Читать книгу Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education - Christine Muir - Страница 10

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 of goals for motivated behaviour (Noels et al., 2000; Noels et al., 2001), and the premise of integrativeness (Gardner, 1985, 2010) likewise has its roots in the core connection of an individual with a second social group.

Possible selves are a ‘cognitive manifestation of enduring goals, aspirations, motives, fears and threats’ (Markus & Nurius, 1986: 954). They thus provide a conceptual link between motivation and cognition: motivational impetus is born from the discrepancy between individuals’ current self-states and their possible future selves (Higgins, 1987). Ideal selves and ought selves are conceptually distinct, as is the resulting motivational impetus and the manner in which individuals approach them (Higgins, 1998). Individual well-being can not only be predicted from discrepancies between current and various future selves (Higgins et al., 1985; Higgins et al., 1986), but also by an individual’s perceived rate of progress towards them. As Lawrence et al. (2002) have argued, in this way ‘affect ties the goal-related aspect of motivation to the dimension of time’ (see also Chang et al., 2009; Elicker et al., 2010; I return to further discuss affect/emotion later in this chapter).

In general education, possible selves have been linked to improved GPA (grade point average) scores (Anderman et al., 1999; Oyserman et al., 2006) and greater motivation to prove personal competence (Anderman et al., 1999). Positive associations between academic possible selves and persistence on academic tasks (Leondari & Gonida, 2008), and positive motivation stemming from feared selves have likewise been documented (Kloep et al., 2010). There has concurrently been a growing interest in possible selves related to intervention studies (Hock et al., 2006; Kaylor & Flores, 2007; Oyserman et al., 2006; Oyserman et al., 2007), and similar vision-inspired intervention studies can also be found in the context of L2 motivation (Fukada et al., 2011; Jones, 2012; Magid & Chan, 2012; Sampson, 2012).

As already noted, the notion of possible selves was translated into the field of L2 motivation research through the L2 motivational self system (L2MSS) (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b). A tripartite theory, it comprises the ideal L2 self (the L2 user that we would ideally like to become); the ought-to L2 self (that which we feel we should become); and the L2 learning experience (including the teacher, the textbook, the classroom environment and so on). Much has been written about the L2MSS since its introduction to the field. It has been validated and explored in diverse contexts (for example, Hungary: Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Saudi Arabia: Al-Shehri, 2009; and across Asia and areas of the Middle East: Matthew et al., 2017; Papi, 2010; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009) and from secondary school students to adults, including investigation of change over time (Hsieh, 2009; Kim, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012; Ryan & Dörnyei, 2013; Zhan & Wan, 2016).

The L2MSS has further been investigated from qualitative perspectives (e.g. Aubrey & Nowlan, 2013; Irie & Brewster, 2013; Lamb, 2007, 2009, 2011; Taguchi, 2013), related to languages other than L2 English (e.g. German: Busse, 2013; Csizér & Lukács, 2010; although it should be noted that the vast majority of L2MSS research has been with L2 English, see Thompson & Vásquez, 2015); to the simultaneous study of multiple languages (Dörnyei & Chan, 2013; Huang et al., 2015); and with regards to teacher selves (Hiver, 2013; Kubanyiova, 2009, 2012). Of the two self-based elements of the framework, research interest has tended to focus on the ideal L2 self. The ideal L2 self has largely been demonstrated to be of greater relevance than the ought to L2 self, which has sometimes lacked explanatory power (the following offer several recently proposed developments and reconceptualisations in this regard: Lanvers, 2016; Papi et al., 2018; Teimouri, 2017; Thompson & Vásquez, 2015).

Vision is argued to be an indispensable element in the motivating power of possible selves. This is because it is not only a cognitive goal that is evoked, but also ‘the sensory experience of a future goal state’ (Dörnyei & Chan, 2013: 454). Such sensory experiences of the future are largely generated through the same neural mechanisms as if we were to experience the event in reality (e.g. Moulton & Kosslyn, 2009; Reisberg & Heuer, 2005). Indeed, the brain can have difficulty in distinguishing an event that is occurring in reality from a detailed vision of the same event (Cox, 2012). Significantly, it is this ‘experiential element that makes possible selves “larger” than any combinations of goal-related constructs’ (Dörnyei, 2009b: 15). I return to explore further this motivational potential later in the chapter, in considering the relationship between vision/imagination and language learner emotions.

