L2 English and L3 Japanese motivation, international posture, and success of students in an English-medium instruction (EMI) program at a Japanese University

ABSTRACT

English-medium instruction (EMI) is growing in popularity worldwide, including in Japan. However, students’ language learning motivation has not been fully researched in this context. Accordingly, this mixed-method study explores the roles of L2 English and L3 Japanese motivation in an EMI programme at a Japanese university. Applying L2 motivational self system and International Posture (IP) as theoretical frameworks, quantitative data from surveys (n = 66) and qualitative data from eight semi-structured interviews with international students were collected at an EMI programme of Policy Studies in Japan. The results indicate that motivation to learn L2, especially ideal L2 self, plays a significant role in student studies. Furthermore, a strong IP, including viewing study abroad (SA) in Japan as ‘an international learning environment’ where they can ‘experience the world’, was related to their use of English. In contrast, L3 motivation decreased for most participants owing to the lack of integrativeness, scarcity of opportunities to use L3, and negative learning experiences. In other words, SA in Japan does not automatically motivate students to learn Japanese.

KEYWORDS:

• Motivation
• L2 motivational self system
• international posture
• language other than English (LOTE)
• English-medium instruction
• mixed-method research

Introduction

As English is the de facto global language, using English as a medium of education outside of English-speaking countries (English-medium instruction, EMI) has spread globally. In Japan, universities have implemented EMI under the pressure to internationalise campuses, and in order to accomplish two pedagogical objectives: content and English learning (Lasagabaster 2016), with two main types. The first type focuses on transforming Japanese students into global citizens with higher English proficiency, while the second type aims to attract international students and promote diversity on campuses, thus, rarely requiring Japanese proficiency at enrolment. Still, the government and universities assume that international students would be motivated to learn Japanese while living in Japan in addition to improving their English proficiency; hence, many EMI programmes have mandated Japanese language courses as a prerequisite for graduation. However, previous studies in language classrooms reported that maintaining motivation to learn two languages simultaneously is demanding, and when L2 is global English, learners tend to lose their motivation to learn a language other than English (LOTE) (Csizér and Dörnyei 2005; Henry 2011). Therefore, it is easy to imagine that in an EMI programme where learning Japanese is peripheral to students’ academic life, they face similar or even more severe challenges than in language classrooms. However, little research has been conducted to explore the L3 motivation of international students alongside their L2 motivation and understand its role in their EMI studies.

In addition, regarding L2 motivation, previous studies exploring its significance in relation to achievement in EMI (Rose et al. 2020; Xie and Curle 2022) have suggested somewhat different results from language classroom. Studies in language classrooms have expressed that motivation is crucial in language learning (Dörnyei 1998; Gardner 2019; Lamb 2007). In contrast, previous EMI studies have reported that the effect of L2 motivation on their performance remains uncertain (Rose et al. 2020; Xie and Curle 2022). Nevertheless, such studies in EMI contexts focused on domestic students not international students. Therefore, this study aims to understand the nature of L2/L3 motivation for international students and its relation to their performance in an EMI context, adapting established motivational frameworks such as L2 motivational self system (L2MSS) and international posture (IP) using a mixed-method approach. It contributes to the line of work in language learning motivation, by including an under researched context (i.e. EMI in Japan) and focusing on those learning a L2 and L3.

Background

Learner motivation is recognised as an important factor in academic achievement and in language learning particularly (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2021; Schunk, Meece, and Pintrich 2014). It is therefore highly likely to be a determining factor in EMI learning outcomes too. Moreover, as Macaro (2018) has pointed out, EMI is often initiated by governments or institutions in a top-down manner, without due regard for student preferences or needs; even if students do sign up for it with a positive mindset (e.g. Iwaniec and Wang 2023 as reported in China), learning in an L2 is likely to present challenges to their motivation (Lasagabaster and Doiz 2017). Despite this, empirical studies of student motivation in EMI have been relatively sparse (Lasagabaster 2016). Those studies that have been carried out have tended to adopt similar theoretical frameworks as work in L2 motivation, perhaps because the EMI context is considered similarly future-oriented (e.g. learning to become competitive in a globalised world). The L2MSS, for example, has been used in several recent studies (e.g. Hennebry and Gao 2021; Iwaniec and Wang 2023) while the construct of International Posture (IP; Yashima 2002; 2009) has been deemed useful for understanding language learners’ motivation in contexts where the target language is viewed as an international language, such as in EMI programmes (Siridetkoon 2015). We will now briefly review these two theoretical models.

L2 motivational self system (L2MSS)

Dörnyei’s L2MSS (2009) was developed based on possible self-theory (Markus and Nurius 1986) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins 1987) in mainstream psychology. L2MSS hypothesises that L2 learning motivation is enhanced when learners are guided by their future self-image, as L2 users and attempt to reduce the discrepancy between their future and actual selves. L2MSS consists of the following three dimensions. The ideal L2 self represents who an individual would like to become as an L2 speaker (e.g. one who is learning in a prestigious master’s programme with other international students); however, the ought-to L2 self represents who an individual should become as an L2 user from a sense of obligation (e.g. one should get a job abroad as expected by their parents). Finally, the L2 learning experience concerns the impact of current learning experiences on motivation.

