International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7 (3.

21) (2018) 508-512

International Journal of Engineering & Technology

Website: www.sciencepubco.com/index.php/IJET

Research paper

The Relationships Among Language Learning Strategy,

Motivation, Anxiety and Autonomy in Chinese EFL Learners
Cheng Jianfeng1*, Gerard Sagaya Raj2, Joanna Tan Tjin Ai3
1,2,3
Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Perak, Malaysia
*Corresponding author E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This study attempted to explore the relationships among language learning strategy, motivation, anxiety and learner autonomy. Cluster
sampling method was adopted to select 600 non-English major students as subjects at three universities in Henan province, China. Quan-
titative data collected from questionnaires was analyzed by SPSS 19.0. Results from Pearson correlation analysis showed that among the
three investigated variables, language learning strategy and motivation had a significant positive relationship with learner autonomy in a
decreasing order, but anxiety was significantly and negatively correlated with learner autonomy. Results from multiple regression analy-
sis indicated that learning strategy could best significantly predict the variance of learner autonomy, followed by motivation and anxiety.
The findings would make suggestions to university policy-makers, English language lecturers, and learners on the implementation of
autonomous English language learning.

Keywords: learner autonomy; strategy; motivation; anxiety

By exploring the interrelationships between learning strategy,

motivation, anxiety and learner autonomy, this study tries to offer
1. Introduction a deeper understanding of the influence of the factors on learner
autonomy. The findings and implications in this study may help
Owing to Internet and communication technology have developed university policy-makers, EFL lecturers, and learners bear in mind
at unprecedented speed in the twenty-first century, many countries that those factors can play the significant predictive role in the
set up the long-term educational goal to promote students’ auton- promotion of learner autonomy.
omy, thus learner autonomy has been extensively studied in ter-
tiary education field (1) To keep up with the times, Chinese uni-
versities began to take reforms in English language education to 2. Literature Review
cultivate students’ ability to utilize English in an all-rounded way
through the use of advanced information technology(2). Mean- The phenomenon that some learners can learn a language quite
while, more and more English teachers have realized the urgency well in a short period, but some learners have great trouble in
of promoting learner autonomy and actually do it in their teaching language acquisition can be contributed to language learning strat-
practice through various programs(3). Still, students in many uni- egy (8). However, what does the term “learning strategy” exactly
versities have weak autonomous learning ability and rely heavily mean? Oxford (9)defined language learning strategy as “specific
on their teachers, because the promotion of learner autonomy in- actions taken by the learner to make learning easier, faster, more
volves many socio-environmental factors and learners’ personal enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transfera-
factors, among which the latter are the most direct and important ble to new situations” (p.8). These strategies can be further classi-
ones (4). Learners’ personal factors can be further divided into fied into direct ones and indirect one. The former can be subcate-
uncontrollable and controllable variables (5). The former refer to gorized into “memory, cognitive, and compensation strategy”,
those inherent ones, including age, gender, and family back- while the latter subdivided into “metacognitive, affective, and
ground; while the latter are variables that can be influenced by social strategy”. Language learning strategies can help learners
one’s own hard work, consisting of learning strategy, motivation, “internalize, store, retrieve, or use the new language” (9). Results
and anxiety. from many studies indicated that learning strategy had a close
Early researchers mainly focused on uncontrollable variables in relationship with learner autonomy. The study of Nosratinia et
second language acquisition (6). Nevertheless, the controllable al(10) showed that learner autonomy was significantly correlated
variables are the key issues in the development of learner autono- with vocabulary learning strategies. Xu and Li (4)) found that
my because autonomy relates strongly to learners’ psychological meta-cognitive strategy could best significantly predict the vari-
activities (7). In recent years, an increasing number of researchers ance of learner autonomy. Using Structural Equation Model, Tan
have explored the correlation between controllable variables and and Zhang (11) discovered the significant positive correlation
learner autonomy(4), among which language learning strategy, between learning strategy and learner autonomy. The findings of
motivation, and anxiety are discussed most. However, there are Abdipoor’s (12)study revealed that autonomous learners utilized
relatively few studies investigated the role of all these three varia- more metacognitive strategies, while non-autonomous learners
bles in autonomy simultaneously in Chinese EFL learning context. tended to use more social strategies. Though researchers agreed

