Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by choosing a number from 1 to 7:
请阅读以下关于“英语演讲的价值”的陈述，并从1-7之间选择“不同意”到“同意”的程度。

1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: somewhat disagree; 4: either agree or disagree;
5: somewhat agree; 6: agree; 7: strongly agree
1：非常不同意；2：不同意；3:略微不同意；4：中立；
5：略微同意；6：同意；7：非常同意

Note: The items in the red color were eliminated after EFA and CFA.

Ideal L2 Self

1. I can imagine myself delivering an oral presentation fluently.
   我会想象自己流畅地演讲。

2. The things I want to do in the future require me to deliver an oral presentation in English.
   我将来想做的事情需要我用英语演讲。

3. I can imagine myself delivering an oral presentation in English to international friends or colleagues.
   我会想象自己用英语向外国朋友或同事做演讲。

4. I imagine myself as someone who is able to deliver an oral presentation in English.
   我会想象自己是一个能够用英语进行演讲的人。

5. I can imagine myself delivering an English presentation as if I were a native speaker of English.
   我会想象自己像母语者一样做英语演讲。

6. Whenever I think of my future career, I imagine myself delivering oral presentations in English.
   每当我想到我未来的职业，我就会想象自己用英语做演讲。

Ought-to L2 Self

1. I value oral presentation because my close friends think it is important.
   我的好朋友重视演讲，所以我也重视演讲。

2. Delivering oral presentations in English is important to me in order to gain the approval of my teachers.
   演讲有助于我获得老师的认可，所以我重视演讲。

3. Delivering oral presentations in English is important to me because the people I respect expect me to be good at it.
   我尊敬的人擅长演讲，所以我重视演讲。

4. Delivering oral presentations in English is a necessary skill because people surrounding me expect me to do so.
   身边的人期待我用英语做演讲，所以我认为英语演讲是必备技能。

5. Delivering oral presentations in English is important to me because an educated person is supposed to be able to do so.
   一个受过教育的人能够使用英语做演讲，所以我重视演讲。

6. It will have a negative impact on my life if I perform bad in an oral presentation in English.
   失败的演讲会对我产生负面影响，所以我重视演讲。

7. If I fail an oral presentation in English, I’ll be letting other people down.
   如果我搞砸了一次演讲，其他人会看不起我。

Self-efficacy

1. When giving an English speech in public, I can speak with accuracy (with no/few mistakes).
   发表演讲时，我可以准确无误地表达（没有/很少有错误）。

2. When giving an English speech in public, I can speak with fluency.
   发表演讲时，我可以流利地表达。

3. When giving an English speech in public, I can speak with emotion.
   发表演讲时，我可以有感情地说话。

4. I can give an English speech in public when I am very nervous.
   当我非常紧张时，我也可以发表英语演讲。

5. When giving an English speech in public, I can speak with confidence.
   发表演讲时，我可以自信地表达。

6. When giving an English speech in public, I can organize my speech so that the conclusion flows logically from what was previously said.
   发表演讲时，我可以使论点和论据有逻辑地衔接。

7. When giving an English speech in public, I can use appropriate language (e.g., vocabulary, grammatical structures) to address different topics.
   发表演讲时，我可以使用恰当的语言（例如词汇、语法结构等）来处理不同的话题。

8. When giving an English speech in public, I can make my central idea clear to the audience.
   发表演讲时，我可以向观众清晰地表达我的中心思想。

9. When giving an English speech in public, I can use the conclusion to restate my main points.
   发表演讲时，我可以用结论来重述我的主要观点。

L2 Grit*

1. I am diligent in preparing for the oral presentation.
   我会很勤奋地准备演讲。

2. When it comes to oral presentation, I am a hard-working learner.
   在演讲方面，我是一个努力的人。

3. Once I have decided to prepare for the oral presentation, nothing can prevent me from reaching this goal.
   一旦我决定为演讲做准备，没有什么能阻止我达到目标。

4. I will not allow anything to stop me from preparing for my oral presentation.
   我不允许任何事情阻止我准备演讲。

5. I put much time and effort into improving my weaknesses in oral presentation.
   我花了很多时间和精力来改善我演讲方面的弱点。

*Note:

Teimouri et al. (2020) developed and validated a language-domain-specific measure of grit in L2 learning (the L2 Grit scale), measuring perseverance of effort and consistency of interest. However, the SAQOP doesn't include the measurement of consistency of interest.

