Examining The Relationship Between EFL Learners’ L2 Motivational Self System

(L2MSS) And Their Intended Learning Efforts As Well As Academic Writing

Achievement
 2

Literature Review

Writing has been widely seen as the most pivotal and taxing skill within formal

education contexts. According to a vast array of empirical studies, academic writing is

really important, especially when one enters a university or enrolls in graduate studies,

because ‘‘students entering academic disciplines need specialized literacy that consists of

the ability to use discipline-specific rhetorical and linguistic conventions to serve their

purposes as writers’’ (Berkenkotter et al., 1989, para. 2). Bridgeman and Carlson (1984),

for instance, conducted a survey of the writing needs of entering undergraduates and

graduates in several disciplines, including engineering from 34 universities with a

relatively high number of international student enrollments. The result indicated that

writing was crucial not only for graduate schemes but also for professional success after

graduation and the most successful practicing engineers were all good at writing.

Similarly, Zhu and Flaitz (2005) noted that both undergraduate and graduate students

expressed desperate needs for producing good academic writing and that this skill needed

to be sharpened. As a result, deficiency in writing may hinder students from many aspects

of life.

However, writing is complex and widely acknowledged not to be acquired easily,

especially for students who are studying English as a second language (L2) or a foreign

language (Graham, Harris & Mason, 2005; Zhu & Flaitz, 2005; Bridgeman & Carlson,

1984; Jenkins et al., 1993). Acknowledging the importance and the intractable nature of

writing, over the past decades, scholars have conducted numerous studies to suggest
 3

satisfactory solutions to facilitate the achievement of effective writing. The widespread

consensus among scholars is that motivation is one of the powerful factors affecting

language acquisition. With regard to L2 acquisition, Gardner (1985) explicated the

concept of L2 motivation as “the extent to which the individual works or strives to learn

the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity”

(p. 10). Motivation which gives impetus to action has been receiving much attention from

researchers as it has proved to be useful and important (Miner, 2003). Dörnyei (2005) is

in agreement when he claimed that if students did not maintain strong motivation, they

could not achieve their ultimate learning goals despite their exceptional learning

competence as well as well-designed programs and teaching methodology.

Cognitive psychologists, e.g., Deci and Ryan (1985), proposed two types of

motivations: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. According to them, learners with intrinsic

motivation do the activities because of their own pleasure and satisfaction. In other

words, there are no external cues, e.g., promised rewards or pressure, needed to trigger

their behavior. Learners with extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, are driven by

externally imposed incentives or punishments. The learners perform a task because they

either expect to receive some tangible rewards or approval or are afraid of losing some

benefits from external sources. Another approach to L2 motivation suggested by social

psychologists Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) is the socio-educational concept of

integrative motivation and instrumental motivation. While learners with integrative

motivation express positive attitudes toward the community of the target language and

endeavor to socioculturally integrate with members of that community, instrumentally

 4

motivated learners want to learn a language due to functional purposes (e.g., getting a

better job, attaining social status, etc.). In the area of L2 motivation, integrative and

instrumental motivation has been the most influential theoretical model and “the centre of

L2 motivation research” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009, p. 23). In a considerable number of

studies, Gardner along with other co-authors reported that students driven by integrative

factors were more successful than those with instrumental motivation (see, e.g., Gardner,

1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1959; Spolsky, 1969).

However, the concept of integrativeness and instrumentality was critiqued for lack

of cross-context consistency. In other words, the aforementioned findings of Gardner and

his associates (1959, 1985) were challenged by numerous studies. The study investigating

English-speaking Jewish students learning Hebrew conducted by Anisfeld and Lambert

(1961) and the study conducted by Lukmani (1972) exploring motivation to learn English

of Marathi-speaking high school students revealed that the more successful students were

instrumentally motivated. Dörnyei (2009) also contended that the notion of integrative

motivation was “rather limiting” and “did not make too much sense in many language

learning environments” (p. 10). As a result, Dörnyei (2005, 2009) attempted to put

forward the new model of ‘L2 motivational self-system’ (L2MSS).

The L2MSS is considered as a strong contributor in articulating the stimuli of

second language acquisition and determining the learning outcome (Yousefi &

Mahmoodi, 2022). In addition, English academic writing plays a critical role in a

learner’s work and study, yet presents challenges for most writers. Therefore, in an effort

to facilitate academic writing, investigating the relation between L2MSS and the intended
 5

learning efforts as well as academic writing achievement appears to be seminal. This

current paper gives a comprehensive literature review of this relationship.