Copyright © 2018 Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
International Journal of Engineering & Technology 509

that learning strategy was closely related to learner autonomy, 2) Which one can predict learner autonomy best among the
their findings were not always consistent with each other. three variables: language learning strategy, motivation, anxiety?
No one can deny the necessity of motivation in second/foreign
language acquisition, because learners’ motivation determines 3.2. Research Subjects
his/her degree of effort to learn a foreign language (13). Motiva-
tion is “the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person For the investigation of the relationships among learning strategy,
that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and eval- motivation, anxiety and learner autonomy, the researcher adopted
uates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes cluster sampling method to select 600 non-English major students
and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalized and (success- as subjects from three universities in Henan province, China. After
fully or unsuccessfully) acted out” (Dornyei & Otto, 1998, p. 65). deleting 30 invalid cases, there were 570 cases left. The features
So far, three different voices have existed on the relationship be- of the sample took part in this survey were as follows. There were
tween motivation and learner autonomy. The first point was that 257males and 313 females, 291 freshmen and 279 sophomores.
intrinsic motivation was generated and promoted in autonomous
learning environment (14). Similarly, Dörnyei and Csizer (15) 3.3. Research Instruments
stated that stronger autonomy led to stronger motivation. However,
Spratt et al. (16) claimed that motivation came before autonomy, This study adopted two set of questionnaires as the research in-
and weak motivation would hinder students’ autonomous partici- strument, because questionnaires could save time, money and
pation in learning activities. Different from the above two voices, manpower compared to other research approaches like field study;
results from considerable empirical studies showed that motiva- get real information owing to subjects’ anonymity; and generate a
tion was closely associated with autonomy. Li and Yu’s (17) study great deal of quantitative data within a short period of time (25).
revealed that learners’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations were Questionnaire one was Learners’ Personal Factors in Learner Au-
significantly correlated with their autonomous learning behaviors. tonomy (LPFLA) questionnaire, which included three parts. The
Conducting an empirical study, Ni (18)found that both instrumen- first part was language learning strategy, adapted from Oxford’s
tal and integrative motivations had a positive significant relation- (9)Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). It was sub-
ship with learner autonomy. Results from Teng and Xu’s (19) categorized into six factors “memory, cognitive, compensation,
study indicated that all types of motivations except profession- metacognitive, affective, and social strategy”. The researcher
oriented motivation had a positive significant relationship of modified the items according to two language teaching professors’
learner autonomy. In summary, the relationship between autonomy advice and made them into a 30-item questionnaire for EFL Chi-
and motivation has been mainly discussed theoretically, so more nese learning context. Cronbach alpha was employed to ensure the
empirical studies are needed to further explore this relationship. reliability and internal consistency of this part, the coefficient of
Anxiety can influence language learning process because anxious which was .905. The second part was language learning motiva-
learners are more likely to have “self-directed, derogatory cogni- tion, adapted from Gao et al.’s (26)English language learning
tion rather than focusing on the task itself”. According to motivation (ELLM) questionnaire, consisting of seven subcatego-
MacIntyre and Gardner’s (20) definition, language anxiety was ries “intrinsic interest motivation, immediate achievement motiva-