What is common across all these strands of research is that focus is not on the day-to-day motivation of students but, instead, on the exhibition of long-term motivated behaviour. Csizér and Lukács (2010: 9) describe the ideal L2 self not only as a ‘crucial component to long term success in language learning’, but also more generally as ‘an indispensable part of motivated learning’. The zoning in of attention on vision was motivated by a search for higher-order factors which could explain the sustained periods of motivation that are required for remaining committed to long-term learning processes, such as language learning (Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014). Indeed, Dörnyei and Kubanyiova (2014: 4) have even argued that over the long term, a strong L2 vision may be ‘one of the most reliable predictors’ of learners’ intended effort. Possible selves and vision are central to DMCs, and we have positioned DMCs as a direct extension of the vision concept (Dörnyei et al., 2016; see also Henry, 2019).

Language Learner Self-concept

A fascination with the self has long been a predilection of psychologists, and it is therefore unsurprising that it ‘headlines more psychological variables than any other concept’ (Higgins, 1996: 1062). As is clear from the previous sections, a considerable body of work in recent years by applied linguists, too, has centred on learner-internal constructs related to self and identity (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Mercer, 2011a) and many of these shared roots can be traced back to the introduction of the L2MSS (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b). As Markus and Nurius (1986: 954) state in their seminal paper, possible selves ‘provide the essential link between the self-concept and motivation’.

In educational research outside SLA, ‘the idea that students’ self-beliefs play a central role in their academic success is so widely accepted that self-constructs are a regular staple in studies of academic motivation’ (Pajares & Schunk, 2005: 95). In highlighting the plurality of these self-constructs, however, Pajares and Schunk also pinpoint a major cause of concern. The field of SLA already has several self-based constructs in regular use, including, for example, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and L2 linguistic self-confidence (Clément, 1980), and the adoption of another into the field has rightly been met with caution (MacIntyre et al., 2009). Yet, as Mercer describes, the self-concept represents:

a more widely encompassing set of self-beliefs, it subsumes the more tightly domain-specific constructs, such as self-efficacy and L2 linguistic self-confidence, and also forms the psychological basis underpinning the diverse range of identities learners want and feel able to adopt. (Mercer, 2011a: 3; see also Mercer, 2011b)

In the context of SLA, the self-concept has been defined as ‘an individual’s self-descriptions of competence and evaluative feelings about themselves as a FL [foreign language] learner’ (Mercer, 2011a: 14). In 2011, Mercer noted her surprise at the scarcity of ‘in-depth, focused studies examining the nature and development of learners’ self-beliefs specifically in the domain of Foreign Language Learning (FLL)’ (2011b: 335). In the years since, the body of related research has steadily expanded (cf. Csizér & Magid, 2014; Henry, 2009, 2014, 2015; Hsieh, 2009; Mercer, 2011a, 2011b; Walker, 2015), comprising investigation of both domain specific, cognitive and affective dimensions of the self-concept, self-concept change over time, and the relationships between global and local aspects of the self-concept. For example, in one study investigating the motivations of dyslexic and non-dyslexic Hungarian students, Kormos and Csizér found that students’ L2 self-concept played ‘an important role in influencing motivated behaviour’ (Kormos & Csizér, 2010: 247). The authors highlighted the particular importance of L2 self-concept in understanding and supporting dyslexic students’ motivation, and of teachers’ influential capacity in this regard.

Understanding a learner’s self-concept is a key element contributing to the initial conditions (see the first section of this chapter) that a learner will bring with them into the classroom (see also Falout and colleagues’ related work on the antecedent conditions of the learner rooted in, for example, Gorham & Millette’s, 1997, research exploring antecedent conditions, a conglomeration of learner-internalpsychological factors with self-concept included among them: Carpenter et al., 2009; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Falout et al., 2009). Understanding who learners are as people, holistically and respecting all elements of their lived experience, is critical to understanding their motivation and consequent exhibition of motivated behaviours in L2 classrooms. It is this which is the foundation of Ushioda’s person-in-context-relational-view of motivation (Ushioda, 2009) and it is the self-concept that likewise forms the basis of the stories that we tell about ourselves. Newly emerging approaches with respect to narrative identity provide a fascinating vehicle to investigate these issues, offering an intriguing and potentially highly fruitful avenue for further research (cf. McAdams, 2018; McAdams & Pals, 2006).