Since its inception, numerous studies that applied L2MSS in language classrooms (e.g. Ryan 2009; Taguchi, Magid, and Papi 2009; Yashima, Nishida, and Mizumoto 2017) have reported that the ideal L2 self enhances learners’ efforts to learn L2. Although there has been minimal focus on the L2 learning experience, a meta-analysis of L2MSS (Al-Hoorie 2018) showed that it is the strongest predictor of intended effort in the framework (Lamb 2012; Teimouri 2017).

International posture (IP)

Gardner’s integrativeness (1985), postulated in the Canadian bilingual context, suggests that a learner’s desire to communicate with and become a member of the language community is a strong motivator for language learning. However, in contexts like Japan, learners often have limited contact with L1 speakers of English and perceive English as an ‘ownerless language’ (Botes et al. 2020, 2). For them, English is a window to the world, not a means to join a specific community. To address this issue, Yashima (2002) introduced the concept of IP, which proposes that students’ desire for contact with others and joining an imagined international community is an influential motivator in learning English. IP includes four aspects: intercultural friendship orientation, interest in international vocation/activities, interest in foreign affairs, and intergroup approach/avoidance tendencies (Yashima 2009). IP has been positively linked to several desirable outcomes in language learning motivation such as willingness to communicate (Yashima 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimizu 2004) the ideal L2 self (Kormos and Kata 2008), and language proficiency (Yashima 2002; Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, and Shimizu 2004). Therefore, IP can be considered a positive motivational construct that is valuable for language learners (Botes et al. 2020). Recently, with the rise of interest in multilingualism, researchers have explored the possibility that IP is also relevant for learners of languages other than English (LOTE), to connect with diverse global communities, not just those in Anglophone countries (Botes et al. 2020; Siridetkoon 2015).

L2 motivation and related factors in EMI

The ideal L2 self of L2MSS has been used as one of the factors to understand learners in EMI. A study conducted in a Japanese university (n = 220) reported that EMI motivation consists of motivation to learn English (i.e. attitude toward learning English and ideal L2 self) and to master the course content (Kojima and Yashima 2017). Thus, along with L2 motivation, motivation toward the participants’ university major (i.e. the course content) was also included as a variable in the survey.

Unlike in the language learning context, the effects of the ideal L2 self on students’ performance in EMI contexts are questionable (Rose et al. 2020; Xie and Curle 2022). Rose et al. (2020) conducted a mixed-method study to uncover the predictors of the final exam scores in an EMI course in a Japanese university. The quantitative study (n = 146) revealed that English proficiency but not ideal L2 self was predictive of one’s performance. The impact of the ideal L2 self was only observed from the qualitative data (n = 7). Xie and Curle (2022) conducted a quantitative study with the same aim as Rose et al. (2020) in a Chinese university (n = 100) and reported similar results. However, more research on L2 motivation in EMI contexts is necessary to draw any conclusion (Rose et al. 2020).

L3 motivation

Early studies concerning L3 conducted in Hungary (Csizér and Dörnyei 2005; Dörnyei and Csizér 2002; Dörnyei, Csizér, and Németh 2006) found that students generally had a higher motivation to learn English than LOTE and uncovered how L2 English motivation negatively impacted L3 learning due to its power as a dominant lingua franca (Csizér and Illés 2020). In Sweden, Henry (2010; 2011) found that studying L2 and L3 simultaneously often resulted in competing self-concepts, with L2 English often winning. However, some learners could counteract such effects by activating positive self-knowledge to reaffirm their L3 self-concept and thus maintain their motivation (Henry 2011).

Although L3 and LOTE learning motivation studies have more often concerned the European context (e.g. Henry 2010; 2011; Lasagabaster 2017), the number of studies done outside of Europe has increased (e.g. Humphreys and Spratt 2008; Zaragoza 2011). More recent studies have examined the complex relationship betweenL2 and L3 motivation, viewing it as nuanced and dynamic (Fukui and Yashima 2021; Kojima 2023; Siridetkoon and Dewaele 2018). Siridetkoon and Dewaele’s (2018) study on university students in Thailand learning L2 and L3 showed that the development of ideal selves and ought-to selves in each language was often intertwined, reporting examples of some students placing one language on hold to maintain motivation and growth in another language. Kojima (2023) found the more advanced the course work was for EMI students in Japan, the more enhanced their motivation to study L2 English was. In contrast, student had difficulty sustaining their motivation to study their L3 Japanese. However, most research has targeted domestic students (e.g. Japanese students taking EMI in a Japanese university); thus, this study concerns multilingual motivation in the context of EMI.

GPA as a measurement of learning outcome

Initial studies of the relationship between English proficiency and academic achievement adopted GPA as a measurement (Graham 1987). Although GPA includes various aspects of learning, such as completion of tasks and attendance (Dafouz, Camacho, and Urquia 2014), GPA and course outcome are positively correlated (Hachey, Wladis, and Conway 2014). Therefore, this study employed GPA to assess achievements and holistically explore the significance of English learning motivation, Japanese learning motivation, and IP in students’ performance. To explore the nature of L2/L3 motivation and its relation to their performance in an EMI context, the following research questions were addressed.

