Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aimed at evaluating the explanatory value of basic psychological needs (BPN) for foreign language-related motivation and activities in a sample of higher education students and volunteers abroad. According to the self-determination theory, satisfaction of the BPN facilitates forms of motivational regulation and in turn promotes foreign language activities. In a structural equation modeling with N = 435 participants (n = 193 German volunteers during their time abroad and n = 277 German higher education students residing in Germany) external regulation and intrinsic motivation explained receptive (reading, listening) and productive activities (speaking, writing). Moreover, competence satisfaction as well as relatedness satisfaction proved to be significant predictors of external and intrinsic motivation. Generalizability of results regarding students versus volunteers and with respect to the language learned is discussed, as are starting points for future interventions in the setting of foreign language learning outside the classroom.

Keywords

basic psychological needs (BPN)foreign language motivation foreign language activities self-determination theory higher education volunteers abroad

Introduction

The use of foreign languages enables communication between people of different nationalities and facilitates access to education and participation in cultural, political, and social life (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2006). Therefore, it is a political goal of the European Union (EU) that every EU citizen should master two other EU foreign languages beyond the native language (Council of the European Union, 2002).

While foreign language learning often starts at school, it might take place at any age in higher education or less formal settings. However, there are some stages where it is especially plausible and supported by society. Such a stage is the emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2007). It is characterized by involving important steps in the development of identity, attitudes, and interests (Swanson, 2016). During emerging adulthood, students often set their own priorities. This may also include learning a (new) foreign language or engaging in other foreign language-related activities: Some young adults volunteer abroad after high school, others enter the higher education system where they may enroll in language courses, meet language exchange partners or watch TV series in a foreign language in their leisure time. Others would do none of the above.

Based on the eminence of foreign language practice and the emerging adulthood as a “window of opportunity,” the question arises: What motivates young people to use foreign languages in emerging adulthood (Dixon et al., 2012; Lin, 2025)? And is it possible to explain how motivation evolves and to shed light on the choices of young people regarding the use of foreign languages? To this end, the present paper draws on the various forms of motivational regulation proposed in the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain different types of foreign language-related (FLR) activities.

Literature Review

Theoretical Understanding of Basic Psychological Needs and Motivation

As in many domains, there is a plethora of research on the broad dichotomy between intrinsic motivation (doing something for reasons that lie in the action itself) and extrinsic motivation (doing something because of external consequences) regarding foreign language learning. Differentiating these forms is crucial as they lead to different levels of engagement. One contribution of the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000a) is the further differentiation of extrinsic motivation into externalized, introjected, and identified regulation (Vallerand et al., 1992). These forms (or “types,”Howard et al., 2020, p. 846) are measured by items representing specific factors (Howard et al., 2020) and may be ordered by an increasing degree of perceived self-determination and integration into the self-concept in order of mention (Deci & Ryan, 2000a; Urhahne & Wijnia, 2023): Externalized regulation refers to learning a language in order to obtain external rewards or to avoid external punishment. With introjected regulation, these consequences are internalized. For instance, under conditions of introjected motivation, someone might learn vocabulary because otherwise he or she would feel guilty about insufficient skills. With identified regulation, an action is tied to larger, self-selected goals related to identity. For example, under conditions of identified regulation, someone might learn the vocabulary because it is a prerequisite for the identity-related goal of becoming an English teacher.

According to SDT, more internalized forms of motivational regulation develop when basic psychological needs (BPN) of competence, autonomy, and social relatedness are satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2000b). Autonomy occurs when the need to make own decisions and to choose personally relevant activities is satisfied, for example, by reading books according to one’s interests. Competence is perceived when the need to feel capable of successfully pursuing an activity is satisfied, for example, by talking to a stranger in a foreign language. Relatedness is the result of satisfying the need to feel connected to others and to experience a sense of belonging as well as meaningful relationships, for example, while learning a foreign language with others or talking to people in that language.

Theoretical Underpinnings for FLR Activities

In the long run, experiencing autonomy, competence and social relatedness contributes to the development of intrinsic motivation. The latter, in turn, is an important explanatory variable for foreign language activities in non-formal and informal settings. Such activities can be understood as “informal language learning [that] refers to any activities taken consciously or unconsciously by a learner outside of formal instruction that lead to an increase in the learner’s ability to communicate in a second (or other, non-native) language” (Dressman & Sadler, 2020, p. 4; see also Benson & Reinders, 2011; Reinders et al., 2022). They may take place in many non-educational contexts, such as playing computer games, reading posts on social media, or watching videos. Researchers differentiate between receptive (reading and listening) and productive activities (speaking and writing; Birnbaum & Kröner, 2022; Lee & Drajati, 2019; Lee & Dressman, 2018; Sundqvist, 2009). FLR activities provide an easy and authentic access to a foreign language and are, in many cases, a prerequisite for acquiring fluency in a foreign language (De Wilde et al., 2022).

Research Concerning BPN and Motivation

While the relationships between BPN, forms of motivational regulation, and FLR activities are theoretically well-founded, they also require empirical validation. The following sections will elaborate on this evidence.

Departing from the theoretical importance of motivation for foreign language learning (Dixon et al., 2012; X. Zhang, 2020), there has been a plethora of empirical studies on motivational regulation as a predictor of persistence, success or the development of competencies (Alamer & Alrabai, 2023; Noels et al., 2000). Here, identified and intrinsic regulation,in particular,turned out to be linked to positive long-term developments: For instance, recent studies have shown that intrinsic motivation explains success (Alamer & Lee, 2019; Howard et al., 2021; Noels et al., 2000), engagement (Takahashi & Im, 2020), persistence (Davis, 2022; Noels et al., 2000), and competency development (Alamer & Alrabai, 2023; Alamer & Lee, 2019; Wu et al., 2022). The relevance of forms of motivational regulation in the realm of foreign language acquisition has been further substantiated by an extensive body of research across diverse contexts (De Smedt et al., 2020; Lamb et al., 2019) and has been synthesized in a recent review (Vonkova et al., 2021) and a meta-analysis of Al-Hoorie (2018).

Research on BPN as antecedents of motivation beyond language learning has been reviewed in various domains, including health (Heissel et al., 2018), sports (Chatzisarantis & Hagger, 2009), and education (Bartholomew et al., 2018), with medium effect sizes for each of the three BPN (Stanley et al., 2021). The concept of BPN has also been applied in studies on formal language learning (Al-Hoorie et al., 2025; Oga-Baldwin et al., 2017). Consistent with the SDT, fulfilment of BPN has been linked to increased foreign language learning motivation (Agawa & Takeuchi, 2016; Alamer & Lee, 2019; Dincer et al., 2019; McEown, Noels, & Saumure, 2014; Noels et al., 1999; Noels, Lou et al., 2019; Oga-Baldwin et al., 2017). Specifically, autonomy and competence explain the occurrence of internalized motivational regulation (Alamer & Lee, 2019; Noels et al., 1999; Wu, 2003), effects of social relatedness have been shown in a study by Alamer and Lee (2019). To summarize, BPN may explain forms of motivational regulation in formal contexts such as language classrooms, while forms of motivational regulation predict a number of positive outcomes related to language learning.

