Differences in English Language Proficiency, Self-Efficacy, Anxiety,
Coping, and Psychological Wellbeing between Educationally Well and
Less Well Adjusted Thai Students Enrolled in First Year University
English Language Courses
Yeo Hoon Kim1 Graham Davidson2 Robert Ho3
2
Assumption University
3
Assumption University
1
Yeohoon.k@phuket.psu.ac.th
Abstract
The aim of this research was to examine the connection of English language proficiency,
foreign language anxiety, English language self-efficacy, educational motivation, coping and
psychological wellbeing with educational adjustment of Thai students enrolled in first year university
English language courses. In addition, effects of participants’ gender, Faculty, year of study, and
residential arrangements on these linguistic, psycho-educational, motivational, and wellbeing
variables were assessed. A total of 470 students from Prince of Songkla University, Phuket Campus
taking first-year introductory English courses in the academic year of 1/2011 completed a self-report
questionnaire designed to measure the above variables. The questionnaire was translated into, and
then administered in, Thai using a combination of the back-translation and committee techniques,
followed by field testing. Results of a General Linear Modeling Multiple Analysis of Variance
indicated that better educationally adjusted students on average also reported less foreign language
anxiety, higher English language self-efficacy, higher educational motivation, more active and
avoidant coping but less emotional coping, and fewer symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress
than educationally less well adjusted students. However, the groups did not differ on average in terms
of English language proficiency. Significant gender, Faculty, and year of study differences were
observed for English language proficiency, foreign language anxiety, English language self-efficacy,
motivation to develop talents for a chosen occupation, and aspects of coping. It was concluded that
availability and use of psycho-educational and counseling assistance would benefit NESB first year
university students in reducing foreign classroom language anxiety, increasing English language selfefficacy, increasing motivation, and reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. Such support and
assistance is equally important as, if not more important than, English language instruction in raising
students’ level of educational adjustment and ultimately improving their chances of academic success.
Keywords: Thai students, First year university, English language proficiency, Wellbeing,
Educational adjustment
1. Introduction
The first year university experience can
be problematical for many students. It is the most
vulnerable period for students in terms of
probability of academic failure, dropping out of
study, and increased social and emotional
difficulties [1]. Positive adjustment to University
is a critical factor in influencing students’
academic success [2]. Entrance to university
symbolizes a challenging transitional step in
young peoples’ lives. For many, successful
separation from parents and family and
establishment of emotional independence have a
positive influence on educational adjustment [3]
[4]. Students need to deal with more
responsibilities and challenges upon entering
university. They face more complex and
demanding changes and challenges than they
experienced in their high school years, many of
which relate directly to their ability to come to
terms with university courses, teachers, and
library use [5].
In universities where the medium of
instruction is English, the academic and social
lives of students from non-English speaking
backgrounds (NESB) are influenced by their
level of English language proficiency [6]. For
example, Swagler and Ellis [7] found that
Taiwanese students in the United States reported
that English language proficiency was their
major educational obstacle. The role that English
language proficiency plays in students’
adjustment to university is particularly relevant
in the Thai university context, where most new
programs to be opened in future are likely to be
international programs [8]. First year Thai
university students enrolling in such programs,
who have limited English proficiency, therefore,
are likely to take remedial English courses with
no credit, while Thai students in such programs,
who have greater English proficiency, will be
allowed to enroll in first compulsory English
courses with credits. Hence, the students with
greater English proficiency are more likely to
progress faster through university. However, all
Thai students enrolling in these new programs
will be confronted by the challenge of learning,
and learning in, English as their second language
as they embark on their university studies.
Lower levels of English language
proficiency not only affect students’ academic
progress but also their experience of university
life in general. Dowdy and colleagues [9] found
that the students with lower levels of English
proficiency tended to have more school-related
problems, such as attention and learning
difficulties. Students’ limited English language
proficiency also limited their desire to seek
social interactions [10].