The success or failure of any motivational intervention will inescapably relate back to its alignment with learners’ self-concepts, and understanding various aspects of a learners’ self-concept is likely to be particularly important in the context of understanding and exploring long-term motivation. Mercer (2019: 8) has recently argued that ‘in order to enhance active engagement on task, educators can also work at promoting a positive, healthy self-concept as a key antecedent for engagement’. While some elements of the self-concept are more open to fluctuation and change – possible selves are ‘the first elements of the self-concept to absorb and reveal such change’ (Markus & Nurius, 1986: 956) – they nevertheless comprise ‘relatively stable dimensions to self-beliefs’ (Mercer, 2011b: 343). These notions of self are particularly important in the context of DMCs. (I return in Chapter 2 to extend this discussion further by highlighting the importance of self-concordant goals; cf. Sheldon & Elliot, 1999.)

Language Learner Emotions

Research into language learner emotions is certainly not a new area of study. Research into anxiety, for example, has a long history within SLA (see Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). However, it is fair to say that the focus of research on emotions in this context has largely been restricted to the investigation of negative emotions (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014), and the resurgence of interest in recent years has been rooted in a drive to investigate their positive counterparts (a broadening focus that is likewise identifiable across other disciplines). Positive psychology centres on understanding the significance of positive emotions and their effect on the way we live and work (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000): it is ‘the empirical study of how people thrive and flourish’ (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014: 153).

This broadened research focus has also brought with it critical conceptual clarification. Indeed, MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012) argue that a foremost finding to date has been the recognition that positive and negative emotions are not opposite ends of a single, dichotomous continuum. The absence of one does not indicate the presence of the other (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). For example, the lifting of an affective filter (a barrier to effective learning often experienced when highly anxious; Krashen, 1981), does not equate to the presence of positive emotion (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014).

Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory (1998, 2001, 2003, 2006) posits that some positive emotions – for example joy, interest or pride – ‘share the ability to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources’ (Fredrickson, 2001: 219). For example, whereas a negative emotion can limit our thought-action repertoire (for example manifested as a fight or flight instinct), certain positive emotions can actually serve to broaden it. As Fredrickson describes:

Joy, for instance, broadens by creating the urge to play, push the limits, and be creative. … Interest, a phenomenologically distinct positive emotion, broadens by creating the urge to explore, take in new information and experiences, and expand the self in the process. (Fredrickson, 2001: 220)

It is significant that one citation Fredrickson draws on with reference to interest is Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975/2000; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) work on flow. Flow is characterised by focused concentration on and through the enjoyment of an activity during which people lose track of time and other elements of the human experience. Archetypical examples of flow include an artist working on a painting, a rock climber scaling a demanding rock face, a surgeon completing a challenging procedure or a dancer lost in experiencing the movement of their body (for flow research in the context of SLA see Egbert, 2003; Piniel & Albert, 2019). This experiential element is clearly reminiscent of the experience of DMCs, and I return to expand on this further later in this chapter.

There are clear links between the study of emotion and that of possible selves and visualisation (introduced in previous sections). As MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012: 194) describe: ‘Imagination works best when it activates emotion’: it transforms the former from existing as cold cognition and imbues possible selves with their potential potency (MacIntyre et al., 2009). Indeed, links between possible selves and emotions were highlighted as far back as Markus and Nurius’ initial paper in 1986, which stated that in relating motivation and self-cognition, by proxy possible selves concurrently relate ‘self-cognitions and self-feelings or affect’ (Markus & Nurius, 1986: 958).

