Are Filipino Students ’ L 2 Learning Goals Performance-or Mastery-oriented ? An Explanatory Sequential Analysis

Whether students’ goals for learning English as a second language (L2) are oriented towards performing better than others or mastering one’s skills had not been traditionally investigated in language motivational research. Premised on Pintrich’s (2000) revised achievement goal theory, this explanatory sequential research (Creswell, 2014) examined the influence of learners’ goal orientation in L2 to their writing and speaking performances. 162 Filipino students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) course in a University in Manila participated in the study. They initially accomplished the Goal Orientation in A L2 Scale (GOALS) developed to fit the current context, α= .93. Then, they took two language tests, i.e., a group conversation in English for L2 speaking and an individual essay for L2 writing. Both were administered in the EAP classes as an entry requirement. Analyses yielded significant results on the influence of goal orientation on both speaking and writing. Results suggest that students with a performance orientation to L2 learning performed significantly better than those with either a mastery or a multiple goal orientation. In keeping with the sequential design, the researchers proceeded with semi-structured interviews among nine purposefully selected respondents to understand the quantitative results in greater detail. The follow-up interviews focused on two aspects of the statistical results: maladaptive influence of multiple orientation and the adaptive influence of performance orientation in L2 learning. The paper closes with implications for research and language teaching.


