The Causal Relationship between Learner Motivation and Language Achievement: New Dynamic Perspective

• Autores: Abdullah Alamer, Fakieh Alrabai
• Localización: Applied linguistics, ISSN 0142-6001, Vol. 44, Nº 1, 2023, págs. 148-168
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen
  • Multiple

    This is a correction to: Abdullah Alamer, Fakieh Alrabai, The Causal Relationship between Learner Motivation and Language Achievement: New Dynamic Perspective, Applied Linguistics, Volume 44, Issue 1, February 2023, Pages 148–168, https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac035 In the originally published version of this manuscript, Abdullah Alamer’s email address was incorrect. The correct one is aa.alamer@kfu.edu.sa.

    Also, the order of author’s affiliations was incorrect. The correct order is:

    Department of English, King Faisal University, Al-Hasa, Saudi Arabia Department of English, Al-Hasa Campus, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Saudi Arabia These errors have now been corrected online.

  • English

    It is well known that successful second language (L2) learners are motivated individuals. Accordingly, L2 researchers have tested the predictive power of different motivational constructs on language learning outcomes. However, this perspective appears to neglect the assessment of achievement as a predictor of future motivation. To assess this possibility, we first employed the latent growth curve model (LGCM) to evaluate the initial values and growth rates of the two variables. We further applied a newly developed statistical method, the random-intercept cross-lagged panel model (RI-CLPM), to study the causal relationship. A total of 226 language students were monitored for 17 weeks at three time points. The analysis showed an increasing trend in the association between the growth levels of both variables. However, students’ autonomous motivation at Time 1 appears to affect achievement at Time 2. Further, the second wave of the RI-CLPM illustrated that achievement at Time 2 impacted autonomous motivation at Time 3, while motivation failed to predict scores on achievement at Time 3.