While the relationships between BPN and forms of motivational regulation are well established in formal contexts, such as school or university language courses, further research is needed to understand whether they can be transferred to informal settings (Birnbaum et al., 2020). A study regarding BPN in an informal language learning context could be a first step for explaining language motivation and FLR activities outside the classroom. This may help in creating interventions for fostering FLR activities through BPN and forms of motivational regulation in more informal settings.

Research Regarding Motivational Regulation in English vs. Other Foreign Languages

Forms of motivational regulation may also be associated withthe language learned: Learners from countries with other languages than English tend to learn and use English for extrinsic reasons (Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, 2017; Meißner et al., 2008). This may be different for languages other than English (LOTE). In some contexts, they may be associated with the desire to communicate in a language that is connected to one’s family history, a so-called heritage language (Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, 2017). In other contexts, motivational beliefs regarding learning LOTE may be rooted in the desire to broaden one’s language repertoire (Zheng et al., 2019) or from expectations of a pleasant learning experience (Huang, 2019). Given that a quarter of 12- to 19-year-olds in Germany watch series in English at least once a week (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest, 2017), it is plausible that differences between English and LOTE also apply to FLR activities. By and large, however, various studies suggest differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities based on whether the target language is English orLOTE. Thus, this study aims at exploring differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities related to the language learned.

Research Regarding FLR Activities at Home and Abroad

While differences in motivation for FLR activities based on the target language (English vs. LOTE) are well established, empirical evidence on further affective explanatory variables for FLR activities remains scarce (R. Zhang et al., 2021). On a surface level, the context in which FLR activities occur might play an important role for motivational processes. Among the existing studies on domestic FLR activities, Lee and Drajati (2019) and Saito et al. (2018) demonstrated that foreign language learning motivation is related to actively engaging in foreign language leisure activities, such as playing computer or internet games (Lee & Drajati, 2019; Saito et al., 2018). FLR activities in these studies refer to informal digital learning of English (Lee & Drajati, 2019) and the amount of English used outside the classroom (Saito et al., 2018). However, non-digital FLR activities were not included in these studies. One obvious non-digital variable that might affect FLR activities is whether FLR activities are practiced in one’s home country or undertaken abroad.

Although studying abroad seems to be a well-suited opportunity to improve language skills, relatively few studies have specifically examined FLR activities during residence abroad and how they may be determined by affective variables (Allen, 2010; Isabelli-García, 2006; Kinginger, 2009). Here, it became evident that a stay abroad does not automatically lead to frequent L2 contacts. Rather, even while abroad, some students use their L1 more than their L2. However, the results of these studies have to be taken with a grain of salt as they typically involve so-called language contact profiles as assessment instruments. While capturing a wide range of FLR activities and their determinants, they do not comprehensively scrutinize students’ home FLR activities.

Voluntary services are a specific form of stays abroad that might lead to FLR activities and their natural integration into daily life. In the EU, these stays are intended as developmental opportunities during emerging adulthood and to foster European integration. They usually occur after school and before further vocational or academic training and they are funded, for instance, by the European Union (EU; European Youth Portal, 2025). Volunteering abroad may include working at an organization, in a social institution or a historical museum. Volunteers usually delve into a new language and culture without an accompanying formal education program such as university students usually do if they attend classes abroad. Even when compared to stays abroad in connection with studies, these characteristics make volunteering abroad a stronger motivational contrast to foreign language activities at home.

Considering the annual number of volunteers in the EU (more than 25,000 volunteers in 2023; European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport, & Culture, 2024), it is important to understand the motivational dynamics underlying language learning. Since volunteers are living abroad, it is likely that they report a higher amount of FLR activities as compared to students in domestic formal language learning settings. Furthermore, volunteers deliberately choose to go abroad, knowing that this may include learning and using a (new) foreign language in daily conversations with native speakers. Therefore, volunteering may come with higher identified or intrinsic regulation. Domestic students, in contrast, often face the necessity of learning a language as part of their studies and for their future careers. While this may nudge them to engage in FLR activities, it may come with more external and introjected regulation. However, they may also choose to learn a foreign language on a voluntary basis independent of their studies, implying a high level of identified and intrinsic regulation. Taken together, these examples illustrate that while students and volunteers may differ regarding their forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities, the exact nature of these differences in motivational terms is not straightforward.

Given the marked differences in the foreign language learning environment at home and during volunteering abroad, the present study aims to explore the differences in determinants of FLR activities between domestic higher education students in Germany and volunteers abroad. This will contribute to the question whether research findings from students in formal learning environments may be generalized to volunteers. Since research regarding motivational regulation and its explanatory value for FLR activities in students at home versus volunteers abroad is scarce, we will explore this issue rather than testing specific hypotheses.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

We want to gain a deeper understanding of the interplay of BPN, forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities generally, as well as specifically regarding the different language learning contexts of higher education students at home and volunteers abroad. Based on the previous considerations, we aim at answering the following research questions: How do BPN, forms of motivational regulation, and FLR activities relate in nonformal contexts? Are there differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities among learners of different languages? Are there differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities between higher education students and volunteers?

Based on the available research, we tested the following hypotheses:

Emerging adolescents are more intrinsically motivated to practice FLR activities if they perceive their BPN as being satisfied.

The FLR activities can be explained by the different forms of motivational regulation, which in turn are explained by the perceived satisfaction of the BPN.

Both motivational regulation and FLR activities may be explained by the foreign language learned.

Forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities differ between the groups of students versus volunteers.

Hypotheses 1 to 3 are language-wise improved versions of those that have been preregistered prior to data collection together with all questionnaire items and methods for data analysis (Uhing, 2022). Hypothesis 4 has been added after preregistration, but before data collection and analysis.

Methods

Participants

Participants were approached through the language centers and teaching staff of several German universities. Here, mailing lists were used and the first author contacted the language center of her former university in southern Germany. Volunteers abroad were contacted through their sending organization in Germany. For this, through an internet search, we compiled a list with organizations sending out at least 50 volunteers yearly. Thus, the sample constitutes an ad-hoc sample. In the present study, N = 470 young adults participated on a voluntary basis. Thereof, n = 193 people were German volunteers abroad (M_{age volunteers (vol)} = 19.57, SD = 1.68) and n = 277 students in Germany (M_{age students (stud)} = 23.1, SD = 3.4). The languages that were mostly indicated in the questionnaire were English (n_vol = 35; n_stud = 102), French (n_vol = 52; n_stud = 48) and Spanish (n_vol = 28; n_stud = 24). Moreover, 35 other languages were also indicated in the questionnaire. Volunteers abroad had been learning the language on average at the time of the survey for 4.77 (SD = 4.13) years and students for 6.55 (SD = 4.76) years.

