․

While reading motivation research has predominantly been conducted within the
area of L1 reading with children and adolescent learners, this study was to examine
how the multidimensional aspects of L2 reading motivation may transpire for L2
EFL university learners. This L2 reading motivation was researched with an adapted
version of Motivations for Reading Questionnaire, along with information on the
learners’ L2 reading proficiency, L2 general proficiency, reading fluency, and
affiliated majors. The factor analysis resulted in the loading of five reading
motivation factors (i.e., reading involvement, reading curiosity, learning goal-oriented
motivation, utility value, and reading efficacy & competence). The quantitative results
demonstrated that the learners’ reading motivation was characterized by goal-oriented
reading motivation and utility value of L2 reading. On the other hand, the learners
lacked reading involvement toward L2 reading. However, one-way ANOVA revealed
that it was reading involvement that produced proficiency group differences. Linear
multiple regression indicated goal-oriented motivation to be a significant predictor of
language proficiency, and this validated the learners’ endorsement of motivation for
204 영미연구 제37집

instrumental reasons. Implications for increasing L2 reading motivation are discussed

in the study.

Key Words: Reading motivation, Reading involvement, Reading curiosity, Reading

efficacy, Goal-oriented reading motivation

The effects of motivation on learning and achievement are central issues in

learning a language in both foreign and second language (L2) contexts (Csizér &
Dörnyei, 2005; Gardner, 1985, 1988; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991; Lukmani, 1972)
that may go beyond learners' cognitive characteristics. Motivation may be exhibited
with different language skills, but L2 skill-specific types of motivation have not
drawn sufficient attention. That is, students may be, for example, motivated to speak
or listen, but not to read in a foreign or second language. Previous research has also
found that reading motivation is multifaceted and multidimensional (Mori, 2002;
Takase, 2007; Watkins & Coffey, 2004; Wigfield and Guthrie, 1997). In other words,
students may be engaged in reading for a variety of reasons in many different ways
(Chon, 2014; Kim & Chon, 2013; Kim & Chung, 2013; Lee & Chung, 2015).
However, since the field lacks the theoretical basis for conceptualizing L2 reading
motivation to represent the multidimensional aspects of L2 reading, the work relevant
to L2 readers’ motivation (e.g., Mori, 2002; Takase, 2007) has been framed in terms
of first language (L1) motivation to read.
Theoretical basis for L1 reading motivation rests on the theory of first language
reading proposed by Wigfield and Guthrie (1995, 1997), but due to lack of literature
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 205

dealing specifically with reading motivation, they sought support by synthesizing

several theories of motivation (i.e., expectancy-value theory, self-efficacy theory,
achievement goal theory, and intrinsic motivation theory). Follow-up studies (Jung,
2009; Kim, 2011; Mori, 2002, Takase, 2007) researching L2 reading motivation also
found reading motivation to be multidimensional. However, reading motivation was
found to consist of different factors within each study, and this is not surprising
considering the distinct learner populations that were involved. As such, reading
motivation studies provide explanations about L2 learner reading profiles, but studies
on this is lacking with regard to L2 learners. This is more of a case with reading
motivational profiles of Korean EFL university learners.
While having recognized the research gap in the area of L2 reading motivation,
the present study reports on the reading motivation of an intact group of university
learners who can be considered to be at the low-intermediate level. The aims of the
present study were to: (a) identify factors that motivate a sample of Korean college
students to read in English, (b) examine if there are differences in L2 reading
motivation by L2 reading ability, and (c) investigate how L2 reading motivation,
together with other learner variables (e.g., L2 reading fluency, L2 general proficiency,
learner affiliated majors) may be the predictors of general L2 proficiency.

For reading, motivation is assumed to be of particular significance because it

affects the amount and breadth of students' reading, which, in turn, facilitates the
206 영미연구 제37집

development of reading competence (Mol & Bus, 2011; Wigfield and Guthrie, 1997).
Wigfield and Guthrie (1995, 1997) found support from expectancy-value theory
(Eccles, Lord & Midgley, 1991; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
Expectancy-value theory claims that achievement behavior is predicted by two
constructs: expectancy for success in a given task and the value the individual
associates with success in that task. They also referred to the work of Eccles and
Wigfield (1995) who hypothesized that the value the individual associates with
success in that task consists of four components: Attainment Value, Intrinsic Value,
Extrinsic Utility Value, and Cost. Other motivational theories that Wigfield and
Guthrie consulted include self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986, 1989, 1993; Schunk,
1991), achievement goal theory (Crandall, Katkovsky & Preston, 1962), and intrinsic
motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-efficacy theory focuses on an
individual's evaluation of their capacity to organize and execute courses of action
whereas achievement goal theory focuses more on the individual's perception of how
important achievement of different tasks are to them. Intrinsic motivation theory
emphasizes intrinsic motivation, which is doing a task for its own sake. Using these
mainstream motivational theories as reference points, Wigfield and Guthrie (1995)
divided L1 reading motivation into the following three categories, which entail 11
sub-components, as indicated in the following:

Competence and Reading Efficacy (1) reading efficacy

(2) reading challenge
(3) reading work avoidance
Achievement Values and Goals Intrinsic motivation
(4) reading curiosity
(5) reading involvement
(6) importance of reading
Extrinsic motivation
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 207

(7) competition in reading

(8) reading recognition
(9) reading for grades
Social Aspects of Reading (10) social reasons for reading
(11) reading compliance

Based on their 11 theoretical aspects of reading motivation, Wigfield and Guthrie

(1995) developed the Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). They
administered it to 105 fourth- and fifth-graders in the United States in an attempt to
identify empirically aspects of reading motivation (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).
According to Wigfield and Guthrie (1995), the first two aspects of motivation are
based on the work on self-efficacy. These aspects are reading efficacy, the belief that
one can be successful at reading, and reading challenge, the satisfaction of mastering
or assimilating complex ideas in text. The intrinsic motivation and learning goals
aspects include reading curiosity, the desire to learn about a particular topic of
interest to the child, and reading involvement, the enjoyment of experiencing different
kinds of literary or informational texts. Importance of reading is an aspect taken
from Eccles' and Wigfield's work on subjective task values (Wigfield & Eccles,
1992). Another aspect concerns what students say they do not like about reading, and
this dimension is referred to reading work avoidance.
Extrinsic motivation and performance goals aspects include competition in reading,
the desire to outperform others in reading; recognition for reading, the gratification
in receiving a tangible form of recognition for success in reading; and reading for
grades, the desire to be evaluated favorably by the teacher. The final aspects concern
social motivation for reading. One proposed aspect is social reasons for reading, the
process of sharing the meanings gained from reading with friends and family; another
is compliance, reading because of an external goal or requirement.
208 영미연구 제37집

Baker and Wigfield (1999) also administered the MRQ to 371 fifth- and
sixth-graders in the United States. The results demonstrated that all dimensions of
reading motivation significantly correlated with the amount of reading children did
and several dimensions of their performance on the tests. The statistical analyses of
the data obtained confirmed Wigfield and Guthrie's claim for the multidimensionality
of L1 reading motivation.