Research questions

RQ1. Are English proficiency, GPA, L2 learning motivation, L3 learning motivation, IP and Policy Studies learning motivation related? If so, how?

RQ2. Which variables are beneficial in predicting students’ GPAs?

RQ3. How do individual students see the value of L2 in an EMI programme?

RQ4. How do individual students see the value of L3 in an EMI programme?

Quantitative data allow us to uncover the interrelationship of the variables measured among the participants, whereas qualitative data are necessary to interpret and explain the nature of the relationship (Dörnyei 2007). Therefore, a mixed- method approach was applied in this study.

Methodology

Research context and participants

Quantitative and qualitative data were conducted in Program A at the College of Policy Studies at a Japanese university. Annually, approximately 20 students are enrolled here from countries worldwide, including China, India, and the United Kingdom. Some students from Japan were present but considered a minority (e.g. one or two annually). Program A focuses on students from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations following its goal of transforming students from emerging countries into future leaders. Applicants should attain at least 71 on the TOEFL iBT, IELTS 6.0, or equivalent (upper B1 in Common European Framework of Reference for Languages [CEFR]). Japanese proficiency is not an admission criterion. Students must earn 124 credits for Policy Studies and language courses to graduate; 12 credits must be for English for academic purposes (EAP) courses, regardless of their L1, and another 12 for Japanese language courses if their L1 is not Japanese. On graduation, students are encouraged to reach an intermediate level in Japanese. They take these language courses along with EMI courses.

In total, 66 students (30 male and 36 female) enrolled in Program A, whose L1 was neither English nor Japanese, participated in this study. The survey response rate was 92%: 15 freshmen, 12 sophomores, 20 juniors, and 19 seniors completed the survey. The students’ backgrounds varied – 30.3% were from China, 25.8% from Korea, 16.7% from Vietnam, and 9.1% from Indonesia. There were also participants from India (7.6%), Myanmar (4.5%), and Taiwan (3%).

Eight students participated in the follow-up interviews. To gain diverse perspectives, students with different profiles, including gender, grade, and L1, were invited to participate; pseudonyms were used (Table 1).

Table 1. Interview participants.

Name	Gender	Grade	Nationality	L1	IELTS	CEFR	Japanese proficiency	GPA
Nathan	Male	1	Peru	Spanish	6.5	B2	Intermediate	4.17
Paul	Male	1	Myanmar	Burmese	7.0	C1	Elementary	4.00
Cho	Male	2	Korea	Korean	6.5	B2	Elementary	4.38
William	Male	2	China	Chinese	6.5	B2	Intermediate	4.50
Ashley	Female	3	Indonesia	Indonesian	6.0	B2	Intermediate	4.12
Lindsey	Female	4	China	Chinese	7.5	C1	Intermediate	4.07
Danna	Female	4	Vietnam	Vietnamese	7.5	C1	Intermediate	4.22
Howard	Male	4	Indonesia	Indonesian	6.5	B2	Intermediate	4.49

Note. The full-point GPA is 5.

Procedure

First, the survey was conducted both in and out of class at the end of the academic year. The participants chose either the paper- or computer-based survey. The first author conducted most of the surveys in class. A research assistant conducted online surveys for some of the participants who did not take the courses in which the survey was conducted or were absent during the survey. Second, follow-up interviews were conducted in English, and most interviews were face-to-face in the first author’s office. However, as Cho had returned to Korea at the time of the interview, it was online. Each interview lasted 20–50 minutes and audio recorded with the participants’ consent.

For both the survey and follow-up interviews, participants were informed that participation was voluntary and could withdraw from the study at any time. They were also told that their participation or non-participation or responses would not affect their grades in any way, their survey responses would be analysed statistically, and pseudonyms would be used when the study was presented or published. Those who agreed to participate signed a consent form. We also obtained consent from the college and participants to include their GPAs and official scores on English standardised exams. Since the participants were neither minors nor remunerated, and the study’s methodology was not hazardous or misrepresented, this study was exempted from a formal ethics review according to the university’s guidelines. Nevertheless, approval was obtained from the EMI programme head.

Materials and interview questions

The survey comprised 54 items which were either adopted or adjusted from previous studies. A 6-point Likert scale was used to measure motivation to learn English, Japanese, and Policy Studies as well as IP (see Appendix).

Variables related to motivation to learn L2 and L3

To assess students’ intended effort to learn English (α = .72) and Japanese (α = .74; e.g. ‘Compared to my classmates, I think I study English / Japanese relatively hard’), five items for each variable were taken from Yashima (2002) and Ryan (2009).

Four items each were drawn from Ryan (2009) and Taguchi, Magid, and Papi (2009) to evaluate attitudes toward learning English (α = .75) and Japanese (α = .81; e.g. ‘I really enjoy learning English / Japanese’).

Moreover, four items per variable were adopted from Ryan (2009) to evaluate the ideal L2 self (α = .78) and ideal L3 self (α = .89; e.g. ‘Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using English/Japanese’). Lastly, three items were taken from Taguchi, Magid, and Papi (2009) to assess the ought-to L2 self (α = .69), and four items were adjusted from the same study to assess the ought-to L3 self (α = .74; e.g. ‘It will have a negative impact on my life if I do not learn English/Japanese’). One item of ought-to L2 self was excluded to ensure a higher Cronbach α.