In addition to language proficiency, a
range of psycho-educational and psychosocial
factors are likely to play a role in educational
adjustment. For a start, educational self-efficacy
is a reliable predictor of students’ motivation and
learning [11]. Self-efficacy is a closely related
concept to self-concept; however, self-efficacy is
a better indicator of level of students’ belief in
their ability and subsequently of their educational
performance [12]. Linguistic self-efficacy (one’s
belief in specific aspects of one’s linguistic
capability) contributes positively to language
learning motivation. Developing a sense of
linguistic self-efficacy early on in language
learning tends to benefit students’ performance
[13]. Linguistic self-efficacy, in turn, may be a
function of gender. Research suggests that
males’ self-efficacy tends to be stable regardless
of level of difficulty of the task in question.
Females’ self-efficacy is more likely to fluctuate
so that, when females are confronted with more
difficult tasks, their level of self-efficacy
declines, but it increases when dealing with less
difficult tasks [14].
Anxiety is often correlated with second
language learning [15] so that foreign language
anxiety may limit students’ effective acquisition
of a second language [16] [17]. Gardner and
Lambert [18] rated this motivational factor of
foreign language anxiety as one of the top two
factors (the other being linguistic aptitude) in
second language learning. Less anxious learners
tend to be more enthusiastic, engaged, and
focused. They are interested in what they are
doing and they try hard to overcome challenges
of second language acquisition [19].
Bacon [20] investigated relationship
between gender and foreign language learning.
Males tended to use different coping strategies
according to the level of difficulty of the
language learning task. They were more likely to
use more active coping techniques when dealing
with more difficult learning problems. However,
females continued to use similar coping
techniques regardless of level of difficulty of the
learning task.
Motivation and coping are related
processes, so that coping style may also
influence educational motivation. Furthermore,
problem-focused coping strategies may play a
positive role in students’ motivation and
academic performance [21]. Problem-focused, or
active, coping helps students to pay attention to
specific goals and allows them to view the
situation as more controllable; hence active
coping is positively related to psychological
well-being and academic success. In contrast,
students who engage in avoidant coping tend to
view the situation as less controllable and are
less likely to achieve success and exhibit positive
psychological well-being [22] [23].
Educational motivation refers to students’
beliefs about what is important in academic
situations [24]. The decade long study of Krause
and colleagues [25] found that the highly
motivated students produced better academic
results. Kuh [26] also found that motivation and
average grades are positively related. Among C
grade average students, 42% were highly
motivated. This percentage increased as grades
increased. About 70% of the B grade average
students rated themselves as highly motivated,
and 79% of the students who achieved an A
grade rated themselves as highly motivated. Kuh
concluded that highly motivated students tend to
perform better academically than poorly
motivated students. Moreover, the absence of
motivation is associated with poor psychosocial
adjustment to university life, high levels of
perceived stress, and poor general wellbeing
[27].
Mental health and academic performance
are closely related. Students with low selfefficacy tend to focus on how difficult school life
might be and doubt if they are able to manage
their studies. Therefore, they tend to experience
more stress [28]. Problems with second language
learning can be one of the stressors [29].
Moreover, students with higher levels of general
anxiety assess the situation as a threat and as
unmanageable, which often leads to poor
academic adjustment and failure [30].
Students’ residential arrangements during
term time may also influence their educational
adjustment. Students who are living somewhere
other than where they previous called ‘home’ are
less likely to adjust to the demands of university
study. Students who are no longer living at home
following their entrance into university
experience lack of parental support. They are
more vulnerable to psychological symptoms such
as depression [31]. Hysenbegasi and colleagues
[32] found that almost half (48%) of depressed
students reported lower levels of academic
performance.
Although there is a considerable amount
of research into students’ adjustment to the first
year of university as well as into learning in a
second language such as English, little research
has been done with NESB students who are
required contemporaneously to adjust to first
year university and at the same time to an
English language classroom
environment.