Recent studies on both first language and second/foreign language reading

motivation have provided evidence that the reading motivation of students influences
their reading performance in various ways (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Cox & Guthrie,
2001; Day & Bamford, 1998; Kim, 2011; Mori, 2002; Nishino, 2005; Wang &
Guthrie, 2004).
A number of studies using the MRQ confirmed the multidimensionality of first
language reading motivation (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Watkins & Coffey, 2004;
Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), and indicated that ceratin aspects of reading motivation
(e.g., reading efficacy and intrinsic motivation) were more significantly associated
with reading performance than other aspects of reading motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield,
Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Day and Bamford (1998) first attempted to explain the nature of motivation for L2
extensive reading and developed an expectancy-value model. According to their
model, four factors contribute to the formulation of L2 reading motivation: reading
materials, ability, attitudes, and classroom environment. Their claim is that
appropriate reading materials and attitudes play a more crucial role in motivating
students than reading ability and classroom situations.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 209

With regard to L2 reading motivation, a few researchers have attempted to explain

reading motivation using MRQ. Mori (2002) investigated what comprises foreign
language reading motivation with Japanese university learners of English. This study
was designed to fit an EFL context, drawing upon the model proposed by Wigfield
and Guthrie (1995, 1997). Mori also included some items to assess Gardner’s (1985,
1988) notion of integrative motivation to read in English. In support of
multidimensionality in reading motivation, four sub-components of L2 reading
motivation were identified, namely Intrinsic Value of Reading in English, Attainment
Value of Reading in English, Extrinsic Utility Value of Reading in English, and
Expectancy for Success in Reading in English. The results demonstrated that L2
reading motivation is independent of general motivational constructs. Also, Wigfield
and Guthrie’s 11 factors of motivation were found not to adequately fit her data and
that MRQ should be revised in terms of the research context. This is likely since
Wigfield and Guthrie’s model of L1 reading motivation was initially designed for L1
learners in mind, who seemed to have endorsed reading motivation that is different
from those of L2 learners.
Takase (2007) also constructed a questionnaire based on studies of L1 reading
(Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997) and L2 learning (Gardner, 1985; Schmidt, Boraie, &
Kassabgy, 1996). Her target population was Japanese high school students in an
extensive English reading program. Her analysis revealed that reading motivation is
related to intrinsic motivation for L1 and L2 reading, parents’ involvement in and
family attitudes toward reading, extrinsic motivation, fondness for written materials,
and negative attitudes toward extensive reading. Results indicated that intrinsic
motivation for reading in English and Japanese were the two strongest predictors of
extensive reading in English.
With EFL university students, Jung (2009) aimed to explore the nature of foreign
210 영미연구 제37집

language reading motivation and the relationship between reading motivation and
achievement in English reading with EFL university students. Five underlying
dimensions of foreign language reading motivation were discussed in relation to
student reading achievement. It was found that self-confident engagement in English
reading and perceived usefulness of reading in English were positively related to
reading achievement (p < .001). A stepwise multiple regression indicated
self-confident engagement in English to be the significant predictor of reading
achievement. Overall, the study provides support for the key role of motivational
factors in the development of foreign language reading skills.
Kim (2011) designed a study to identify underlying factors that motivate language
learners to read in a foreign language (L2) context with 259 Korean EFL college
students. In line with previous studies (Mori, 2002; Takase, 2007; Watkins & Coffey,
2004), certain sub-components of reading motivation did not cluster as proposed in
Wigfield and Guthrie's study. The study yielded a four-factor solution for L2 reading
motivation: learning goal-oriented motivation, intrinsic motivation, avoidance of
reading, and utility value of L2 reading. The results indicated that learning
goal-oriented motivation and utility value of L2 reading were the two primary
indicators for the participants’ desire to read in English. All L2 reading motivation
scales revealed significant differences between English and non-English majors except
in utility value of L2 reading. The similarity of utility values in the two groups, the
researcher contends, can be attributed to how the learners considered English to be
important for gaining higher grades and better career opportunities.
The previous studies have added to our understanding of reading motivation and
its relationship to reading performance. However, research on reading motivation
(RM hereafter) has been predominant with children and adolescents reading in their
first language, which suggests that generalizing the results to different learner
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 211

populations may result in different explanations of RM. In the context of the present
study, there was attention to the RM of Korean university learners, particularly a
group of low-intermediate learners who may be characterized by particular
motivational orientations, however, who need to excel on reading English to pass the
requirements set by the university. Also, we were interested in how other learner
variables, that is reading fluency or student affiliated majors would explain language
proficiency in relation to reading motivation. With having recognized the lack of
examination of L2 RM research, the following research questions guided the present
study:

1. What are the sub-scales of motivation to read in English for Korean college
students?
2. What is the relationship between students’ L2 reading motivation and L2
reading competence?
3. In what way do the learners’ L2 reading motivation, reading fluency (i.e.,
reading speed and reading comprehension), and major area of study predict
learners’ L2 general language proficiency?

