The Questionnaire 125

The SR Component of the Questionnaire. On the website, I noted various forms of SR questionnaires (SRQ) for which the format was first introduced by Ryan and Connell (1989). In principle, those writers used self-determination theory to develop a domain- specific strategy which is used to assess the extent to which the forms of regulatory behaviour is ‘controlled versus autonomous’. In practice, such SRQ are intended to ask participants the reasons behind their particular engaged behaviour where each form of their behaviour goes with a set of reasons which are of controlled or autonomous type

(CR or AR), and to what extent.

Among the available SRQ, I was inspired by the Learning Self-regulation Questionnaire (LSRQ) because it could be used with older students. The questionnaire asks three main questions about the reasons behind people’s engagement in forms of learning-related behaviour. The questionnaire comprises two sub-scales: AR and CR. I noted two studies which had used this questionnaire in two slightly different versions (Williams & Deci, 1998; Black & Deci, 2000). This scale has been shown to have a strong internal consistency with a coefficient alpha of approximately 0.8 for AR and 0.70 for CR (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Williams & Deci, 1996; Black & Deci, 2000). Because of this, after evaluation, I was convinced that this questionnaire could be adopted and modified for this current study in order to explore the participants’ related perceptions about their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

The LSRQ contains fourteen items which assesses students’ intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation in their engagement in learning activity. Participants are asked to respond to each item on a seven-point scale (1 = ‘does not apply’ to 7 = ‘applies very much’). It was originally targeted at undergraduate students. To serve the purpose of this current study, I considered nine of the fourteen items of a version of the LSRQ which was originally intended for medical students. The selected items under three categories of behaviour (as underlined) are set out in the following paragraphs:

I will participate actively in the organ systems classes: Item 1, ‘Because I feel like it’s a good way to improve my skills and my understanding of patients’; Item 2, ‘Because others would think badly of me if I didn’t’; and Item 3, ‘Because learning to interview well is an important part of becoming a doctor’.

I am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions for interviewing: Item 6, ‘Because I believe my instructor’s suggestions will help me interview effectively’; Item 7, ‘Because I want others to think that I am a good interviewer’; Item 9, ‘Because it’s important to me to do well at this’; and Item 10, ‘Because I would probably feel guilty if

I didn’t comply with my instructor’s suggestions’.

The reason that I will continue to broaden my interviewing skills: Item 12, ‘Because I would feel proud if I did continue to improve at interviewing’; and Item 13, ‘Because it’s a challenge to really understand what the patient is experiencing’.

I then modified the three categories of behaviour (as underlined above) and their nine items of reasons set out above to serve the purpose of this current study. Having discussed my intentions with and having had them validated by my supervisor, an educational psychologist, the modified categories of behaviour and corresponding items of reasons were adopted for the questionnaire in order to explore the participants’ perceptions about SR in their English language learning in social and educational settings in the UK as set out in the following paragraphs:

I participate actively in the English language classes

Item 1: ‘Because I feel like it’s a good way to improve my understanding of the English language’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 1).

Item 2: ‘Because others would think badly of me if I didn’t attend English language classes’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 2).

Item 3: ‘Because learning to communicate well with locals in the English language is important’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 3).

I am likely to follow my instructor’s suggestions in learning the English language Item 4: ‘Because I believe my instructor’s suggestions will help me to learn the English language effectively’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 6).

Item 5: ‘Because I want others to think that I am good at the English language’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 7).

Item 6: ‘Because it’s important to me to do well in the English language’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 9).

Item 7: ‘Because I would probably feel guilty if I didn’t comply with my instructor’s suggestions for learning the English language’ (modified from LSRQ,

Item 10).

The reason that I will continue broadening my English language skills is

Item 8: ‘Because I would feel proud if I do continue improving my English language’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 12).

Item 9: ‘Because it’s a challenge to really understand what native speakers say in English’ (modified from LSRQ, Item 13).

The MS Component of the Questionnaire. The part of the questionnaire looking into MS was based on Dweck et al.’s construct of MS (Dweck et al., 1995; Chiu et al., 1997; Hong et al., 1999; Dweck, 2000, 2006; Dweck & Molden, 2007; Blackwell et al., 2007).

