Research paper in educational psychology

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 678 -

Peer-Reviewed Article

ISSN: 2162-3104 Print/ ISSN: 2166-3750 Online

Volume 6, Issue 3 (2016), pp. 678-699

© Journal of International Students http://jistudents.org/

International Students’ Motivation and Learning Approach: A Comparison with

Local Students

Kah Loong Chue

National Institute of Education, Singapore

Youyan Nie

National Institute of Education, Singapore

ABSTRACT Psychological factors contribute to motivation and learning for international students as much as teaching strategies. 254 international students and 144 local students enrolled in a private education institute were surveyed regarding their perception of psychological needs support, their motivation and learning approach. The results from this study indicated that international students had a higher level of self-determined motivation and used a deep and surface learning approach more extensively than local students. Perceived psychological needs support positively predicted intrinsic motivation, identified regulation and a deep learning approach for both groups. There were also differences in the effects of motivation on learning approach between the two groups. Further possibilities for exploration are discussed in this study.

Keywords: International students, self-determined motivation, learning approach, deep learning, surface learning

In the past few decades, the number of students studying abroad has increased significantly from 0.8 million in 1975 to an estimated figure of 4.5

million in 2012 (OECD, 2015). These international students are prone to

face adjustment issues that are unfamiliar to local students, primarily in the

area of language proficiency and culture adaptation (Andrade, 2006) and

this may impact their motivation and learning in the classroom (Robertson,

Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000; Tompson & Tompson, 1996). As such,

lecturers in classes comprised of both groups of students will need to take

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 679 -

into account differences in prior educational and cultural experiences when

designing strategies to improve motivation and learning. For example, to

address their lack of language proficiency, Chinese students use silence as a

means to avoid making mistakes (Liu, 2001). However, this strategy could

easily be mistaken by lecturers for a lack of interest or engagement in the

subject (Liu, 2001). Previous research that dealt with this topic has focused

mainly on differences in learning styles (Ramburuth & McCormick, 2001)

and the implementation of appropriate teaching strategies (Robertson et al.,

2000; Tompson & Tompson, 1996; Wong, 2004) or policies, services and

programs (Ren & Hagedorn, 2012; Stoynoff, 1997; Wicks, 1996). Relatively

few studies have been conducted on psychological factors that contribute to

motivation and learning for international students. Indeed, Robertson et al.,

(2000) noted that many academic staff neglected the impact of emotional

and psychological dilemmas faced by international students (Robertson et

al., 2000).

What are some psychological factors that might affect

motivation and student’s approach to learning? Self-determinant theory

postulates that supports for autonomy, competence and relatedness

contribute to the overall psychological growth of an individual (Deci &

Ryan, 2002). It is reasonable to conjecture that the same psychological

supports would impact the motivation and learning of international students.

Moreover, if international students have to face challenges which are

unfamiliar to the local students, these psychological supports might have a

greater impact on them than on local students. Thus, the purpose of this

study is to examine the relationships of these psychological needs support

on motivation and learning approaches for international students.

Furthermore, this study also examines how such relationships amongst

international students differ from their local counterparts.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In exploring this particular area, the psychological constructs from self-

determinant theory (SDT) will be applied. Self-determinant theory is a broad

motivational framework that is centered on the beliefs that all humans have

basic innate psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competency

and that social environments play an important role in the actualization of

these needs (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991).

According to SDT, motivation can be categorized into distinct types along a

self-determinant continuum. Amotivation lies on one extreme end of the

continuum and represents a complete lack of motivation. People who are

amotivated either do not act or act passively. At the other extreme end lies

intrinsic motivation which represents the pinnacle of self-determined

behaviors. Individuals who are intrinsically motivated perform activities for

their inherent fulfilment rather than some external stimuli. In the middle

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 680 -

band lies extrinsic motivation which can be further differentiated into three

types according to their level of self-determination: External regulation,

Introjection, Identification. External regulation is caused wholly by

externally imposed rewards or punishment. Introjection occurs when

individuals impose their own internal rewards or constraints (e.g. guilt,

shame or obligation). Identification takes place when individuals can

identify with the reason for behavior.