The participants of the study were 74 freshman university learners from the majors
in Art and Humanities (n = 11, 14.9%), Natural Sciences (n = 35, 47.3%), Social
Sciences (n = 9, 12.2%), Education (n = 4, 5.4%), Business (n = 8, 10.8%), Buddhist
212 영미연구 제37집

Culture (n = 6, 8.1%), and Elective Majors (n = 1, 1.4%). The students were from
a course, Freshman English, which was a requirement for graduation. The students
could be classified as low-intermediate learners since they belonged to Class C
among A – D groups where A was classified as the most advanced. The classes had
been divided by proficiency levels according to their TOEIC scores obtained in the
previous semester, and the students had scored a mean of 362.24 (Total = 990
points).

Freshman English was a course in which the students met for two hours a week
during the 16 week instruction. The course description states that the purpose of the
course is to provide students with reading opportunities by reading on a variety of
topics in order to acquire English, which was a foreign language to the students. The
learners are also encouraged to learn the language by increasing their knowledge of
English vocabulary and grammar to ultimately understand the gist of the reading
passages. Another purpose of the course was to help learners increase their strategic
competence by being able to employ reading strategies for different purposes. By the
end of the course, the learners were expected to infer meaning of vocabulary within
the reading passages, conduct fluent reading, and improve reading comprehension
skills.
The main textbook for the course was Skills for Success: Reading and Writing 1.
The coursebook was organized so as to offer readings in a number of topics that
would be interesting to young adult learners: The eight topics that were covered in
the semester were: 1) What is Laughter?, 2) The Best Medicine is Laughter, 3)
Music and Shopping, 4) Music and the Movies, 5) The Lies People Tell, 6) Honesty
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 213

and Parenting, 7) Becoming an Adult, and 8) A Dangerous World.

While one of the researchers took the role of the instructor, the lessons were
designed so that there were pre-, while- and post-reading activities. Before reading
every chapter, the instructor deployed activities for schema building by asking
students to watch videos or reflect on some photographs that she had prepared. The
reading skills of skimming and scanning were practiced with comprehension
questions. Towards the latter part of the semester, the instructor was able to
increasingly address the questions in English, but considering the level of the learners
and their motivation level, most classroom instruction and questions had to be
addressed in the learners’ L1, Korean.
After the skimming and scanning sessions, close reading was also conducted with
translations provided by the instructor. Comprehension of the reading text was
checked by the true/false questions provided in the coursebook or by asking the
learners to solve comprehension questions developed by the instructor. As another
post-reading activity, the learners were given vocabulary exercises to encourage
noticing or consolidation of new lexical items in the text. For instance, the instructor
used Power Point slides to provide definition of words whereafter the learners were
asked to find the matching word in the reading passages. Another requirement of the
course was also to learn the grammar points of each chapter. Assignments for the
course also consisted of finding the definition of words, summarizing, and short
essay writing. The learners were asked to write a paragraph (i.e., of at least 5 lines)
on their ‘Favorite Celebrity’ and ‘The Most Memorable Event in College’ by making
use of at least two words met in the reading passage. During the course, there was
focus on reading, first and foremost.
214 영미연구 제37집

Questionnaire for the study was developed by referencing Mori’s (2002) Nine
Hypothesized Motivational Components (30 items) and Wigfield and Guthrie’s (1997)
Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). Mori's (2002) study was on the
validation of MRQ with Japanese university learners based on Wigfield and Guthrie's
theoretical aspects of reading motivation.
From the different constructs available from the previous MRQ studies, the
researcher selectively included those that seemed most relevant to the students’
reason for L2 reading. This was an informed decision process since the instructor,
one of the researchers, had taught similar types of students in Freshman English at
the university for more than three years. In the end, the learners’ RM was measured
on four subscales, that is, reading competence & reading efficacy (i.e., reading
efficacy, reading challenge), intrinsic motivation (i.e., reading curiosity, reading
involvement, importance of reading in English), extrinsic motivation (i.e., reading for
grades, competition in reading), and integrative orientation. Items for Competition in
Reading were added from Wigfield and Guthrie’s (1997) study since this construct
was expected to be perceived as important for the target learners. The questionnaire
consisted of 26 items to be marked on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal reliability of the scale with
Cronbach’s alpha was .874. The questionnaire items are presented in Appendix 1.

As another measure of reading ability, the learners' reading fluency was of

interest. A speed reading task with reading comprehension questions were utilized for
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 215

this purpose. Eskey and Grabe (1988) have pointed out the importance of speed or
automaticity in word recognition and it needed to be tapped into for assessing
reading ability of the learners.
A speed reading task was selected from Asian and Pacific Speed Readings for
ESL Learners (Quinn, Nation & Millett, 2007). The package has been created for the
purpose of training students to increase students’ reading speed through a daily speed
reading exercise. Each reading passage is approximately 550 words, each with ten
comprehension questions. The readings are based on topics related to Asia and the
Pacific and are written within the 1,000 most frequently used words of English (West
& West, 1953). The only exceptions are words that are explained in the text, the
titles of passages or content words like country names and animal names. In addition,
the grammar has been restricted by limiting the number of relative clauses, passives
and difficult time references. For the speed reading task, the reading titled China
with the ten accompanying comprehension questions were selected from the package
(see Appendix 2).

The learners were asked in the questionnaire on their background, such as their
gender and affiliated majors. In the questionnaire, the learners were also asked to
report on their total TOEIC scores with separate scores for listening and reading
comprehension. At the university, it is mandatory for the students to take the TOEIC
test every semester. As such, all the learners had scores to report as a measure of
their L2 proficiency. For the purpose of the study, the reading comprehension score
(Total = 495) was used to analyze RM while the total score of TOEIC (Total = 990)
was used as a measure of general L2 proficiency.
216 영미연구 제37집

At the end of the semester, the learners were asked to respond to the
questionnaire on their background and RM while reflecting on their reading
experience in the course. Thereafter, the learners were also asked to try out the speed
reading task. The testing procedure for this task was as follows: First, the students
were asked to record their accurate reading time by indicating both minutes and
seconds as soon as they had finished reading the passage within 6 minutes by
watching the timer set in front of the classroom. Students who could not finish
reading within 6 minutes were allowed to record ‘more than 6 minutes.’ Thereafter,
ten short reading comprehension questions were distributed to the students, and they
were required to answer the questions without looking back at the passage. The
results of the speed reading tasks were collected for analysis together with the
responses to the MRQ and background questionnaires.