Instruments

In the present study, for all constructs, we used or adapted scales that have previously been used in other studies. This applies to scales for the BPN (Heissel et al., 2018), forms of motivational regulation (Noels, Vargas Lascano, & Saumure, 2019) and FLR activities (Birnbaum et al., 2019; Wendt et al., 2016), as well as for demographic background variables. Initially, participants were asked to choose the language they most intensively used or, in case they were volunteers, to choose the language that is mostly used in the country of their stay abroad. In order to accommodate various languages in the questionnaire, a place holder was introduced in the online questionnaire via Unipark (Tivian XI GmbH, 2023). The codebook containing all items can be found on OSF (https://osf.io/fw5gj/?view_only=fdcbfe38d83a4eb9b440141d918d3d18).

Basic Psychological Needs

The BPN were measured by the German Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS; Heissel et al., 2018). Since the original version was created for measuring BPN in the sports domain, minor adaptations were made. These included changing the introductory sentence from “When doing sports and moving…” into “When I deal with [language] …” The BPNSFS consists of 12 items measuring autonomy, relatedness and competence satisfaction. Response options ranged from 1 (completely untrue) to 5 (completely true). Since a validated German version was available, the BPNSFS was chosen.

Motivational Regulation

To assess the four forms of motivational regulation according to SDT, a translated German version of the Language Learning Orientations Scale (LLOS) by Noels, Vargas Lascano, and Saumure (2019) was used. External regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and intrinsic motivation were measured using 16 items. Response options ranged from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly). Since the items were in English, they had to be translated. For translations we followed the recommendations formulated by Dörnyei and Taguchi (2010): The items were translated from English into German using Deepl.com (Kutylowski, 2022). Subsequently, they were proofread, discussed, and improved. This was followed by a back-translation, which was compared with the initial version again and the translated items were revised a second time if necessary. Furthermore, the questionnaire was reviewed with five individuals as part of a think-aloud pretest study (Weichbold, 2014) to address comprehension problems.

FLR Activities

Language activities were assessed using an existing instrument available in German that has been used for reading and writing activities with elementary school children (Birnbaum et al., 2019; Wendt et al., 2016). Participants were asked how often they usually pursue different activities in the fields of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Furthermore, an open-ended question asked for further activities that were not included in the items. Response options included never, less than every fourth week, every 3 to 4 weeks, every second week, every week, 2 to 3 times a week, more than 3 times a week. Please note that the original items and response options were in German and can be found in the codebook.

Data Analysis

The statistical analyses reported were conducted with R using the packages “base” (descriptive statistics; R Core Team, 2023), “car” (variable creation and recoding; Fox & Weisberg, 2019), “foreign” (reading the data file; R Core Team, 2019), “graphics” (histograms; R Core Team, 2023), “Hmisc” (calculating p-values for correlations; Harrell, 2021), “moments” (skewness and kurtosis; Komsta & Novomestky, 2022), “lavaan” (confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling; Rosseel, 2012), “psych” (Cronbach’s Alpha; Revelle, 2023), “SemTools” (McDonald’s Omega; Jorgensen et al. 2013),“stats” (correlations; R Core Team, 2023), and “vcmeta” (standard errors for the correlations; Bonett, 2022). Since the data turned out to be non-normally distributed, the MLR-estimator, which is robust to non-normal distribution, was used as recommended by Brown (2015). Missing values were handled with the full information maximum likelihood approach (FIML). The significance level was set to p = .05. For estimating model fit, we used thresholds proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999: CFI and TLI > 0.95; RMSEA < 0.06; SRMR < 0.08).

Preliminary Analyses for Estimating the Factorial Structure of BPN, Motivation, and FLR Activities

Before structural equation analyses could be conducted, we scrutinized the factorial structure of the constructs BPN, motivation, and FLR activities by means of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). In order to check the factor structure of the BPN scales, we calculated a three-factor model (autonomy, competence, and relatedness; Table 1), which provided good fit values and which concurred with past research (Heissel et al., 2018).

Table 1.

Comparison of Tested Models for Basic Psychological Needs.

Model	χ²SB(p)	df	RMSEA [90% CI]	CFI	TLI	Δχ²SB(p)	Δdf
Basic psychological needs
3-Factor model	127.52	51	.061 [.048, .075]	.963	.952
Motivation according to SDT
2-Factor model	522.91 (p < .05)	101	.099 [.091, .108]	.861	.835	232.91 (p < .05)	5
4-Factor model	249.99 (p < .05)	96	.061 [.052, .071]	.950	.938
FLR activities
4-Factor model	97.73 (p < .05)	28	.076 [.059, .092]	.951	.921	43.78 (p < .05)	5
2-Factor model	143.30 (p < .05)	33	.088 [.074, .103]	.920	.892

Note. N = 446 to 462; retained models in bold letters; χ²_SB = Satorra-Bentler scaled χ²-test; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; Δχ²_SB = Satorra-Bentler scaled χ² difference test.

For the forms of motivational regulation, we compared a two-factor model with autonomous and controlled motivation following De Smedt et al. (2020) with a four-factor model with external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic regulation following Noels, Vargas Lascano, and Saumure (2019; Table 1). These analyses yielded a four-factor structure for forms of motivational regulation and concurred with past research results (Noels, Vargas Lascano, & Saumure, 2019).

To investigate the factor structure for FLR activities, we evaluated a two-factor model: Receptive (reading and listening) vs. productive (speaking and writing; Birnbaum & Kröner (2022); Lee & Drajati (2019); Lee & Dressman (2018); Sundqvist (2009)). Since literacy activities are often considered separately (e.g., reading; Pietilä & Merikivi, 2014), we compared the two-factor model to a four-factor model (reading, writing, speaking, listening; Table 1). All models were finally compared with the Satorra-Bentler χ²-difference test (Δχ²_SB). While the Satorra-Bentler χ²-difference test for the differentiation of the FLR activities favored the four-factor model as compared to the two-factor model, the factor correlations of writing and speaking as well as listening and reading turned out to be very high (> .90) and the factor loadings for two of three items for writing turned out to be low (λ≤ .55). Thus, the two-factor model, which also resulted in good fit, was adopted (ΔSRMR < .030, ΔRMSEA < .015, ΔCFI < .010; F. F. Chen, 2007).

Structural Equation Models (SEM)

For the analyses regarding hypotheses 1 to 4, we applied structural equation modeling (SEM). In this model, BPN explained forms of motivational regulation and forms of motivational regulation explained FLR activities. Model fit indices, path coefficients and R² were considered for evaluating the results of the SEM. Due to modification indices nine residual correlations were allowed.

