Instrument

To sum, the very first data collection was a pilot study and served validation purposes.

The second phase, i.e. Study #1 similarly to the pilot study examined both English and Ukrainian language motivation. The third stage in the data collection procedure, i.e. Study #2, focused only on Ukrainian and helped in understanding learners’ state language motivation construct in a more detailed way. The fourth and last wave of data collection, Study #3, helped to draw conclusions firmly grounded in findings of previous research projects with reference to both English and Ukrainian. Besides, findings of each questionnaire study actively contributed to the development of an interview study that will also be described below.

Language (See Appendix 1 for Initial list scales of the questionnaire). In the initial version of the instrument altogether eight items inquired about the language learning history of the learners and some items referred to bio data.

Due to the bilingual nature (English and Ukrainian) of the present research, all the items (except the ones referring to bio data) had to be altered or erased so as to become suitable for the two languages. Practically it meant changes in word order, sentence structure, and meaning. E.g.:

the item ‘How much do you like US pop music?’, was transformed into ‘How much do you like the pop music in these languages?’. Next to each item two separate columns were created, one for English and one for Ukrainian.

At the beginning of the validation procedure, two experts commented on the instrument, and recommended that items referring to the US and those referring to Great Britain should be merged, and only after this phase were they reworded to refer to both Ukrainian and English.

Professional insights were followed by Think Aloud Protocols (Someren, Barnard, & Sandberg, 1994). Practically it meant that the first compilation of the questionnaire was given to three learners from the target population, i.e. 10^th-form pupils and they were asked to think-aloud.

These think-aloud interviews helped the development of the instrument in the following ways.

Practical mistakes, as the numbering of questions, spelling mistakes, repeated items and confusing items (items that refer to one but not to the other language) were identified. A confusing item, for instance, was the one asking about how much the learner would like to travel to those countries. Of course, it cannot be applied to Ukrainian, as they live in Ukraine.

The next phase of the process was a pilot study. The improved version of the motivation questionnaire was piloted on 102 secondary school leavers, who were studying in the tenth and eleventh forms of an urban Hungarian secondary school having a significant proportion of ethnic Hungarians. The piloting was followed by data analysis, which resulted in the reduction of some items, merging scales, in the creation of new items and new scales.

Finally, the development phase of the questionnaire design did not end up in an increase in the number, but rather in the alteration of items. In sum, six more items (i.e. 14) were added to the items that asked about the personal language learning biography and bio data of the respondents (See Appendix 2 for the pre-final version of the questionnaire). This modified version of the instrument was distributed both in Study #1 and Study #2. In the analysis, however only 11 scales were included, owing to the following considerations.

One of the scales excluded from the analysis was Milieu. It turned out to be a scale containing two items only. Besides, the two items seemed to inquire about two different factors in the learners’ environment: friends and surrounding people. For a change, it was decided to leave out the item about surrounding people (as the scale of Parental Encouragement was still included) and form a new scale focusing on friends, best friends, classmates, whose opinion indeed count a lot in the case of teenagers (See Appendix 3 for a final list of scales with items).

Another scale inquiring about international posture did not apply for Ukrainian and in order to assure comparability with regards to the number of scales in both samples it was left out from the analysis of the 219 sample. Instead, separate scales were created to measure English as an International Language and the Local Relevance of Ukrainian.

Further changes in the final version of the questionnaire included separation of contact opportunities specific for the use of the two languages. English was related to intercultural and international direct or indirect contact opportunities whereas the use of Ukrainian was restricted to people living in Transcarpathia and in Ukraine. These changes automatically led to the creation of two new scales, i.e. Direct Contact With English Speakers and Direct Contact With Ukrainian Speakers.

