Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Exploring Implications for Pedagogy

Christine Muir

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781788928878
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Psycolinguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Directed motivational currents (DMCs) are goal-directed motivational surges in pursuit of a much-desired personal outcome. This book introduces the reader to cutting-edge theory and research in second language learner motivation and presents empirical research which investigates DMCs in the context of language learning. The studies explore the wider relevance of DMC theory from participants recruited worldwide, answering questions such as how many (and which) participants reported having experienced DMCs and what emerged as common triggers initiating such experiences. The studies also discuss the pedagogical implications of DMC theory, investigating whether it is possible to design and implement a project (specifically, a project 'with DMC potential') in such a way that it may be able to purposefully facilitate a group-DMC with learners in a second language classroom. The book's accessible writing style makes it suitable for researchers and students who are interested in second language learning as well as for teachers and trainee teachers who are looking for classroom inspiration.

Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Part 1 both sets the scene and lays the groundwork for the research and findings that I go on to present throughout this book. I begin in Chapter 1 by situating DMCs within the wider context of L2 motivation and second language acquisition (SLA) research. The field of SLA has adopted several significant new perspectives since the turn of the 21st century, each contributing its own account in the overall story tracing the path towards the emergence of DMCs. Rather than offering a detailed narrative of the development of L2 motivation research as a whole, in Chapter 1 I focus on a curated selection of key areas of inquiry. These specific areas of interest are included because they are most relevant both to understanding and situating DMCs in a wider context, and also to the empirical studies I introduce in Parts 2 and 3 of this book. I overview the adoption of a complexity perspective and the reframing of our understanding of L2 motivation in terms of the self, before briefly reviewing key findings related to language learner self-concept, emotions and several areas of group-level investigation. I conclude Chapter 1 by tracing the emergence of DMCs and by underlining their wider significance.

Although summaries and descriptions of DMCs can be found elsewhere (for a recent, concise summary see Henry, 2019), this book would not be complete without offering its own. Chapter 2 presents a full overview of the DMC framework, highlighting all key elements of DMCs, including their goal-orientedness, launch, structure, positive emotionality and the way in which they come to an end. In Chapter 3, I continue this discussion further, simultaneously rooting the narrative in the context of language teaching and learning. In doing so, this demands that the focus of discussion be broadened to include the notion of group DMCs. Group DMCs are of disproportionate importance in the context of language learning, owing to the simple fact that instructed second language acquisition (ISLA) primarily takes place with groups of learners. In classroom contexts, we have argued that DMCs can best be understood as emerging through intensive group projects (IGPs) (Dörnyei et al., 2016). After more thoroughly introducing ‘projects’ and exploring their alignment with other pedagogical approaches, I overview key differences between individual and group DMCs and highlight essential principles with regards to designing intensive group projects (significantly, intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’).

In the Part 1 summary that follows, I bring these ideas together and explore key areas in which future research is required – in order to develop both our theoretical and pedagogical understanding of DMCs. In doing so, I concurrently foreground the focus and aims of Parts 2 and 3 to follow.

1 Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research and the Emergence of Directed Motivational Currents

In the 60 years since the emergence of the new field of second language (L2) learner motivation (cf. Gardner & Lambert, 1959), the field has amassed a rich and diverse history. Multiple new perspectives and ideas have been translated into the field from other disciplines. Each has shed new light and offered fresh perspectives on our understanding of L2 motivation, and some have even pushed us to re-evaluate existing knowledge in light of these new contributions. Dominant perspectives have risen to the forefront and have driven the direction of the field throughout clear periods of its history (see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), yet, instead of overriding that which went before, each has opened new spheres of investigation and contributed unique insight.

The field of L2 motivation research currently finds itself at an exciting juncture. Over the past two decades it has been revitalised with the broad adoption of a complexity approach to research and understanding, and this has posed possibilities equally as captivating as the magnitude of the challenges that have arisen alongside. Complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) has forced us to re-evaluate what it is we think we know about L2 motivation, and to revisit the methods we employed to reach these conclusions. Concurrent with this has been the emergence of several new strands of research, the reconceptualisation of our understanding of L2 motivation rooted in ideas of the self being key among them. It is no exaggeration to say that the challenge for beginning PhD candidates aiming to become familiar with the full history of the field is becoming increasingly daunting: Research output is continuing to grow year on year (Boo et al., 2015).

Presenting a full overview of the field of L2 motivation research within a single introductory chapter – such is the space I have available here – is quite simply an impossible task. Happily, it is also a redundant one, as excellent overviews detailing the development of the field as a whole can already be found elsewhere (see e.g. Boo et al., 2015; Dörnyei, 2019a; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Lamb, 2017). Instead of offering a chronological overview of the field’s development, in this chapter I focus instead on key ideas and research strands currently dominant, included because they are best able to situate understanding relating to the emergence of directed motivational currents (DMCs) and the findings that I explore throughout this book. This has naturally led to a highly selective narrative, which will doubtless exclude areas that some readers would argue to be of critical importance. I defend myself against any potential criticism in this regard by foregrounding this primary purpose.