Historically, sufficient attention to the emotional dimension of classroom language learning has been lacking (Dewaele, 2015), yet involving student emotions can be a highly effective means by which to garner student engagement. As Arnold describes: ‘To get the necessary attention for learning to occur, the brain needs to connect to meaningful experience. One way to do this is through emotions: they engage meaning’ (Arnold, 2011: 13). It is important to note that attention to affect does not negate a focus on other cognitive processes (a common criticism of humanistic approaches to language teaching; see, for example, Arnold, 1999, for discussion). To this end, Arnold (2011) highlights both Forgas’s (2008) and Bless and Fiedler’s (2006) work investigating the key role of affect and emotion in cognitive development, and she also foregrounds additional neurobiological research further exploring their interdependency (cf. Storbeck & Clore, 2007).

The current research climate is primed for further investigation into areas of positive psychology (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014). The ‘complexity turn’ described at the outset of this chapter has laid the groundwork, so facilitating investigation of such complex phenomena, as has the widening of our methodological toolkit particularly with respect to the greater prominence of qualitative approaches and the more situated approach adopted by the field as a whole. I return to this discussion, and the ‘potentially powerful effects’ (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012: 198) of positive emotions as yet so little studied in the field of SLA, in foregrounding the significance of DMCs at the end of this chapter.

Group-level Investigation: Motivation, Agency, Affect and Flow

At the turn of the century, Dörnyei (2001b: 49) noted that a ‘feature of task motivation which makes it a particularly intriguing research domain is the fact that the motivation of task participants is not independent of each other … task motivation is co-constructed by the participants’ (see also Dörnyei, 2002). This taps into a fascinating aspect of L2 motivation research that has been, and which continues to be, the focus of remarkably little investigation (for exceptions see, for example, Murphey et al., 2012; Sampson, 2015, 2016). Yet, concurrently to the changes within the field documented already throughout this chapter, a further development has been a drive away from prominently individualistic approaches to L2 motivation research.

In their 2012 chapter, Murphey et al. foreground the relevance of groups and the importance of social learning, a fundamental tenet of ‘one of the most significant theories of learning of the twentieth century, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory’ (Murphey et al., 2012: 221). They foreground the significance of socio-cognitive approaches (e.g. Atkinson, 2010), which integrate sociocultural ideas (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1981) with more traditional theories of learning focusing on individual cognition. Atkinson’s work introduced the ideas of extended and embodied cognition. The former understands an individual’s ‘mind/ brain to be inextricably tied to the external environment’ (Atkinson, 2010: 599), i.e. investigation into the mind of an individual learner simply cannot be achieved without reference to and contextualization within the surrounding environment. As Murphey et al. (2012: 222) describe of embodied cognition: ‘context is internalized by the individual and the way it is internalized can change our moods, physiology, and ability to think in different ways. We refer to this as “context-in-person”’ (the authors playing with wording relating to Ushioda’s work on ‘person-in-context’, introduced previously). Murphey et al. (2012) argue that such a perspective of extended and embodied cognition can be found in multiple key concepts within SLA, including the zone of proximal development (that which a learner is able to complete with the support of a more knowledgeable peer; Vygotsky, 1962) and role modelling (Bandura, 1997; Muir et al., 2019; Murphey & Arao, 2001).

The powerful influence of groups on individuals is well documented: language learners’ motivation is shaped not only by internal processes but also by the surrounding L2 learning environment (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b; Islam et al., 2013; Lamb, 2012). It is noteworthy that that there has been a stark lack of research into this core component of the L2MSS, with Dörnyei (2019b) going so far as to dub it ‘Cinderella’. Acknowledging the significance of group dynamics and of intergroup relationships within language classrooms (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Henry & Thorsen, 2018), it therefore follows that individual investigation of learner motivation should also be complemented by ‘a focus on what is emergent at the class group level’ (Sampson, 2016: 169; Muir, 2021).

We can understand the emergence of group-level energy by referring to processes of emotional contagion, i.e. the catching or ‘infection’ of the cognitions and emotions of others (Barsade, 2002). The ripple effects of emotional contagion, which diffuse throughout a group, are capable of furnishing an entire group with positive mood, which subsequently impacts positively – or negatively – on attitude and the collective motivational level of the group (see Sampson, 2015, 2016). As Barsade and Gibson explain, not only is it the case that ‘affect at the group level can be generated through social interaction’, but this can ‘influence individual- and group-level outcomes’ (Barsade & Gibson, 2012: 119). In fact, they argue that group affect is an essential element of a group’s development (Barsade & Gibson, 2012), and group positive mood (mean-level group affect) has also been found to be positively related to group-level efficacy (Gibson, 2003).