“the feeling of unease, worry, nervousness and apprehension expe- tion, situation motivation, going abroad motivation, social respon-
rienced when learning or using a second or foreign language” (p. sibility motivation, individual development motivation, and in-
284). The anxieties in language learning process were subdivided formation media motivation”. The researcher made some neces-
into three categories “communication apprehension, test anxiety sary changes and got a 25-item questionnaire for EFL Chinese
and fear of negative evaluation” (21). Up to now, many research- learning context. The reliability and internal consistency of this
ers have tried to explore the correlation between learning anxiety part, adopting Cronbach alpha, was .827. The last part was lan-
and learner autonomy, but some of their findings are contradictory guage learning anxiety, adapted from Horwitz’s (1986) Foreign
to each other. For example, Duxbury and Tsai (22)stated that U.S. Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS). It was further clas-
university learners’ English learning anxiety was not significantly sified into three subcategories “communicative apprehension, test
correlated with their cooperative learning, but results from Smith anxiety and fear of negative evaluation”. The researcher made
and Schroth’s (23)study showed that language learning anxiety some amendments and finally a 20-item questionnaire was ob-
was negatively related to learner autonomy. Though many re- tained for EFL Chinese learning context. The reliability and inter-
searchers agreed that language learning anxiety was detrimental to nal consistency of this part, using Cronbach alpha to test it,
foreign language learning, Wei (24)found that learning anxiety was .860.
could help to promote learner autonomy when influenced by per- Questionnaire two was Learner Autonomy Questionnaire (LAQ)
formance-oriented goals. adapted from Xu et al.(4) for investigating students’ learning au-
The relationships among language learning strategy, motivation, tonomy, including two parts. Part one was designed for collecting
anxiety and learner autonomy have been studied by many re- the subjects’ demographic information, including their gender,
searchers. However, those studies often center on one or two as- grade, and name of universities. Part two was designed to collect
pects, never focusing on the relationship between all the above quantitative data on students’ learning autonomy. The 25-item
three variables and learner autonomy at the same time. In autono- questionnaire was divided into three subcategories: learning objec-
mous learning process, all these factors do exist and affect learner tives and study plans, using learning strategies, monitoring and
autonomy simultaneously. This empirical study attempts to fill in evaluating learning process. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of
this gap through two research objectives: 1) to explore the rela- this part was .890, indicating that it had good reliability and inter-
tionships among language learning strategy, motivation, anxiety nal consistency.
and learner autonomy; 2) to determine the best predictor in learner Cronbach alpha coefficient of the above four parts ranged
autonomy among the three variables: learning strategy, motivation, from .827 to .905, preferable for further survey, because the ideal
and anxiety. Cronbach alpha coefficient of a scale was above 0.700 (27). The
questionnaires in this study adopted the five-point Likert scale, the
3. Methodology use of which can free the participants from immense work and
make them focus on the research, and the unbalanced five-point
Likert scale was regarded as the most preferable tool of level
3.1. Research Questions measurement in educational research. Respondents in the present
study were required to circle their options on various statements,
1) Are there any significant relationships among language which were represented by a five-point Likert scale, which ranged
learning strategy, motivation, anxiety and learner autonomy?
510 International Journal of Engineering & Technology