The Background of L2MSS

As the concept of integrative motivation was challenged in the background of

globalization, Dörnyei (2005) first introduced the L2MSS, based on the theories of

possible selves (Markus and Nurius, 1986) and self-discrepancy (Higgins, 1987). This

self-framework examines the motivation in language learning and L2 learning behavior.

Possible and Ideal Selves

An individual has “ideas, beliefs and images about their potential and about their

goals, hopes, fears” (Markus & Nurius, 1986, p. 955), explaining that the self-system and

specific behavior are strongly connected to each other. This relation had been examined

explicitly when Markus and Nurius (1985) proposed the possible selves theory,

representing “individuals’ ideas of what they might become, what they would like to

become, and what they are afraid of becoming” (p. 954) in the form of three distinct

components: the expected-self, the hoped-self, and the fear-self. This cognitive concept

functions as future self-guides, providing not only motivation for behavior in the future

but also a context for judgment of now-self (Markus & Nurius, 1986).

A similar scheme called self-discrepancy put forward by Higgins (1987) argued

that motivation comes from the desire to reduce the discomfort caused by the gap

between their hope self and their actual self (Dörnyei, 2009). The three components were
 6

used, but precisely defined as technical terms, including: the ideal self, the ought-to self,

and the actual self. Among them, the first two components refer to a person’s self-

mechanism while the remaining present self-direction to pilot the real self.

Reconceptualization of L2MSS

In 2009, Dörnyei reconceptualized the model, focusing more on the motivational

dynamic of second language learners. Since 2011, many studies have been carried out to

test its validity as a means of explaining L2 learner’s motivation in Japan (Kikuchi,

2019), Saudi (see, e.g., Moskovsky & Alrabai, 2009; Moskovsky et al., 2016), Turkey

(Yetkin, & Ekin, 2018), Indonesia (Subekti, 2018), etc., showing that the three internal

components of L2MSS may operate differently in different sociocultural contexts.

L2MSS’ components

Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2MSS consists of three components: the Ideal L2 Self,

the Ought-to L2 Self and the L2 Learning Experience. Being the center of this model,

both Ideal L2 Self and Ought-to L2 Self belong to future self-guides.

The Ideal L2 Self

This component functioning as an influential motive to diminish the gap between

learners' desired self and their current self (Dörnyei, 2009) has received a large amount of

attention from researchers. It has been found to be the strongest predictor of the other

dynamic nature of second language learners, especially with learner’s subjective intended
 7

effort which will be discussed later.

The theoretical framework L2MSS not only inherited from previous research on

motivation but also innovated the ideas from Gardner (1972, 1985) to make them relevant

in today’s globalized world. Specifically, although both the integrated motivation

(Gardner, 1985) and the Ideal L2 Self (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009) refer to the concept of

identification of oneself, they are not mutually exclusive, but complement each other

(Claro, 2019). The difference between these two is that while integrated motivation

concerns identification with an external factor, namely the L2 group or community, the

Ideal L2 Self represents identification with an internal factor because it relates to their

own fantasy (Claro, 2019).

The Ought-to L2 Self

The Ought-to L2 Self is socially constructed, grounded on the learner's desire of

meeting external expectations and avoidance of bad results (Dörnyei, 2005). This less-

internalized dimension entails more with the one’s attributes during their learning, instead

of with their desire or wishes.

The strong relation between this dimension and learners' motivation during their

language learning has been acknowledged in many studies. In contrast to agreement

among most researchers on the importance of the Ideal L2 as the strongest predictor of

L2 motivation, this prevention-focused aspect of instrumentality motives has been proved

to be more significant in many studies. Regarding studies in the Turkey context, society
 8

expectation was considered as an explanation for EFL learner’s first consideration to

learn language (Yetkin & Ekin, 2018). Csizér and Kormos (2009) also found that parents'

pressure resulted in motivated behaviors in learners in Hungary. The importance of

external factors was also found in Asian culture where influence from community and

peer played an equal or stronger role in shaping motivation compared to the Ideal L2 Self

(see, e.g., Kim & Kim, 2012; Taguchi et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2015; Kong et al., 2018).

The L2 Learning Experience

Unlike the aforementioned components, this dimension centers around learners’

attitude when they engage in their language class (Dörnyei, 2009), highlighting the

importance of examining the factors affecting learner’s attitude, engagement or

experience in their language learning.