INTRODUCTION
Although language learning motivation has been one of the most productive areas in L2 research, L2 goal orientation as a motivational construct has not traditionally been used to inform empirical studies in the area.
Empirical studies on L2 motivation in various contexts and with diverse group of learners had been too biased towards early motivational theories, which, for Dörnyei (2009), lacked insights from trends in cognitive motivational research.One such trend is a focus on the various influences of individual differences to learning a L2, which for Ehrman, Leaver and Oxford (2003) is very complex, such that it "meant little conclusive knowledge and thus need for continuing investigation" (p.313).
Although several other factors of individual differences warrant empirical investigations, the present study aimed to contribute to understanding what could be the influence of goal orientation to L2 learning, an area that is largely understudied.In fact, goal orientation as a L2 motivation construct has not traditionally received much attention from researchers examining psychological variables in L2 learning (Matos, Lens & Vansteenkiste, 2007).
Taken broadly, goal orientation is a person's disposition to develop or validate his/her ability in achievement contexts.In learning achievement settings, goal orientation is defined as a "desire to develop the self by acquiring new skills, mastering new situations, and improving one's competence" (VandeWalle, 1997(VandeWalle, , p. 1000)).Individuals differ in goal orientation in that they may either espouse mastery goal orientation, which is associated with greater intrinsic motivation, or performance goal orientation, which is associated with more extrinsic motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997).More recently, multiple goal orientation i.e., approach performance coupled with mastery goals, has been argued as a separate pathway through which individuals approach learning and achievement (Pintrich, 2000).It is necessary to study language learners' goal orientation, because of its intricate links to outcomes and performance (Dweck, 1986;Pintrich, 2000).
Premised on Pintrich's (2000) revised achievement goal theory, the researchers report the result of a bigger investigation on the various influences of psychological variables on L2 learning and performance.Hypothesizing that a learner's goal orientation influences L2 learning addresses the need to explore models of motivation from educational and social psychologists not directly involved in L2 research (Noelset al., 2000).
Extant literature on achievement goal found favorable gains in academic performance when students espoused a mastery (Elliot & Dweck, 1988;Kaplan et al., 2002;Pintrich, 2000;Macayan, 2012a;Macayan & San Jose, 2013) or a performance approach to learning (Church et al., 2001;Harackiewicz et al., 2002;Elliot & Church, 1997).Under a revised goal orientation theory, it was also found that those who exhibited multiple goal orientations, i.e., approach performance and mastery goals, were just as adaptive as those who exhibited a mastery goal orientation (Pintrich, 2000).Many of these studies, however, were not in the context of L2 learning, but rather, on mathematics learning (Pintrich, 2000;Macayan, 2012a) and digital arts (Macayan & San Jose, 2013).
To date, except for very little hints one could find in previous language motivation research, very little is known about the influence of language learners' goal orientation to L2 speaking and writing (Matos et al., 2007).It is therefore the aim of this study to explore the utility of goal orientation as a motivation construct in L2 learning and use Pintrich's (2000) revised goal orientation theory to examine the influences of different L2 goal orientations to L2 speaking and writing performance.To accomplish this aim, the researchers used Creswell's (2014) mixed methods, explanatory sequential design.In this design, the researchers initially carried out a quantitative analysis and then built on the quantitative results and explained them in greater detail through a follow-up qualitative analysis.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
L2 motivation research contends that learners feel motivated to learn a language because of various intrinsic and extrinsic forces.From achieving communicative competence (Quinto & Castillo, 2016;Macayan & Quinto, 2015) to gaining leverage in the workplace (Borlongan & Quinto, 2015;Quinto, 2014), much had been explicated about the intended outcomes of L2 learning.However, very few paid their attention in determining the orientation of L2 goals, that is, their goals for learning a L2 (Matos et al., 2007).
As an antecedent to current goal orientation theories, Dweck (1986) categorizes these orientations as either learning goals, i.e., 'in which individuals seek to increase their competence, to understand or master something new,' or performance goals, 'in which individuals seek to gain favorable judgments of their competence or avoid negative judgments of their competence' (p.1040).Covington (2000), in his review of motives-asgoals research, described the embodiment of these orientations using the achievement goal theory (e.g.Ames, 1992;Dweck, 1986;Urdan, 1997;Urdan & Maehr, 1995, in Covington, 2000) and defined mastery orientation as 'increasing one's competency, understanding, and appreciation for what is being learned' and performance orientation as 'outperforming others as a means to aggrandize one's ability status at the expense of peers ' (p. 174).
Under a normative achievement goal theory, mastery orientation was found to be more adaptive than performance orientation.More recently, however, Pintrich (2000) made a more nuanced argument for the nature of learning goals by proposing an orientation where individuals espouse approach performance goals coupled with mastery goals, calling this multiple goal orientation.Along this revised goal perspective theory, Pintrich contended that those who exhibited multiple goal orientations were just as adaptive as those who exhibited a mastery goal orientation under the normative achievement goal theory.Pintrich further explained that those who espoused multiple goals were not more anxious and did not extend their efforts towards their abilities, while Barron and Harackiewicz (2001) contend that mastery and performance orientations were simultaneously used to please the desire of both orientations, i.e., increase learners' abilities and show how good they can demonstrate their abilities.Nonetheless, other studies found debilitating impact of multiple goals compared with those having single goal orientation (Urdan et al., 2002;Mattern, 2005).
Generally, under the normative achievement goal theory, mastery goals are considered the adaptive forms of achievement goal, compared with 'maladaptive' performance goals.This notion is supported by motivational goal research in mathematics learning (Macayan, 2012a) and even in learning digital art (Macayan & San Jose, 2013).Adaptive and maladaptive forms of goal orientation do not only operate within specific domains but also within specific cultures.Macayan (2012b), in his analytic review of 'Asian conceptions' of achievement goals, argued that the influence of goal structures on various outcomes becomes problematic when cultural nuances are factored in.In collectivistic cultures, such as the Filipino culture, both mastery and performance seemed to have positively influenced various aspects of learning (Macayan, 2012b).
As for language learning, a study is yet to be done explicitly utilizing goal orientation theory to determine whether the same forms of achievement goal hold true in this domain.At present, the researchers could only take hints from L2 motivation research, since very little had been done on achievement goals and language learning given.Gardner's (1985) language learning motivation contains 'orientation' in the goal-level, where an integrativeness/instrumental dichotomy exists.However, this goal orientation, Dörnyei (1998) explains, is not part of the core motivation component and as such acts simply as a motivational component.Moreover, Dörnyei (2009) criticized Gardner and Lambert's (1959) integrative motivation framework saying it lacks necessary insights from trends in cognitive motivational research.More recently, the relevance of goal orientation theories became apparent in language motivation research.L2 motivation researchers endorse increasing students' goal-orientedness (Dörnyei & Csizer, 1998), understanding language learning 'goal orientations' or 'the reasons why a task is undertaken' (p.466), and raising the explicitness of goal orientation (Griffiths & Oxford, 2014).For one, Jahedizadeh et al. (2016) used Midgley et al.'s (1998) Achievement Goal Orientation Inventory and found that mastery goals, along with other student factors, had positive effects on students' achievement.
Very little had since been done to mainstream goal orientation theories in language learning research (Matos et al., 2007), particularly in the context of language motivation research in the Philippines.Hence, one objective was to explicitly use the revised achievement goal theory (Pintrich, 2000) and examine the predictive power of goal orientation to L2 speaking and writing, as a response to an earlier challenge along this line (Noels et al., 2000).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As one of the first attempts to utilize the revised achievement goal theory (Pintrich, 2000) in the domain of L2 learning, the researchers used an explanatory sequential approach in dealing with the influence of goal orientation to L2 speaking and writing.In keeping with the conventions of an explanatory sequential design, the researchers initially answered two quantitative research questions: 1. What are the goal orientations and L2 speaking and writing performance scores of the participants?2. Does students' goal orientation in learning a L2 influence their L2 speaking and writing performance?
Based on the results of the quantitative phase, two issues emerged which were dealt with in a follow-up, qualitative phase: 3. What contextual factors appeared to have led to a maladaptive form of multiple goal orientation in learning L2? 4. Why was a performance approach seemed more adaptive than a mastery approach in learning an L2?