from “1: strongly disagree”, “2: disagree”, “3: no comment”, “4: tion (.286**), social responsibility motivation (.246**) in a decreas-
agree”, and “5: strongly agree”. ing order, but had a significant negative relationship with immedi-
ate achievement motivation (-.147**) and no significant relation-
3.4. Data Analysis ship with learning situation motivation (.051).

Data generated from survey was analyzed by SPSS Version 19.0. Table 2: Pearson Correlations between Learning Motivation and Learner
Pearson correlation coefficient was adopted to analyze the rela- Autonomy
tionships among students’ language learning strategy, motivation, Lear In- Infor Go Indi- Social Imme Lea
ning trin for- ing vidu- Re- me- rni
anxiety and learner autonomy. Multiple regression analysis was
Mo- sic mati Ab al spon- diate ng
employed for determining the best predictor among the following tiva- In- on roa De- sibil- Achie Sit-
three variables: language learning strategy, motivation, and anxie- tion tere Me- d velop ity ve- uati
ty. st dia ment ment on
Lear .368* .46 .365** .33 .286** .246** - .051
*
ner 5** 7** .147**
4. Results and Findings Au-
ton-
Before Pearson correlation in SPSS Version 19.0 was conducted, omy
assumptions test was performed to check the normality, linearity, Sig. .000 .00 .000 .00 .000 .000 .000 .227
and homoscedasticity of the collected data. Each variable’s nor- (2- 0 0
mality was tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and the results taile
d)
showed that the variables’ distribution was normal (p>.05). In
N 570 570 570 57 570 570 570 570
addition, the correlations between the variables were linear, and 0
the variability in scores for the variables was similar. Therefore, **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
the preliminary analyses showed that the assumptions were not The results of this study have verified the hypothesis proposed by
violated. Dörnyei and Csizer (28) that motivation had a close relationship
The results in Table 1 showed that a medium positive relationship with learner autonomy. The findings that the relationship between
existed between learning strategy and learner autonomy (.444). In intrinsic interest motivation and learner autonomy was the most
addition, learner autonomy had a significant positive relationship significant were in line with the study of Wang and Xu(29), show-
with all categories of language learning strategy in a decreasing ing that students who are fascinated to a foreign language and its
order, including metacognitive (.379**), cognitive (.356**), social culture will be more autonomous in acquiring this language. Thus,
(.342**), affective (.340**), memory (.332**), and compensation it is suggested that language lecturers should adopt various teach-
strategies (.305**). ing methods to arouse students’ interests in learning English lan-
guage, which will make them actively and consciously set up
Table 1: Pearson Correlations between Learning Strategy and Learner
learning objectives, determine learning content, use learning strat-
Autonomy
Lear Meta- Cog- So- Af- Me Com-
egies, and evaluate learning process. It was surprised to find that
ning cogni- ni- cial fec- mor pensa- immediate achievement motivation had a significant negative
Strat tive tive Stra tive y tion relationship with learner autonomy, which echoed with the study
egy Strate- Strat tegy Strat Stra Strate- of Xu and Li(4). This indicates that in the exam-oriented context,
gy egy egy tegy gy learners often pay too much attention to their academic achieve-
Learn .444* .379** .356** .342* .340* .332* .305** ments, which is surely detrimental to the promotion of learner
* * * *
er autonomy.
Au- The results in Table 3 indicated that language learning anxiety was
ton-
negatively associated with learner autonomy (-.309). Additionally,
omy
Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
learner autonomy had a significant negative relationship with all
(2- categories of learning anxiety, among which communicative ap-
tailed prehension (-.284**) was the highest, test anxiety (-.276**), the
) middle, and fear of negative evaluation (-.252**), the smallest.
N 570 570 570 570 570 570 570
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Table 3: Pearson Correlations between Learning Anxiety and Learner
The results that learning strategy and learner autonomy are posi- Autonomy
tively correlated with each other indicate that the effective use of Learning Communicative Test Fear of
learning strategy is the guarantee of implementing autonomous Anxiety Apprehension Anxiety Negative
Evaluation
learning to university English language education. Among differ-
Learner -.309** -.284** -.276** -.252**
ent learning strategies, the results that metacognitive strategies had Autonomy
the highest significant relationship with learner autonomy were Sig (2- .000 .000 .000 .000
consistent with the studies of Ni (18) Xu and Li (4), suggesting tailed)
that metacognitive strategy which involved language learning plan, N 570 570 570 570
self-monitor, and learning evaluation had the greatest influence on **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
learner autonomy. However, this statement differs slightly with Many researchers agreed that language learning anxiety was det-
the results of the following two studies. Nosratinia et al.’s (10) rimental to foreign language learning, but some previous studies
study showed that social strategy and the memory strategy were had the conflicting results. Results from Zhao’s (30) study showed
the two best predictors of learner autonomy. Results from Pan’s (2) that no significant relationship existed between foreign language
study showed that compensation and cognitive strategy were the performance and two kinds of foreign language anxiety, i.e.,
most influencing factors in the promotion of learner autonomy, “communication apprehension and fear of negative evaluation”,
while affective strategies were the least influential factors. but it was negatively correlated with test anxiety. The results of
The results in Table 2 revealed that learning motivation was posi- this study were supported by Liu’s (31) emprical study in that
tively correlated with learner autonomy (.368). Moreover, learner learning anxiety had a negative relationship with learner autonomy.
autonomy had a significant positive relationship with intrinsic The results that communication apprehension was most signifi-
interest motivation (.465**), information media motivation (.365**), cantly and negatively with learner autonomy echoed with Xu and
going abroad motivation (.337**), individual development motiva- Li’s i(4) study, showing that in the Chinese speaking context,
International Journal of Engineering & Technology 511

