second language: a historical overview
3.3 The process-oriented period
As we observed in Section 1.1.2, a major challenge for motivation the-ories in general is to describe the temporal organisation of motivation, that is, to portray motivational processes as they happen in time. This is of particular importance when the target of our interest is a sustained learning process, such as the mastery of a second language, which may take several years to accomplish. Although most practitioners with sufficient classroom experience know too well that student motivation does not remain constant during the course of learning, it is only within the last decade or so that efforts have been made to analyse the dynamics of L2 motivational change at either the micro level (e.g. task motivation) or the more macro level (e.g. during a course of study, over a person’s learning history or across the lifespan).
In this section, we will first review the work of Williams and Burden (1997), Ushioda (1994, 1996a, 1998), and Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), which paved the way for process-oriented approaches to L2 motiv-ation, and then briefly summarise key lines of enquiry in this area.
3.3.1 Focus on time by Williams and Burden
A basic first step in analysing motivation from a temporal perspective is to clarify the conceptual distinction between motivation for
Quote 3.5 Williams and Burden on the need to separate the generation and maintenance of motivation
It is important to emphasise here that motivation is more than simply arousing interest. It also involves sustaining interest and investing time and energy into putting the necessary effort to achieve certain goals. We make this point because so often, from a teacher’s point of view, motiv-ation is seen as simply sparking an initial interest, for example, presenting an interesting language activity. However, motivating learners entails far more than this.
Williams and Burden (1997: 121)
61
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
engagement (choices, reasons, wishes, intentions, decisions), and motiv-ation during engagement (how one feels, behaves and responds during the course of learning). Among the first to highlight this simple but important conceptual distinction in relation to L2 motivation were Williams and Burden (1997). In addition to developing an extensive theoretical framework of L2 motivation (Section 3.2.1), they analysed the successive stages of the motivational process along a continuum:
Reasons for doing something
→ Deciding to do something
→ Sustaining the effort, or persisting.
As the authors argue, the first two stages may be seen as more con-cerned with initiating motivation, while the last stage involves sustaining motivation. They emphasise that these two aspects of motivation should be clearly differentiated, not just from a theoretical perspective but also from a pedagogical perspective. This conceptualisation bears a close resemblance to Heckhausen’s (1991; see also Heckhausen and Heckhausen, 2008) motivational dichotomy of ‘intention formation’
(or choice motivation) and ‘intention implementation’ (or executive motivation), and accords with the approach developed by Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) in their process model of L2 motivation (Section 3.3.3).
3.3.2 Focus on time by Ushioda
One reason why the L2 motivation field has been slow to address tem-poral aspects may have been the predominance of a quantitative research paradigm, characteristic not only of the Gardnerian social
Quote 3.6 Ushioda on the need for new research approaches to explore the dynamic nature of L2 motivation
Within the context of institutionalised learning especially, the common experience would seem to be motivational flux rather than stability. . . . Yet, the potential for developing a dynamic theory of L2 motivation would seem to extend beyond the phenomenon of motivational loss or growth alone. In this respect, a more introspective type of research approach is needed to explore qualitative developments in motivational experience over time, as well as to identify the contextual factors perceived to be in dynamic interplay with motivation.
Ushioda (1996a: 240–1)
psychological tradition within SLA but also of the psychometric tradi-tion of mainstream cognitive approaches to motivatradi-tion which came to influence our field in the 1990s. As we will see in more detail later in Chapters 8 and 9, quantitative research approaches seek to represent the bigger picture, using measurement instruments such as test batter-ies or questionnaires to examine generalisable patterns and relation-ships across a large dataset. Such approaches do not lend themselves easily to investigating the dynamic processes of motivational evolution within an individual person’s learning experience (though as we will see in Section 3.3.4, they can be used to measure motivational change at a more global level).
Not surprisingly then, a focus on the temporal dimension of motiv-ation heralded also a call for qualitative research approaches that would be more sensitive to exploring and representing the dynamic nature of motivational processes, as voiced in particular by Ushioda (1994, 1996a). In a longitudinal interview study with Irish learners of French (Ushioda, 1998, 2001; for an overview of the study, see Study 9.11 in Chapter 9), she identified inter-individual and intra-individual vari-ation in the temporal frame of reference shaping students’ motivvari-ation.
Sixteen of the 20 participants defined their L2 motivation principally in terms of the impact of a positive learning history, rather than in terms of future goals. With respect to future goal-orientation, her data sug-gested that this was ‘more appropriately conceived as a potentially evolving dimension of language learning motivation, rather than its necessary rationale’ (Ushioda, 1998: 81–2), since definitive goal structures
Figure 3.3 Ushioda’s (1998: 82) theoretical framework of motivation from a temporal perspective
63
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
may take considerable time to crystallise. In the meantime, the motiv-ational mainspring sustaining engagement in L2 learning may well be the learners’ L2-learning and L2-related experience, especially in the case of successful language learners; that is, ‘they may feel motivated to pursue language study because they perceive that this is what they are good at or what they enjoy most, and where therefore their future potential must lie’ (p. 82).