The questionnaires were analyzed with SPSS 21.0. To research RM of L2

university EFL learners, descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and standard
deviations) were computed for the participants’ responses to the items in the MRQ,
speed reading task and background questionnaire. Cronbach alphas were calculated to
estimate the reliability of the questionnaires in measuring each RM subscale. An
exploratory factor analysis was applied to identify the factors that were related to the
participants’ responses for L2 RM. The extracted factors were used throughout the
rest of the analyses. Factorial one-way ANOVA analyses including post-hoc tests
were adopted to examine whether L2 reading competence had an influence on L2
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 217

RM. In the final analysis, to examine whether L2 RM, reading fluency, and student
majors may have an influence on L2 general proficiency, linear multiple regression
was conducted. The student major variables needed to be dummy coded for the
analysis.

This section examines RQ1. What are the sub-scales of motivation to read in
English for Korean college students? In order to determine the underlying constructs
of RM in English, principal axis factoring analysis with an oblique rotation (Promax)
was conducted. In measuring psychological constructs (e.g., motivation, attitudes,
anxiety), there is theoretical and empirical basis for assuming these constructs to be
correlated to one another. Principal axis factoring may thus yield a more accurate and
realistic representation of how motivational factors are likely to be associated with
one another than Principal components analysis (Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). The
number of factors to be extracted was based on the following criteria: eigenvalues of
1.0 or greater, the scree test, and the interpretability of the resulting solutions
(Preacher & MacCallum, 2003). Two items were dropped from the analysis due to
low communalities (.296 and .349, respectively). Items 9 (Even if reading were not
a required subject, I would take a reading class anyway) and 18 (I am learning to
read only because I want to get a good grade) were excluded which left 24 items
with a five factor solution. This accounted for 66.75% of the total variance in
English RM. The results of the five-factor solution including means and standard
218 영미연구 제37집

deviations for each item are summarized in Table 1.

Factor 1 was associated with six items and represented participants’ fondness for
and engagement in reading English texts. Therefore, this factor was interpreted as
Reading Involvement. Factor 2 exhibited learners' interest in reading a variety of
genres. This variable was labeled Reading Curiosity. Factor 3 was associated with six
items and represented participants' RM in relation to practical goals that they would
achieve by learning to read in English. The goals are not limited to immediate
outcomes, but may extend beyond those that can be achieved in the classroom (i.e.,
reading novels, coping with internalization.) Thus, this factor was called Learning
Goal-oriented Motivation for L2 reading.
Factor 4 loaded on four items that were concerned with practical values of reading
in English such as getting good grades, noting importance of reading as a language
skill and learning more about English-speaking cultures. This factor was labeled
Utility Value of L2 Reading. Factor 5 had loadings from six items. The statements
indicated that the learners were concerned with how they evaluated themselves in
relation to their peers. As such, this factor was labeled Reading Efficacy &
Competition in L2 Reading.
Based on the results of the factor analysis, scale scores for each factor of L2 RM
were computed by calculating the mean. Reliabilities of five factors, as shown in
Table 2, represented high internal consistency having a value greater than .70.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 219

Loading M SD
Factor 1: Reading Involvement
5. I enjoy the challenge of difficult reading passages. .539 2.31 1.02
6. I like it when the questions in books make me think. .799 2.77 1.00
7. I usually learn difficult things by reading .707 2.97 0.94
8. If a book is interesting I don't care how hard it is to read. .703 3.07 1.21
I get immersed in interesting stories even if they are
14. .635 2.89 1.01
written in English.
15. It is fun to read in English. .658 2.73 0.94
Factor 2: Reading Curiosity
10. I like reading English novels. .804 2.08 0.95
11. I like reading English newspapers and/or magazines. .800 2.15 1.00

Factor 3: Learning goal-oriented Motivation for L2 Reading

By learning to read in English, I hope I will be able to
12. .800 3.32 1.21
read English novels.
By learning to read in English, I hope to be able to read
13. .964 3.50 1.15
English newspapers and/or magazines.
Learning to read in English is important because it will
16. .446 3.58 0.88
broaden my view.
Learning to read in English is important because it will
17. .511 3.68 0.91
be conducive to my general education.
Learning to read in English is important in that we need
22. .601 3.82 1.00
to cope with internationalization.
By learning to read in English, I hope to learn about
25. .672 3.53 0.91
various opinions in the world.

Factor 4: Utility Value of L2 Reading

19. I like being the best at reading. .612 3.38 1.12
I am learning to read in English because I might study
23. .733 3.07 1.16
abroad in the future.
24. By being able to read in English, I hope to understand .619 3.58 0.88
220 영미연구 제37집

more deeply about lifestyles and cultures of English

speaking countries (such as America and England).
I think learning to speak and/or listening is more
26. .605 2.51 1.00
important than learning to read in English. (R)

Factor 5: Reading Efficacy & Competition in L2 Reading

1. I am good at reading in English. .757 2.64 0.96
2. English reading is my weak subject. (R) .665 2.93 1.05
My grades for English reading classes at junior and senior
3. .694 2.84 0.99
high schools were good.
4. I liked reading classes at junior and senior high schools. .691 2.73 1.10
20. I like to finish my reading before other students .551 3.35 1.05
21. I try to get more answers right than my friends .640 3.42 0.92
Note: (R) = Reverse-coded items

No. of
Alpha M SD
Items
Reading Involvement 6 .851 2.79 .78
Reading Curiosity 2 .838 2.11 .90
Learning goal-oriented Motivation for L2 Reading 6 .861 3.57 .78
Utility Value of L2 Reading 4 .740 3.14 .78
Reading Efficacy & Competition in L2 Reading 6 .819 2.98 .74

Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the five factors were statistically
different from one another (F = 51.940, p = .000) except for Factors 1 & 5 (p =
.10), and Factors 4 & 5 (p = 1.00), respectively indicating that the mean differences
between Reading Involvement vs. Reading Efficacy & Competition, and Utility Value
vs. Reading Efficacy & Competition were not different. The mean scores on all
reading motivational subscales were above the median score of 2.5 except for Factor
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 221