students are very anxious when communicating with others in Table 4: Model Summery
English. As a result, language lecturers should focus on language Mod Predic- B Std. Be- T Toler- VIF P
learners’ emotions and try to help them overcome those language el tors Er- ta ance
learning anxieties. (Con- ror
stant)
To further explore the relationships among language learning
1 Learn- .93 .079 .44 11.8 1.000 3.19 .00
strategy, motivation, anxiety and learner autonomy, multiple re- ing 4 4 14 0 0
gression analysis was adopted to explore which factors can be the Strategy
best predictor in the variance of learner autonomy. Assumptions 2 Learn- .77 .080 .36 9.69 .910 2.52 .00
test was performed to check the muticollinearity, outliers, normali- ing 4 8 4 4 0
ty, and homoscedasticity of the collected data. According to Pal- strategy
lant (27), Tolerance is “an indicator of how much of the variability Learn- .62 .093 .25 6.68 .905 2.32 .00
of the specified independent variable is not explained by the other ing 4 4 9 2 3
independent variables in the model” (p. 164). The small Tolerance Motiva-
tion
value (less than .10) indicates the possibility of muticollinearity.
3 Learn- .75 .077 .36 9.89 .909 2.36 .00
VIF (Variance inflation factor) is “the inverse of the Tolerance ing 9 1 5 4 0
value”, whose big value (above 10) suggests the possibility of strategy
muticollinearity (27). From Table 4, it can be seen that all the Learn- .69 .090 .28 7.67 .900 1.85 .00
values of tolerance were more than .10, and all the values of VIF ing 1 1 4 6 0
were between 1.00-2.00, much less than 10. As a result, there was Motiva-
no possibility of muticollinearity. tion
From the Normal P-P Plot (Fig.1), it can be seen that most points Learn- - 068 - - .989 1.38 .00
were in a straight line from bottom left to top right, suggesting that ing .47 .24 7.01 1 2
Anxiety 8 5 2
the points distribute normally. In the Scatterplot (Fig. 2), it can be
a. Dependent Variable: Learner Autonomy
found that most scores range from -3.3 to +3.3, only a few scatter- 1. R= .444, R2= .198; Adjusted R2= .196; F=670.790; P=.000
ing out of that range. Outliers were “cases that have a standardized 2. R= .506, R2= .256; Adjusted R2= .254; F=97.538; P=.000
residual of more than 3.3, or less than -3.3”. Therefore, the prelim- 3. R= .562, R2= .316; Adjusted R2= .312; F=86.951; P=.000
inary analysis showed that the assumptions were not violated. The results of multiple regression analysis echoed with Xu and
Li’s i(4) finding that language learning strategy could best predict
the variance of learner autonomy among the following variables:
learning strategy, motivation, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and
attribution. Similar results were found in Shang and Kou (1) study
that metacognitive strategy could predict learner autonomy best,
followed by cognitive strategy.