METHODOLOGY
To achieve the goals of this study, the researchers used Creswell's (2014) mixed methods, explanatory sequential mixed design.In this design, 'the initial quantitative data results are explained further with the qualitative data.It is considered sequential because the initial quantitative phase is followed by the qualitative phase ' (p. 44).This type of mixed methods design, according to Creswell (2014), typically appeals to individuals with a strong quantitative background.Its purpose is 'to understand data at a more detailed level by using qualitative follow-up data to help explain a quantitative database, such as a survey' (O'Cathain, Murphy & Nicholl, 2007in Creswell, 2014, p. 177).This overarching research design consisted of two phases.The design used in each specific phase, participants and sampling, data gathering tools and procedures, and data analyses are discussed under each phase.

QUANTITATIVE PHASE
In the initial quantitative phase, the researchers employed the predictive cross-sectional design in Johnson's (2001) new classification of non-experimental quantitative research.This design aimed at determining the influence of certain variables called predictors (i.e., goal orientation) to a set of criterion variables (i.e., L2 speaking and L2 writing) without applying manipulation procedures.Overall, the participants were recruited from a college setting, which is most suitable setting when assessing ability-related variables (Brookhart, Walsh & Zientarski, 2007), as in the case of the criterion variables.
In the initial quantitative phase, 162 participants (male = 112; female = 50) were recruited from an engineering university in Manila, Philippines.The university prides itself as a premiere engineering university, having achieved the distinction as the first Southeast Asian university accredited programs by the distinguished United States-based Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET).The participants were freshman engineering students enrolled in the first English language course required in their curriculum, i.e., English for Academic Purposes (EAP).Their ages ranged from 16-21 at the time of data gathering.They were recruited using purposive sampling based on enrollment in the aforementioned English language course.
Two types of data gathering instruments were used in this phase: a scale for measuring goal orientation and performance tests for L2 performance.To measure the independent variable, the researchers developed the Goal Orientation in a L2 Scale (GOALS) following the procedures for psychometric test development (Morgado et al., 2017).A separate sample of 180 participants from the same University and enrolled in the same EAP course participated in the test development.The aim was to develop a reliable scale that fits this study's participants and context.The initial version consisted of 60 items, while the final version consisted of 50 items.The scale contains L2 learning-related situations, which participants accomplished by choosing their likely response.Sample situations include, 'When preparing for an oral presentation, which situation would more likely describe you' and 'During writing tasks, which situation would more likely describe your goal.'Under each item, the responses correspond to the three types of goal orientation for learning a L2, theoretically informed by Pintrich's (2000) revised goal orientation theory.The final version of the scale was reliable with an overall internal consistency of α= .94.
For the dependent variables, the researchers used data from the ongoing entry-level speaking and writing tests, which have been set to coincide with data gathering.All freshman students enrolled in the University take these tests as an entry requirement in their EAP class.Entry-level English language test scores for speaking and writing are given freshman students as they enroll in EAP and take the tests.Hence, for L2 speaking, the measure involved students participating in a four-student English conversation intended for them to engage in a meaningful exchange on a topic, that is, 'Is there a generation gap between the young and the old.'For L2 writing, the students individually wrote essays about 'The one thing I'd like to change in this world.'Their scores in either test range from 1.00 (lowest) to 5.00 (highest) based on rubrics that have been in use in the University for at least ten years at the time of data gathering.
Since the participants came from classes of three different English language teachers, these teachers were also recruited to take part in the research.Endorsements were secured from different coordinators, which were then relayed to the teachers who allowed consent.They were informed of the rationale of the study and helped distribute individual consent letters to their student-participants.To ensure consistency of speaking and writing test scores, the teacher-raters recruited were only those who took part in the most recent language assessment calibration.During this quarterly language assessment calibration, a trained language scale assessor from the University's language center sits down with the teachers in actual classes for speaking calibration, where they assess students as they deliver speaker tests, and in a designated room for the writing calibration, where teachers are given sample written outputs from students.The goal is for the teachers to achieve an assessment that is within an acceptable range from the standard score, which, in this case, is that of the calibrator's.The teachers and the calibrator discuss the scores they gave and share ideas about how they assessed the students' output in that way.The idea is for the pool of language teachers to be able to use the assessment rubrics and scoring system with greater consistency.
After all data for the initial phase had been gathered, quantitative analysis followed.To this end, the one-way analysis of variance (One-way ANOVA) was used.ANOVA 'is a special case of the general linear regression model' used to determine 'whether a particular factor has an effect on the dependent variable of interest (Lattin, Carroll, & Green, 2003, p. 386).In this study, ANOVA was used to determine whether significant differences on mean scores of L2 speaking and L2 writing performance scores occur between groups of the predictor variable, i.e., mastery, performance, multiple goal orientations.

