PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE STUDENTS’

ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT FROM SELF-DETERMINATION

THEORY
by
Hyun Jin Cho

A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Educational Studies

West Lafayette, Indiana
August 2017




ProQuest Number: 10608059




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10608059

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 ii

THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE APPROVAL

Dr. Chantal Levesque-Bristol, Chair

Department of Educational Studies
Dr. Mike Yough
School of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Aviation;
Oklahoma State University
Dr. Anne Traynor
Department of Educational Studies
Dr. Wayne Wright
Department of Curriculum and Instruction

Approved by:
Dr. Richard Olenchak
Head of the Graduate Program
 iii

I dedicate this dissertation to God Almighty.

I also dedicate this to my grandparents, my parents, my sister, and my brother

who have given me unconditional love, support, and unfailing faith throughout my life.

Their support has allowed me to pursue my passions.

I love you.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank God Almighty for everything He has

done for me. I have realized that He walked with me through this journey and always

guided me. Having wonderful advisors and friends in this journey is a true blessing. I

would like to use this opportunity to recognize and thank the people who supported me.

I would like to acknowledge and express the deepest appreciation to Dr. Chantal

Levesque-Bristol and Dr. Mike Yough. I have deepened my knowledge under their

guidance and received tremendous support throughout my entire Ph.D. work. They have

been a role model as an enthusiastic scholar and autonomy-supportive mentor. I am very

thankful for our research discussions that helped me develop, sharpen, and refine my

arguments to become a better scholar. I am grateful for their patience, kindness, and

wholehearted support throughout my doctoral journey.

I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Anne Traynor and

Dr. Wayne Wright. Their wisdom, insight, and thoughtful criticism were very valuable to

me during my dissertation writing process. Dr. Anne provided much insight into scale

development and supported this work. Dr. Wright shared diverse perspectives on

international students’ studies and challenged my unproven assumptions. His advice on

qualitative research was particularly valuable for the qualitative phase in this dissertation.

I am sincerely grateful to my committee members’ warm encouragement and support.

I am also grateful for the friendship with my graduate school colleagues in the

College of Education that has grown over the many years of being together: Eunjoo

Kang, Inok Ahn, Chorong Lee, Horane Holgate, Vivi Wang, Yu Shi, Dongyao Tan,

Ninger Zhou, Jenny Moss, James Liu, Xiaojun Ma, Su Hyun Lee, Jung Han, Juliana Tay,
 v

and Jaret Hodges. Particularly, I want to thank Juliana Tay for being together every day

and sharing all the wonderful memories of laughter and joy.

My hugest thanks are reserved to my grandparents, Daeho Cho, Geohwa Moon,

Sangjin Lee, and Youngae Kim, my parents, Hanchong Cho and Hoesuk Lee, my lovely

sister Suha Cho, and my brother Minsang Cho who always supported and encouraged me

throughout my entire doctoral journey. My family is the source of my strength and joy.

They remind me of what is truly important in my life. Without their sacrifice, love,

support, and encouragement, I would not have completed my doctoral journey. Thank

you all.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY PAPER ........................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Literature Review................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Self-Determination Theory........................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Beliefs about Assessment ........................................................................... 11
1.2.3 Self-Regulated Learning............................................................................. 12
1.3 Goals and Significance of the Dissertation ........................................................... 15
CHAPTER 2. PAPER 1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE ASSESSING
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ASSESSMENT AND
RELATIONSHIPS WITH SELF-REGULATORY STRATEGIES IN SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING ............................................................................................... 19
2.1 Abstract ................................................................................................................. 19
2.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Literature Review.................................................................................................. 22
2.3.1 Beliefs about Assessment, Learning Approach, and Achievement ............ 22
2.3.2 Self-Regulated Learning............................................................................. 24
2.3.3 Second Language Learning and English Proficiency Tests ....................... 29
2.3.4 A Need to Develop an Alternate Instrument .............................................. 31
2.3.5 Research Questions .................................................................................... 34
2.4 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 34
2.4.1 Study One: Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................... 34
[Link] Participants ....................................................................................... 34
[Link] Instrumentation ................................................................................ 37
[Link] Procedures ........................................................................................ 38
[Link] Results .............................................................................................. 38
 vii

2.4.2 Study Two: Confirmatory Factor Analysis ................................................ 46

[Link] Participants ....................................................................................... 46
[Link] Measures .......................................................................................... 48
[Link] Procedures ........................................................................................ 48
[Link] Results .............................................................................................. 49
2.4.3 Study Three: Relationship between Beliefs about Assessment and Self-
Regulated Learning .................................................................................... 51
[Link] Participants ....................................................................................... 52
[Link] Measures .......................................................................................... 52
[Link] Procedures ........................................................................................ 54
[Link] Results .............................................................................................. 54
2.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 59
2.5.1 Beliefs about Assessment Scale and Self-Regulated Learning .................. 59
2.5.2 Theoretical and Practical Implication ......................................................... 63
2.5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies......................................... 64
2.6. References ............................................................................................................ 66
2.7 Appendices ............................................................................................................ 77
CHAPTER 3. PAPER 2: PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ACADEMIC
ADJUSTMENT: AUTONOMY SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS, DISCUSSION
PARTICIPATION, BELIEFS ABOUT CLASSROOM ASSESSMENTS FROM A
SELF-DETERMINATION PERSPECTIVE .................................................................... 84
3.1 Abstract ................................................................................................................. 84
3.2 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 85
3.3 Literature Review.................................................................................................. 86
3.3.1 International Students’ Challenges and Academic Adjustment ................. 86
3.3.2 Basic Psychological Needs ......................................................................... 90
3.3.3 Autonomy-Supportive Learning Environments ......................................... 92
3.3.4 Adaptive Beliefs about Assessment ........................................................... 95
3.3.5 Research Questions .................................................................................... 98
3.4. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 99
3.4.1 Study One: Quantitative Phase ................................................................. 100
 viii

[Link] Participants ..................................................................................... 100

[Link] Measures ........................................................................................ 102
[Link] Procedures ...................................................................................... 105
[Link] Results ............................................................................................ 105
[Link] Discussion ...................................................................................... 111
3.4.2 Study Two: Qualitative Phase .................................................................. 113
[Link] Participants ..................................................................................... 114
[Link]. Interview Protocol Development .................................................. 116
[Link] Procedure ....................................................................................... 116
[Link] Data Analysis ................................................................................. 117
[Link] Results ............................................................................................ 122
[Link] Discussion ...................................................................................... 135
3.5 General Discussion ............................................................................................. 137
3.5.1 Self-Determination Theory as a Theoretical Framework ......................... 137
3.5.2 Theoretical and Practical Implication ....................................................... 140
3.5.3 Limitation and Suggestions for Future Studies ........................................ 142
3.6 References ........................................................................................................... 143
3.7 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 154
CHAPTER 4. PAPER 3: INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ SELF-DETERMINED
MOTIVATION, BELEIFS ABOUT CLASSROOM ASSESSMENTS, LEARNING
STRATEGIES, AND ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT .................................................... 160
4.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................... 160
4.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 161
4.3 Literature Review................................................................................................ 162
4.3.1 Self-Determined Motivation..................................................................... 162
4.3.2 International Students’ Academic Needs and Learning Approach .......... 165
4.3.3 Course-Based Assessment and Beliefs about Assessment ....................... 167
4.3.4 Research Questions .................................................................................. 171
4.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 173
4.4.1 Participants ............................................................................................... 173
4.4.2 Measures ................................................................................................... 174
 ix

4.4.3 Procedures ................................................................................................ 177

4.5 Results ................................................................................................................. 178
4.6 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 185
4.6.1 Self-Determined Motivation, Adaptive Beliefs about Assessment, and Self-
Regulated Learning Approach.................................................................. 185
4.6.2 Theoretical and Practical Implication ....................................................... 189
4.6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies....................................... 191
4.7 References ........................................................................................................... 192
4.8 Appendices .......................................................................................................... 199
CHAPTER 5. GENERAL CONCLUSION .................................................................... 202
5.1 Summary of Major Findings ............................................................................... 202
5.2 Implications......................................................................................................... 207
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research .............................................. 210
5.4 Completed List of References for Dissertation ................................................... 211
 x

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER 2
Table 1: Demographic Profiles for Exploratory Factor Analysis ..................................... 36
Table 2: Initial Item Factor Loading suggested by Exploratory Factor Analysis ............. 40
Table 3: Factor Loading for the 20 Items ......................................................................... 43
Table 4: Additional Items to be Included in the Final Model ........................................... 44
Table 5: Final Model of the Beliefs about Assessment Scale ........................................... 45
Table 6: Internal Reliability and Correlations among Factors in Final Model ................. 46
Table 7: Demographic Profiles for Confirmatory Factor Analysis .................................. 47
Table 8: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results................................................................ 50
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics among Variables .............................................................. 55
Table 10: Correlation Coefficients among Variables ....................................................... 56
CHAPTER 3
Table 1: Demographic Profiles ....................................................................................... 101
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 106
Table 3: Correlation Coefficients among Variables ....................................................... 107
Table 4: Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects in the SEM Model ................ 111
Table 5: Demographic Profiles for Interview Participants ............................................. 115
Table 6: Coding and Main Themes ................................................................................. 118
CHAPTER 4
Table 1: Demographic Profiles ....................................................................................... 173
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................ 178
Table 3: Correlation Coefficients among Variables ....................................................... 179
Table 4: Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects in the SEM Model ................ 183
Table 5: Mean Differences between Lecture-Based and Discussion-Based classroom 185
 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 2
Figure 1: The Standardized Factor Loadings following Confirmatory Factor Analysis .. 51
Figure 2: Hypothesized Structure Model .......................................................................... 52
Figure 3: Structural Equation Model ................................................................................ 58
CHAPTER 3
Figure 1: Hypothesized Structure Model ........................................................................ 109
Figure 2: Structural Equation Model for Study One ....................................................... 109
CHAPTER 4
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model for RQ1 & RQ2 ............................................................. 181
Figure 2: Structural Equation Model .............................................................................. 181
 xii

ABSTRACT

Author: Cho, Hyun Jin. Ph.D.

Institution: Purdue University
Degree Received: August 2017
Title: Promoting International College Students’ Academic Adjustment from
Self-Determination Theory
Major Professor: Dr. Chantal Levesque-Bristol

When international students come to the U.S. to study, they encounter unique

needs and challenges that influence their academic success, adjustment, and well-being.

In particular, international students’ academic adjustment determines their academic

success during the transition to U.S. universities. This dissertation examined the validity

of a new scale and international students’ academic adjustment from self-determination

theory (SDT) in three different papers. The first paper examined the validity of a new

instrument assessing students’ beliefs about assessment in the context of second language

learning. Specifically, this study was conducted with international undergraduate students

to examine their beliefs about a high-stakes standardized English proficiency exam and

the use of their self-regulatory learning strategies in the context of second language

learning. This study discussed implications for researchers to use an alternative scale to

measure four different aspects of students’ beliefs about assessments and for educators’

intervention in students’ developing adaptive beliefs about assessment in the learning

process.

The second paper aimed to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework from a

self-determination perspective that supports international students’ successful academic

adjustment. This paper comprised of two phases: quantitative phase and qualitative

phase. The quantitative phase explored the relationships between international students’
 xiii

learning climates, basic psychological needs, discussion participation, beliefs about

classroom assessments, and academic adjustment. The qualitative phase explored how

international students perceive their learning environments and classroom experiences

through semi-structured interviews. This study showed that SDT provides theoretical

foundations to explain international students’ successful academic adjustment.

Finally, the third paper investigated the relationships between self-determined

motivation, beliefs about classroom assessments, and the use of different types of

learning strategy through the lens of self-determination theory. It was proposed that

students’ self-determined motivation shapes adaptive beliefs about classroom

assessments, which in turn, contributes to use of higher-level learning strategies and

eventually academic adjustment as a learning outcome. In addition, this study explored

whether there is a difference in students’ motivation, beliefs about assessments, and the

use of self-regulated learning strategies in two different instructional environments

(lecture-based and discussion-based classrooms). This paper discussed how international

students’ adapt themselves to U.S. universities through motivation to learn, perspectives

about classroom assessments, and different types of learning approach in different

academic disciplines at the university level.

 1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTORY PAPER

1.1 Introduction

An increasing number of international students are studying in U.S. universities

(Li, Chen, & Duanmu, 2010). International students encounter an unfamiliar social and

educational culture (Olivas & Li, 2006). These students may encounter unique academic

challenges such as English language barriers, lack of knowledge of the host culture, few

relationships with advisors and professors, lack of familiarization with teaching and

curriculum differences, isolation, and anxiety (Andrade, 2006; Parks & Raymond, 2004;

Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). For these reasons, some international students confront the

unique needs and challenges that influence their academic success, adjustment, and well-

being. There has been a growing interest in exploring factors that influence international

students’ academic achievement and adjustment during their studies at the higher

education. Among these adjustment issues, the lower level of class participation among

some international students may interfere with their academic adjustment. International

students’ difficulty in participating in discussions were identified from perceived

inadequacy in English, fear of making mistakes while speaking English, and fear of

potential ridicule from their classmates and professors (Robertson, Line, Jones, &

Thomas, 2000). Challenges with language anxiety and lack of confidence were found to

be the main reasons that prevented classroom participation (Andrade, 2006; Robertson et

al., 2000). Consequently, these students undergo greater adjustment difficulties, more

stress, and anxiety in academic contexts (Andrade, 2006). Therefore, how international
 2

students adapt themselves to academic environments may determine their academic

success during the transition to U.S. universities.

My interest in these research topics is closely related to my previous teaching

experiences in Korean high schools and my learning experiences an international

graduate student in the U.S universities. First, while teaching English at Korean high

schools, I noticed that many students were driven by assessments for many different

reasons and learning goals. How students perceive assessments seemed to affect their

attitudes and motivation to learn in class. Furthermore, while working as a teaching

assistant in the fundamental educational psychology class for the pre-service teachers for

three years during my Ph.D. program, I have learned that classroom assessments could

play a crucial role in students’ motivation to learn and learning approach. This led me to

continue my pursuit of research regarding students’ beliefs and perspectives about

assessment. In addition, I have been interested in international students’ academic

adjustment from my own learning experiences as an international student in the U.S

universities. My own academic challenges and needs motivated myself to study how to

create better learning environments in higher education for increasing international

students, particularly ones who learned English as a second language. Moreover, the

experiences working as a teaching assistant in graduate schools and serving as a

representative at the international students’ organization helped me expand my

knowledge and understanding about students’ academic struggles during their transition

to U.S university. Finding it to be both a fascinating area and one needing further

research, I began to study more on international students’ academic adjustment.

 3

This dissertation examined the validity of a new scale and international

undergraduate students’ academic adjustment from self-determination theory in three

different papers. Although the previous literature on international students’ studies

suggested a number of practical recommendations for their successful transition, mainly

focusing on acculturation, the literature lacks a comprehensive theoretical framework that

supports practical suggestions for international students’ successful academic

adjustments. I argue that self-determination theory including basic psychological needs

theory, an autonomy-supportive environment model, and organismic integration theory

may be used as a theoretical framework.

Especially, the dissertation examined the validity of a new scale to assess

students’ beliefs about assessment. The previous research suggested that international

students require more than just English language proficiency to be successful in their

academics and adjustments to university life (Phakiti, Hirsh, & Woodrow, 2013). This

implies that there is a need to study other educational aspects that affect international

students’ academic learning in higher education such as motivational beliefs, perspectives

about assessments, classroom behaviors, or learning approach. In particular, educational

researchers have started to recognize that students’ attitudes about assessments (e.g.,

students’ beliefs about assessments) have a strong association with what they learn and

how they approach learning (Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009). Furthermore, researchers found

that adaptive perspectives about assessments were significantly linked to self-regulation

for secondary students (Brown, 2011). Therefore, understanding students’ beliefs about

assessment allows one to understand how students approach learning (e.g., use of deep or

surface level learning strategies) (Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens, 2005). Consistent with
 4

previous work, international students’ attitudes or perspectives about assessments may be

associated with how they approach learning in higher education. However, little attention

has been directed to how college students view assessments and what meanings and

motivation they associate with them in their higher education. Most previous studies on

students’ beliefs about assessment have been conducted in secondary schools. Also, there

is a need to develop an alternative scale to capture overall students’ comprehensive

perspectives about assessment. This scale can be used to measure students’ beliefs about

assessment to study how students’ beliefs about assessment play a role in their learning.

The first paper examined the validity of a new scale assessing students’ beliefs

about assessment in the context of second language learning. Specifically, this study was

conducted with international undergraduate students to examine their beliefs about a

high-stakes standardized English proficiency exam and the use of their self-regulatory

learning strategies in the context of second language learning. The second paper used the

theoretical framework of self-determination theory to explain findings related to the

experiences of international students’ academic adjustment. The quantitative phase

explored the relationships between international students’ perception of learning climates,

basic psychological needs, discussion participation, beliefs about classroom assessments,

and academic adjustment. The qualitative phase explored how international students

perceive their learning environments and classroom experiences through semi-structured

interviews. Finally, the third paper investigated the relationships between self-determined

motivation, beliefs about classroom assessments, and the use of diverse learning

strategies through the lens of self-determination theory. Moreover, this study explored

differences in students’ motivation, beliefs about assessment, and the use of self-
 5

regulated learning strategies in two different instructional environments (lecture-based

and discussion-based classroom).

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1 Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that motivated behaviors are different

in the extent to which individuals are autonomous versus controlled (Deci & Ryan, 2002;

Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to Deci and Ryan (2002), autonomous behaviors come

from one’s integrated sense of self whereas controlled behaviors derive from an

externally perceived locus of causality and are experienced as being strengthened by

interpersonal or intrapsychic event or demands. The prototype of autonomous behaviors

is intrinsically motivated. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are initiated from interest and

maintained by the spontaneous thoughts and feelings that occur as an individual performs

the activity (Black & Deci, 2000). On the contrary, extrinsically motivated behaviors are

initiated and maintained by contingencies such as rewards and punishments. However,

external regulations can be transformed into internal regulations through the process of

internalization, which consists of introjected and identified internalization. Through the

process of internalization, external contingencies are integrated within the self, and

behaviors which were controlled by external contingencies become regulated by internal

contingencies such as guilt (introjection) or are eventually seen as valuable

(identification) (Black & Deci, 2000). When individuals have identified with a regulation

and combined it with his or her sense of self that the perceived locus of causality will be

fully internal and autonomous behaviors will occur (Deci & Ryan, 1991).
 6

Basic psychological needs theory. Within SDT, basic psychological needs

theory defines needs as nutriments that must be brought about by a living entity to sustain

its growth, integrity, and physiological or psychological health (Black & Deci, 2000;

Deci & Ryan, 2002). Ryan & Deci (2000) propose that autonomy, competence, and

relatedness are psychological needs, which when satisfied lead to positive outcomes and

well-being in highly functioning individuals. Also, self-determined motivation is affected

by the degree to which the basic human psychological needs for autonomy, competence,

and relatedness are satisfied or fulfilled. The need for autonomy refers to the need to

perceive that individuals are responsible for their own actions and acting volitionally. The

need for competence represents the need to perceive that individuals have adequate

ability to perform behaviors effectively. Finally, relatedness is the need to feel that

individuals belong to or connected to others. SDT states that individuals seek out

experiences to satisfy these three basic needs and these experiences which foster the

satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, promote more self-determined types

of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These needs must be satisfied for individuals to

experience optimal psychological development, growth, performance, integrity, and well-

being within any domain and across cultural contexts (Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009;

Ryan & Deci, 2000).

A growing body of literature supports the theoretical assertion that experiencing

the satisfaction of these needs appears to be crucial to the experience of growth, integrity,

and well-being (Faye & Sharpe, 2008; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan 2004; Ryan &

Deci, 2000). Empirical research revealed that the satisfaction of these needs during

learning activities was consistently associated with students’ positive learning

 7

experiences (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These include positive relations with academic

motivation, strong self-concept, intrinsic motivation, positive sense of self, and subjective

well-being (Faye & Sharpe, 2008; Levesque et al., 2004). Although there may be cultural

divergence on how these needs are supported and satisfied, the needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness are considered to be cross-culturally universal to promote

positive school experiences (Levesque et al., 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Autonomy-supportive learning environments. SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan

& Deci, 2000) proposes that sociocultural conditions can support and cultivate these

needs (autonomy support) or they can thwart these needs (external control).

Environments supporting the individual’s autonomy will satisfy all three needs, and, in

turn, bring about self-determined behaviors, including intrinsic motivation, which is the

prototype of self-determination. Whereas environments that frustrate these needs foster

the development of non–self-determined behaviors, including extrinsic motivation (Faye

& Sharpe, 2008). An autonomy-supportive learning involves a mutual behavior that one

person promote another person’s intentions and psychological needs (Reeve & Jang,

2006). When a person with authority takes the other’s perspective, acknowledges the

other’s feelings, offers them an opportunity for choice in solving a task in their own way,

this environment is more likely to contribute to autonomy support (Deci & Ryan, 1985)

and promotes students' self-determination of their classroom activity which can

contribute to satisfying basic psychological needs (Jang et al., 2009).

In an education setting, autonomy-supportive instruction satisfies students’ need

for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When instructors

support students’ autonomy in classroom practices, those students tend to feel more
 8

respected, acknowledged, and empowered, in turn affecting competence and relatedness

need satisfaction experiences (Jang et al., 2009). In addition, autonomy-supportive

instructors are more likely to support students' inner motivational sources by creating

learning environments favorable to satisfying students' basic needs in a way which

encourage internalization processes and improve intrinsic motivation. Moreover, these

instructors promoting such a climate tend to provide more informative feedback on

students’ progress and learning mastery. In addition, they present more empathy by

viewing situations from students' point-of-view and by identifying potential difficulties

for students (Jang et al., 2009). In this way, they can contribute to the students’

internalization process and eventually build up their intrinsic motivation (Jang et al.,

2009).

Several studies revealed that students’ perceptions of autonomy-supportive

learning environments were positively associated with satisfaction of an individual’s

psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which, in turn, promotes

desirable learning outcomes (e.g., Jang et al., 2009). Research has shown that autonomy-

supportive learning environments were linked to a wide range of positive learning

experiences-more engagement in school work (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003;

Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Reeve, 2006; Sun, Lambiase, McCarthy, Feda, & Kozlowski,

2012; Wang, & Holcombe, 2010), better achievement (Furtak & Kunter 2012;

Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004), intrinsic motivation (Furtak &

Kunter 2012; Leroy, Bressoux, Sarrazin, & Trouilloud, 2007; Pelletier, Fortier,

Vallerand, & Briere 2001), autonomous motivation (Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste,

Soenens, & Van Petegem, 2015; Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Goossens, Soenens, Dochy,
 9

Mouratidis, Aelterman, Haerens, Beyers, 2012), persistence and deep-level learning

(Pelletier et al., 2001; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012), self-

regulated learning (Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, & Dochy, 2009), greater

psychological well-being (Leroy et al., 2007; Reeve & Jang, 2006), and significant

decrease in anxiety (Black & Deci, 2000), Therefore, in this study autonomy-supportive

environments are expected to contribute to international students’ desirable learning

outcomes, which eventually promote their academic adjustment.

Organismic integration theory. SDT is a conceptual framework to address an

individual’s motivation, which proposes that the basic psychological needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness are the nutriments for human beings’ healthy development

and functioning. SDT also proposes that individuals’ behavioral regulation towards a task

can be intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated or amotivated. One of six mini-

theories in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is organismic integration

theory that addresses various forms of motivation, especially extrinsic motivation in its

diverse forms. It explains individuals’ behaviors that aim toward instrumental outcomes,

which includes integration, identification, introjection, and external regulation. Within

SDT, motivational regulations can vary depending on the extent to which individuals are

self-determined (autonomous). The extent to which individuals participate in various

activities, exert effort, and persist in various tasks can be classified along a continuum of

self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The most self-determined

type of regulation is intrinsic motivation which refers to behaviors performed out of pure

enjoyment or pleasure whereas at the opposite end of the continuum is amotivation which

represents a lack of any type of motivation. There are four types of extrinsic motivations
 10

that are situated between intrinsic motivation and amotivation; these are integrated,

identified, introjected, and external regulation.

Specifically, intrinsic motivation is the prototype of self-determination. When

individuals enjoy tasks, they are intrinsically motivated. These behaviors are done purely

for the enjoyment that is derived from engaging in the activity or task. On the other hand,

extrinsically motivated behaviors can be divided into four different types of behavioral

regulation: integrated, identified, introjected, and external regulation (Deci & Ryan,

1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Integrated regulation refers to the extent to which individuals

perform behaviors out of choice to harmonize the self (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995). These

behaviors are regulated for instrumental reasons, thus they are extrinsically regulated

although they are located at the higher end of the self-determination continuum.

Integrated regulation represents the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation

and the culmination of the internalization process. Identified regulation refers to the

extent to which individuals identify with the outcome of their behaviors and value the

behaviors performed. Although the behavior is not necessarily enjoyable, people perform

the behaviors because it is valued and do not feel external pressure to engage in the

behavior. It is considered a self-determined form of regulation. Introjected regulation

underlies behaviors that are partially internalized but they are not fully self-determined.

When introjected, individuals perform a task to gain social approval or self-worth or to

avoid internal pressure or negative feelings, such as feelings of guilt. External regulation

refers to behaviors that are regulated though external sources such as rewards, fear of

punishment, or pressure from significant others. Finally, amotivation refers to the absence

of any type of motivation. It is characterized by a lack of belief that the task can result in
 11

the desired outcomes. Thus, the self-determined types of regulation (autonomous

motivation) involve intrinsic, integrated, identified regulations whereas the non-self-

determined type of regulation (controlled motivation) includes introjected, extrinsic, and

amotivation.

The different types of motivational regulations can directly or indirectly explain

a wide range of behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes (Vallerand, 1997).

Especially self-determined motivation regulations were found to be associated with more

adaptive outcomes in comparison to less self-determined motivation or amotivation

(Vallerand, 1997). Thus, this study assumes that international students’ different types of

motivation can explain their perceptions and behaviors related to the classes.

1.2.2 Beliefs about Assessment

Students hold clear perspectives on how they are assessed (Peterson & Irving,

2008). The interest and importance placed on assessment tasks by students explain their

motivation to accomplish these tasks (Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003; Dorman &

Knightley, 2006). The literature on perceptions of assessment demonstrates a relationship

between students’ perceptions of assessment and their approaches to learning (Brown,

2011; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009;

Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009; Struyven et al., 2005). When students perceived that an

assessment was authentic and accurately assessed complicated skills, they were more

likely to feel that the assessment had a positive effect on their learning, as opposed to

feeling a need for over-reliance on memorization (Segers, Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006).

Students’ adaptive perspectives about assessment were strongly related to positive

learning outcomes, which suggests that students’ beliefs play a crucial role in learning
 12

outcomes. Positive beliefs about assessment were associated with higher grades, more

positive, self-regulated approach to learning, and better academic performance (Brown,

2013; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008; Peterson & Irving, 2008). However, literature has been

suggested that how these beliefs are mediated by actual students practice or strategies is

needed to study in the future. Most of the study has been done in secondary education

contexts with domestic students. Although the literature found consistent and statistically

association between adaptive beliefs about assessments and learning outcomes, much less

is known about how international students view their assessments at the university level.

1.2.3 Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulated learning provides an important perspective about academic

learning and has many important implications for all ages of students in many fields

(Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005; Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulation is assumed

to involve processes that enable individuals to take control over their thoughts, feelings,

and behaviors (Wolters et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2002). In general, self-regulated

learning is defined as a proactive process where learners establish their own goals,

monitor, regulate, control, and sustain their cognition, motivation, and behaviors in the

learning environment (Pintrich, 2000; Wolters et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2002).

There are different theories to explain self-regulated learning. In operant views of

self-regulated learning, self-regulated behaviors are considered as operant behaviors

(Mace, Belfiore, & Hutchinson, 2001). It is believed that behaviors become self-regulated

when individuals change their behaviors based on reinforcement or punishment. Unlike

operant views, the perspective from phenomenology, which defined as the study of the

development of human consciousness and self-awareness, has focused on self-

 13

perceptions in the context of self-regulated learning (McCombs, 2001). They believed

that the development of students’ self-regulation relied on the processes of self-

awareness, self-reflection and self-evaluation. Students’ self-concepts and self-images are

thought to be main agents, which are responsible for the regulation of learning behaviors

in this view (McCombs, 2001). The cognitive constructivism view suggests that the

motivation to construct meaning from the experiences plays an important role in self-

regulated learning (Paris, Byrnes, & Paris, 2001). Thus, when children reach the Piaget’s

formal operations development, it is expected that they can start to self-regulate. Another

important theory to explain self-regulated learning is the view of social cognitive theory.

In this view, self-regulated learning is considered as learning from students’ self-

generated thoughts and behaviors for their learning goals (Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman,

2000). It is considered situation-specific and highly context-dependent (Schunk, 2001).

The Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning model has been developed based on social

cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989), which proposes that people function through reciprocal

interactions between personal, social environmental, and behavioral factors, and these

three factors affect each other reciprocally. These interactions among personal,

environmental, and behavioral factors play a crucial role in self-regulated learning in that

students take control of their learning by interpreting information from both their

environment and self-reflection (Zimmerman, 2000).

Finally, Pintrich (2000) also developed a general framework for self-regulated

learning which included motivational constructs. According to this framework, self-

regulated learning consists of four phases: forethought, monitoring, control and reflection

phases. First, self-regulatory activities take place during the forethought phase.
 14

Monitoring consists of awareness and morning of cognition, motivation, affect, time use,

effort and situational conditions. Control means the selection and adaptation of strategies

for learning, motivation, and affective aspects. Finally, reflection refers to cognitive

judgments, affective reactions, and making choices. Pintrich (2000) investigated the role

of motivation in self-regulated learning. Moreover, Pintrich and his colleagues have

developed a self-reporting scale, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

(MSLQ) to measure motivational beliefs as well as use of learning strategies in university

contexts (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).

Self-regulated students are expected to able to control their motivation and

behaviors to reach learning goals and to overcome difficulties or problems in a learning

situation (Wolters & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman, 1990, 2002). Common characteristics

of self-regulated learners are found to be from the extant literature. First, self-regulated

learners create their own goals. They set goals and reflect about skills and strategies for

achieving those goals. They monitor their learning progress toward the learning goals by

judging their academic performance in comparison with those goals (Zimmerman, 2002).

Second, self-regulated learners manage their affective factors or motivation (Boekaerts,

1999). They are aware of what they know and feel toward the task so they are able to

control motivation when they confront difficulties. Third, self-regulated learners use

appropriate learning strategies to improve their academic achievement (Schunk &

Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2002). They examine the strategies they have applied to

improve their learning achievements and modify their behaviors and strategies

correspondingly (Butler & Winne, 1995). These experiences influence students’ future

learning strategies with similar tasks (Butler & Winne, 1995; Zimmerman, 1990).
 15

Finally, self-regulated learners reflect on their learning process and achievement

(Zimmerman, 2002). They explore how to approach a learning task and how to self-

monitor their improvement during the performance and evaluate the learning process

after employing their learning strategies (Butler & Winne, 1995). Self-regulated learners

recognize which performance aspects need to improve and how this can be accomplished

to reach their goal (Wolters, 2003; Wolters et al., 2005). They use feedback to improve

their learning outcomes.

Students in self-regulated learning are proactive in their efforts to learn and

monitor their cognition, motivation, and behaviors in order to achieve their learning goals

(Wolters et al, 2005; Zimmerman, 2002). A great deal of empirical research has shown

that self-regulation is significantly related to factors that explain higher motivation for

learning and academic achievement (Phakiti et al., 2013; Pintrich, 2000; Purdie, Hattie, &

Douglas, 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Based on the literature reviewed

above, this study hypothesizes that students’ adaptive beliefs that assessment promotes

their learning are associated with their self-regulated learning (Brown, 2011).

1.3 Goals and Significance of the Dissertation

The present dissertation work examined international students’ successful

academic adjustment based on SDT. Particularly, I focused on the construct adaptive

beliefs about assessment which refer to students’ adaptive beliefs and perspectives

toward their assessment (e.g., assessments help improve learning or assessments provide

beneficial learning experiences.).

The purpose of this dissertation is to contribute to the literature in international

students’ adjustment by: (a) providing a comprehensive instrument to measure students’

 16

extensive beliefs and perspectives about assessment, (b) suggesting a theoretical

framework to support international students’ successful academic adjustment, and (c)

providing additional research on international students’ motivational beliefs, beliefs about

assessment, and learning approach in different major disciplines in higher education. This

dissertation has the following specific purposes:

1. To develop the Beliefs about Assessment Scale,

2. To suggest a self-determination theory as a comprehensive theoretical

framework to explain empirical findings for international students’ successful

academic adjustment,

3. To explore how international students’ self-determined motivation is related to

beliefs about classroom assessments, use of different types of learning

strategies and academic adjustment.

Paper One examined the validity of a new instrument assessing students’ beliefs

about assessment. This paper contributes to the scholarly work on measurement of beliefs

about assessment by providing an alternative scale for assessing comprehensive beliefs

and perspectives about assessment. Moreover, the paper shows how adaptive beliefs

about high-stakes assessments directly or indirectly improve academic achievement

through self-regulated learning strategies. This paper provides implications for

instructors’ intervention in developing adaptive beliefs about assessment.

