Study on Constructing Foreign Language Learning Performance Model Pengfei Lei *
4. Statistical results
Before the exploratory factor analysis, KMO measure and Bartlett sphere test was conducted on data to analyze whether the statistical data was appropriate to make factor analysis or not. Via the analysis, KMO measure value is 0.882, which indicates the size of sample is suitable for factor analysis; Bartlett sphere test statistics is 2535.663, p=0.000<0.05, which indicates the data correlation coefficient matrix is not unit matrix, and also affirms its applicability of factor analysis.
In exploratory factor analysis, according to the standards that eigenvalue of factors is bigger than 1 which conforms to macadam test standards and that the factors selected out before revolving can at least explain 3% of the variation factors, we obtained four FLLP factors for college English after several times of the exploratory factor analysis. The detailed data is shown in the following Table 3:
Table 3 shows that the eigenvalues of the four factors are within the range of acceptable values, bigger than 1.0, and the four factors’ cumulative explaining variance was beyond 67%, which means that it can explains the variance of the entire scale more persuasively. In each factor the item’s load capacity is between 0.522 and 0.816, higher than the acceptable value 0.30. Therefore, it
is safely concluded that the designed FLLP scale in this study is structurally valid. Meanwhile, from Table 4 it is shown that each factor’s Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient is above 0.7 and total questionnaire’s reliability coefficient is 0.855, therefore, this questionnaire has a good reliability.
Tab.3 Factors construction of college students’ FLLP
Factors Questionnaire items Load capacity of each item
F1 F2 F3 F4
Mastery of language knowledge
(F1)
an8. I master the common English grammar knowledge. 0.810 an11. I can know most of vocabulary required in the textbook. 0.803 an13. While dealing with English reading, the listening material and English writing, I have a basic knowledge of discourse
structure 0.788
an14. I am familiar with and able to identify word formation 0.767 an17. I understand basic knowledge of customs and history in
English speaking countries. 0.773
Changing of learning motivation
(F2)
an5. I want to learn English well for a better future occupation. 0.711 an12. I'm interested in rich content and new selection of
material in the English language. 0.687
an18. I learn English in order to broaden my horizon. 0.803 an21. I have to spend a lot of time on English for English test. 0.679
Competence of applying language knowledge
(F3)
an2. I try to coordinate the reading speed and comprehension
ration while reading English materials. 0.587
an7. I try to think and answer the questions in classes in
English. 0.675
an6. In oral English activities, I can express myself correctly
and can understand other. 0.661
an10. While doing English writing and translation, I try to
consciously avoid the writing in the Chinglish. 0.638
an16. I reflect on my English learning achievements
periodically. 0.632
an19. I can understand most of listening material our teacher
gives. 0.573
an20. When I speak or write in English, I pay attention to
communication situations and communication purpose. 0.522
Ability to adapt to learning environment
(F4)
an1. I like multimedia English class which combine sound,
picture and video to make class more vividly. 0.816
an3. I can create opportunities & environment by myself to
learn English. 0.795
an4. When confronted with difficulties in English learning, I
will search the Internet for help. 0.717
an9. I often browse the foreign websites like the BBC, The
Times and so on. 0.549
an15. I often chat with foreigners in English on Internet. 0.559
Eigenvalue 4.332 3.211 1.991 1.678
Variance 25.978 19.32 11.94 10.06
Cumulative variance 25.978 45.29 57.23 67.3
Tab.4 Questionnaire reliability coefficient
Cronbach’s Alpha Total questionnaire F1 F2 F3 F4
α 0.855 0.827 0.798 0.801 0.788
According to the messages conveyed in the items, four factors were classified. They are:
Mastery of language knowledge (F1) The analysis of the main ideas reflected from the 5 items reveals that this is the factor that mainly concern how well the learners master English language knowledge. The language knowledge, according to the questionnaire, could be classified into two parts: linguistic knowledge of the foreign language and background knowledge of foreign language
83
culture. The former is embodied as the commonsense rather than academic knowledge in phonology, lexis, morphology, syntax and text/discourse and so on; and the later mainly concerns the knowledge of the culture and customs in the English speaking counties and even the western countries.
Changing of learning motivations (F2) Exploration of the items in this group reveals what motivation the learners’ hold toward English learning and what change would the motivation make over time. Specifically, this factor indicates the dynamic features of motivation during the process of college English learning. The reasons why the college students learn English are constantly changing over time. Maybe at the very beginning, the students learning English as obligatory subject from which they earn their credits to meet the requirement for graduation, and gradually, they come to realize the significance of English as a tool in their inquiring the exotic culture as well as their academic study, and perhaps later the students learn English due to their love of English culture or customs, that is, out of integrative motivation.