In recent years, findings regarding SDT in the field of education has

shown that a higher level of self-determinant leads to positive educational

outcomes, i.e. deeper engagement, better conceptual learning and higher

persistence (Areepattamannil, Freeman, & Klinger, 2011; Black & Deci,

2000; Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2001; Moneta & Siu, 2002; Pelletier,

Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 2001; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2005;

Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006; Wang & Guthrie, 2004; Zhou, Ma, &

Deci, 2009; Zhu & Leung, 2011). To develop a higher sense of self-

determination towards intrinsic motivation, an individual’s basic

psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness must be

satisfied (Deci et al., 1991). This requires the awareness of internal factors

(e.g. an individual’s age, gender, cognitive ability) and the introduction of

external social factors (e.g. degree of autonomy support in the environment)

(Wehmeyer et al., 2011). When social factors satisfy the three basic

psychological needs, one can expect intrinsic motivation to be facilitated. In

contrast, when these needs are thwarted, the individual’s motivation is

diminished (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

Autonomy refers to the experience of one’s behavior as volitional. An

environment that supports students’ autonomy can be achieved by tapping

on inner motivational resources, minimizing external pressure through

language and providing explanatory rationale to transform any task into one

of personal value (Reeve, 2009). Competence refers to the experience of

one’s interactions with the surroundings as effective. Students’ competence

can be supported by introducing appropriate learning activities and

providing students with the appropriate tools and feedback for improvement

(Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Relatedness refers to the experience of a sense of

belonging and connectedness to a group. This is realized when students feel

that a teacher genuinely respects and cares for them (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).

Recent research has combined the needs for autonomy, competence and

relatedness into one composite variable and the satisfaction of these needs

has been positively associated with self-determined motivation, i.e. intrinsic

motivation, identified motivation and introjected motivation (Chen & Jang,

2010; Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009; W. C. Liu, Wang, Tan, Koh, & Ee,

2009; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003; Standage et al., 2005) but

negatively associated with external regulation and amotivation (W. C. Liu et

al., 2009; Standage et al., 2003, 2005).

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 681 -

Approaches to learning The concept of learning approaches is derived from the seminal

work of Marton and Saljo (1976). In essence, a student’s approach to

learning could be classified into two categories based on their study

behavior. Students, who apply a deep learning strategy read widely, inter-

relate with previous relevant knowledge and try to connect their information

with other subjects. Students who apply a surface learning strategy do the

bare essentials, relying mainly on rote learning and memorization (Biggs,

1987). Naturally, most educators would wish to inculcate a deep learning

approach in students. As such, numerous attempts have been made to

identify the factors that induce deep learning. To categorize these factors

and their impacts, Baeten (2010) conducted a study of previous literature

and established that these factors can be grouped into three areas.

Contextual factors refer to the actual learning environment, e.g. teaching

methods, assessment, feedback and cognitive scaffolding. Perceived

contextual factors refer to the manner in which students interpret

instructional interventions, e.g. workload, teaching, supportiveness and

relevance. Student factors refer to individual level factors, e.g. gender,

personality, motivation. At the same time, it was acknowledged that a lot of

these variables have yet to be empirically investigated (Baeten, Kyndt,

Struyven, & Dochy, 2010).

Previous studies focusing on the relationship between motivation

and learning approaches have generally associated intrinsic motivation with

deep learning and extrinsic motivation with surface learning (Entwistle,

1986). This is not surprising as many behaviors are typical of both intrinsic

motivation and deep learning, e.g. performing tasks based on inherent

satisfaction. However, the various types of extrinsic motivation as

postulated by SDT were not considered in most studies pertaining to

motivation and learning approach.

The distinction between the various types of extrinsic motivation is

important. Firstly, identification is usually classified as autonomous

motivation and has been associated with positive results whereas

introjection and external regulation have been associated with negative

results (e.g. Pelletier et al., 2001). Secondly, whilst external regulation

consistently predicted negative outcomes, introjected regulation has shown

correlations with both positive and negative outcomes (Ng et al., 2012).

Lastly, studies have indicated that students are generally motivated by

extrinsic factors (Tan, Goh, Chia, & Treagust, 2001; Yee, 2011). It is

therefore essential that a distinction be made between partial external

regulation and full external regulation so that the appropriate strategies can

be employed to improve students’ approaches to learning.

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 682 -

International students in Singapore To complement the public education institutions in Singapore,

private educational institutes offer a range of education programs at the

diploma, undergraduate and postgraduate levels to both local and

international students. The private educational institutes have partnered with

overseas universities (typically from UK, US or Australia) to provide

external degree programs, thereby providing students the opportunity to

acquire qualifications of foreign universities whilst studying in Singapore.

In 2012, there was a total enrolment of 227,000 students in the private

educational institutes, of which 44% were international students (Council of

Private Education, 2012). Many of them hail from different countries in

Asia, thus creating an immensely diverse and heterogeneous student profile.

The push and pull factors for these international students are usually

compliance with their parents’ desires, inability to secure a place in their

countries’ prestigious universities, lower costs than western countries, lower

safety concerns and the prospects of learning English in a bilingual society

(Kitty, 2005).