A Dutch linguist, Kees De Bot (2014) argued that motivation is dynamic due to

various external distractions. Diane Larsen-Freeman (2014) in her ‘Ten ‘Lessons’ from

Complex Dynamic System Theory: What is on Offer’ also stated, “A change in any of

these contributing factors (the time of day of the class, the teacher, the method,

interaction with other students, etc.) may restore the learner’s motivation and lead to

more salutary results” (p. 15). Therefore, students’ engagement directly linking to

classroom behaviors of learners is considered superior to the concept of motivation

(Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020).

However, despite the need to be examined carefully, this component receives less
 9

attention from researchers in comparison with the other two self-based dimensions in

L2MSS. Therefore, many have argued for its prominent role in shaping L2 motivation.

Ushioda’ s (2009) studies found that there was a strong relation between learners’ past

experience and their L2 learning, indicating that current experience might influence

future self (ideal or ought-to) (Csizér, 2019).

The relationship between components of L2MSS and intended learning effort

It is obvious that there are a number of factors leading to academic learning

achievement. Apart from the three components of L2MSS that are mentioned above, the

intended learning effort also plays an essential role in determining the effect of L2

motivators during the learning process.

The definition of intended learning effort

On the one hand, as mentioned in the study of Alharbi (2017), the intended

learning effort was defined as “the learners’ willingness to act upon their motivation” (p.

18), which was the most essential contributor for them to acquire knowledge practically

in their self-directed learning process and shaping motivation in L2 learning. On the other

hand, the intended learning effort can be seen as the learners’ behaviors that were

motivated by several factors to reach the final achievement when learning a language

(Zoltán Dörnyei, 2009). In another way, it is believed to be the “learners' anticipated

efforts in learning English” (Arslan & Çiftçi, 2021, p. 4), and according to Putra (2021),

he defined it as a “desire and intention” of the learners, which stimulated them to invest
 10

their time and energy to demonstrate their academic performance (p. 2). In general, from

these perspectives, the intended learning effort can be seen as the intrinsic motivation

(i.e., willingness and desire when learning a language), and the extrinsic motivation

(motivated behavior and the effort to achieve the learning goals).

In many studies, researchers tend to combine the intended learning effort with

other components of L2MSS (The Ideal L2-Self, the Ought-to L2 and the L2 Learning

Experience) in order to figure out whether they are related to each other or not, and how

effective they are on the learners’ performance. For the first purpose, it is indicated that

there was a strong relationship between L2MSS and the intended effort (Moskovsky et

al., 2016). Particularly, the former elements were proved to be significant predictors of

the latter (Al-Hoorie, 2018; Xu & Ji, 2021; Martinović, & Burić, 2021). However, Arslan

and Çiftçi (2021) argued that it was the intended effort that contributed to the prediction

of aforementioned components. Therefore, it could be concluded that the L2MSS and the

intended effort can have certain effects on each other to some extent. Additionally, the

L2MSS forms a strong and positive relationship with the intended effort (Yetkin & Ekin,

2018), which is aligned with Al-Hoorie’s (2018) and Martinović’s (2021) studies.

Although a critical correlation between L2MSS and the intended effort has been

confirmed in recent studies, the discrepancy of the level of influence among the

motivational system components on the intended learning effort is still a debatable topic

among the researchers.

The relationship between L2 experience and the intended learning effort

 11

According to Al-Hoorie (2018), the findings showed an “unusually high

correlation of intended effort with the L2 learning experience” (p. 733). This was in line

with the results from the Arslan and Çiftçi’s (2021) study, which indicated a strong

positive relation between two mentioned factors.

The relationship between Ought-to L2 and intended learning effort

When it comes to the Ought-to L2, Zoltán Dörnyei (2009) concluded that the

intended effort played a marginal role in creating the students’ learning behaviors, which

agreed with the striking evidence given by Al-Hoorie when he drew a conclusion about

the moderate connection between the Ought-to L2 and intended effort. Sharing the

common point of view with Dörnyei and Al-Hoorie, Ghorbani and Rashvand Semiyari

(2022) also reported a modest role of the Ought-to-L2 that had been predicted in the

Iranian students’ effort. Despite the medium level of contribution from the Ought-to L2

that had been proven above, there was “no significant relationship with intended effort in

any language group” (Yang & Chanyoo, 2022, p. 260). As a whole, from the research

about the Ought-to L2 and the learners’ effort, it showed that the relationship was slight

and not considerable enough to be recognized.