At the time of the development of the questionnaire for this current study in 2012, in respect of MS in English language learning among Chinese university students in the UK, I noted that there was a paucity of literature that reported data-gathering instruments for MS or the MS-related domain in language learning. Enlightened by Mercer and Ryan’s (2010) paper entitled ‘A mindset for EFL: learners’ beliefs about the role of natural talent’, together with other related papers by Mercer (Mercer, 2011; 2012), I decided to create a new data-gathering instrument for assessing the MS of the participants to serve the purpose of this study. Given that the construct of MS was based on Dweck and her associates’ works as highlighted in the first paragraph of this section, I then made essential reference to Mercer and Ryan’s paper (2010) with a view to maximising the fit between the data-gathering instrument for this main study and the available conceptual literature. The questionnaire which resulted was then discussed with and validated by my supervisor.

I developed Items 1 to 4 of the MS component of the questionnaire for this study by drawing relevance from Dweck and her associates’ works (Dweck et al., 1995; Chiu et

al., 1997; Hong et al., 1999; Dweck, 2000, 2006; Dweck & Molden, 2007; Blackwell et al., 2007). I drafted Item 1 which represented a fixed MS belief, and Items 2 to 4 which

represented a growth MS belief. After discussions with my supervisor, the following four items were validated and adopted for the questionnaire in order to explore the participants’ perceptions about MS in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK as set out in the following paragraphs:

Item 1: ‘I prefer to avoid an activity which involves the English language when I know that I shall make mistakes when I speak’ (holding the belief of a fixed MS in language learning: natural talent counts rather than making an effort).

Item 2: ‘Irrespective of how bad a mistake is when I use the English language, I can always learn something from it’ (holding the belief of a growth MS in language learning: always seeing the positive side of the learning experience). Item 3: ‘I can learn the English language from lessons or from daily life’ (holding the belief of a growth MS in language learning: making an effort through hard work or practical experience in daily life).

Item 4: ‘I can always have the chance to improve my English language through practice’ (holding the belief of a growth MS in language learning: grasping every learning opportunity to practise English).

In addition to Dweck and her associates’ works listed above, the construct of MS and the relevant qualitative results quoted in Mercer and Ryan’s (2010) paper already mentioned were referenced and appropriately incorporated into the development of Item 5 to Item 9 as set out in the following paragraphs.

Item 5 was based on the paragraph “This data extract suggests that the learner believes that your pronunciation cannot be changed or improved through hard work and effort, as your ability for this skill is fixed already at an early age … ” (Mercer & Ryan, 2010, p. 438). Item 5 was therefore developed as shown in the following paragraph.

Item 5: ‘I cannot change or improve my pronunciation in English through hard work and effort, as my ability for this skill is fixed already at an early age’ (representing a fixed MS).

Item 6 was based on the paragraph “If you, for example learn the vocabulary from the vocabulary book, you have to practise them, I always try to use them when I study them, … So, that you just try to keep them in mind and just repeat the vocabulary but it’s also hard work” (Mercer & Ryan, 2010, p. 438). Item 6 was therefore developed as shown in the following paragraph.

Item 6: ‘If I learn the vocabulary in English from the vocabulary book, I have to practise it before remembering it’ (representing a growth MS).

Item 7 was based on the paragraph “In the data, many learners made statements that appeared to suggest a certain mindset. Some learners seemed to believe that natural talent plays the key role in successful language learning, which we took to be indicative of a fixed mindset” (Mercer & Ryan, 2010, p. 437). Item 7 was therefore developed as shown in the following paragraph.

Item 7: ‘I think that natural ability is very important in learning English’ (representing a fixed MS).

Item 8 was based on the paragraph “I think that natural ability is quite important, … but you have to be gifted if you really want to do interpreting and translation” (Mercer & Ryan, 2010, p. 440). Item 8 was therefore developed as shown in the following paragraph.

Item 8: ‘I think everybody can achieve a specific level of English language standard if they want to, but people have to be gifted if they really want to do interpreting and translation’ (representing a fixed MS).