For testing Hypotheses 3 and 4 we used multiple indicator multiple causes models (MIMIC models). In each case, languages other than English (1, vs. English, 0) and being a volunteer (1, vs. being a student, 0) were added as covariates to the SEM following Brown (2015). MIMIC models are particularly recommended for smaller samples to test for measurement invariance (Brown, 2015). Therefore, both covariates were included together in the overall model with BPN, forms of motivational regulation, and foreign language activities.

Results

Table 2 displays means, standard deviations and correlations as well as Cronbach’s alpha for reliability.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

Variable	Competence	Autonomy	Relatedness	External regulation	Introjected regulation	Identified regulation	Intrinsic motivation	Receptive activities	Productive activities
Competence		.57 (.04)	.34 (.05)	.21 (.06)	.02 (.06)	.34 (.05)	.51 (.05)	.31 (.06)	.23 (.06)
Autonomy	.58 (.05)		.49 (.05)	.14 (.06)	.06 (.06)	.27 (.06)	.49 (.05)	.31 (.06)	.28 (.06)
Relatedness	.53 (.06)	.54 (.06)		.34 (.06)	.32 (.06)	.32 (.06)	.39 (.05)	.24 (.06)	.44 (.05)
External regulation	.19 (.07)	.19 (.07)	.09 (.07)		.49 (.05)	.25 (.06)	.16 (.06)	.47 (.05)	.48 (.05)
Introjected regulation	-.05 (.07)	-.05 (.07)	-.01 (.07)	.01 (.07)		.23 (.06)	−.09 (.06)	.34 (.06)	.30 (.06)
Identified regulation	.33 (.07)	.38 (.06)	.30 (.07)	.33 (.07)	-.03 (.07)		.37 (.05)	.13 (.06)	.15 (.06)
Intrinsic motivation	.51 (.06)	.52 (.06)	.46 (.06)	.11 (.07)	-.11 (.07)	.42 (.06)		.16 (.06)	.24 (.06)
Receptive activities	.30 (.07)	.15 (.07)	.22 (.07)	.44 (.06)	.03 (.07)	.20 (.07)	.25 (.07)		.58 (.04)
Productive activities	.36 (.07)	.31 (.07)	.33 (.07)	.35 (.07)	.05 (.07)	.18 (.07)	.16 (.07)	.52 (.06)
M	3.53	3.29	3.10	3.87	3.45	5.83	5.44	2.78	3.02
SD	0.71	0.78	1.06	1.64	1.63	0.97	1.10	1.65	1.56
Skewness	-0.64	-0.29	-0.33	0.00	0.25	-1.42	-0.97	0.10	0.01
Kurtosis	3.79	3.02	2.32	1.93	2.08	6.23	4.07	1.98	1.94
M _vol	3.47	3.22	3.44	3.28	3.76	5.90	5.51	2.46	3.99
SD _vol	0.64	0.76	0.92	1.48	1.51	1.00	1.02	1.50	1.15
M _stud	3.58	3.35	2.87	4.28	3.23	5.78	5.39	2.99	2.35
SD _stud	0.76	0.78	1.10	1.62	1.68	0.95	1.15	1.72	1.46
M _engl	3.58	3.28	2.94	4.77	4.07	5.87	5.00	3.94	3.05
SD _engl	0.77	0.80	0.95	1.33	1.55	0.98	1.19	1.27	1.58
M _lote	3.52	3.30	3.16	3.50	3.19	5.81	5.62	2.30	3.00
SD _lote	0.69	0.77	1.10	1.61	1.60	0.97	1.01	1.55	1.56
Number of items	4	4	4	4	3	3	6	4	6
Cronbach’s α	.83	.75	.88	.89	.80	.62	.86	.78	.80
McDonald’s Omega	.83	.75	.88	.86	.82	.62	.86	.78	.81

Note. Lower triangular correlation matrix: volunteers, upper triangular correlation matrix: students; competence, autonomy and relatedness; response options: 1 (completely untrue), to 5 (completely true); forms of motivational regulation: response options: 1 (does not correspond at all) to 6 (corresponds exactly); receptive FLR activities, productive FLR activities: response options: 0 (Never), 1 (less than every fourth week), 2 (every 3–4 weeks), 3 (every second week), 4 (once a week), 5 (two to three times a week), 6 (more than three times a week); n_stud = 274 to 277; n_vol = 187 to 193; correlation matrix shows Spearman’s rho and standard errors

SEM for Evaluating the Explanatory Value of (a) BPN for Forms of Motivational Regulation and (b) of Forms of Motivational Regulation for FLR Activities

For hypothesis 1, which postulated that higher satisfaction of the BPN is associated with higher intrinsic motivation of volunteers and students, BPN were integrated as predictors and forms of motivational regulation as criterion variables in the SEM. For testing hypothesis 2, which postulated that forms of motivational regulation explain FLR activities, FLR were further integrated. The paths of all BPN on all forms of motivational regulation and of all forms of motivational regulation on FLR activities were freely estimated. Model fit was acceptable, χ²SB(687) = 1426.026, p < .001, RMSEA = .049 [90% CI = .045, .053], CFI = .914, TLI = .902. The final model is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Structural Equation Model of Basic Psychological Needs, Forms of Motivational Regulation and Foreign Language-Related Activities. N = 435; χ²SB(687) = 1426.026, p < .001, CFI = .914, TLI = .902, RMSEA = .049, CI = [.045; .053]; SRMR = .063.

At the latent variable level, the effects between BPN and forms of motivational regulation were as follows: Competence and autonomy satisfaction provided substantial explanatory value for intrinsic motivation (R² = .63), while its effects on the other forms of motivational regulation were not statistically significant. Relatedness satisfaction provided substantial explanatory value for all forms of motivational regulation except for intrinsic motivation, including external regulation (R² = .30), introjected regulation (R² = .24), identified regulation (R² = .30). Thus, in accordance with hypothesis 1, competence and autonomy satisfaction explained intrinsic motivation. However, relatedness satisfaction did not.

Structural regression paths regarding explanation of FLR activities by forms of motivational regulation, were as follows: External and intrinsic regulation explained receptive activities (R² = .51) and external, introjected, and intrinsic regulation explained productive activities (R² = .56), while identified regulation explained no substantial variance in receptive or productive FLR activities. In accordance with hypothesis 2, all forms of motivational regulation except for identified regulation explained receptive and productive activities.

Explanatory Value of Being a Volunteer and Engaging in LOTE on the Relations of BPN, Motivation and FLR Activities

Hypothesis 3 postulated differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities depending on the language learned (English vs. LOTE) and hypothesis 4 postulated differences between volunteers and students in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities. Paths from both covariates (language (English vs. LOTE) and group membership (students vs. volunteers)) to all latent variables of motivational regulation as well as FLR activities were estimated (Figure 1). Furthermore, modification indices indicated a significant path from being a volunteer onto relatedness satisfaction.