2 (i.e., Reading Curiosity) indicating that the participants characterized themselves as

being motivated in relation to the four factors (Baker & Wigfield, 1999).
The results, however, indicated that the learners reading motivational profiles
could be characterized by the higher mean scores on Learning Goal-oriented
Motivation and Utility Value; Learning Goal-oriented Motivation was also
significantly different from the other four factors (p < .01). The nature of the two
factors, Learning Goal-oriented Motivation and Utility Value, is closely linked to the
concepts of instrumental motivation (Gardner, 1985, 1988) and extrinsic motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995). This indicates that to the university learners, it was not
for pleasure, enjoyment or personal well-being, but rather for instrumental purposes
that they wanted to read. For instance, the learners felt that English reading was
going to help them become a more global person (Learning to read in English is
important in that we need to cope with internationalization, M = 3.82) and that it
would help them become a more knowledgeable person (Learning to read in English
is important because it will be conducive to my general education, M = 3.68). The
learners also endorsed the desire to learn more about English-speaking cultures (By
being able to read in English, I hope to understand more deeply about lifestyles and
cultures of English speaking countries, M = 3.58). The statements indicate that the
university learners' purpose of L2 reading in the course, Freshman English, may be
closely related to utilitarian and immediate purposes, such as to obtain higher grades
and expand career opportunities.
In comparison to Learning Goal-oriented Motivation, the mean values of learners'
Reading Efficacy & Competition and Reading Involvement resulted in lower mean
values (p < .01). In fact, Reading Involvement, which can be considered a similar
construct to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1995) indicates that the learners do
not endorse reading motivation for internal reasons, such as for enjoyment or
222 영미연구 제37집

emotional growth. Similarly, the mean value for Reading Curiosity (M = 2.11) also
demonstrated that the learners may have not been motivated to read English simply
because they were interested in reading about a particular genre or topic.

This section deals with investigating RQ2. What is the relationship between
students’ L2 RM and L2 reading competence? For any reading proficiency group
differences, factorial one-way ANOVA was conducted. Here the learners' reading
TOEIC score was used as the measure of L2 reading competence, the dependent
variable. The learners were divided into different reading proficiency groups. Visual
binning is a facility that creates groups from a continuous variable and is available
at SPSS for grouping participants. As presented in Table 3, a statistically significant
proficiency effect was found with Reading Involvement and Reading Efficacy &
Competition. In contrast, no group differences were found for Reading Curiosity,
Learning Goal-oriented Motivation, and Utility Value. This shows a similar pattern to
the university learners in Kim's (2011) study, whose learners were found to endorse
utility values and lack motivation by internally-driven reasons.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 223

95% Confidence Interval

for Mean
M SD F Sig.
Low = 30, Mid = 24, Lower Upper
High = 20 (Total = 74) Bound Bound
1 2.49 0.85 2.18 2.81 4.101 0.021*
Reading
Involvement 2 2.94 0.69 2.65 3.24
3 3.05 0.62 2.76 3.34
1 2.05 1.06 1.65 2.45 1.748 0.182
Reading Curiosity
2 1.94 0.84 1.58 2.29

Learning 3 2.43 0.65 2.12 2.73

Goal-oriented 1 3.42 0.87 3.09 3.74 2.853 0.064
Motivation
2 3.48 0.72 3.17 3.78
3 3.92 0.62 3.63 4.21
Utility Value 1 3.02 0.82 2.71 3.32 1.769 0.178
2 3.05 0.82 2.7 3.4
3 3.41 0.63 3.12 3.71
Reading Efficacy 1 2.69 0.78 2.4 2.98 4.457 0.015*
& Competition 2 3.19 0.69 2.89 3.48
3 3.18 0.58 2.91 3.46

Note: 1 = low, 2 = mid, 3 = high; *p < .05

The results demonstrate that it was Reading Involvement and Reading Efficacy &
Competition that had relationships to learners’ reading competence. The level of
Reading Involvement, which is related to learners' willingness to take the initiative to
read, was related to learners’ reading ability (F = 4.101, p = .021). As seen in Table
3, descriptive statistics indicate that the high level learners were associated with
higher reading involvement. In a similar vein, different levels of Reading Efficacy &
Competition were associated with learners' reading ability (F = 4.457, p = .015).
Further Bonferroni post-hoc tests (see Table 4) also showed that there were
224 영미연구 제37집

statistically significant differences in Reading Involvement and Reading Efficacy &

Competition between groups. Reading Involvement of the low level group was
significantly lower than that of the high level group (difference = -.56, p = .04).
Reading Efficacy & Competition of the low level group was also found to be
significantly lower than that of the mid level group (difference = -.50, p = .03). This
type of information on how learners may exhibit different levels of motivation
according to proficiency can be helpful in diagnosing the types of motivation that
needs to be encouraged in reading instruction, for instance, among the lower
proficiency group learners. The results validate that Reading Involvement and
Reading Efficacy & Competition may be the important types of RM that need to be
sustained among low level EFL university learners, as with those in the current
study. According to Wigfield & Guthrie (1997), Reading Involvement, a component
of intrinsic motivation, would require the learners to feel that they are enjoying the
experience of reading different kinds of literary or informational text. Increased
reading involvement, in turn, is expected to lead to improved reading achievement.
Bandura’s (1977) interpretation of self-efficacy provides further implications on the
results. He proposed that individuals’ efficacy expectations for different achievement
tasks are a major determinant of activity choice, willingness to expend effort, and
persistence. Schunk and his colleagues also demonstrated that children's sense of
efficacy relates to their academic performance, and that training students both to be
more efficacious and to believe they are more efficacious improves children's
achievement (Schunk, 1991; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997). In a similar vein, when
the EFL university learners believe that they are competent and efficacious at
reading, they may also be able to engage in more reading and improve reading
ability.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 225

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference Sig.
(I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound

2 -0.45 0.09 -0.95 0.05

Reading 1
3 -0.56 0.04* -1.08 -0.03
Involvement
2 3 -0.11 1.00 -0.66 0.45
2 -0.50 0.03* -0.97 -0.03
Reading Efficacy 1
3 -0.49 0.05 -0.99 0.00
& Competition
2 3 0.00 1.00 -0.52 0.53