In the next two papers, SDT was used as a theoretical framework to explain the

literature and findings related to the experiences of international students’ academic

adjustment. Specifically, Paper Two examined the relationships between learning climate

(i.e., autonomy-supportive learning environment), basic psychological needs, an affective

 17

component (i.e., language anxiety), a behavior component (i.e., discussion participation),

and a cognitive component (i.e., adaptive beliefs about assessments). Results showed that

autonomy-supportive contexts and basic psychological needs were positively associated

with international students’ classroom learning experiences and adjustment. An

explanatory sequential mixed method design (Creswell & Piano Clark, 2007) provided an

extra evidence to support these findings. Paper Two contributes to the literature on

international students’ studies by suggesting SDT as a comprehensive theoretical

framework to explain international students’ successful academic adjustment process.

Finally, Paper Three investigated the relationships between self-determined

motivation, beliefs about classroom assessments, and the use of different types of

learning strategy through the lens of self-determination theory. Consistent with recent

work that points to the role of self-determined motivation in the learning process, it was

proposed that students’ self-determined motivation may influence adaptive beliefs about

assessment, which in turn, promotes use of higher-level learning strategy and eventually

academic adjustment as a learning outcome. Additionally, this study showed that there

were differences in students’ motivation in two different instructional environments

(lecture-based and discussion-based classroom). This study can help understand

international undergraduate students’ perspectives on classroom experiences in different

academic disciplines at the university level. This paper suggests that by understanding

international undergraduate students’ motivational beliefs, beliefs about assessment and

learning approach, instructors can apply these findings to create a more responsive

learning environment to improve students’ academic adjustment.

 18

This dissertation work contributes to the literature on international students’

studies by providing both (a) empirical evidence of how international students adapt

themselves to U.S. universities through various learning components at university level

and (b) a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain these relationships.

 19

CHAPTER 2. PAPER 1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE

ASSESSING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT
ASSESSMENT AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH SELF-REGULATORY
STRATEGIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

2.1 Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a new instrument

assessing students’ beliefs about assessment in the context of second language learning.

Specifically, this paper was conducted with international undergraduate students to

examine their beliefs about a high-stakes standardized English proficiency exam, the Test

of English as a Foreign Language. In addition, this study further investigated the

relationships between students’ beliefs about assessment and the use of their self-

regulatory learning strategies within the context of second language learning. This study

showed that students’ adaptive beliefs about high-stakes assessments were significantly

associated with self-regulated learning strategies and learning outcomes. Finally, this

study discussed implications for researchers to use The Beliefs about Assessment Scale

for future research and for educators’ intervention in students’ developing adaptive

beliefs about assessment in the learning process.

2.2. Introduction

Assessments play an important role in students’ second language learning in that

they are used to check their proficiency levels and give feedback for language learning.

Assessments are positively related to students’ learning when students believe it

encourages them to apply knowledge to real situations, develops various skills, and find
 20

long-term benefits (Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1997). Educational researchers have

started to recognize the importance of the relationship between students’ perceptions or

beliefs about assessment and their learning outcomes (Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009).

Students’ attitudes about assessments (e.g., students’ beliefs about assessment) have a

strong association with approach to learning and better learning achievement (Brown,

2011; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009;

Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009). Moreover, adaptive perceptions of assessment are

significantly linked to self-regulation for secondary students (Brown, 2011). Therefore,

understanding students’ perceptions of assessment allows us to understand how students

learn (e.g., use of deep or surface level learning strategies) and what they learn (Struyven,

Dochy, & Janssens, 2005).

Teaching and learning related to assessment can be interpreted as washback in

second language learning (Messick, 1996). Washback has been defined as a natural

tendency for teachers and students to change their learning behaviors to the demand of

the assessment (Buck,1988) or defined it as the extent to which the assessment impacts

on teachers’ and learners’ behaviors and attitudes as educational consequences (Alderson

& Wall, 1993). In large-scale second language assessments, washback influences how

students prepare for the assessments, which may have both negative and positive effects

on second language learners (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010; Chapelle, Enright &

Jamieson, 2011), especially, international students who prepare for studying in U.S.

higher education.

There has been an increasing number of students throughout the world who want

to study abroad in universities in English speaking countries. In particular, large

 21

populations of international students who come from Asian countries learn English as a

foreign language (EFL), and English is usually a high-stakes subject. As a result, English

proficiency tests are considered to be high-stakes assessments. Furthermore, since

universities in English-speaking countries rely on English language proficiency tests to

determine the language ability of students who apply for admission, these tests are

considered also high-stakes assessments. Thus, how they perceive these assessments can

be associated with their second language learning.

Considering that students’ beliefs about assessment have a significant association

with students’ learning approach and academic achievement, international students’

beliefs about assessment have yet to be studied in the context of the second language

learning. That is, although significant amounts of research have discussed the appropriate

language assessment literacy, the framework, and the design on valid and reliable

language assessments to measure students’ proficiency (Cumming, 2009; Hudson, 2005;

Inbar-Lourie, 2008), little attention has been directed to how students view these high-

stakes second language assessments and what meanings and motivation they associate

with them. Also, most of the research was conducted to assess secondary students’

perspectives of the purpose of assessment and assessment tasks (Brown, 2011; Brown &

Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008). To study how students’ beliefs about assessment play a role in

their second language learning, there is a need to develop an alternative scale to overall

include students’ comprehensive perspectives about assessment in second language

learning contexts. Furthermore, although students’ adaptive and maladaptive beliefs

about assessment have been found to be related to students’ self-regulation (Brown,

2011), how these beliefs influence actual students’ self-regulated learning strategies have
 22

not yet been investigated. This study would provide empirical evidence to strengthen the

argument that students’ beliefs about assessment may promote their self-regulated

learning.

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a newly developed

instrument assessing students’ beliefs about assessment in the context of second language

learning. Specifically, this study was conducted with international undergraduate students

to examine their beliefs about a high-stakes standardized English proficiency exam. Also,

this study investigated how students’ beliefs about assessment are related to actual

students’ self-regulated learning strategies which influence students’ perceived

knowledge transfer and learning outcomes in second language learning.

2.3 Literature Review

2.3.1 Beliefs about Assessment, Learning Approach, and Achievement

How much importance and value students place on assessment tasks demonstrate

their motivation to accomplish these tasks (Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003; Dorman &

Knightley, 2006). Research has shown a reciprocal relationship between students’

perceptions of assessment and their approaches to learning (Brown, 2011; Brown &

Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown et al., 2009; Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009; Struyven et al.,

2005). When students felt that an assessment was authentic and accurately measured

skills and knowledge, they were more likely to perceive that the assessment had a

positive effect on their learning and less likely to rely on rote memorization (Segers,

Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006).

Dorman & Knightley (2006) developed a scale to assess secondary school

students’ perceptions of assessment tasks, based on extensive literature review on policy

 23

and research papers on effective assessment practices, characteristics, principles, and

techniques. They identified five major characteristics of students’ perceptions regarding

assessment task: (a) congruence with planned learning, (b) authenticity, (c) students’

consultation, (d) transparency, and (e) diversity. The Perceptions of Assessment Tasks

Inventory (PATI; Dorman & Knightley, 2006) has been used to investigate students’

beliefs about assessment in terms of assessment tasks. Another instrument to measure

students’ perceptions of assessment was developed by Brown and his colleagues (Brown

& Hirschfeld, 2007; 2008; Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009). They identified

four major purposes for assessment from a review of the empirical literature: (a)

improving achievement, (b) a means for making them accountable, (c) being irrelevant,

and (d) being enjoyable (Brown, 2011). This scale has been used to derive students’ self-

reported perception of the nature and purpose of assessment. Students’ Conceptions of

Assessment (SCoA-I; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007) has been updated to the current

version, SCoA-VI (Brown, 2011).

Researchers found that there are strong relations between adaptive students’

perceptions and positive learning outcomes. Adaptive attitudes and perspectives about

assessment are associated with higher grades, more positive, self-regulated approach to

learning, and better academic performance (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008; ‘Otunuku,

Brown, & Airini, 2013; Peterson & Irving, 2008). However, it has been suggested that

how these conceptions are mediated by actual students practice or strategies is needed to

study in the future. Moreover, most of the study has been done in secondary education

contexts with local students, not at the university level with diverse populations.
 24

The quality of the teaching and learning environment may influence students’

learning approach (Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002). Students’ perceptions of huge

workloads and inadequate assessments were related to their tendency towards a surface

approach, whereas perceptions of good teaching were positively associated with a deep

approach to studying (Lizzio et al., 2002). However, changing the learning and

assessment environment did not lead directly to more deep-learning approaches unless

instructors make assessment demands as clear as possible so that students can accurately

identify the task demands, and thus respond appropriately (Segers et al., 2006; Tang,

1994). Therefore, it has been suggested that instructors should pay attention to how

students perceive the fundamental elements of the learning environment (Segers et al.,

2006). Perceptions of the quality of teaching and appropriateness of the assessment are

the strongest predictors of students using a deep approach to studying (Lizzio et al.,

2002).

In addition, students’ perceptions of learning environments, specifically

assessment practices, make a clear contribution to better learning achievement. How

students perceive assessments is significantly associated with academic achievement in

mathematics and reading (Brown, 2011; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown et al.,

2009; Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009). However, how these beliefs contribute to students’

learning outcomes through specific learning strategies has not been studied yet.

2.3.2. Self-Regulated Learning

Self-regulated learning provides an important perspective on academic learning

and has many important implications for all ages of students in many fields (Wolters,

Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005; Zimmerman, 2002). Self-regulation is assumed to involve

 25

processes that enable individuals to take control over their thoughts, feelings, and

behaviors (Wolters et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2002). In general, self-regulated learning is

defined as a proactive process where learners establish their own goals, monitor, regulate,

control, and sustain their cognition, motivation, and behaviors in the learning

environment (Pintrich, 2000; Wolters et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2002).

Diverse theoretical perspectives explain self-regulated learning. In operant views

of self-regulated learning, self-regulated behaviors are considered as operant behaviors

(Mace, Belfiore, & Hutchinson, 2001). It is thought that behaviors become self-regulated

when individuals change their behaviors according to reinforcement or punishment.

Unlike operant views, the perspective from phenomenology, which defined as the study

of the development of human consciousness and self-awareness, highlighted self-

perceptions in the context of self-regulated learning (McCombs, 2001). They believed

that the development of students’ self-regulation relies on the processes of self-

awareness, self-reflection and self-evaluation. Students’ self-concepts and self-images are

considered to be main agents which are responsible for the regulation of learning

behaviors in this view (McCombs, 2001). In addition, the cognitive constructivism view

suggests that the motivation to construct meaning from the experiences plays an

important role in self-regulated learning (Paris, Byrnes, & Paris, 2001). Thus, when

children reach Piaget’s formal operations development, it is assumed that they can self-

regulate. In the view of social cognitive theory, self-regulated learning is considered as

learning from students’ self-generated thoughts and behaviors for their learning goals

(Schunk, 2001; Zimmerman, 2000). Also, it is considered situation-specific and highly

context-dependent (Schunk, 2001). The Zimmerman’s self-regulated learning model has

 26

been developed based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) which proposes that

people function through reciprocal interactions between personal, social environmental,

and behavioral factors, and these three factors affect each other reciprocally (Bandura,

1989). These interactions among personal, environmental, and behavioral factors play a

crucial role in self-regulated learning in that students take control of their learning by

interpreting information from both their environment and self-reflection (Zimmerman,

2000). According to Zimmerman (2000), self-regulation is cyclical in nature, which

includes a forethought, a performance, and a self-reflection phase. The forethought phase

means processes for task analysis and self-motivation beliefs such as self-efficacy beliefs

about learning and outcome expectation. The performance phase includes self-control

and self-observation process. Self-control helps students to concentrate on the task while

self-observation processes refer to self-record their time use to make them aware of

learning process. The last phase, self-reflection includes self-judgment which refers to

comparisons of self-observed performances against a standard and self-reaction including

self-satisfaction and positive affect (Zimmerman, 2000, 2002).

Pintrich (2000) also developed a general framework for self-regulated learning

which included motivational constructs. According to this framework, self-regulated

learning consists of four phases: forethought, monitoring, control and reflection phases.

First, self-regulatory activities take place during the forethought phase. Monitoring

consists of awareness and morning of cognition, motivation, affect, time use, effort and

situational conditions. Control means the selection and adaptation of strategies for

learning, motivation, and affective aspects. Finally, reflection refers to cognitive

judgments, affective reactions, and making choices. Especially, Pintrich (2000)

 27

investigated the role of motivation in SRL and discussed mastery and performance

orientations. Findings suggested that students with mastery orientated goals showed the

most positive results such as regulating their cognition, adaptive self-efficacy beliefs and

time and effort management. Moreover, Pintrich and his colleagues have developed a

self-reporting, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in order to

assess motivational beliefs (i.e., self-efficacy, intrinsic task value, and test anxiety) as

well as use of learning strategies (i.e., cognitive, metacognitive, and resource

management strategies) in university contexts (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie,

1993). The MSLQ has been used in several studies to assess self-regulated learning

strategies (see, for example, Ahmed, van der Werf, Kuyper, & Minnaert, 2013; Bråten, &

Strømsø, 2005; Komarraju, & Nadler, 2013).

Self-regulated students are assumed to able to control their motivation and

behaviors to reach learning goals and to overcome difficulties or problems in a learning

situation (Pintrich, 2000; Zimmerman, 2002; Wolters & Pintrich, 1998). From the extant

literature, a couple of common characteristics about self-regulated learners are found as

follows. First, self-regulated learners are viewed as active in the learning process

(Pintrich, 2004). They are assumed to establish their own goals and meanings, and reflect

on skills and strategies for achieving those goals. They are able to monitor their learning

progress toward the goals by judging their academic performance in comparison with

those goals (Zimmerman, 2002). These students are expected to monitor, control and

regulate their own cognition and behaviors, although SRL perspectives recognized that

there are biological, developmental, and individual difference constraints in SRL

(Pintrich, 2004). Second, they manage their affective factors or motivation (Boekaerts,
 28

1999). They are well aware of what they know, believe, and feel toward the task so they

are able to maintain motivation when they face difficulties. Third, self-regulated learners

are assumed to use learning strategies which play mediator roles between personal and

contextual components and actual performance to improve their academic achievement

(Pintrich, 2004; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2002). They examine the

strategies they have applied to improve their achievements and make adjustments to their

behaviors and strategies correspondingly (Butler & Winne, 1995). These experiences

influence students’ future learning strategies with similar tasks (Butler & Winne, 1995;

Zimmerman, 1990). Finally, self-regulated learners reflect on their learning process and

achievement (Zimmerman, 2002). They are well aware of how to approach a learning

task and how to self-monitor their improvement during the performance and evaluate the

process after using their learning strategies (Butler & Winne, 1995). Self-regulated

learners want to know which performance aspects need to improve and how this can be

accomplished to reach their goal (Wolters, 2003; Wolters et al., 2005). They use feedback

to improve their learning outcomes.

In sum, self-regulated learners are proactive in their efforts to learn and monitor

their cognition, motivation, and behaviors in order to achieve their learning goals

(Wolters et al., 2005; Zimmerman, 2002). A great deal of empirical research has shown

that self-regulation is significantly related to factors that explain higher motivation for

learning and academic achievement (Phakiti, Hirsh, & Woodrow, 2013; Pintrich, 2000;

Purdie, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1986). Especially,

considering that assessment practices can influence their motivational beliefs on their

classroom learning behaviors, how students view assessments can influence students’
 29

self-regulated learning (Paris & Paris, 2001). The desirable learning outcomes of

assessment practices involve students’ responsibility for their own learning, sustained

efforts, awareness about learning process, and having mastery-oriented goals, all of

which are characteristics of self-regulated learning (Paris & Paris, 2001). Effective

assessment practices and feedback can help students take responsibility for their own

learning and eventually support self-regulated learning, which should be required in

higher education (Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). Based on the literature reviewed

above, this study hypothesizes that students’ adaptive beliefs about assessment (e.g.,

assessments promote learning.) are significantly associated with their self-regulated

learning (Brown, 2011) and investigated this relationship in an empirical model.

2.3.3 Second Language Learning and English Proficiency Tests

There has been an increasing number of students throughout the world who want

to study abroad in university in English speaking countries. In particular, large

populations of international students who come from Asian countries learn English as a

foreign language (EFL). English is considered one of the most important subjects in

many Asian countries. For example, in Korea, it is a mandatory school subject from

elementary school (Grades 3–6) through high school (Grades 10–12), and students learn

English very actively at least 10 years before they enter college (Magno, 2010).

The most widely used English language proficiency tests to measure language

ability and eligibility of those students are Test of English as a Foreign Language

(TOEFL) and International English Langue Testing System (IELTS). In English-speaking

countries, universities still depend on tests such as TOEFL and IELTS to determine the

language proficiency of students who apply for university admission. Those who prepare
 30

for higher education in the U.S. universities need to take high-stakes standardized English

proficiency exams, a necessary part of the application to English-speaking universities.

Thus, these tests are considered to be a high-stakes English proficiency assessment for

most Asian international students.

In general, English language proficiency tests are summative and norm-

referenced. These tests assess students’ performance against a norm to position on a

continuum across a range of scores. The TOEFL measures the ability of non-native

speakers of English to use and understand English in academic settings (Alderson, 2009).

Currently, TOEFL iBT is the latest version of the TOEFL, which consists of a reading

section taken from university textbooks, a listening section with classroom discussions

and conversations, a speaking section with six tasks, and a writing section with two tasks

(Alderson, 2009). As communicative language competence emerges as a main theoretical

construct in language learning, TOEFL iBT underlies the theoretical background in

communicative competence, which is the ability to use the language in complex contexts

to complete a variety of communication tasks (Alderson, 2009). Since IELTS’ scores

have been intended mainly for use in the UK and Australia, there was a need to

investigate the appropriateness of scores obtained from IELTS as measures of academic

language use in North America to ensure what the test scores mean and how they should

be used (Chalhoub-Deville, & Turner, 2000). For this reason, in the current study to

examine international students’ beliefs about assessment, the TOEFL was used as a high-

stakes assessment.

Recent research has explored the relationship between English proficiency and

students’ performance because predictive validity is important in English proficiency

 31

assessments. However, the findings produced inconsistent results. Some studies found

that TOEFL scores were related to their academic achievement measured by GPA

(Stoynoff, 1997). Students with higher TOEFL scores experienced fewer adjustment

difficulties, had more positive experiences, and felt more satisfied than those with lower

scores (Senyshyn, Warford, & Zhan, 2000). Also, strong writing skills were correlated

with high academic results (Ramburuth & McCormick, 2001). On the other hand, another

study found that language proficiency was not significantly related to achievement

(Berman & Cheng, 2010).

These dissimilar findings also appear in the literature on the impact of IELTS

scores on performance at university. There was a significant and positive relationship

between English proficiency and students’ performance (Feast, 2002) whereas other

studies found a weak relationship between IELTS and academic achievement or little

evidence that the scores can predict students’ performance and academic success (Cotton

& Conrow, 1998; Dooey & Oliver, 2002; Kerstjens & Nery, 2000). However, Feast

(2002) commented that inconsistent results from various research do not necessarily

mean that the assessments are not valid in terms of measuring English proficiency.

Rather, it indicates that language ability can be interpreted as a just one of the other

contributing factors that predict students’ academic success (Feast, 2002).

The current study examined how international students perceive these high-stakes

proficiency tests and what learning strategies they used when they prepare for these tests.

2.3.4 A Need to Develop an Alternate Instrument

There is a need to develop an alternate instrument measuring overall students’

beliefs and perspectives about assessment as well as perception of the purpose of the
 32

assessment and assessment tasks. The most commonly used instruments to study

students’ perceptions of assessment are the Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory

(PATI; Dorman & Knightley, 2006) and the Students’ Conceptions of Assessment

(SCoA-VI; Brown, 2011). The PATI examines how students feel about assessment task

in five different areas: congruence with planned learning, authenticity, student

consultation, transparency, and diversity. This scales focused on students’ perception of

assessment tasks. On the other hand, SCoA-VI involves four different domains regarding

students’ perceptions of the purpose of assessment: improvement (e.g., I pay attention to

my assessment results in order to focus on what I could do better next time), external

factors (e.g., Assessment is important for my future career or job), affective consequences

(e.g., Our class becomes more supportive when we are assessed), and irrelevance (e.g.,

Assessment results are not very accurate). This scale mainly concerns students’

perception of the purpose of assessment (Brown, 2011).

However, in order to better understand how students perceive their assessment in

second language learning and how these beliefs are related to the learning strategies,

there is a need to develop an alternative scale to capture students’ comprehensive beliefs

about assessments within one instrument. Cho (2015) conducted the semi-structured

interviews with 20 Korean international undergraduate students. Participants were asked

about how they viewed their high-stakes achievement tests in English subject when they

were in high schools (see Appendix A for interview protocol). The answers students

provided during the interview could be aggregated into four common aspects of beliefs

about assessment. In this qualitative study, Cho (2015) found that students expressed
 33

positively or negatively on these four aspects regarding their assessments: Benefit for

Learning, Engagement, Fairness, and Authenticity.

Benefit for Learning can be defined as the extent to which students believe or do

not believe that assessment benefits their learning (e.g., Assessment provides beneficial

learning experiences.). Engagement refers to the degree to which students believe that

assessment increases or decreases students’ engagement-related learning behaviors (e.g.,

Assessment encourages me to participate in learning activities better). Fairness can be

defined as the extent to which students believe or do not believe that assessment reflects

their actual skills and effort (e.g., Assessment results reflect my efforts) and that they

have a fair opportunity to accomplish diverse assessment tasks. (e.g., I can have access to

learning materials for assessment). Finally, Authenticity was mentioned quite often.

Students believe that assessment should measure something that they can apply to their

real-life situations later. Students thought that English assessments should measure

English for communicative purposes. This construct should be related to real-life

situations (e.g., Assessment reflects real-life situations). The full description of this

qualitative study can be found in Cho (2015).

These main four themes concerning secondary students’ beliefs about high-

stakes assessment were found to be aligned with several notions from previous research

(Brown, 2011; Dorman & Knightley, 2006; McMillan, 2000; Nichols & Dawson, 2012).

However, other existing instruments did not capture these comprehensive concepts within

one single instrument. There is a need to develop an alternative scale to include overall

these perspectives about assessment in one instrument. This scale should include

concepts such as how fair students perceive the assessment and what kinds of values
 34

students place in the assessment. Moreover, those existing scales have been mainly

developed in mathematics or sciences fields. Thus, this has led me to develop an

alternative scale in a new context, which is second language learning.

2.3.5 Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to investigate the validity of a new instrument

assessing students’ beliefs about assessment and to examine the relationships between

students’ beliefs about assessment and the use of their self-regulatory learning strategies

in the context of second language learning.

1. Does the Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS) measure students’

perception of adaptive characteristics of assessment?

2. Do students’ adaptive beliefs about assessment relate to the use of their

self-regulatory learning strategies in second language learning?

In order to answer these research questions, three different studies were conducted in the

following sections.

2.4 Methodology

2.4.1 Study One: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

[Link] Participants

The participants were recruited among international undergraduate students who

took the TOEFL before they were admitted to a large university in the Midwest of the

United States. About 5,200 international students representing 125 countries were

enrolled in this university, which comprises 17.7 % of the total number of undergraduate

students (Purdue International Students and Scholars, 2015). This university ranks first
 35

nationally in international students majoring in STEM disciplines. Students from China

ranks first in total enrollment, and students from India, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia,

Indonesia, Columbia, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey rank in the top ten. 328

participants were asked whether they took TOEFL before they entered the university and

took English courses when preparing for TOEFL. Since this study examined the

relationship between students’ beliefs about assessment in relation to classroom context,

only participants who took English classes regarding TOEFL were selected, and those

who prepared for TOEFL for themselves were excluded. Thus, only 226 participants

were selected for the EFA analysis, which is an adequate sample size for EFA (Fabrigar,

Wegener, MacCallum, Strahan, 1999).

About 92% of the participants reported being Asian or Pacific Islander, 2.2%

reported being Hispanic, 0.4% reported being Black, 1.8% reported being White, 0.4%

reported being more than one race, and 3.1% reported being “Others”. Participants

comprised 57.3% of women and 42.7% of men. In addition, participants were asked to

respond to the range of time that best represented their staying in the English-speaking

countries. About 43% of the participants reported staying in the U.S. less than 1 year,

27% reported staying between 1 and 2 years, 24% reported staying between 2 and 5

years, and 6% reported staying more than 5 years in the U.S. Their demographic profiles

are shown in Table 1.

 36

Table 1

Demographic Profiles for Exploratory Factor Analysis

Category N %
Gender Female 129 57.3%
Male 96 42.7%

Academic Year Freshman 108 48%

Sophomore 54 24%
Junior 42 18.7%
Senior 21 9.3%

Race Asian or Pacific Islander 206 92%

Hispanic 5 2.2%
Black 1 0.4%
White 4 1.8%
More than one race 1 0.4%
Other 7 3.1%

Duration in the U.S.A or Less than 1 year 97 42.9%

English-speaking countries
1-2 years 60 26.5%
2-5 years 55 24.3%
More than 5 years 14 6.2%

TOEFL Scores
Reading 1-10 1 .04%
11-20 27 12%
21-30 197 87.6%

Listening 1-10
11-20 32 14.2%
21-30 193 85.8%

Speaking 1-10
11-20 35 15.6%
21-30 190 84.4%

Writing 1-10 1 .04%

11-20 17 7.6%
21-30 206 92%
 37

[Link] Instrumentation

The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS). The BAS examines students’ views

about assessment. An initial pool of questions for the BAS was written based on the four

themes that emerged from findings of semi-structured interviews conducted with 20

international undergraduates: a) Fairness b) Benefit for Learning, c) Engagement, and d)

Authenticity. After the four hypothesized constructs had been formed, an item pool was

generated for each construct by (a) adapting relevant items from two existing

measurements and (b) by creating new items to reflect the nature of these constructs

based on students’ statement. For the theme of Fairness, Benefit for learning, and

Authenticity, some of the items were adapted from two existing instruments, which are

PATI (Dorman & Knightley, 2006) and SCoA-VI (Brown, 2011). These two existing

instruments have been used in many studies in different countries. The SCoA-VI

indicates a good reliability, ranging from .78 to .88 in the four factors: Improvement,

Affective factors, External factors, and Irrelevance. Seven items were adapted from the

SCoA-VI to be included in the Benefit for Learning subscale of the BAS. The PATI also

indicates an acceptable reliability, ranging from .63 to .85 for the five factors:

Congruence with planned learning, Authenticity, Student consultation, Transparency,

and Diversity. Thirteen items were adapted from the PATI for the construct Fairness and

Authenticity in the initial pool. Lastly, the researcher created the rest of 21 items based on

the findings from the semi-structured interviews with Korean students. Students’

statements from the interviews were transformed into items for the present study (e.g.,

Assessment gives me an opportunity to plan to study.). The initial pool consisted of

41items. The initial items reflected students’ adaptive opinions and beliefs about
 38

assessment. Participants were asked to rate the items on a 5-point Likert scale from 1

(disagree) to 5 (agree). Full initial items in the BAS are shown in Appendix B.

[Link] Procedures

International undergraduate students, who were interested in the online survey,

voluntarily participated in it. The survey consisted of the original 41 items from the BAS

with four subscales: Fairness (10 items), Benefit for Learning (11 items), Engagement

(11 items), and Authenticity (9 items). Items that indicate students’ fair opportunities to

tasks and resources and that show whether assessment reflect fairly students’ effort and

skills were expected to load in the factor Fairness. Also, the items related to beneficial

aspects of assessment practices were expected to load in the factor Benefit for Learning.

Especially, items related to engagement-related learning behaviors were expected to load

in the factor Engagement. Finally, items indicating that assessments reflect real-life

situations were assumed to conceptually load in the factor Authenticity. Exploratory

factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 to reduce the number

of items to the best items for each of the subscale which maximized the explained

variance and to identify the central factors in the proposed scale (Brown, 2006).

[Link] Results

The initial EFA result is shown in Table 2. In this study, principal axis factoring

and direct oblimin rotation were used in EFA. The results showed that four factors

explain 54.9% of variance in the overall solution. The items from Benefit for Learning

and Engagement merged into one factor. It appeared that the constructs Benefit for

Learning and Engagement were similarly understood by students, so these two concepts
 39

combined into one big theme, named as Benefit for Learning, which includes the

beneficial aspects of assessment and encouragement-related learning behaviors. On the

contrary, the items from the factor Fairness showed two different separate aspects: as the

extent to which students believe that assessment reflects learning objectives, and the

extent to which they believe that assessment reflects their actual skills and effort, and

provides a fair opportunity to accomplish assessment tasks. Thus, items from the

Fairness split into two factors, which were named each as Consistency with Learning

Objective and Fairness. The factor Consistency with Learning Objective is the same

concept as ‘congruence with planned learning’ in the PATI. Also, the items for

Authenticity showed as one factor as they were validated in previous literature (Dorman

& Knightley, 2006).

 40

Table 2

Initial Item Factor Loading suggested by Exploratory Factor Analysis (N=226)

Initial Items Factor Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3 4
Assessment encourages me to better participate in
.708
learning activities.
Assessment helps motivate me to better learn material
.691
content.
Assessment encourages me to use different learning
.670
strategies.
Assessment helps me plan to study. .652
Assessment shows what I need to study next. .651
Assessment encourages me to be proactive in class. .641
Assessment encourages me to seek extra help. .634
Assessment helps me develop my learning strategies. .582
The feedback from assessment helps me improve my
.556
learning.
Assessment helps me identify my misunderstandings
.549
or misconceptions.
I seek others’ help when I prepare for assessment. .545
Assessment helps me set short-term learning goals. .492
Assessment improves my everyday-life language
.486 -.370
skills.
Assessment helps make my learning more effective. .478
Assessment helps me know what I got wrong in order
.469
to guide what I should learn next.
Assessment helps me to review the content and
.469
remember it longer.
Assessment helps me focus on studying in class. .432 .357
Assessment tasks are useful in the real world. -.644
I am tested to apply my learning to real-life situations. -.542
Assessment tasks are relevant to the real world. -.537
Assessment examines my ability to answer important
.303 -.530
questions in real-life situations.
Assessment reflects real-life situations. -.498
Assessment results predict my future academic
-.371
performance.
 41

Table 2 continued
Assessment encourages me to do group work with
.326 -.357
others.
Assessment tasks are meaningful. -.325
I am allowed to complete assessment tasks at my own
speed.
Assessment is related to what I am learning in class. .705
I am tested on what teachers have taught me. .671
I am tested on topics that have been covered in class. .652
Assessment is a fair indication of what I do in class. .536
Assessment helps me identify how much I have
.377
learned.
Assessment is checking my progress toward achieving
.333
objectives.
Assessment results reflect my efforts. .693
Assessment is a fair indicator of my learning
.663
outcome.
Assessment examines reading, listening, speaking,
.562
and writing skills.
Assessment helps me to track my progress in learning. .533
Assessment provides useful learning experiences. .395 .490
Assessment includes a variety of tasks to reflect my
.489
ability.
Assessment results reflect my ability. -.301 .473
I have access to learning materials for assessment. .462
Assessment examines my ability to apply learning in
-.341 .352
other situations.
Note: Absolute values less than .30 are not displayed.

Thus, the initial data analysis indicated four factors and is depicted in Table 3:

Benefit for Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning Objective, and Fairness.

The Cronbach’s alpha for the sum scores from each factor was .91, .88, .73, and .79

respectively. Factors explained 59% of variance in the overall solution: 45.2% for Benefit

for Learning, 6% for Authenticity, 4.4% for Consistency with Learning Objective, and

3.4% for Fairness. Following initial EFA, I proceeded to shorten the instrument of beliefs
 42

about assessment by deleting items according to the following criteria: (a) items that did

not load on any of the factors (b) items that did not load as predicted, (c) exhibited strong

cross loading on multiple factors. Items were deleted one at a time to identify a more

parsimonious model by increasing the percentage of variance explained. This resulted in

a four-factor final model, as shown in Table 3. The factor structure for the final model

contained 20 items (8 items of Benefit for Learning, 5 items of Authenticity, 3 items of

Consistency with Learning Objective, and 4 items of Fairness). Since the initial two

factors Benefit for Learning and Engagement were combined as one, the subscale Benefit

for Learning contained more items than other factors. On the contrary, the subscale

Consistency with Learning Objective originated from the factor Fairness remained only 3

items adapted from the PATI which were validated in previous literature (Dorman &

Knightley, 2006).
 43

Table 3

Factor Loadings for the 20 Items

Factor Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3 4
Assessment encourages me to better participate in
.831
learning activities.
The feedback from assessment helps me improve my
.721
learning. (SCoA-VI)
Assessment helps me set short-term learning goals. .678
Assessment helps me develop my learning strategies. .663
Assessment encourages me to use different learning
.643
strategies.
Assessment shows what I need to study next. (SCoA-VI) .632
Assessment helps motivate me to better learn material
.611
content.
Assessment helps me plan to study. .582
Assessment tasks are relevant to the real world. (PATI) .752
Assessment tasks are useful in the real world. (PATI) .745
I am tested to apply my learning to real-life situations.
.722
(PATI)
Assessment reflects real-life situations. .692
Assessment examines my ability to answer important
questions in real-life situations. (PATI) .623

I am tested on what teachers have taught me. (PATI) .765

I am tested on topics that have been covered in class.
.757
(PATI)
Assessment is related to what I am learning in class.
.560
(PATI)
Assessment examines reading, listening, speaking, and
.709
writing skills.
Assessment includes a variety of tasks to reflect my
.584
ability.
Assessment results reflect my efforts. .505
I have access to learning materials for assessment. .471
Cronbach’s alpha = .91 .91 .79 .79

Although EFA suggested the model with 20 items, one researcher who specialized

in measurement suggested including additional items that did not have higher loading or

cross-loading, but represented the core construct of each factor. After looking over
 44

deleted items in the initial EFA, an additional six items which can represent the proposed

construct were selected and included in the final model. Table 4 shows these items.