5. Conclusion
This study attempts to explore the relationships among language
learning strategy, motivation, anxiety, and learner autonomy. The
Fig. 1: Normal P-P Plot
research findings showed that learner autonomy was significantly
and positively correlated with all categories of learning strategy in
a decreasing order, including metacognitive, cognitive, social,
affective, memory, and compensation strategy. Besides, intrinsic
interest motivation had the most significant positive relationship
with learner autonomy, followed by information media, going
abroad, individual development, social responsibility motivation,
while immediate achievement motivation had a significant nega-
tive relationship with learner autonomy. Moreover, learner auton-
omy was significantly and negatively correlated with all categories
of learning anxiety, among which communicative apprehension
Fig. 2: Scatterplot was the highest, test anxiety, the middle, and fear of negative
evaluation, the smallest. To conclude, among the three investigat-
From Table 4, it can be known that language learning strategy ed variables, learning strategy and motivation had a significant
(R= .444, R2 = .198) explained 19.8% of the variance in learner positive relationship with learner autonomy, but anxiety was sig-
autonomy. The predictive power was then increased to 25.6% nificantly and negatively correlated with learner autonomy. The
(R= .506, R2 = .256) by language learning motivation. All the results of multiple regression analysis revealed that learning strat-
three predictors could explain 31.6% of the variance in learner egy could best predict the variance in learner autonomy, followed
autonomy in the third model (R= .562, R2 = .316). The biggest by motivation and anxiety.
Beta value of language learning strategy (Beta=.361) indicated Some important implications can be obtained from the findings of
that it could best predict the variance of learner autonomy, fol- this study. First, it is very urgent for both EFL learners and lectur-
lowed by language learning motivation (Beta=.281) and language ers to acknowledge the necessity of training students’ learning
learning anxiety (Beta= -.245), as shown in Table 4. In addition, strategies for promoting their autonomy. For language lecturers,
the results of the ANOVA test of significance (F (570) =670.790, they can introduce some strategic knowledge to their students first
P= .000 < .01) in the first regression model, (F (570) = 97.538, and then cultivate their ability to use learning strategies through
P= .000 < .01) in the second regression model, and (F (570) various learning assignments. For language learners, they should
=86.951, P= .000 < .01) in the third regression model indicated master some knowledge of learning strategies and attempt to uti-
that learning strategy, motivation, and anxiety were the significant lize them in their language learning process. Second, language
predictors of learner autonomy. lecturers can organize some group activities like workshops, Eng-
lish club, TV viewing, and English corner to arouse students’ in-
trinsic interest motivation to promote learner autonomy. Intrinsic
512 International Journal of Engineering & Technology