On item level, the item referring to speaking in the work context was regressed onto group and the item indicating the frequency of watching ovies or videos in the foreign language onto English, after reviewing the modification indices. Furthermore, it is likely that volunteers speak the target language more in the context of work and that English learners watch more movies and videos in English.

Regarding the covariates, there were direct negative effects from LOTE on receptive FLR activities (β = −.43, p < .001), external regulation (β = −.33, p < .001), and introjected regulation (β = −.34, p < .001). On the other side, there were positive direct effects of LOTE on intrinsic motivation (β = .28, p < .001) and non-significant direct effects of LOTE on identified regulation (β = −.07, p = .167) and productive FLR activities (β = −.07, p = .261). On indicator level, LOTE learners scored lower than English learners on the item indicating the frequency of watching movies or videos in the foreign language (β = −.26, p < .001). Also, the total effects of LOTE were negative for both productive FLR activities (β = −.15, p = .002) and receptive FLR activities (β = −.43, p < .001). Hypothesis 3, postulating a difference in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities regarding the language, can be confirmed with exception of identified regulation.

Concerning the role of being a volunteer, analyses showed that this had a direct positive effect on productive FLR activities (β = .61, p < .001), introjected regulation (β = .11, p = .049) and relatedness satisfaction (β = .33, p < .001). Furthermore, there was a negative direct effect of being a volunteer on external regulation (β = −.34, p < .001). No significant direct effects were found for being a volunteer on receptive FLR activities (β = .00, p = .947), identified regulation (β = .05, p = .412), and intrinsic regulation (β = .02, p = .664). On item level, volunteers scored higher on the item referring to speaking in the work context (β = .44, p < .001). Also, the total effects of being a volunteer were positive for productive FLR activities (β = .58, p < .001) and non-significant for receptive FLR activities (β = −.06, p = .202). Thus, we found differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities between students and volunteers, particularly regarding external and introjected regulation as well as productive FLR activities. These findings support hypothesis 4.

Discussion

The Role of BPN for Motivation

The major goal of this study was to assess how satisfaction of the BPN of autonomy, competence and social relatedness explains different forms of FLR motivation and how these in turn explain receptive and productive FLR activities. Moreover, we wanted to explore how these results generalize depending on whether the language learned is English versus LOTE and across the populations of domestic students versus volunteers abroad.

Overall, BPN explained the different forms of motivational regulation, which, in turn, explained FLR activities. The only form of motivational regulation that did not explain any FLR activities was identified regulation. Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 could be confirmed. Being a volunteer or learning a LOTE also explained differences in the means of the different forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities, confirming hypotheses 3 and 4.

Of all the relationships between BPN satisfaction and intrinsic motivation (hypothesis 1), competence satisfaction showed the largest nominal effect on intrinsic motivation, which is in line with previous findings emphasizing the particular importance of competence (Stanley et al., 2021). Also consistent with previous research, autonomy satisfaction explained intrinsic motivation, too (Alamer & Lee, 2019; Wu, 2003).

Relatedness satisfaction explained external, introjected and identified regulation, with the path coefficient for introjected regulation being the strongest (Figure 1). The more connected learners feel to people when they engage with the language, the stronger their feelings of shame and guilt are likely to be when they fail to do so. The data also show that relatedness satisfaction is more strongly related to identified regulation than to intrinsic motivation. This is consistent with SDT, which states that relatedness is more important to the internalization process and therefore more strongly related to identified regulation than to intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

The Role of Motivation for FLR Activities

As previous studies have seldom focused on the relationship between motivational variables and FLR activities (R. Zhang et al., 2021), the aim of this study was to scrutinize this relationship. As stated in hypothesis 2, we had expected forms of motivational regulation to explain FLR activities. In the present study, intrinsic regulation explained FLR activities, which is consistent with the results of other studies on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and engagement in leisure activities (Birnbaum et al., 2019; Kröner & Dickhäuser, 2009; Takahashi & Im, 2020). Moreover, given the utility of FLR activities for language acquisition, we had expected similar explanatory value of external regulation for productive and receptive FLR activities. Meeting our expectations, we found a positive relationship of external regulation and FLR activities. This seems plausible given the informal context under scrutiny: While avoiding poor grades or passing exams may not be a salient concern, finding a good job may be a salient concern. Given the mixed results regarding the role of external regulation in the extant literature (Y. L. E. Chen & Kraklow, 2015; Howard et al., 2021; McEown, Noels, & Chaffee, 2014), this result, however, warrants further scrutiny.

Previous studies have shown that introjected regulation is positively related to engagement, effort and intention (Howard et al., 2021) and identified motivation is positively related to perseverance and engagement or activities (Howard et al., 2021; Noels, Vargas Lascano, & Saumure, 2019). In our study, in contrast, introjected regulation merely explained productive FLR activities, and identified regulation did not explain any FLR activities at all. This may be explained by the translated scale to assess motivation regulation used in our study. For future studies, its German wording might be revised and its homogeneity ensured again.

The Role of Learning English versus LOTE

When analyzing the data, some differences between English learners versus LOTE learners became apparent, supporting hypothesis 3: English learners exhibited higher external and introjected regulation and less intrinsic regulation than LOTE-learners and engaged in significantly more receptive activities than those learning LOTE. Furthermore, the total effects of learning LOTE on both facets of FLR activities were negative, which means that English learners displayed higher levels of productive and receptive FLR activities. This supports the assumption that mastering English is considered a “basic requirement” (Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, 2017, p. 462) the fulfillment of which is beneficial for everyone’s job prospects. Thus, English is a mandatory subject in German schools, making external regulation more likely for English learners than for often more leisure-oriented LOTE learners. Along the same lines, the opposite is true for intrinsic motivation, which is less pronounced for English learners than for LOTE (Dörnyei et al., 2006; Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, 2017). Furthermore, English media, such as films and literature, are increasingly prevalent in leisure activities of German adolescents. Hence, it is not surprising that receptive and productive FLR activities were more prevalent in English learners than in those focusing on LOTE.

The Role of Being a Higher Education Student versus Being a Volunteer for Motivation and FLR Activities

Based on hypothesis 4, we explored differences in forms of motivational regulation and FLR activities between students and volunteers: The findings indicated that volunteers exhibited higher levels of introjected regulation and engaged in more productive activities compared to students in their home country. Conversely, they exhibited lower levels of extrinsic regulation. Regarding intrinsic motivation, the two groups did not differ significantly.

While one might have expected higher levels of intrinsic motivation in the volunteer group, they may have been blurred due to self-selection for participation, with primarily intrinsically motivated students opting to participate in the voluntary online survey.