Table 4

Additional Items to be Included in the Final Model

Benefit for Assessment helps me identify how much I have learned so far from the course.
Learning Assessment gives an opportunity to review the content and remember it longer.
Assessment provides beneficial learning experiences.
Assessment gives an opportunity to identify my misunderstanding or
misconception
Fairness Assessment results reflect my learning outcome.
Assessment result is a fair indicator of my ability.

In addition, in order to clarify unclear terms in selected items, cognitive

interviews were conducted with three international undergraduate students to go over the

selected 26 items, and the words and expressions were revised for better understanding in

the final model, which is shown in Table 5. The final model consists of 26 items which

explain about 58.3 % of overall variance. Table 6 shows internal reliability and

correlation coefficients among the four factors. The validity of this 26-item survey was

tested through confirmatory factor analysis in the following study in this paper.
 45

Table 5

Final Model of the Beliefs about Assessment Scale

Factor 1 Benefit for Learning (13 items)

1. Assessment encourages me to better participate in learning activities.
2. The feedback from assessment gives me an opportunity to improve my learning.
3. Assessment gives me an opportunity to set short-term learning goals.
4. Assessment gives me an opportunity to develop my learning strategies.
5. Assessment encourages me to use different learning strategies.
6. Assessment shows what I need to study next.
7. Assessment helps motivate me to better learn material content.
8. Assessment gives me an opportunity to plan to study.
9. Assessment gives me an opportunity to identify how much I have learned from the
course so far.
10. Assessment gives me an opportunity to review the content.
11. Assessment provides beneficial learning experiences.
12. Assessment helps identify any misunderstanding or misconceptions I had.
13. Assessment allows me to remember the content longer.
Factor 2 Authenticity (5 items)
14. Assessment tasks are relevant to the real world.
15. Assessment tasks are useful in the real world.
16. Assessment enables me to apply my learning to real-life situations.
17. Assessment reflects real-life situations.
18. Assessment examines my ability to answer important questions in real-life situations.
Factor 3 Consistency with Learning Objective (3 items)
19. Assessment measures what teachers have taught me.
20. Assessment tests topics that have been covered in class.
21. Assessment is related to what I am learning in class.
Factor 4 Fairness (5 items)
22. Assessment includes a variety of tasks to reflect my ability.
23. Assessment results reflect my efforts.
24. I have access to learning materials for assessment.
25. Assessment is a fair way to indicate my learning outcome.
26. Assessment is a fair way to show my ability.
 46

Table 6

Internal Reliability and Correlations among Factors in Final Model

Factors 1 2 3 4
1. Benefit for Learning 1
2. Authenticity .73** 1
3. Consistency with Learning Objective .58** .51** 1
4. Fairness .76** .72** .54** 1
Cronbach’s alpha α= .93 .91 .79 .82

2.4.2. Study Two: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

CFA was used to confirm the measurement model specified by the previous

exploratory factor analysis and to test how well the hypothesized model fits the observed

data. The CFA was conducted using LISREL to verify the hypothesized model produced

by the EFA with the four factors. To assess model fit, the χ2 statistic was examined first.

[Link]. Participants

For the CFA, 263 international undergraduate students participated in the online

survey. They were enrolled as full-time students who took the TOEFL before they were

admitted to the university. The sample was comprised of 44.3% women and 55.7% of

men. The majority of the students were first-year (45.4%) students, studying engineering

& technology majors (47.4%).

About 45.4% of the participants reported as freshmen, 15.9% reported as

sophomore, 25.6% reported as junior, and 13.2% reported as seniors. For their major,

about 47.4% of the participants reported majoring in engineering & technology majors,

24.2% reported majoring in science & math-related majors, 16.5% reported business-

related majors, 2.6% reported majoring in social science majors, 0.5% reported literature
 47

& language, and 8.8% reported others. In addition, about 40.7% of the participants

reported staying in the U.S. less than 1 year, 15.9% reported staying between 1 and 2

years, 28.8% reported staying between 2 and 5 years, and 14.6% reported staying more

than 5 years in the U.S. The demographic profiles are shown in Table 7.

Table 7

Demographic Profiles for Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Category N %
Gender Female 101 44.3%
Male 127 55.7%

Academic Year Freshman 103 45.4%

Sophomore 36 15.9%
Junior 58 25.6%
Senior 30 13.2%

Race Asian or Pacific Islander 204 90.3%

Hispanic 2 0.9%
Black 1 0.4%
White 5 2.2%
More than one race 4 1.8%
Other 10 4.4%

Major Engineering & Technology 92 47.4%

Science & Math 47 24.2%
Business 32 16.5%
Social Science 5 2.6%
Literature & Language 1 0.5%
Others 17 8.8%

Duration in the U.S. A or Less than 1 year 92 40.7%

English-speaking countries
1-2 years 36 15.9%
2-5 years 65 28.8%
More than 5 years 33 14.6%
 48

Table 7 continued
TOEFL Scores 5 (1-10)
Reading 13.5 (11-15) 5 2.2%
18.5 (16-20) 44 19.4%
13.5 (21-25) 77 33.9%
28.5 (26-30) 101 44.5%

Listening 5 (1-10)
13.5 (11-15) 4 1.8%
18.5 (16-20) 43 18.9%
13.5 (21-25) 76 33.5%
28.5 (26-30) 104 45.8%

Speaking 5 (1-10) 1 0.4%

13.5 (11-15) 4 1.8%
18.5 (16-20) 48 21.1%
13.5 (21-25) 110 48.5%
28.5 (26-30) 64 28.2%

Writing 5 (1-10)
13.5 (11-15) 5 2.2%
18.5 (16-20) 43 18.9%
13.5 (21-25) 88 38.8%
28.5 (26-30) 91 40.1%

[Link]. Measures

The BAS examines students’ adaptive views about assessment. In this study, the

final model identified in Study One was used with four factors with 26 items: Benefit for

Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning Objective, and Fairness.

[Link]. Procedures

A recruitment email was sent out to the international students through the Office

of the Registrar and international students’ organizations. The participants went to the

online survey link and took the final version of the survey from the BAS.
 49

CFA was performed using LISREL in order to test how well the revised 26-item

model suggested by the EFA and researcher input fits the validation data. The CFA was

performed to confirm the proposed factor structure of the measurement model with the

new sample data.

To assess the model data fit, a number of goodness of fit estimators were checked.

Likewise, the χ2 statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 2007), the Tucker-

Lewis index (TLI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), the Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980), and the

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; Bentler, 2007) were used to evaluate

overall goodness of fit. Models with CFI values greater than .90 and SRMR values less

than .10 are considered to be acceptably fitting models. RMSEA values between .05

and .08 indicate a good fit and values greater than .10 indicate poor fit of the model

(Kline, 2005). In addition, the non-normed fit index (NNFI), which is also known as the

Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were used in this study. TLI values of .90 or greater are

considered a good fit. Finally, coefficient alpha was used to indicate the internal

consistency of the individual scales of the proposed scale. In general, the value of .80 is

highly recommended for a newly developed scale (Clark & Watson, 1995) although the

value of .70 is considered to be acceptable.

[Link] Results

The results of the CFA indicated that the hypothesized model overall provided a

good fit for the data (χ 2(293) = 856.50, p < .001; CFI = .97; NNFI = .96; IFI = .97; GFI

= .80; RMSEA = .086; SRMR = .06) although the RMSEA value feel slightly higher than

the value for good fit. The results are shown in Table 8. Overall those indices indicated
 50

that this model is a very good fit. The Figure 1 represents visually the completely

standardized factor loadings for each item. Factor loadings ranged from .55 to .82 (see

Figure 1 for all factor loadings and correlations among factors). The validity of the

hypothesized model was well supported by the goodness-of-fit of indices such as CFI,

NNFI, IFI, RMSEA, and SRMR. However, GFI was relatively a bit lower than other

goodness-of-fit of indices. The internal reliability for the factor Benefit for learning,

Authenticity, Consistency with Learning Objective, Fairness indicated .92, .88, .75,

and .79 respectively.

Table 8

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: 4-factor Model with 26 Items

Fit Indices
(χ 2(293) = 856.50, 𝑝 < .001
Comparative fit index (CFI) .97
Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) .96
Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .97
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) .80
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) .09
Standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) .06
 51

Figure 1. The Standardized Factor Loadings following Confirmatory Factor Analysis

2.4.3 Study Three: Relationship between Beliefs about Assessment and Self-
Regulated Learning

The relationships between students’ beliefs about assessment, different types of

self-regulated learning strategies, perceived knowledge transfer and self-reporting

TOEFL scores were tested in a structural equation modeling and a multiple regression

analysis. The hypothesized structure model is depicted in Figure 2.

 52

Figure 2. Hypothesized Structure Model

[Link] Participants

A subset of the sample for Study Two was used for Study Three. Participants

were 230 students who completed the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

(MSLQ) survey among those who participated in the CFA survey.

[Link] Measures

The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS). The final version with 26 items was

used to measure students’ beliefs about high-stakes assessment in their second language

learning. The internal reliability for the four factors in the current study

indicated .92, .88, .73, and .79 respectively

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich, Smith,

Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993). To assess students’ self-regulatory strategies, learning

strategies subscales are used from the MSLQ: metacognitive self-regulation, time and
 53

study environment management, effort regulation, peer learning, and help-seeking

strategies. Metacognitive self-regulation strategies are related to the use of strategies that

help students control and regulate their own cognition (e.g., when I become confused

about something I’m reading, I go back and try to figure it out.). Time and study

environment management are concerned with one’s time and study environment (e.g.,

using one’s time effectively or choosing an effective place to study). Effort regulation

refers to the regulation of one’s effort (e.g., persisting in the face of challenging tasks).

Finally, peer learning (e.g., using a study group to help learn) and help-seeking (e.g.,

seeking help from peers or instructors when needed) are concerned with the use of others

in learning. This scale consists of a seven-point, Likert-type scale ranging from very

untrue (1) to very true (7). The Cronbach alpha for the five subscales in the current study

were .72, .61, .41, .79, and .61 respectively.

Perceived knowledge Transfer (PKT; Levesque-Bristol, Richards, Zissimopoulos,

Wang, & Yu, 2016). Students’ perceived knowledge transfer was measured as an outcome

variable. The PKT measures the extent to which students perceive whether their learning

is more likely to be transferred (e.g., I feel confident in my language ability to apply to

college courses.). This scale consists of a seven-point, Likert-type scale ranging from

strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The Cronbach’s alpha for the PKT in the

current study was .81.

TOEFL Scores. Participants were asked to self-report their TOEFL scores within

fixed ranges in four areas: reading, listening, speaking, and writing (e.g., reading section:

0-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26-30, the maximum score is 30 in each section). For

example, reading section divided into 5 ranges (e.g., 0-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, and 26-
 54

30) and the median scores of each range (e.g., 5, 13.5, 18.5, 23.5, and 28.5) were used.

Thus, in this survey, the minimum score is 5 and the maximum score is 114 although the

maximum score of iBT TOEFL is officially 120 points.

[Link]. Procedures

A total number of 230 participants completed the online survey for beliefs about

assessment, self-regulatory learning strategies in MSLQ and knowledge transfer in the

PKT. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed. In the introduction of

the survey, participants were notified that the ‘assessment’ in the survey refers to the

TOEFL that they took, and ‘classes’ refer to English classes that they took for the

TOEFL. They were also asked to respond to the survey items based on their learning

behaviors when they prepare for the TOEFL.

[Link] Results

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses. Preliminary analyses were conducted to

show descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities of measures. Table 9 shows

descriptive information from the BAS, the MSLQ and the PKT. Findings showed that

students reported the factor Benefit for Learning and Fairness higher than the other two

factors, Consistency of Learning Objective and Authenticity, in response to the TOEFL.

 55

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics among Variables (N = 230)

Variables M SD Minimum Maximum

Benefit for Learning 3.64 .78 1.00 5.00
Authenticity 3.32 .96 1.00 5.00
Consistency with Learning Objective 3.46 .89 1.00 5.00
Fairness 3.60 .81 1.00 5.00
Meta-cognitive Self-Regulation 4.47 .75 1.00 7.00
Time & Study Environment Management 4.32 .81 1.00 7.00
Effort Regulation 4.36 .95 1.00 7.00
Peer Learning 3.94 1.39 1.00 7.00
Help-Seeking 4.15 1.06 1.00 7.00
Perceived Knowledge Transfer 5.37 1.09 1.00 7.00
TOEFL Scores (self-reporting) 97.13 14.40 5 114

Table 10 shows the bivariate Pearson correlations analysis. Benefit for Learning

and Fairness were correlated with all five self-regulatory learning strategies as well as

perceived knowledge transfer. Authenticity was correlated with metacognitive self-

regulation, time & study environment management, peer learning and help-seeking

strategies. Also, Consistency was correlated with metacognitive self-regulation, peer

learning and help-seeking strategies. Somewhat puzzling finding from the correlations

table was that students’ self-reporting TOEFL scores were not correlated with any self-

regulatory learning strategies.

Finally, all four factors of the BAS were significantly correlated with meta-

cognitive self-regulation, peer learning and help-seeking strategies. In order to investigate

which learning strategies are more strongly related to adaptive beliefs about assessment,

follow-up structural equation modeling and multiple regression analysis with variables

were tested further.

Table 10

Correlation Coefficients among Variables (N = 230)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Benefit for Learning 1.00
2. Authenticity .72** 1.00
3. Consistency with learning objective .70 **
.58** 1.00
4. Fairness .73 **
.72 **
.58** 1.00
5. Metacognitive self-regulation .43 **
.34 **
.28 **
.39** 1.00
6. Time & study environment management .22 **
.13 *
.07 .19 **
.63** 1.00
7. Effort regulation .15 *
.06 .06 .16 *
.48 **
.62** 1.00
8. Peer learning .42 **
.43 **
.33 **
.27 **
.53 **
.28 **
.18** 1.00
9. Help-seeking .36 **
.25 **
.29 **
.17 *
.56 **
.46 **
.22 **
.67** 1.00
10. Perceived Knowledge Transfer .27 **
.11 .14 .20 **
.22 **
.12 .08 .05 .05 1.00
11. TOEFL Scores (self-reporting) .05 .07 .02 .04 -.06 -.09 -.03 -.06 -.15* .44** 1.00
Note: * Significant correlation at the 𝛼 = .05 level (two-tailed), ** Significant correlation at the 𝛼 = .01 level (two-tailed).

56
 57

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). As the hypothesized general model

depicted in Figure 2 was tested, it suggested a very poor model. Based on the correlation

described above, the following model was tested with only the inclusion of three self-

regulated strategies: the metacognitive self-regulation, peer learning, and help-seeking

strategies. The data suggested a rather poor model fit as well : 𝜒 2 (144) = 392.630, p

< .001; CFI = .85; TLI = .82; SRMR = .11; RMSEA = .09). Although adaptive beliefs

about assessment was significantly related to those three self-regulated learning

strategies, peer learning and help-seeking strategies were not associated with perceived

knowledge transfer. Presumably, this may be the reason the data suggested a rather poor

model fit.

Thus, among the three learning strategies, only metacognitive self-regulation

strategies were included in the final SEM model in relation to adaptive beliefs about

assessment, perceived knowledge transfer, and the TOEFL scores. The final SEM model

is depicted in Figure 3 with path coefficients. The data suggested a very good model

fit: 𝜒 2 (50) = 99.67, p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .94; SRMR = .07; RMSEA = .07).

Students’ beliefs about assessment remained a significant positive predictor of students’

metacognitive self-regulation strategies (β = .52, p <.001). Also, metacognitive self-

regulation strategy was shown to be significantly related to students’ perception of

knowledge transfer (β = .19, p = .03). That is, the more students use the metacognitive

self-regulation strategies, the more students perceive that their learning can transfer to

another situation and feel confident in the ability to apply this knowledge to other

situations. Furthermore, this perception of knowledge transfer was significantly

 58

associated with students’ self-reporting TOEFL scores (β = .50, p < .001) although

metacognition as a self-regulatory learning strategy did not predict the TOEFL scores.

The interesting finding is that metacognitive self-regulation strategy was not

directly predictive of the TOEFL scores, however results indicated a significant indirect

effect of metacognitive strategies on the TOEFL scores (β = .09, p = .05). Presumably,

the fact that the TOEFL scores were self-reported by students may be part of the issue for

the lack of direct relationship between metacognitive self-regulation strategy and the

TOEFL scores.

Figure 3. Structural Equation Model. All solid line path coefficients are significant while

the dotted line path coefficient is not significant at p < .05.

Multiple Regression Analysis. In the SEM model, beliefs about assessment were

conceptualized as a unidimensional construct to examine relationships with self-

regulatory strategies. In order to explore which factor from the BAS is strongly

associated with self-regulated learning strategies, multiple regression analysis was

conducted. The proposed BAS represents the adaptive beliefs about assessment with four
 59

different constructs: Benefit for Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning

Objectives, and Fairness. In the analysis, the four characteristics of adaptive beliefs about

assessments were entered simultaneously into the regression equation to predict the use

of metacognitive self-regulation strategies.

The results of the regression analysis indicated that the factor Benefit for Learning

(β = .34, p = .001) was significantly associated with the use of metacognitive self-

regulation strategies while the factor Authenticity, Consistency, and Fairness were non-

significant. When considered together as predictors of metacognitive self-regulation

strategies, the percentage of variance explained was 20%. Students’ adaptive beliefs

about assessment, especially beliefs that assessments provide beneficial learning

experiences was significantly predictive of their use of self-regulatory learning approach

in second language learning. Therefore, the greater students perceive that assessment is

an important part of learning, the more likely students are to employ self-regulated

learning strategies.

2.5. Discussion

2.5.1 Beliefs about Assessment Scale and Self-Regulated Learning

This study examines the validity and reliability of a new instrument assessing

students’ beliefs about assessment in the context of second language learning.

Specifically, this study was conducted with international undergraduate students to

investigate their beliefs about a high-stakes standardized English assessment. In addition,

this study investigated how students’ beliefs about assessment are related to actual

students’ self-regulated learning strategies and how these beliefs can contribute to
 60

students’ self-reporting perceived knowledge transfer through these learning strategies

and self-reported performance on the TOEFL.

This study tested the scale to measure students’ adaptive beliefs about the high-

stakes assessment. The proposed scale represents the adaptive beliefs about assessment,

consisting of 26 items with four different constructs: Benefit for Learning, Authenticity,

Consistency with Learning Objective, and Fairness. The scale shows a good fit to the

data, so this scale can be used to examine students’ adaptive perspectives, attitudes, and

beliefs regarding assessments. Furthermore, this scale can be used in other studies to

investigate the relationships between beliefs about assessments and other learning

components such as motivational beliefs or learning strategies in many different

assessment settings.

In particular, the BAS highlighted the beneficial aspect and fairness of

assessment. The factor Benefit for Learning includes identification of a beneficial aspect

of assessment and improvement to engagement-related learning behaviors. Similar

concepts to Benefit for Learning was found in the notion of Improvement in Brown’s

(2011) study which refers to the extent to which students believe that assessments

improve learning and the teachers’ teaching practices. Also, this theme was found in

Nichols and Dawson (2012) study’s, suggesting that assessment provides a context for

student engagement. In order to represent this theme in the scale, the BAS includes

students’ statements based on their vivid voices and interviews.

Also, the notion of fairness is found in Dorman and Knightley (2006)’s study on

secondary students’ perception of assessment. However, the concept of Fairness in the

BAS involved two aspects of fairness: a) the extent to which students believe that
 61

assessment reflects their actual skills and effort (3 items; e.g., Assessment results reflect

my efforts.), and (b) the extent to which they have a fair opportunity to accomplish

diverse assessment tasks (2 items; e.g., I can have access to learning materials for the

assessment.). Dorman and Knightley (2006) mentioned that one of the essential

characteristics of assessment is that students have an equal opportunity to accomplish

assessment tasks. McMillan (2000) also noted that this characteristic involves the absence

of bias and a sense that the assessment is equitable. The BAS includes not only this

definition of ‘fair opportunity’, but also the extent to which students feel that assessment

reflects their actual skills and effort, which is a crucial aspect of adaptive beliefs about

assessment.

The bivariate correlations analysis showed that Benefit for Learning and Fairness

were correlated with all five self-regulatory learning strategies as well as perceived

knowledge transfer. Authenticity was correlated with metacognitive self-regulation, time

& study environment management, peer learning and help-seeking strategies whereas

Consistency with Learning Objective was correlated with metacognitive self-regulation,

peer learning and help-seeking strategies. This implies that components of adaptive

beliefs about assessment are significantly associated with students’ self-regulated

learning approach. However, the somewhat puzzling finding was that students’ self-

reporting TOEFL scores was not correlated with any self-regulatory learning strategies.

One of the possible explanations is that self-reporting TOEFL scores may involve some

measurement errors or that the scores may have been inflated from students’ memory. In

order to further examine the relationship with learning strategies, there may be a need to

use students’ actual achievement scores.

 62

In addition, the results of SEM suggested that students’ adaptive assessment are

significantly associated with self-regulatory learning strategy when they prepare for the

assessment. There was a significant relationship between adaptive beliefs about

assessment and self-regulatory learning strategies, mostly metacognitive self-regulation,

peer learning and help-seeking strategies, which lead to desirable learning outcomes. This

study provides strong empirical evidence to support Brown’s (2011)’s assertion that

students’ perception of assessment is a central part of self-regulation. Especially, this

study suggests that students’ adaptive beliefs about assessments were significantly related

to metacognitive self-regulation strategy which affects students’ perception of knowledge

transfer. When the researcher specifically examined the components of beliefs about

assessments, the researcher found that the factor Benefit for Learning was the most

associated with metacognitive self-regulation. That is, if students perceive the benefits of

the assessment to be high, they tend to use the metacognitive strategies which increase

students’ knowledge transfer. These findings provided an important implication under the

current high-stakes assessment situations. High-stake testing has a great deal of issues in

students’ motivations and learning attitudes (Amrein-Beardsley & Berliner, 2003; Ryan

& Brown, 2005; Ryan & Weinstein, 2009). However, these findings suggest that as long

as students identify the beneficial aspects of the high-stakes assessment to be high, it

would encourage students to use self-regulatory learning strategies which enhance

students’ learning outcomes. This finding is aligned with previous studies suggesting that

adaptive beliefs about assessment lead to desirable outcomes such as learning approach,

better achievement, and self-regulation (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown et al.,

2009; McMillan, 2000). High-stakes second language assessments influence international

 63

students’ second language learning, which may be negative or positive. However, as long

as they recognize the beneficial aspects of assessments, it would probably promote their

self-regulated learning in second language contexts.

2.5.2 Theoretical and Practical Implication

The development of a valid and reliable instrument is an important step towards

examining how students’ beliefs about assessment are associated with other motivational

variables and diverse learning strategies in second language learning. The Beliefs about

Assessment Scale enables us to measure students’ general perspectives and perceptions of

assessment. This scale can be used in investigating how adaptive beliefs about high-

stakes assessments directly or indirectly contribute to learning approach and academic

achievement in higher education.

Additionally, the findings from Study Three show empirical evidence that

adaptive beliefs about assessment are related to the use of self-regulatory strategy and

learning outcomes. Students with adaptive beliefs about assessment view assessment as a

crucial part of the learning process to check their proficiency and misconception, and to

develop their own learning strategies to make the best of assessment for learning. This

finding provides a rationale for educators’ intervention in students’ developing adaptive

beliefs about assessment. If instructors highlight the role of the assessment as a beneficial

learning experience, even high-stakes testing would be a valuable opportunity for

students to develop their own learning strategies and improve their learning. As long as

instructors communicate with students the beneficial aspects of assessment and rationales

for assessment practices, students would be more likely to view assessment as a

beneficial learning experience and have adaptive attitudes about it. Thus, instructors
 64

should provide an opportunity for students to change their attitudes and perspectives

about assessment so that they can view assessment as a genuine learning experience and

equip themselves with beneficial learning strategies in the long term. These perceptions

would improve students’ use of adaptive learning strategies and academic achievement.

2.5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

This study has a couple of limitations. First, ethnic variability and duration of

time in English-speaking countries were not considered in data analysis. The data for the

EFA and CFA included various ethnicity groups of international undergraduate students.

In addition, the duration of the stay in the U.S. for those students ranged from less than 6

months to more than 5 years. Thus, there is a possibility that depending on where they

came from and how long they have stayed in English-speaking countries, their responses

to beliefs about high-stakes English proficiency tests and their approach to learning may

vary.

Also, assessments have different functions based on various educational purposes.

The diverse forms and functions of assessment have potential limitations to the study

about assessment beliefs. In order to provide more evidence of the validity of the scale,

there is a need to study students’ beliefs about assessment in other high-stakes assessment

contexts with diverse populations. Additionally, correlation analysis with similar

constructs from the existing scales would support construct validity of the proposed scale.

More importantly, the construct adaptive beliefs about assessments needs a

theoretical framework to support the nature of the construct. The finding from this study

was aligned with results from previous research on students’ perception of assessment

which suggest that when students identify the value, meaning or importance of the
 65

assessment task, they showed more persistence, effort, and even better achievement

(Brown, 2011; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld,

2009; Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009). The fact that the more students believe that they can

benefit from assessment, the more likely they are to use self-regulatory learning strategies

which contribute to desirable learning outcomes, aligns with the tenet of self-

determination theory (Deci &Ryan, 2002). According to SDT, individuals with self-

determined motivation (identified, integrated, and intrinsic regulation) are more likely to

participate in tasks and put more efforts on the task even if extrinsic rewards or

reinforcements are not available. As students perceive the importance of the task and

benefit from the assessment, they are more likely to use adaptive regulatory strategies

such as metacognitive self-regulation strategy which is significantly linked to students’

knowledge transfer and learning achievement. Given these findings, identifying the value

and importance of assessment as beneficial learning experiences would be related to

students’ identified or integrated regulatory styles, according to SDT. The more students

identify the adaptive perspectives in the assessments, the more likely they are to use more

adaptive approach to learning even if they are under high-stakes testing situations. In

high-stakes assessment setting, it would be hard to find intrinsic motivation around

assessment tasks, but still adaptive motivation regulations such as identification may lead

to desirable learning outcomes such adaptive beliefs about assessment. Therefore, the

construct adaptive beliefs about assessment may be theoretically supported by SDT.

In order to further study the role of SDT as a conceptual framework in students’

beliefs about assessments, empirical models are needed for incorporating constructs from

SDT and adaptive beliefs about assessment. In Paper Two and Three of this dissertation,
 66

how adaptive beliefs about assessment play a role in international students’ academic

work were tested using SDT as a theoretical framework. The additional empirical

findings and results would support my argument that the construct adaptive beliefs about

assessment is theoretically supported by SDT and show the role of adaptive beliefs about

assessment resulting in desirable students’ learning outcomes.

2.6. References

Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-

regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve

analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150-161.

Alderson, J. C. (2009). Test review: Test of English as a Foreign Language™: Internet-

based Test (TOEFL iBT®). Language Testing, 26(4), 621-631.

Alderson, J.C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist?. Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-

129.

Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading

scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to

Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 1-16.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities adjustment

factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

development. [Link] theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality

and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825-829.

 67

Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2010). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties

by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic

achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de

linguistique appliquée, 4(1), 25-40.

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal

of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs,

implicit theories of intelligence, and self‐regulated learning among Norwegian

postsecondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 539-

565.

Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). 'I don't like writing. It makes my fingers

hurt': Students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 221-242.

Brown, G. T. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: a review of the

Students’ Conceptions of Assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31(6),

731-748.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2007). Students, conceptions of assessment and

mathematics achievement: Evidence for the power of self-regulation. Australian

Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 63-74.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to

outcomes, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 3-17.

 68

Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of

interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students'

conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97-111.

Brown, H. D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and

classroom practices. Pearson Education.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Buck, G. (1988). Testing listening comprehension in Japanese university entrance

examinations. Journal of the Japan Association of Language Teachers, 10(1), 15-

42.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. (2000). What to look for in ESL admission tests:

Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. System, 28(4), 523-539.

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. (2008). Building a validity argument for

the test of English as a foreign language. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cho, H. J. (2015). Korean international college students’ beliefs about assessment in

second language learning: The subjective task value, goal orientation, and

attribution (Unpublished master’s equivalent thesis). Purdue University, West

Lafayette, USA.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.

 69

Cotton, F., & Conrow, F. (1998). An investigation of the predictive validity of IELTS

amongst a group of international students studying at the University of

Tasmania. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research

Reports, 1, 72-115.

Cumming, A. (2009). Language assessment in education: Tests, curricula, and

teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 90-100.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University

Rochester Press.

Dooey, P., & Oliver, R. (2002). An investigation into the predictive validity of the IELTS

Test as an indicator of future academic success. Prospect: an Australian Journal

of TESOL, 17, 36-54.

Dorman, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument

to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment tasks. Educational

Studies, 32(1), 47-58.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating

the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological

Methods, 4(3), 272-299.

Feast, V. (2002). The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Flinders University, Australia.

Hirschfeld, G. H., & Brown, G. T. (2009). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Factorial

and structural invariance of the SCoA across sex, age, and ethnicity. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 30-38.

 70

Hudson, T. (2005). Trends in assessment scales and criterion-referenced language

assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 205-227.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on

language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385-402.

Kerstjens, M., & Nery, C. (2000). Predictive validity in the IELTS test: A study of the

relationship between IELTS scores and students' subsequent academic

performance. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research

Reports, 3, 85-108.

Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation.

Sage Publications.

Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do

implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?. Learning and Individual

Differences, 25, 67-72.

Levesque-Bristol, C., Richards, K. A. R., Zissimopoulos, A., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2016).

Creation and validation of the perceived knowledge transfer scale

(PKTS). Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the

learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and

practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

Mace, F. C., Belfiore, P., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2001). Operant theory and research on

self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated

learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.39-65). NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 71

Magno, C. (2010). Korean students ‘language learning strategies and years of studying

English as predictors of proficiency in English. Teaching English to Speakers of

Languages Journal, 2, 39-61.

McCombs, B. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A

phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-

regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.67-

123). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators.

Corwin Press.

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. ETS Research Report

Series, 1996(1), i-18.

Nichols, S., & Dawson, H. (2012). Assessment as a context for student engagement. In

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of

research on student engagement. (pp. 457-458). Springer Science & Business

Media.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated

learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in

Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.

Olivas, M., & Li, C. (2006). Understanding stressors of international students in higher

education: What college counselors and personnel need to know. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 217-222.

 72

‘Otunuku, M., Brown, G. T., & Airini (2013). Tongan secondary students’ conceptions of

schooling in New Zealand relative to their academic achievement. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 14(3), 345-357.

Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing theories, identities, and

actions of self-regulated learners. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),

Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives

(pp.253-287). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.

Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy Use by Nonnative English‐Speaking

Students in an MBA Program: Not Business as Usual!. The Modern Language

Journal, 88(3), 374-389.

Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of

assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250.

Phakiti, A., Hirsh, D., & Woodrow, L. (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other

individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL

international students in Australia. Journal of Research in International

Education, 12(3), 239-258.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.

Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.

451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic.

 73

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-

regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4),

385-407.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and

predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.

Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use

of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87-100.

Purdue International Students and Scholars. (2015). Enrollment & Statistical Report.

Retrieved from

[Link]

Ramburuth, P. & McCormick, J. (2001). Learning diversity in higher education: a

comparative study of Asian international and Australian students. Higher

Education, 42(3), 333-350.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S. & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning

environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique’. Higher

Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89-101.

Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354-374). New York: The

Guilford Press
 74

Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-

determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. School Field, 7(2), 224-

233.

Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). “But is it fair?”: An exploratory study

of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in

Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349-371.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.

Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic

achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.125-151). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory

competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195-208.

Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment

environment: The influence on students' perceptions of assessment demands and

their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 223-242.

Senyshyn, R. M., Warford, M. K., & Zhan, J. (2000). Issues of adjustment to higher

education: International students' perspectives. International Education, 30(1),

17-35.

Steiger, J.H. & Lind, J.C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of

common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the

Psychometric Society, Iowa City.

Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students' academic

achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24(1), 56-68.

 75

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation

and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.

Tang, C. (1994). Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation strategies. In G.

Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice (pp. 151-170).

Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect

of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189-205.

Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and

self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies

classrooms. Instructional Science, 26(1), 27-47.

Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2005). Assessing academic self-

regulated learning. In What Do Children Need to Flourish? (pp. 251-270).

Springer US.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An

overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.

Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Ziedner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp.13-

39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into

Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

 76

Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for

assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational

Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628.

