In the L2MSS, the L2 learning experience predicts intended effort most strongly, while the ideal L2 self is weaker than the theory argues¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? The L2 learning experience predicted intended effort most strongly (.71), the ideal L2 self more weakly (.25), and the ought-to L2 self weakly (.13). → Takahashi 2020
Evidence¶
Takahashi 2020¶
Takahashi, C., & Im, S. (2020). Comparing self-determination theory and the L2 motivational self system and their relationships to L2 proficiency. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 10(4), 673-696. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2020.10.4.2
q2 · i? · associational · r2
SEM results for the L2MSS model (n = 511) show standardized paths to intended effort of .71 for the L2 learning experience, .25 for the ideal L2 self, and .13 for the ought-to L2 self, with all path coefficients reported significant.
"As for the L2MSS, the L2 learning experience predicted intended effort most strongly (.71). The ideal L2 self predicted intended effort, but the strength was weaker than expected (.25). The relationship was even weaker for the ought-to L2 self (.13)."
Studies bearing on this claim¶
Which part of the L2 motivational self system (the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self or the learning experience) best predicts learners' effort, self-efficacy and proficiency? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 7 narrower claims that bear on it: 4 distinct studies (3 associational, 1 qualitative), q2, 1 of 4 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Intended learning effort predicts L2 proficiency with a modest standardized coefficient of .20 in all three models — related
- Within SDT, intrinsic motivation predicts intended effort most strongly, followed by identified regulation, with introjected regulation much weaker — related
- Criterion measures, attitudes towards learning English, instrumentality promotion, and ideal L2 self are the strongest predictors of L2 self-efficacy — related
- SDT and L2MSS constructs correlate as predicted, with the ought-to L2 self/own most closely tied to introjected regulation — related
- University learners of Italian in two surveys report ideal-self motivation rather than instrumental motivation; a contrast with their teachers' view is reported but not confirmed in the text read. — related
- In the motivational profile of Iranian EFL learners, instrumentality-promotion received the highest mean, followed by ideal L2 self — related
- Ideal L2 self positively and significantly predicts student self-efficacy, generalizing prior qualitative findings quantitatively — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
l2-learning-experience-beats-ideal-l2-self |
title |
In the L2MSS, the L2 learning experience predicts intended effort most strongly, while the ideal L2 self is weaker than the theory argues |
description |
In the L2MSS, the L2 learning experience predicts intended effort most strongly, while the ideal L2 self is weaker than the theory argues |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-09-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — takahashi-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.