Furthermore, the majority of research into
foreign language learning has been conducted
with NESB college and university students
studying abroad. The current research, therefore,
aimed to:
(a) Examine the connection between English
language proficiency, English language selfefficacy, foreign language anxiety, coping
strategies, mental health, educational
motivation and educational adjustment
among Thai-speaking students enrolled in
first year university English language
courses at Prince of Songkla University,
Phuket Campus;
(b) Provide a more thorough understanding of
the educational adjustment of these students
who are going through a transitional period
(first year) of adjusting to university where
the English language medium of instruction
is not their first language; and
(c) Explore the effects of gender, faculty, year
of study, and residential arrangements on
educational adjustment and related psychoeducational and psychosocial factors.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
The participants were 477 Thai speaking
students of Prince of Songkla University, Phuket
Campus taking first-year introductory English
courses in the academic year of 1/2011. Students
whose first language was not Thai were excluded
from the study. Prior to data analysis, seven
participants’ questionnaires were eliminated
from the sample because they failed to complete
all or a major part of one or more questionnaire
components, leaving a final sample of 470 (364
females, 104 males; 2 unspecified) for analysis.
Participants were drawn from the Faculties of
International Studies (n = 212) and Hospitality
and Tourism (n = 256; 2 unspecified). The
sample consisted of first year (n = 295) and
second to fourth year (n = 173; 2 unspecified)
students. Participants either lived at home with
family or relatives (n = 82), or in shared or single
occupancy private accommodation (n = 25), or in
the university dormitory (n = 332; 31
unspecified).
2.2 Materials
The self-report questionnaire recorded
students’ gender, age, Faculty, year of study,
previous university experience, residential
arrangements, and TOEIC score, which was used
as a measure of English language proficiency.
English language self-efficacy was measured by
4-question scale developed by the researcher.
Students rated their belief in their ability to
understand, speak, read and write English on a 5point scale from 1 (not at all) – 5 (excellent).
Internal reliability in the form of Cronbach’s
alpha (α) = 0.78. The 33-question Foreign
Language Classroom Anxiety Scale [15] was
used to assess foreign language anxiety. Students
rated their level of foreign language anxiety from
1 (strongly agree) – 5 (strongly disagree). Seven
items were reverse scored, so that a low score on
each item consistently reflected heightened
foreign language anxiety. Following removal of
one item, internal reliability (α) = 0.90. The 16question Brief COPE [33] was used to measure
active, avoidant and emotional coping. Students
rated their use of particular strategies from 1 (I
haven’t been doing this at all) – 5 (I’ve been
doing this a lot). Internal reliabilities (α)
respectively for active, avoidant, and emotional
coping = 0.77, 0.74, and 0.80. Psychological
wellbeing in the form of stress, anxiety and
depression was measured by Thai version of the
Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) 21
[34] [35]. Students rated their symptoms of
stress, anxiety and depression from 0 (did not
apply to me at all) – 3 (applied to me very much,
or most of the time). Internal reliabilities (α)
respectively for stress, anxiety and depression =
0.84, 0.78, and 0.79. Two items were used to
assess educational motivation. The first item
asked students about getting themselves
motivated to study and the second inquired about
developing their talents for their chosen
occupation. Students rated their motivation from
1 (strongly agree) – 5 (strongly disagree).
Internal reliability (α) = 0.40 was low and
therefore these items were entered separately into
the data analyses. Finally, the First Year
Experience Questionnaire [36] [37] was used to
measure educational adjustment. Students rated
themselves on 37 items measuring academic and
personal/emotional adjustment and engagement
with university study from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 5 (strongly agree). Ten items were reverse
scored so that a high score indicated greater
educational adjustment. Internal reliability (α)
for the full scale score = 0.86.
2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Translation
The
original
questionnaire
was
constructed in English except for the Thai
version of the DASS21 [35]. In order to
maximize NESB Thai speakers’ comprehension,
the English sections of the questionnaire were
translated from English to Thai [36]. A
combination of the back-translation technique
and the committee approach was used in
translation. After the translation had been
completed, a field test was conducted separately
with two bilinguals to ensure that translated
items and instructions were comprehensible [37].
2.3.2 Data Collection
Students of the Faculties of International
Studies and of Hospitality and Tourism enrolled
in first year English courses were visited by the
researcher in their classrooms. An information
sheet was provided and the research procedure
was explained verbally, including an explanation
about the identity of the researcher, general
purpose of the research, voluntary nature of
students’ participation, and the anonymity of
their responses. The approximate time for
completion of the questionnaire was 20 minutes.