A fascinating related area of enquiry has been team/group flow. Research into flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; see also earlier in this chapter) has typically been limited to individual experiences. However, there is evidence that not only can flow be experienced at a pair or group level, and that ‘positive social interactions are particularly conducive to the flow experience’ (Aube et al., 2014: 121), but also that social experiences of flow may be even more intensely experienced (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Walker, 2010). Keith Sawyer defines group flow as ‘a property of the entire group as a collective unit’ (Sawyer, 2006: 158). Even though Sawyer’s research is rooted in exploring the creativity of jazz musicians, he posits that the same may likewise apply to less overtly creative group endeavours – such as groups in education – providing that the group is united in its goal striving. In such product-oriented collaborative situations, group flow will most likely occur ‘when the degree to which the group must attain an extrinsic collective goal is matched by the number of pre-existing structures shared and used by the performers’ (Sawyer, 2003: 167). In the same way that emotional contagion functions, empirical evidence has indicated that flow can likewise be ‘contagious’ (Bakker, 2005; Bakker et al., 2011; Schiepe-Tiska & Engeser, 2012).

Although flow has typically only been investigated with regards to its prerequisites (e.g. Jackson, 1992, 1995), research has also begun to investigate the outcomes of group flow, for example relating to productivity (Aube et al., 2014), and this emerging strand of research is particularly relevant when considering these experiences in the context of education (see, for example, Salanova et al.’s 2014 study investigating collective flow and collective efficacy among work groups). A final, related line of relevant research here is that of goal contagion, describing how, in social contexts where goals are inferred by the behaviour of others, goal pursuit can also be automatically triggered (Aarts & Custers, 2012).

These literatures can also contribute to our understanding of leadership within groups. For example, in the context of team sports, Swann et al. (2012: 815) posited that it may be the case that ‘players in flow act as the leaders within the team’. In the context of education, Bakker (2005) also found that students are more likely to experience flow when their music teachers are experiencing flow. Through processes of emotional contagion group leaders can transmit their mood to other individuals in a group (Sy et al., 2005), and, by modelling appropriate affective responses to specific challenges, leaders can likewise positively influence group processes and performance. Leaders can therefore consciously utilise emotional expressiveness ‘to influence group affect and behaviour – using positive affect, for example, to foster group cohesiveness and enthusiasm and negative affect to increase motivation and signal a change in direction’ (Barsade & Gibson, 2012: 121).

The reason that group-level processes are so important in the context of this book is rooted in the fundamental acknowledgement that language learning primarily occurs with groups of language learners. Therefore, when considering the relevance of DMCs to L2 classrooms this likewise demands we adopt a group-level approach: we must explore the notion of group DMCs. (I return to explore this idea in detail in Chapter 3.)

The Emergence and the Significance of Directed Motivational Currents

Each of the topics I have introduced in this chapter is directly relevant to our understanding of DMCs: each is able to contribute to situating them within the wider field or, alternatively, has a tale to tell in the story of their emergence. It is immediately clear that DMCs fit well within the new zeitgeist characterising the socio-dynamic era of motivation research (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) overviewed at the start of this chapter. The significance of DMCs stems from their ability to channel and align motivational impetus and energy down a single productive path, even in the midst of surrounding ‘chaos’. During a DMC, individuals’ behaviour becomes largely predictable, therefore providing a window of opportunity for systematic research (Dörnyei, Ibrahim et al., 2015). We have argued that DMCs may offer one response to addressing the research challenges that have arisen from the broad adoption of CDST perspectives.

At their heart, DMCs are inherently goal/vision oriented and can be considered as being born as a direct extension of the vision concept (Dörnyei et al., 2016; Henry, 2019). A core feature of a DMC is a clear, personally important goal or vision channelling action. In this way, we can understand DMCs as representing an optimal form of approach motivation (approach motivation being ‘the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior toward, positive stimuli (objects, events, possibilities)’, Elliot, 2008: 3). In the context of language learning, this goal is invariably rooted in an individual’s ideal L2 self and supported by the surrounding imagery and experiential aspects this evokes. It may even be that learners with strong ideal L2 selves are particularly predisposed to experiencing L2 DMCs (Tsunoda, 2018). I expand further in Chapter 2 upon the means by which a goal can result in such an intense motivational outcome, but the genesis of this can be found in the fact that these goals are rooted in an individual’s core sense of self (i.e. reflecting the heart of one’s self-concept). In a DMC, a goal always links to the core of who an individual feels they really are (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; I introduce the notion of self-concordant goals in detail in the next chapter).