IP

Sixteen items, including four items for each sub-section, were taken from Yashima (2009) to assess IP (e.g. ‘I try to avoid talking with students from other countries if I can’; α = .84).

Intended effort to learn policy studies

Five items were taken from Kojima and Yashima (2017), which was modified based on Yashima (2002) and Ryan (2009), to assess the intended effort to learn course content, Policy Studies (α = .90; e.g. ‘I think I spend fairly long hours studying things related to Policy Studies’).

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to expand on the findings from the quantitative data and explore deeper into the students’ individual perceptions on the value of learning English and Japanese and the relationship between learning English, Japanese, and Policy Studies. Interview questions were centred around these themes, but allowed for new themes to emerge from the participants.

Data analysis

SPSS Statistics Version 24 was applied to analyse the quantitative data. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted, respectively. To respond to RQ3 and RQ4, the interview data were first transcribed and reread several times before coding was conducted, using qualitative content analysis techniques (Aizawa et al. 2023; Selvi 2020). The first round of coding consisted of examining the interview data carefully, blocking off the data into sections with a few words to several sentences, which were then coded to capture the central meaning of each section. Notes were taken to record the researchers’ thought process during this stage of coding. The second round of coding consisted of grouping some codes into higher-level concepts (categories). Categories from the research literature, as well as RQ3 and RQ4, were adapted where applicable. Lastly, categories from all participants’ data were compared and collated.

Results

The descriptive statistics for each variable were calculated before answering the research questions (Table 2).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of each variable.

Variables		Mean (SD)
English	Intended effort to learn L2	4.00 (.81)
	Attitude to learning L2	4.22 (.92)
	Ideal L2 self	5.19 (.74)
	Ought-to L2 self	4.16 (1.11)
Japanese	Intended effort to learn L3	4.06 (.90)
	Attitude to learning L3	4.14 (.94)
	Ideal L3 self	4.09 (1.14)
	Ought-to L3 self	3.50 (.99)
	IP	4.54 (.63)
Policy Studies	The intended effort to learn Policy Studies	3.98 (1.11)

The descriptive statistics for GPA and IELTS scores were also calculated (Table 3). Notably, seven respondents did not have scores because they had received their education in English during the last six years. Hence, they were exempted from submitting the scores during the admission process.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of GPA and IELTS.

	Mean	SD	Highest	Lowest	Skewness	Kurtosis
GPA	4.04	.51	4.75	2.33	−1.5	2.4
IELTS	6.93	.67	8.50	5.50	.26	.14

To answer RQ1 (i.e. ‘Are English proficiency, GPA, L2 learning motivation, L3 learning motivation, IP and Policy Studies learning motivation related? If so, how?’), correlation analyses were conducted (Table 4). In line with previous research (e.g. Ryan 2009; Taguchi, Magid, and Papi 2009), there were relatively strong positive correlations between the intended effort to learn English and attitude toward learning L2 (r = .50, p < .001), as well as attitude toward learning L2 and the ideal L2 self (r = .54, p < .001). The variables related to L3 learning motivation were interrelated: Regarding intended effort to learn L2, relatively large positive correlations were found with a positive attitude toward learning L3 (r = .69, p < .001) and ideal L3 self (r = .58, p < .001). The positive correlation between the intended effort to learn L3 and ought-to L3 self was weak (r = .33, p < .001). Furthermore, there were relatively strong positive correlations between attitude toward learning L3 and ideal L3 self (r = .69, p < .001) in addition to attitude toward learning L3 and L3 ought-to self (r = .43, p < .001). Finally, a relatively large positive correlation was observed between the L3 ideal self and the L3 ought-to self (r = .57, p < .001).

Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficient among the motivation variables.

	Attitude toward learning L2	Ideal L2 self	Ought-to L2 self	Intended effort to learn L3	Attitude toward learning L3	Ideal L3 self	Ought-to L3 Self	IP	Intended effort to learn Policy Studies
Intended effort to learn L2	.50***	.16	.46***	.28*	.10	−.04	.30*	.19	.52***
Attitude toward learning English		.54***	.32***	.23	.22	.08	.31*	.44***	.60***
Ideal L2 self			.14	.06	−.04	.00	−.07	.62***	.42***
Ought-to L2 self				−.02	−.04	−.05	.41***	.17	.17
Intended effort to learn L3					.69***	.58***	.33***	.08	.10
Attitude toward learning L3						.69***	.43***	.04	−.01
Ideal L3 self							.57***	−.09	−.23
Ought-to L3 self								.00	.12
IP									. 52***

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.

Unlike previous studies, negative correlations between variables for learning L2 and L3 were not observed (e.g. Csizér and Dörnyei 2005; Simic, Tanaka, and Yashima 2007). Instead, weak positive correlations were found between the ought-to L3 self and intended effort to learn L2 (r = .30, p < .01), and between the ought-to L3 self and attitude toward learning English (r = .31, p < .01). Relatively strong positive correlations were found between the ought-to L3 self and the ought-to L2 self (r = .41, p < .001). Regarding intended effort to learn Policy Studies, relatively strong positive correlations were observed with intended effort to learn English (r = .52, p < .001), attitude toward learning English (r = .60, p < .001), and ideal L2 self (r = .42, p < .001). Regarding IP, positive correlations were observed with variables related to L2 but not L3, concurring with Siridetkoon (2015). To illustrate, relatively large positive correlations were found with ideal L2 self (r = .62, p < .001) and attitude toward learning English (r = .44, p < .001). Furthermore, IP positively correlated with intended effort to learn Policy Studies (r = .52, p < .001).