Previous research studies on international students have largely

concentrated on the East-West divide or more commonly the collectivistic-

individualistic worldview. For example, results pertaining to approaches to

learning have indicated that students in Eastern societies tend to emphasize

rote memorization whilst their Western counterparts focus on conceptual

understanding (Biggs, 1991; Murphy, 1987). However, in recent years, the

notion that culture is represented by a set of values embracing individualism

or collectivism has been replaced by a systems view of culture (Kitayama,

2002). This alternate view proposes that culture is a dynamic system made

up of many loosely organized but connected elements such as practices and

associated mental processes. Each individual’s psychological processes and

behaviors are organized around efforts to coordinate with a system of

practices and public meanings. The systemic view of culture explicitly

refutes the notion that Eastern and Western societies are composed of

different core values. Instead, all psychological processes are potentially

available to all groups of people (Kitayama, 2002). From this viewpoint, it is

conceivable that the motivation and learning processes of international and

local students within an educational institute may be vastly different from

each other. For example, international students usually choose to study

abroad for academic and personal growth, better career prospects and

economic benefits (Eder, Smith, & Pitts, 2010; Li & Bray, 2007) and this

may show a tendency to be extrinsically motivated. They could also have an

intention to avoid disadvantageous conditions in their home country (Valery

Chirkov, Vansteenkiste, Tao, & Lynch, 2007). Before finalizing the decision

to study abroad, they would also have to consider many factors such as the

host countries’ reputation for quality and cost issues (Mazzarol & Soutar,

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 683 -

2002), that local students would not have to contend with. These reasons

suggest that international students demonstrate a significant amount of

forward thinking and planning which may result in different learning

processes from their local counterparts.

In addition, international students face social and academic

adjustment challenges unfamiliar to local students. Social adjustment were

ascribed to less social support and social connectedness whilst academic

adjustment challenges were mainly attributed to English language

proficiency (Andrade, 2006; Yeh & Inose, 2003). They experience more

anxiety and stress, thus requiring different levels and types of support to

foster their cross-cultural learning skills (Andrade, 2006; Yamazaki &

Kayes, 2004). International and local students also differ in their learning

systems (Ramsay, Barker, & Jones, 1999; Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005).

Furthermore, faculty staff often have a different perception of the behaviors

of international students (Robertson et al., 2000; Tompson & Tompson,

1996). For example, academic staff felt that international students lack

writing and critical thinking skills whereas international students had

difficulties understanding the instructor’s use of colloquial language

(Robertson et al., 2000).

Research in this area has emphasized the implementation of

appropriate teaching strategies (Robertson et al., 2000; Tompson &

Tompson, 1996; Wong, 2004) or policies, services and programs (Ren &

Hagedorn, 2012; Stoynoff, 1997; Wicks, 1996) but have largely neglected

the motivational and psychological needs of these students. These needs are

especially important to international students as a higher level of self-

determination could lead to more beneficial cultural adaptation outcomes

(Chirkov, Safdar, De Guzman, & Playford, 2008; Chirkov et al., 2007).

Therefore, the current study will seek to address this gap in the

literature by investigating the following research questions: (1) What are the

differences in motivation and learning approaches between local and

international students? (2) How does perceived psychological needs support

contribute to motivation and learning approach of international students? (3)

How do the relationships between perceived psychological needs support,

motivation and learning approach differ for local and international students?

Based on the framework of SDT and previous research, the hypothesized

model for both groups of students is represented in Figure 1. Specifically,

perceived psychological needs support would be positively associated to

self-determined motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation,

introjected regulation) and negatively associated to external regulation and

amotivation. A deep learning approach would be positively predicted by

intrinsic motivation, identified regulation and introjected regulation as these

motivation types have elements of self-determination. A surface learning

approach would be positively predicted by identified regulation, introjected

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 684 -

regulation and external regulation. Amotivation would be negatively

associated with both deep and surface learning as a lack of interest should

naturally correspond to a lack of learning. Similarly, as perceived contextual

factors play a role in determining learning approaches, perceived

psychological needs support would positively predict deep learning and

negatively predict surface learning.

RESEARCH METHOD

Sample

The participants in this study were 401 students enrolled in a

business mathematics course at a private educational institute in Singapore.

The sample consisted of 144 local students (84 male, 59 female, mean age =

20.4, SD = 2.64) and 254 international students (99 male, 155 female, mean

age = 19.0, SD = 1.72). Three participants did not state their nationality and

gender. English is the medium of instruction in the module. To ensure that

students had sufficient time for perceptions of autonomy, competency and

relatedness to be formed, the survey was conducted in the middle of the

semester. The total time required to complete all the questionnaires is

approximately 15 minutes. All students provided their background and

demographic information. Measures

Perceived psychological needs support. Perceived psychological needs support was measured with three subscales (i.e. perceived autonomy

support, perceived competency support, perceived relatedness support) that

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 685 -

were adapted from a modified version of a raters scale for perceived

autonomy support (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004), the Intrinsic

Motivation Inventory for perceived competence and the Need for

Relatedness scale for perceived relatedness. Each subscale had five items.