The relationship between Ideal L2 and intended learning effort

When we consider the final factor of the list, the Ideal L2-Self did perform a

converse role, compared to the Ought-to L2. According to Dörnyei (2009), it was

constantly accepted to be sustainably corresponded with the intended learning effort. It

 12

was not only convincing when being evaluated with Chinese, Japanese and Korean

learners but also demonstrated a positive relationship between these two variables in the

study of Yang and Chanyoo (2022). Moreover, apart from being “the most important

variable explaining the intended effort” (Ghorbani and Rashvand Semiyari, 2022, p. 36),

it was globally accepted to be the strong predictor contributing remarkably to learners’

effort.

Overall, with regards to the comparison of the influencing level of three

components on the intended learning effort, it is widely agreed that “the Ideal L2 Self

came forth as the strongest explanatory variable”, which was followed by the “Attitude

towards L2 Learning and then by Ought-to L2 Self” (Ghorbani & Rashvand Semiyari,

2022, p. 37). The comparison between the impact of the Ideal L2 and that of the Ought-to

L2 on the intended effort was also obvious in the findings of Martinović and Burić

(2021).

It can be concluded that due to the influence of L2MSS components, the intended

L2 learning effort substantially enhanced, which thereafter encouraged the learners to

strive for achieving their aims and plans in the active learning process (Yang, 2019).

Although there was a slightly different level of influence from the L2MSS on the

intended learning effort, “the regulatory bias of intended effort is not limited to the

L2MSS studies” and “this construct has also been used in relation to other motivational

framework” (Papi et al., 2019, p. 335).

 13

The relationship between intended learning efforts and academic writing

achievement

Most L2 learners attempt to be competent in all skills of language, including

learning to write. Writing skill is not simple since it is not only about completing learning

tasks but also expressing thoughts (Ariyanti, 2016). As mentioned in Leki’s (1983) and

Hyland’s (2003) studies, writing is the communication among writers as well as between

writers and readers. Among different kinds of writing, academic writing defined as “a

mental and cognitive activity” has been considered as the most advanced level (Fadda,

2012, p. 124). According to Paker et al., (2004), two phrases, academic achievement and

academic success, can be used similarly. Nevertheless, Choi (2005) illustrated academic

achievement is when learners complete the course requirements and reach a high GPA.

After a decade, York et al., (2015) concluded that academic success contains six

components which are “academic achievement, attainment of learning objectives,

acquisition of desired skills and competencies, satisfaction, persistence, and post-college

performance” (p. 9).

Over the last decades, writing ability has played an important role not only in

academics but also in future careers (National Commission on Writing, 2004). The

demand for academic proficiency increased when writing assignments were encouraged

to be required for any courses (National Commission on Writing, 2003). Despite its

importance, “academic writing is a challenging task” for most L2 learners at any level

(Wischgoll, 2016, p. 187). This formal writing is not based on the author’ s preconception
 14

but data from multiple sources will be analyzed, combined and organized in an impartial

way to support author’s position toward a topic (Boscolo et al., 2007); therefore, students

encounter numerous difficulties during their writing learning (Hyland, 2003; Erkan &

Saban, 2011). With arrays of hindrances, researchers have attempted to find out what

constitutes academic writing success, and a significant relation between motivation and

writing performance has been pointed out (Graham et al., 2007; Nasihah & Cahyono,

2017). The section below will explore the relation between intended efforts (one kind of

motivation) and academic writing achievement.

The relationship between intended learning efforts and academic writing achievement

In recent research, authors have used the term intended learning efforts as the

relevant criterion measure to investigate how much effort that learners put into their

studying (Alshahrani, 2016; Al-Hoorie, 2018; Dörnyei, 2006). As mentioned in the

section above, intended learning efforts were regarded as motivated behaviors; however,

according to Moskovsky (2016), it was categorized into two components, including

perceived learning efforts (PLE) and intended learning behavior (ILB). Also in this

study, there were unexpected findings that PLE did not show the relation to L2 language

achievement and ILB illustrated a negative connection with learning achievement.

Besides, the results in Kim and Kim’s (2011) and Al-Hoorie’s (2016) studies revealed

that intended efforts appeared as a weak predictor of achievement. On the contrary, there

was other research supporting the role of intended learning efforts in language learning.