Regarding GPA, relatively large positive correlations were found with the ideal L2 self (r = .49, p < .001), IP (r = .41, p < .001), and intended effort to learn Policy Studies (r = .44, p < .001). A weak positive correlation was found between GPA and attitude toward learning English (r = .32, p < .001; Table 5). None of the motivation variables to learn L3 was statistically related to the intended effort to learn Policy Studies, IP, or GPA. None of the variables, including those related to IP, GPA, or motivation to learn L2, L3, or Policy Studies, significantly correlated with English proficiency.

Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficient between GPA and the motivation variable.

	Intended effort to learn L2	Attitude toward learning L2	Ideal L2 self	Ought-to L2 self	Intended effort to learn L3	Attitude toward learning L3	Ideal L3 self	Ought-to L3 Self	IP	Intended effort to learn Policy Studies
GPA	.14	.32***	.49***	.02	.06	.17	.02	.06	.41***	.44***

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted to answer RQ2 (‘Which variables are beneficial in predicting students’ GPAs?’). GPA was a dependent variable. Variables related to L2 learning (i.e. the intended effort to learn English, attitude toward learning English, ideal L2 self, and ought-to L2 self), L3 learning (i.e. the intended effort to learn L3, attitude toward learning Japanese, ideal L3 self, and ought-to L3 self), IP, the intended effort to learn Policy Studies, and IELTS scores were utilised as independent variables. A regression model for the predictors of GPA was significant (F [2, 56] = 12.55, p < .001, η² = .31; Table 6). The results indicated that ideal L2 self (β = .39, p < .01) and intended effort to learn Policy Studies (β = .27, p < .05) were predictive of GPA. The VIFs were assessed and no problems were observed. The scores were 1.19 for both ideal L2 self and intended effort to learn Policy Studies.

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis with GPA as dependent variable and L2 motivation, L3 motivation, Policy Studies motivation, and IELTS scores as independent variables.

	B	SEB	Β
Ideal L2 self	.27	.08	.39**
Intended effort to learn Policy Studies	.21	.06	.27*
Intercept	2.15	.40

R² = 0.31, F [2, 56] = 12.55, ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, η² = .31, VIF = 1.19

Thirty-three categories related to RQ3 (‘How does an individual student see the value of L2 in an EMI program?’) and RQ4 (‘RQ4. How do individual students see the value of L3 in an EMI program?’) emerged from the qualitative analysis. The categories were then divided into three groups, which are explained in detail in following section. The original categories can be found in the online resources.

Using global English to enhance L2 proficiency and motivation

The qualitative data revealed that the participants developed their English proficiency through SA and valued this, though it did not surprise them because they expected this outcome from the beginning. Danna and Lindsay expressed that they expected a natural improvement of their English proficiency because they would be studying in English. Ashley decided to study in Program A, believing that learning in English would enhance her English skills, providing her with more ‘opportunities for my future career.’ This expectation was seemingly fulfilled, with all participants interviewed having perceived a sense of improvement in their English proficiency during SA. Some participants described how English skills, such as reading, listening, writing, and speaking, had improved during their time in Japan. For example, Nathan and Cho felt they had improved their reading skills by tackling academic journals, and Lindsey expressed that her productive skills (speaking and writing) had improved. Danna felt that her fluency in speaking English had improved. Simultaneously, participants expressed confidence in English during the interviews. Howard said, ‘On average, I could understand 90% or maybe 95% [of the lectures]. I am quite confident with many classes.’ Danna stated that her English is similar to her L1, Vietnamese. ‘I think it [English] is just like a language I speak now. Like I read books in English, I talk in English, but I do not study Vietnamese.’

Although the participants had high confidence in their English, they were still motivated to improve it. For example, Ashley said, ‘Learning in Program A pushed me into learning English because I realized there are many terminologies that I do not know.’ Danna also said, ‘It [learning Policy Studies in English] does motivate me to learn a bit more English to understand the materials.’ Howard stated, ‘English is very important because it helps me as a researcher or as a student to read a lot of different journal articles and connect with many professors.’ Seniors (i.e. Lindsey, Danna, and Howard) mentioned they studied English to gain a high IELTS score for their master’s degree, as they were applying for English-taught graduate schools. Furthermore, many participants mentioned the importance of English for success in their careers.

The qualitative data showed that students recognised the value of English as a lingua franca, which helped maintain their motivation to learn English. William said, ‘as a student and an employee, in order to find a great job, English is really necessary.’ Ashely stated that learning in English mattered more for her future than the course content. ‘I basically use my studies in Policy Studies as a way to improve my English.’

