on
English Teaching, 1-10. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
78
Price, L. (2004). Individual differences in learning: cognitive control, cognitive style,
and learning style. Educational Psychology, 24(5), 681-698.
Rezaei, A. R., & Katz, L. (2003). Evaluation of the reliability and validity of the
cognitive styles analysis. Personal and Individual Differences, 36(6),
1317-1327.
Reid, J.M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/ EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic
definitions and new directions. Contemporary Education Psychology 25(1),
54-67.
Riding, R.J. (1991). Cognitive Styles Analysis. Birmingham: Learning and Training
Technology.
Riding, R.J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies:
some implications for training design, International Journal of Training and
Development, 199-206.
Riding, R.J., & Grimley, M. (1999). Cognitive style, gender, and learning from
multi-media materials in 11-year-old children. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 30(1), 43-56.
79
Riding, R.J. (2002). On the assessment of cognitive style: a commentary on Peterson,
Deary, and Austin, 34(5), 893-897.
Riding, R.J. & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies:
understanding style differences in learning and behavior. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
Riding, R.J., & Read, G. (1996). Cognitive style and pupil learning preferences.
Educational Psychology, 16(1), 81-106.
Rausch, A.S. (1996). Learning styles and the Japanese university second language
students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japan Association of
Language Teachers, Japan.
St John, M. H. (1996). Business is booming: Business English in the 1990s. English
for Specific Purposes, 15(1), 3-18.
Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). The relationship between learning style and cognitive style.
Personal and Individual Differences, 30(4), 609-616.
Shih, H.J. (2002). The study on the combination of learning style and approach for
examining learning performance- Based on interactive or non-interactive.
Mater’s Thesis, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan, ROC.
Tsai, M.J. (1998). A course design for business English. The Proceedings of the 7 th
International Symposium on English Teaching, 797-808. Taipei: The Crane
Publishing Co.
Tsao, T.L. (2002). Perceptual learning style preference and learning strategy among
80
Taiwanese senior high school EFL learners. Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taiwan, ROC.
Wu, C.C., & Dale, N.B., & Bethel, L.J. (1998). Conceptual models and cognitive
styles in teaching recursion. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(1), 292-296.
Witkin, H.A. (1973). The role of cognitive style in academic performance and in
teacher-student relations. Paper presented at a Symposium sponsored by the
Graduate Record Examination Board, Montreal, Canada.
Wise, J. C.; Felder, R. M.; Lee S. H.; Litzinger, T. A. (2007). A psychometric study
of the Index of Learning Styles. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4),
309-319.
Wang, S.Y. (2005). English language learning strategies used by the sophomore
students of a Technology University. Master’s Thesis, Southern Taiwan
University, Taiwan, ROC.
Yu, H.C. (2006). Motivation and learning strategy use among junior high school
students with different levels of academic achievement. Master’s Thesis,
National Pingtung Institute of Commerce, Taiwan, ROC.
陳廣耀。(1985)。現代商用英文。8-9頁。台北：商略印書館。
郎亞琴。(2000)。商用英文教學之回饋分析。研究與動態。８期。156-157頁。
81
Appendix A:
English Version of Cognitive Learning Style Survey；Language
Strategy Use Inventory；Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
This survey is designed to help you indentify your learning styles, to find what
kind of language learning strategy belong to you, and to realize your language
learning motivation. Please read each statement carefully and then circle the
response box that most accurately describes your personal experience.
Demographic information:
1. Gender: □1.Male
□2.Female
2. Department: □1.Applied English major
□2.International Trade major
3. Grade: □1.Sophomore
□3.Senior
□2.Junior
4. Which factor impacts you most while learning foreign language?
□1. Learning Style
□2.Learning Strategy
□3Learning Motivation
5. Do you consider yourself to be an efficient language learner?
□1.Yes
□2.No.
Extremely Agree
82
Agree
1. I learn best when I learn Business English with lots
of classmates.
2. I enjoy discussing assignment with friends.
3. I like to finish assignment with a bunch of friends.
4. I enjoy learning Business English with lots of
friends.
5. I prefer to learn Business English on my own.
6. I prefer to finish assignment by myself.
7. I don’t like learning Business English with friends.
Mutual Opinion
Please circle an answer according to your own
feeling. The higher the score is, the more similar the
description is.