interest motivation determines learners’ efforts in study and enthu- [15] Dornyei Z, Ottó I. Motivation in action: A process model of L2
siasm in participating activities. The stronger intrinsic interest motivation. 1998.
motivation learners have, the more active they will participate into [16] Spratt M, Humphreys G, Chan V. Autonomy and motivation: which
comes first? Language teaching research. 2002;6(3):245-66.
various autonomous language learning activities. Finally, language
[17] Li K, Yu LM. The Relationships Among Learning Motivation,
lecturers must acknowledge the side effect of different anxieties in Self-efficacy, Attribution and Autonomous Learning Behavior.
foreign language acquisition and try to reduce them in students’ Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice. 2008.
language input, processing and output. Many factors can provoke [18] Qingquan N. An empirical study of the correlation between
language learning anxieties in students, including their prior aca- learning motivations, strategies and autonomy in college English
demic performance, fear of failing in the tests, and afraid of speak- learning [J]. Foreign Language World. 2010;3:007.
ing a foreign language in public. As a result, it is of great necessity [19] Teng YH, Xu H. A Study on Correlations between Normal College
for language lecturers to help their students successfully overcome Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability, Motivation and English
Academic Achievements. Jiangsu Education Research. 2015.
language learning anxiety and have more genuine interest in learn-
[20] MacIntyre PD, Gardner RC. The subtle effects of language anxiety
ing English. on cognitive processing in the second language. Language learning.
However, there are still some limitations. First, the sample cases 1994;44(2):283-305.
only cover a small number of students in three universities in He- [21] Horwitz EK, Young DJ. Language anxiety: From theory and
nan province, China, thus the findings are confined to those uni- research to classroom implications: Pearson College Div; 1991.
versities only. Second, other factors affecting learner autonomy [22] Duxbury JG, Tsai L-l. The Effects of Cooperative Learning on
like self-efficacy, attribution, and learning environment are not Foreign Language Anxiety: A Comparative Study of Taiwanese
discussed here. Another limitation of this study is that it has and American Universities. Online Submission. 2010;3(1):3-18.
[23] Smith B, Schroth T. Anxiety in the Foreign Language Classroom.
adopted the quantitative method. However, the qualitative method
Academic Exchange Quarterly. 2014;1(18):1-6.
like conducting interview with language lecturers and students can [24] Wei XB. The Structural Analysis of University Students’
offer some new insights. Mixed method of qualitative and quanti- Achievement Goal Orientation, Learning Anxiety and Self-access
tative should be adopted to explore and expend the findings by Behavior. Foreign Language World. 2014(14):12-20.
identifying new more factors affecting learner autonomy. [25] Dörnyei Z. The psychology of second language acquisition: Oxford
University Press Oxford; 2009.
[26] Gao Y, Zhao Y, Cheng Y, Zhou Y. Motivation types of Chinese
Acknowledgement college undergraduates. Modern Foreign Languages.
2003;26(1):28-38.
This research work is supported by the Project (EIA160479) sup- [27] Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: McGraw-Hill Education (UK);
ported by Ministry of Education of China. 2013.
[28] Dörnyei Z, Csizér K. Ten commandments for motivating language
learners: Results of an empirical study. Language teaching research.
References 1998;2(3):203-29.
[29] Wang QS, Xu QX. A Study on Influence of English Learning
Motivation upon Undergraduates’ Autonomous Learning. ournal of
[1] Shang JG, Kou JN. The Reciprocal Effect of Learners’ Individual
Nanchang Hangkong University: Social Sciences. 2015;17(3):105-
Factors on Learner Autonomy. oreign Languages and Their
11.
Teaching. 2015(4):69-7.
[30] Na Z. A study of high school students’ English learning anxiety.
[2] Pan SF. The Effects of Learning Strategies on Learner Autonomy
The Asian EFL Journal. 2007;9(3):22-34.
under Multimodality-mediated Environment A Case Study at NEU:
[31] Liu H-j. Understanding EFL Undergraduate Anxiety in Relation to
Northeastern University; 2013.
Motivation, Autonomy, and Language Proficiency. Electronic
[3] Li Y. Longitudinal effects of a learner development program on
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 2012;9(1).
autonomy in English learning [J]. Foreign Language World.
2010;3:005.
[4] Xu JF, Li BB. Effects of EFL Learner Controllable Factors on
College Students’ Autonomous English Learning Ability. Modern
Foreign Languages. 2014;5(37):647-56.
[5] Wen Q-f. Advanced level English language learning in China: The
relationship of modifiable learner variables to learning outcomes.
香港大學學位論文. 1993:1-0.
[6] Oxford R, Nyikos M. Variables affecting choice of language
learning strategies by university students. The modern language
journal. 1989;73(3):291-300.
[7] Davison G. Investigating the relationships between authentic
assessment and the development of learner autonomy: Northumbria
University; 2011.
[8] William M, Burden R. Psychology for language teachers.
Cambrdge: Cambridge. 1997.
[9] Graham M. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher
Should Know. Rebecca L. Oxford. Tesol Quarterly.
1993;27(1):121-2.
[10] Nosratinia M, Eftekhari N, Sarabcian E. An exploration of the
relationship between autonomy and vocabulary learning strategies.
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied
Linguistics World. 2013;4(3):71-80.
[11] Xia T, Zhenghou Z. Relationships among language learning
strategies, learner autonomy and CET 4 scores. Foreign Language
Learning Theory and Practice. 2015;1:011.
[12] Abdipoor N, Gholami H. Autonomous and Non-Autonomous EFL
Learners’ Strategies and Practices. International Journal of Foreign
Language Teaching and Research. 2016;4(14):107-21.
[13] Koçak A. A Study on Learners' Readiness for Autonomous
Learning of English as a Foreign Language: METU; 2003.
[14] Deci E, Ryan R. I n tri n sic M oti va tio n a n d S elf-D etermi n a
tio n i n Hu m a n B e h av ior. P le n um P ress. 1985.