QUALITATIVE PHASE
For the follow-up qualitative phase, the aim was to provide further support for some interesting aspects of the initial quantitative results.After identifying the aspects of quantitative results that needed further explanation, the interview method followed.In particular, the researchers used semi-structured interviews as data gathering tool.Broadly defined, a semi-structured interview is a technique used to collect qualitative data by setting up a situation that allows a respondent the time and scope to talk about their opinions on a subject, in this case two aspects of the quantitative findings.The objective is to understand the respondents' point of view rather than make generalizations about behavior (New York University, n.d.).
Because of the purposes of a qualitative phase in an explanatory sequential research, the confirming case sampling technique (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006) was deemed most suitable for the selection of respondents.In this case, the quantitative results informed sampling.The researchers recruited two types of respondents: (1) those with multiple goal orientation and varying levels of L2 speaking and writing scores and (2) those with a performance goal orientation and high scores in either L2 speaking and writing.To meet these criteria for sampling, the researchers necessarily went back to the raw quantitative data and identity respondents with these profiles.A similar process of seeking endorsements and consents was carried out prior the interviews.A total of nine (male=5; female=4) respondents were identified and allowed consent for the interviews.Their ages ranged from 16 to 17 at the time of the interviews.Pseudonyms were used for ethical considerations.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted over a span of seven days in June 2016.Each interview lasted for 20-30 minutes.All interviews were audio-recorded.Audio files were saved for the broad interview transcription that followed.Data processing in the qualitative phase, and in interview studies in general, involves transcribing audio material.Because transcribing interviews could be tedious, the researchers used computer support (Schmidt, 2004), particularly an online time stretcher.It is presupposed that the interviews were transcribed with the required degree of accuracy (Flick, 2002in Schmidt, 2004).Nonetheless, after each interview had been transcribed, the researchers undertook 'corrective listening' (Hopf & Schmidt, 1993in Schmidt, 2004) to cleanse the material from transfer eISSN: 2550-2131 ISSN: 1675-8021 57 errors.During corrective listening, the researchers listened to the interview a second time at the audio's original pace with a copy of the transcribed material at hand.Had there been changes, these were incorporated into the material.This data processing procedure went on for each of the semi-structured interviews.The output was a material that was ready for coding.
After generating the interview transcripts, the researchers proceeded with the analysis of data beginning with data coding.Codes from a previous interview were necessary before the next interview.Thus, the material was coded immediately after data processing.Coding was carried out in the tradition of thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which coincides with material-oriented formation of analytical categories (Schmidt, 2004, p. 254).Here, attention in the reading of the transcripts was guided by 'the researcher's own theoretical prior knowledge and the research questions (Schmidt, 2004, p. 254).After the last sequence of interview, transcribing, and coding, the researchers reviewed and finalized the codes and themes to ensure that each identifies 'a feature of the data that appears interesting' (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 18) and could be 'assessed in a meaningful way regarding the phenomenon' (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 63).
To meet the ethical requirement of ensuring anonymity, the researchers used pseudonyms of the respondents when presenting extracts from the final interview transcript in the results.