When compared to the three components of L2MSS, this motivational factor was

acknowledged as the most important contributor to secondary school EFL learners'

 15

success (Yetkin & Ekin, 2018). In addition, Shih (2019) indicated that intended efforts

connected with self-efficacy, which leads to achievement. This means that learners with

high effectiveness make more effort into the learning process, and as a result, they do not

face many challenges in academic performance. Other research (e.g., Bandura, 1997;

Pajares & Urdan, 2006; Zimmeran, 2000) together shared the same point. Furthermore,

Yang (2019) suggested that intended efforts would be enhanced by creating a study plan

(i.e., what learners should do) at the beginning and reflecting frequently. Consequently, it

is remarkable that when being an independent variable, intended efforts cannot directly

impact on the achievement (Li & Zhang, 2021).

In general, the correlation between the intended learning effort and academic

writing achievement has not been fully explored. According to Wong (2018), this

criterion acts as a bridge connecting L2 selves and reading achievement. Another study

reported that the intended effort indirectly related to writing outcome through learning

objectives and strategies (Shih, 2019). From all the aforementioned studies, we draw out

that the intended learning effort has influences on academic achievements in both direct

or indirect ways.

The relationship between L2MSS and Academic Writing Achievement

Myriad quantitative research was undertaken in five countries (i.e., Hungary

(Csizér & Kormos, 2009); Japan, China and Iran (Taguchi et al., 2009); Saudi Arabia

(Al-Shehri, 2009) with different participants from various educational attainments with

and without English majors to evaluate and validate the L2MSS precisely. The findings
 16

in the previous three years revealed that all of the mentioned research provided solid

support for the hypothesized system. Moreover, there was a close correlation between the

L2MSS model and Higgin (1987, 1998)’s previous models. The L2MSS was also found

to be in parallel with the theories proposed by Gardner (2001), Ushioda (2001), and

Noels (2003), which gave it further support (Dörnyei, 2009). In addition, Azarnoosh

manifested in his work that the L2MSS was verified in a variety of language and cultural

contexts and “has been found to be related to other SLA theoretical frameworks and

concepts.” (2014, p. 325) by citing numerous reliable studies in the same line; therefore,

L2MSS could be seen as a trustworthy and validated scheme when it comes to predicting

motivation. Alongside its relation to intended learning efforts, the L2MSS model has

been employed in numerous research pieces to predict students’ learning achievement.

Three main components of L2MSS show different extents of their predicting ability,

which will be mentioned later. In the academic language learning context of this writing,

the terms L2 achievement and students’ L2 achievement will be used frequently.

The Relationship Between L2MSS and L2 Achievement

Three pieces of research conducted in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Pakistan by

Moskovsky et al. (2016), Subekti (2018), and Bushra & Sheikh (2022) shared the same

findings in which L2MSS had no effect in predicting achievement. In other words, the

L2MSS of participants could not be seen as a strong L2 achievement predictor. Li &

Zhang (2021) contributed to this relation by indicating that L2MSS had a weak effect in

predicting the L2 achievement of Tiberian students.

 17

In contrast to these above studies, where there is no relationship between the

L2MSS model and L2 achievement, Al-Hoorie (2018) discovered that the relation of

L2MSS and achievement was “weak but there seem to be several means to improve the

predictive validity of the Ideal L2 self when it comes to actual language achievement.”

(p. 736). As can be seen, the impact of L2MSS components came into sight in

determining learners’ L2 achievement. The relationship was detected to be stronger when

the investigation of Demirdoken & Atay (2022) observed a moderate interconnection

between Ideal L2 and L2 achievement and a weak interconnection between the Ought-to

L2 Self and achievement. Khan (2015) and Apple et al. (2020)’s research could

strengthen this connection when their findings likewise indicated that the Ideal L2 Self

affected students’ L2 achievement more remarkably than the Ought-to L2 Self. Besides

the two selves from L2MSS, the third component and the L2 Learning Experience, could

possibly create a connection with L2 achievement, as proven in Tan et al. (2017)’s work

that L2 Learning Experience had a strong correlation with participants’ achievement. In

his examination, Tort Calvo (2015) concurred that while the L2 Learning Experience was

significantly connected to the Ideal L2 Self and retained influence on learning outcomes,

the Ought-to L2 Self’s impact was revealed to be negligible. However, despite the scanty

impact of the Ought-to L2 Self on achievement in recently mentioned studies, Chen

(2022) believed that the “Ought-to L2-self drew a more intensive impact on learners’ L2

learning outcomes than the Ideal L2-self.” (p. 51). This result, however, was detected in

different learning contexts, which means the Ought-to-L2 could only prove its strong

validity in the ESL classroom.