Example items from the subscales include “My lecturer explains the

rationale for the value of tasks” (perceived autonomy), “My lecturer makes

us feel like we are good at math” (perceived competence) and “My lecturer

cares for our learning” (perceived relatedness). The three factors are further

collapsed into a single composite factor. A second order confirmatory factor

analysis with three factors at the first level and one factor at the second level

showed an adequate fit for the data F2(84, N = 401) = 280.576, p < .01, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .076. The subscales showed good internal

consistency reliability (α = 0.89 for perceived autonomy support, α = 0.86 for perceived competency support, α = 0.88 for perceived relatedness support).

Motivation. Motivation was assessed using an adapted version of the Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC) questionnaire (Goudas, Biddle, &

Fox, 1994) and the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al., 1992) .

There were five subscales to measure intrinsic motivation, identified

regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation and amotivation. Each

subscale had four items. All items were altered to fit a mathematics module

context (e.g. Intrinsic motivation – I take part in mathematics lessons

because I enjoy learning new skills/techniques in math). A five-factor

confirmatory factor analysis provided an adequate fit for the data F2(140, N = 401) = 484.422, p < .01, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .078. The subscales showed good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.96 for intrinsic motivation, α = 0.89 for identified regulation, α = 0.70 for introjected regulation, α = 0.78 for external regulation, α = 0.87 for amotivation).

Learning Approach. Surface and deep learning were measured using a modification of the revised two-factor version of the Learning

Process Questionnaire (Kember, Biggs, & Leung, 2004) and the Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999;

Pintrich, Smith, García, & McKeachie, 1993). Two subscales assessing deep

and surface strategy were modified from the questionnaire to suit a

mathematics module context. Each subscale had six items and scores for

each item were extended to a 7-point scale. A two- factor confirmatory

factor analysis provided an adequate fit for the data F2(23, N = 401) = 74.475, p < .01, TLI = .91, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .075. The subscales showed good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.82 for deep learning, α = 0.72 for surface learning).

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 686 -

Demographical variables. The demographical variables of age, gender (male = 0, female = 1) and nationality (Local students = 0,

International students = 1) were measured.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients among the variables for the

two groups were computed and inspected. Gender was not significantly

correlated to deep or surface learning for both groups indicating that any

relationships between the variables were invariant across gender. Path

analysis was conducted to examine the significant direct and indirect

relations between perceived psychological needs support, motivation and

learning approaches for both groups. Multi group analysis was conducted to

determine if there were significant differences in path coefficients between

the two groups.

Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlations for international and local

students are presented in Table 1 and 2 respectively. International students

reported a significantly higher level of perceived psychological needs

support (t(396) = -4.63, p < .001, d = .47), intrinsic motivation (t(396) = - 5.57, p < .001, d = .56), identified regulation (t(396) = -5.24, p < .001, d = .53), external regulation (t(396) = -3.14, p < .01, d = .32,, deep learning (t(396) = -2.92, p < .01, d = .29) and surface learning (t(396) = -2.03, p < .05, d = .20) but a lower level of amotivation (t(396) = 2.87, p < .01, d = .29) than local students.

For both groups of students, there were surprisingly no significant

correlations between perceived psychological needs support and introjected

regulation and external regulation. Several differences in bivariate

correlations between the two groups were quite evident. For example,

surface learning was positively associated with only external regulation for

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 687 -

local students whereas it was positively associated with perceived

psychological needs support, identified regulation, introjected regulation and

external regulation for international students.

Path analysis The model for both groups was examined via SEM using the

asymptotically distribution-free estimation method to cater for multivariate

non-normality. In both path models, the residuals of the various

motivational types were allowed to be correlated to represent their inter-

relationship as recommended by Standage et al. (2003). Non-significant

paths were removed from the model. Differences in pairwise path

coefficients were inspected using multi-group analysis in AMOS.

The final path models for international students and local students

are presented in Figure 2 and 3 respectively. An examination of the fit

indices suggested a good fit for the data, F2(34) = 44.23, p = .113, TLI = .95, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .028. In both path models, perceived

psychological needs support positively predicted intrinsic motivation and

identified regulation, negatively predicted amotivation and had no

associations with introjected regulation and external regulation. In the path

model for international students, a deep learning approach was positively

predicted by perceived psychological needs support, intrinsic motivation,

identified regulation and introjected regulation but negatively predicted by

amotivation whereas a surface learning approach was positively predicted

by identified regulation and amotivation. However, in the path model for

local students, perceived psychological needs support and identified

regulation predicted a deep learning approach. No motivation types

predicted a surface learning approach (See Table 3).