Besides Milieu and English as an International Language the scales of Integrativeness and Instrumentality were also excluded from the analysis as they did not demonstrate an acceptable index for internal consistency, which finding was interpreted as a need to reconstruct

the scales. Consequently, the items of the former Integrativeness scale was incorporated to some extent to the Ideal L2 Self scale, as it was supposed to provide more explanatory power to the underlying construct (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002). The items of the Instrumentality scale, on the other hand, assisted in creating the Ought-to L2 Self (own) and the Ought-to L2 Self (other) scale, on the basis of Higgins’ (1996) conceptualization of the construct. Higgins associated the ought-own dimension with one’s hopes, fears, ambitions, fear of negative evaluations, and he claimed that expectation of significant others formed the ought-other dimension.

Thus, out of the initial scales two were transformed into more language-specific scales.

They were the scales exploring direct contact opportunities with speakers of the language and the perceived importance and role of the language. Another two scales were embedded into other supposedly parallel scales (Integrativeness and Instrumentality). There was one scale which was altogether replaced by a new scale, i.e. instead of Milieu a separate scale was created to account for the influence friends have on the motivation of late adolescents.

The bio data and the personal language learning history section of the questionnaire was also expanded with two items. One out of the two items asked the name, nickname or the initials of the respondent for further research purposes. It was, however just an optional item for the respondents. The other item inquired about the name of the settlement where the participant lives. To sum, the final version of the questionnaire contained eleven original and four newly added scales that added up to fifteen scales. The scales involved 75 items which formed the main body of the questionnaire that meant additional 11 new items to the already existing 64 items.

Besides, altogether 16 items asked about the bio data and language learning history of the participants (See Appendix 4 for the final form of the questionnaire). The scales applied in Study

#3 were as follows:

Ideal L2 Self (six items): learners’ views of themselves as successful users of the language. Example: When I think of my future career, I like to think of myself as someone who knows this language.

Ought-to L2 Self (own) (four items): learners’ perceptions of why knowing the named target languages will be useful in their future life. Example: So as to be knowledgeable I have to know Ukrainian/English.

Ought-to L2 Self (other) (four items): learners’ perceptions of others’ expectations regarding language learning issues. Example: If I won’t learn this language I will let others down.

Learning Experience (five items): covers how learners relate to language classes.

Example: I am never bored at Ukrainian/English language classes.

Motivated Learning Behaviour (five items): measures the effort learners are ready to expend upon learning Ukrainian/English. Example: I can honestly say that I am doing my best to learn Ukrainian/English.

Written Language Use (three items): learners’ views of how often they use Ukrainian/English in a written format. Example: How often do you write e-mails in Ukrainian/English?

Language Contact (five items): concerns the use of cultural products in the two languages by the learners. Example: How often do you visit webpages in Ukrainian/English?

Parental Encouragement (four items): marks the extent to which parents support and encourage the learners to study the given languages. Example: My parents encourage me to use Ukrainian/English more often.

Attitude towards Learning Ukrainian/English (four items): reflects the learners’

experience of studying the named languages. Example: I really enjoy studying this language.

Language Class Anxiety (four items): the learners’ perceived anxiety at the language classes. Example: I get nervous and confused when I am speaking in my Ukrainian/English class.

Language Use Anxiety (three items): refers to learners’ experience of using the two languages. Example: If I met a Ukrainian/English speaker, I would feel nervous.

Direct Contact With English Speakers (four items): refers to when and how often learners use English in their life. E.g.: I use English very often when I travel abroad.

Direct Contact With Ukrainian Speakers (six items): refers to language contact opportunities with majority speakers. E.g.: I often use Ukrainian in our school.

Cultural Interest (four items): explores learners’ interest in the media products in the named languages: How much do you like TV programs in Ukrainian/English?

Friends (five items): explores how the opinion of friends, classmates attributes to the learners’ language motivation. E.g.: My friends think that it is important to know this language.

English as an International Language (five items): comprises items that refer to the role English plays in the world. E.g.: Learning English is necessary because it is an international language.

Local Relevance of Ukrainian (four items): touches upon the perceived importance of the state language. E.g.: It is important to know this language where I live.