As for the decision not to include items related to consistency of interest in the final questionnaire, this was a result of our joint evaluation of Teimouri’s (2020) grit scale with pilot participants. Through this process, we determined that items measuring consistency of interest were problematic for our specific context. For example, one of the items in the original questionnaire reads: “I was obsessed with learning English in the past but have lost interest recently.” The term “recently” was found to be too vague, as it lacked a clear definition, making it difficult for respondents to interpret consistently. Another item, “I think I have lost my interest in learning English,” presented similar issues. Our pilot participants felt that such statements implied a binary choice (either one has lost interest or not), which made using a Likert scale unsuitable for accurately capturing responses.

Additionally, we believe that measuring consistency of interest would require administering the same items at multiple time points to detect meaningful differences over time (e.g., “I am interested in L2 oral presentations”). Only then could we identify when and how interest fluctuates. Given these challenges, and the pilot participants’ feedback about the ambiguity of these items, we chose to exclude consistency of interest during the content validity review process. As a result, it was not included in the subsequent exploratory factor analysis (EFA) or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and we retained only the items representing perseverance of effort. 

Pronunciation-oriented strategies

1. I pay attention to my rhythm and intonation.
   演讲时我会注意我的节奏和音调。

2. I pay attention to my pronunciation.
   演讲时我会注意我的发音。

3. I try to be heard like a native speaker.
   我会试着让自己像一个母语者一样做演讲。

4. I pay attention to whether my speech flows smoothly.
   演讲时我会注意我的讲话是否流畅。

5. I try to speak clearly to make myself heard.
   我试着清晰地演讲，让观众听清楚。

Social-affective strategies

1. I try to relax when I feel anxious.
   演讲时当我感到焦虑，我会试着放松。

2. I try to enjoy Pecha Kucha presentations.
   我会试着去喜欢Pecha Kucha演讲。

3. I try to give a good impression to the listener.
   我会试着给听众一个好印象。

4. I actively encourage myself to express what I want to say.
   我会鼓励自己去表达自己想表达的东西。

Anxiety

1. My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
   在演讲时，我的思维会变得混乱，杂乱无章。

2. I do poorer on speeches because I am anxious.
   演讲中我会因为焦虑表现较差。

3. When I make a mistake while giving a speech, I find it hard to concentrate on the parts that follow.
   我一直担心会忘记我准备说的东西。

4. While giving a speech I get so nervous I forget facts I really know.
   在发表演讲时，我非常紧张以至于忘记我原本记得的内容。

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The construct validity of the SAQOP was investigated by EFA. The rotation method was the Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Principal component analysis extracted seven factors with eigenvalues larger than 1. The Scree test result indicated that the seven-factor solution was a suitable grouping method for the items in the SAQOP (see Figure 1). After examining the questionnaire items and revisiting the theoretical frameworks, nine items were removed from their original factors because they had low factor loadings (< .3) (Whittaker and Schumacker, 2022). The eliminated factors included items 3 and 6 in the “ideal L2 self” factor, items 1, 6, and 7 in the “ought-to L2 self” factor, items 4 in the “L2 grit” factor, items 2 and 3 in the “self-efficacy” factor, and item 5 in the “pronunciation-oriented strategies” factor. 

Then, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) was conducted to examine how the factors explain each other between the variables. The KMO value of the proposed model was .905. If the KMO value is closer to 1, it can be considered ideal Whittaker and Schumacker (2022). The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was adopted to test the null hypothesis that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. An identity correlation matrix suggests the variables in a model are not unrelated and not ideal for factor analysis. The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity of the proposed model was also significant (χ2(465) = 6300.225, p < .000). A significant test result demonstrates that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected (Dörnyei and Taguchi, 2009), and the seven variables were distinct variables. Overall, these test results showed that the proposed model was acceptable. The factor loadings from the final EFA results are illustrated in Table 2. 

Analytic Assessment Scales for Pecha Kucha Presentations