Note: * p < .05, 1 = low, 2 = mid, 3 = high

On the other hand, the motivational orientations of Reading Curiosity, Learning

Goal-oriented Motivation, and Utility Value did not seem to be related to reading
competence. Particularly for Learning Goal-oriented Motivation and Utility Value,
differences between proficiency groups were not significant. It seems that the learners
were collectively driven to read by instrumental types of motivation. The participants
in the present study were from a college whose academic levels were at or below the
national norm. This may have caused the group as a whole to be more focused on
the importance of English reading since English reading skills can help them attain
higher grades and better career opportunities. As mentioned previously, these students
were categorized as low-intermediate learners so their aspirations to achieve
instrumental goals may have been stronger than those at higher levels of proficiency.
Another explanation for the learners’ orientation toward the Utility Value would stem
from competitiveness in the job market after their graduation (Kim, 2011).
Considering the status of the undergraduates who may have more immediate goals
after graduation, it is not surprising to see how the learners endorsed Learning
Goal-oriented Motivation, and Utility Value of L2 reading regardless of proficiency
226 영미연구 제37집

levels. Another explanation is that the learners at the specific university may have
been under pressure to do well since they are required to take the TOEIC and pass
the compulsory English courses to graduate.

To grasp a comprehensive view of RM in relation to other learner variables, the

RQ 3. of interest was: In what way do the learners’ L2 RM, reading fluency (i.e.,
reading speed and reading comprehension), and major area of study predict learners’
L2 general language proficiency?
A significant regression equation was found (F = 4.458, p = .000) with an R2 of
.491, explaining that RM, reading fluency (i.e., reading speed and reading
comprehension), and major area of study can account for approximately 49% of the
variation in L2 general proficiency. At statistically significant levels (p < .05), β and
t values indicated that Learning Goal-oriented Motivation, and no. of items correct
for reading comprehension in the speed reading task were positively related to L2
general language ability.

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
t Sig.
Std.
B Beta
Error
(Constant) 89.69 104.85 .855 .396
Reading Motivation
Reading Involvement 15.99 20.87 .107 .766 .447
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 227

Reading Curiosity 16.06 13.68 .125 1.174 .245

Learning Goal-oriented Motivation 39.88 18.68 .268 2.135 .037*
Utility Value -3.09 18.47 -.021 -.167 .868
Reading Efficacy & Competition -7.03 20.73 -.044 -.339 .736
Fluency
Speed Reading (Seconds) -0.11 0.20 -.056 -.518 .607
No. of Items Correct on Reading
18.37 5.57 .334 3.300 .002*
Speed Comprehension
Majors
Natural Science vs.
-28.00 32.86 -.086 -.852 .398
Humanities & Art
Natural Science vs.
-26.92 34.83 -.076 -.773 .443
Social Science
Natural Science vs. Education -202.54 49.54 -.397 -4.088 .000**
Natural Science vs. Business
58.65 36.28 .158 1.617 .111
Administration
Natural Science vs.
-22.98 42.15 -.054 -.545 .588
Buddhist Culture
Natural Science vs. Free Major -72.07 98.59 -.072 -.731 .468
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01

By unstandardized coefficients of B, the learners’ L2 general proficiency (i.e.,

TOEIC) was found to increase 39.88 points for each level of Learning Goal-oriented
Motivation on the 5-point Likert scale (p = .037). Also, with an increase in the No.
of Items Correct on Reading Speed Comprehension, there was an increase of 18.37
points in L2 general proficiency. For improved L2 general proficiency, the pattern of
results suggest that when RM is perceived with specific aims, such as, being able to
'read novels and magazines regularly in English' and 'broaden one’s scope of the
world', it is likely to bring increases in L2 general proficiency scores. Consequently,
the participants’ perception of reading goals will play a crucial role in motivating
them to study or read in English to reach desired outcomes.
228 영미연구 제37집

Noting how the number of items correct was significantly related to L2

proficiency, the results also confirm that reading comprehension is an important
component of general proficiency rather than the speed taken to read the target text.
This points out that reaching satisfactory levels of comprehension of the text is
essential for improved L2 proficiency, even while there may be time constraints to
read a text. As explained by Alderson (2000), comprehension will often consist of
parsing sentences, understanding sentences in discourse, building a discourse
structure, and then integrating this understanding with what one already knows.
In the regression model, the ‘Education’ majors were also found to score 200
points lower than the ‘Natural Science’ majors on the TOEIC exam (p < .01). In
fact, the proficiency score for the ‘Education’ group was the lowest of the group
(i..e, 182.50, Total = 990 points). The mean scores for the other majors ranged from
330 to 456 points. This raises a point for one of the researchers who was in charge
of instructing the students at the university. It needs to be found whether these
Education major learners (N = 4) have other factors (beyond the scope of the study)
that is contributing towards their poor performance. When computed, their RM total
score was not statistically different from those of other majors. However, this result
is not surprising considering the small number of Education major participants.
Future studies, additionally via qualitative methods (e.g., interviews), may be needed
to examine what other individual difference variables may be influencing their RM,
reading competence and reading behavior. The number of participants for the
Education majors will also need to be supplemented for comprehensive results.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 229

The present study demonstrated for the lower-intermediate EFL Korean university
learners that RM encompasses a variety of constructs such as Reading Involvement,
Reading Curiosity, Learning Goal-oriented Motivation, Utility Value, and Reading
Efficacy & Competence. The multidimensionality of RM provided an explanation for
why the learners chose to read or not to read (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Kim, 2011;
Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997).
The strongest indicators of RM for the university learners were Learning
Goal-oriented Motivation and Utility Value of L2 reading. This finding reflects that
the role of L2 reading in English college classrooms is to prepare them for more
advancement in classes and for career opportunities. The learners may therefore set
goals and expectations based on rewards to be gained from an improved English
proficiency. For instance, the learners may have believed that 'reading in English may
be conducive to their general education and that 'English was needed to be able to
cope with internalization.' Consequently, the participants' perceptions of the goals to
be achieved by learning English was found to have played a crucial role in
motivating them to study or read in English. In addition, participants' lack of Reading
Involvement or Reading Curiosity provided evidence for the learners' lack of intrinsic
motivation toward L2 reading. However, analysis revealed that it was Reading
Involvement that produced group differences; seeing that greater levels of Reading
Involvement was exhibited by the more skilled learners, this indicates that internally
driven types of motivation may be beneficial for improved achievement (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). Linear multiple regression indicated Learning Goal-oriented Motivation
to be a significant predictor, and this confirmed the learners’ endorsement of
motivation for practical reasons.
230 영미연구 제37집