A comparison of pairwise path coefficients across the two groups

also revealed significant differences in the path coefficients between

perceived psychological needs support and intrinsic motivation (p = .013) and perceived psychological needs support and amotivation (p = .062) (See Table 4). International students reported a greater impact of perceived

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 688 -

psychological needs support on intrinsic motivation (β = .42 compared to β = .16) and a lesser impact of perceived psychological needs support on

amotivation (β = -.17 compared to β = -.37).

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 689 -

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The current study was designed to examine and compare the relations

between perceived psychological needs support, five types of motivation as

specified by SDT and approaches to learning for both international and local

students. The results indicate that international students have a higher level

of intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, deep

learning and surface learning but a lower level of amotivation. An

inspection of the path models indicate the following key observations

congruent to both groups : 1) perceived psychological needs support

positively predicted intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, negatively

predicted amotivation but has no effect on introjected and external

regulation, 2) a deep learning approach was predicted by perceived

psychological needs support and identified regulation. An examination of

the differences between international and local students indicated that 1) a

deep learning approach was positively predicted by intrinsic motivation,

identified regulation and introjected regulation but negatively predicted by

amotivation for international students whereas there were no effects for

local students, 2) a surface learning approach was positively predicted by

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 690 -

identified regulation and amotivation for international students whereas

there were no effects for local students.

Motivation and learning patterns between international and local students

International students reported a higher level of intrinsic motivation,

identified regulation and external regulation but a lower level of amotivation

than local students. This may be due to the reason that international students

usually have a specific aim in mind when they opt to study overseas. For

example, when they choose to do so for personal or professional growth

(Eder et al., 2010; Li & Bray, 2007), this will naturally correspond to a

higher intrinsic motivation than local students who may be just following a

natural academic progression. By the same token, when international

students opt to study overseas for better career prospects and an enhanced

social status (Li & Bray, 2007), this will correspond to a higher identified

regulation and lower amotivation. Finally, it may be that international

students who do not pass the course will have their students’ visa revoked.

The continuous threat of an external penalty will correspond to a higher

external regulation.

International students also reported a significantly higher use of

both deep and surface learning, indicating that they have a stronger focus on

concepts and connections as well as memorisation than local students.

Baeten (2010) had suggested that a myriad of student factors influence the

adoption of learning approach, such as level of cognitive development, prior

educational experience and self-direction in learning (Baeten et al., 2010).

International students may have to resolve many issues that are unfamiliar to

local students, before finalizing a decision to study abroad. This issues range

from a consideration of push factors e.g. the availability of educational

opportunities in their home country to pull factors, e.g. the quality of

education in the host country and financial costs of staying overseas

(Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). This suggests that international students may

have a higher level of cognitive development and self-direction than local

students. However, further investigations will need to be carried out before

any definite conclusions can be made.

The beneficial role of perceived psychological needs support

The beneficial role of perceived psychological needs support is

consistent for both local and international students. The present results

support the generalizability of SDT claims that perceived psychological

needs support positively predicted self-determined motivation (intrinsic and

identified motivation) and negatively predicted amotivation in both local

and international students, thus highlighting the importance of the socio-

environmental context in education. Surprisingly, differing from previous

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 691 -

findings, the perceived psychological need supports were not associated

with introjected and external regulation. One possible reason could lie with

the antecedents of these motivational types. For example, supporting

psychological needs may not have any effect on the lack of external

financial resources. Future research could attempt to explore in greater detail

the antecedents of the various motivational constructs and their

consequences.

A pairwise comparison indicated that an increase of perceived

psychological needs support had a greater impact on intrinsic motivation

and amotivation for international students. Specifically, the same level of

perceived psychological needs support would result in a higher level of

intrinsic motivation and a lower level of amotivation for international

students. A possible reason may be that the most critical adjustment factors

for international students in the host country are proficiency in the English

language and building a social network (Andrade, 2006). According to SDT,

perceived psychological needs support comprises of supports for autonomy,

competence and relatedness. Supports for competence might have addressed

the issue of English language proficiency whilst supports for relatedness

might have addressed the issue of building a social network indirectly. As

local students do not face similar adjustment issues, this may account for the

disparity in the relationship.

With regard to the relationship between perceived psychological

needs support and learning approaches, the results indicated that perceived

psychological needs support is a significant positive predictor of deep

learning but not a significant predictor of surface learning for both groups of

students. Previous studies had confirmed the importance of the learning

environment in cultivating deep learning (Entwistle, 2000; Hall, Ramsay, &

Raven, 2004) and strategies have been advocated to create a suitable

environment, e.g. providing relevant feedback and clear objectives, creating

opportunities for questions, making efforts to understand students’

difficulties and offering options for students do decide what and how they

learn (Trigwell & Prosser, 1991). These strategies are synonymous with

strategies for providing supports for autonomy, competence and relatedness,

thus reinforcing the premise that perceived supports for psychological needs

predicts deep learning.