3. Results
Gender, Faculty, year of study, and
residential living differences in English language
proficiency,
foreign
language
anxiety,
educational motivation, and psychosocial
functioning were assessed separately by 1-way
General Linear Modeling Multiple Analysis of
Variance (GLM MANOVA). Significant
differences are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Gender, Faculty, Year of Study, and Educational
Adjustment Difference in English Language
Proficiency,
Foreign
Language Anxiety,
Educational Motivation, and Psychosocial
Functioning
Variable
Gender
TOEIC
FLA
CS_EM
ELSE
Faculty
Mean (M)
M
M
Male
Female
366.58
330.30
98.52
93.11
6.16
6.77
11.36
10.26
M FIS
M FHT
TOEIC
EM_OCC
FLA
CS_ACT
CS_AVOID
CS_EM
EA
ELSE
Yr of Study
314.49
4.02
91.92
18.68
19.20
6.92
126.77
10.26
M 1st
TOEIC
EM_OCC
FLA
EA
ELSE
Educational
Adjustment
TOEIC
EM_STUDY
EM_OCC
FLA
CS_ACT
CS_AVOID
CS_EM
DASS_STR
DASS_ANX
DASS_DEP
ELSE
324.73
4.18
93.00
130.93
10.39
M Low
356.21
4.21
96.19
19.50
19.94
6.25
130.60
10.85
M 2nd 4th
359.74
4.05
96.47
125.78
10.92
M High
336.05
3.14
4.00
90.99
18.21
18.75
6.97
8.66
6.36
6.13
10.25
340.33
3.45
4.26
97.66
20.06
20.35
6.12
6.61
5.07
3.87
10.93
F
(df = 1,
429)
17.59***
9.62**
4.13*
17.48***
(df = 1,
430)
33.51***
9.20**
8.32**
8.24**
4.79**
10.00**
7.40**
8.40**
(df = 1,
429)
21.96***
3.98*
5.20*
13.03***
6.28*
(df = 1,
432)
0.33 ns
12.72***
18.84***
21.40***
45.91***
32.48***
16.85***
20.56***
10.85**
39.78***
11.74**
Note: TOEIC = Test of English for International
Communication; EM_STUDY = Motivation to
study; EM_OCC = Motivation to develop
occupational talents; FLA = Foreign language
anxiety; CS_ACT = Active coping; CS_AVOID
= Avoidant coping; CS_EM = Emotional coping;
DASS_STR = DASS21 Stress; DASS_ANX =
DASS21 Anxiety; DASS_DEP = DASS21
Depression; ELSE = English Language Selfefficacy;  Low score = Increased foreign
language anxiety; *** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p <
.05; ns = p > .05
Gender differences were significant
overall, F (df 12, 429) = 5,478.02, p < .001.
Table 1 shows that male students on average had
higher TOEIC scores (p < .001), less foreign
language anxiety (p < .01), greater English
language self-efficacy (p < .001), but engaged in
less emotional coping (p < .05) than female
students. Faculty differences were significant
overall, F (df 12, 430) = 7,739.71, p < .001.
Table 1 shows that students from the Faculty of
Hospitality and Tourism on average had higher
TOEIC scores (p < .000), higher motivation to
develop occupational talents (p < .01), lower
foreign language anxiety (p < .01), higher
English language self-efficacy (p < .01), better
educational adjustment (p < .01), greater use of
active coping (p < .01), greater use of avoidant
coping (p < .01), but less use of emotional
coping (p < .01) than students from the Faculty
of International Studies. Differences between
first year and advanced level (2nd – 4th year
students were significant overall, F (df 12, 429)
= 7,183.52, p < .001. Table 1 shows that
advanced level students on average had higher
TOEIC scores (p < .001), less foreign language
anxiety (p < .05) and higher English language
self-efficacy (p < .05) than first year students.