The higher level of introjected regulation observed among volunteers in comparison to students can be attributed to their distinct circumstances: Volunteers work for a year abroad, fostering intensive interaction with the local people. Concurrently, host-country language proficiency is linked to the effectiveness of international voluntary services (Lough et al., 2011). Lacking proficiency and effort to learn the language is likely to result in impediments within the professional sphere. Moreover, interviews with young adults interested in international volunteering suggest that language acquisition is a by-product of volunteering (Rehberg, 2005). Thus, volunteers may feel greater shame if they did not learn the language, leading to higher levels of introjected regulation. When interpreting these effects, however, it is important to consider the exploratory nature of our analyses. This is especially true for the effect of group membership on introjected regulation. While it was statistically significant at p = .05 level in our study, it is the only effect in our study that does not stand a correction procedure to account for multiple comparisons (Cribbie, 2007). Thus, effects of group membership on introjected regulation should be further scrutinized in future studies.

Finally, group differences in forms of regulation should be addressed, particularly the higher external regulation among higher education students compared to volunteers. They are plausible, as students are already engaged in academic pursuits and thus should have a clear understanding of FLR activities’ relevance to their professional goals. Conversely, volunteers are still shaping their interests and aspirations, rendering external motives less influential in their commitment to FLR activities.

Differences between higher education students and volunteers abroad emerged not only for forms of regulation, but also for FLR activities: Volunteers had a higher level of productive activities: Living in a different country, volunteers may have more opportunities to engage in productive activities than students. Conversely, the total effect on receptive activities was non-significant, meaning that being a higher education student vs. a volunteer did not have any effect on receptive activities. This finding is plausible and may be attributed to volunteers’ limited command of the respective language or their inability to identify receptive activities that align with their proficiency level.

Interestingly, we also found that volunteers displayed higher levels of relatedness satisfaction as compared to higher education students. A possible explanation for this finding could be the difference in living conditions between volunteers and students: While volunteers reside in the host country, students do not. If their volunteering experience is positive, volunteers are likely to establish meaningful connections with people in their host country, which may contribute to higher levels of relatedness satisfaction. As this effect was observed ex-post, it should be scrutinized in future preregistered studies.

Limitations

In the present study, we put great emphasis on using scales that had already been applied previously. Nevertheless, with regard to the scales, some limitations should be noted. The items for BPN were adapted from the fields of sports activities, changing the item stem from “When doing sports and moving…” to “When I deal with [language] …” In future studies, it should be scrutinized whether this could have impaired intelligibility and validity of the scale. Moreover, the motivational regulation scales have been translated for the present study. Although we adhered to the recommendations formulated by Dörnyei and Taguchi (2010), some minor differences between the original and the translated version may have evolved. Future studies should scrutinize whether translation issues might have impaired reliability and validity of the identified regulation scale resulting in a failure to explain FLR activities.

We assessed factorial validity looking at whether the utilized scales can be distinguished from each other (e.g., no jingle-jangle between BPN and motivational regulation). Building on this, subsequent studies might employ multiple different scales for testing of convergent and discriminant validity (Sudina, 2021).

The fit indices for our model were slightly below the thresholds proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999). Specifically, while the RMSEA and SRMR fell within acceptable ranges, the CFI and TLI values were marginally below the recommended cutoff. This suggests some leeway for further model improvement. Even based on the data from our ad-hoc sample, useful suggestions for the design of further studies with larger samples representative for the population of LOTE users in emerging adulthood can be derived.

Regarding the assessment of FLR activities, further systematic development of broader scales might be helpful. For example, analogous to Birnbaum et al. (2019), one could conduct an elicitation study regarding the activities with the target group to develop additional items. First suggestions for additional items result from an open-ended question aimed at eliciting further language activities to be included in our study.Here, mostly listening to music or using language learning apps such as Duolingo were mentioned. Moreover, future studies on FLR activities might include a scale measuring involvement in gaming as a FLR activity. Here, especially multi-player games involving English communication appear to be relevant (Sundqvist & Sylvén, 2014).

Conclusion and Implications

The present study is among the first to examine relationships between BPN, motivation, and FLR activities for both higher education students and volunteers. Follow-up study with a randomized controlled sample building on this study may scrutinize the replicability of our findings as well as the generalizability to the respective population. If this is ensured, interventions aimed at fostering informal FLR activities could derive from the starting points discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.

Fostering competence satisfaction may be beneficial to enhance students’ and volunteers’ engagement in FLR activities via their motivational regulation. Along the same lines, studies from sports research suggest that through positive feedback competence satisfaction may be fostered (Mouratidis et al., 2008). Moreover, self-regulation and depicting one’s learning goals have been identified as possible starting points for interventions aiming at language learning motivation (Magid & Chan, 2012; Pawlak et al., 2020). Since these interventions require relatively short durations, they may be implemented in preparing young people for going abroad. From a scholarly perspective, it may be interesting to investigate whether these interventions work differently for higher education students and volunteers.

Another important factor point of departure for the development of interventions may be fostering relatedness satisfaction via near-peer role modeling (Hooper et al., 2025). This includes sharing experiences with other people similar in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender.

Based on the present findings, the question arises as to how well language learners in LOTE are informed about media (movies, series, books, etc.), since they had lower levels in receptive activities than English language learners. This is where language teachers, language apps as well as volunteer service organizations could come in and provide learners with suitable media. A key research implication of this question is identifying effective methods for introducing authentic foreign language media to young adults in both formal and non-formal learning contexts.

While the pedagogical implications outlined in the previous section are conditional on future replications of our results, they might nevertheless provide some first ideas on how to better prepare volunteers for their service abroad—especially with regard to strengthening beneficial forms of self-regulation regarding language learning.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Kathrin Nicolay for supporting data collection.

ORCID iDs

Uhing Sophie

Birnbaum Lisa

Kröner Stephan

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was not required for this study.

Author Contributions

Uhing Sophie: conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review & editing. Birnbaum Lisa: conceptualization; formal analysis; methodology; project administration; writing – original draft; writing – review & editing. Kröner Stephan: conceptualization; methodology; writing – original draft; writing – review & editing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data, codebook, scripts as well as further supplementary material can be found at

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Agawa

Takeuchi

(2016). Validating self-determination theory in the Japanese EFL context: Relationship between innate needs and motivation. Asian EFL Journal, 18(1), 7–33.

Alamer

Alrabai

(2023). The causal relationship between learner motivation and language achievement: New dynamic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 44, 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac035

Alamer

Lee

(2019). A motivational process model explaining L2 Saudi students’ achievement of English. System, 87, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102133

Al-Hoorie

A. H.

(2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2

Al-Hoorie

A. H.

Oga-Baldwin

W. L. Q.

Hiver

Vitta

J. P.

(2025). Self-determination mini-theories in second language learning: A systematic review of three decades of research. Language Teaching Research, 29, 1603–1638. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221102686

Allen

H. W.

(2010). Language-learning motivation during short-term study abroad: An activity theory perspective. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01058.x

Arnett

J. J.

(2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00016.x

Bartholomew

K. J.

Ntoumanis

Mouratidis

Katartzi

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Vlachopoulos

(2018). Beware of your teaching style: A school-year long investigation of controlling teaching and student motivational experiences. Learning and Instruction, 53, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.006

Benson

Reinders

(Eds.) (2011). Beyond the language classroom. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

10.

