English Australia Journal : English Australia Journal 32.1
Volume 32 No 1 13 English Australia Journal but weak correlation to student attention/alertness (r = 0.26; R2 = 0.07). In contrast, Papi and Abdollahzadeh (2012) found a larger correlation of 0.73. The relationship between teacher motivational practice and student participation was insignificant (r = 0.11). This is not in line with Papi and Abdollahzadeh (2012) who found a much larger significant correlation (r = 0.65). Finally, teacher motivational practice had a negative correlation to student volunteering (r = −0 .20, R2 = 0.04; p < 0.01, small effect size). Papi and Abdollahzadeh (2012) found a correlation coefficient of 0.53. matsumoto (2011), using different instruments, found a correlation of 0.33 between students’ motivation and their perception of their teachers’ motivation. The present findings, therefore, appear to differ from Papi and Abdollahzadeh’s (2012) findings. In summary, the findings related to research question 1 differ from those of previous studies. However, this study’s insignificant correlations or weak relationships between teacher motivational practice and student motivated behaviour were not surprising. A significant link between the two measures was initially anticipated, but it was not expected to be as strong as the link found in the EFL middle and high schools context, based on the previous studies’ suggestion. In the present study’s context, full-fee-paying international tertiary students should have higher levels of general (rather than task-specific) motivation and are therefore less reliant on situation- specific motivators, such as teachers’ motivational strategies. This could also indicate that ESL students living in an English-speaking country, such as Australia, will have more medium- to long-term integrative and instrumental motivation. Importantly, other factors might have affected this study’s result, including its smaller sample size; reliance on a single research location (unlike the previous research contexts, which were multi-sited and had large sample sizes); and the adaptation of the moLT instrumentation to five-minute periods, away from the primary focus convention. Research question 2: What is the relationship between student motivated behaviour (SMB) and student self-reported motivated state? Student motivated state (SmS) was formed from the SmS questionnaire’s 25 questions. The items were normally distributed, aggregated for each sub-scale, and averaged by five to form the designated composite index for correlational analysis (only one item was removed due to a low correlation coefficient). The data were normally distributed. To further analyse the relationships between students’ above-mentioned SmS, moLT, and PLTES data, each student was assigned the scores of their class’ TmP, PLTES, and SmB. Table 2 presents the Pearson correlations between these variables.
English Australia Journal 31.2
English Australia Journal Volume 32.02