However, on average they also had lower
motivation to develop occupational talents (p <
.05) and poorer educational adjustment (p <
.001) than first year students. Differences
between students with different living
arrangements were significant overall, F (df 12,
399) = 2,545.51, p < .001. However, the
difference was reliable only for foreign language
anxiety scores (p < .05). Students living in the
dormitory (M = 93.26) on average had greater
foreign language anxiety than students living
privately with friends or alone (M = 102.61, p <
.05).
Participants were divided into two groups
(low vs. high educational adjustment) based on
whether their educational adjustment (EA) score
fell below or above the mean score (M = 125.52)
for that measure. Students deemed to have low
EA were then compared with those deemed to
have high EA using a 1-way GLM MANOVA
with EA (low vs. high) as the independent
variable and English language proficiency,
foreign language anxiety, English language selfefficacy, coping, educational motivation and
psychosocial functioning as the dependent
variables. There was a significant difference
overall between the low EA and the high EA
group, F (df 11, 432) = 6,931.85, p < .001. Table
1 shows that students in the high EA group,
when compared with students in the low EA
group, on average: were more motivated to study
(p < .001) and to improve their occupational
talents (p < .001); had less foreign language
anxiety (p < .001) and greater English language
self-efficacy (p < .01); engaged in more active (p
< .001) and avoidant (p < .001) but less
emotional coping (p < .001); and were less
stressed (p < .001), less anxious (p < .01), and
less depressed (p < .001). In contrast, the high
EA group did not differ significantly from the
low EA group in terms of English language
proficiency, as measured by TOEIC (p > .05).
4. Discussion
The research reported here aimed to
examine the connection between English
language proficiency, English language selfefficacy, foreign language anxiety, coping
strategies, mental health, educational motivation
and educational adjustment among Thaispeaking students enrolled in first year university
English language courses. It also aimed to
provide a better understanding of these students’
educational adjustment to university life when
the English language medium of instruction is
not their first language. Using a Mean split to
distinguish between students deemed to be low
or high on educational adjustment, the results
showed that students with high adjustment were
more motivated, had higher English language
self-efficacy and lower foreign language anxiety,
used more active and avoidant but not emotional
coping strategies, and had fewer symptoms of
stress, anxiety and depression than students with
low levels of educational adjustment. By
comparison,
differences
in
educational
adjustment were not based on differences in
English language proficiency, as measured by
TOEIC. The implication of these findings is that
psycho-linguistic factors such as foreign
language anxiety and self-efficacy, psychoeducational factors such as motivation to study
and prepare for a career, and psychosocial factors
such as coping style and psychological wellbeing
may be more important determinants of
educational
adjustment
and
ultimately
educational success than English language
proficiency itself.
Notwithstanding,
a
number
of
demographic differences in English language
proficiency emerged. Males on average were
more proficient in English (i.e., they scored
higher on TOEIC) than females. Faculty of
Hospitality and Tourism students on average
were more proficient in English than Faculty of
International Studies students. Second – fourth
year students on average were more proficient in
English than first year students. However, males
on average were not better educationally adjusted
than females; and second – fourth year students
on average were less educationally adjusted and
reported less motivation to prepare for a career
than their first year counterparts. Foreign
language anxiety and English language selfefficacy consistently differentiated between these
demographic groupings with males, Faculty of
Hospitality and Tourism students, and advanced
year students reporting less classroom language
anxiety and more English language self-efficacy
than their female, Faculty of International
Studies, and first year counterparts. The use of
emotional coping strategies, e.g., seeking
emotional support, venting emotions, focusing
on emotions, invoking religion, and resorting to
humor, which is associated with lower
educational adjustment, reliably distinguished
between males and females as well as between
students from the two faculties, with females,
and Faculty of International Studies students
being more likely to attempt to cope emotionally.
The interaction effects between these
demographic variables on English language
proficiency and on related psycho-educational
and psychosocial concomitants bear further
scrutiny with a larger sample.
Male, Faculty of Hospitality and
Tourism, and first year students on average did
not differ from female, Faculty of International
Studies, and advanced year students in terms of
levels of stress, anxiety and depression; but
students who scored lower on educational
adjustment on average also scored higher on
stress, anxiety and depression than students who
scored higher on educational adjustment, clearly
establishing a link between these symptoms of
psychological wellbeing and educational
adjustment. However, it is important to note that
depression levels in these groups on average
were normal – mild, stress levels on average
were mild, and anxiety levels on average were
moderate. Nevertheless, 15% of the sample
reported severe symptoms of stress, 26.2%
reported severe symptoms of anxiety, and 8%
reported severe symptoms of depression.