SA in Japan as an opportunity to ‘experience the world’

Many participants stated that they desired to live abroad, thus choosing to go on a SA. Howard, from Indonesia, wanted to move outside his comfort zone and was admitted to two Japanese universities; he chose Program A because it has fewer Indonesian students. In the interview, Danna from Vietnam clarified that she was not interested in Japan in particular but stated, ‘I just wanted to go somewhere else, like go abroad. I think Japan is a great place to experience the world.’ She perceived the country as part of the international community and used SA as a chance to join that community. Like Howard and Danna, the qualitative data showed that many participants’ aims for SA in Japan were not to learn Japanese culture or language but to ‘experience the world’ in Japan. Cho expressed that ‘living in Japan broadened my mind,’ and Danna mentioned, ‘I am learning about so many things around the world, so many great stories. It does humble you somehow.’ For these students, Japan is an international community where people communicate in English, not Japanese.

In contrast, only William (interested in Japanese literature) and Cho (interested in Japanese politics) expressed a specific interest in SA in Japan. However, even for them, interest in Japanese literature or politics was one among many reasons for applying for Program A. For example, they also voiced negative attitudes toward the educational system in their country, which made them think about SA. Cho said, ‘I really hate the Korean education system. That is why learning in Korea […] felt awkward [for me].’ They also expressed financial reasons for choosing Japan as an SA destination. Cho and William considered academic and non-academic factors in deciding on programmes to apply to, with their interest in Japanese language and culture being only one of them.

Challenges in maintaining initial motivation and interest in learning L3

As noted in the previous section, learning Japanese was not the main reason for most of the students in this study to study in Japan. However, they valued learning L3 Japanese/L2 English simultaneously and viewed being multilingual as important. Lindsey and Ashley claimed that they had applied for Program A in part to learn English and Japanese. Ashley noted the importance of Japanese to enhance her academic learning.

I think it [learning Japanese and Policy Studies] is really connected, especially when you are doing research and that is based in Japan. I could actually understand and read in Japanese when I could not access certain literature in English. So yeah, I think it really helps if I am able to understand Japanese.

Paul expressed that learning multiple languages is ‘significant.’ Furthermore, everyone but Paul valued learning Japanese as a means to living in Japan and understanding the culture. William, for example, stated:

I think it [learning Japanese] is quite important because since I am in this country. I should respect the local culture, and if I can improve my skills and communicate with the local people more fluently, they may also think I am respecting their culture, and they will pay me back with more respect.

The participants valued learning L3, but sustaining their motivation to learn Japanese was challenging, especially in finding opportunities to use it. International students often spend time with other international students and have difficulty joining the communities of domestic students (Duff 2007; Morita 2004; Trentman 2013). The participants in the present study confessed that they did not often use Japanese and only spoke it when shopping or at a restaurant, meaning they needed only basic Japanese in their daily lives. Danna said, ‘I did not really put much emphasis on learning Japanese. At first, I did, but now there is actually no pressure [to learn Japanese]. I did not interact much with Japanese friends.’

Contrarily, the curriculum expects students to achieve an intermediate Japanese level by the end of their degree. The participants perceived the required Japanese classes as demanding and mentioned that they had obtained low grades. Nathan said, ‘Japanese, the only problem I have is with Japanese. I struggle a lot with Japanese [courses]. So far, my worst grades were [from] Japanese [classes].’ They also perceived Japanese as difficult to learn. The following excerpt reflects Paul’s frustration with learning Japanese.

I have to practice, practice, practice […] I don’t have enough time to spend practicing, especially Kanji (Chinese characters). The Japanese language is one of the most difficult languages I have ever learned.

He also decided not to take any Japanese language courses once he completed the prerequisites for graduation to keep his GPA high enough for the scholarship.

For all participants except William and Cho, being a Japanese speaker was not part of their future selves. As Howard stated, ‘I do not have any plan to stay in Japan after graduating, so I put learning Japanese last.’ They recognised that the importance of learning Japanese was limited to living in Japan. In contrast, Cho and William, who strongly desired to use Japanese in the future, maintained their high motivation to learn Japanese. William put great effort into studying Japanese, such as watching YouTube videos, because he wanted to pursue a master’s degree in a Japanese-based programme. He stated, ‘By the time I graduate, if my Japanese level is high enough, I may consider choosing a major taught in Japanese because the majors taught in English, the options are really limited. I am actually interested in literature, especially Japanese literature.’

As the data shows, although students acknowledge the significance of learning Japanese, sustaining their initial interest in learning Japanese in this EMI context is fairly challenging. However, those who aspire to use Japanese in the future were guided by this desire and could sustain their motivation.

Discussion and implications

Combining the questionnaire and interviews results, the discussion addresses the following themes: The significance of the ideal L2 self in the EMI context and isolated Japanese learning motivation in the EMI context.