I begin the chapter by introducing in more detail the ‘complexity turn’ the field continues to experience, before going on to highlight the impact that this has had on our methodological choices and decisions. I then discuss the reconceptualisation within the field towards an understanding of self, in doing so reviewing research on possible selves, the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b) and vision. I go on to overview key findings and ideas in the literature investigating language learner self-concept, learner emotions and several aspects of group-level investigation. I conclude the chapter by tracing the emergence of directed motivational currents (DMCs) and by highlighting their wider significance.

From Macro to Micro Perspectives: Unavoidable Complexity

In nearly all respects, the ideas in this section underpin all those that I subsequently go on to explore in this chapter (and, indeed, throughout this book). Throughout the 1990s, concurrent with the absorption into the field of a broad range of cognitive theories (including, for example, self-determination theory, Deci & Ryan, 1985, and the notion of self-efficacy, Bandura, 1977a, 1997; for further see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), the field began to adopt an increasingly situated approach to research. No longer was research interest dominated by the investigation of the motives and attitudes of collective groups of language learners: a newly emerging focus was concerned with understanding the motivations of specific learners, in specific classroom contexts.

If one were to observe a learner in any classroom, for any length of time – even if only over the course of a single lesson – it would not be possible to do otherwise than acknowledge the norm of motivational change: of ‘motivational flux rather than stability’ (Ushioda, 1996: 241). This narrowing focus brought out from the shadows a level of complexity which – while it had, of course, always been there – could now not be ignored (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). What followed was an inescapable acknowledgement, awareness and focus not only on motivational change but on the complexity of the innumerable, interlinked factors affecting language learning and teaching. Larsen-Freeman described this recognition in a seminal paper:

Progress in understanding SLA will not be made simply by identifying more and more variables that are thought to influence language learners. We have certainly witnessed the lengthening of taxonomies of language-learner characteristics over the years, and we doubtless will continue to add to the lists. Schumann (1976) mentions 4+ factors, by 1989, Spolsky notes 74. However, it is not clear that we have come any closer to unraveling the mysteries of SLA now than before. If SLA is indeed a complex nonlinear process, we will never be able to identify, let alone measure, all of the factors accurately. And even if we could, we would still be unable to predict the outcome of their combination. (Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 156–157)

The emerging tradition developed understanding of motivation for the first time beyond that of a stable individual difference factor (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; see also Dörnyei, 2017). In this current book, exploring aspects of long-term L2 learner motivation, this recognition is key: not only are different individuals guided by different motives, but these motives should likewise be expected to evolve over time (Ushioda, 1998, 2001). Several new motivational frameworks were proposed during the decade prior to the new millennium (e.g. Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998; Williams & Burden, 1997); however, none gained widespread prominence. Even their most complex iterations failed to capture the full complexity of the classroom experience and the dynamicity of the motivational factors affecting any L2 classroom context (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009a). An even more radical reframing was needed.

The emerging complexity perspective (de Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) provided exactly this. Having already exerted a considerable effect in the natural sciences (as Larsen-Freeman reports, some describe it as having ‘shaken science to its foundation’, see Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 142), the scene was set for it to evoke a similar effect on the field of SLA. As Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2016: 743) have argued, not only has a recognition of complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) become indispensable for furthering our understanding of L2 motivation, it is inescapable: CDST has become ‘an integral part of empirical research’, having reached ‘critical mass’ across multiple strands of SLA. Indeed, CDST has even been positioned as marking the ‘coming of age of SLA research’ (Ellis, 2007: 23).

To provide a fuller basis for discussion throughout this book, it is worth briefly overviewing some key concepts. As Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008: 25) explain, ‘an important feature, perhaps the most important feature, of complex systems is change’. All elements of a complex system are continually in flux, moment-by-moment change occurring in tandem with semester-by-semester and decade-by-decade change. Change is continually occurring, therefore, over multiple different timescales (cf. de Bot, 2015). A key implication is that traditional notions of linear cause and effect cease to offer up any inroads. As Larsen-Freeman and Cameron describe – and as Larsen-Freeman’s quote at the start of this section also alludes – ‘To be able to predict behavior, we would need to know absolutely accurately every small detail of the starting state, called its “initial conditions”’ (2008: 57). Yet, the complexity of not only the classroom environment but also the rich tapestry of experiences each learner brings with them into the classroom, of course relegates this to the impossible.

Having emphasised the centrality of change, complex systems can nevertheless settle into attractor states and experience periods of relative stability. As Hiver describes, systems are not ‘attracted’ towards attractor states in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, attractor states ‘are critical outcomes that a system evolves toward or approaches over time’ (Hiver, 2015: 21). This direction is decided by the parameters of a system, and the resulting positive or negative feedback experienced. For example,

An engaged L2 classroom might be described with parameters such as an active and creative teacher, motivated non-anxious students, variety in classroom activities, positive relationships among students and support for the language in the local culture. (Hiver, 2015: 24)

A system’s parameters do not include solely within-group (and within-individual) factors, but also include those outside the immediate classroom. In CDST terminology, a classroom is an open system, which interacts with multiple related systems (for example other class groups, the wider school community, the cultural context). Of course, each of these also exists in flux (for further discussion of context see King, 2016; Sampson, 2015; Ushioda, 2015; for discussion specific to DMCs and intensive group projects see Muir, 2021).