The experience of such positive goal striving is what underpins the acutely experienced emotional affect characteristic of all DMC experiences. Within a DMC, this is experienced ‘not only to be positive, but very positive’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 90): for the period of time that a DMC is ongoing, DMCs truly do allow individuals to flourish. Recent work elsewhere has highlighted the relevance of intensely experienced emotions to language learning and their potential to facilitate L2 development (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). For example, eudaimonia (a core characteristic of the DMC experience, see Chapter 2) has been highlighted by MacIntyre and Mercer (2014) as one of several topics awaiting more detailed investigation. In this respect, too, the emergence of DMCs can be considered highly timely: they focus on an issue which had previously received relatively little attention. Rather than ‘focusing on self-regulatory strategies which help to limit the loss of momentum that occurs through encountering obstacles and difficulties during task performance’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 35), Dörnyei et al. continue:

DMCs concern the motivational components and conditions that can energize engagement with an ongoing project, and reflect exactly the kind of holistic coming-together of all the necessary parts which the theoretical accounts in mainstream psychology have been lacking. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 35)

As noted earlier in this chapter, DMCs clearly share this experiential element with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975/2000) notion of flow. We can understand the ways in which these two phenomena differ by comparing several other key characteristics of each. Firstly, flow experiences are almost always framed within the limits of individual tasks, typically not outlasting a period of several hours. As Csikszentmihalyi states: ‘To remain in flow, one must increase the complexity of the activity by developing new skills and taking on new challenges’, through a process of ‘spiralling complexity’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988: 30). A good example of this is the way in which players are kept ‘in the zone’ through effective videogame design: their increasing skill levels are matched by correspondingly more difficult levels within the game. Pleasure and enjoyment (the ‘flow experience’) are therefore derived directly from the act of completing the activity itself. (The preferred term to describe flow was initially ‘autotelic experience’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000), precisely because it required ‘no goals or rewards external to itself’ (1975/2000: 47.)

By contrast, DMCs are a single stream of motivational energy that encompasses multiple, varied tasks, linked together by an overarching goal pathway and held together in a cohesive manner through the existence of a highly valued end goal/vision. It could well be the case, therefore, that some tasks, if they were to be experienced in other contexts, may not be at all enjoyable (for example, spending hours in a car travelling multiple times weekly to be able to attend language lessons in a different city, cf. Safdari & Maftoon, 2017). However, within the context of a DMC, such tasks function as an integral cog within an overarching goal pathway and, as such, are experienced in a remarkably positive manner. Positive emotionality does not emerge from engagement with each discrete activity – as in flow – but instead from the fact that each task is taking an individual forwards towards a highly desired and personally significant end goal. The anticipated emotion linked with the achievement of the end goal is projected back throughout the entire journey. As Baumgartner et al. describe, anticipated emotions:

do not involve any uncertainty because they are based on the assumption, through mental simulation, that the future event has already happened or will not happen. The person imagines how good or bad it would feel to experience certain outcomes, given that the imagined future event has actually occurred. (Baumgartner et al., 2008: 686)

Regardless of the nature of the activity itself, within a DMC each step taken or activity completed in pursuit of the final goal is imbued with the highly positive anticipated emotion associated with ultimate goal achievement.