Universities have a duty of care to their students
in distress, as well as a duty to maximize
students’ chances of academic success by
providing counseling services that offer support
for students in need. Despite previous research
[31], neither students living alone or with others
in private accommodation nor dormitory students
on average showed more symptoms of
psychological distress than students living at
home or with extended family.
5. Conclusions
Students need assistance in understanding
and dealing with transition to university,
especially in their first year. It is essential for
educational institutions to provide psychological
support to those students experiencing
difficulties in adjusting to their new learning
environment [38]. Developing and facilitating
various programs and interventions that address
factors which may lead to positive educational
adjustment is essential for students’ educational
adjustment and success, as well as for student
retention [10]. Availability and use of psychoeducational and counseling assistance would
benefit students in: reducing foreign classroom
language anxiety; increasing English language
self-efficacy; increasing motivation to study and
to improve one’s occupational talents; and
reducing stress, anxiety, and depression. Such
benefits are likely to result in better educational
adjustment and subsequently in better student
retention and educational success. Of lesser
importance for NESB students’ educational
adjustment in their first year of university is their
level of English language proficiency, although
female students and students from specific
Faculties such as International Studies may
benefit exponentially from additional English
language learning support. Second – fourth year
students who are repeating the first year of
English language study require additional
assistance to focus motivationally on enhancing
their talents for a future career and on adjusting
academically and personally to engagement with
university study.
6. Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere
gratitude to my advisor, Emeritus Professor
Graham Davidson. I also would like to thank Dr.
Vorapot Ruckthum and Ms Ok Won Kim for
their support and encouragement, and Ajarn
Supachai Sangpunya, Ajarn Somjate Srirabai,
Ajarn Napacha Prapawadee, Ajarn Woralak
Bancha, and Ajarn Sudarat Srirat for their expert
support for the research.
References
Journal Papers
[1] McInnis, C. (2001). Researching the first year
experience: Where to from here? Higher
Education Research & Development, 20,
105-114.
[2] Gan, Y., Hu, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2010).
Proactive and preventive coping in
adjustment to college. The Psychological
Record, 60, 643–658.
[3] Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & Shadid, G. E.
(1989). Psychological separation and
adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 36, 286-294.
[4] Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological
separation of late adolescents from their
parents. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
31, 170-178.
[5] Eaele, E. E. (1936). The adjustment problems
of college freshmen and contributory factors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 20, 60-76.
[6] Khawaja, N. G., & Dempsey, J. (2007).
Psychological distress in international
university students: An Australian study.
Australian Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 17, 13–27.
[7] Swagler, M. A., & Ellis, M. V. (2003).
Crossing the distance: Adjustment of
Taiwanese graduate students in the United
States. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
50, 420–437.
[8] Wiriyachitra, A. (2002). English language
teaching and learning in Thailand in this
decade. Thai TESOL Focus, 15(1), 4-9.
[9] Dowdy, E., Di Stefano, C., Dever, B. V., &
Chin, J. K. (2011). Screening for emotional
and behavioral risk among students with
limited
English
proficiency.
School
Psychology Quarterly, 26, 14-26.
[10] Olivas, M., & Li, C. S. (2006).
Understanding stressors of international
students in higher education: What college
counselors and personnel need to know.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33,
217-222.
[11] Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An
essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
[12] Tremblay, P. F. & Gardner, R. C. (1995).
Expanding the motivation construct in
language learning. The Modern Language
Journal, 79, 505-518.
[13] Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in
language learning: What do learners believe
about them? System, 27, 493-513.
[14] Bacon, S. (1992). The Relationship between
gender,
comprehension,
processing
strategies, and cognitive and affective
response in foreign language listening. The
Modern Language Journal, 76, 160-178.
[15] Horwiz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J.
(1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety.
The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125132.