 18

In conclusion, while the Ideal L2 and L2 Learning Experience could predict

optimistic L2 achievement, the Ideal L2 is the dominant component. Among all three

components, the Ought-to L2 Self has a weaker capacity to forecast L2 achievement and

could merely work in specific settings.

Academic Writing Achievement – Correlation To L2MSS

The L2MSS model could facilitate predicting students’ L2 achievement in general

and language skill achievement, proven by numerous studies. Three remarkable research

studies demonstrated different outcomes when applying L2MSS to estimate macro skills

performance: (1) The Ideal L2 affected achievement in listening skills (Chuah et al.,

2022); (2) All the L2MSS components influenced communication skills (i.e., the Ideal L2

was the dominant factor, followed by L2 Learning Experience and the Ought-to L2 had

the most negligible impact) (Darling & Chanyoo, 2018); (3) The Ideal L2 Self was also

recognized to be related to reading achievement (Wong, 2018). Referring to writing,

Österberg et al. (2022) argued that limitless research had shown motivation to be critical

in developing L2 writing skills. Nevertheless, relatively few studies have explicitly

explored the connection between academic writing skills enhancement and motivation

using the L2MSS model. In these investigations, the Ought-to L2 was found to have

weak connection with writing and even cause a negative effect on students’ achievement

(Jang & Lee, 2019; Tahmouresi & Papi, 2021); however, the final findings firmly

supported the motivating force of the Ideal L2 Self that it had a direct facilitative effect

on L2 writing performance. Furthermore, Österberg & Sologuren (2022) emphasized that

 19

the L2 Learning Experience had a positive effect on writing results. These two variables

could be seen as excellent attributes to predict good writing outcomes.

The internal structure of L2MSS may operate differently in various contexts;

however, there seems to be no sign of any investigation to shed light on the relationship

between L2MSS, intended learning effort, and writing achievement, as well as their

affection for each other in the Vietnamese context. Referring to its undeniably essential

for higher education learning outcomes, investigating academic writing using the L2MSS

model could be potential for Vietnamese students’ achievement.

 20

References

Anisfeld, M., & Lambert, W. E. (1961). Social and psychological variables in learning

Hebrew. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 524.

Al Fadda, H. (2012). Difficulties in academic writing: From the perspective of King

Saud university postgraduate students. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 123-130.

Alharbi, F. (2017). The dynamics of the L2 motivational self system among Saudi study

abroad students. University of South Florida.

Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2016). Unconscious motivation. Part II: Implicit attitudes and L2

achievement. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(4), 619-649.

Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in

Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721-754.

Alshahrani, A. A. S. (2016). L2 motivational self system among Arab EFL learners:

Saudi prespective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English

Literature, 5(5), 145-152.

Al-Shehri, A. S. (2009). Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self,

imagination and visual style. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, 164-171.

Apple, M. T., Falout, J., & Hill, G. (2020). The relationship between future career self

images and English achievement test scores of Japanese STEM students. IEEE

Transactions on Professional Communication, 63(4), 372-385.

Ariyanti, A. (2016). Shaping students’ writing skills: The study of fundamental aspects

in mastering academic writing. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 1(1), 63-

77.
 21

Arslan, T., & Çiftçi, H. (2021). Second language motivational self system of sixth

graders in Turkey: A correlational study. Tesol Journal, 12(1), e00518.

Azarnoosh, M. (2014). School students’ motivational disposition: A cross-sectional

study. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 324-333.

Berkenkotter, C. et al. (1989). Social Context and Socially Constructed Texts: The

Initiation of a Graduate Student into a Writing Research Community. Technical

Report No. 33.

Boscolo, P., Arfé, B., & Quarisa, M. (2007). Improving the quality of students'

academic writing: an intervention study. Studies in Higher Education, 32(4), 419-

438.

Bushra, J. T., & Sheikh, A. A. (2022). L2 Motivational Self System and L2

achievement: a study of Pakistani undergraduate ESL learners in private colleges of

Multan. PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, 19(3), 440-456.

Bridgeman, B. & Carlson, S. (1984). Survey of academic writing tasks. Written

Communication, 1, 247–280.

Chen, R. (2022). Motivations of second language learning: application of L2

motivational self system in the EFL classroom. J. High. Educ. Res, 3, 51-55.

Chuah, K. P., Ngoi, G. P., & Foo, A. P. (2022). Relationship between Motivation and

Listening Achievement in Learning Chinese as Second Language in Malaysia. The

Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 25, 1-8.