Differences between international and local students

Several differences emerged upon comparing the findings of

international and local students. Firstly, aligned with previous research, a

deep learning approach was positively predicted by intrinsic motivation,

identified regulation and introjected regulation for international students. All

three motivational types encompass, to different extents, an internal

perceived locus of causality which may be a significant precursor to a deep

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 692 -

learning approach. However, the same three motivational types had no

significant effect on deep learning for local students. One possible reason

might lie in the behaviors linked with the motivational constructs. For

example, performing tasks based on inherent satisfaction is a common

characteristic to intrinsic motivation. But what does it mean for local

students to be interested in math for inherent satisfaction? In Singapore, the

central focus for primary and secondary mathematics education is problem

solving (Ministry of Education, 2007a, 2007b). Teaching activities are

assessment focused (Hogan et al., 2013) and mainly involve practicing

procedural routines (Fan & Zhu, 2007). Students enjoy math when they can

easily get high marks after much practice of routine close-ended questions

(Fan et al., 2005). Hence, it is possible that local students may be

intrinsically motivated to do math problems, i.e. towards procedural

understanding, but do not strive for conceptual understanding nor

establishing links with other subjects.

Secondly, amotivation negatively predicted deep learning for

international students but had no significant effect for local students.

Although the bivariate correlation between amotivation and deep learning

was significantly negative for local students, this relationship did not exist in

the multivariate path analysis, suggesting that some other variable may

affect the relation between amotivation and deep learning. For example,

previous research had proposed that the antecedents of amotivation

comprised of four factors: ability beliefs, effort beliefs, task characteristics

and task value (Legault, Green-Demers, & Pelletier, 2006). Of the four

factors, ability beliefs and effort beliefs were related to academic outcomes

whilst task characteristics, task value and effort beliefs are tied to problem

behaviors. It is plausible that international students are amotivated because

of ability beliefs and effort beliefs whereas local students are amotivated

because of task characteristics and task value. If international students

believe that they are neither intelligent nor able to expend the necessary

effort to do well, this might have a negative influence on their types of

cognitive strategies used (Wigfield & Eccles, 1994). Conversely, local

students might not believe in the value of the subject in which they are

studying but this belief do not interfere with the manner in which they

approach learning.

Lastly, a surface learning approach was positively predicted by

identified regulation whereas there was no effect for local students. This

indicates that for international students, a greater level of identification with

the importance of the subject will result in a higher level of surface learning,

suggesting that international students recognize the need for both deep and

surface approaches to learning in order to achieve good academic outcomes.

Likewise, amotivation positively predicted surface learning for international

students but had no effect on local students. As mentioned in the preceding

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 693 -

paragraph, international students may be amotivated because of ability

beliefs and effort beliefs.

IMPLICATIONS

One primary aim for educators is to inculcate self-determined motivation in

students. The findings in this study suggest that the most effective strategy

for international students is to increase support of their psychological needs.

Although previous research has indicated that all students will benefit when

these needs are supported (Standage et al., 2005), it would appear that there

is a greater impact on international students than local students. Specifically,

educators could aim to support feelings of relatedness by establishing a

sense of connectedness with the students (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). For

example, separate dialogue sessions could be conducted with international

students. This serves to acknowledge the students’ backgrounds and

expresses an interest in them. Instructions during lessons could also

emphasize a caring aspect by recognizing that each student has his or her

own interests and emotions (Sheldon & Filak, 2008).

An autonomy supportive climate could possibly be created by

nurturing students’ inner resources, displaying patience and acknowledging

student’s expression of negative affect (Reeve, 2009). For example,

educators can openly ask what international students need or want and

consequently modify the lesson accordingly. Students could also be offered

the option to evaluate themselves from a self-referent standard (Stefanou,

Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004). Furthermore, as international

students may not be proficient in English, displaying patience and

acknowledging their difficulties may also increase their self-determination

level. In addition, supporting international students’ needs of competence

addresses issues pertaining to their language proficiency and prior academic

knowledge. This could be achieved by introducing optimally challenging

learning tasks with appropriate tools and feedback (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).

LIMITATIONS

A number of limitations need to be considered in the present study. First, the

current study is cross-sectional in design; hence, any causal conclusions

cannot be drawn. For instance, because of an increase in the exposure of

metacognitive skills, it is possible that students who adopt a deep learning

approach will gradually enjoy performing tasks for intrinsic motives. Future

studies might consider using an experimental or longitudinal design to help

clarify the relationships. Second, the relative importance of autonomy

support, competence support and relatedness support in the model could be

explored in greater detail. For example, researchers have debated whether

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 694 -

students in different cultures value autonomy equally (Markus & Kitayama,

1991). International students who are separated from their home societies

could have different perspectives of autonomy.