The results of this study have pedagogical implications for teaching L2 learners.
This study indicated that students were motivated to read in L2 for different reasons
or purposes. That is, learners’ motivational orientations should be scrutinized and not
simply be regarded as being motivated or unmotivated to read in the L2. Although
the students’ RM was not characterized by high levels of Reading Involvement or
Reading Efficacy & Competence, these were associated with general proficiency.
Therefore, teachers should encourage lower level students to be engaged in L2
reading activities, such as by giving them opportunities to experience the pleasure of
reading via manageable texts so their perception of reading efficacy can be improved.
When teachers are able to set personally relevant goals for the learners, the learners
will have greater possibilities in reaching their goals (Schunk, 1991; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 1997).
The study is not without its limitations. The first relates to the limited number of
learners due to examination of an intact class that one of the researchers was in
charge of. A larger sample of learners may yield a more nuanced understanding of
L2 RM. Second, to more accurately explain learners’ L2 reading motivational
profiles, there is need to include qualitative data as a means of cross-validating the
questionnaire results. Also, in order to develop a more reliable model of RM of L2
university learners, future research will need to consider a number of additional
factors, such as, type of instruction received, reading curriculum, cultural differences,
and socio-educational variables (e.g., gender, abroad experience, study styles).
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 231

1. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
2. ( ) . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
3. ․ . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
4. · . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
5. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
6. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
7. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
8. , ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
9. , ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
10. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
11. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
12. , ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
13. , ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
14. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
15. ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
16. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄

17. ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
18. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
19. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
20. ( ) . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
232 영미연구 제37집

21. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
22. ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
23. ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
24. , ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
25. , ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
.
26. . ➀ ➁ ➂ ➃ ➄
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 233

China

Today China is a modern country with a population of over a billion people. It is a world
leader in trade and industry and the standard of living for many Chinese people is getting
better, but about 100 years ago life was very different in China.
For thousands of years, China was ruled by emperors. The emperor, his family and a small
number of people were very rich while most of the people were poor. The rich people lived
in beautiful big houses and many of the poor people worked as their servants without being
paid. The rich people owned all the land and the poor worked on small pieces of land as
farmers. They had to work very hard to make enough food for their families and they also had
to give some of the food they produced to the rich land owners.
In old China, the family was the most important thing. Children usually lived with their
parents, even after they got married and had children of their own. The head of the family was
the father. He made all the decisions, and everyone in the family had to do what he said.
When the father died, his oldest son took his place. Children did not go to school. In a rich
family, the boys learned to read and write at home. They did not learn to write with a pen or
pencil, but with a little brush. They also had to study old books. If they wanted to get a good
position in society, they had to pass a very difficult examination. In this examination, they were
asked to read and write poems and they were asked questions about the old books. Women did
not have an important place in old China. Girls did not learn to read or write and the daughters
of rich families could not go out to work. They only learned to look after the family. When
they were very young, their parents found husbands for them. When they grew up, they were
married and they went to live with their husband’s family.
In 1911 the poor began to fight against their leaders. They won the war and the rule of the
Chinese emperors came to an end. After that, the Communist Party started to become powerful,
and China became a communist country in 1949. Communism meant that all people had a say
in making decisions, not just a few rich people. Life got a lot better for the working people
234 영미연구 제37집

and there was not such a big difference between rich and poor.
Under communism, women in China gained more freedom. Girls went to school and
universities. They became teachers, soldiers or farmers. Some worked in offices and some
worked in factories. Some drove trucks and some were doctors. Women continued to work after
they were married and had children. Because both husbands and wives worked during the day,
they could not look after their children. So they left their children at special places where they
were looked after. In 1979, China started the One Child Policy to try to reduce the size of the
population.
China continues to change especially in the large cities, but some of the old ways of life are
still found in the smaller villages and country areas.

, Reading .( )
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 235

1. Before 1911 people in China were 6. In rich families, children studied

a very rich a at home.
b very poor b at the teacher's house.
c very rich or poor. c at school.
d all about the same. d at the temple.

2. In old China, many servants, were 7. Writing was done with

a the children of rich people. a a pen.
b children with no parents. b a long thin stick.
c rich people. c a brush.
d poor people. d a pencil.

3. For their work, servants received, 8. To pass the examination, a boy had to
a a lot of money. a read many old books.
b no money. b learn many languages.
c land. c know about foreign countries.
d food. d study in school.

4. Chinese families were big because a not 9. In old China, girls

many people died. a did not study books.
b married children lived with their parents. b worked outside the house.
c their houses were big. c were quite free.
d many people came to stay. d went to school.

5. When the head of the family died, his place 10. Now, in China, women
was taken by a do not go to school.
a his wife. b only work at home.
b his oldest brother. c can do any job.
c his oldest son. d do not work after they marry
d his wife's brother.
236 영미연구 제37집

Works Cited

Alderson, Charles. Assessing Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.

Baker, Linda, and Allan Wigfield. “Dimensions of Children’s Motivation for Reading
and their Relations to Reading Activity and Reading Achievement.” Reading
Research Quarterly 34 (1999): 452-77. Print.
Bandura, Albert. “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.”
Psychological Review 84 (1977): 191. Print.
______. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.
Upper Saddle Rivers, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986. Print.
______. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman, 1997. Print.
______. “Perceived Self-efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning.”
Educational Psychologist 28 (1993): 117-48. Print.
Chon, Yuah V. “Lexical Threshold of L2 Reading in the Korean CSAT.” Journal of
British & American Studies 31 (2014): 341-376. Print.
Cox, Kathleen E., and John T. Guthrie. “Motivational and Cognitive Contributions to
Students’ Amount of Reading.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 26
(2001): 116-31. Print.
Crandall, Vaughn J., Walter Katkovsky, and Anne Preston. “Motivational and Ability
Determinants of Young Children’s Intellectual Achievement Behaviors.”
Child Development (1962): 643-61. Print.
Csizér, Kata, and Zoltán Dörnyei. “Language Learners’ Motivational Profiles and
their Motivated Learning Behavior.” Language Learning 55 (2005): 613-59.
Print.
Day, Richard R., and Julian Bamford. Extensive Reading in the Second Language
Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1998. Print.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 237

Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. “The General Causality Orientations Scale:
Self-determination in Personality.” Journal of Research in Personality 19
(1985): 109-34. Print.
______. “Human Autonomy.” Efficacy, Agency, and Self-esteem. New York: Springer,
1995. 31-49. Print.
Eccles, Jacquelynne S., Sarah Lord, and Carol Midgley. “What are We Doing to
Early Adolescents? The Impact of Educational Contexts on Early
Adolescents.” American Journal of Education 17 (1991): 521-42. Print.
______, and Allan Wigfield. “In the Mind of the Actor: The Structure of
Adolescents’ Achievement Task Values and Expectancy-related Beliefs.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21 (1995): 215-25. Print.
Eskey, David E., and William Grabe. “15 Interactive Models for Second Language
Reading: Perspectives on Instruction.” Interactive Approaches to Second
Language Reading (1988): 223. Print.
Gardner, Robert C. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of
Attitudes and Motivation. London: Arnold, 1985. Print.
______. “The Socio‐Educational Model of Second Language Learning: Assumptions,
Findings, and Issues.” Language Learning 38 (1988): 101-26. Print.
______. and Peter D. MacIntyre. “An Instrumental Motivation in Language Study.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13 (1991): 57-72. Print.
Guthrie, John T., Allan Wigfield, Jamie L. Metsala, and Kathleen E. Cox.
“Motivational and Cognitive Predictors of Text Comprehension and Reading
Amount.” Scientific Studies of Reading 3 (1999): 231-56. Print.
Jung, Sei-Hwa. “Foreign Language Reading Motivation and Achievement.” English
Language Teaching 21 (2009): 209-29. Print.
Kim, Do Youn, and Hye Jin Chung. “A Study on Different Level Students' Interest
238 영미연구 제37집

and Self-confidence in English Extensive Reading.” Journal of British &

American Studies 28 (2013): 235-68. Print.
Kim, Jihye, and Yuah. V. Chon “L2 Reading Ability and Lexical Writing
Development: Does University In-class Extensive Reading Work?” English
Teaching 68 (2013): 89-115. Print.
Kim, Kyung Ja. “Reading Motivation in Two Languages: An Examination of EFL
College Students in Korea.” Reading and Writing 24 (2011): 861-81. Print.
Lee, Young-Geun, and Hyejin Chung. “Differential Effects of Comprehension
Strategy and Grammar Instruction on Second Language Reading
Comprehension.” Journal of British & American Studies 34 (2015): 291-334.
Print.
Lukmani, Yasmeen M. “Motivation to Learn and Language Proficiency.” Language
Learning 22 (1972): 261-73. Print.
Mol, Suzanne E., and Adriana G. Bus. “To Read or Not to Read: A Meta-analysis
of Print Exposure from Infancy to Early Adulthood.” Psychological Bulletin
137 (2011): 267. Print.
Mori, Setsuko. “Redefining Motivation to Read in a Foreign Language.” Reading in
a Foreign Language 14 (2002): 91. Print.
Preacher, Kristopher J., and Robert C. MacCallum. “Repairing Tom Swift’s Electric
Factor Analysis Machine.” Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in
Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences 2 (2003): 13-43. Print.
Quinn, E., I. S. P. Nation, and Sonia Millett. “Asian and Pacific Speed Readings for
ESL learners.” ELI Occasional Publication 24 (2007). Print.
Schmidt, Richard, Deena Boraie, and Omneya Kassabgy. “Foreign Language
Motivation: Internal Structure and External Connections.” Language Learning
Motivation: Pathways to the New Century 2 (1996): 9-70. Print.
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 239

Schunk, Dale H. “Self-efficacy and Academic Motivation.” Educational Psychologist

26 (1991): 207-31. Print.
______, and B. J. Zimmerman. “Developing Self-efficacious Readers and Writers:
The Role of Social and Self-regulatory Processes.” Reading Engagement:
Motivating Readers through Integrated Instruction 34 (1997): 50. Print.
Takase, Atsuko. “Japanese High School Students’ Motivation for Extensive L2
Reading.” Reading in a Foreign Language 19 (2007): 1. Print.
Watkins, Marley W., and Debra Young Coffey. “Reading Motivation:
Multidimensional and Indeterminate.” Journal of Educational Psychology 96
(2004): 110. Print.
West, Michael, and Michael Philip West, eds. A General Service List of English
Words: With Semantic Frequencies and a Supplementary Word-list for the
Writing of Popular Science and Technology. Addison-Wesley: Longman,
1953. Print.
Wigfield, Allan. “Expectancy-value Theory of Achievement Motivation: A
Developmental Perspective.” Educational Psychology Review 6 (1994):
49-78. Print.
______, and Jacquelynne S. Eccles. “The Development of Achievement Task Values:
A Theoretical Analysis.” Developmental Review 12 (1992): 265-310. Print.
______, and John T. Guthrie. “Dimensions of Children’s Motivations for Reading:
An Initial Study.” Reading Research Report 34 (1995). Print.
______, and John T. Guthrie. “Relations of Children’s Motivation for Reading to the
Amount and Breadth or their Reading.” Journal of Educational Psychology
89 (1997): 420. Print.
240 영미연구 제37집

EFL 배경 대학생들의 영어 읽기 동기 및 읽기 능력 요인들의

관계 분석

김 지 혜 (동국대학교)
전 유 아 (한양대학교)

, 2
.
“ ”
, , ,
.
“ ”, “ ”, “ ”, “ ”,
“ ” .
‘ ’ ‘ ’ . ,
‘ ’ . ,
‘ ’ .
‘ ’
,
. 2
.

: , , , ,
 EFL University Learners’ Profile of Reading Motivation and Reading Competence 241

논문접수일: 2016.05.15
심사완료일: 2016.06.17
게재확정일: 2016.06.20

: ( 1 )
:
: (38067) 123
: [email protected]

: ( )
:
: (04763) 222
: [email protected]