Claro, J. (2019). Identification with External and Internal Referents: Integrativeness and
 22

the IdealL2 Self. In A. Al-Hoorie & P. MacIntyre (Eds.), Contemporary Language

Motivation Theory: 60 Years Since Gardner and Lambert (1959), 233-261. Bristol,

UK: Multilingual Matters.

Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language Learners’ Motivational Profiles and Their

Motivated Learning Behavior. Language Learning, 55(4), 613–659.

doi:10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00319.x 10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00319.x

Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning

behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary

and university learners of English. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, 36,

98-119.

Csizér, K. (2019). The L2 Motivational Self System. In M. Lamb, K. Csizer, A. Henry

& S. Ryan (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning.

Palgrave Macmillan. 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28380-3

Darling, W. E., & Chanyoo, N. (2018). Relationships of L2 motivational self-system

components and willingness to communicate in English among Thai undergraduate

students. NIDA Journal of Language and Communication, 23(33), 1-22.

De Bot, K. (2015). Rates of change: Timescales in second language development.

Motivational dynamics in language learning, 29-37.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in

Human Behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

 23

Demirdoken, G., & Atay, D. (2022). Towards Safer Flight Operations: The Relationship

Between L2 Motivation and L2 Achievement. The Collegiate Aviation Review

International, 40(2).

Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in

Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda

(Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, 9-42. Bristol, UK:

Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293

Dörnyei, Z. (2014). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in

second language acquisition. Routledge.

Dörnyei, Z., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A

Hungarian perspective. Multilingual Matters.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (Eds.). (2009). Motivation, language identity and the L2 self

(Vol. 36). Multilingual Matters.

Erkan, D. Y., & Saban, A. İ. (2011). Writing performance relative to writing

apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational

study in Turkish tertiary-level EFL. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly March 2011

Volume 13, Issue, 13(1), 164-192.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitudes and motivation. Arnold.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational Variables in Second Language

Acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.

 24

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0083787

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language

learning.Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

Ghorbani, M., & Rashvand Semiyari, S. (2022). The Impact of the Big Five Personality

Traits and Motivational Self-System on Iranian EFL Learners’ Intended Effort: An

Investigation into McAdams’ Model of Personality. RELC Journal, 53(1), 24-39.

Graham, S., Berninger, V., & Fan, W. (2007). The structural relationship between

writing attitude and writing achievement in first and third grade students.

Contemporary educational psychology, 32(3), 516-536.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance,

knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-

regulated strategy development. Contemporary educational psychology, 30(2), 207-

241.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological

Review, 94(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Huang, L. S. (2010). Seeing eye to eye? The academic writing needs of graduate and

undergraduate students from students’ and instructors’ perspectives. Language

Teaching Research, 14(4), 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375372

Huang, H. T., Hsu, C. C., & Chen, S. W. (2015). Identification with social role

obligations, possible selves, and L2 motivation in foreign language learning. System,

51, 28-38.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 25

Jang, Y., & Lee, J. (2019). The effects of ideal and ought-to L2 selves on Korean EFL

learners’ writing strategy use and writing quality. Reading and Writing, 32(5), 1129-

1148.

Jenkins, S., Jordan, M.K., & Weiland, P.O. (1993). The role of writing in graduate

engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. English for

Specific Purposes, 12, 51–67.

Khan, M. R. (2015). Analyzing the relationship between L2 motivational selves and L2

achievement: A Saudi perspective. International Journal of English Language

Teaching, 2(1), 68-75.

Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2011). The effect of Korean secondary school students’

perceptual learning styles and ideal L2 self on motivated L2 behavior and English

proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 21-42.

Kim, Y. K., & Kim, T. Y. (2012). Korean secondary school students' L2 learning

motivation: Comparing L2 motivational self system with socio-educational model.

English Language & Literature Teaching, 18(1), 115-132.

Kong, J. H., Han, J. E., Kim, S., Park, H., Kim, Y. S., & Park, H. (2018). L2

Motivational Self System, international posture and competitiveness of Korean CTL

and LCTL college learners: A structural equation modeling approach. System, 72,

178-189.

Kwok, C. K., & Carson, L. (2018). Integrativeness and intended effort in language

learning motivation amongst some young adult learners of Japanese. Language

Learning in Higher Education, 8(2), 265-279.

 26

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What

is on offer. Motivational dynamics in language learning, 11-19.

Leki, I. (1998). Academic writing: Exploring processes and strategies. Cambridge

University Press.