Third, some other variables such as prior knowledge were not

considered as control variables. For example, one potential factor that could

have a high impact is that of cultural distance which is described as the

degree of incongruence between cultures (Popp, Love, Kim, & Hums,

2010). Due to cultural similarities, students from Malaysia would experience

a smaller cultural distance than a student from Korea. Although it would

have been ideal in the present study to investigate if the country of origin

makes a difference, the small sample size did not permit such an

investigation.

REFERENCES

Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities

adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154. doi: 10.1177/1475240906065589

Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J. G., & Klinger, D. A. (2011). Intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation, and academic achievement among Indian adolescents

in Canada and India. Social Psychology of Education, 14(3), 427-439. doi: 10.1007/s11218-011-9155-1

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centred

learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors

encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.06.001

Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Research Monograph. Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.

Biggs, J. (1991). Approaches to learning in secondary and tertiary students in Hong

Kong: Some comparative studies. Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 27- 39.

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. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3

Chen, K.-C., & Jang, S.-J. (2010). Motivation in online learning: Testing a model of

self-determination theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 741-752. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.011

Chirkov, V., Safdar, S., De Guzman, J., & Playford, K. (2008). Further examining

the role motivation to study abroad plays in the adaptation of international

students in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(5), 427-440.

Chirkov, V., Vansteenkiste, M., Tao, R., & Lynch, M. (2007). The role of self-

determined motivation and goals for study abroad in the adaptation of

international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31(2), 199-222. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.002

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 695 -

CPE. (2012). Annual Report 2011/2012. Singapore: Council of Private Education. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research:

University Rochester Press.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and

education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137

Eder, J., Smith, W. W., & Pitts, R. E. (2010). Exploring factors influencing student

study abroad destination choice. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 10(3), 232-250. doi: 10.1080/15313220.2010.503534

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study

strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 549-563. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.549

Entwistle, N. (1986). Approaches to Learning in Higher Education: Effects of Motivation and Perceptions of the Learning Environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

San Francisco, CA.

Entwistle, N. (2000). Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment: conceptual frameworks and educational contexts. Paper presented at the TLRP conference, Leicester.

Fan, L., Quek, K. S., Zhu, Y., Yeo, S. M., Pereira-Mendoza, L., & Lee, P. Y.

(2005). Assessing Singapore students’ attitudes toward mathematics and mathematics learning: Findings from a survey of lower secondary students. Paper presented at the ICMI Regional Conference: The 3rd East Asia

Regional Conference on Mathematics Education, hanghai, Nanjing, and

Hangzhou, China, 2005.

Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). From convergence to divergence: the development of

mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom

practice in Singapore. ZDM, 39(5-6), 491-501. doi: 10.1007/s11858-007- 0044-1

Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Perceived locus of causality, goal

orientations, and perceived competence in school physical education

classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(3), 453-463. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1994.tb01116.x

Hall, M., Ramsay, A., & Raven, J. (2004). Changing the learning environment to

promote deep learning approaches in first-year accounting students.

Accounting Education, 13(4), 489-505. doi: 10.1080/0963928042000306837

Hogan, D., Chan, M., Rahim, R., Kwek, D., Maung Aye, K., Loo, S. C., . . . Luo,

W. (2013). Assessment and the logic of instructional practice in Secondary

3 English and mathematics classrooms in Singapore. Review of Education, 1(1), 57-106. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3002

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. doi: 10.1037/a0014241

Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality

of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 696 -

the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261-279. doi: 10.1348/000709904773839879

Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes--toward a system

view of culture: comment on Oyserman et al.(2002).

Kitty, L. (2005). Perceptions affecting PRC students' motivation in a private institute in Singapore. (Master of Arts (Educational Management)), National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University,

Singapore.

Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students

lack motivation in the classroom? Toward an understanding of academic

amotivation and the role of social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567-582. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567

Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education:

Push–pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong

Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53(6), 791-818. doi: 10.1007/s10734- 005-5423-3

Lin, Y.-G., McKeachie, W. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2001). College student intrinsic and/or

extrinsic motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(3), 251-258. doi: 10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00092-4

Liu, J. (2001). Construction Chinese faces in American classrooms. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 1-18.

Liu, W. C., Wang, C., Tan, O. S., Koh, C., & Ee, J. (2009). A self-determination

approach to understanding students' motivation in project work. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 139-145. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.002

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for

cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push-pull” factors influencing international

student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2), 82-90.

MOE. (2007a). Primary mathematics syllabus. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.

MOE. (2007b). Secondary mathematics syllabus. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division.

Moneta, G. B., & Siu, C. M. (2002). Trait Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations,

Academic Performance, and Creativity in Hong Kong College Students.

Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 664-683. Murphy, D. (1987). Offshore Education: A Hong Kong Perspective. Australian

Universities' Review, 30(2), 43-44. Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda,

J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health

contexts a meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 325- 340. doi: 10.1177/1745691612447309

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in

the classroom Applying self-determination theory to educational practice.

Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144. doi: 10.1177/1477878509104318

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 697 -

OECD. (2015). Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Publishing. 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. doi: 10.1023/A:1014805132406

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. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003024

Popp, N., Love, A. W., Kim, S., & Hums, M. A. (2010). Cross-cultural adjustments

and international collegiate athletes. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 3(1), 163-181.

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. doi: 10.1023/A:1017982716482

Ramsay, S., Barker, M., & Jones, E. (1999). Academic Adjustment and Learning

Processes: a comparison of international and local students in first‐year university. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 129-144. doi: 10.1080/0729436990180110

Reeve, J. (2009). Why Teachers Adopt a Controlling Motivating Style Toward

Students and How They Can Become More Autonomy Supportive.

Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159-175. doi: 10.1080/00461520903028990

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students'

engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28(2), 147-169. doi: 10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f

Ren, J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2012). International Graduate Students’ Academic

Performance: What Are the Influencing Factors? Journal of International Students, 2(21), 135.

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 and development, 19(1), 89-102. doi: 10.1080/07294360050020499

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic

definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation

of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and

relatedness support in a game‐learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 267-283.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual

motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination

and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 97-110. doi: 10.1037/0022- 0663.95.1.97

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 698 -

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self‐determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 411-433. doi: 10.1348/000709904X22359

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004).

Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student

decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97-110. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2

Stoynoff, S. (1997). Factors associated with international students' academic

achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Tan, K.-C. D., Goh, N.-K., Chia, L.-S., & Treagust, D. F. (2001). Secondary

students' perceptions about learning qualitative analysis in inorganic

chemistry. Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(2), 223- 234. doi: 10.1080/02635140120087740.

Tompson, H. B., & Tompson, G. H. (1996). International perspective: Confronting

diversity issues in the classroom with strategies to improve satisfaction and

retention of international students. Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 53-57. doi: 10.1080/08832323.1996.10116826

Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving the quality of student learning: the

influence of learning context and student approaches to learning on

learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22(3), 251-266. doi: 10.1007/BF00132290

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., &

Vallieres, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of

intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003-1017. doi: 10.1177/0013164492052004025

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal

contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of

academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4

Wang, J. H.-Y., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic

motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past reading

achievement on text comprehension between US and Chinese students.

Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162-186. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2 Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B. H., Zhang, D., Ward, K., Willis, D., Hossain, W. A., . .

. Calkins, C. (2011). Personal self-determination and moderating variables

that impact efforts to promote self-determination. Exceptionality, 19(1), 19-30. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2011.537225

Wicks, R. (1996). Effects of English language proficiency on the academic

performance of international students: A USQ study. Distance Education, 17(1), 196-204. doi: 10.1080/0158791960170113

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1994). Children's competence beliefs, achievement

values, and general self-esteem change across elementary and middle

school. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14(2), 107-138. Wong, J. K.-K. (2004). Are the Learning Styles of Asian International Students

Culturally or Contextually Based? International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166.

Journal of International Students, 6(3) 2016

- 699 -

Yamazaki, Y., & Kayes, D. C. (2004). An experiential approach to cross-cultural

learning: A review and integration of competencies for successful

expatriate adaptation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 362-379.

Yee, L. S. (2011). Mathematics attitudes and achievement of junior college students in Singapore. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, 33rd, Freemantle, Western

Australia.

Yeh, C. J., & Inose, M. (2003). International students' reported English fluency,

social support satisfaction, and social connectedness as predictors of

acculturative stress. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 15-28. doi: 10.1080/0951507031000114058

Zhao, C.-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international

student and American student engagement in effective educational

practices. Journal of Higher Education, 209-231. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0018

Zhou, M., Ma, W. J., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The importance of autonomy for rural

Chinese children's motivation for learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 492-498.

Zhu, Y., & Leung, F. K. (2011). Motivation and achievement: Is there an East Asian

model? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1189-1212. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9255-y

KAH LOONG CHUE, is adjunct faculty and a graduate student in an EdD program. His research and teaching interests include motivation in

education, learning styles, personality traits and assessment methods. Email:

[email protected]

YOUYAN NIE, PhD, is an assistant professor in the psychological studies department. Her research interests include motivation in education and

human development, self-regulated learning, organizational climate in

classroom and school settings and innovation in curriculum instruction and

assessment. Email: [email protected].

Manuscript submitted: November 1, 2014 Manuscript Revised: January 4, 2015

Accepted for publication: February 5, 2016

***