Disagree
Demonstration: (Adapted from Kolb, 1985; Dunn &
Dunn,1989)
Extremely Disagree
Cognitive Style Survey
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
8. I learn Business English by thinking.
9. I learn by the means of analyzing.
10. I focus on theories and concepts while learning
Business English.
11. I am more sensitive on observation and theories.
12. Analyzing makes me do better in Business English.
13. I’d rather learn by thinking than by absorbing
others’ ideas.
14. I hope to learn more information about Business
English.
15. While facing difficulties, I optimistically conquer
them.
16. I strongly respond to the course contents during
learning process.
17. I completely take care of my academic
achievement.
18. I always work hard on my Business English
assignments or reports.
19. I’m actively and aggressively engaged in class
activities during learning process.
20. Responsibility and caution make me learn smoothly
in Business English course.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Language Strategy Use Inventory
Agree
Extremely Agree
83
Mutual Opinion
1. I think of the relationship between what I already
know and new things I learn in Business English.
2. I remember new Business English words by
remembering their location on the page, on the board,
and on a street sign.
3. I use flashcards to remember new Business English
Disagree
Please circle an answer according to your own
feeling. The higher the score is, the more similar the
description is.
Extremely Disagree
Demonstration: (Adapted from Oxford, 1989)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
words.
4. I use Business English to communicate with foreign
clients.
5. I use the English words I know in different ways.
6. I write notes, messages, or reports in Business
English.
7. I repeatedly write or speak new Business English
words.
8. I find the meaning of a Business English word by
dividing it into parts that I understand.
9. I try not to translate word-for-word in Business
English.
10. If I can’t think of a Business English word, I use a
word or phrase that means the same thing.
11. I look for ways to learn Business English.
12. I have clear goals for improving my Business
English.
13. I try to find as many opportunities as I can to use
my Business English knowledge.
14. I notice my Business English mistakes and use that
information to help me do better.
15. I give myself a reward or treat when I do well in
Business English.
16. I talk about my feeling with others while learning
Business English.
17. I try to relax whenever I feel afraid of using
Business English.
18. I try to use Business English to ask question.
19. If I do not understand something in Business
English, turn to teachers for help.
20. I practice Business English with other students.
84
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
Extremely Disagree
Disagree
Mutual Opinion
Agree
Extremely Agree
Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery
1. I enjoy talking with others in Business English.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I don’t get anxious when I have to answer a question
in my Business English class.
3. I am strongly desired to know all aspects about
Business English.
4. Learning Business English makes me more familiar
with Business world.
5. Studying Business English brings me joy of learning
new things.
6. It’s not a problem for me to talk with other in
Business English.
7. I wish I could learn a lot of information about
Business English.
8. I am calm and confident while using Business
English with foreign clients.
9. I learn Business English because of the life style.
10. Learning Business English makes me know various
Business cultures.
11. Business English is not helpful to my future career.
12. I learn Business English due to the credits.
13. Learning Business English is not fun at all.
14. I learn Business English just for the better income.
15. Studying Business English is not helpful to my job.
16. In fact, I’m not motivated in Business English.
17. Learning Business English is just a burden for me.
18. I am nervous while using Business English in class.
19. Understanding Business English is not important to
my life.
20. I am tensed while someone asks me Business
English questions.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
Demonstration: (Adapted from Gardner, 2004)
Please circle an answer according to your own
feeling. The higher the score is, the more similar the
description is.
85
Appendix B:
Chinese Version of Cognitive Style Survey；Language Strategy Use
Inventory；Attitude/ Motivation Test Battery
本問卷的設計在於幫助你發現你的學習風格,找到屬於妳的學習策略來學好英
語並了解你學習英語的動機為何.
1. 性別: □1.男
□2.女
2. 系所: □1.應英系 □2.國企系
3. 年級: □1.大二
□2.大三
□3.大四
4. 你認為自己是個成功的外語學習者嗎?
□1.是
□2.否
5. 你覺得那一項因素影響你學習外語(可複選)：
□1.學習風格（個人學習方式）
□2.學習策略
一.英語學習風格問卷
填答說明:請你依個人實際感受作填答.請由 1 至 5
分給分,分數越大表示句中描述與你的感
受相符合,請在適當之數字上打Ο作答.