Birnbaum

Kröner

(2022). A review on antecedents and consequences of leisure reading and writing in children. Sage Open, 12(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221113823

11.

Birnbaum

Schüller

E. M.

Kröner

(2019). Überzeugungen zum freizeitlichen Schreiben bei Grundschulkindern [Beliefs about recreational writing among elementary school children]. Journal for Educational Research Online, 11(2), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:18001

12.

Birnbaum

Schüller

E. M.

Kröner

(2020). Who likes to engage in writing? – The role of children’s beliefs and intrinsic value regarding leisure writing. Educational Psychology, 40(7), 856–874. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1777941

13.

Bonett

D. G.

(2022). Vcmeta: Varying coefficient meta-analysis (Version 1.1.0) [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vcmeta/index.html

14.

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Methodology in the social sciences. The Guilford Press.

15.

Chatzisarantis

N. L.

Hagger

M. S.

(2009). Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation. Psychology and Health, 24(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440701809533

16.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

17.

Chen

Y. L. E.

Kraklow

(2015). Taiwanese college students’ motivation and engagement for English learning in the context of internationalization at home. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533607

18.

Council of the European Union. (2002). Council resolution of 14 February 2002 on the promotion of linguistic diversity and language learning in the framework of the implementation of the objectives of the European Year of Languages 2001. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 50, 1–2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32002G0223(01).

19.

Cribbie

R. A.

(2007). Multiplicity control in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(1), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510709336738

20.

Davis

W. S.

(2022). Encouraging continued university foreign language study: A self-determination theory perspective on programme growth. Language Learning Journal, 50(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1740768

21.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

22.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000b). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01

23.

De Smedt

Rogiers

Heirweg

Merchie

Van Keer

.(2020). Assessing and mapping reading and writing motivation in third to eight graders: A self-determination theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1678. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01678

24.

De Wilde

Brysbaert

Eyckmans

. (2022). Formal versus informal L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263121000097

25.

Dincer

Yesilyurt

Noels

K. A.

(2019). Self-determined engagement in language learning: The relations among autonomy-support, psychological needs, and engagement. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education – Cumhuriyet Uluslararasi Egitim Dergisi, 8, 1130–1147. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/894070

26.

Dixon

L. Q.

Zhao

Shin

J-Y.

J-H.

Burgess-Brigham

Gezer

M. U.

Snow

(2012). What we know about second language acquisition. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311433587

27.

Dörnyei

Csizér

Nemeth

(2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation: A Hungarian perspective. Multilingual Matters.

28.

Dörnyei

Al-Hoorie

A. H.

(2017). The motivational foundation of learning languages other than global English: Theoretical issues and research directions. Modern Language Journal, 101(3), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12408

29.

Dörnyei

Taguchi

(2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration, and processing. Second language acquisition research series (2 ed.). Routledge.

30.

Dressman

Sadler

(Eds.) (2020). The handbook of informal language learning (1st ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

31.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport, & Culture. (2024). European solidarity corps – Report.2021-2023 Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/235753

32.

European Youth Portal. (2025, January 13). About | European Youth Portal. https://youth.europa.eu/solidarity_en

33.

Fox

Weisberg

(2019). Car: An {R} companion to applied regression (Version Third Edition) [Computer software]. Sage. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/

34.

Harrell

F. E.

Jr. (2021). Hmisc: Harrell miscellaneous (Version 4.5-0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmisc

35.

Heissel

Pietrek

Flunger

Fydrich

Rapp

M. A.

Heinzel

Vansteenkiste

(2018). The validation of the German basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale in the context of mental health. European Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000017

36.

Hooper

Egitim

Hofhuis

(2025). Exploring the impact of near-peer role modeling on learners’ basic psychological needs: Insights from English classes in Japanese higher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 8, 100429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2024.100429

37.

Howard

J. L.

Bureau

Guay

Chong

J. X. Y.

Ryan

R. M.

(2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789

38.

Howard

J. L.

Gagné

Morin

A. J. S.

(2020). Putting the pieces together: Reviewing the structural conceptualization of motivation within SDT. Motivation and Emotion, 44(6), 846–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09838-2

39.

Huang

S. C.

(2019). Learning experience reigns – Taiwanese learners’ motivation in learning eight additional languages as compared to English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(7), 576–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1571069

40.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

41.

Isabelli-García

(2006). Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In DuFon

M. A.

Churchill

(Eds.), Second language acquisition. Language learners in study abroad contexts (pp. 231–258). Multilingual Matters.

42.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Pornprasertmanit

Schoemann

A. M.

Roussel

(2013). SemTools: Useful tools for structural equation (Version 0.5-6) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

43.

Kinginger

(2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. Palgrave Macmillan.

44.

Komsta

Novomestky

(2022). Moments: Moments, cumulants, skewness, kurtosis and related tests (Version 0.14.1) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=moments

45.

Kröner

Dickhäuser

(2009). Die Rolle von Eltern, Peers und intrinsischem Wert für die rezeptive hochkulturelle Praxis von Gymnasiasten der Sekundarstufe II [The Role of parents, peers, and intrinsic value in the receptive high cultural practices of upper secondary school students]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.1.53

46.

Kutylowski

(2022, March 25). DeepL translate. https://www.deepl.com/translator

47.

Lamb

Csizér

Henry

Ryan

(Eds.) (2019). The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning. Springer International Publishing AG.

48.

Lee

J. S.

Drajati

N. A.

(2019). Affective variables and informal digital learning of English: Keys to willingness to communicate in a second language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5177

49.

Lee

J. S.

Dressman

(2018). When IDLE hands make an English workshop: Informal digital learning of English and language proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 52(2), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.422

50.

Lin

(2025). A structural relationship model for L2 oral proficiency, L2 interest, perceived importance of speaking, and out-of-class L2 contact. Language Teaching Research, 29, 700–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221074027

51.

Lough

B. J.

McBride

A. M.

Sherraden

M. S.

O’Hara

(2011). Capacity building contributions of short-term international volunteers. Journal of Community Practice, 19(2), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2011.568921

52.

Magid

Chan

(2012). Motivating English learners by helping them visualise their ideal L2 self: Lessons from two motivational programmes. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.614693

53.

McEown

M. S.

Noels

K. A.

Chaffee

K. E.

(2014). At the interface of the socio-educational model, self-determination theory and the L2 motivational self system models. In Csizér

Magid

Second language acquisition: The impact of self-concept on language learning Vol. 79. (pp.19–50). Multilingual Matters.

54.

McEown

M. S.

Noels

K. A.

Saumure

K. D.

(2014). Students’ self-determined and integrative orientations and teachers’ motivational support in a Japanese as a foreign language context. System, 45, 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.06.001

55.

Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest. (2017). JIM 2017 Jugend, Information, (Multi-) Media: Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger in Deutschland [JIM 2017 youth, information, (multi-) media: Study regarding media usage of 12 to 19-year-olds in Germany]. https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/JIM/2017/JIM_2017.pdf

56.

Meißner

Beckmann

Schröder-Sura

(2008). Mehrsprachigkeit fördern: Vielfalt und Reichtum Europas in der Schule nutzen (MES); zwei deutsche Stichproben einer internationalen Studie in den Klassen 5 und 9 zu Sprachen und Fremdsprachenunterricht [Promoting multilingualism. Utilizing the diversity and richness of Europe in schools (MES): Two German samples from an international study in grades 5 and 9 on languages and foreign language instruction].Giessener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik. Gunter Narr Verlag.

57.

Mouratidis

Vansteenkiste

Lens

Sideridis

(2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 240–268. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.2.240

58.

Noels

K. A.

Clément

Pelletier

L. G.

(1999). Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Modern Language Journal, 83(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00003

59.

Noels

K. A.

Lou

N. M.

Vargas Lascano

D. I.

Chaffee

K. E.

Dincer

Zhang

Y. S. D.

Zhang

[Xijia] (2019). Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In Lamb

Csizér

Henry

Ryan

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of motivation for language learning (pp. 95–115). Springer International Publishing AG.

60.

Noels

K. A.

Pelletier

L. G.

Clément

Vallerand

R. J.

(2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50(1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00111

61.

Noels

K. A.

Vargas Lascano

D. I.

Saumure

(2019). The development of self-determination across the language course. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 821–851.

62.

Oga-Baldwin

W. L. Q.

Nakata

Parker

Ryan

R. M.

(2017). Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.010

63.

Pawlak

Csizér

Soto

(2020). Interrelationships of motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulatory strategy use: An investigation into study abroad experiences. System, 93, 102300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102300

64.

Pietilä

Merikivi

(2014). The impact of free-time reading on foreign language vocabulary development. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.1.28-36

65.

R Core Team. (2019). Foreign: Read data stored by ’Minitab’, ’S’, ’SAS’, ’SPSS’, (Version R package version 0.8-81) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=foreign

66.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R foundation for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/

67.

Rehberg

(2005). Altruistic individualists: Motivations for international volunteering among young adults in Switzerland. VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-005-5693-5

68.

Reinders

Lai

Sundqvist

(2022). The Routledge handbook of language learning and teaching beyond the classroom. Routledge.

69.

Revelle

(2023). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (Version 2.3.3). Computer software.

70.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: AnRPackage for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/

71.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. The Guilford Press.

72.

Saito

Dewaele

Abe

In’nami

Y. Y

.(2018). Motivation, emotion, learning experience, and second language comprehensibility development in classroom settings: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Language Learning, 68(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12297

73.

Stanley

P. J.

Schutte

N. S.

Phillips

W. J.

(2021). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between basic psychological need satisfaction and affect. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 5(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.47602/jpsp.v5i1.210

74.

Sudina

(2021). Study and scale quality in second language survey research, 2009–2019: The case of anxiety and motivation. Language Learning, 71(4), 1149–1193. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12468

75.

Sundqvist

(2009). Extramural English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact on Swedish ninth graders’ oral proficiency and vocabulary [Dissertation]. Karlstad University. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:275141

76.

Sundqvist

Sylvén

L. K.

(2014). Language-related computer use: Focus on young L2 English learners in Sweden. ReCALL, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344013000232

77.

Swanson

J. A.

(2016). Trends in literature about emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 4(6), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816630468

78.

Takahashi

(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

79.

Tivian, XI, & GmbH. (2023). EFS survey [Computer software]. Author. https://www.unipark.com/

80.

Uhing

(2022). Motivational orientations of students and volunteers towards foreign language learning and their dependence on learned language and basic psychological needs. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/m6fxd.

81.

United Nations Educational Scientific | Cultural Organization. (2006). Leitfaden Kulturelle Bildung [Guide to cultural education]. https://www.unesco.at/fileadmin/Redaktion/Publikationen/Publikations-Dokumente/2006_Leitfarden_Kulturelle_Bildung.pdf

82.

Urhahne

Wijnia

(2023). Theories of motivation in education: An integrative framework. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09767-9

83.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Blais

M. R.

Briere

N. M.

Senécal

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025

84.

Vonkova

Jones

Moore

Altinkalp

Selcuk

(2021). A review of recent research in EFL motivation: Research trends, emerging methodologies, and diversity of researched populations. System, 103, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102622

85.

Weichbold

(2014). Pretest. In Baur

Blasius

Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (pp. 299–304). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

86.

Wendt

Bos

Tarelli

Vaskova

Hussmann

(2016). IGLU & TIMSS 2011: Skalenhandbuch zur Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente und Arbeit mit den Datensätzen [IGLU & TIMSS 2011: Scale manual for documenting the survey instruments and working with the data sets]. Waxmann.

87.

(2003). Intrinsic motivation and young language learners: The impact of the classroom environment. System, 31(4), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2003.04.001

88.

Yang

Liu

(2022). English use anxiety, motivation, self-efficacy, and their predictive effects on Chinese top university students’ English achievements. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 953600. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.953600

89.

Zhang

Zou

Cheng

Xie

Wang

F. L.

O. T. S.

(2021). Target languages, types of activities, engagement, and effectiveness of extramural language learning. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253431. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253431

90.

Zhang

(2020). A bibliometric analysis of second language acquisition between 1997 and 2018. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263119000573

91.

Zheng

Ren

(2019). Profiling Chinese university students’ motivation to learn multiple languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(7), 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1571074

Foreign Language Motivation and Activities During Emerging Adolescence: The Role of Language and Basic Psychological Needs

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Theoretical Understanding of Basic Psychological Needs and Motivation

Theoretical Underpinnings for FLR Activities

Research Concerning BPN and Motivation

Research Regarding Motivational Regulation in English vs. Other Foreign Languages

Research Regarding FLR Activities at Home and Abroad

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Methods

Participants

Instruments

Basic Psychological Needs

Motivational Regulation

FLR Activities

Data Analysis

Preliminary Analyses for Estimating the Factorial Structure of BPN, Motivation, and FLR Activities

Structural Equation Models (SEM)

Results

SEM for Evaluating the Explanatory Value of (a) BPN for Forms of Motivational Regulation and (b) of Forms of Motivational Regulation for FLR Activities

Explanatory Value of Being a Volunteer and Engaging in LOTE on the Relations of BPN, Motivation and FLR Activities

Discussion

The Role of BPN for Motivation

The Role of Motivation for FLR Activities

The Role of Learning English versus LOTE

The Role of Being a Higher Education Student versus Being a Volunteer for Motivation and FLR Activities

Limitations

Conclusion and Implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Data Availability Statement

Informed Consent

Supplemental Material

References