Item 9 was based on the paragraph “ … whereas other learners appeared to hold beliefs strongly suggestive of the value of hard work and the potential to influence their ability through practice and effort, which we took as indicative of a growth mindset” (Mercer & Ryan, 2010, p. 437). Item 9 was therefore developed as shown in the following paragraph.

a growth MS).

Having discussed these five items with and having had them validated by my supervisor in addition to the already validated Items 1 to 4, all nine items were adopted for the questionnaire in order to explore the participants’ perceptions about MS in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

The PWB Component of the Questionnaire. From the paper entitled ‘Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being’ (Ryff, 1989), I recognised that the central purpose of Ryff’s (1989) study was to develop a theory-based empirical approach to study the PWB of individuals. The writer highlighted that key social scientists’ related studies and the key indicators involved (for example, life satisfaction, happiness and positive affect) were found to lack theoretical support, and also that those studies had neglected aspects of PP functioning within the perspective of life-span development (Bühler, 1935; Bühler & Massarik, 1968; Erikson, 1959; Neugarten, 1973). The writer then quoted other examples which were found to lack theoretical underpinnings such as maturity (Allport, 1961), self-actualisation (Maslow, 1968), individuation (Jung, 1933), the fully functioning person (Rogers, 1961) and positive mental health (Jahoda, 1958). Ryff (1989) therefore attempted to identify major points of convergence among the aforesaid domains. The common themes that emerged from that integration became the six dimensions for the scale development of PWB that were subsequently implemented in her study (Ryff, 1989). At the time, the six dimensions identified as scales of PWB were Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Personal Growth, Positive Relations with Others, Purpose in Life and Self-acceptance. Initially, there were 80 items generated for each scale. After some stringent procedures and criteria performed by the item writers, 32 items remained for each scale and those six scales of PWB were then administered to a research sample of 321 participants for their self-rating. Based on the results, which included the internal consistency coefficients, the number of items for

each scale at that stage was reduced to twenty, divided approximately equally between positive and negative items (Ryff, 1989).

In an email in response to my request to be permitted to use the scales for this current study, Ryff very generously provided me with the six fourteen-item scales of PWB that had been used in her studies. I recognised that those fourteen items from each scale were selected from the twenty-item version according to item-to-total correlation and coherence. Correlations with the original twenty-item scales were reported ranged from 0.97 to 0.98 (Ryff et al., 1994). Furthermore, I noted that in one of Van Dierendonck’s (2004) studies, the internal consistencies of the fourteen-item scale indicated good reliabilities, with Cronbach alphas ranging from 0.77 to 0.90.

According to Ryff’s (1989) definition of the Theory-Guided Dimensions of PWB, a high scorer on the Autonomy Scale (AS) is “self-determining and independent, able to resist social pressures to think and act in certain ways, regulates behaviour from within; evaluates self by personal standards”, whereas a low scorer is “concerned about the expectations and evaluations of others; relies on judgments of others to make important decisions; conforms to social pressures to think and act in certain ways” (ibid. p. 1072). To serve the purpose of this study, I considered three of the fourteen items of the scale: Item 2, ‘I am not afraid to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people’; Item 4, ‘I tend to worry about what other people think of me’; and Item 5, ‘Being happy with myself is more important to me than having others approve of me’. Having discussed this choice with my supervisor and having had these three items validated, I modified the three items to become the following three items designed to explore the participants’ perceptions about PWB in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

Item 1: ‘I am not afraid to voice my opinions in the English language, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people’ (modified from AS, Item 2). Item 2: ‘I tend to worry about what other people think of me in English language

competence’ (modified from AS, Item 4).