QUANTITATIVE PHASE GOAL ORIENTATIONS AND L2 SPEAKING AND WRITING PERFORMANCE SCORES
Initial quantitative analysis revealed the participants' performance scores in L2 speaking and writing grouped according to their goal orientation.Table 1 summarizes these descriptive results.Table 1 shows the descriptive analysis of the data collected in this study.This presents the mean scores (and standard deviations) of task performance in the writing and speaking skills tests of participants with reference to their goal orientations (i.e., mastery, performance, multiple).The mean scores of the participants indicatively varied across two types of language proficiency measurements.For L2 writing, the difference in mean scores of the three goal orientations ranges from 0.6 to 1.25 distance point (mastery -performance, mastery -multiple, performance -multiple).While in L2 speaking, a distance point ranging from 0.18 -0.88 was observed.The largest disparities are observable between participants with performance goal and multiple goal orientations on their L2 writing (1.25) and L2 speaking (0.88) scores.While a slightest distance is evident between participants with performance goal and mastery goal orientations on their L2 speaking scores (0.14).
These scores were subsequently used to test for significance using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).The purpose being is to determine whether participants' goal orientations significantly differ, and thus influence task performance in the writing and speaking tests.Figure 1 shows that performance-oriented participants (x̄ = 3.72) scored higher in the L2 writing task than those with mastery (x̄ = 3.07) or multiple goal (x̄ = 2.47) orientation.The variances in scores of different groups of students based on their goal orientation were tested for significance using One-Way ANOVA and the analysis is shown in Table 2.The results show the influence of goal orientation on L2 writing, and these suggest that a student's L2 writing performance is significantly influenced by their goal orientations (i.e., performance, mastery, or multiple) [F(2,162)=43.36;p=0.00; h p 2 =0.35].With reference to the results presented comparing the L2 writing scores of students of varying goal orientations, the performance goal orientation appearing to be the most adaptive among the three types.It can be surmised from the results that the writing scores of those who espoused a performance approach to L2 learning were significantly higher than either those with a mastery and those with a multiple goal approach.The results seem to provide interesting, context-specific evidence that, as far as Filipino L2 learners are concerned, it is the performance goal orientation that is the most adaptive form of goal orientation -which is a less common finding in the literature (Church et al., 2001;Harackiewicz et al., 2000).Importantly, in contrast with Pintrich's (2000) claim, the multiple goal approach appears to be a maladaptive form of goal orientation in L2 learning.Also, the results of these analyses would potentially serve as a quantitative evidence not only on the influence of goal orientations to L2 writing, but also on the domain-relevance of goal orientations.While mastery orientation was the adaptive form of goal structures in both mathematics learning (Macayan, 2012a) and learning digital art (Macayan & San Jose, 2013), it is the performance orientation that led to most favorable influence to L2 writing in this context based on the ANOVA results.Figure 2 shows that performance-oriented participants (x̄ = 3.64) consistently scored higher in the L2 speaking task than those with mastery (x̄ = 3.5) or those with multiple goal orientation (x̄ = 2.76).The variances in scores of different groups of students based on their goal orientation were also tested for significance using One-Way ANOVA and the analysis is shown in Table 3.It revealed that a student's goal orientation significantly predicts L2 speaking performance with the performance orientation also appearing to be the most adaptive among the three types of goal orientation.The analysis of variance accrued significant results, [F(2,162)=14.79;p=0.00; h p 2 =0.15].Consistent with the results in L2 writing, language learners' goal orientations significantly influenced the L2 speaking performance.Evidently, performance goal oriented learners garnered higher scores compared with mastery and multiple goal oriented learners.

INFLUENCE OF GOAL ORIENTATION ON L2 SPEAKING PERFORMANCE
These results put forward the importance of achievement goals as predictors of students' tasks performance in language learning.And in this study, the performance goalorientation profoundly emerged as the most adaptive form of achievement goal.The findings about the salience of performance goal orientation in student's task performance in L2 learning resonate the earlier findings in previous studies (Church et al., 2001;Harackiewicz et al., 2000), while challenging widely held notions in goal structure research that either a mastery or a multiple approach was more adaptive than the performance approach (Pintrich, 2000).
Further, these new findings on the influence of goal orientation to L2 learning provides evidence on the notion of domain-relevance of goal orientations.With further evidence that contrasts findings in different learning domains (Macayan, 2012a;Macayan & San Jose, 2013), the researchers could further argue that language learning, specifically L2 learning among Filipino University students, is a domain where a performance orientation to learning is more adaptive than a mastery orientation as can be gleaned from the means of L2 speaking scores for each of the three goal orientations.
Based on the statistical results, two findings warranted further exploration through a follow-up qualitative phase.First, the smallest mean scores in both L2 writing (x̄ = 2.47) and speaking (x̄ = 2.76) are those with multiple goal orientation.Thus, the first focus of the semistructured interviews was finding reasons why multiple goal orientation seemed maladaptive in L2 learning.Second, the highest mean scores in both L2 writing (x̄ = 3.73) and speaking (x̄ = 3.64) are those with performance goal orientation, higher that the means in both L2 writing (x̄ = 3.07) and L2 speaking (x̄ = 3.50) of those with mastery goal orientation.Thus, the second focus of the semi-structured interviews was finding out why performance orientation seemed more adaptive than mastery orientation in L2 learning.In both findings, the differences in L2 writing [F(2,162)