 77

2.7 Appendices

Appendix A. Interview Protocol

1. Tell me about your experience of learning English in high school. (Task value-
attainment, intrinsic, utility value, and cost)
1) I will start by asking about when you first started learning English. How old
were you? What was it like?
2) What was your English language learning experience in high school?
3) What comes to mind when you think of your experience of learning English?
4) Was learning English enjoyable for you? Was it interesting? Why? Why not?
5) Is it important for Korean students like you to learn English? Why?
6) Is learning English useful? In what ways?
7) How much time did you spend learning English, in relationship to other school
subjects in high school?
8) Did you have to give up other things to dedicate time to learning English? If
you did, what did you give up?
9) If learning English was not required, would you still choose to learn this
language? Or would you choose other languages instead? Why?

2. Tell me about your experiences of English achievement tests (classroom mid-term

& final exams) in high school.
1) What comes to mind first when you think of the final exam in English class?
2) How do you feel about English achievement tests (classroom mid-term & final
exams)? What has been your experience with the tests?
3) Was the English achievement test (classroom mid-term & final exams)
important for Korean students like you? Why?
4) Was the English achievement test (classroom mid-term & final exams) useful?
In what ways?
5) How much time did you spend preparing for English tests, in relationship to
other school subjects’ tests in high school?
6) How did you prepare for the test? Or how did you study English for the test?
7) Did you have to give up other things to dedicate time to preparing the test? If
you did, what did you give up?
8) How was your performance in English achievement test? Maybe you can
indicate your achievement outcomes based on Stanine scaling test scores from
1 to 9. Why do you give yourself that score?
9) Did the results from the tests influence what you did for next test? If so, how
did it influence your learning strategies?

3. What were your goals in English classes and in English tests? (Goal-orientations)
1) Was English important to you? If so, why? If English was not important to you,
why not?
2) If you want to be good at English, why?
3) Were test results important to you?
4) If you wanted to do well in English tests, why?
 78

5) If a test result was not important to you, why not?

6) If you didn’t care about the test result, why not?
7) Was it important that other students in your class or your teacher think that you
are good at English?
8) If you found that the English test was too challenging, how did you deal with
it?
4. How do you explain your success or failure in learning English? (Attribution for
English)
1) If you were good at English, how do you explain your success in English class?
2) If you were not good at English, how do you explain why you did poorly in
English class?
5. Tell me your success or failure in English tests if you had? (Attribution for tests)
1) If you did well on English tests, why do you think you did well?
2) If you didn’t well on the test, why do you think you failed it?
3) Do you think your past experiences in relation to English tests influenced your
view on assessment?
6. Would you share with me the experiences or activities that were most helpful to you
1) in terms of learning English?
2) in terms of improving your scores in English assessment?

7. Did you think achievement tests in class helped your learning English?
1) If you thought achievement tests helped your learning English, how?
2) If you didn’t think tests helped your learning English, why did you think so?
 79

Appendix B. The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (Initial Model, 41 items)

Fairness (10 items)

1. Assessment is a fair indicator of my learning outcome.
2. Assessment is related to what I am learning in class.
3. Assessment is a fair indication of what I do in class.
4. I am tested on what teachers have taught me.
5. I am tested on topics that have been covered in class.
6. Assessment results reflect my ability.
7. I am allowed to complete assessment tasks at my own speed.
8. Assessment includes a variety of tasks to reflect my ability.
9. Assessment results reflect my efforts.
10. I have access to learning materials for assessment.
Benefit for Learning (11 items)
11. Assessment helps me to track my progress in learning.
12. Assessment helps me identify how much I have learned.
13. Assessment is checking off my progress toward achieving objectives.
14. Assessment shows what I need to study next.
15. The feedback from assessment helps me improve my learning.
16. Assessment helps me know what I got wrong in order to guide what I should learn next.
17. Assessment helps make my learning more effective.
18. Assessment results predict my future academic performance.
19. Assessment provides useful learning experiences.
20. Assessment helps motivate me to better learn material content.
21. Assessment helps me identify my misunderstandings or misconceptions.
Engagement (11 items)
22. Assessment encourages me to do group work with others.
23. Assessment helps me develop my learning strategies.
24. Assessment encourages me to better participate in learning activities.
25. Assessment encourages me to use different learning strategies.
26. Assessment helps me set short-term learning goals.
27. Assessment encourages me to seek extra help.
28. Assessment helps me plan to study.
29. Assessment helps me to review the content and remember it longer.
30. Assessment helps me focus on studying in class.
31. Assessment encourages me to be proactive in class.
32. I seek others’ help when I prepare for assessment.
Authenticity (9 items)
33. I am tested to apply my learning to real-life situations.
34. Assessment tasks are meaningful.
35. Assessment tasks are useful in the real world.
36. Assessment tasks are relevant to the real world.
37. Assessment examines my ability to apply learning in other situations.
38. Assessment examines my ability to answer important questions in real-life situations.
39. Assessment examines reading, listening, speaking, and writing skills.
40. Assessment improves my everyday-life language skills.
41. Assessment reflects real-life situations.
 80

Appendix C. The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (Revised Model)

In this survey you are asked to rate the following items based on how much you agree
with statements regarding your beliefs or perception about assessment. ‘Assessment’
refers to TOEFL IBT tests that you took, and ‘classes’ means courses or English classes
that you took for TOEFL tests if you have any.

Benefit for Learning (13 items)

1. Assessment encourages me to better participate in learning activities.
2. The feedback from assessment gives me an opportunity to improve my learning.
3. Assessment gives me an opportunity to set short-term learning goals.
4. Assessment gives me an opportunity to develop my learning strategies.
5. Assessment encourages me to use different learning strategies.
6. Assessment shows what I need to study next.
7. Assessment helps motivate me to better learn material content.
8. Assessment gives me an opportunity to plan to study.
9. Assessment gives me an opportunity to identify how much I have learned from the
course so far.
10. Assessment gives me an opportunity to review the content.
11. Assessment provides beneficial learning experiences.
12. Assessment helps identify any misunderstandings or misconceptions I had.
13. Assessment allows me to remember the content longer.

Authenticity (5 items)
14. Assessment tasks are relevant to the real world.
15. Assessment tasks are useful in the real world.
16. Assessment enables me to apply my learning to real-life situations.
17. Assessment reflects real-life situations.
18. Assessment examines my ability to answer important questions in real-life situations.

Consistency with Learning Objectives (3 items)

19. Assessment measures what teachers have taught me.
20. Assessment tests topics that have been covered in class.
21. Assessment is related to what I am learning in class.

Fairness (5 items)
22. Assessment includes a variety of tasks to reflect my ability.
23. Assessment results reflect my efforts.
24. I have access to learning materials for assessment.
25. Assessment is a fair way to indicate my learning outcome.
26. Assessment is a fair way to show my ability.
 81

Appendix D. Self-Regulated Learning Strategies (MSLQ)

Meta-cognitive Self-Regulation (12items)

1. (While studying) I often miss important points because I’m thinking of other things.
2. When reading (the reading materials), I make up questions to help focus my reading.
3. When I become confused about something I’m reading, I go back and try to figure it
out.
4. If readings are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material.
5. Before I study new material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is organized.
6. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying.
7. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the requirements (of the assessment).
8. I often find that I have been reading but don’t know what it was all about.
9. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather than
just reading it over when studying (for the assessment).
10. When studying (for the assessment) I try to determine which concepts I don’t
understand well.
11. When I study (for the assessment), I set goals for myself in order to direct my
activities in each study period.
12. If I get confused taking notes (during studying), I make sure I sort it out afterwards.

Time and Study Environment Management (8 items)

13. I usually study in a place where I can concentrate on my work.
14. I make good use of my study time (for the assessment).
15. I find it hard to stick to a study schedule.
16. I have a regular place set aside for studying.
17. I make sure that I keep up with the readings and assignments (for the assessment).
18. I attend this class regularly.
19. I often find that I don’t spend very much time on this course because of other
activities.
20. I rarely find time to review my notes or readings before an exam.

Effort Regulation (4 items)

21. I often feel so lazy or bored when I study (for the assessment) that I quit before I
finish what I planned to do.
22. I study hard to do well even if I don’t like what we are doing.
23. When work is difficult, I either give up or only study the easy parts.
24. Even when materials are dull and uninteresting, I manage to keep working until I
finish.

Peer Learning (3 items)

25. When studying (for the assessment), I often try to explain the material to a classmate
or friend.
26. I try to work with other students.
27. When studying (for the assessment), I often set aside time to discuss material with a
group of students.
 82

Help-Seeking (4 items)
28. Even if I have trouble learning the material, I try to do the work on my own, without
help from anyone.
29. I ask the instructor to clarify concepts I don’t understand well.
30. When I can’t understand the material (for the assessment), I ask another student for
help.
31. I try to identify students whom I can ask for help if necessary.
 83

Appendix E. Perceived Knowledge Transfer Scale (PKTS)

Please consider the following questions and record the extent to which you agree using
the choices provided.

1. I feel confident in my ability to apply the course material in other classes that I have.
2. I feel confident in my ability to apply the course material in my professional life.
3. I feel as if the material covered in this course is relevant to my future career.
4. Given the future career that I have chosen, it is important for me to learn the
information covered in this class.
 84

CHAPTER 3. PAPER 2: PROMOTING INTERNATIONAL

STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ADJUSTMENT: AUTONOMY
SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS, DISCUSSION PARTICIPATION,
BELIEFS ABOUT CLASSROOM ASSESSMENTS FROM A SELF-
DETERMINATION PERSPECTIVE

3.1 Abstract

The purpose of this study was using a comprehensive theoretical framework, namely

self-determination theory to explain international students’ successful learning

experiences and adjustment, specifically focusing on autonomy-supportive learning

environments and basic psychological theory. So this study explores the relationships

between international students’ perception of the learning climate, basic psychological

needs, classroom participation, beliefs about classroom assessments, and academic

adjustment through the lens of self-determination theory. The researcher hypothesized

that autonomy-supportive environments would satisfy international students’ basic

psychological needs which would lead to decreasing language anxiety, increasing

classroom participation and adaptive beliefs about assessment, and eventually academic

adjustment. In order to explore how international students perceive their learning

environments and classroom experiences in more detail, a sequential explanatory mixed

methods approach was used.

 85

3.2 Introduction

When international students come to the U.S. to study, they are faced with an

unfamiliar social and educational culture (Olivas & Li, 2006). Research on international

students has identified unique needs and challenges faced by international students which

influence their academic success, adjustment, and well-being. International students

appeared to have a more difficult college transition when compared to that of U.S.

students (Andrade, 2006; Olivas & Li, 2006). Additionally, these students may encounter

academic and psychological challenges such as English language barriers, lack of

knowledge of the host culture, few relationships with advisors and professors, lack of

familiarity with teaching and curriculum differences, isolation, and anxiety (Andrade,

2006; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007).

Among these adjustment issues, the lower level of international students’ class

participation has been noted as a crucial one. International students’ difficulty in

participating in discussions stems from many different sources: perceived inadequacy in

English, fear of making mistakes while speaking English, and fear of potential ridicule

from their classmates and professor (Andrade, 2006). International students found that

class participation requirements were difficult since they were not used to this format.

Especially, difficulties with language anxiety and lack of confidence prevented

participation (Andrade, 2006; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Consequently,

these students undergo greater adjustment difficulties, added stress, and anxiety in

academic contexts (Andrade, 2006).

Existing research provides empirical suggestions to help international students

with these specialized needs and challenges such as providing social support, peer group
 86

support, and language learning support for international students’ academic needs.

However, the literature lacks a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain

international students’ successful academic adjustment in higher education. The

researcher argues that self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) generally and

within self-determination theory, the sub-theory of basic psychological needs and

organismic growth may provide such a framework.

The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework to

explain international students’ successful learning experiences and adjustment. This

framework is a humanistic theory, which has been developed and researched for the past

40 years; namely self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This study examined

how international students’ basic psychological needs and autonomy-supportive learning

environments are associated with their classroom learning experiences and academic

adjustment. In addition, I explored qualitatively how international students experience

their learning climates during their transition to U.S. universities. This study contributes

to the literature by suggesting a solid theoretical foundation to support successful Asian

international students’ academic adjustment.

3.3 Literature Review

3.3.1 International Students’ Challenges and Academic Adjustment

International students’ adjustment has been studied focusing on their stressors

and coping strategies during their transition (Misra, Crist, & Burant, 2003; Zhang &

Goodson, 2011). Literature largely focused on two aspects of international students’

adjustment: academic adjustment and social adjustment: Academic adjustment refers to

the degree to which a student can be successful in coping with various educational
 87

demands and involve motivation to learn, taking action to meet academic demands, a

clear sense of purpose, and general satisfaction with academic environments (Baker &

Siryk,1999). On the other hand, social adjustment describes how well students deal with

the interpersonal-societal demands of a study, such as making friends, being part of social

activities or being able to work in groups. In a large number of studies in U.S. colleges,

the concept of academic adjustment is positively related to study progress and study

performance (Baker & Siryk, 1999). However, within the context of international

students, additional factors might play a role in successful academic and social

integration (Rienties, Beausaert, Grohnert, Niemantsverdriet, & Kommers, 2012).

International students who study in U.S. universities may have more challenging

academic struggles than domestic students in college. Especially, international students’

language barriers, lack of social interactions, and social supports may impede students’

academic adjustment.

For international students, language barriers and lack of knowledge of the host

culture could be perceived as challenging issues for academic adjustment (Chen, 1999).

Language skills may be a significant concern because it influences the social and

academic performance of a student (Chen, 1999; Olivas & Li, 2006). Andrade (2006)

mentioned in a review paper that international students identified the following elements

of English proficiency as problematic: listening skills, lecture and reading

comprehension, note-taking, oral communication, vocabulary and writing skills (Lee,

1997; Lewthwaite, 1996; Senyshyn, Warford, & Zhan, 2000). Their perceived that

inadequacy in English may prevent classroom participation (Lewthwaite, 1996;

Robertson et al., 2000). Research found that international students had difficulty
 88

understanding the professors’ accents, idiomatic styles, humor and choice of examples in

lectures (Holmes, 2004), taking notes quickly in English, and participating in classes with

group work (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Moreover, some of them lacked discussion

skills and had inadequate listening comprehension skills (Holmes, 2004). They hesitated

to participate because they feared their accents would not be understood. Moreover,

international students could not understand American students in the classroom due to the

frequent use of slang and the fast rate at which they spoke. In addition, international

students expressed frustration and discouragement at their inability to overcome their fear

of speaking resulting in loss of participation points toward their final grades (Poyrazli &

Grahame, 2007). In general, international students reported that difficulties with the

language anxiety and lack of confidence impeded their participation (Andrade, 2006;

Robertson et al., 2000).

Another challenge that international students may lack social interactions with

faculty and peers, which can hinder their engagement in classroom activities. Research

found that international students felt that the quality of relationships with faculty and

peers was lacking (Andrade, 2006; Parks & Raymond, 2004; Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007).

They show a strong preference for making friends from the same country or from other

countries over domestic students (Furnham & Alibhai, 1985). These students reported

that they participated less, and had more difficulty communicating with team members.

Although international students are often encouraged to interact with domestic students to

improve their English, these students are not always welcomed by the domestic students

(Andrade, 2006; Parks & Raymond, 2004). In addition, while developing their

relationship with the professors, international students may not look assertive enough to
 89

approach professors and to ask questions (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007).

In addition, international students may need emotional and social supports during

their transition. Students reported a higher level of academic stress when they received a

lower level of social support (Misra et al., 2003). Literature suggested that international

students indicated a sense of loss and isolation, as well as anxiety, confusion, and

disappointment during their transition to college in the U.S. (Brislin & Yoshida, 1994;

Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia, 2008). If the transition to college is not

successful, international students’ feeling of intense loneliness develops into social

separation which resulted in feeling less confident than their peers (Sawir et al., 2008).

The literature on international students’ adjustment found commonly students’

language proficiency, social interactions and social supports to be strong predictors in

students’ adjustment to English-speaking universities (Chen, 1999; Galloway & Jenkins,

2005; Gu, Schweisfurth, & Day, 2010; Lee, Koeske, & Sales, 2004; Mallinckrodt &

Leong, 1992; Poyrazli & Kavanaugh, 2006; Poyrazli, Kavanaugh, Baker, & Al-Timimi,

2004; Zhang & Goodson, 2011). English proficiency and social interactions with faculty

are significantly related to students’ academic adjustments because these factors affect

students’ academic achievement (Anaya, & Cole, 2001; Li, Chen, & Duanmu, 2010).

Moreover, social support moderated the effect of stress on adjustment (Lee et al., 2004;

Poyrazli et al., 2004). Students with a high level of social support were significantly less

likely to report lower academic stressor (Misra et al., 2003). Social support provides a

powerful coping resource for international students adjusting to an English-speaking

higher education (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992).

 90

Research in this field has identified these difficulties that international students

may have faced during the transition to and suggested practical support and assistance to

help them adapt to a new academic environment, which lead to successful transition and

adjustment. Most studies have taken place within counseling psychology, focusing on

students’ stressors and psychological issues (Lee et al, 2004; Misra et al., 2003; Poyrazli

et al., 2004; Zhang & Goodson, 2011). Researchers have paid little attention to the

aspects of students’ academic adjustment in higher education and did not address the

theoretical process to explain successful academic adjustment in regard to students’

motivation. I proposed that self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) and, in

particular, the sub-theory of basic psychological needs and organismic growth within

self-determination theory may provide the theoretical groundwork.

3.3.2 Basic Psychological Needs

Self-determination theory (SDT) suggests that motivated behaviors are different

in the extent to which individuals are autonomous versus controlled (Black & Deci,

2000). According to Deci and Ryan (2002), autonomous behaviors come from one’s

integrated sense of self whereas controlled behaviors derive from an externally perceived

locus of causality and are experienced as being strengthened by interpersonal or

intrapsychic event or demands. The prototype of autonomous behaviors is intrinsically

motivated. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are initiated from interest and maintained by

the spontaneous thoughts and feelings that occur as an individual performs the activity

(Black & Deci, 2000). On the contrary, extrinsically motivated behaviors are initiated and

maintained by contingencies such as rewards and punishments. Behaviors that are

intensified by external contingencies, such as parents making a child study, are

 91

controlled. However, external regulations can be transformed into internal regulations

through the process of internalization, which consists of introjected and identified

internalization. Through the process of internalization, external contingencies are

integrated within the self, and behaviors which were controlled by external contingencies

become regulated by internal contingencies such as guilt (introjection) or are eventually

seen as valuable (identification) (Black & Deci, 2000). When individuals have identified

with a regulation and combined it with his or her sense of self that the perceived locus of

causality will be fully internal and autonomous behaviors will occur (Deci & Ryan,

1991).

Within SDT, basic psychological needs theory defines needs as nutriments that

must be brought about by a living entity to sustain its growth, integrity, and physiological

or psychological health (Black & Deci, 2000). Ryan & Deci (2000) propose that

autonomy, competence, and relatedness are psychological needs, which when satisfied

lead to positive outcomes and well-being in highly functioning individuals. Autonomy is

the need to experience one’s behavior as integrated within the self or by the self. When

individuals are autonomous, they perceive their behaviors and actions with a high degree

of willingness and a sense of choice. (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, Nix, & Hamm, 2003).

Competence is the need to be effective in one’s interactions with the environment. When

individuals are competent, they search for optimal challenges and extend their skills

(Deci & Ryan, 1991, 2002). Relatedness is the need to create close and secure

attachments with others. When one feels related, they feel emotionally connected to and

involved in warm and caring relationships (Deci & Ryan, 1991, 2002). SDT proposes that

these needs must be satisfied for individuals to experience optimal psychological

 92

development, growth, performance, integrity, and well-being within any domain and

across cultural contexts (Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan &

Deci, 2008). When any of the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence,

and relatedness) is frustrated or neglected in a domain, individuals will show

motivational and psychological decline, including decreased vitality, willingness,

integration, and well-being (Ryan & La Guardia, 2000). The concept of basic

psychological needs provides a richer understanding of what it is that people need for

optimal living (Ryan & Deci, 2008).

A growing body of literature supports the theoretical assertion that experiencing

the satisfaction of these needs appears to be crucial to the experience of growth, integrity,

and well-being. Empirical research has indicated that the satisfaction of these needs

during learning activities has consistently been associated with students’ positive learning

experiences (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These include positive relations with academic

motivation, strong self-concept, intrinsic motivation, positive sense of self, and subjective

well-being (Faye & Sharpe, 2008; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004). Although

there may be cultural divergence on how these needs are supported and satisfied, the

needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are considered to be cross-culturally

universal to promote positive learning-related experiences (Levesque et al., 2004; Ryan

& Deci, 2000). Therefore, basic psychological need theory can provide the theoretical

context to explain successful international students’ academic adjustment.

3.3.3 Autonomy-Supportive Learning Environments

The basic needs theory proposes that sociocultural conditions can support and

cultivate these needs (autonomy support) or they can thwart these needs (external
 93

control). That is, environments supporting the individual’s autonomy will enrich the

satisfaction of all three needs, and, in turn, bring about self-determined behaviors,

including intrinsic motivation, which is the prototype of self-determination. Whereas

environments that frustrate these needs foster the development of non-self-determined

behaviors, including extrinsic motivation (Faye & Sharpe, 2008). That is, autonomy

support is a mutual behavior that one person promote another person’s intentions and

psychological needs (Reeve & Jang, 2006). When a person with authority takes the

other’s perspective, acknowledges the other’s feelings, offers them an opportunity for

choice in solving a task in their own way, this environment is more likely to contribute to

autonomy support (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This environment supports and promotes

students' self-determination of their classroom activity, and can contribute to satisfying

basic psychological needs (Jang et al., 2009).

In an education setting, autonomy-supportive instruction satisfies students’ need

for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). When instructors

support students’ autonomy in classroom practices, those students tend to feel more

respected, acknowledged, and empowered, in turn affecting competence and relatedness

need satisfaction experiences (Jang et al., 2009). This instructional context will diminish

the use of pressures and demands. An autonomy-supportive instructor attempts to support

students' inner motivational sources by creating classroom environments favorable to

satisfying students' basic needs in a way which encourage internalization processes and

improve intrinsic motivation. When instructors pay more attention to what students say

and allow enough time for students to solve problems by themselves, a positive

motivational climate can be formed. Also, these instructors promoting such a climate
 94

attempt to provide more informative feedback for students’ progress and learning

mastery. In addition, they present more empathy by trying to put themselves in their

students' shoes and by identifying potential difficulties for students (Jang et al., 2009). In

this way, they can contribute to the students’ internalization process and eventually build

up their intrinsic motivation (Jang et al., 2009).

Several studies supported the theoretical hypotheses that students’ perceptions of

teachers’ autonomy support are positively associated with satisfaction of an individual’s

psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which, in turn, promotes

positive outcomes (Deci, Ryan, Gagne, Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001; Jang et al.,

2009; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997). Research has shown that autonomy-supportive

learning environments were linked to positive learning experiences, such as more

intrinsic motivation (Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981; Leroy, Bressoux, Sarrazin, &

Trouilloud, 2007), better conceptual learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), students’

adjustment and increase in perceived competence and enjoyment (Chirkov & Ryan,

2003), self-regulatory strategies (Ryan & Grolnick, 1986), higher achievement

(Boggiano, Flink, Shields, Seelback, & Barrett, 1993), greater academic success

(Boggiano et al., 1993), more perceived autonomy, greater involvement, more

persistence, greater psychological well-being (Leroy et al., 2007; Reeve & Jang, 2006),

better self-regulation (Jang et al., 2009), and significant decrease in anxiety (Black &

Deci, 2000). Therefore, autonomy-supportive environments are expected to contribute to

international students’ classroom participation, and adaptive beliefs about assessment,

which eventually promote successful academic adjustment.

 95

3.3.4 Adaptive Beliefs about Assessment

Students have clear perspectives about how they assessed (Peterson & Irving,

2008). Their interest and importance placed on assessment tasks explain their motivation

to accomplish these tasks (Brookhart & Bronowicz, 2003; Dorman & Knightley, 2006).

Recently, research on assessment suggested that how students perceive their assessment

are strongly associated with students’ approaches to learning and academic achievement.

As a result, there has been an increasing body of literature showing the relationships

between students’ perception of assessment and learning outcomes (Brown & Hirschfeld,

2008; ‘Otunuku, Brown, & Airini, 2013; Peterson & Irving, 2008). Based on extensive

literature review on policy and research papers on effective assessment practices,

characteristics, and principles, Dorman & Knightley (2006) identified five aspects as

main characteristics of students’ perception: (a) congruence with planned learning, (b)

authenticity, (c) students’ consultation, (d) transparency, and (e) diversity. They

developed a scale to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment tasks,

which is called the Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory (PATI; Dorman &

Knightley, 2006). This scale has been used to investigate students’ beliefs about

assessment in terms of assessment task’. Another instrument to measure students’

perception of assessment was developed by Brown and his colleagues (Brown &

Hirschfeld, 2007; 2008; Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009). They identified

four major purposes for assessment from a review of the empirical literature: (a)

improving achievement, (b) a means for making them accountable, (c) being irrelevant,

and (d) being enjoyable (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008). This scale has been used to infer

students’ self-reported perception of the purpose of assessment. Students’ Conceptions of

 96

Assessment (SCoA-I; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007) has been updated to the current

version, SCoA-VI (Brown, 2011), which is composed of four inter-correlated constructs:

assessment improves learning and teaching (improvement), assessment relates to external

factors (external), assessment has affective benefit (Affect), and assessment is irrelevant

(irrelevance) (Brown, 2011).

In addition, based on her qualitative study to capture students’ beliefs and

perspectives about assessment, Cho (2017) developed an alternative instrument to assess

students’ adaptive perspectives and beliefs about assessment. This scale was generated

based on the findings of semi-structured interviews conducted with international

undergraduates and the two extant instruments, PATI (Dorman & Knightley, 2006) and

SCoA-VI (Brown, 2011). The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS) represents students’

adaptive beliefs and perspectives about assessment which refer to the extent to which

students perceive that assessments are consistent with learning objectives and provide a

beneficial, useful, and fair learning experiences. This scale consists of 26 items with four

different constructs: Benefit for Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning

Objective, and Fairness. The construct Benefit for Learning measures the extent to which

students believe that assessments benefit their learning and increase students’

engagement-related learning behaviors (e.g., Assessment provides beneficial learning

experiences.). The construct Authenticity refers to students’ belief that assessments are

related to real-life situations (e.g., Assessment reflects real-life situations). The construct

Consistency with Learning Objective measures the extent to which students believe that

they are assessed on what they learned in class (e.g., Assessment measures what teachers

have taught me). Finally, the construct Fairness refers to the extent to which students
 97

believe that assessment reflects their actual skills and effort (e.g., Assessment results

reflect my efforts), and that they have a fair opportunity to accomplish diverse assessment

tasks. (e.g., I can have access to learning materials for assessment). This scale can be

used to assess students’ comprehensive perspectives about assessment.

Researchers found that there has been a reciprocal relationship between students’

perceptions of assessment and their approaches to learning (Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens,

2005). Research has shown that students’ perceptions of assessment were closely related

to their learning approach (Brown, 2011; Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown et al.,

2009; Hirschfeld & Brown, 2009; Struyven et al., 2005). If students feel that an

assessment is authentic, makes acceptable demands, and accurately measures

sophisticated skills and qualities, they are more likely to recognize that the assessment

has a positive effect on their learning (Segers, Nijhuis, & Gijselaers, 2006). Perceptions

of the quality of teaching and appropriateness of the assessment were the strongest

predictors of students using a deep approach to studying (Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons,

2002).

Furthermore, students’ adaptive perspectives about assessment were strongly

related to positive learning outcomes. Adaptive perception of assessments were

associated with higher grades, more positive, self-regulated approach to learning, and

better academic performance (e.g., Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008; Peterson & Irving, 2008).

However, most of the study has been done in secondary education contexts with domestic

students. Although the literature found consistent and statistically association between

adaptive beliefs about assessment and learning outcomes, much less is known about how

international students view assessment at the university level. Considering the crucial role
 98

of assessment in students’ learning, there is a need to investigate international students’

perspectives about their classroom assessment practices in terms of students’ academic

adjustment.

3.3.5 Research Questions

Based on the literature reviewed, it is proposed that autonomy-supportive

environments would satisfy students’ basic needs, which in turn would decrease

international students’ language anxiety and increase students’ classroom discussion

participation, and adaptive beliefs about assessment since students’ participation is

usually an essential part of their classroom assessment. As a result, autonomy-supportive

environments would eventually promote international students’ academic adjustment.

The proposed study examined the relationships between international students’

perception of learning climates, language anxiety, classroom discussion participation,

adaptive beliefs about classroom assessments, and academic adjustment through the lens

of self-determination theory. Additionally, the researcher explored qualitatively what

factors in the learning environment contribute to students’ perception of autonomy-

supportive learning environments and their successful academic adjustment. This study is

guided by the following two research questions.

1. Does an autonomy-supportive environment and basic psychological needs

satisfaction promote international students’ academic adjustment by decreasing

language anxiety and increasing discussion participation and adaptive beliefs about

classroom assessment? (Quantitative Phase)

H1: Satisfaction of basic psychological needs have a direct positive effect on

decreasing language anxiety and increasing classroom participation and

 99

adaptive beliefs about assessment.

H2: Classroom participation and adaptive beliefs about assessment have direct

positive effects on academic adjustment while language anxiety has a direct

negative effect on discussion participation and academic adjustment.

H3: Autonomy-supportive environments have a direct positive effect on

academic adjustment.

H4: Autonomy-supportive environments have an indirect effect on academic

adjustment through its direct impact on basic psychological needs

2. What factors in the learning environment contribute to international students’

perception of an autonomy-supportive learning environment and their successful

academic adjustment? (Qualitative Phase)

3.4. Methodology

The present study used an explanatory sequential mixed method design to

provide an extra dimension of understanding of students’ academic adjustment and

perception of an autonomy-supportive environment, which enabled us to examine both

quantitative and qualitative aspects of the topic (Creswell & Piano Clark, 2007). In order

to investigate how learning environments affect students’ adjustment, this study began

with an analysis of quantitative data to provide a broad picture of research questions,

followed by the subsequent analysis of qualitative data to provide insights into

quantitative findings (Creswell & Piano Clark, 2007). In the quantitative phase, a

structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to investigate the relationships

between proposed variables. In the qualitative phase, the results from the quantitative

study were further explored for additional explanations through follow-up interviews.
 100

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with international students regarding their

classroom experiences in order to clarify the characteristics of university educational

contexts that may promote students’ academic adjustments. Qualitative explorations and

students’ vivid voice supplemented with quantitative findings regarding international

students’ academic adjustment.

3.4.1 Study One: Quantitative Phase

[Link] Participants

Participants were 356 Asian international undergraduate students at a large

Midwestern university. About 5,100 international students representing 127 countries

were enrolled in this university, which comprises 17.1 % of the total number of

undergraduate students (Purdue International Students and Scholars, 2016). This

institution ranks first nationally in international students majoring in STEM disciplines.

Management, College of Engineering, College of Science, College of Liberal Arts enroll

the highest percentages of international students. China ranks first in total enrollment, and

India, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Columbia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan

rank in the top ten. In order to control for ethnicity variability, only Asian students were

recruited in this study. About 28.1% of the participants reported being freshmen, 27.0%

reported being sophomore students, 25.0% reported being junior students, and 19.9%

senior students. Participants comprised of 51.7% women and 48.3% men. In addition,

about 42.1% of the participants reported majoring in engineering and technology majors,

13.5% reported liberal arts majors, 21.9% majoring in science and math related majors,

14.6 % reported majoring in business-related majors, and 7.9% reported other majors.

Also, about 19% of the participants reported staying in the U.S. or an English-speaking
 101

country less than 1 year, 22.7% reported 1-2 year, 18.1% reported 2-3 year, 18.1%

reported 3-5 years, and about 22.1% reported having stayed in the U.S. more than 5

years. Their demographic profiles are shown in Table 1 stratified by gender, academic

year, major, duration in the English-speaking countries, and self-reporting TOEFL scores.

Table 1

Demographic Profiles

Category N %
Gender Female 184 51.7%
Male 172 48.3%

Academic Year Freshman 100 28.1%

Sophomore 96 27.0%
Junior 89 25.0%
Senior 71 19.9%

Major Engineering & Technology 150 42.1%

Liberal Arts 48 13.5%
Science & Math 78 21.9%
Business 52 14.6%
Others 28 7.9%

Duration in the U.S.A or Less than 1 year 61 19.0%

English-speaking countries
1-2 years 73 22.7%
2-3 years 58 18.1%
3-5 years 58 18.1%
More than 5 years 71 22.1%

TOEFL Scores 1-10 3 1.0%

Reading 11-15 4 1.3%
16-20 30 9.8%
21-25 126 41.0%
26-30 144 46.9%

Listening 1-10 1 0.3%

11-15 3 1.0%
16-20 34 11.0%
21-25 129 41.9%
26-30 141 45.8%
 102

Table 1 continued

Speaking 1-10 1 0.3%

11-15 6 2.0%
16-20 43 14.0%
21-25 174 56.7%
26-30 83 27.0%

Writing 1-10 1 0.3%

11-15 6 2.0%
16-20 37 12.1%
21-25 154 50.3%
26-30 108 35.3%

[Link] Measures

Six different measures were used to examine the relationship between perceptions

of students’ learning environment and other variables: Learning Climate Questionnaire

(LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996), Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS; Deci & Ryan,

2000; Gagné, 2003), Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz,

Horwitz, & Cope, 1986), Classroom Participation Survey (Meyer, 2009), Beliefs about

Assessment Scale (BAS; Cho, 2017), and Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire

(SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1999).

Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996). In order to

assess autonomy-supportive environments, the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ)

was used. This scale consists of 15 items answered on a Likert scale of 7 points from 1

(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with an intermediate score of 4 (moderately

agree). 8 relevant items were used in response to students’ learning climates. Sample

items are ‘I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options’ or ‘My instructor

conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course.’ The Cronbach’s α for the
 103

scale is .92 in the current study.

Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné, 2003).

Participants indicated their need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) in

their course. The questionnaire consists of 21 items (7 items per construct) answered on a

Likert scale of 7 points from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true), with an intermediate score

of 4 (somewhat true). The Cronbach’s α for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in

the current study are .79, .79, and .75 respectively.

Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS; Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope,

1986).This scale consists of 33 items designed to assess international students’ anxiety of

the use of foreign language usually in language classrooms. However, since this study

examines international students’ language anxiety within different disciplines’ major

classrooms in the college, 8 items were selected and revised according to the domain-

specific context. A sample item is ‘I start to panic when I have to speak English without

preparation in advance in class.’ The participants indicated their agreement to the 8

statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The Cronbach’s α for the scale in the current study is .81.

Classroom Participation Survey (Meyer, 2009). To measure students’

participation, 10 relevant items from the Global Engagement Style Frequency and Global

Engagement Style Preference subscale were used in response to both the whole

classroom discussion and the small group discussion. Sample items are ‘How often do

you participate orally in the whole/small group discussion.?’ or ‘I contribute oral

comments without hesitation during the whole/small group discussion.’ This scale

consists of a seven-point, Likert-type scale ranging from very untrue (1) to very true (7).
 104

The Cronbach’s α for this scale in the current study is .89.

Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS; Cho, 2017). The Beliefs about Assessment

Scale consists of 26 items to examine students’ beliefs about assessment with four

subscales: Benefit for Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning Objective, and

Fairness. This scale was generated based on the findings of semi-structured interviews

conducted with international undergraduates and two existing instruments, SCoA-VI

(Brown, 2011) and PATI (Dorman & Knightley, 2006). The participants indicated their

agreement to the statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree).

This scale was validated in the previous study (Cho, 2017), indicating that the Cronbach’s

α for the four factors in the current study were .92, .88, .83, and .84 respectively.

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1999).

International students’ academic adjustment was measured by 5 items of the Academic

Adjustment subscale and 1 relevant item of the Social Adjustment subscale from the

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1999). It should be

noted, however, that the SACQ was copyrighted by Western Psychological Services. A

sample item from the subscale is ‘I am satisfied with the level at which I am performing

academically’, which was used under the permission of the publisher.1 Participants

indicated their agreement to the statements on a Likert-type scale. High values indicate

better academic adaptation. The subscale demonstrated satisfactory to good internal

consistencies, with a Cronbach’s α of .84 in the current study.

1
Sample content from the SACQ © 1987 by Western Psychological Services. Reprinted by H. J. Cho and
C. Levesque-Bristol, Purdue University, for scholarly display purposes by permission of the publisher. Not
to be reprinted in whole or in part for any additional purpose without the expressed, written permission of
the publisher (rights@[Link]). All rights reserved.
 105

[Link] Procedures

The quantitative survey was distributed online. Participation was voluntary and

each participant was entered into a drawing for a small monetary gift. A total number of

356 Asian international students were asked to answer the six different survey

questionnaires, which took about 10-15 minutes. In the introduction of the survey,

participants were oriented to choose one class of their major courses that they were

currently taking that semester and perceived to be most important to them, and then were

asked to answer all the questions associated with the class that they chose above. In this

way, they were able to respond to all the items regarding their classroom experiences.

In order to examine the relationships between learning climates and other

variables, a SEM was used in quantitative data analysis. It allowed me to test the

theoretical fit of the hypothesized model from a self-determination theory (see Figure 1).

Based on the nature and dimensionality of the items, this study used parcels of items as

variables in SEM procedures (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). For

example, learning climate questionnaires has 8 items, but I made 4 different parcels each

2 with items and used them as an indicator.

[Link] Results

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics whereas Table 3 presents the correlations

among all variables to be included in the hypothesized model. Learning climates, basic

psychological needs, language anxiety, discussion participation, adaptive beliefs about

classroom assessments, and academic adjustment were operationalized as latent variables

and its items were used as observed variables or indicators.

 106

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics (N=356)

Variable M SD Minimum Maximum

Learning Climate 5.17 1.20 1.00 7.00
Autonomy 5.16 1.19 1.00 7.00
Competence 5.03 1.21 1.00 7.00
Relatedness 4.90 1.20 1.00 7.00
Anxiety 2.62 .95 1.00 5.00
Discussion Participation 2.92 .78 1.00 5.00
Benefit for Learning 3.88 .68 1.00 5.00
Authenticity 3.62 .82 1.00 5.00
Consistency with Learning Objective 4.00 .79 1.00 5.00
Fairness 3.79 .80 1.00 5.00
Academic Adjustment 5.05 1.09 1.00 7.00
Table 3

Correlation Coefficients among Variables (N=356)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Learning Climate 1.00
2. Autonomy .80** 1.00
**
3. Competence .69 .77** 1.00
** **
4. Relatedness .63 .67 .68** 1.00
*
5. Anxiety -.08 -.09 -.12 -.09 1.00
6. Discussion Participation .18** .23** .30** .35** -.49** 1.00
** ** ** ** **
7. Benefit for Learning .51 .50 .53 .45 -.16 .23** 1.00
** ** ** ** **
8. Authenticity .40 .41 .46 .36 -.09 .23 .68** 1.00
** ** ** ** ** ** **
9. Consistency .37 .33 .38 .27 -.20 .17 .69 .46** 1.00
10. Fairness .43** .46** .51** .37** -.14** .19** .78** .72** .66** 1.00
11. Academic Adjustment .50** .49** .53** .46** -.27** .28** .42** .33** .31** .39** 1.00
Note: * Significant at the 𝛼 = .05 level (two-tailed), ** Significant at the 𝛼 = .01 level (two-tailed).

107
 108

The hypothesized model is depicted in Figure 1 was tested with an assumption

that autonomy-supportive environment would eventually promote international students’

academic adjustment, both directly and indirectly because of the impact of autonomy

supportive environments on satisfaction of basic psychological needs. The data fitted the

hypothesized model well: (χ2(199) = 543.57, p < .001; CFI = .94; TLI = .93; SRMR

= .06; RMSEA = .07). The full SEM model with results is shown in Figure 2.

Students’ perception of autonomy-supportive environments (LCQ) was found to

be a significantly associated with students’ basic psychological needs (BPNS) (β = .89, p

< .001) and students’ academic adjustment (β = .39, p < .001). BPNS was negatively

significantly related to language anxiety as it was initially predicted (β = -.14, p < .01)

while it was positively significantly associated with discussion participation (β = .24, p

< .001) and adaptive beliefs about assessment (β = .62, p < .001). Additionally, anxiety

was negatively significantly associated with students’ classroom participation (β = -.57, p

< .001). Regarding academic adjustment, language anxiety (β = -.14, p = .05) was a

significant negative predictor while adaptive belief about assessment (β = .23, p < .001)

was found to be a significant positive predictor. However, in contrary to the initial

prediction, discussion participation was not found to be directly predictive of students’

academic adjustment.
 109

Figure 1. Hypothesized Structure Model

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model for Study 1. All solid line path coefficients are

significant while the dotted line path coefficient is not significant at p < .05.
 110

Table 4 presents the direct, indirect, and total effects and their significance levels

in the SEM model. As is shown in Figure 2, LCQ had a direct effect on BPNS (β = .89)

and academic adjustment (β = .39). Moreover, there were also indirect effects of .15 on

academic adjustment, .55 on adaptive beliefs about assessments, and .28 on discussion

participation. BPNS showed an indirect effect on adjustment (β = .17). Unlike the initial

prediction, discussion participation did not show any significant direct or indirect

relationship with academic adjustment.

Based on these results, Hypothesis 1 which stated that satisfaction of basic

psychological needs has a direct positive effect on decreasing language anxiety and

increasing classroom participation and adaptive beliefs about assessment were supported.

Hypothesis 2 which stated that classroom participation and adaptive beliefs about

assessments have direct positive effects on academic adjustment while language anxiety

has a direct negative effect on discussion participation and academic adjustment was

partially supported. Contrary to the initial prediction, discussion participation was not

predictive of students’ academic adjustment. Hypothesis 3 that autonomy-supportive

environments have a direct positive effect on academic adjustment was supported.

Finally, since autonomy-supportive environments have a significant direct and indirect

effect on academic adjustment, Hypothesis 4 was supported.

 111

Table 4

Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects in the SEM Model

Predictor Criterion Direct Indirect Total

Effect Effect Effect
LCQ BPN .89** .89**
LCQ Anxiety -.13* -.13*
BPNS -.14* -.14*
LCQ Participation .28** .28**
BPNS .24** .08* .32**
Anxiety -.57** -.57**
LCQ Adaptive Beliefs .55** .55**
BPNS .62** .62**
LCQ Academic Adjustment .39** .15** .54**
BPNS .17** .17**
Anxiety -.14* -.03** -.17*
Participation .04 .04
Adaptive Beliefs .23** .23**
Note: **p < .001 * p < .05

[Link] Discussion

The quantitative phase examined the empirical relationships between autonomy-

supportive environments, affective (language anxiety), behavioral (discussion

participation), and cognitive (adaptive beliefs about classroom assessments) learning

components in the classrooms. The findings showed that autonomy-supportive

environments satisfied students’ basic psychological needs, which in turn decreased

anxiety and increased students’ participation in discussion and adaptive beliefs about

assessment. Furthermore, the more students felt language anxiety in class, the less likely

they were to participate in the classroom discussion and adjust themselves to the U.S.

academic environment. Thus, this study highlights the importance to create an autonomy-

supportive learning climate where international students’ basic psychological needs are

met, which promotes desirable learning behaviors, and ultimately their academic

adjustment directly and indirectly.

 112

First, international students’ perception of autonomy-supportive environments

were significantly related to the satisfaction of students’ autonomy, competence, and

related needs, as initially expected. Satisfaction of these needs decreased international

students’ feeling of language anxiety and increased their participation in classroom

discussion activities including small group and whole classroom discussions. This is in

line with the literature that when basic psychological needs are satisfied, it leads to

positive learning outcomes and well-being (Faye & Sharp, 2008; Levesque et al., 2004;

Ryan & Deci, 2000). Decreased language anxiety was found to contribute to international

students’ academic adjustments, although participation in discussion was not significantly

related to academic adjustment unlike an initial hypothesis. When students felt less

pressured with language-related difficulties in learning environments, it helped students

adapt themselves to the learning environments.

One important finding to note is that satisfaction of basic psychological needs

was significantly associated with students’ adaptive beliefs about classroom assessments.

Considering the role of adaptive beliefs about assessment in terms of understanding

students’ approach to learning, what learning factors contribute to students’ shaping

adaptive beliefs about assessments has not yet been extensively studied. However, this

finding provided a clue for educators suggesting that satisfaction of basic psychological

needs would contribute to developing adaptive perspectives towards classroom

assessments. Additionally, this study demonstrated that students’ adaptive beliefs about

assessment contribute to their academic adjustment. As students identified the value of

assessment or benefit for learning in their course assessments, their perceptions

significantly predicted their academic adjustment in U.S. higher education. This finding
 113

was in line with previous research on students’ perception of assessment studies that how

students view their assessments leads to their approach to learning and desirable learning

outcomes (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown et al., 2009; McMillan, 2000).

Finally, students’ perception of autonomy-supportive environments has a

significant direct and indirect effect on their academic adjustment. When they perceive

that the learning environment supports students’ inner motivation and satisfy their basic

needs, they are more likely to adjust themselves to a new academic environment in the

U.S university. The findings showed that this type of learning environment promotes

international students’ academic adjustment directly and through affective, behavioral,

and cognitive learning components indirectly. This finding is consistent with previous

findings from literature on SDT that autonomy-supportive environments were associated

with a wide range of positive learning experiences such as more engagement in school

work (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010; Reeve, 2006; Wang, & Holcombe, 2010), deep-level

learning (Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Goossens, Soenens, Dochy, Mouratidis, Aelterman,

Haerens, & Beyers, 2012; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004), and

self-regulated learning (Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, & Dochy, 2009).

In sum, findings showed empirical evidence that autonomy-supportive learning

environments satisfy students’ basic psychological needs, which in turn contribute to

international students’ academic adjustment directly and indirectly. Self-determination

theory as a theoretical framework supports this empirical evidence.

3.4.2 Study Two: Qualitative Phase

The researcher wanted to explore which factors contribute to students’ academic

adjustment and perception of autonomy-supportive environments. In order to explore

 114

how international students perceive their learning environments and classroom

experiences in more detail, a sequential explanatory mixed methods approach was used.

In a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, this study started with an analysis of

quantitative data, followed by the subsequent follow-up interview data (Creswell & Piano

Clark, 2011). A follow-up semi-structured interview was used to further explore the

components of students’ academic adjustment and perception of autonomy-supportive

environments. This qualitative phase had two research questions:

1. What factors contribute to international students’ academic adjustment?

2. What factors contribute to international students’ perception of

autonomy-supportive learning environment?

[Link] Participants

Since the quantitative data was not analyzed before collecting the interview data,

the researcher attempted to interview as many students as possible. Of the students who

participated in the survey, 24 international undergraduate students participated in the

follow-up interviews. Ten of the interviews were selected: high scoring in autonomy-

supportive perception survey (M = 6.11, SD = .76, overall mean = 5.17, SD = 1.20) and in

academic adjustment survey (M = 5.40, SD = 1.16, overall mean = 5.04, SD = 1.09). Five

of them were from China, three of them from Korea, one from Singapore, and one from

Taiwan. The age ranged from 19 to 25 years old (M = 21.2, SD = 1.93). They were asked

about how long they stayed in the English-speaking countries. The majority of the

participants reported staying in the U.S. about less than three years (M = 3.3, SD = 2.00).

Finally, they reported that they had been studying English in their own countries between

9 and 20 years (M = 13.8, SD = 3.77). The demographic profiles are shown in Table 5
 115

categorized by pseudonym, gender, nationality, academic year, major, age, and duration

in the English-speaking countries.

Table 5

Demographic Profiles for Interview Participants (N=10)

Name Gender Age Country Academic Major Duration

(Pseudonym) Year (Year)
Aashi Female 20 Singapore Sophomore Chemical 6
Engineering

Cheng Female 23 China Senior Environmental 4 & half

Engineering

Huang Male 23 China Senior Computer & Less than 4

Information
Engineering

Kang Male 25 South Senior Finance & 7

Korea Management

Kim Female 21 South Sophomore Computer 2

Korea Graphic
Technology

Lee Female 21 South Freshmen Engineering 1 & half

Korea

Liu Male 19 Taiwan Sophomore Communication 2

Wu Female 19 China Freshmen Pre- 1 & half

Communication

Yang Female 21 China Sophomore Landscape 3

Architecture

Zhao Female 20 China Sophomore Finance & 1 & half

Management
 116

[Link]. Interview Protocol Development

The interview protocol was designed to elicit participants’ perception of

autonomy supportive environment in their learning experiences, what the most difficult

challenges were in their academic adjustment, and what the most helpful factors were in

their adaptation to U.S university. The interview questions were developed from the

survey items from the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996).

Example items are ‘I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options’, ‘I feel a

lot of trust in my instructor.’, or ‘My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do

well in the course.’ The purpose of the interview was to explore students’ perspectives

about these statements based on their lived experiences in classrooms. The original

protocol was revised to clarify unclear terms in the statement after a pilot interview with

three international graduate students in the College of Education. Adding their points of

view on the questionnaire, the final version of the interview protocol was used for

individual follow-up interviews (see Appendix G for semi-structured interview protocol).

[Link] Procedure

Individual follow-up interviews were conducted with international college

students who volunteered to participate in the survey and interview. In the introduction of

the interview, participants were oriented to choose one class that they were currently

taking and perceived to be most important to them that semester. During the interview,

the participants shared their own experiences based on the interview questions associated

with the class that they chose. These interviews were audiotaped and lasted

approximately 30-40 minutes. The researcher transcribed the audiotaped interviews and

checked whether each script was transcribed correctly. So transcribed interview data was
 117

checked at least twice. This procedure ensured understanding the participants’

perspectives and increased the trustworthiness of our interpretation of the interview data.

[Link] Data Analysis

Transcribed narratives were compared to the original recordings for accuracy and

summarized the contents of the interviews through discussion. For the data analysis,

qualitative content analysis was used to find common themes about students’ academic

adjustment and autonomy-supportive learning environments from students’ experiences

in the classroom. First, the meaning units were coded by open codes, and the researcher

created categories by using axial codes (categorization) that are a group of content that

shares a commonality. Finally, by using selective codes (theme), the researcher elicited

the main ‘theme’ which involves multiple meanings and reported these themes in the

results section. Table 6 shows the open codes, the axial codes, and how these axial codes

are associated with the thematic findings coded as selective codes.

Table 6

Coding and Main Themes

Open Codes Axial Codes (Categorization) Selective Codes (Theme)

RQ1 Different learning environments -Classroom environment was different in terms of
(N=9) class sizes and ways to learn.
-Mandatory classes -Classroom tasks such as group discussions and
-Hands-on activities hand-on activities were different.
-Group discussions -Students needed to be independent but
Theme 1: The most challenging things
-Distant feelings sometimes feel distant.
in academic adjustment were different
-Different ways of learning
learning environments and language
-Need to be independent
barriers.

Language barrier (N=4) -It was difficult to understand the lectures and
communicate with classmates in English.
-Writing an essay in English was challenging.

RQ1 Extra help session (N=6) -Students took advantage of office hours.
-Office hours -Students participated in different kinds of help
-Learning community sessions. Theme 2: The most helpful resources
for international students to adapt
Friends (N=3) -Students asked for help from friends or classmates. themselves to U.S. universities were
Group Work (N=2) -Students benefited from group work with instructors’ extra help for academic
friends. challenges and needs and peer groups’
support.

118
RQ2 Professors’ attitude (N=7) -Professors’ attitudes made students feel Theme 3: Instructors’ openness and
-To treat students with respect comfortable in the classroom. willingness to address international
-Feeling comfortable with -Teaching assistants made students feel students’ academic challenges and
any questions or asking for help comfortable to ask a question. needs made students feel comfortable
-Clear instructions -Professors’ clear instructions helped students feel in learning environment, approach
comfortable in the class. instructors when they have questions,
feel trust in their instructors, and feel
Openness to receiving questions -Professors responded to students’ emails quickly. confident to do well in the course.
(N=7) -Professors used students’ questions for classes
-Quick responses -Students asked more questions in recitation than
-Influence curriculum lectures because they hardly had chance to ask
-Recitation questions in large lecture classes.

Caring about students (N=9) -Professors valued students’ efforts in their

-Valuing efforts academic work.
-Being sensitive to students -Professors were sensitive to students’ needs.
-Communication styles -Professors’ communication style made students
-Being flexible feel trust them.
-Professors made sure that students are learning.

Professional Knowledge -Professors had real-life experiences.

(N=4) -Professors provided clear instructions.
-Real-life experiences
-Clear instructions

Giving comments or feedback -Professors gave verbal comments on academic

(N=9) work.
-Verbal comments -Professors provided individualized feedback.
-Individualized feedback -Professors provided clear instructions.
-Email notification
-Clear instruction

119
Providing help sessions -Professors provided help-sessions.
(N=6) -Professors gave students preview chances before the
-Preview chance classes.
-Prep tests -Professors provided enough supplement materials
-Making sure that students for the class.
are learning -Professors made sure that students are actually
-Enough supplements learning.
-Being flexible
-Encouraging

120
RQ2 Providing options and choices -Professors provided options in assignments Theme 4. Students felt that when
(N=8) according to students’ interests and backgrounds. instructors provided options and
-Relate to your field choices in classroom tasks or
-Independent research assignments, they could choose tasks
-Easy to do they liked based on their interests and
relate knowledge from the class to
other fields.

RQ2 Topic familiarity (N=6) -Students participated in the discussions with

learning benefits and familiar topics.
Theme 5. When international students
Topic unfamiliarity (N=5) -Students did not participate in the discussions
felt familiar with the topics and
when they felt unfamiliar to topic and had
identified the value of learning through
nothing to say.
discussions, they were more willing to
participate in discussions. They also
Small group discussion preference -Students preferred small group discussions
preferred small group discussion
(N=7) because they feel more comfortable to talk to
environments to the whole classroom
-Feeling comfortable to talk peers and learn better than large classroom
discussions.
-Valuing learning benefits discussions.

121
 122

[Link] Results

Theme 1. International students’ most challenging things in academic adjustment were

different learning environments and language barriers.

Nine out of ten participants stated that when they adapted themselves to the U.S

university, it was challenging to get used to the different learning environments such as

group discussions or hands-on activities. For example, one participant provided anecdotes

about her classroom:

(The most challenging thing was) I’ll say have group discussions during class, because I

was so scared to talk to people, like I was really scared, so I can’t do that. I was really

nervous when the professor said, “We’ll start a group discussion” and I’d just usually

listening, and I didn’t really say anything (Cheng).

Another said:

I’ll say academically just different way of learning. Well, in China we basically learn

most the theoretical knowledge, not practical, but here we do have a lot of lab sessions,

so we do get our hands on the task and practice all the codes. I think it’s actually pretty

good, but also challenging because I’m not used to it. This participating in hands-on

activities might be the most challenging thing. It’s very challenging but I do like it

(Huang).
 123

Also, another struggle was found to be international students’ language barriers.

Four participants expressed that they struggled with understanding the lectures,

communicating with classmates, and writing in English. One participant stated:

The most challenging thing is I think it’s still a language. I’d say I can speak English

fluently just for daily life stuff with friends. But when it comes to academic things there is

still a lot of stuff I can’t understand. Say, in our biology class last year, as an Asian

student we all study so hard stuff back in high school. I know the thing we’re learning

right now is the things that I’ve learned before, but just because of all the terminology, it

just makes me feel harder to understand the lectures (Yang).

Another stated:

I just say that writing essays and report was really hard because of grammar issues. I

guess I’m not good at writing, in both my native tongue and English, so it was really hard

(for me) to write an essay or reports in English (Kang).

As they felt comfortable in English over time, they mentioned that they were able

to more actively participate in the discussions. However, since they took all classes or did

assignments in English, the language barrier was a big obstacle to handle during their

transition to U.S. university. In addition to different learning environments and language

barriers, participants mentioned that time management (Wu) and feeling lonely (Lee) or

distant from professors (Kim) as the most challenging thing in academic adjustment.
 124

Theme 2. The most helpful resources for international students to adapt themselves to

U.S. universities were instructors’ extra help for academic challenges and needs and peer

groups’ support.

Participants indicated that the most helpful learning source for their academic

adjustment was having extra help from instructors or departments. Several participants

mentioned that they went to the office hours to ask for help. One participant said:

(The most helpful thing was) I’ll say the help sessions and office hours that the professors

provided. If you don’t go up there and ask them, nobody’s going to just come to you and

just say, “Is there any question that you want to ask?”, so there are many helpful

resources that you can seek. You can just reach out if you need help (Yang).

Besides, Lee stated that she went to a ‘help room’ where TAs usually helped

novice students with questions in that room. She remembered that this extra session

helped her catch up with the course because she could practice more problem sets. Kim

also mentioned:

Well there’s the extra times that you can go to for extra help you need about the classes…

Some courses have them. If you’re struggling in the course, if it’s especially a big course,

you can’t go to the professor for help directly, then you can just go to the supplemental

instruction times for extra help. I found that very useful. You can just show up to ask

some questions to TAs (Kim).

 125

Participants took advantage of professors’ office hours or help session offered by

teaching assistants to ask some questions or for extra help. They recalled that when they

came to the university, they also participated in different types of help sessions that their

department provided for freshmen. Students were able to benefit from individual extra

help to catch up with classes and ask for help in their learning. They found that extra help

to be the most helpful resource when they attempted to adapt themselves to the

university.

In addition, five participants mentioned that working with friends in groups

helped them adjust to a new learning environment. When they were not able to go to

office hours, they could ask some questions to classmates or these peer groups

encouraged them to go through the course together. One participant said:

If you have a group of friends who are in the same class, you will be encouraging each

other to go to classes so you don’t skip a bunch of lectures, and you can do the homework

together, do the quiz together, even study together. That’s what I usually do with the

group of my friends. That’s kind of improving my scores in a way and that makes me feel

better than studying alone in the class (Liu).

Other than extra help sessions and working with friends, participants mentioned

that student clubs (Wu) and working experiences on the campus (Cheng & Zhao) were

helpful for them to get used to a new learning academic environment during their

transition.
 126

Theme 3. Instructors’ openness and willingness to address international students’

academic challenges and needs made students feel comfortable in learning environments,

approach instructors when they have questions, feel trust in their instructors, and feel

confident to do well in the course.

When participants were asked about whether they felt comfortable in the

classroom environments, seven out of the ten students pointed out that it was instructors’

openness and respect that made students feel comfortable in the learning environment.

They expressed that when instructors approached students with openness and respect,

students were more likely to feel comfortable in the learning environment and engage in

the classroom activities. For example, Kim mentioned that he felt that his class was an

accepting environment because students were invited to speak about their opinions in

small groups with people around him. Kang also stated that his instructor allowed anyone

to say and ask questions if they have any questions.

Participants reported that most instructors encouraged their students to ask

questions verbally. But due to the limited time and the big lecture format in classes,

students hardly had the chance to ask questions. However, seven participants mentioned

that they asked questions as long as the instructors were willing to answer their questions

in class or outside of class. They said that their instructors sometimes stayed in the class a

little longer or even opened their office hours beyond their official office hours so that

international students could stop by anytime to ask questions or to receive academic

advice or academic guidance. Several students expressed that they took advantage of

visiting office hours when they had questions or academic challenges. One participant

said:
 127

I feel like he’s a very relaxed teacher because of the fact that he takes in the questions

and opinions of students. I feel like he cares about us. He encourages us to come talk to

him in his office hours. He was chill about our visit to his office hours. He emails us to

come and visit him if we need help on the project or if we have questions (Kim).

Also, instructors responded to students’ email to ask a question quickly. One

participant said:

Our professor’s basically in the office 24 hours 7 days. Not like after a work time. If it’s

after work time you can just email him, for example just take a screen shot (about your

questions) and send it to him. Then he will get back to you really as soon as possible. If

not, just go to his office anytime-he’ll just answer for you (Yang).

Furthermore, when participants were asked about whether they felt trust in their

instructors, nine students mentioned that when instructors cared about students’ learning

progress, valued students’ efforts in academic work and provided clear instructions in

class, they felt trust in their instructors. For example, one participant mentioned that he

felt trust in his instructor because he cared about whether students followed the lectures

and class topics. He stated:

If somebody have question, he tries his best to answer the question. If the topic is kind of

hard, then he goes thoroughly through. For instance, if you cover something really

difficult task or difficult topic, and ask if somebody have any questions, usually not many
 128

people raise their hands up. If he sees that the class is puzzled, he will go through it

again to make sure that the class understood the topic (Kang).

Another stated:

He doesn’t just help us on academic things and schoolwork. If you have any other things

that you need to find somebody to talk about, he’s still there for you (Yang).

In addition, participants mentioned that they felt trust when instructors provided

learning materials and study guides before the exams (Wu) and instructors helped

students survive the course with extra help if they need ones (Lee). Also, some

participants added that when instructors shared their real-life experiences or professional

expertise, they found trust in their instructors as well.

When instructors provided individual feedback and extra assistance, students also

felt that instructors conveyed confidence in the ability of the students to do well in the

course. Nine participants mentioned that they felt that the professors conveyed

confidence to do well in the course when they provided verbal comments or

individualized feedback on students’ academic work. When instructors made sure that

students are learning in class and checked their students’ learning progress, students felt

that the instructors gave them confidence to do well. One participant stated:

His comments also gave you some confidence in the class and individually too when you

go to his office hour and just ask something about the class, just want to discuss more
 129

topic I’m interested in. Other than papers (assignments), we also have to give two

presentations during a midterm and a final. Basically, you just have to present your

paper, so it is only five minutes. After each presentation, he will tell you how you can

improve when you are presenting. He will give you some suggestions and advice, and it is

kind of an individual thing I guess (Cheng).

Besides, six participants articulated that when instructors provided students extra

academic help session, the participants felt confidence in their ability to succeed in their

classes. For example, Kang mentioned that instructors provided enough supplements

materials that gave a certain level of confidence to catch up with the courses. Zhao said

that instructors gave a preview chance before the class through class quizzes, which was

also helpful to do well in the course.

To sum up, as long as instructors were willing to help students’ academic

challenges and cared about their students, these attitudes seems to make students feel

trust in their instructors. When instructors showed their open-mind and willingness to

address students’ academic needs, students felt comfortable in the learning environment,

felt trust in their instructors, approached their instructors, and felt confidence to do well

in the course. These instructors’ attitudes about students’ academic needs are the main

characteristics in the perception of autonomy-supportive environments.

 130

Theme 4. Students felt that when instructors provided options and choices in classroom

tasks or assignments, they could choose a task they liked based on their interests and

relate knowledge from the class to other major fields.

Eight participants mentioned that they had options or choices in their classroom

tasks or assignments and they could choose a topic based on their interests and relevance.

One participant said:

We don’t get to choose what software we have to study because everybody has to study all

of them, but, I think last time we were doing a Photoshop rendering, he gives us three

options so you can choose from the options that you like because they have different

styles and, you know, everybody has different styles. But basically you still have to follow

the rules and stuff. (Yang)

She expressed positive opinions about having options and choices:

Because, it’s a designing class, everybody there’s no way that everybody’s the same. Well,

people do stuff on their own, like unique way, you know for this major. In the beginning

you might not know what kind of style you have, but as you do more projects, you find out

what you really like and the way you do stuff. So, it was a really good thing. (Yang)

When participants were given more options in the course, they can choose a topic

based on their interests and they felt that the classroom tasks were quite flexible and do

the task easily (Liu).

 131

On the other hand, another participant who was not given options in the classroom

tasks pointed out that she had a hard time relating her major field of study to the

interdisciplinary classroom assignments in the course she took outside her major.

Because the class prompts are mainly related to industrial engineering and mechanical

[Link] is not related to your field. It has nothing to do with chemical because

we’re building stuff in class. For chemical reactions and chemicals itself, we would have

to use the chemistry lab, and they don’t have access to the chemistry lab (in class). So I

wish they’d done a little more research that we could use the chemistry lab. And the same

applies for biomedical. We’re working on houses in class. The people who are doing

biomedical have no relation to the houses. So, that way I personally feel I can’t relate to

it as much as other people (Aashi).

It seems that if students are able to relate knowledge learned from class to their

majors or fields of interest, these options would be good opportunities to learn how to

apply the knowledge learned from class to another field. It implies that if more options

are given to students, they are more likely to become autonomous in engaging in

classroom tasks or doing assignments and they can choose the topics based on their

interests and their own competence, and eventually promote their abilities to transfer their

knowledge learned from the course to another field. However, one thing to note was that

although they were not given many options in classroom tasks or assignments, they said

that they were used to not having enough options in classes because of their previous

traditional lecture-based learning experiences.

 132

Theme 5. When international students felt familiar with the topics and identified the value

of learning through discussions, they were more willing to participate in discussions.

They also preferred small group discussion environments to the whole classroom

discussions.

If international students face difficulty with the language and unfamiliarity with

classroom discussions, they are less likely to participate in the classroom. Participants

were asked if they would be willing to participate in the classroom discussions when

there was no incentive or extra credit benefit for participating in classroom discussions.

Six participants mentioned that they were willing to participate in discussions when they

valued the benefit of discussions to improve learning and felt familiar with the topic.

These students pointed out that extra credit did not matter for their participation. As long

as they found some learning benefit from discussions, they said that they would be

willing to participate in the discussions. One participants said:

Well, the biggest thing is the topic itself. By participating in class you are focusing on it,

and you are willing to get to know the subject, so I guess that’s the value. By

participating in, the discussion or whatever, you are gaining something. It is something

that you cannot forget. Say, you are just sitting there listening to lectures, verses you are

actively participating (in discussions). Then it is easier for me to understand what we

have talked about in class because I have participated (Kang).

Besides, Lee and Cheng mentioned that their participations used to depend on

how much familiar they felt with the discussion topics. If they felt that discussion topics
 133

were quite familiar and relevant to their interests, they would speak up and engage in

discussions.

In line with this finding, five participants pointed out that when they were not

familiar with or interested in discussion topics or if they did not understand the meaning

of questions or prompts, they were less likely to participate and would keep silent in

discussions. One participant stated that students need opportunities to prepare for what

they are talking about the discussion topics.

When I don’t really relate to the topic that’s being discussed, or I don’t know much about

it, then I pretty much have nothing to say. If you have a specific topic, not a general thing,

then I guess more people could search about it or something, so they know what they’re

going to talk about. You want to give some opportunities to research their own topic.

Yeah, like for my English class, we discuss about the book or reading that we have to

read, so we know what we’re going to talk about. Rather than on the floor discussion, we

have something that we know and have some kind of opinion on it, then it help (Kim).