Item 3: ‘Being happy with myself in English language competence is more important to me than having others approve of me’ (modified from AS, Item 5). For the Environmental Mastery Scale (EMS), Ryff (1989) defined a high scorer as someone who “has a sense of mastery and competence in managing the environment; controls complex array of external activities; makes effective use of surrounding opportunities; able to choose or create contexts suitable to personal needs and values” and a low scorer as someone who “has difficulty managing everyday affairs; feels unable to change or improve surrounding context; is unaware of surrounding opportunities; lacks sense of control over external world” (ibid. p. 1072). To serve the purpose of this study, I considered two of the fourteen items in this section: Item 3, ‘I do not fit very well with the people and the community around me’; and Item 6, ‘If I were unhappy with my living situation, I would take effective steps to change it’. After discussing these two items with my supervisor and having had them validated, I modified the two items to become the following two items designed to explore the participants’ perceptions about PWB in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

Item 4: ‘I do not fit very well with the English-speaking people and the community around me’ (modified from EMS, Item 3).

Item 5: ‘If I were unhappy with my living situation which requires English language competence, I would take effective steps to change it’ (modified from EMS, Item 6).

For the Personal Growth Scale (PGS), Ryff (1989) defined a high scorer as someone who “has a feeling of continued development; sees self as growing and expanding; is open to new experience; has sense of realising his or her potential; sees improvement in self and behaviour over time; is changing in ways that reflect more self knowledge and effectiveness”, and a low scorer as someone who “has a sense of personal stagnation; lacks sense of improvement or expansion over time; feels bored and

uninterested with life; feels unable to develop new attitudes or behaviour” (ibid. p. 1072). To serve the purpose of this study, I considered two of the fourteen items of this scale: Item 1, ‘I am not interested in activities that will expand my horizons’; and Item 6, ‘When I think about it, I haven’t really improved much as a person over the years’. After discussing these two items with my supervisor and having had them validated, I modified them to become the following two items designed to explore the participants’ perceptions about PWB in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

Item 6: ‘I am not interested in activities related to English language learning that will expand my horizons’ (modified from PGS, Item 1).

Item 7: ‘When I think about it, I haven’t really improved much in English language learning over the years’ (modified from PGS, Item 6).

For the Positive Relations with Others Scale (PROS), Ryff (1989) defined a high scorer as someone who “has warm satisfying, trusting relationships with others; is concerned about the welfare of others; capable of strong empathy, affection, and intimacy; understands give and take of human relationships” and a low scorer as someone who “has few close, trusting relationships with others; finds it difficult to be warm, open, and concerned about others; is isolated and frustrated in interpersonal relationships; not willing to make compromises to sustain important ties with others” (ibid. p. 1072). To serve the purpose of this study, I considered one of the fourteen items of this scale: Item 2, ‘Maintaining close relationships has been difficult and frustrating for me’. After discussing this item with my supervisor and having had it validated, I modified it to become the following item designed to explore the participants’ perceptions about PWB in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

Item 8: ‘Maintaining close relationships by communicating in the English language has been difficult and frustrating for me’ (modified from PROS, Item 2). For the Purpose in Life Scale (PILS), Ryff (1989) defined a high scorer as

someone who “has goals in life and a sense of directedness; feels there is meaning to present and past life; holds beliefs that give life purpose; has aims and objectives for living”, whereas a low scorer “lacks a sense of meaning in life; has few goals or aims; lacks sense of direction; does not see purpose of past life; has no outlook or beliefs that give life meaning” (ibid. p. 1072). To serve the purpose of this study, I considered one of the fourteen items of this scale: Item 4, ‘I have a sense of direction and purpose in life’. After discussing this item with my supervisor and having had it validated, I modified it to become the following item designed to explore the participants’ perceptions about PWB in their English language learning in both social and educational settings in the UK.

Item 9: ‘I have a sense of direction and purpose in life when learning the English language’ (modified from PILS, Item 4)

For the Self-acceptance Scale (SAS), Ryff (1989) defined a high scorer as someone who “possesses a positive attitude toward the self; acknowledges and accepts multiple aspects of self, including good and bad qualities; feels positive about past life” whereas a low scorer “feels dissatisfied with self; is disappointed with what has occurred in past life; is troubled about certain personal qualities; wishes to be different than what he or she is” (ibid. p.1072). To serve the purpose of this study, I considered two of the fourteen items of this scale: Item 4, ‘Given the opportunity, there are many things about