QUALITATIVE PHASE MULTIPLE GOALS IN L2 LEARNING AS MALADAPTIVE FORM
As earlier mentioned, the quantitative results found lowest scores in both L2 writing (x̄ = 2.47) and speaking (x̄ = 2.76) went toward those with multiple goal orientation.This is in sharp contrast with findings in the context of 8 th and 9 th grade students learning mathematics, where those who espoused multiple goal orientation were as adaptive as those with a mastery goal orientation (Pintrich, 2000).The same does not seem to hold true among the university students learning English as a L2 in this study.
Semi-structured interviews revealed that the respondents did not consistently use similar strategies in either tasks.Learning-to-write goals shifted between wanting to be like others, which is a markedly performance oriented, and using available resources to write better, which is largely mastery oriented.
( Excerpts ( 1) to (3) suggest that students with multiple goal orientation did not have any clear and consistent focus of learning to write behavior.Qualitative data also appear to support that this shift of focus had detrimental impact on students' perceived writing performance.When asked how their goals for writing in L2 assist them in actual writing performance, the students themselves indirectly suggested hardly any positive impact and admitted that the writing scores are their ultimate concern.This can be seen in excerpts ( 4) and ( 5).As for L2 speaking, Delta, 17, and Echo, 16, seemed to exhibit the shift in focus of their L2 speaking goal orientation.Unlike in writing, however, the shift is between aiming to be on par with or outdo others, which is markedly performance-oriented, and trying to achieve a certain level of speaking ability, which is largely mastery-oriented.This can be seen in excerpts ( 6) and ( 7).
(6) Before a speaking activity, I would sometimes just ask my sister who work as a call center agent to speak with me in English and it gives me confidence knowing that I can somehow be like her.Sometimes, when she is not there I would just still try to practice speaking on my own and assess my own ability.(Delta, 17) (7) I just try to talk to someone who is good in it in order to practice better.It boosts my confidence knowing that I can speak better than them.Sometimes, I simply monitor my own speaking progress.(Echo,16) As with L2 writing goal orientations, the students' L2 speaking goals were not viewed as very helpful.For her part, Delta, 17, whose sister is a call center agent, said that her goals did help her in surviving specific speaking tasks but had very little contribution into achieving a certain level of proficiency as that was not her aim in her English language class.For his part, Echo, 16, stressed that his goal is just to get good speaking scores and that he is not very concerned about 'achieving advanced speaking proficiency.' These viewpoints of students with multiple goal orientation as regards learning to speak and write goals are markedly different from those with predominantly performance or predominantly mastery orientation.To emphasize the difference, cross-case analysis of semistructured interviews with those who had either mastery or performance orientations and high speaking and writing scores were conducted.Whether performance or mastery oriented, Kate, 17, Lem, 16, and Maria, 17, expressed clear and consistent goals for learning to speak and write goals, as seen in Excerpts ( 8) to ( 10).Excerpts ( 8) and ( 10) revealed that those with performance and mastery orientations consistently espoused a singular approach to learning to speak or write.Also, for Kate, 17, Lem, 16, and Maria, 17, there was a clear attribution to the goal's perceived positive impact on their writing and speaking abilities, which was not the case among those with multiple goal orientation.Importantly, the analysis from the cross cases support the quantitative results that it is the multiple goal orientation that is the maladaptive form of achievement goal in the context of Filipino university students learning English as a second language.