Another stated:

If I don’t know the subject very well or what he’s talking about, or if I’m really weak in

that area, I wouldn’t (participate in discussions). But, if I studied and I know the subject

ahead, I guess I would participate. It’s not about a language (skill), but just the content

(Kang).
 134

Other than these reasons, they mentioned self-motivation (Kim), listening to

different opinions on things (Kang), and integration (Huang) as a main reason for

participating in the discussion activity.

Furthermore, seven participants mentioned that they preferred small group

discussions because of the less-intimidating environment where they can be comfortable

to talk openly to get more involved in the discussions and learn better. They said that they

feel like they were actually learning more (Yang) and more people consider their opinions

(Zhao). One participant said:

I guess if it’s like a big classroom then it intimidates students, so small classrooms are

more inviting situation for students to participate in the first place (Kim).

These findings suggest that having discussion tasks or coercing students into

discussions in class does not guarantee students’ engagement in classroom activities.

Understanding and being effective at constructing classroom environments and

discussion tasks around students’ interests and relevance would be more influential in

improving learning. Also, it would be essential to structure learning environments where

students feel comfortable and less pressured to participate in discussions. When students

find interest, values and learning benefits in classroom discussions, they are more willing

to participate in discussions, which is consistent with the tenets of SDT. When students

have their ownership in their learning and identify the values of the tasks, they are more

likely to participate in classroom learning activities.

 135

[Link] Discussion

The qualitative research was conducted to answer the following two research

questions: (a) to explore factors that contribute to international students’ academic

adjustments, and (b) to explain components that contribute to students’ perception of

autonomy-supportive environments. Participants were selected among those who scored

high on learning climate scale and academic adjustment scale. International students’

most challenging things in academic adjustment were different learning environments

from the ones’ in their home countries and language barriers. On the other hand, the most

helpful resources for international students to adapt themselves to U.S. universities were

instructors’ extra help for academic challenges and needs and peer groups’ support.

Overall participants’ responses to learning climates suggested that the way instructors

treat students and the way they give instructions may determine students’ perception of

autonomy-supportive environments. A key finding of this study is that instructors’

openness and willingness to address international students’ academic challenges and

needs made students feel comfortable in the learning environments, approach instructors

when they have questions, feel trust in their instructors, and feel confident to do well in

the course. Instructors’ willingness to respond to students’ academic needs may satisfy

students’ being autonomous in the course, having confidence in the classroom tasks, and

feeling connected with others in

classes. As a result, instructors’ attitudes toward students would help students to adjust

themselves in new learning environments in the U.S university.

Previous research also recognized the crucial role of instructors on international

students’ academic achievement (Jackson, Ray, & Bybell, 2013). When international
 136

students encounter academic challenges, faculty can help students accommodate their

academic needs. Researchers found that interaction with faculty contributed to greater

academic achievement among international students (Anaya, & Cole, 2001).

Furthermore, this finding is aligned with the previous finding in the SDT literature that

when instructors show more empathy by putting themselves in the students’ shoes and by

identifying students’ difficulties, the learning environments tend to lead to desirable

learning outcomes (Jang et al., 2009). Moreover, by fostering students’ needs, instructors

can contribute to students’ internalization process and eventually bolster their intrinsic

motivation (Jang et al., 2009). Instructors’ attitudes to show their willingness to help

international students’ academic challenges satisfy their basic needs for autonomy,

competence, and relatedness, which help students to adjust themselves in new learning

environments in the U.S university.

Additionally, the qualitative findings suggest that creating favorable learning

environments and constructing the discussion tasks around students’ interests and

relevance would promote students’ participating in classroom activities. The use of

discussions is considered to be an active learning activity, and is desired in many higher

education settings. However, based on international students’ experiences, what topic

instructors propose and what types of learning environments are given to students seem

to determine the quality of the classroom discussions. As participants suggested in the

interviews, as long as they related to the topics and found benefits in the discussions, they

were willing to participate in the classroom discussions although there was no external

rewards or reinforcements given. This finding is aligned with the assertion that

autonomy-supportive environments support students’ internalization and increase self-

 137

determination (Jang et al., 2009). The more students identify the discussions to be

relevant and the more they value the classroom discussions, the more they are likely to

participate in those discussions. Creating favorable learning environments and

constructing the discussion tasks around students’ interests and relevance may provide

opportunities for students to find benefits for learning through discussion activities and

also to integrate themselves into a new academic learning community, and potentially, in

some cases, become intrinsically motivated toward learning in the long term.

In sum, international students experienced unique academic needs such as

different learning environments and language barriers, they found instructors’ extra help

and peer groups’ support for academic challenges to be the most helpful resources during

their transition to U.S university. When instructors attempt to create autonomy-supportive

learning environments, their willingness and openness to help international students’

academic needs fulfill students’ basic psychological needs, which help them adjust

themselves to new learning environments in the U.S university. The interview data

suggests that basic psychological need theory and autonomy-supportive model in SDT

can be a solid theoretical framework to support these qualitative findings as well.

3.5 General Discussion

3.5.1 Self-Determination Theory as a Theoretical Framework

This study aimed to use a comprehensive theoretical framework, namely SDT to

explain the empirical findings related to international students’ successful learning

adjustments. This study explored the relationship between international students’ learning

environments, affective (language anxiety), behavioral (discussion participation),

cognitive (adaptive beliefs about classroom assessment) learning components, and

 138

academic adjustment through the lens of self-determination theory. In order to give more

dimension to the quantitative study, the present study used an explanatory sequential

mixed methods design (Creswell & Piano Clark, 2007). To investigate how learning

environments affect international students’ academic adjustments, this study began with

an SEM analysis to examine the relationships between constructs followed by the

subsequent interviews to provide additional insights into the quantitative findings.

The findings obtained from the quantitative and qualitative phase in this study

provide strong evidence to support SDT as a theoretical framework. A key finding in the

quantitative phase is that autonomy-supportive environments satisfy students’ basic

psychological needs, which, in turn, decrease anxiety and increase students’ participation

in discussions and adaptive beliefs about assessment. This is aligned with the previous

findings from research on SDT that autonomy-supportive learning environments fulfill

students’ fundamental basic psychological needs, would then lead to desirable learning

outcomes (Deci et al., 2001; Jang et al., 2009; Reeve, 2006; Vallerand et al., 1997).

Furthermore, overall participants’ responses to their perception of the learning

environment in the semi-structured interviews also supported these results from the

quantitative data. There are five themes that emerged from the qualitative data. The main

finding is that instructors’ openness and willingness to address international students’

academic challenges and needs made students feel comfortable, trust in their instructors,

and confident to do well in the course. It appears that instructors’ openness and

willingness tend to fulfill international students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness

needs, which then encourages them to participate in classroom activities, and ultimately

help students adjust themselves to new learning environments. SDT provides a strong
 139

theoretical background for this study. The current findings from both the quantitative and

the qualitative studies with international students in regards to their academic adjustment

add to the empirical evidence in support of the importance of basic psychological need

satisfaction and creating autonomy-supportive learning environments.

The findings from quantitative and qualitative phase suggest that autonomy-

supportive environments lead to desirable learning outcomes. However, how to create

autonomy-supportive environments would be more important issue. ‘Autonomy-

supportive environments’ are not only not a laissez-faire climate where students have

unlimited freedoms and choices in the learning environments, but neither is it an

environment with low structure (Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). The findings from the

qualitative phase of the study support this assertion. When instructors provided clear

guidelines and instructions in class, students felt comfortable and confident to do well in

the learning environments. Especially, when they had classroom discussions, they were

more likely to participate in the discussions when they could identify the learning

benefits and the relevance of the topic with their background knowledge or interests. This

implies that when it comes to creating autonomy-supportive learning environments,

instructions with well-structured classroom tasks

(e.g., discussions) around students’ interests and familiarity is as important as instructors’

openness and willingness so that students feel comfortable and able to follow the classes,

which eventually influence students’ academic adjustment. Structure is another important

concept in autonomy-supportive environments. Communicating with students using clear

expectations is a crucial characteristic of structure. Instructor’s autonomy-supportive

instructions and clear expectations seem to work together to increase positive school
 140

functioning by decreasing students’ anxiety (Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). Thus, instructors

should create well-structured environments where students feel comfortable and

confident in their ability to complete classroom tasks well.

Moreover, creating learning environments and providing clear instructions is

important in terms of promoting students’ self-determined motivation. Interview

participants reported that when they could identify the value in having a discussion and

were able to relate the topic to their field of interest, they were willing to participate in

classroom discussions. This finding suggests that the learning environment appears to

foster students’ self-determined motivation to engage in classroom tasks, and individuals

with more self-determined motivation are more likely to choose to participate in

classroom discussions. In autonomy-supportive environments, instructors meet students’

basic psychological needs which increase intrinsic and self-determined types of extrinsic

motivation (Jang et al., 2009; Reeve, 2006). They provide explanatory rationale for

classroom tasks and communicate with students with competence-related messages (Jang

et al., 2010; Reeve, 2006). This implication aligns with previous findings in SDT that

students with more self-determined motivation participate in a task and work hard even

when extrinsic rewards or resources are not available (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

3.5.2 Theoretical and Practical Implication

The present study adds to the literature in three ways.

First, from the theoretical perspective, SDT can be expanded to international

students’ studies as a conceptual framework. The researcher proposed that an autonomy-

supportive environment would improve international students’ successful academic

experiences by supporting their needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This
 141

empirical study provides a more concrete picture of how international students’

perception of autonomy-supportive contexts and basic psychological needs are associated

with their academic adjustment through affective, behavioral, and cognitive variables.

This study shows that SDT is able to work as a bridge to connect findings from the

previous literature on international students’ studies with motivation theory in educational

psychology.

Second, this study illustrates the value of a mixed methods design for

investigating international students’ academic adjustment by showing the relationship

with various learning variables and by providing students’ vivid voices in their learning

experiences. The qualitative data enabled us to deeply explore various aspects of learning

components that have an impact on international students’ perception of an autonomy-

supportive environment and academic adjustment at the individual level.

Finally, the findings highlight the importance of creating more autonomy-,

competence- and relatedness-supportive learning environments by being open and willing

to respond to students’ academic challenges and needs. In addition, creating well-

structured instructions is a crucial element for international students’ academic

adjustment. Positive learning experiences helped international students participate more

and work harder (Andrade, 2006). As Poyrazli & Grahame (2007) suggested, the ability

of the students to adjust themselves to a new academic environment depends not only on

the individual but also on many aspects of their social contexts. Thus, creating an

autonomy-supportive environment would not only improve students’ learning but also

contribute to their academic adjustment.

 142

3.5.3 Limitation and Suggestions for Future Studies

There are a couple of limitations in this study.

First, this study was not conducted in a specific course level. The quantitative

survey oriented students to choose one major class that they perceive to be most

important for them. Then they responded to all the survey items or interview questions

accordingly. Their perceptions of the learning climates and learning experiences may

vary by subjects and its instructors.

Second, this study did not include enough participants to represent each

academic year level. It would be interesting in future studies to do analyses specifically

based on different length of study in the U.S. Depending on their duration of time in the

U.S. (e.g., less than 1 year versus 3-5 years) or their academic year, there might be some

variance in the extent of academic adjustment. Based on the students’ demographic

profile, the sample size for the two groups is equivalent enough to examine it. Thus, this

may be an interesting future study regarding international students’ academic adjustment.

Also, although it was shown that adaptive beliefs about assessment contribute to

international students’ academic adjustment, this study did not specify types of

assessments in the classrooms. Depending on disciplines or instructional styles, it is

plausible that students may experience different types of assessment in the course and

their responses to the assessments may vary. It would be important to study how students’

beliefs about assessments can vary depending on the different types of classroom

assessment.

In addition, one of the limitations is the characteristics of the participants in the

follow-up interview. Participants did not represent the whole population of international
 143

students from Asian countries. They voluntarily participated in the follow-up interviews

and were willing to share their stories and learning experiences. As they may be more

brave and engaging students in academic environments, it is plausible that this study

contains sampling bias in which a sample is selected in a way that some populations are

less likely to be included than others. Further studies are needed with more diverse

populations among international students.

Lastly, this study did not include quantitative evidence of the role of self-

determined motivation in students’ academic adjustment. In order to investigate how self-

determined motivation in a course contribute to students’ adaptation to academic

environments, further study is needed with the motivation variables identified in self-

determination theory. This has led me to explore these constructs in Paper Three.

3.6 References

Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence

of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student

Development, 42(1), 3-14.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities adjustment

factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1999). SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire:

Manual. Western Psychological Services.

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and

students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐

determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756.

 144

Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of

techniques promoting students' self-determination: Effects on students' analytic

problem-solving skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17(4), 319-336.

Brislin, R., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural communication training: An introduction.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). 'I don't like writing. It makes my fingers

hurt': Students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 221-242.

Brown, G. T. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: A review of the

Students’ Conceptions of Assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31(6),

731-748.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2007). Students, conceptions of assessment and

mathematics achievement: Evidence for the power of self-regulation. Australian

Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 63-74.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to

outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 3-17.

Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of

interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students'

conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97-111.

Chen, C. P. (1999).Common stressors among international college students: Research

and counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49-67.

 145

Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy

from individualism and independence: A SDT perspective on internalization of

cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 97-110.

Cho, H. J. (2015). Korean international college students’ beliefs about assessment in

second language learning: The subjective task value, goal orientation, and

attribution (Unpublished master’s equivalent thesis). Purdue University, West

Lafayette, USA.

Cho, H. J. (2017). Development of the scale assessing international students’ beliefs

about assessments and relationships with self-regulatory strategies in second

language learning. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and

intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 40(1), 1-10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The General Causality Orientations Scale: Self-

determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality,19, 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. Perspectives on Motivation, 38, 237-288.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs

and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

 146

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University

Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne´, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of

a former Eastern Bloc country: A crosscultural study of self-determination.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.

Dorman, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument

to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment

tasks. Educational Studies, 32(1), 47-58.

Faye, C., & Sharpe, D. (2008). Academic motivation in university: The role of basic

psychological needs and identity formation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(4), 189-199.

Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). The friendship networks of foreign students: A

replication and extension of the functional model. International Journal of

Psychology, 20(3-4), 709-722.

Gagne´, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial

behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199-223.

Galloway, F. J., & Jenkins, J. R. (2005). The adjustment problems faced by international

students in the United States: A comparison of international students and

administrative perceptions at two private, religiously affiliated universities.

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 46(4), 321-333.

 147

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An

experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.

Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a “foreign”

context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare: A Journal of

Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 7-23.

Hirschfeld, G. H., & Brown, G. T. (2009). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Factorial

and structural invariance of the SCoA across sex, age, and ethnicity. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 30-38.

Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication.

Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), 294-307.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Jackson, M., Ray, S., & Bybell, D. (2013). International students in the US: Social and

psychological adjustment. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 17-28.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory

explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of

collectivistically oriented Korean students?. Journal of Educational Psychology,

101(3), 644-661.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is

not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600.

 148

Lee, D. S. (1997). What teachers can do to relieve problems identified by international

students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 70, 93-100.

Lee, J. S., Koeske, G. F., & Sales, E. (2004). Social support buffering of acculturative

stress: A study of mental health symptoms among Korean international students.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 399-414.

Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit

theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive

climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529-545.

Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and

competence in German and American university students: A comparative study

based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1),

68-84.

Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ perspectives on cross-cultural

adaptation’. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19(2),

167-185.

Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. L. (2010). Determinants of international students'

academic performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international

students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 389-405.

Little, T. D., Cunningham,W. A., Shahar, G., &Widamon, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not

to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation

Modeling, 9, 151-173.
 149

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the

learning environment and academic outcomes: implications for theory and

practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and social

support. Journal of College Student Development, 33(1), 71-78.

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators.

Corwin Press.

Meyer, K. R. (2009). Student classroom engagement: Rethinking participation grades

and student silence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University,

Columbus.

Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social

support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in

the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(2), 137-157.

Olivas, M., & Li, C. (2006). Understanding stressors of international students in higher

education: What college counselors and personnel need to know. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 217-222.

‘Otunuku, M., Brown, G. T., & Airini (2013). Tongan secondary students’ conceptions of

schooling in New Zealand relative to their academic achievement. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 14(3), 345-357.

Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use by nonnative English‐Speaking

students in an MBA Program: Not business as usual!. The Modern Language

Journal, 88(3), 374-389.

 150

Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of

assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250.

Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international

students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 34(1), 28-45.

Poyrazli, S., & Kavanaugh, P. R. (2006). Marital status, ethnicity, academic achievement,

and adjustment strains. College Student Journal, 40(4), 767-780.

Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and

demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of

College Counseling, 7(1), 73-83.

Purdue International Students and Scholars. (2016). Enrollment & Statistical Report.

Retrieved from

[Link]

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and

why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225-236.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy

during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218.

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-

determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375–392.

Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., & Kommers, P. (2012).

Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of

ethnicity, academic and social integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685-700.

 151

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S. & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning

environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher

Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89-101.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence:

Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),

319-338.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic

psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. Handbook of

personality: Theory and Research, 3, 654-678.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report

and projective assessments of individual differences in children's

perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.

Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized over development?: A

self-determination theory perspective on basic psychological needs across the life

span. In S. Qualls & N. Abeles (Eds.), Psychology and the aging revolution (pp.

145-172). Washington, DC: APA Books.

Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and

international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 12(2), 148-180.

Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment

environment: The influence on students' perceptions of assessment demands and

their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 223-242.

 152

Senyshyn, R. M., Warford, M. K. & Zhan, J. (2000). Issues of adjustment to higher

education: International students’ perspectives. International Education, 30(1),

17-35.

Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The

synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the

prediction of self‐regulated learning. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 79(1), 57-68.

Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students' academic

achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24(1), 56-68.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation

and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in

a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161-1176.

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis,

Aelterman, Haerens, & Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations of perceived

teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning,

motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 431-439.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004).

Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of

intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 87(2), 246-260.

 153

Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment,

engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational

Research Journal, 47(3), 633-662.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by

medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70(4), 767-779.

Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial

adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 139-162.

 154

3.7 Appendices

Appendix A. Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ)

This questionnaire contains items that are related to your experience with your instructor
in this class. Instructors have different styles in dealing with students, and we would like
to know more about how you have felt about your encounters with your instructor. Your
responses are confidential. Please be honest and candid.

I feel that my instructor provides me choices and options.

I feel understood by my instructor.
My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the course.
My instructor encouraged me to ask questions.
I feel a lot of trust in my instructor.
My instructor answers my questions fully and carefully.
My instructor listens to how I would like to do things.
I feel that my instructor cares about me as a person.
 155

Appendix B. Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS)

Please read each of the following items carefully, thinking about how it relates to your
course, and then indicate how true it is for you.

Autonomy
1. I feel like I can make a lot of inputs in deciding how my coursework gets done.
2. I feel pressured in this course.
3. I am free to express my ideas and opinions in this course.
4. When I am in this course, I have to do what I am told.
5. My feelings are taken into consideration in this course.
6. I feel like I can pretty much be myself in this course.
7. There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my
coursework.

Competence
8. I do not feel very competent in this course.
9. People in this course tell me I am good at what I do.
10. I have been able to learn interesting new skills in this course.
11. Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from this course.
12. In this course I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.
13. I often do not feel very capable in this course.

Relatedness
14. I really like the people in this course.
15. I get along with people in this course.
16. I pretty much keep to myself when in this course.
17. I consider the people in this course to be my friends.
18. People in this course care about me.
19. There are not many people in this course that I am close to.
20. The people in this course do not seem to like me much.
21. People in this course are pretty friendly towards me.
 156

Appendix C. Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS)

I tremble/shake when I know that I'm going to be called on to speak English in class.
It frightens me when I don't understand what the teacher is saying in English in class.
I keep thinking that other students are better at speaking English than I in class.
I start to panic when I have to speak English without preparation in advance in class.
In class, I can get so nervous that I forget things I know.
It embarrasses me to volunteer answer in class.
Even if I am well prepared for class, I feel anxious about it.
I feel confident when I speak English in class.
 157

Appendix D. The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS)

In this survey you are asked to rate the following items based on how much you agree
with statements regarding your beliefs or perception about classroom assessment in your
course.

Benefit for learning (13 items)

1. Assessment encourages me to better participate in learning activities.
2. The feedback from assessment gives me an opportunity to improve my learning.
3. Assessment gives me an opportunity to set short-term learning goals.
4. Assessment gives me an opportunity to develop my learning strategies.
5. Assessment encourages me to use different learning strategies.
6. Assessment shows what I need to study next.
7. Assessment helps motivate me to better learn material content.
8. Assessment gives me an opportunity to plan to study.
9. Assessment gives me an opportunity to identify how much I have learned from the
course so far.
10. Assessment gives me an opportunity to review the content.
11. Assessment provides beneficial learning experiences.
12. Assessment helps identify any misunderstandings or misconceptions I had.
13. Assessment allows me to remember the content longer.

Authenticity (5 items)
14. Assessment tasks are relevant to the real world.
15. Assessment tasks are useful in the real world.
16. Assessment enables me to apply my learning to real-life situations.
17. Assessment reflects real-life situations.
18. Assessment examines my ability to answer important questions in real-life situations.

Consistency with Learning Objective (3 items)

19. Assessment measures what teachers have taught me.
20. Assessment tests topics that have been covered in class.
21. Assessment is related to what I am learning in class.

Fairness (5 items)
22. Assessment includes a variety of tasks to reflect my ability.
23. Assessment results reflect my efforts.
24. I have access to learning materials for assessment.
25. Assessment is a fair way to indicate my learning outcome.
26. Assessment is a fair way to show my ability.
 158

Appendix E. Classroom Participation Survey

In the whole classroom discussion in class,

How often do you participate orally?
When an instructor direct questions to the whole class, how often do you volunteer an
answer?
I enjoy orally participating during the whole classroom discussion.
I contribute oral comments without hesitation during the whole classroom discussion.

In the small group discussion in class,

How often do you participate orally in small group discussion?
When an instructor direct questions, how often do you volunteer an answer in your small
group?
I enjoy orally participating during the small group discussion.
I contribute oral comments without hesitation during the small group discussion.
 159

Appendix F. Semi-Structured Interview Protocol

Research Question: What factors in the learning environment contribute to international

students’ perception of autonomy supportive environment and academic adjustment?

Autonomy Supportive Environment (related to a specific class)

1. Would you please describe one of your major classes which you are currently taking
and perceive to be the most important to you?
1) What is/was the course?
2) What is/was the class like?
2. Do/Did you feel comfortable/respected with the learning environment in the course that
you just mentioned above?
1) If so, why did you feel comfortable with the classroom environment?
2) If not, why did you feel uncomfortable with the classroom environment?
3. Do/Did you feel that your instructor provided enough choices and options for
classroom tasks in the course? If so, how did he/she do?
4. Do/Did you feel your instructor encourage you to ask questions? If so, how did he/she
do?
5. Do/Did you feel a lot of trust in your instructor? If so, how did he/she do?
6. Do/Did you feel that your instructor gave you confidence in your ability to do well
in the course? If so, how did he/she do?

Academic Adjustment (in general)

7. What was the most challenging thing when you adapted yourself in the academic
environment in the U.S. university?
8. What factors in the learning environment do you think was most helpful for your
academic adjustment/your adapting to the U.S university?
9. What is the biggest difference in academic environment between your home country and
the U.S. university?
10. How often did you talk or volunteer comments in class?
1) In the whole classroom discussion?
2) In the small group discussion?
3) Why did you talk never/sometimes/often?
11. Is/was participation one of the course requirements in class?
1) How do you feel about being graded for your oral participation in class?
2) If your professor didn’t grade your participation, would you still be willing to
participate in the classroom discussion? If so, why? If not, why not?
3) Even if there was no incentive, such as participation points, what would encourage
you to continue participating in classroom discussion?
4) What value do you see that helps you continue to participate in classroom
participation?
5) Are/were there any moments when you decided to keep quiet in class? If so, why
did you do so?
6) If you were the instructor in that class, what situation/learning environment do
you think would be helpful to encourage participating in classroom discussions?
 160

CHAPTER 4. PAPER 3: INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ SELF-

DETERMINED MOTIVATION, BELEIFS ABOUT CLASSROOM
ASSESSMENTS, LEARNING STRATEGIES, AND ACADEMIC
ADJUSTMENT

4.1 Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to investigate the relationships between self-

determined motivation, beliefs about classroom assessments, and the use of self-

regulatory learning strategies through the lens of self-determination theory. Consistent

with recent work that points to the role of self-determined motivation, it was proposed

that international students’ self-determined motivation may shape adaptive beliefs about

classroom assessments, which in turn, contribute to the use of self-regulated learning

strategies and eventually academic adjustment as a learning outcome. Also, this study

attempted to explore whether there is a difference in motivation, beliefs about classroom

assessments, and the use of self-regulated learning strategies in two different instructional

environments (lecture-based and discussion-based classroom). Participants were 321

Asian international undergraduate students. A structural equation modeling was

conducted to test the model proposed and an independent t-test was conducted to test to

what extent do international students within two different instructional environments

differ with respect to motivation, beliefs about assessment, and learning strategies. The

findings demonstrated that self-determined motivation in the course led to adaptive

beliefs about classroom assessments, which promoted a variety of learning strategies,

including shallow, deep, and meta-cognitive learning strategies.

 161

This study contributes to the literature to better understand how Asian

international students’ (English Language Learners) adapt themselves to U.S. universities

through their motivations to learn, perspectives about classroom assessments, and

learning strategies in different academic disciplines at the university level.

4.2 Introduction

An increasing number of international students are studying in universities in the

U.S.A (Li, Chen, & Duanmu, 2010). International students not only bring significant

economic benefits to universities, but also provide linguistic, social, and cultural diversity

(Phakiti, Hirsh, & Woodrow, 2013). As a result, there has been a growing interest in

exploring factors that impact their academic achievement and adjustment during their

studies. The literature suggests that international students require more than just English

language proficiency to be successful in their academics and to adjust successfully to

university life (Phakiti et al., 2013). This implies that there is a need to study motivational

and environmental factors that influence international students’ academic learning in

higher education.

Self-determined motivation lead to desirable learning outcomes such as

engagement, self-regulation, better performance, perseverance (e.g., Noels, Pelletier,

Clément, & Vallerand, 2003). When students are self-determined in the classroom tasks,

they are more likely to participate in tasks and engage in the classroom activities. One of

the important classroom academic tasks is a classroom assessment. Thus, students’

motivational beliefs would result in students’ adaptive attitudes about assessment tasks.

Especially, how students view assessments is related to students’ self-regulated learning

(Brown, 2011; Paris & Paris, 2001). Students’ beliefs about assessment may help students
 162

take responsibility for their own learning, sustain their efforts, be aware of their learning

process, and have mastery-oriented goals which are characteristics of self-regulated

learning (Paris & Paris, 2001). Thus, adaptive beliefs about assessment are assumed to be

significantly associated with students’ learning strategies. In turn, self-regulated learning

would contribute to international students’ academic adjustment.

The present study explored the relationships between self-determined motivation,

beliefs about classroom assessments, and the use of self-regulatory learning strategies

through the lens of self-determination theory. Based on the theory, it was proposed that

international students’ self-determined motivation may shape adaptive beliefs about

classroom assessments, which in turn, contributes to the use of self-regulated learning

strategies and eventually academic adjustment to U.S. university. Additionally, this study

attempted to examine whether there is a difference in motivation, beliefs about course-

based assessments, and the use of self-regulated learning strategies in two different

instructional environments; lecture-based and discussion-based classrooms. This study

discussed how Asian international students’ adapt themselves to U.S. higher education

through their motivation to learn, perspectives about course assessments, and learning

strategies in different academic disciplines at the university level.

4.3 Literature Review

4.3.1 Self-Determined Motivation

How much importance students base on assessment tasks need to be considered

when explaining their motivation to accomplish these tasks (Brookhart & Bronowicz,

2003; Dorman & Knightley, 2006). It can be expected that students’ different types of

motivation can explain how students’ perceive their classroom assessments and respond
 163

to their assessment tasks.

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002) is a conceptual framework

to explain an individual’s motivation that is increasingly being used in diverse

disciplines. SDT proposes that individuals’ behavioral regulation towards a task can be

intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated or amotivated. These motivational

regulations can vary depending on the extent to which they are self-determined

(autonomous). SDT proposes that the extent to which individuals participate in various

activities, exert effort, and persist in various tasks can be classified along a continuum of

self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The most self-determined

type of regulation is intrinsic motivation which refers to behaviors performed out of pure

enjoyment or pleasure whereas at the opposite end of the continuum is amotivation which

represents a lack of any type of motivation. There are four types of extrinsic motivations

that are situated between intrinsic motivation and amotivation; these are integrated,

identified, introjected, and external regulation.

Specifically, intrinsically motivated behaviors are those that an individual enjoys.

These behaviors are done purely for the enjoyment that is derived from engaging in the

activity or task. Intrinsic motivation is the prototype of self-determination. Extrinsically

motivated behaviors can be divided into four different types of behavioral regulation:

integrated, identified, introjected, and external regulation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &

Deci, 2000). Integrated regulation refers to the extent to which individuals perform

behaviors out of choice to harmonize the self (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1995). These

behaviors are regulated for instrumental reasons, so they are extrinsically regulated

although they are located at the higher end of the self-determination continuum.
 164

Integrated regulation represents the most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation

and the culmination of the internalization process. Identified regulation refers to the

extent to which individuals identify with the outcome of their behaviors and value the

behaviors performed. Although the behavior is not necessarily enjoyable, people perform

the behaviors because it is valued and do not feel external pressure to engage in the

behavior. It is considered a self-determined form of regulation. Introjected regulation

underlies behaviors that are partially internalized but they are not fully self-determined.

When introjected, individuals perform a task to gain social approval or self-worth or to

avoid internal pressure or negative feelings, such as feelings of guilt. External regulation

controls behaviors that are regulated through external sources such as rewards, fear of

punishment, or pressure from significant others. Finally, amotivation refers to the absence

of any type of motivation. It is characterized by a lack of belief that the task can result in

the desired outcomes. Thus, the self-determined types of regulation (autonomous

motivation) involve intrinsic, integrated, identified regulations whereas the non-self-

determined type of regulation (controlled motivation) includes introjected, extrinsic, and

amotivation.

SDT proposes that self-determined motivation is affected by the degree to which

the basic human psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are

satisfied or fulfilled (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The need for autonomy

refers to the need to perceive that individuals are responsible for their own actions and

are acting volitionally. The need for competence represents the need to perceive that

individuals have adequate ability to perform behaviors effectively. Finally, relatedness is

the need to feel that individuals belong to or are connected to others. SDT states that
 165

individuals seek out experiences to satisfy these three basic needs and these experiences

which foster the satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, promote more self-

determined types of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

The different types of motivational regulations can directly or indirectly explain

a wide range of behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes (Vallerand, 1997).

Especially self-determined motivation regulations are associated with more adaptive

outcomes in comparison to less self-determined motivation or amotivation (Vallerand,

1997).

4.3.2 International Students’ Academic Needs and Learning Approach

International students from Asian countries have greater adjustment difficulties,

compared to resident students (Andrade, 2006). These students encounter challenges such

as English language barriers, developing close relationships with advisors and professors,

and, in most cases, familiarizing themselves with teaching and curriculum differences

such as the expectation for class discussions or questioning from the instructors (Poyrazli

& Grahame, 2007). Among them, the most challenging difficulty may be a lack of

language skills. Language skills may be a significant concern because it influences the

social and academic performance of a student (Chen, 1999; Olivas & Li, 2006).

International students identified the following elements of English proficiency as

problematic: listening and speaking skills, lecture and reading comprehension, note-

taking, and vocabulary and writing skills (e.g., Andrade 2006, Senyshyn, Warford, &

Zhan, 2000). Language deficiency may prevent classroom participation (Lewthwaite,

1996; Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Research found that students had

difficulty understanding the professors’ accents, idiomatic styles, humor and choice of
 166

examples in lectures (Holmes, 2004), taking notes quickly in English, and participating in

classes with group work (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). Moreover, some of them lacked

discussion skills and had inadequate listening comprehension skills (Holmes, 2004). They

hesitated to participate because they feared their accents would not be understood. In

addition, they could not understand American students in the classroom due to the use of

slang and the fast rate at which they speak, and expressed frustration and discouragement

at their inability to overcome their fear resulting in loss of participation points toward

their final grades (Poyrazli & Grahame, 2007). In general, international students reported

that difficulties with language anxiety and lack of confidence impeded their participation

(e.g., Robertson et al., 2000).

However, although international students struggle with academic adjustment,

they engage in academic contexts by using different learning strategies. International

students’ approach to learning can demonstrate their engagement in learning (Sakurai,

Pyhältö, & Lindblom-Ylänne, 2014). In general, two definitions of approaches to

learning were used: Surface and deep learning. The surface approach to learning refers to

students’ attempts to memorize and reproduce informational content without a deep

understanding, whereas the deep approach to learning is concerned with understanding

the learned contents and constructing an in-depth understanding of them (Biggs & Tang,

2007; Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2003). Research found that in general students’

deep approach to learning has been associated with positive regulatory and cognitive

strategies, and higher academic grades (Heikkila & Lonka, 2006; Sakurai et al., 2014).