Competence of applying language (F3) All the items in the factor indicate that this is the index to show the learners’ ability to transform English knowledge to real communication. The essential nature of language learning is in its use, namely, the application of language to the real communication, not only in daily life but also in the academic study. Whether or not the students can use foreign language they learn to communicate in various circumstances should be regarded as the essential index to judge the FLLP in students. Generally, this factor could be translated into the so called five skills such as listening, speaking, reading, writing, and translating or interpreting, as shown in the above table. But more specifically, this should also include the ability to take different communicative strategies in the cross-cultural situation,
Ability to adapt to learning environment (F4) This factor refers to the learners’ ability to get access to learning resource, renew learning methods, and learn autonomously by taking full advantage of the web-based multimedia learning environment. Especially in modern learning era, the technology and device can provide and even create more opportunities for the students to learn English at any time if they would like to learn. It is hard to imagine that a student can hardly get access to the debate between the two candidates in American presidential election. Therefore, to a large extent, this factor determines whether or not language learners could conduct their autonomous learning after class or when they graduate from the school.
The collected questionnaire data was explored by using exploratory factor analysis and a four-factor FLLP model was eventually constructed, that is, mastery of language knowledge (F1), changing of learning motivations (F2), competence of applying language (F3), ability to adapt to learning environment (F4). This conclusion is basically consistent with the definition of FLLP in the hypothesis of this study, and would empirically change people’s traditional opinion that FLLP is equal to examination-oriented performance.
6. Conclusion
In this study, a four-factor foreign language learning performance (FLLP) model for college English learning in China has been constructed via exploratory factor analysis based on a large scale survey, in which the four factors are: mastery of language knowledge, changing of learning motivations, competence of applying language, ability to adapt to learning environment. This model has changed the traditional concept in Chinese literature that equals the foreign language learning performance to a static language test scores of different levels, introduces many more elements such as learning motivation, learning ability and learning environment to the connotation of the FLLP, and attempts to embody the multidimensional characteristics of the FLLP. And this model would hopefully serve as the guideline for the teacher to perform scientifically in terms of planning, executing, monitoring and evaluating their teaching practice, and as the aim for the students to achieve in their study.
Obviously, in this research there still exist many points demanding improving, for instance, the size of samples is rather small, which means that the data collected from the questionnaire could not
so comprehensively justify. However, this study is tentative but creative, with the hope of calling for more profound and valuable study on the subject of foreign language learning performance (FLLP).
Acknowledgement
This research was financially supported by “College English High-quality Resource Sharing Program in Anhui Province (Grant No. 2013gxk039)” and “Study on Instructed Second Language Acquisition in the Perspective of Dynamic System Theory (Grant No. SK2016SD23)”.
References
[1] Cui Xiaoxia. An Empirical Research on Teachers’ Perception for Online Teaching Strategies in Online English Class an analysis if Factors Affecting Online English Teaching and Performance.
Computer-assisted Foreign Language Education, vol. 126, pp. 38- 43, 2009.
[2] Einhorn, H. J. & R. M. Hogarth. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice.
Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 191, pp. 1-31, 1981.
[3] Holec. H. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981.
[4] Larsen-Freeman, D. & L. Cameron. Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press, 2008.
[5] Larsen-Freeman, D. Saying what we mean: Making a case for ‘language acquisition’ to become
‘language development’. Language Teaching, vol. 48, pp. 491-505, 2015.
[6] Libby, R. Determinants of performance in accounting decisions, in K, R. Bindon (ed.), Accounting Research Convocation, The University of Alabama, 1983.
[7] Li Li, Chen Zhi’an et al. Strategies, Style and Attribution – learning to learn English. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2006.
[8] McNamara, T. & K. Ryan. Fairness vs justice in language testing: The place of English literacy in the Australian Citizenship Test. Language Assessment Quarterly, vol. 82, 2011.
[9] O’Malley, J. M. & A. Chamot. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 44-137, 1990.
[10] Selmer, J. Language ability and adjustment: Western expatriates in China. Thunderbird International Business Review, vol. 48, pp. 347-368, 2006.
[11] Shi, X. & Franklin P. Business expatriates' cross-cultural adaptation and job performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 2, pp. 193-214, 2014.
[12] Stephens, D. Higher Education and International Capacity Building: Twenty-five Years of Higher Education Links. Oxford: Symposium Books, 2009.
[13] Wen Qiufang. Wang Lifei. Theoretical Study on English Learning Strategy. Xi 'an: Shanxi Normal University Press, 2004.
85