ADAPTIVE PERFORMANCE GOAL ORIENTATION IN A L2
In the quantitative results, the highest mean scores in both L2 writing (x̄ = 3.73) and speaking (x̄ = 3.64) are those with performance goal orientation, which are markedly higher that those with mastery goal orientation= for both L2 writing (x̄ = 3.07) and L2 speaking (x̄ = 3.50) of.Thus, the second issue that warranted further qualitative inquiry is the inconsistency of the present findings with those from previous studies (Jahedizadeh et al., 2016;Macayan, 2012a;Macayan & San Jose, 2013).In contrast with the previous studies, in learning English as L2, it seems the performance orientation is the most adaptive form of goal orientation.
Hence, another set of semi-structured interviews focused on how the performance orientation allowed the respondents to effectively adapt in their speaking and writing tasks.Semi-structured interviews with performance oriented students who scored high in either tasks were asked why and how their approach is more advantageous than a mastery approach.
Excerpts (11) to ( 13) show a recognition of the unique nature of language learning, which calls for competitiveness and outdoing others, a possible reason why they differed in their approach in other subjects.In these excerpts, George, 16, Harry, 16, and Ivan, 17, agreed that English language was a subject, which demanded less cognitive effort, compared with learning mathematics where, as excerpts ( 14) to ( 16) show, more effort in understanding the lesson is required and less in outperforming others.Explicit inquiry into language learning vis-à-vis mathematics learning with respect to students' goal orientation revealed that, on one hand, the former's requirement focused on an effective demonstration of skills, which is more compatible with the performance orientation.The latter, on the other hand, required clear and deep understanding of concepts, which is more compatible with a mastery orientation.Excerpts ( 17) to ( 19) distinguish learning English as L2 with respect to how students' goal orientations influence learning in this area.These excerpts suggest that it is in this domain where a performance orientation is more adaptive than a mastery orientation.
Overall, through integration of quantitative and qualitative data, two important findings became clear in this study.First, survey results revealed that multiple goal orientation was maladaptive in both L2 writing (x̄ = 2.47) and speaking (x̄ = 2.76).Based on the responses of respondents in the semi-structured interviews, this was primarily due to inconsistent strategies and behavior toward learning-to-write and learning-to-speak goals.Second, survey results point to performance orientation as the most adaptive form in both L2 writing (x̄ = 3.73) and speaking (x̄ = 3.64).Qualitative findings from semi-structured interview data explain that this is primarily due to the respondents' recognition of the nature of English language learning.For them, the course demands competitiveness and outdoing others.In sum, quantitative data showed significant differences in L2 writing [F(2,162)=43.36;p=0.00; h p 2 =0.35] and L2 speaking [F(2,162)=14.79;p=0.00; h p 2 =0.15] scores of the participants.Various context-specific reasons became apparent in the qualitative data, including the need to demonstrate effective language skills in English language learning.Thus, as to whether Filipino students are performance-or mastery-oriented, the researchers found data to support that these group of language learners are performanceoriented in learning English as an L2.