[16] Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence
for the reliability and validity of a Foreign
Language Anxiety Scale. TESOL Quarterly,
20, 559-562.
[17] Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety
and achievement. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 21, 112-126.
[18] Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959).
Motivational variables in second-language
acquisition.
Canadian
Journal
of
Psychology/Revue
Canadienne
de
Psychologie, 13, 266-272.
[19] Garris, R., Ahlers, R., & Driskell, J. E.
(2002). Games, motivation, and learning: A
research and practice model. Simulation and
Gaming, 33, 441-467.
[20] Bacon, S. (1992). The Relationship between
gender,
comprehension,
processing
strategies, and cognitive and affective
response in foreign language listening. The
Modern Language Journal, 76, 160-178.
[21] Struthers, C. W., Perry, R. P., & Menec, V.
H. (2000). An examination of the
relationship among academic stress, coping,
motivation, and performance in college.
Research in Higher Education, 41, 581-592.
[22] Park, C. L., & Adler, N. E. (2003). Coping
style as a predictor of health and well-being
across the first year of medical school.
Health Psychology, 22, 627-631.
[23] Ben-Zur, H. (2009). Coping styles and
affect. International Journal of Stress
Management, 16, 87–101.
[24] Fadlelmula, F. K. (2010). Educational
motivation and students’ achievement goal
orientations. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2, 859-863.
[26] Kuh, G. D. (2007). What student
engagement data tell us about college
readiness. Peer Review, 9, 4-8.
[27] Baker, S. R. (2004). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and
amotivational orientations: Their role in
university adjustment, stress, well-being,
and subsequent academic performance.
Current
Psychology:
Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 23, 189-202.
[28] Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade,
T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress and
academic success in college. Research in
Higher Education, 46, 677-706.
[29] Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003).
Relationships among life stress, social
support, academic stressors, and reactions to
stressors of international students in the
United States. International Journal of
Stress Management, 10, 137–157.
[30] Cohen, M., Ben-Zur, H., & Rosenfeld, M. J.
(2008). Sense of coherence, coping
strategies, and test anxiety as predictors of
test performance among college students.
International Journal of Stress Management,
15, 289–303.
[31] Tognoli, J. (2003). Leaving home. Journal
of College Student Psychotherapy, 18:1, 3548.
[32] Hysenbegasi, A., Hass, S. L., & Rowland,
C. R. (2005). The impact of depression on
the academic productivity of university
students. The Journal of Mental Health
Policy and Economics, 8, 145-151.
[33] Welbourne, J. L., Eggerth, D., Hartley, T.
A., Andrew, M. E., & Sanchez, F. (2007).
Coping strategies in the workplace:
Relationships with attributional style and job
satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
70, 312-325.
[34] Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The
short-form version of the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct
validity and normative data in a large nonclinical sample. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 44, 227–239.
[35] National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and
Clinical Research. (2007). DASS21 (Thai
version). Sydney, Australia. Downloaded on
1
May
2011
from
http://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/groups/dass/T
hai/NCHECR_Thai.htm
[36] Ji, L-J., Zhang, Z., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004).
Is it culture or is it language? Examination
of language effects in cross-cultural research
on categorization. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 57-65.
[37] Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for
cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
[38] Randall, M., Naka, K., Yamamoto, K.,
Nakamoto, H., Arakaki, H., & Ogura, C.
(1998). Assessment of psychological
stressors and maladjustment among foreign
students of the University of the Ryukyus.
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 52,
289-298.
Books and Monographs
[25] Krause, K-L., Hartley, R., James, R., &
McInnis, C. (2005). The first year
experience in Australian universities:
Finding from a decade of national studies.
Canberra,
Australia:
Australian
Government Department of Education,
Science and Training.
[36] McInnis, C., & James, R. (1995). First year
on campus: Diversity in the initial
experience of Australian undergraduates.
Canberra, Australia: AGPS.
[37] Vernon-Livington, N. (2009). Influence of
parenting and coping styles on adjustment
to first year university. Unpublished
Bachelor of Social Science (Psychology)
(Honours) Dissertation, University of the
Sunshine Coast, Australia.