The rise in CDST perspectives has affected change at a fundamental level. It has changed the way in which we think about and understand the research that we do, and the ways in which we may further develop and assess our understanding. This has doubtless posed significant challenges. However, following the turn of the new millennium, work was already emerging seeking to address these issues head on (see Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Nitta, 2013; Waninge et al., 2014).

Changing Methodological Priorities and Perspectives

By refocusing our research lens to bring into view the complex reality of ‘the way the world actually works, not simply the way we all think it works’ (Schumann, 2015: xviii), we have been required to simultaneously reconfigure all the other settings of our camera. To borrow Larsen-Freeman’s (1997: 159) turn of phrase, we now ‘need a camcorder, not a camera to do our research’. It would not be unreasonable to say that in acknowledging this, the field backed itself into a difficult corner. For, if we fully accept that the world is complex, continually in flux, and that motivation is not only itself continually subject to change but is also continually affected by the changing context in which it is situated, how can we possibly approach research in any principled and methodologically robust way?

Dedicated methodological principles have certainly been proposed (see Larsen-Freeman & Cameron’s 2008 complexity thought modelling and Hiver & Al-Hoorie’s 2016 dynamic ensemble). Yet, a broader paradigm already ideally positioned to investigate these ideas had concurrently been gaining prominence. While quantitative methods continue to dominate within the field of SLA, a growing number of studies employing mixed methods or solely qualitative approaches have contributed to what has been described as a ‘revitalisation of the research environment’ (Boo et al., 2015: 153). A particularly strong proponent of the growing emphasis on qualitative research has been Ema Ushioda (1993, 1994, 1996; Ridley & Ushioda, 1997). Her early writing on this sought to demonstrate that a far more nuanced understanding of the motivational processes and experiences involved in language learning could be gained from adopting a more qualitative, situated approach (Ushioda, 1994). Further, Ushioda argued that this was needed in order to be able to fully explore motivational change over time and to identify those factors in ‘dynamic interplay with motivation’ (Ushioda, 1996: 241). These arguments later formed a basic principle of her person-in-context-relational-view (Ushioda, 2009), in which Ushioda stresses the importance of understanding learners ‘as people, and as people who are necessarily located in particular cultural and historical contexts’ (Ushioda, 2009: 216).

The year 2015 saw the publication of Dörnyei, MacIntyre and Henry’s Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning anthology, a collection of studies aimed directly at exploring new methodological approaches. From this volume – and indeed elsewhere – some innovative methodological answers emerged. Several approaches of note include idiodynamic methods (MacIntyre & Serroul, 2015; see also Boudreau et al., 2018; Gregersen et al., 2014) able to document moment-by-moment motivational change; social-network analysis (Mercer, 2015), investigating relationships between students acting within a group/‘network’; retrodictive qualitative modelling (Chan et al., 2015; see also Bambirra, 2016; Dörnyei, 2014; Hiver, 2017), tracing backwards from a system’s outcome; and Q methodology (Irie & Ryan, 2015), a novel mixed-methods approach. Further fascinating approaches include language learner narratives (Dörnyei, 2017; Hiver et al., 2019; Oxford & Cuéllar, 2014; Thompson & Vásquez, 2015), and formative experiments (Muir, 2021; I return to discuss the potential of formative experiments in the final chapter of this book). All have provided new insight into researching L2 motivation, and, reflecting this pragmatic turn and broader falling away of allegiances to particular paradigms, they embrace both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Regretfully I do not have the space to discuss each in more detail in this chapter; however, interested readers might use these references as starting points for further exploration (see also Sampson & Pinner, 2021, a highly accessible edited volume offering an excellent starting point and springboard).

The exploration of these new methods was rooted not only in the search for a means to align our methodological approaches with CDST ideals, but also in the search for more apt ways by which to investigate the new topics and ideas that were finding their way to the fore. In discussing the emergence of DMCs towards the end of this chapter, I highlight their particular significance with respect to CDST research methodology: that is, their ability to open up a window for research through their alignment of diverse factors towards the achievement of a single goal (Dörnyei, Ibrahim et al., 2015). First, however, let us turn to look at some of these ‘new topics’ that have emerged as sites of investigation.

Possible Selves, the L2 Motivational Self System and Vision

This unabashedly over-inclusive heading encompasses several different strands of research, yet all are related through the central importance of the self. Self-perspectives took centre stage in the field of SLA at the turn of the century with Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009b) reframing of L2 motivation theory, yet they were certainly not new to our understanding of L2 motivation. Self-determination theory had long purported the importance of the internalisation ...