CONCLUSION
After the explanatory sequential investigation of the influence of goal orientation on L2 speaking and writing of 162 Filipino university students, the researchers hoped to have enriched the literature through, first, the explicit use of Pintrich's (2000) revised achievement goal theory in elucidating an aspect of individual differences in L2 speaking and writing, and, second, the operationalization of the theory within the L2 domain and the Filipino students' context.
Goal orientation had significantly influenced both L2 speaking and writing.Interestingly, however, the performance orientation to L2 learning, i.e., learning goals focused on outperforming or competing with others, was found to be the more adaptive form of goal orientation than both the mastery, i.e., learning goals focused on self-improvement and mastery of one's own skills, and the multiple goal, i.e., goal orientations exhibit both performance and mastery.Theoretically, the findings challenge previous studies in other learning domains that mastery orientation was more adaptive than performance orientation (Macayan, 2012a;Macayan & San Jose, 2013).Whether cultural nuances, i.e., Filipinos are generally collectivistic hence performance goals may exhibit adaptive forms, had had a share on the influence of goal orientation to L2 speaking and writing the findings might be indicative (Macayan, 2012b).
In the follow-up semi-structured interviews among nine, purposefully selected respondents, the researchers found domain and context-specific reasons why multiple goal orientation seemed to cause significant maladaptive impact on both L2 speaking and writing.A majority of the respondents' responses pointed to the loss of focus and attention typical among students with conflicting goal structures.For students who do not have clear goals for learning English as L2, they usually transitioned from one orientation to another, which they recognized often caused negative impact on behavior regulation in L2 learning.For these Filipino engineering students, goal orientation in a L2 appeared to be a crucial element, since those who did not have solid grounding of the meaning and purpose of their learning tended to report detrimental learning behaviors.
Finally, the qualitative phase revealed that goal structures, as theorized, are domain specific.Multiple goals were found to be the least adaptive, often maladaptive, forms of goal orientation, with which students shift between different learning to speak and learning to write goals.Also, in learning English as L2, the need to either compete with or outperform peers and classmates was given greater emphasis in the respondents' need to accomplish L2 learning goals.Many of the respondents in the qualitative phase recognized that mastery orientation to L2 learning was less adaptive than performance orientation as apparent in the quantitative results and as further supported by the interview data.For them, outperforming others in their English language class matters in how their language teachers viewed and evaluated them.
Ultimately, as to the question whether students learn speaking and writing in English as L2 to perform better than others or to master one's skills, it appears that in this context they learn English as an L2 predominantly to outperform others.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Even with context-specific results, there is still a need to further investigate the influence of goal orientation to language learning and language abilities in various contexts and other groups of participants.Future researchers should make an effort to replicate the study.
The use of standardized tests and scales to measure language abilities can boost the explanatory power of future studies.In this paper, the researchers used a local, institutionallyimplemented English language task and scoring system, and the scores were given by the participants' respective English language teachers.The use of tests such as TOEIC, which is also institutionally-implemented, and possibly IELTS and TOEFL are recommended.
Since the University's population is predominantly engineering students, it will be equally interesting to investigate whether other student samples, those from the liberal arts or the sciences, where English is given higher or less premium, are influenced in the same way that the independent variables in this study influenced the participants' speaking and writing task performances.
Since the participants were learning the language in the ESL context, future studies may also want to investigate these issues in the context of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), among nonnative speakers of English, who have a unique contextual background for learning English.Future researchers may want to focus on international students learning English in the Philippines.
In the area of language learning, it appeared that a performance goal orientation facilitates learning better than mastery or multiple goal orientations.Hence, teachers should facilitate creating an environment where students thrive in healthy competition, positive feedback, and constructive social comparison.One approach could be the use of varying teaching and learning strategies, where language learners engage in self-monitoring and peer collaboration and cooperative learning.Another approach could be the use of 360-degree feedback and assessment techniques, where the language teacher's inputs, the student's own, and those of their peers are assigned specific weights in the assessment.This will, of course, require greater preparation from the teacher and training students for self-and peerassessment to ensure that the approach only encourages healthy and fair competition.
In light of the first two recommendations, curriculum developers and language planners may also adapt differentiated instruction to help teachers deliver lessons and use strategies, based on a framework where different students are provided with different learning opportunities that best suit their individual and shared characteristics.Language learners may be given the opportunity to decide whether to work independently or in groups and also to decide the forms of speaking and writing outputs they produce for as long as the forms demonstrate the intended language learning outcomes.
Crafting language teaching and learning interventions based on the premise that different students have varying goal orientations among other factors of individual differences should be encouraged.In this way, school administrators, curriculum planners and language teachers can bridge the gap between theory and practice, which is where the findings of the study should ultimately be put into place.

FIGURE 1 .
FIGURE 1. One-Way ANOVA of Performance in Writing Tasks (L2 W) Among Performance-, Multiple-, and Mastery-Oriented Language Learners

FIGURE 2 .
FIGURE 2. One-Way ANOVA of Performance in Speaking Tasks (L2 S) Among Performance-, Multiple-, and Mastery-Oriented Language Learners

( 4 )
I'm not really sure.For me, I'll do whatever it takes to get high score in writing since I really struggle in the subject.(Delta, 17) (5) Do my goals help me?I don't know if they do, I just really want to pass my course so I'm doing everything I can.(France, 17)

TABLE 1 .
Descriptive Statistics (Mean and Standard Deviation) of Goal Orientations across L2W and L2S Scores

1) Sometimes I would look into the work of my friends who
are good in writing just to assure myself of how well I had done on the essay.But sometimes

I refer to the lecture notes
. Anything just to write better.(Delta,17) (2) I always feel anxious about my grade.What I do is sometimes I compare myself with others and search more and read more to be able to be at their level.Sometimes, I just keep on reviewing my notes and hope that I write better this time based on my instructor's evaluation.(Echo, 16) (3) I look at the works of others whose writing I admire so I could know what I can improve on.This is an effective strategy for me.Although often I do not see their work so I just work hard on my own so that I can write better.(France, 17)

It's more of a mastery since the professor doesn't usually mind their students
but only their output so that means we need to do a lot of work just to pass.

It is required in my course that students be able to master the subject since
it has a big role in the field.English is also important but I

don't think it requires the same effort and deep understanding
.(Ivan, 17)

in Math, I really give my time to study for it. I
would sometimes get up early in the morning just to be able to understand the formula,

In English, I sometimes don't even need to study since
in high school I believed that I was capable enough in writing properly.

don't think you really have to study for English, but in Math it's more of memorization of
concepts and formulas.(Ivan,17)