Learning a language is a considerable commitment, which requires us to understand broader motivational processes underpinning long-term learning behaviours, significantly, as they unfold over time. Theories such as the L2MSS have been successful in ‘creating a holistic, future-oriented perspective’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 32), yet they have been able to contribute little to furthering understanding with regards ongoing interactions between motivation and subsequent behavioural engagement. Indeed, even looking to the mainstream motivation literature, there is no theory which has yet striven to link, over time, goal-related dispositions with specific behavioural occurrences. As we concluded in 2016:

the temporal emphasis of the two self-image components of the L2 Motivational Self System (i.e., the ideal and the ought-to L2 selves) was not matched by a similar temporal perspective of the third component, the L2 learning experience, which has typically been operationalized in a very general and unchanging form as the sum of a learner’s attitudes toward L2 learning. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 32; see also Dörnyei, 2019a)

By contrast, DMCs offer ‘a motivation construct which handles goals and goal-related behaviors together in an experiential form within a concrete learning context’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 33). Their significance stems from the belief that the motivational basis of DMCs is comprised of the same building blocks as the motivational basis energising long-term behaviours more generally: DMCs thus represent an optimal form of engagement with extended projects (Dörnyei et al., 2016). (As I introduce in Chapter 3, in the context of L2 classrooms, we have understood DMCs as emerging via intensive group projects.) DMCs capture the power of a final vision and transfer it through a unique structure into sustained engagement, in so doing prolonging an initial vision-led surge and enabling individuals to function consistently at levels over and above what they might normally be capable of. We can understand DMCs as representing the perfect match between a vision and an accompanying action plan, which amplifies rather than absorbs energy: DMCs are thus unique within the field of L2 motivation research.

It is of relevance here to return briefly to the flow literature, and its recognition that flow can be experienced to varying degrees of intensity. The distinction has been made between ‘deep-flow’ or ‘macro-flow’ experiences and ‘micro-flow’ experiences. Examples of micro-flow experiences include ‘daydreaming, smoking, talking to people without an expressed purpose, or more clearly defined activities like listening to music, watching television, or reading a book’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000: 141). That is, seemingly ‘unnecessary’ behaviours, yet those which, if omitted from our daily lives, have the potential to cause considerable negative physical and psychological effects (see Csikszentmihalyi’s, 1975/2000, fascinating chapter titled ‘Effects of flow deprivation’). As Csikszentmihalyi reflected: ‘microflow activities may be as intrinsically rewarding as deep-flow activities, depending on a person’s like situation. In fact, the flow model suggests that flow exists on a continuum from extremely low to extremely high complexity’ (1975/2000: 141). In a later publication, Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre went on to suggest that ‘extremely intense and complex flow experiences probably occur at best only a few times in a lifetime’ (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989: 818).

Returning to the current discussion, we might also think of ‘DMCs’ and ‘partial realisations of DMCs’ or ‘partial DMCs’. Partial DMCs may occur when elements are slightly misaligned, yet in instances that are nevertheless characterised by the same sense of ‘effortless effort’ (that is, not when momentum is maintained by resilience or will power) and where individuals are moving towards rather than away from a desired target (i.e. characteristic of approach motivation). It is important to note, therefore, that not all instances of highly motivated, long-term behaviours can be characterised as DMCs or as partial DMCs (see also Henry & Davydenko, 2020).

In considering the pedagogical implications of DMC theory, discussion of such partial realisations may be highly relevant. We will never be able to rely on the sure emergence of (group) DMCs in L2 classrooms as a result of the introduction of a motivational group project (even one ‘with DMC potential’, see Chapter 3). Yet, owing to the fact that the motivational basis of DMCs and of long-term behaviour more generally is comprised of the same building blocks, even partial realisations may nevertheless manifest as relatively potent, positive motivational experiences.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have overviewed several key threads currently dominant within the field of L2 motivation research, each of which is able to offer an important contribution in terms of situating DMCs, understanding their emergence and explaining their significance. I began by detailing the relevance of the broad adoption of a complexity perspective throughout the field of SLA and its implications with regards to our approaches to research. I then went on to overview several key findings rooted in our understanding of self, language learner self-concept, emotions, and several areas of group-level investigation. I concluded by highlighting the significance of DMCs, both for the field of L2 motivation research and more widely (the challenge of incorporating the element of time into theoretical perspectives, for example, is certainly not limited solely to the study of motivation in SLA).

In the following chapters, I further develop this foundation. First, in Chapter 2, I introduce five key elements of the DMC framework in full. In Chapter 3, I then go on to consider in more detail the related notion of group DMCs, and consider which types of intensive group project – ‘with DMC potential’ – might be capable of facilitating their emergence in L2 classrooms.