□3.學習動機
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
中
立
意
見
同
意
非
常
同
意
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
★ Adapted from Kolb (1985) , Dunn& Dunn (1989)
1.和同學一起學習商用英文讓我的學習更好.
2.我喜歡和兩三個同學一起討論功課.
3.我喜歡和同學一起完成商英作業.
4.我喜歡與很多同學一起學習商英課程.
5.我喜歡自己學習商用英語.
6.我喜歡一個人完成商英作業.
7.我不喜歡和很多同學一起學習商用英文.
8.我利用思考來學習商英課程．
9.我喜歡藉由分析來學習課堂內容.
10.壆習商用英文時,我著重於理論與概念.
11.我比較著重於觀念及理論.
12.透過理解,讓我的學習狀態更佳.
13.我藉由自己思考剖析來學習,而非吸取他人經驗.
14.我希望能夠學習到更多商用英文的知識.
15.遇到任何學習難題,我會抱持樂觀的態度去面對.
86
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
中
立
意
見
同
意
非
常
同
意
1.學習商用英語時，我會將新學的東西與已學習過的
部份作聯想．
2.我記新的商英單字時,會想像在什麼狀況下會使用
到．
3.我會用單字卡來背商英單字．
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4.我會用商用英語與外國人或教授溝通．
5.我會用不同方式來使用商用英文單字．
6.我會將我所聽到的和讀到的商用英文作成筆記．
7.我會反覆練習說或寫新學的商英單字．
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
8.我會把商英單字拆成我認識的部分來猜它的意思．
9.我會避免逐字翻譯每個商英單字．
10.當我想不起某個商英單字,我會使用意義相通的
字代替．
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
11.我會試著找出如何學好商用英文的方法．
12.我會訂立明確的目標來學習商用英文．
13.我盡可能找尋使用商用英語的機會．
14.我會關心自己學習商英進步的情況．
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
15.每當我在商英課程中表現良好,我會獎勵自己．
16.我會和別人討論自己學習商用英文的感受．
17.每當我害怕使用商用英語時，我試著讓自己放鬆．
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
18.我會試著使用商用英文來問問題.
19.我會向商英老師求助．
20.我會與其他同學練習商用英語．
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
16.學習過程中,我總對授課內容有強烈的反應.
17.我相當注重我的學習成效.
18.我總是盡力將商英作業或報告做到最好.
19.學習過程中,我總主動並積極的參與上課堂活動.
20.責任心及謹慎使我學習商英過程更加順利.
二.英語學習策略問卷
填答說明:請你依個人實際經驗作填答.請由 1 至 5
分給分,分數越大表示句中描述與你的感
受相符合,請在適當之數字上打Ο作答.
★Adapted from Oxford (1989)
87
三. 商用英語學習動機問卷
填答說明:請你依下列填答問題作填答.請由 1 至 5
分給分,分數越大表示句中描述與你的感
受相符合,請在適當之數字上打Ο作答.
★ Adapted from Gardner (2004)
1.我享受與人談論商用英文的感覺.
2.當我必須以英語回答商業問題時,我不會感到緊
張.
3.我強烈想要瞭解任何有關商用英文的事情．
4.學習商用英語能讓我更了解國際經濟變化．
5.商業英文讓我得到學習新事物的快感.
6.與教授用商用英語交談對我來說不是個問題．
7.我嚮往能夠學習到關於商用英語的資訊.
8.我會很冷靜且自信地用商用英語與國外客戶交談．
9.我嚮往商場文化與其生活型態.
10.為了滿足我學習到不同國家的商業文化.
11.學習商用英文對未來發展沒有任何幫助．
12.學習商用英語只因為課業需求．
13.學習商業英文一點也不有趣．
14.我學習商用英文只為了有更高的薪水.
15.了解商業英文沒有任何幫助．
16.事實上,我對英文課一點動力都沒有.
17.學習商用英文只是增加我的課業負擔.
18.當我在商英課程上使用英文,我會很緊張.
19.瞭解商業英文在我的生活中並無任何重要性．
20.如果有人用商業英文問我問題,我會感到很緊張.
問卷到此結束，感謝你的合作～～～
88
非
常
不
同
意
不
同
意
中
立
意
見
同
意
非
常
同
意
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5