Literature concerning international students’ learning approaches has shown dissimilar

findings regarding their approach to learning (e.g., Kember, 2009; Ramburuth &
 167

McCormick, 2001). Addressing the contradictory findings about international students’

learning approach, Sakurai et al. (2014) explained that students’ responses to their

learning approaches may stem from different early educational learning environments

rather than their own characteristics. Also, a highly demanding workload on international

students who have challenges in a foreign environment might influence them to choose

the surface approach and thus, they may adopt more techniques such as rote learning that

pertain to a surface approach (Sakurai, 2009). In fact, research has shown that

international students were self-determined in their learning and adaptation (Gu,

Schweisfurth, & Day, 2010). More comprehensive studies, providing more empirical

evidence of international students’ learning strategies are needed.

4.3.3 Course-Based Assessment and Beliefs about Assessment

Once international students are admitted to the university, they start to encounter

diverse course-based assessments. Many course-based assessments are increasingly being

used at university. As a result, it is important to provide valid and reliable information for

decision-making purposes (Brindley, 2001).

In general, course-based assessments are characterized as formative and

summative (Brown & Abeywickrama, 2010). Most of the classroom assessments function

as formative assessment by assessing students in the process of developing their

competence and skills (Black & William, 1998), and formative assessment practices are

closely related to instructors’ own pedagogy. Course-based assessment also involves the

characteristics of summative assessment to measure or summarize what students

comprehend and typically takes place at the end of a course or unit of instruction. Final

exams in a course are such an example.

 168

It was pointed out that classroom assessment practices generally are dependent

on superficial and rote learning, focusing on recall of isolated information that students

usually forget, and instructors have a tendency to use normative assessment for

comparison rather than a criterion approach which focuses on personal improvement

(Black & William, 1998). This tendency makes students think that they lack ability which

in turn makes them unmotivated and lose confidence in their ability to learn. Moreover,

instructors often do not review the assessment questions that they use and do not discuss

them with students, so there is little reflection on what is being assessed (Black 1993;

Black & William, 1998). This case would be worse for international students. They have

different levels of test-experience derived from language barriers and lack of cultural

contexts. It is suggested that an effective assessment process should involve a two-way

communication system between instructors and their students. That is, instructors do not

implement assessment only to evaluate students’ learning, but they also need to

communicate with students about the purposes of the assessment and functions of it prior

to assessment practices.

Recently, research on assessment suggested that how students perceive their

assessment influences students’ approaches to learning and academic achievement. As a

result, there has been an increasing body of literature showing the relationships between

students’ perception of assessment and learning outcomes (e.g., Brown & Hirschfeld,

2008; Peterson & Irving, 2008). Researchers found that students have clear perspectives

on how they are assessed (Dorman & Knightley, 2006). Dorman & Knightley (2006)

identified five aspects as major characteristics of students’ perception: (a) congruence

with planned learning, (b) authenticity, (c) students’ consultation, (d) transparency, and
 169

(e) diversity. Brown and his colleague identified four major purposes for assessment from

a review of the empirical literature: (a) improving achievement, (b) a means for making

them accountable, (c) being irrelevant, and (d) being enjoyable (Brown & Hirschfeld,

2008). In addition, Cho (2015) found that students expressed positively or negatively on

these four aspects regarding their assessments: Benefit for Learning, Engagement,

Fairness, and Authenticity. Benefit for Learning can be defined as the extent to which

students believe or do not believe that assessment benefits their learning (e.g.,

Assessment provides beneficial learning experiences.). Engagement refers to the degree

to which students believe that assessment increases or decreases students’ engagement-

related learning behaviors (e.g., Assessment encourages me to participate in learning

activities better). Fairness can be defined as the extent to which students believe or do

not believe that assessment reflects their actual skills and effort (e.g., Assessment results

reflect my efforts) and that they have a fair opportunity to accomplish diverse assessment

tasks. (e.g., I can have access to learning materials for assessment). Finally, Authenticity

refers to the extent to which students believe that assessments relate to real-life situations

(e.g., Assessment reflects real-life situations). Based on her qualitative study, Cho (2017)

developed an alternative instrument to assess students’ adaptive perspectives and beliefs

about assessment. This scale was generated based on the findings of semi-structured

interviews and two existing instruments, the Perceptions of Assessment Tasks Inventory

(PATI; Dorman & Knightley, 2006) and the Student Conceptions of Assessment Version

VI (SCoA-VI; Brown, 2011). The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS) represents the

adaptive beliefs about assessment, consisting of 26 items with four different constructs:

Benefit for Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning Objective, and Fairness.
 170

The subscale Benefit for Learning measures the extent to which students believe that

assessments benefit their learning and increase students’ engagement-related learning

behaviors (e.g., Assessment provides beneficial learning experiences.). The subscale

Authenticity refers to students’ belief that assessments are related to real-life situations

(e.g., Assessment reflects real-life situations). The subscale Consistency with Learning

Objectives measures the extent to which students believe that they are tested on what they

learned in class (e.g., Assessment measures what teachers have taught me). Finally, the

subscale Fairness refers to the extent to which students believe that assessment reflects

their actual skills and effort (e.g., Assessment results reflect my efforts) and that they

have a fair opportunity to accomplish diverse assessment tasks (e.g., I can have access to

learning materials for assessment). The BAS measures students’ adaptive perspectives

and beliefs about assessment.

Researchers found that there has been a reciprocal relationship between students’

perceptions of assessment and their approaches to learning (Struyven, Dochy, & Janssens,

2005). Research has shown that students’ perceptions of assessment are closely related to

their learning approach. Perceptions of the quality of teaching and appropriateness of the

assessment are the strongest predictors of students using a deep approach to studying

(Lizzio, Wilson, & Simons, 2002). Moreover, adaptive perceptions of assessment were

closely related to students’ self-regulation in their learning (Brown, 2011).

In addition, researchers found that there have been strong relations between

adaptive students’ perceptions and positive learning outcomes. Adaptive beliefs about

assessment are associated with better academic performance (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008;

‘Otunuku, Brown, & Airini, 2013; Peterson & Irving, 2008). However, although students’
 171

perception studies found consistent and statistically significant associations between

adaptive beliefs and outcomes, much less is known about how these perceptions are

mediated by actual students’ practices or learning strategies. Furthermore, most of the

studies have been done in secondary education contexts with domestic students, not at the

university level with international students.

Based on the previous research, international students’ beliefs about learning

environments, specifically assessment practices, may make a clear contribution to their

learning achievement. However, empirical studies to examine how beliefs about

assessments are associated with their actual learning strategies and academic performance

have not been comprehensively studied yet in this field. This led me to investigate

international students’ perspectives about their classroom assessments and their learning

strategies in higher education in order to strengthen the findings in previous research.

4.3.4 Research Questions

The purpose of this present study is to explore the relationships between self-

determined motivation, beliefs about classroom assessments, and the use of different

types of learning approach in different disciplines. Also, this study attempted to examine

whether there is a difference in motivation, beliefs about assessment, and the use of

diverse learning approaches in two different instructional environments (lecture-based

and discussion-based classroom). This study is guided by the following three research

questions:
 172

1. Does self-determined motivation relate to international students’ adaptive beliefs

about course-based assessments, self-regulated learning strategies and academic

adjustment?

2. Do specific learning approaches relate to international students’ academic

adjustment?

3. To what extent do international students within two different types of instructional

environment (lecture-based vs. discussion-based) differ with respect to

motivation, adaptive beliefs about assessment, and learning approaches?

H1: Self-determined motivation has a direct positive effect on adaptive beliefs

about assessment and academic adjustment.

H2: Adaptive beliefs about assessment has a direct positive effect on deep and

meta-cognitive strategies but a negative effect on shallow strategies.

H3: Shallow, deep, and metacognitive strategies have a direct positive effect

on international students’ academic adjustment.

Based on the literature on students’ learning approach, in general, deep and meta-

cognitive approach were positively associated with students’ desirable learning outcomes,

so it was assumed that these approaches would be related to international students’

adaptation to the academic environment. However, considering international students’

possible language barriers and academic challenges during the transition, shallow

strategies were assumed to be positively related to students’ academic adjustment to some

extent.
 173

4.4 Methodology

4.4.1 Participants

Participants were 321 Asian international undergraduate students. Of the

participants, 51.4% were male and 48.6% were female. About 28.7% of the participants

reported being freshmen, 25.9% reported being sophomore students, 24.9% reported

being junior students, and 20.6% reported being senior students. Also, about 42.4% of the

participants reported majoring in engineering and technology, 12.5% reported majoring in

liberal arts majors, 22.7% reported majoring in science and math, 14.3 % reported

majoring in business, and 8.1% reported other majors. Additionally, of the respondents,

about 19.1% of the participants reported staying in the U.S. or other English-speaking

countries less than 1 year, 22.6% reported 1-2 year, 18.2% reported 2-3 year, 18.2%

reported 3-5 years, and about 21.9% reported having stayed in the U.S. more than 5

years. Table 1 shows the participants’ demographics and profiles.

Table 1

Demographic Profiles

Category N %
Gender Female 165 51.4%
Male 156 48.6%

Academic Year Freshman 92 28.7%

Sophomore 83 25.9%
Junior 80 24.9%
Senior 66 20.6%

Major Engineering & Technology 136 42.4%

Liberal Arts 40 12.5%
Science & Math 73 22.7%
Business 46 14.3%
Others 26 8.1%
 174

Table 1continued
Duration in the U.S. A or Less than 1 year 61 19.1%
English-speaking countries
1-2 years 72 22.6%
2-3 years 58 18.2%
3-5 years 58 18.2%
More than 5 years 70 21.9%

TOEFL Scores 1-10 3 1.0%

Reading 11-15 4 1.3%
16-20 30 9.9%
21-25 124 40.8%
26-30 143 47.0%

Listening 1-10 1 0.3%

11-15 3 1.0%
16-20 34 11.1%
21-25 128 42.0%
26-30 139 45.6%

Speaking 1-10 1 0.3%

11-15 6 2.0%
16-20 43 14.1%
21-25 172 56.6%
26-30 82 27.0%

Writing 1-10 1 0.3%

11-15 6 2.0%
16-20 37 12.2%
21-25 152 50.2%
26-30 107 35.3%

4.4.2 Measures

Four different measures were used to examine the relationships between self-

determined motivation, the beliefs about assessment, different types of learning approach,

and academic adjustment: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS; Guay, Vallerand, &

Blanchard, 2000), Beliefs about Assessment Scale (Cho, 2017), Motivated Strategies for

Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005), and Student

Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1999).

 175

The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS; Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000).

To measure students’ self-determined motivation, the situational motivation scale was

used, which contains six sub-scales: intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, external,

and amotivated regulation. Participants were asked to indicate the reasons they took the

course that they chose in the introduction of the survey. The questionnaire consists of 18

items answered on a Likert scale of 7 points from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree). To reflect students’ perceptions of self-determination, a self-determination index

(SDI) was calculated by weighting the different motivation subscales. Each subscale

score was multiplied by an assigned weight according to its position on the self-

determination continuum (Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004; Ryan & Connell,

1989; Vallerand, 1997). When calculating the overall SDI, the following formula was

used: (intrinsic motivation*3, e.g., I really enjoy it.) + (integrated regulation *2, e.g.,

experiencing new things is a part of who I am.) + (identified regulation * 1, e.g., It’s a

sensible way to get a meaningful experience.) – (introjected regulation*1, e.g., I would

feel guilty if I did not.) - (external regulation*2, e.g., I feel I have to.) - (amotivation*3,

e.g., I have the impression I am wasting my time.). The SDI scores were then summed to

calculate an index of self-determination. The alpha coefficients for intrinsic, integrated,

identified, introjected, external, and amotivated regulation are .89, .80, .82, .85, .80,

and .82 respectively in the current study.

Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS; Cho, 2017). The BAS consists of 26 items

to examine students’ beliefs about assessment. The participants indicated their agreement

with the statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). This scale

was validated in the previous study (Cho, 2017), indicating that the Cronbach’s alpha for
 176

the four factors were .92, .88, .83, and .85 respectively in the current study.

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). To assess the use of

self-regulatory strategies, the cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies subscales were

adapted from the learning strategy subscale of the latest version of Motivated Strategies

for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Wolters, Pintrich, & Karabenick, 2005). In order to

capture the use of self-regulated learning in more detail, the subscale of cognitive and

meta-cognitive strategies are categorized into three different strategies: shallow, deep,

and meta-cognitive strategies (Ahmed, van der Werf, Kuyper, & Minnaert, 2013).

Strategies measuring rehearsal are referred to as ‘shallow strategies’ (e.g., I practice

saying the material to myself over and over.), and elaboration (e.g., I write brief

summaries of the main ideas from the readings and the concepts from the lectures.) and

organization (e.g., I outline the reading material to help me organize my thoughts)

strategies are referred to as ‘deep strategies’. Finally, strategies including planning,

morning and evaluation are referred to as ‘meta-cognitive strategies’ (e.g., When I

become confused about something I’m reading for this class, I go back and try to figure it

out.) This scale consists of a seven-point, Likert-type scale ranging from very untrue (1)

to very true (7). The Cronbach’s alpha for shallow, elaboration, organization and

metacognitive strategies are .61, .65, .58, and .58 respectively.

Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ; Baker & Siryk, 1999). To

measure students’ academic adjustment, 5 items from the Academic Adjustment subscale

and 1 item from Social Adjustment subscale, which is relevant to academic life, were

used in this study. The SACQ was copyrighted by Western Psychological Services. A
 177

sample item is ‘I am enjoying my academic work at college.’2 The participants indicated

their agreement to the statements on a Likert-type scale. High values indicate better

academic adaptation. The Cronbach’s alpha for the subscale was .87 in this study.

4.4.3 Procedures

The survey was distributed online to measure students’ motivational beliefs,

adaptive beliefs about assessment, the use of self-regulated learning strategies, and

academic adjustment. In the survey introduction, students were oriented to choose a

course which is the most important in their respective major fields and to self-report

whether that major class is a lecture-based or discussion-based class with the use of

continuum bar from lecture-based (1) to discussion-based (7). Participation was

voluntary.

Overview of Analysis. In the first part, a structural equation modeling (SEM) was

conducted to test the model proposed in Figure 1. It allowed the researcher to test the

theoretical fit of the hypothesized model from a self-determination theory (see Figure 1).

All analyses were conducted using Stata 13. Parameters were estimated using maximum

likelihood estimation. The various types of motivation proposed by self-determination

theory, adaptive beliefs about assessment, shallow strategies, deep strategies, meta-

cognitive self-regulated strategies, and academic adjustment were treated as a latent

variable. Based on the nature and dimensionality of the items, this study used parcels of

items as variables in SEM procedures (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).

2
Sample content from the SACQ © 1987 by Western Psychological Services. Reprinted by H. J. Cho and
C. Levesque-Bristol, Purdue University, for scholarly display purposes by permission of the publisher. Not
to be reprinted in whole or in part for any additional purpose without the expressed, written permission of
the publisher (rights@[Link]). All rights reserved.
 178

For example, self-determined motivation was calculated by a self-determination index

(Levesque et al., 2004; Ryan & Connell, 1989; Vallerand, 1997) and this study used three

parcels for SDI in the SEM model. For adaptive beliefs about assessments, four parcels to

represent each factor were used as an indicator. In addition, to test to what extent

international students within two different instructional environments differ with respect

to motivation, beliefs about assessment, and learning strategies, correlation analyses and

independent t-test were conducted by IBM SPSS Statistics 22.

4.5 Results

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics whereas Table 3 presents the correlations

among all constructs to be included in the empirical model.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics (N=321)

Variable M SD Minimum Maximum

Intrinsic Regulation 4.59 1.40 1.00 7.00
Integration 5.18 1.16 1.00 7.00
Identification 5.24 1.14 1.00 7.00
Introjection 3.80 1.55 1.00 7.00
Extrinsic Regulation 5.10 1.34 1.00 7.00
Amotivation 2.69 1.42 1.00 7.00
Benefit for Learning 3.87 .68 1.00 5.00
Authenticity 3.60 .84 1.00 5.00
Consistency with Learning Objectives 3.98 .80 1.00 5.00
Fairness 3.78 .82 1.00 5.00
Shallow Strategies 4.58 1.14 1.00 7.00
Deep Strategies 4.79 1.04 1.00 7.00
Meta-cognitive Strategies 4.83 1.07 1.00 7.00
Academic Adjustment 5.06 1.11 1.00 7.00
Table 3

Correlation Coefficients among Variables (N=321)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Intrinsic 1.00
2. Integration .64** 1.00
3. Identification .61** .82** 1.00
4. Introjection .07 .17** .12* 1.00
5. Extrinsic -.22** .11 .08 .33** 1.00
6. Amotivation -.28** -.31** -.35** .39** .15** 1.00
7. Benefit .46** .55** .61** .05 .10 -.34** 1.00
8. Authenticity .38** .37** .45** .15** .08 -.20** .67** 1.00
9. Consistency .45** .46** .48** -.03 -.01 -.37** .68** .45** 1.00
10. Fairness .44** .39** .49** .03 .04 -.29** .77** .72** .65** 1.00
11. Shallow .23** .28** .23** .16** .08 .06 .29** .16** .10 .14* 1.00
12. Deep .33** .47** .43** .10 .11* -.07 .45** .25** .24** .28** .66** 1.00
13. Meta .32** .42** .37** .16** .13* -.07 .42** .28** .22** .29** .52** .65** 1.00
14. Adjustment .48** .44** .46** -.02 -.03 -.28** .45** .36** .33** .40** .23** .35** .36** 1.00
Note : * Significant at the 𝛼 = .05 level (two-tailed), ** Significant at the 𝛼 = .01 level (two-tailed)

179
 180

The hypothesized model depicted in Figure 1 was tested with an assumption that

adaptive beliefs about assessment influenced by self-determined motivation would be

associated with self-regulated learning strategies, and would eventually promote

international students’ academic adjustment. The data fitted the hypothesized model

well: (χ2(142) = 452.85, p < .001; CFI = .90; TLI = .88; SRMR = .09; RMSEA = .08).

Although CFI was relatively lower than .95, overall those indices suggested an acceptable

model fit. The full SEM model is depicted in Figure 2.

Students’ self-determined motivation was a significant positive predictor of

students’ adaptive beliefs about assessment (β = .57, p < .001) and of academic

adjustment (β = .36, p < .001), which supports Hypothesis 5. The variable of adaptive

beliefs about assessment was significantly and positively associated with all three

learning strategies, shallow strategies (β = .40, p < .001), deep strategies (β = .53, p

< .001), and meta-cognitive self-regulated strategies (β = .59, p < .001). In addition, only

meta-cognitive self-regulated strategies were positively significantly associated with

academic adjustment (β = .26, p =.02).

 181

Figure 1. Hypothesized Model for RQ1 & RQ2.

Figure 2. Structural Equation Model. All solid line path coefficients are significant while

the dotted line path coefficients are not significant at p < .05.
 182

Table 4 presents the direct, indirect, and total effects and their significance levels

in the SEM model. Self-determined motivation has a direct effect on adaptive beliefs

about assessment and academic adjustment while it has a significant indirect effect on

shallow strategies (β = .22), deep strategies (β = .30), meta-cognitive strategies (β = .33),

and academic adjustment (β = .18). Self-determined motivation was predictive of the

adaptive beliefs about assessment, all three learning strategies through indirect effects,

and international students’ academic adjustment directly and indirectly. Finally, adaptive

beliefs about assessment have a significant indirect effect on academic adjustment

(β = .31).

Based on these findings from SEM analysis, Hypothesis 1 that self-determined

motivation has a direct positive effect on adaptive beliefs about assessment and academic

adjustment was supported. For Hypothesis 2, contrary to the initial prediction, adaptive

beliefs about assessment has a positive association with all three learning strategies even

including shallow strategies. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. In Hypothesis

3, it was expected that shallow, deep, and meta-cognitive strategies have a direct positive

effect on international students’ academic adjustment. However, only meta-cognitive

strategies were predictive of students’ academic adjustment while shallow and deep

strategies were not found to be significantly associated with academic adjustment as

predicted. Thus, it was also partially supported.

 183

Table 4

Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects in the SEM Model

Predictor Criterion Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

SDI Adaptive Beliefs .57** .57**
SDI Shallow .22** .22**
Adaptive .40** .40**
SDI Deep .30** .30**
Adaptive .53** 53**
SDI Meta-cognitive .33** .33**
Adaptive Strategies .59** .59**
SDI Academic Adjustment .36** .18** .54**
Shallow -.64 -.64 (p =.25)
Deep .77 .77 (p =.18)
Meta .26* .26*
Adaptive .31** .31**
Note: **p <.001 * p < 0.05

Independent t-Test. The independent samples t-test was conducted to compare two

groups of students’ means in motivation, adaptive beliefs about assessment, and learning

strategies in lecture-based and discussion-based classrooms. Two groups of students were

formed based on Z-scores in their self-reported responses indicating instructional types.

Students in each group were selected according to Z-scores less than 1 (N = 58, 15.9% in

the left wing of the bell curve) and more than 1 (N = 47, 15.9 % in the right wing of the

bell curse). Thus, the participants in each group were independent of each other. In order

to test whether two groups sample (lecture-based vs. discussion-based classroom) have

equal variances, Levene’s test was checked. In Levene’s test, if the p-value is less than a

significance level at p < .05, the null hypothesis that population variances are equal is

rejected. Therefore, when the p-value is greater than a significance level at p < .05, it can

be concluded that variances are equal across groups or samples, which is desirable for the

independent samples t-test.

 184

Table 5 presents the mean difference in variables between two extreme groups.

Results of an independent samples t-test in equal variances indicate that there are no

significant differences between the two groups’ means in different types of motivational

regulation, learning strategies, and academic adjustment, but only amotivation regulation.

The p-value of amotivation regulation in Levene’s test was 0.31, which was greater

than .05, thus it was assumed that the two sample groups have equal variances. Then, the

independent samples t-test in amotivation regulation was found to be statistically

significant, t (103) = 2.09, p < .04. This result indicates that individuals in the discussion-

based classroom (M = 3.07, SD = 1.46) experienced more amotivation regulation than did

individuals in lecture-based classroom (M = 2.51, SD = 1.29).

 185

Table 5

Mean Differences between Lecture-Based and Discussion-Based Classroom

Std. Error
Group Mean Std. Deviation
Mean
Discussion 4.40 1.53 .22
Intrinsic Regulation
Lecture 4.51 1.48 .19
Discussion 5.13 1.21 .18
Integration
Lecture 5.14 1.29 .17
Discussion 5.15 1.36 .20
Identification
Lecture 5.13 1.26 .17
Discussion 4.02 1.65 .24
Introjection
Lecture 3.79 1.66 .22
Discussion 5.15 1.44 .21
Extrinsic Regulation
Lecture 5.33 1.32 .17
Discussion 3.07** 1.46 .21
Amotivation
Lecture 2.51** 1.29 .17
Adaptive Beliefs about Discussion 3.73 .79 .12
Assessment Lecture 3.90 .59 .08
Discussion 4.46 1.21 .18
Shallow Strategies
Lecture 4.70 1.18 .15
Discussion 4.64 1.23 .18
Deep Strategies
Lecture 4.85 1.04 .14
Discussion 4.96 1.12 .16
Meta Strategies
Lecture 4.99 1.15 .15
Discussion 4.76 1.25 .18
Academic Adjustment
Lecture 5.11 1.03 .14

4.6 Discussion

4.6.1 Self-Determined Motivation, Adaptive Beliefs about Assessment, and Self-

Regulated Learning Approach

Students’ motivation in class is a huge contributor to their persistence,

engagement, and effort regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2002). In order to further study the role

of self-determined motivation in international students’ academic adjustment in the U.S

universities, the relationships between motivational constructs and other learning

variables were tested in the current study.

 186

First, the findings demonstrated that self-determined motivation in the course

leads to positive cognitive beliefs, which are adaptive beliefs about classroom

assessment. Adaptive beliefs about assessment refer to the extent to which students

perceive that assessments are consistent with learning objectives and provide beneficial,

useful, and fair learning experiences. The study uses a composite score of self-determined

motivation called self-determination index to calculate a self-determined motivation to

reflect the participants’ perceptions of self-determination (Levesque et al., 2004; Ryan &

Connell, 1989; Vallerand, 1997). The finding from SEM showed that that students’ self-

determined motivation in the course was significantly associated with their adaptive

beliefs about classroom assessments. This study provides the empirical finding that the

more self-determined motivated students become, the more likely they are to hold

adaptive beliefs about classroom assessments directly and indirectly. This result is in line

with previous research on SDT suggesting that the degree to which an individual holds

self-determined reasons for an academic task results in desirable behavioral, cognitive,

and affective outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002).

Consequently, adaptive beliefs about assessment promoted a variety of learning

strategies, including shallow, deep, and meta-cognitive learning strategies. This study

demonstrated the empirical evidence by SEM results that adaptive beliefs about

classroom assessments were significantly linked to international college students’ all

three types of self-regulated learning approach. This finding supports the previous

findings in the literature that adaptive beliefs about assessment are associated with

students’ self-regulation in their learning (Brown, 2011, Paris & Paris, 2001). Initially, it

was expected that if student identify the value of assessment and beneficial aspect for
 187

learning, they are more likely to use a higher-level learning approach (deep and meta-

cognitive approach) rather than simply mechanic learning approach (shallow strategies).

However, self-regulated learning strategies may involve the continuum from shallow

learning approach to meta-cognitive approach. The results showed that adaptive beliefs

about assessments still predicted shallow learning approach as well as deep and meta-

cognitive strategies. That is, the construct adaptive beliefs about assessments was

significantly associated with all three types of learning strategy. However, one thing to

note is that based on the standardized coefficients, adaptive beliefs about assessment was

most significantly related to meta-cognitive strategies (β =.59), compared to deep

strategies (β = .53) and shallow strategies (β = .40). Thus, the possible explanation is that

when students hold adaptive beliefs about classroom assessments, they still use shallow

learning strategies, but it seems that they are more likely to use a higher- level learning

approach such as deep and meta-cognitive strategies. Moreover, adaptive students’

perceptions have a significant indirect relationship with international students’ academic

adjustment. This finding is aligned with the previous finding that adaptive beliefs about

assessment are associated with desirable learning outcomes such as better academic

achievement and more positive approaches to learning (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2008;

Peterson & Irving, 2008).

In addition, one important finding to note is that meta-cognitive learning

strategies were found to be positive indicators of academic adjustment in the U.S. higher

education. Initially, regardless of types of learning approach, considering the role of

learning strategies in academic achievement, it was expected that all learning strategies

would contribute to students’ academic adjustment to a certain degree. Contrary to initial

 188

predictions, shallow and deep strategies were not associated with academic adjustment

while only meta-cognitive strategies significantly predicted students’ academic

adjustment in the university. It implies that it is crucial for international students to

employ a higher-level learning approach and to take this approach to accommodate

themselves to a new academic environment in the U.S. higher education.

Finally, an interesting finding from the independent t-test is that there was a

significant difference between the two groups of students’ mean in amotivation

regulation in lecture-based and discussion-based classes. Amotivation refers to the

absence of any type of motivation in the self-determination continuum. There were no

differences in means of motivational constructs, different types of learning strategies, and

academic adjustment. However, only amotivation regulation revealed significant

difference between two groups of students in different instructional environments.

International students in discussion-based class reported more amotivation regulation in

their courses. One of the explanations can be that international students expressed that

during the transition to U.S. higher education, they faced language barriers and had

difficulty in adapting themselves to an entirely different learning environments, such as

group discussion, which is not quite familiar with Asian international students (Cho,

2017). For this reason, if they are not interested in discussion topics or have a hard time

getting used to this type of class, they would experience a more difficult transition in the

classroom which may lead to an increase in amotivation in the courses. Although the

difference in the mean of academic adjustment between discussion-based and lecture-

based was not significant, students in the discussion-based classrooms scored less on

academic adjustment (M = 4.76, SD = 1.25) than ones in lecture-based classrooms (M =

 189

5.11, SD = 1.03). This may support the possible explanation above.

In sum, findings suggested that international students’ self-determined

motivation in the course plays an important role in shaping adaptive beliefs about

assessment. These adaptive beliefs about assessment promote their self-regulatory

strategies including shallow, deep, and meta-cognitive strategies. In turn, meta-cognitive

strategies contribute to academic adjustment in the U.S. university. These findings add

additional empirical findings that self-determined motivation results in desirable

academic learning outcomes in the SDT literature.

4.6.2 Theoretical and Practical Implication

There are important implications for educators in higher education. First,

instructors need to design the classroom environment considering the role of self-

determined motivation. It would be difficult to draw out students’ fully genuine

engagement unless instructors pay attention to creating favorable structures where

international students find interested in learning and identify the value of learning

activities. Instructors can provide individual sessions or help sessions to promote students

to become more self-determination.

Second, this study provides the rationale for instructors to encourage students to

use self-regulated learning strategies in the higher education. As students are more likely

to use metacognitive strategies, they tend to adapt themselves to the new academic

environments. Instructors can introduce various self-regulated learning strategies to apply

to the course and provide individual sessions or help sessions to promote students to use

more adaptive learning strategies when they face academic difficulties.

Furthermore, when they design the course assessments, they need to

 190

communicate with students about the purpose of assessments and beneficial aspect of the

assessment practices so that students have an opportunity to view assessments as genuine

learning experiences to monitor their learning process, which eventually would

encourage students’ self-regulation.

Lastly, this study fills the gap in the literature about international students’

learning strategies in different academic disciplines. A great amount of research has

emphasized the aspect of international students’ language proficiency in ESL classrooms.

However, there was little known about how international college students engage in their

major fields beyond the ESL classroom. This study recruited international undergraduate

students from different disciplines to investigate their motivational beliefs, perspectives

about learning, and learning approach in their major academic fields: 42.4% in

engineering and technology, 12.5% in liberal arts majors, 22.7% in science and math,

14.3 % in business, and finally 8.1% in other majors such as agronomy or exploratory

studies. It showed that students’ self-determined motivation in the course was

significantly associated with their adaptive perspectives about the classroom assessments,

and these perspectives contributed to their different types of learning approach.

Especially, the use of meta-cognitive learning strategies was strongly related to

international students’ academic adjustment. Although this study covered rather broad

ranges of academics, this study provides a broad but meaningful snapshot to understand

international students’ perspectives about learning components in their major fields and

academic adjustment in higher education when they advance after ESL courses.
 191

4.6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

There are a couple of limitations. This study was not conducted in a specific

classroom environment, but it relied on the students’ perceptions of instructors’ teaching

styles; whether their classes are lecture-based or discussion-based in their majors. Thus,

there is a possibility that although students are in the same classes, their perceptions of

instructional styles may differ based on their previous learning experiences. International

students who grew up in different learning cultures might perceive differently from

domestic students under the same instructional environments.

Also, this study contained a broad range of higher education academics from

engineering to liberal arts. The survey oriented participants to choose one of their major

courses and to answer the survey accordingly. It is plausible that their perceptions of the

learning environment and learning strategies may vary depending on their major fields.

The classroom observation and qualitative research in course-specific environments

would be complementary for future studies.

Moreover, although it was shown that adaptive beliefs about assessment

contribute to international students’ academic adjustment, this study did not specify types

of assessments in the classroom. Considering that classroom assessments have different

functions and purposes, depending on disciplines or instructional styles, it is possible that

students experience different types of assessment in the courses and their responses to the

assessment may vary. It would be a need to study how students’ beliefs about assessment

can vary depending on the different types of classroom assessments.

 192

4.7 References

Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-

regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve

analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150-161.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities adjustment

factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1999). SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire:

Manual. Western Psychological Services.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Retrieved from

[Link]

Black, P. J. (1993) Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science

Education, 21, 49-97

Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: Some examples and

emerging insights. Language Testing, 18(4), 393-407.

Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). 'I don't like writing. It makes my fingers

hurt': Students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 221-242.

Brown, G. T. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: A review of the

Students’ Conceptions of Assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31(6),

731-748.
 193

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2007). Students, conceptions of assessment and

mathematics achievement: Evidence for the power of self-regulation. Australian

Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 63-74.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2008). Students’ Conceptions of Assessment: Links to

outcomes, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 3-17.

Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of

interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students'

conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97-111.

Brown, H. D., & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and

classroom practices. Pearson Education.

Chen, C. P. (1999).Common stressors among international college students: Research

and counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2, 49-67.

Cho, H. J. (2015). Korean international college students’ beliefs about assessment in

second language learning: The subjective task value, goal orientation, and

attribution (Unpublished master’s equivalent thesis). Purdue University, West

Lafayette, USA.

Cho, H. J. (2017). Development of the scale assessing international students’ beliefs

about assessments and relationships with self-regulatory strategies in second

language learning. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

 194

Cho, H. J. (2017). Promoting international students’ academic adjustment: Autonomy

supportive environments, discussion participation, beliefs about classroom

assessments from a self-determination perspective. Unpublished manuscript,

Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-

determination in personality. Journal of research in personality, 19(2), 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy. In Efficacy, agency, and self-

esteem (pp. 31-49). Springer US.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University

Rochester Press.

Dorman, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument

to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment tasks. Educational

Studies, 32(1), 47-58.

Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing

university teaching-learning environments: Measuring students’ approaches to

studying and perceptions of teaching. Powerful Learning Environments:

Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions, 89-107.

Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a “foreign”

context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare: A Journal of

Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 7-23.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale

(SIMS). Motivation and emotion, 24(3), 175-213.

 195

Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: students' approaches to

learning, self‐regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher

Education, 31(1), 99-117.

Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication.

Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), 294-307.

Kember, D. (2009). International students from Asia. The Routledge International

Handbook of Higher Education, 47-60.

Lee, D. S. (1997). What teachers can do to relieve problems identified by international

students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 93-100.

Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ perspectives on cross-cultural

adaptation’. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19(2),

167-185.

Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and

competence in German and American university students: A comparative study

based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1),

68-84.

Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. L. (2010). Determinants of international students’

academic performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international

students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 389-405.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not

to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation

Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.

 196

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the

learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and

practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

McKay, J. & Kember, D. (1997). Spoon feeding leads to regurgitation: a better diet can

result in more digestible learning outcomes. Higher Education Research and

Development, 16(1), 55-67.

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you

learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self‐determination

theory. Language Learning, 53(S1), 33-64.

Olivas, M., & Li, C. (2006). Understanding stressors of international students in higher

education: What college counselors and personnel need to know. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 217-222.

‘Otunuku, M., Brown, G. T., & Airini (2013). Tongan secondary students’ conceptions of

schooling in New Zealand relative to their academic achievement. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 14(3), 345-357.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated

learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.

Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of

assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250.

Phakiti, A., Hirsh, D., & Woodrow, L. (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other

individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL

international students in Australia. Journal of Research in International

Education, 12(3), 239-258.

 197

Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international

students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 34(1), 28-46.

Ramburuth, P. & McCormick, J. (2001). Learning diversity in higher education: a

comparative study of Asian international and Australian students. Higher

Education, 42(3), 333-350.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S. & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning

environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique’. Higher

Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89-101.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:

examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence:

Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),

319-338.

Sakurai, Y. (2009). Academic experiences in a cross-national tertiary program: Language

immersion amid the sciences. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education, 21(2), 239-247.

Sakurai, Y., Pyhältö, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2014). Are Chinese university students

more likely to exhibit a surface approach to learning than other international

students in Finland?. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(2), 135-

148.
 198

Senyshyn, R. M., Warford, M. K. & Zhan, J. (2000). Issues of adjustment to higher

education: International students’ perspectives. International Education, 30(1),

17-35.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation

and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher

Education, 30(4), 325-341.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271-360.

Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical

model. Handbook of Self-determination Research, 128, 37-63.

Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2005). Assessing academic self-

regulated learning. In What Do Children Need to Flourish? (pp. 251-270).

Springer US.
 199

4.8 Appendices

Appendix A. The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS)

Please indicate the reasons you are taking the course that you chose in the introduction of
the survey. Your rating should be on a 7-point scale where 1= not at all true of me to
7=very true of me.

Because I really enjoy it.

Because learning all I can about academic work is really essential for me.
Because it allows me to develop skills that are important to me.
Because I would feel bad if I didn’t.
Because I feel I have to.
I don’t know. I have the impression I’m wasting my time.
Because I really like it.
Because acquiring all kinds of knowledge is fundamental for me.
Because it’s a sensible way to get a meaningful experience.
Because I would feel guilty if I didn’t.
Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.
I’m not sure anymore. I think that maybe I should quit/drop the class.
Because it’s really fun.
Because experiencing new things is a part of who I am.
Because it’s a practical way to acquire new knowledge.
Because I would feel awful about myself if I didn’t.
Because that’s what I was told to do.
I don’t know. I wonder if I should continue.
 200

Appendix B. Strategies for the Regulation of Academic Cognition (MSLQ)

Please rate the following items based on your behavior in this class. Your rating should
be on a 7-point scale where 1= not at all true of me to 7=very true of me.

Rehearsal Strategies
1. When I study for this class, I practice saying the material to myself over and over.
2. When studying for this class, I read my class notes and the course readings over and
over again.
3. I memorize key words to remind me of important concepts in this class.
4. I make lists of important terms for this course and memorize the lists.

Elaboration Strategies
5. When I study for this class, I pull together information from different sources, such as
lectures, readings, and discussions.
6. I try to relate ideas in this subject to those in another course whenever possible.
7. When reading for this class, I try to relate the material to what I already know.
8. When I study for this course, I write brief summaries of the main ideas from the
readings and the concepts from the lectures.
9. I try to understand the material in this class by making connections between the
readings and the concepts from the lectures.
10. I try to apply ideas from course readings in other class activities such as lecture and
discussion.

Organization Strategies
11. When I study for the readings for this course, I outline the material to help me
organize my thoughts.
12. When I study for this course, I go through the readings and my class notes and try to
find the most important ideas.
13. I make simple charts, diagrams, or tables to help me organize course material.
14. When I study for this course, I go over my class notes and make an outline of
important concepts.
 201

Meta-cognitive Self-Regulation
15. During class time I often miss important points because I’m thinking of other things.
(REVERSED)
16. When reading for this course, I make up questions to help focus my reading.
17. When I become confused about something I’m reading for this class, I go back and
try to figure it out.
18. If course materials are difficult to understand, I change the way I read the material.
19. Before I study new course material thoroughly, I often skim it to see how it is
organized.
20. I ask myself questions to make sure I understand the material I have been studying in
this class.
21. I try to change the way I study in order to fit the course requirements and instructor’s
teaching style.
22. I often find that I have been reading for class but don’t know what it was all about.
(REVERSED)
23. I try to think through a topic and decide what I am supposed to learn from it rather
than just reading it over when studying.
24. When studying for this course I try to determine which concepts I don’t understand
well.
25. When I study for this class, I set goals for myself in order to direct my activities in
each study period.
26. If I get confused taking notes in class, I make sure I sort it out afterward
 202

CHAPTER 5. GENERAL CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary of Major Findings

Paper One examined the validity of a new instrument to assess students’ adaptive

beliefs about assessment in the context of second language learning. This study was

conducted with international undergraduate students to explore their beliefs about a high-

stakes standardized English proficiency exam, the Test of English as a Foreign Language.

The Beliefs about Assessment Scale (BAS) consists of 26 items. The finding from the

results demonstrates four different factors to show students’ adaptive beliefs about

assessment: Benefit for Learning, Authenticity, Consistency with Learning Objectives,

and Fairness. The findings from EFA and CFA suggested a very good fit to the data as an

instrument to students’ cognitive aspects of beliefs regarding assessment. This scale can

be used in other studies to investigate the relationships between motivational beliefs and

learning strategies in many different assessment settings. Since this scale involves overall

comprehensive characteristics about students’ beliefs about assessment within one scale,

it may be a useful alternative instrument to measure students’ adaptive beliefs about

assessments along with other existing instruments.

Besides, Paper One investigated how students’ beliefs about assessment are

related to actual students’ self-regulated learning strategies and how these beliefs can

contribute to students’ language learning achievement through these learning strategies.

Students’ adaptive beliefs about assessments were positively associated with students’

self-regulated learning strategies. Especially, these beliefs were significantly related to

metacognitive self-regulation, which predicts students’ perception of knowledge transfer

 203

and TOEFL scores. That is, if students perceive the beneficial aspects of the assessment,

they are more likely to use the meta-cognitive strategies that promote students’

knowledge transfer. This finding is meaningful in high-stakes assessment situations.

High-stake testing has been criticized due to its negative impacts on students’ motivation

and engagement. However, this finding suggests that as long as students identify

beneficial aspects of assessment, it tends to promote students’ use of self-regulatory

learning strategies, which consequently can enhance students’ learning outcomes. These

findings are in line with previous studies (Brown & Hirschfeld, 2007, 2008; Brown,

Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009; McMillan, 2000).

More importantly, this finding implies that the tenet of self-determination theory

(SDT) that students’ integrated or identified regulation facilitates internalization, and

leads to desirable learning outcomes would be applied to the research on students’ beliefs

about assessment. As students perceived the value or importance of the assessment task

and benefited from the assessment, they were more likely to use adaptive regulatory

strategies such as meta-cognitive strategies. Thus, this study suggests that SDT may

explain why adaptive beliefs about assessments lead to desirable learning outcomes, but

further studies are needed.

The next two papers were used SDT as a theoretical framework to explain

empirical findings related to international students’ successful learning experiences and

academic adjustment. Paper Two explored the relationships between international

students’ learning climates, discussion participation, adaptive beliefs about classroom

assessments, and academic adjustment through the lens of self-determination theory. This

study used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Piano Clark,
 204

2007) to examine both quantitative and qualitative aspect of students’ perception of

autonomy-supportive environments and academic adjustment. A major finding in the

quantitative phase is that an autonomy-supportive environment leads to satisfaction of

basic psychological needs, which, in turn, decreases students’ language anxiety, increases

discussion participation and adaptive beliefs about assessments, and consequently

contributes to academic adjustment. In quantitative data, five main themes emerged. A

primary theme is that instructors’ openness and willingness to address international

students’ academic challenges made students feel comfortable in the learning

environments, feel trust in their instructors, and feel confident to do well in the course. It

appears that instructors’ open-minded attitudes and willingness to respond students’ needs

satisfy international students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and thus

eventually help students adapt themselves to the new academic environments in the U.S

universities. These qualitative findings support the quantitative survey results showing

that accepting classroom environments to satisfy students’ basic psychological needs and

to address academic challenges helped students adjust themselves to a new academic

adjustment.

Furthermore, these qualitative findings suggest that well-structured instructions

are as essential as instructors’ openness and willingness in terms of creating autonomy-

supportive learning environments so that students feel comfortable and clear to follow the

classes. When instructors provided clear guidelines and instruction in classroom tasks,

they were more likely to participate in discussions. This implies that instructors need to

show their willingness to help students’ academic needs, but also should provide

instructions with well-structured classroom tasks (e.g., discussions) around students’

 205

interests and familiarity. By showing empirical findings from quantitative and qualitative

data, Paper Two suggests that SDT can be extended to international students’ research as

a conceptual framework.

In addition, Paper Two highlighted the role of students’ adaptive beliefs about

assessment in learning. This study showed that these adaptive beliefs contribute to

academic adjustment. This finding was consistent with results from previous research that

students’ adaptive attitudes about assessment lead to desirable learning outcomes (e.g.,

‘Otunuku, Brown, & Airini, 2013). This paper added more empirical findings about the

role of adaptive beliefs about assessment in learning to the body of literature on

perception of assessment. Furthermore, the BAS showed potential as an alternative scale

that can be used to examine various educational studies in the future.

Lastly, Paper Three examined international students’ motivational beliefs, beliefs

about classroom assessments, and learning approaches within different instructional style

environments: lecture-based vs. discussion-based classroom. Findings from SEM analysis

showed that students’ self-determined motivation had significant association with their

adaptive beliefs about assessment. Adaptive beliefs about assessment promoted the use of

all different learning strategies, including shallow, deep, and metacognitive strategies.

More importantly, meta-cognitive strategies were significantly associated with

international students’ academic adjustment in the U.S. universities. There are four

important aspects of findings from this paper.

First, the results suggest that more self-determined motivation students hold, the

more likely they are to hold adaptive aspects of assessment. This work contributes to

scholarly work on perception of assessment research, suggesting that self-determined

 206

types of motivation are an important source of building up adaptive beliefs about

classroom assessments. Also, this paper suggests that adaptive types of beliefs about

assessment boost students’ learning strategies and eventually academic adjustment

through a higher level of learning strategies. This result supports the assertion that

students’ beliefs matter for learning outcomes. The literature on students’ perception of

assessment lacks evidence to show how adaptive perspectives about assessment lead to

better learning outcomes. This paper provided strong empirical evidence that adaptive

beliefs about assessment contribute to students’ adaptation to new academic

environments as well as their self-regulation through diverse learning strategies. Thirdly,

meta-cognitive strategies, which is a prototype of self-regulated learning strategies,

contributed to international students’ academic adjustment while shallow and deep

strategies were not related to. It provides a rationale for instructors in higher education to

encourage international students to develop and use higher-level learning strategies. It is

crucial for international students to employ a higher-level of learning approach and to

take this approach to accommodate themselves to a new academic environment in the

U.S. higher education. This paper showed a snapshot to capture international students’

perspectives about learning and learning strategies in their major areas beyond ESL

courses. Lastly, there was significant difference between two groups of students’ mean in

amotivation regulation in two different instructional environments: lecture-based and

discussion-based classroom. It is plausible that international students who may face

language barriers and have difficulty in adapting themselves to entirely different learning

environments would experience more difficult academic challenges in the discussion-

based classrooms, which may lead to increase in lack of motivation in the classroom.
 207

5.2 Implications

The development of a valid and reliable instrument is an important step towards

examining how students’ beliefs about assessment are associated with their motivational

variables and diverse learning components. The BAS can be used as an alternative scale

to assess adaptive aspects of beliefs and perspectives toward assessment. This scale can

be used in investigating how adaptive beliefs about assessment directly or indirectly

contribute to students’ desirable learning outcomes in higher education in relation to other

learning factors.

Additionally, the findings from Paper One show empirical evidence that adaptive

beliefs about assessment are related to self-regulatory strategies and perceived knowledge

transfer as a learning outcome. This finding provides a rationale for educators’

intervention in students’ developing adaptive beliefs about assessment. If instructors help

students identify beneficial aspects for learning, even high-stakes testing can be an

opportunity for students to develop their self-regulation through diverse learning

approach. If instructors communicate with students about the purposes of assessment and

offer an opportunity for them to view assessment as a genuine learning experience,

students would change their attitudes and perspectives about assessment and equip

themselves with beneficial learning strategies in the long term.

In Paper Two, the greatest contribution of this study is to show that SDT can be

expanded to international students’ studies as a conceptual framework. SDT is able to

play a bridge to connect the empirical findings from previous literature and motivational

theory. The researcher proposed that autonomy-supportive environments would facilitate

international students’ successful academic experiences by supporting their needs for

 208

autonomy, competence, and relatedness and by increasing desirable learning behaviors in

classes. This empirical study illustrated a more concrete picture of how autonomy-

supportive contexts and international students’ basic psychological needs were positively

associated with their academic adjustment. When students feel respected, encouraged,

and connected with their faculty and domestic friends through an autonomy-supportive

environment, their basic psychological needs would be fulfilled and, in turn, help them

adjust themselves to academic environments. These learning environments may offer

international students an academic context where they are more likely to interact with

instructors or peers and participate in classroom activities such as discussions.

Furthermore, this study illustrates the importance of a mixed methods design to

examine international students’ academic adjustment. The qualitative approach enabled to

explore learning components at the deeper level by adding students’ vivid voices from

learning experiences. This approach provided more concrete and additional insights into

the quantitative findings. The key findings from interview data were instructors’ openness

and willingness as an essential component in students’ perception of autonomy-

supportive learning environments. Their willingness to help students’ academic

challenges made students feel comfortable in their classes, approach instructors to ask for

help, feel trustful for their instructors, and feel confident to do well in the classroom. In

addition, well-structured instructions with classroom activities facilitated students to

participate in classroom activities and tasks. These findings offer educators in higher

education concrete suggestions for how to create autonomy-supportive environments

from students’ vivid first-hand experiences and voices.

Lastly, Paper Three provides implication in the literature on international

 209

students’ research in higher education. First, self-determined motivation is an important

source of shaping adaptive beliefs about assessment. Instructors need to design the

classroom environment considering the role of self-determined motivation. Instructors

pay attention to creating favorable structures so that students identify the value of

learning activities and get involved fully with classroom tasks. Instructors can provide

individual sessions or help sessions to promote students to become more self-

determination when they encounter academic challenges and needs. In addition, when

they design the course assessments in order to promote students’ adaptive beliefs about

assessment, they need to communicate with students about the purposes of assessment.

Students may have an opportunity to view assessments as essential learning experiences

to promote students’ self-regulation. Furthermore, this study provides the rationale for

instructors to encourage students to use self-regulated learning strategies in the higher

education. As students who are more likely to use meta-cognitive strategies, they tend to

adapt themselves to the new academic environments. Instructors can introduce various

self-regulated learning strategies to apply to the course and provide individual sessions or

help sessions to promote students to use more adaptive learning strategies when they face

academic challenges. Finally, this study fills the gap in the literature about international

students’ learning strategies in different academic disciplines. A great amount of research

has emphasized the aspects of international students’ language proficiency in ESL

classrooms. However, there was little known about how international college students

engage in their major fields beyond the ESL classrooms. Although this study covered

rather broad ranges of academics, it may provide insights into international students’

perceptions of learning and learning approach in higher education when they advance
 210

after ESL courses.

In sum, my own academic challenges and needs as an international student led me

to continue my pursuit of research regarding international students’ academic

adjustment. This dissertation explored international students’ learning environments,

basic psychological needs, beliefs and perspectives about assessment, self-determined

motivation, behavioral and affective components. This work provides not only theoretical

framework to explain students’ successful academic experiences but also practical

suggestions that can be applied to higher education where the number of international

students from Asian countries is growing.

5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The combined dissertation includes limitations that guide future research. Paper

One does not show the direction of the effect of each variable although the findings

indicated that there is a significant association between positive beliefs about assessments

and the use of self-regulated learning strategies. In order to investigate the direction of

the effect, longitudinal studies may be needed for future study. Also, the diverse forms

and functions of assessment have potential limitations to this study. In order to provide

more evidence of the validity of the scale, there is needed to study students’ beliefs about

assessment in a variety of assessment contexts with diverse populations.

Paper Two has a couple of limitations in the study. This study was not conducted

in the specific course level. Students’ perceptions of learning climate and learning

experiences may vary by subjects and instructors. Also, depending on their duration of

time in the U.S. or their academic year, there might be some variance in academic

adjustment. Moreover, it is possible that the bidirectional relationships exist among

 211

variables. In order to investigate this characteristic of the relationship, a longitudinal

study may be needed for further study.

Paper Three has a couple of limitations. Based on students’ previous learning

experiences, students’ perceptions of learning environments and instructional styles may

vary. Survey responses relied on the students’ perceptions of instructors’ teaching styles:

whether their classes are lecture-based or discussion-based in their majors. In order to

investigate more solid results, the classroom observations and qualitative findings in

course-specific environments would be complementary. Finally, international students’

SES and cultural variances may affect students’ academic work and adjustment, but SES

and cultural variance depending on ethnic groups were not considered in this study.

Future studies are needed to consider those variables.

5.4 Completed List of References for Dissertation

Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Kuyper, H., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Emotions, self-

regulated learning, and achievement in mathematics: A growth curve

analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 150-161.

Alderson, J. C. (2009). Test review: Test of English as a Foreign Language™: Internet-

based Test (TOEFL iBT®). Language Testing, 26(4), 621-631.

Alderson, J.C. & Wall, D. (1993). Does washback exist?. Applied Linguistics, 14, 115-

129.

Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2003). Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading

scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Response to

Rosenshine. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 1-16.

 212

Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence

of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student

Development, 42(1), 3-14.

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities adjustment

factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154.

Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1999). SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire:

Manual. Western Psychological Services.

Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child

development. Vol. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT:

JAI Press.

Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality

and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825-829.

Berman, R., & Cheng, L. (2010). English academic language skills: Perceived difficulties

by undergraduate and graduate students, and their academic

achievement. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de

linguistique appliquée, 4(1), 25-40.

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the

student does. Retrieved from

[Link]

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and

students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self‐

determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740-756.

 213

Black, P. J. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science

Education, 21, 49-97.

Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in

Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Boekaerts, M. (1999). Self-regulated learning: Where we are today. International Journal

of Educational Research, 31(6), 445-457.

Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of

techniques promoting students' self-determination: Effects on students' analytic

problem-solving skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17(4), 319-336.

Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2005). The relationship between epistemological beliefs,

implicit theories of intelligence, and self‐regulated learning among Norwegian

postsecondary students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 539-

565.

Brindley, G. (2001). Outcomes-based assessment in practice: Some examples and

emerging insights. Language Testing, 18(4), 393-407.

Brislin, R. W., & Yoshida, T. (1994). Intercultural communication training: An

introduction (Vol. 2). Sage Publications.

Brookhart, S. M., & Bronowicz, D. L. (2003). 'I don't like writing. It makes my fingers

hurt': Students talk about their classroom assessments. Assessment in Education:

Principles, Policy & Practice, 10(2), 221-242.

Brown, G. T. (2011). Self-regulation of assessment beliefs and attitudes: A review of the

Students’ Conceptions of Assessment inventory. Educational Psychology, 31(6),

731-748.
 214

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2007). Students, conceptions of assessment and

mathematics achievement: Evidence for the power of self-regulation. Australian

Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 63-74.

Brown, G. T., & Hirschfeld, H. F. (2008). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Links to

outcomes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(1), 3-17.

Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of

interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students'

conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97-111.

Brown, H. D. & Abeywickrama, P. (2010). Language assessment: Principles and

classroom practices. Pearson Education.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Buck, G. (1988). Testing listening comprehension in Japanese university entrance

examinations. Journal of the Japan Association of Language Teachers, 10(1), 15-

42.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

Chalhoub-Deville, M., & Turner, C. E. (2000). What to look for in ESL admission tests:

Cambridge certificate exams, IELTS, and TOEFL. System, 28(4), 523-539.

Chapelle, C. A., Enright, M. K., & Jamieson, J. M. (2011). Building a validity argument

for the test of English as a foreign language. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen, C. P. (1999).Common stressors among international college students: Research and

counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling, 2(1), 49-65.

 215

Chirkov, V. I., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy

from individualism and independence: A SDT perspective on internalization of

cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84(1), 97-110.

Cho, H. J. (2015). Korean international college students’ beliefs about assessment in

second language learning: The subjective task value, goal orientation, and

attribution (Unpublished master’s equivalent thesis). Purdue University, West

Lafayette, USA.

Cho, H. J. (2017). Development of the scale assessing international students’ beliefs

about assessments and relationships with self-regulatory strategies in second

language learning. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies,

Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Cho, H. J. (2017). Promoting international students’ academic adjustment: Autonomy

supportive environments, discussion participation, beliefs about classroom

assessments from a self-determination perspective. Unpublished manuscript,

Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.

Cotton, F., & Conrow, F. (1998). An investigation of the predictive validity of IELTS

amongst a group of international students studying at the University of

Tasmania. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research

Reports, 1, 72-115.
 216

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cumming, A. (2009). Language assessment in education: Tests, curricula, and

teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 90-100.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-

determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109-134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. Perspectives on Motivation, 38, 237-288.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy. In efficacy, agency, and self-

esteem (pp. 31-49). Springer US.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs

and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. University

Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and

intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 40(1), 1-10.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne´, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of

a former Eastern Bloc country: A crosscultural study of self-determination.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.

 217

Dooey, P., & Oliver, R. (2002). An investigation into the predictive validity of the IELTS

Test as an indicator of future academic success. Prospect: An Australian Journal

of TESOL, 17, 36-54.

Dorman, J. P., & Knightley, W. M. (2006). Development and validation of an instrument

to assess secondary school students’ perceptions of assessment tasks. Educational

Studies, 32(1), 47-58.

Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Hounsell, J. (2003). Investigating ways of enhancing

university teaching-learning environments: Measuring students’ approaches to

studying and perceptions of teaching. Powerful Learning Environments:

Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions, 89-107.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating

the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological

Methods, 4(3), 272-299.

Faye, C., & Sharpe, D. (2008). Academic motivation in university: The role of basic

psychological needs and identity formation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural

Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40(4), 189-199.

Feast, V. (2002). The impact of IELTS scores on performance at university (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Flinders University, Australia.

Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). The friendship networks of foreign students: A

replication and extension of the functional model. International Journal of

Psychology, 20(3-4), 709-722.

Furtak, E. M., & Kunter, M. (2012). Effects of autonomy-supportive teaching on student

learning and motivation. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 284-316.

 218

Gagne´, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial

behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199-223.

Galloway, F. J., & Jenkins, J. R. (2005). The adjustment problems faced by international

students in the United States: A comparison of international students and

administrative perceptions at two private, religiously affiliated universities.

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 46(4), 321–333.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An

experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898.

Gu, Q., Schweisfurth, M., & Day, C. (2010). Learning and growing in a “foreign”

context: Intercultural experiences of international students. Compare: A Journal

of Comparative and International Education, 40(1), 7-23.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale

(SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175-213.

Heikkilä, A., & Lonka, K. (2006). Studying in higher education: students' approaches to

learning, self‐regulation, and cognitive strategies. Studies in Higher

Education, 31(1), 99-117.

Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015).

Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical

education students' motivational experiences through unique pathways?

Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 16, 26-36.

 219

Hirschfeld, G. H., & Brown, G. T. (2009). Students’ conceptions of assessment: Factorial

and structural invariance of the SCoA across sex, age, and ethnicity. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 30-38.

Holmes, P. (2004). Negotiating differences in learning and intercultural communication.

Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), 294-307.

Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom

anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Hudson, T. (2005). Trends in assessment scales and criterion-referenced language

assessment. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 205-227.

Inbar-Lourie, O. (2008). Constructing a language assessment knowledge base: A focus on

language assessment courses. Language Testing, 25(3), 385-402.

Jackson, M., Ray, S., & Bybell, D. (2013). International students in the US: Social and

psychological adjustment. Journal of International Students, 3(1), 17-28.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is

not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588-600.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory

explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of

collectivistically oriented Korean students?. Journal of Educational Psychology,

101(3), 644-661.

Kember, D. (2009). International students from Asia. The Routledge International

Handbook of Higher Education, 47-60.

 220

Kerstjens, M., & Nery, C. (2000). Predictive validity in the IELTS test: A study of the

relationship between IELTS scores and students' subsequent academic

performance. International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Research

Reports, 3, 85-108.

Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation.

Sage Publications.

Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do

implicit beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?. Learning and Individual

Differences, 25, 67-72.

Lee, D. S. (1997). What teachers can do to relieve problems identified by international

students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 93-100.

Lee, J. S., Koeske, G. F., & Sales, E. (2004). Social support buffering of acculturative

stress: A study of mental health symptoms among Korean international students.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 399-414.

Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’

implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy

supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529-

545.

Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and

competence in German and American university students: A comparative study

based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1),

68-84.
 221

Levesque-Bristol, C., Richards, K. A. R., Zissimopoulos, A., Wang, C., & Yu, S. (2016).

Creation and validation of the perceived knowledge transfer scale

(PKTS). Manuscript submitted for publication.

Lewthwaite, M. (1996). A study of international students’ perspectives on cross-cultural

adaptation’. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 19(2),

167-185.

Li, G., Chen, W., & Duanmu, J. (2010). Determinants of international students' academic

performance: A comparison between Chinese and other international students.

Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 389-405.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not

to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation

Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.

Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students' perceptions of the

learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and

practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27-52.

Mace, F. C., Belfiore, P., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2001). Operant theory and research on

self-regulation. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated

learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.39-65). NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Magno, C. (2010). Korean students ‘language learning strategies and years of studying

English as predictors of proficiency in English. Teaching English to Speakers of

Languages Journal, 2, 39-61.

 222

Mallinckrodt, B., & Leong, F. T. (1992). International graduate students, stress, and

social support. Journal of College Student Development, 33(1), 71-78.

McCombs, B. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A

phenomenological view. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-

regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.67-

123). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McKay, J. & Kember, D. (1997). Spoon feeding leads to regurgitation: a better diet can

result in more digestible learning outcomes. Higher Education Research and

Development, 16(1), 55-67.

McMillan, J. H. (2000). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators.

Corwin Press.

Messick, S. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. ETS Research Report

Series, 1, i-18.

Meyer, K. R. (2009). Student classroom engagement: Rethinking participation grades and

student silence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio University, Columbus.

Misra, R., Crist, M., & Burant, C. J. (2003). Relationships among life stress, social

support, academic stressors, and reactions to stressors of international students in

the United States. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(2), 137-157.

Nichols, S., & Dawson, H. (2012). Assessment as a context for student engagement. In

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of

research on student engagement. (pp. 457-458). Springer Science & Business

Media.
 223

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated

learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in

Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.

Niles, F. S. (1995). Cultural differences in learning motivation and learning strategies: a

comparison of overseas and Australian students at an Australian university.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 19(3), 369-385.

Noels, K. A., Pelletier, L. G., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). Why are you

learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self‐determination

theory. Language Learning, 53(S1), 33-64.

Olivas, M., & Li, C. (2006). Understanding stressors of international students in higher

education: What college counselors and personnel need to know. Journal of

Instructional Psychology, 33(3), 217-222.

‘Otunuku, M., Brown, G. T., & Airini (2013). Tongan secondary students’ conceptions of

schooling in New Zealand relative to their academic achievement. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 14(3), 345-357.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated

learning. Educational psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.

Paris, S. G., Byrnes, J. P., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Constructing theories, identities, and

actions of self-regulated learners. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.),

Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives

(pp.253-287). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

 224

Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use by nonnative English‐Speaking

students in an MBA Program: Not business as usual!. The Modern Language

Journal, 88(3), 374-389.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations

among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A

prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279-306.

Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of

assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238-250.

Phakiti, A., Hirsh, D., & Woodrow, L. (2013). It’s not only English: Effects of other

individual factors on English language learning and academic learning of ESL

international students in Australia. Journal of Research in International

Education, 12(3), 239-258.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.

Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.

451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic.

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-

regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4),

385-407.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and

predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

(MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813.

 225

Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international

students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional

Psychology, 34(1), 28-45.

Poyrazli, S., & Kavanaugh, P. R. (2006). Marital status, ethnicity, academic achievement,

and adjustment strains. College Student Journal, 40(4), 767-780.

Poyrazli, S., Kavanaugh, P. R., Baker, A., & Al-Timimi, N. (2004). Social support and

demographic correlates of acculturative stress in international students. Journal of

College Counseling, 7(1), 73-83.

Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use

of self-regulated learning strategies: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88(1), 87.

Purdue International Students and Scholars. (2015). Enrollment & Statistical Report.

Retrieved from

[Link]

Purdue International Students and Scholars. (2016). Enrollment & Statistical Report.

Retrieved from

[Link]

Ramburuth, P. & McCormick, J. (2001). Learning diversity in higher education: a

comparative study of Asian international and Australian students. Higher

Education, 42(3), 333-350.

Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-supportive teachers do and

why their students benefit. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 225-236.
 226

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy

during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209-218.

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-

determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375-392.

Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., & Kommers, P. (2012).

Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of

ethnicity, academic and social integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685-700.

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S. & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning

environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique’. Higher

Education Research & Development, 19(1), 89-101.

Roemmich, J. N., Lambiase, M. J., McCarthy, T. F., Feda, D. M., & Kozlowski, K. F.

(2012). Autonomy supportive environments and mastery as basic factors to

motivate physical activity in children: a controlled laboratory study. International

Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 16-29.

Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 354-374). New York: The

Guilford Press

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:

examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.

 227

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence:

Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4),

319-338.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the role of basic

psychological needs in personality and the organization of behavior. Handbook of

personality: Theory and Research, 3, 654-678.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report

and projective assessments of individual differences in children's

perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 550-558.

Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized over development?: A

self-determination theory perspective on basic psychological needs across the life

span. In S. Qualls & N. Abeles (Eds.), Psychology and the aging revolution (pp.

145-172). Washington, DC: APA Books.

Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2009). Undermining quality teaching and learning: A self-

determination theory perspective on high-stakes testing. School Field, 7(2), 224-

233.

Sakurai, Y. (2009). Academic experiences in a cross-national tertiary program: Language

immersion amid the sciences. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education, 21(2), 239-247.

Sakurai, Y., Pyhältö, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2014). Are Chinese university students

more likely to exhibit a surface approach to learning than other international

students in Finland?. Journal of Research in International Education, 13(2), 135-

148.
 228

Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Brown, S. (1997). “But is it fair?”: An exploratory study

of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in

Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 349-371.

Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Deumert, A., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2008). Loneliness and

international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International

Education, 12(2), 148-180.

Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J.

Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic

achievement: Theoretical perspectives (pp.125-151). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self-regulatory

competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195-208.

Segers, M., Nijhuis, J., & Gijselaers, W. (2006). Redesigning a learning and assessment

environment: The influence on students' perceptions of assessment demands and

their learning strategies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 223-242.

Senyshyn, R. M., Warford, M. K. & Zhan, J. (2000). Issues of adjustment to higher

education: International students’ perspectives. International Education, 30(1),

17-35.

Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The

synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the

prediction of self‐regulated learning. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 79(1), 57-68.

 229

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of

common factors. In annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City,

IA (Vol. 758).

Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students' academic

achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 24(1), 56-68.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., & Janssens, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions about evaluation

and assessment in higher education: A review. Assessment & Evaluation in

Higher Education, 30(4), 325-341.

Tang, C. (1994). Effects of modes of assessment on students' preparation strategies. In G.

Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory and practice (pp. 151-170).

Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271-360.

Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A

hierarchical model. Handbook of Self-determination Research, 128, 37-63.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in

a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1161-1176.

Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., Dochy, F., Mouratidis,

Aelterman, Haerens, & Beyers, W. (2012). Identifying configurations of

perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-

regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and

Instruction, 22(6), 431-439.

 230

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004).

Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of

intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of personality

and social psychology, 87(2), 246-260.

Wang, M. T., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment,

engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational

Research Journal, 47(3), 633-662.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by

medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70(4), 767-779.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: Evaluating an underemphasized aspect

of self-regulated learning. Educational psychologist, 38(4), 189-205.

Wolters, C. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and

self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies

classrooms. Instructional Science, 26(1), 27-47.

Wolters, C. A., Pintrich, P. R., & Karabenick, S. A. (2005). Assessing academic self-

regulated learning. In What Do Children Need to Flourish? (pp. 251-270).

Springer US.

Zhang, J., & Goodson, P. (2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial

adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 139-162.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An

overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

 231

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M.

Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Ziedner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-regulation (pp.13-

39). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into

Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for

assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational

Research Journal, 23(4), 614-628.