Significance of ideal L2 self in the EMI context

Both the qualitative and quantitative data uncovered the significant role of L2 motivation in this context: Students who were motivated to learn English put effort into learning Japanese and Policy Studies, and those with vivid images of themselves as English speakers were more motivated to learn Policy Studies. Finally, the ideal L2 self and intended effort to learn Policy Studies were beneficial predictors for GPA. It means that participants with a clear vision of themselves as English speakers in the future and dedicated to learning Policy Studies performed better in Program A. However, these results contradict those of Rose et al. (2020) and Xie and Curle (2022), which reported the absence of a direct statistical connection between the ideal L2 self and students’ performance in EMI. Rose et al. (2020) also collected qualitative data in the aforementioned study, which indicated that the students’ long-term career vision as English speakers could be important for success in EMI. Doiz and Lasagabaster (2018) considered the ideal L2 self in EMI as consisting of one’s wish to become a member of an imagined international community and have a better career. Considering previous studies’ findings, this study asked participants about their long-term career visions (e.g. ‘Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using English’) and images as members of an international community (e.g. ‘I can imagine speaking English with international friends’) in the initial questionnaire. This could be a reason the quantitative data in this study revealed that students with vivid images of themselves as L2 speakers succeeded in Program A.

Another possible reason for our results differing from those of earlier findings could be this study’s context. The qualitative data indicated that students chose Japan as a SA destination to join an imagined international community. After enrolment, they met students from different countries who desired discussions and group work in English in a diverse community. Furthermore, approximately 50% of the students go on to attend prestigious postgraduate programmes yearly. As six participants stated in their interviews that they would like to pursue a graduate degree in EMI programmes, their peers inspired them to develop ideal selves with successful global careers. This might be why the ideal L2 self is seen to have a significant role in this EMI context.

Regarding the relationship between ideal L2/L3 self and IP, this study’s results confirmed earlier findings that learners of English and Japanese seemed to rely on English, not Japanese, as a tool to achieve IP (Siridetkoon 2015). Some students stated in the interview that they viewed Japan as a place to ‘experience the world’ and that the university and Program A offered an ‘international learning environment’ to use and learn English.

The distinctive nature of Japanese learning motivation

As the qualitative results show, some students had initial motivation to learn Japanese, and many valued the concept of multilingualism. However, apart from the two students who seemingly developed a future self, using L3 Japanese and the motivation to learn L3 dwindled for most participants. Although they had the choice to take Japanese classes after gaining the mandatory credits, they often opted not to. Although initially they were not against learning Japanese, the desire to learn L3 Japanese was only among a plethora of reasons for choosing Japan as they perceived Japan as a place to ‘experience the world.’ In addition, they rarely had opportunities or the need to use the language outside the classroom. As L3 motivation is fairly context dependent (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2021), this lack of opportunities to use Japanese might have significantly impacted their motivation.

Furthermore, we found that the interrelation between L2/L3 was limited, and the cross-linguistic influence mentioned by Henry (2014) rarely appeared in interviews. These results contradict findings of a competitive relationship between L2 and L3 motivation (e.g. Csizér and Dörnyei 2005; Fukui and Yashima 2021; Henry 2010). One reason may be that participants’ Japanese motivation simply could not become an equal contender to English motivation in this study. Unlike the participants in Galloway and Ruegg (2022) or Fukui and Yashima (2021), which reported the significance of students’ integrativeness (Gardner 1985) when choosing an SA destination and L3, only two students mentioned choosing Japan owing to their interest in Japanese literature or politics. Furthermore, they felt that they needed more commitment to learn Japanese than they expected before SA. The L3 classes were quite demanding, and a high GPA was prioritised. This lack of integrativeness and negative learning experience, which strongly affects students’ motivation (Lamb 2012; Teimouri 2017), presumably lowered their L3 motivation compared to their L2 motivation, leading them to only take the prerequisite credits needed to graduate.

Although the current study did not adopt a timescale, a dynamic perspective on language learning suggested by Verspoor (2015) is also helpful to understanding students’ motivational trajectory. She proposed that language learning motivation can be compared to a ball sliding left (negative) or right (positive) with any slight force. She uses the example of an L2 learner of Hungarian who has a neutral impression of the L2 before entering the classroom, but the student’s experiences, such as how the teacher teaches and/or tiredness from other engagements, may push the ball to either the negative or the positive side. The main point of the metaphor is that if the ball stays on one side for a long time, it will slowly sink into the ground, making it harder to move; thus, the longer the participant is in a particular state, the harder it would be to change. The retrospective interviews showed how the student’s neutral or slightly positive motivation to learn L3 slid to the negative in Japan, as many students felt that the Japanese classes were too difficult for them, and they had no need to use Japanese in their immediate tightknit community. More studies are needed to draw a conclusion, but the data indicate that in such a context, no experience can sway the ball to the positive side, suggesting that their motivation ‘ball’ was further entrenched on the negative side. Although the Japanese government and universities expected that students would naturally learn Japanese and gain interest in staying in Japan through the EMI programmes, it seems that L3 learning in this context is more complex and needs support.

Conclusions

This study investigated the relevance of L2 motivation, L3 motivation, and international posture to students’ success in an EMI programme using a mixed-method approach. The results showed that students considered English as a means to join an international community but not Japanese. Additionally, students with a vivid image of themselves as English speakers had greater success and placed high value on English as a lingua franca during their SA in Japan and in their future careers. In contrast, L3 motivation was too peripheral and fragile to counter L2 motivation. Numerous participants seemed to lose their initial curiosity and motivation to learn Japanese due to negative learning experiences and its perceived irrelevance to their future plans.