Li, M., & Zhang, L. (2021). Tibetan CSL Learners’ L2 Motivational Self System and L2

Achievement. System, 97, 102436.

Lukmani, Y. M. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language

learning, 22(2), 261-273.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 1986(41).

954-1969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954

Martinović, A., & Burić, I. (2021). L2 Motivation: The Relationship Between Past

Attributions, the L2MSS, and Intended Effort. Journal for Foreign Languages,

13(1), 409-426.

Mercer, S., & Dörnyei, Z. (2020). Engaging language learners in contemporary

classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of

organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management

Learning & Education, 2(3), 250-268.

Moskovsky, C., & Alrabai, F. (2009). Intrinsic motivation in Saudi learners of English

as a foreign language. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 2(1).

Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). The L2

motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. The
 27

Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 641-654.

Nasihah, M., & Cahyono, B. (2017). Language learning strategies, motivation, and

writing achievement of Indonesian EFL students. Arab World English Journal

(AWEJ) Volume, 8.

National Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges. (2003). The

neglected “R”: The need for a writing revolution. The report of the National

Commission on Writing in America's Schools and Colleges.

National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out.

New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.

Österberg, R., Donoso, A., & Sologuren, E. (2022). Back to the Initial Condition:

Experiences that Trigger the Need to Develop Language Skills Among University

Spanish Students.

Papi, M., Bondarenko, A. V., Mansouri, S., Feng, L., & Jiang, C. (2019). Rethinking L2

motivation research: The 2× 2 model of L2 self-guides. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 41(2), 337-361.

Putra, Y. P., & Hall, R. A. (2019, March). Identifying The Relationship Between

Motivation, Anxiety and Intended Effort of Learning English: An SEM Approach.

In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technology and

Educational Science, ICSTES 2018, November 21-22 2018, Bali, Indonesia.

Shih, H. J. (2019). L2 Anxiety, Self-Regulatory Strategies, Self-Efficacy, Intended

Effort and Academic Achievement: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach.

 28

International Education Studies, 12(3), 24-35.

Spolsky, B. (1969). Attitudinal aspects of second language learning. Language learning,

19(3‐4), 271-275.

Subekti, A. S. (2018). L2 Motivational Self System and L2 achievement: A study of

Indonesian EAP learners. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 57-67.

https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11465

Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system amongst

Chinese and Japanese learners of English: A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei & E.

Ushioda(Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self, 66 – 97. Bristol, UK:

MultilingualMatters.

Tahmouresi, S., & Papi, M. (2021). Future selves, enjoyment and anxiety as predictors

of L2 writing achievement. Journal of Second Language Writing, 53, 100837.

Tan, T. G., Lin, T. H., & Hoe, F. T. (2017). Analysing the Relationship between L2

Motivational Self System and Achievement in Mandarin. International Academic

Research Journal of Social Science 3 (1), 104-108.

Tort Calvo, E. (2015). Language learning motivation: the L2 motivational self system

and its relationship with learning achievement.

Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self

and identity. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity

and the L2 Self, 215–228. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Wischgoll, A. (2016). Combined training of one cognitive and one metacognitive

strategy improves academic writing skills. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 187.

 29

Wong, Y. K. (2018). Structural relationships between second-language future self-image

and the reading achievement of young Chinese language learners in Hong Kong.

System, 72, 201-214.

Xu, W., & Ji, L. (2021). The L2 Motivation Factors and L2 Intended Learning Effort: A

Model-based Data Analysis of Chinese College EFL Learners. In 2021 2nd

International Conference on Information Science and Education (ICISE-IE) (pp.

361-364). IEEE.

Yang, L., & Chanyoo, N. (2022). Motivational factors and intended efforts in learning

East Asian languages among Thai undergraduate students. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 12(2), 254-262.

Yang, Y. (2019). The Effects of An Ideal-L2-self-based Intervention on Second

Language Motivation of College English Majors in China (Doctoral dissertation,

University of the Pacific).

Yetkin, R., & Semih, E. K. İ. N. (2018). Motivational orientations of secondary school

EFL learners toward language learning. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics,

4(2), 375-388.

York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic

success. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 20(1), 5.

Yousefi, M., & Mahmoodi, M. H. (2022). The L2 motivational self‐system: A meta‐

analysis approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.

Zhu, W. & Flaitz, J. (2005). Using focus group methodology to understand international

students’ academic language needs: A comparison of perspectives. TESL-EJ, 8.

 30

Retrieved from: http:// writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej32/a3.html (June 2010).