Modifiable Learner Factors as Predictors

As a first step in examining how students’ motivation, metacognitive knowledge, effort and use of SRL strategies predicted examination results, a multiple regression analysis was conducted on students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results and Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results respectively, with all the modifiable learner factors (i.e. motivational measures, strategy measures, measures of metacognitive knowledge and effort) at Time 3 as predictors.

6.4.3.1.1 Predicting Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 Results

A multiple regression analysis was conducted, with the motivational measures, strategy measures and measures of metacognitive knowledge and effort at Time 3 as predictors of Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results. Model Summary showed that the independent variables were not linearly related to the dependent variable (R2adj = 0.016)

and the overall relationship was not significant (F (12, 16) = 1.038, p = 0.462). Furthermore, none of the independent variables was found to be significantly related to Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results. However, when I used the ‘backward

elimination’ technique to identify a group of variables that predicted the dependent variable reasonably well, the technique resulted in five significant models (p < 0.05):

Model 1. Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 = 63.261 – (1.882 * Amotivation) +

(1.333 * Self-Efficacy) – (0.940 * Metacognitive Self-Regulation) – (1.716 * Time/Study Environment) + (1.473 * Effort Regulation)

The five predictors in Model 1, taken together, were significantly associated with Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (F (5, 23) = 2.713, p = 0.045). Together they explained 23.4% of the variance (or variability) in students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.234). However, none of the independent variables was

significantly related to Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (p > 0.05).

Model 2. Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 = 63.351 – (2.037 * Amotivation) +

(0.938 * Self-Efficacy) – (1.942 * Time/Study Environment) + (1.185 * Effort Regulation)

The four predictors in Model 2, taken together, were significantly associated with Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (F (4, 24) = 3.150, p = 0.032). The four predictors together explained 23.5% of the variance in students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.235). However, none of the independent variables

was significantly related to Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (p > 0.05).

Model 3. Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 = 65.938 – (2.301 * Amotivation) +

(1.050 * Self-Efficacy) – (1.328 * Time/Study Environment)

The three predictors in Model 3, taken together, were significantly associated with Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (F (3, 25) = 3.644, p = 0.026). The three predictors together explained 22.1% of the variance in students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.221). However, only amotivation was significantly

time/study environment management was significantly related to Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (p > 0.05).

Model 4. Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 = 60.475 – (2.375 * Amotivation) +

(0.948 * Self-Efficacy)

The two predictors in Model 4, taken together, were significantly associated with Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (F (2, 26) = 4.570, p = 0.020). The two predictors together explained 20.3% of the variance in students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.203). However, only amotivation was significantly

related to Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (p < 0.05), while self-efficacy was not (p > 0.05).

Model 5. Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 = 65.169 – (2.674 * Amotivation)

Model 5, where amotivation was the only variable, was significant (F (1, 27) = 6.743, p = 0.015). This final model explained 17% of the variance in students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.170). With a standardized beta coefficient of -0.447,

amotivation was significantly related to students’ Consecutive Interpreting I CA2 results (p < 0.05). This agreed with correlation results.

6.4.3.1.2 Predicting Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 Results

A multiple regression analysis was conducted, with the motivational measures, strategy measures and measures of metacognitive knowledge and effort at Time 3 as predictors of Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results. The regression was a poor fit (R2adj = 0.193)

and the overall relationship was not significant (F (12, 16) = 1.559, p = 0.201). Despite the fact that the model was overall non-significant, amotivation at Time 3 was found to be a significant predictor of Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (t = -2.329, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the relationship between extrinsic motivation at Time 3 and Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results was marginally non-significant (t = -2.050, p = 0.057). The significance of the relationship between self-efficacy at Time 3 (t = 1.883, p

= 0.078) or help-seeking at Time 3 (t = 1.946, p = 0.069) and Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results was also suggestive. When I used the ‘backward elimination’ technique to identify a group of variables that predicted the dependent variable reasonably well, the technique resulted in six significant models (p < 0.05):

Model 1. Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 = 50.688 – (2.631 * Extrinsic

Motivation) – (2.306 * Amotivation) + (2.371 * Self-Efficacy) + (1.608 * Metacognitive Knowledge) + (2.064 * Help-Seeking) – (1.179 * Peer Learning for SI)

The six predictors in Model 1, taken together, were significantly associated with Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (F (6, 22) = 2.806, p = 0.035). The six predictors together explained 27.9% of the observed variability in students’ Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.279). Of the six independent

variables, extrinsic motivation (t = -2.462, p < 0.05) and self-efficacy (t = 2.712, p < 0.05) were significantly related to Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results.

Model 2. Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 = 58.360 – (2.417 * Extrinsic

Motivation) – (2.419 * Amotivation) + (2.449 * Self-Efficacy) + (2.079 * Help-Seeking) – (1.064 * Peer Learning for SI)

The five predictors in Model 2, taken together, were significantly associated with Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (F (5, 23) = 3.261, p = 0.023). The five predictors together explained 28.8% of the observed variability in students’ Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.288). Of the five independent

variables, extrinsic motivation (t = -2.341, p < 0.05) and self-efficacy (t = 2.833, p < 0.01) were significantly related to Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results, while the relationship between amotivation and Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results was marginally non-significant (t = -2.013, p = 0.056).

Model 3. Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 = 58.315 – (2.060 * Extrinsic

Motivation) – (2.240 * Amotivation) + (2.247 * Self-Efficacy) + (1.118 * Help-Seeking)

The four predictors in Model 3, taken together, were significantly associated with Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (F (4, 24) = 3.486, p = 0.022). The four predictors together explained 26.2% of the observed variability in students’ Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.262). Of the four independent

variables, self-efficacy was significantly related to Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (t = 2.592, p < 0.05), and extrinsic motivation’s relationship with Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results was marginally non-significant (t = -2.027, p = 0.054).

Model 4. Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 = 59.897 – (1.590 * Extrinsic) –

(2.028 * Amotivation) + (2.461 * Self-Efficacy)

The three predictors in Model 4, taken together, were significantly associated with Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (F (3, 25) = 4.062, p = 0.018). The three predictors together explained 24.7% of the observed variability of students’ Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.247). Of the three independent

variables, self-efficacy was significantly related to Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (t = 2.869, p < 0.01).

Model 5. Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 = 54.574 – (1.357 * Extrinsic

Motivation) + (2.614 * Self-Efficacy)

The two predictors in Model 5, taken together, were significantly associated with Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (F (2, 26) = 4.400, p = .023). The two predictors together explained 19.5% of the observed variability in students’ Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.195). Only self-efficacy was

significantly related to Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (t = 2.966, p < 0.01).

Model 6, where self-efficacy was the only variable, was significant (F (1, 27) = 6.621, p = 0.016). This final model explained 16.7% of the observed variability in students’ Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (R2adj = 0.167). With a standardized beta

coefficient of 0.444, self-efficacy was significantly related to Simultaneous Interpreting I CA2 results (t = 2.573, p < 0.05). This agreed with correlation results.

6.4.3.2 Modifiable Learner Factors plus Student Entry Characteristics as