Considering pedagogical implications for English, providing an environment where students can update their ideal L2 self is essential, by providing them opportunities to exchange their ideas in English through discussions. Similar to Kojima (2021), we found that participants regarded group work as effective to ‘experience the world,’ become more aware of cultural differences, and further develop their ideal L2 self.

Regarding learning Japanese, this study revealed that L3 motivation was quite context-dependent, with students struggling to sustain their initial motivation owing to the lack of opportunities to use Japanese. In other words, providing students with ample opportunities to use Japanese in and outside classrooms to help them imagine their ideal selves as Japanese speakers is critical to motivating them. For example, universities can apply a buddy system to create opportunities to use Japanese with domestic students to practice their L3 (Fukui 2023). Furthermore, Japanese classes can cultivate an ideal L3 self to protect students’ initial interest in learning L3 (Dörnyei and Ushioda 2021; Henry 2014).

We have to mention that the interviews were voluntary, so the participants might have had higher motivation than other students, potentially impacting the results. Furthermore, follow-up interviews were conducted in English, the L2. Had they been conducted in L1, the depth of interviews might have improved. In future research, multiple perspectives of L2/L3 motivation, applying willingness to communicate in L2/L3 and including time scales to gain an in-depth understanding of their motivational trajectories, could be beneficial. Moreover, a quantitative study with a larger sample could yield more robust results.

Despite these limitations, this study revealed that living in Japan for four years did not automatically motivate the students to learn L3 Japanese. Universities and EMI programmes need to understand that to protect and nurture their students’ curiosity and eagerness to learn L2 and L3, curricula and teaching approaches must be designed and operationalised appropriately.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the participants and reviewers for their valuable comments and feedback. In addition, we also would like to show our appreciation to Dr. Martin Lamb for his comments and advice during the revision process.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in Mendeley Data at doi:10.17632/5bt5rkk9wn.1.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS; 22K00724).

Appendix

Intended effort to learn English (Yashima 2002; Ryan 2008)

1. Compared to my classmates, I think I study English relatively hard.

2. I am prepared to expend a lot of effort in learning English.

3. I think I spend fairly long hours studying English.

4. I am working hard at learning English.

5. After I graduate from CRPS, I will continue to study English and try to improve.

Attitude to learning English (Ryan 2008)

6	I really enjoy leaning English.
7	I am always looking forward to my EAP classes.
8	I find learning English really interesting.
9	Learning English is one of the most important aspects in my life.

Ideal L2 self (Ryan, 2008)

10	Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using English.
11	The things I want to do in the future require me to use English.
12	I can imagine speaking English with international friends.
13	When I think about my future, it is important that I use English.

Ought-to L2 self (Taguchi, Magid, and Papi 2009)

14	Learning English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do so.
15	I consider learning English important because the people I respect think that I should do it.
16	Studying English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to speak English.

Intended effort to learn Japanese (adopted from Yashima 2002)

17	Compared to my classmates, I think I study Japanese relatively hard.
18	I am prepared to expend a lot of effort in learning Japanese.
19	I think I spend fairly long hours studying Japanese.
20	I am working hard at learning Japanese.
21	After I graduate from CRPS, I will continue to study Japanese and try to improve.

Attitude to learning Japanese (adopted from Ryan 2008)

22	I really enjoy leaning Japanese.
23	I am always looking forward to my Japanese classes.
24	I find learning Japanese really interesting.
25	Learning Japanese is one of the most important aspects in my life.

Ideal L3 self (adopted from Ryan 2008; Taguchi, Magid, and Papi 2009)

26	Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself using Japanese.
27	The things I want to do in the future require me to use Japanese.
28	I imagine myself who is able to speak Japanese.
29	When I think about my future, it is important that I use Japanese.

Ought-to L3 self (adopted from Ryan 2008)

30	Learning Japanese is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do so.
31	I consider learning Japanese important because the people I respect think that I should do it.
32	Studying English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to speak Japanese.
33	It will have a negative impact on my life if I do not learn Japanese.

Intended effort to learn policy studies (adopted from Yashima 2002)

34	Compared to my classmates, I think I study policy studies relatively hard.
35	I am prepared to expend a lot of effort in learning policy studies (e.g. seminar, research projects, social issues learned in class).
36	I think I spend fairly long hours studying things related to policy studies.
37	I am working hard at learning policy studies.
38	After I graduate from CRPS, I will continue to study policy studies.

International Posture (Yashima 2009)

Intergroup approach avoidance tendency

39	I want to make more friends with students from different countries studying in Japan.
40	I try to avoid talking with students from other countries if I can.
41	I would not mind sharing an apartment or room with a student from a different country.
42	I want to participate in a volunteer activity to help other foreigners living in the surrounding community.

Interest in international vocation and activities

43	I want to work in a foreign country.
44	I want to work in an international organisation such as the United Nations.
45	I am interested in international career.
46	I do not think what is happening overseas has much to do with my daily life.

Interests in international news

47	I often read and watch news about foreign countries.
48	I often talk about situations and events in foreign countries with my family and/or friends.
49	I have a strong interest in international affairs.
50	I am not much interested in overseas news.

Having things to communicate to the world

51	I have thoughts that I want to share with people from other parts of the world.
52	I have issues to address with people in the world.
53	I have ideas about international issues, such as environmental issues and north-south issues.
54	I have no clear opinions about international issues.