Figure 3.3 offers a schematic representation of Ushioda’s conception of L2 motivation from a temporal perspective. Learner A in the figure is motivated by positive experiences, with goal-directed patterns play-ing a minor role. In contrast, Learner B’s motivational thought struc-ture is primarily goal-directed. As Ushioda (1998, 2001) emphasises, the motivational pattern of Learner B may represent a potential later stage in the evolution of Learner A’s motivational thinking, as future goals assume greater importance or clarity. Thus, she concludes: ‘In this respect, the notion of a temporal frame of reference shaping motiv-ational thinking integrates the phenomenon of evolution over time, which seems central to the learners’ experience of and thus conception of language learning motivation’ (1998: 82–3).
Figure 3.4 Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998: 48) process model of L2 motivation
65
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3.3.3 Dörnyei and Ottó’s process model of L2 motivation
The most elaborate attempt to model the process dimension of L2 motivation was developed by Dörnyei and Ottó (1998; see also Dörnyei, 2000, 2001a). Their model organises the motivational influences of L2 learning along a sequence of discrete actional events within the chain of initiating and enacting motivated behaviour. In developing a process model of L2 motivation, Dörnyei and Ottó also aimed to synthesise a number of different lines of research in a unified framework, thereby offering a non-reductionist, comprehensive model.
Figure 3.4 is a schematic representation of the process model of L2 motivation, which contains two main dimensions:
• Action Sequence
• Motivational Influences.
The first dimension represents the behavioural process whereby initial wishes, hopes and desires are first transformed into goals, then into intentions, leading eventually to action and, hopefully, to the accomplish-ment of the goals, after which the process is submitted to final evaluation.
The second dimension of the model, Motivational Influences, includes the energy sources and motivational forces that underlie and fuel the behavioural process.
Drawing on Heckhausen and Kuhl’s (1985) Action Control Theory, Dörnyei and Ottó divided the motivated behavioural process into three main phases:
1. Preactional phase. This corresponds roughly to ‘choice motivation’
leading to the selection of the goal or task to be pursued. Within this phase, three sequential subprocesses can be distinguished: goal set-ting, intention formation and the initiation of intention enactment.
The main motivational influences during this phase are likely to be various goal properties (e.g. relevance, proximity); values associated with the learning process, outcomes and consequences; attitudes towards the L2 and its speakers; expectancy of success; learner beliefs and strategies; environmental support or constraints.
2. Actional phase. This corresponds to ‘executive motivation’ that ener-gises action while it is being carried out and, following Heckhausen (1991), can be compared to crossing a metaphorical ‘Rubicon’ (see Concept 3.6): by actually embarking on the task (e.g. enrolling in a language course), the individual is committed to action and the emphasis shifts from deliberation and decision-making to
implementation. During the actional phase, three basic processes come into effect: subtask generation and implementation to break down action plans into manageable units and short-term goals; a complex ongoing appraisal process to evaluate the multitude of stim-uli from the learning environment and monitor progress towards the goal; the application of various action control mechanisms or self-regulatory strategies to enhance, protect and sustain motivation and learning progress. The main motivational influences during the actional phase are likely to be the quality of the learning experience, sense of autonomy, social influences (teachers, peers, parents), class-room reward and goal structures, and knowledge and use of self-regulatory strategies.
3. Post-actional phase. This involves critical retrospection after action has been completed or possibly interrupted for a period (e.g. a holiday). The main processes during this phase entail evaluating the accomplished action outcome and contemplating possible infer-ences to be drawn for future actions. During this phase, the learner compares initial expectancies and plans of action to how they turned out in reality and forms causal attributions about the outcomes.
Through this evaluative process, internal standards are developed, as well as action-specific strategies for future learning, followed by the transition to new or further goals and intentions. The main motivational influences during the post-actional phase are likely to be attributional factors, self-concept beliefs and external feedback and achievement grades.
Concept 3.6 On the ‘Rubicon’ of action
The Rubicon was a small stream at the northern border of Italy in the era of the Roman Empire. In order to protect Roman democracy from military coups, a specific law forbade a general to lead an army out of the province to which he was assigned. In 49 BC, after a great deal of inter-nal political turmoil, Julius Caesar’s forces crossed the river Rubicon, thereby violating the law and declaring war against the Roman Senate (starting a three-year civil war that left Caesar ruler of the Roman Empire). ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ has since then become a phrase to describe a step that definitely commits a person to a given course of action. Heckhausen (1991) named his motivation theory the ‘Rubicon Model of Action Phases’ based on this analogy.
67
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
3.3.4 Researching motivation as process: key lines of enquiry As noted in Section 3.3.2, researching motivation as process and ex-perience over time (rather than as measurable cause or product of learning outcomes) raises issues about appropriate research methods and tools for exploration and analysis. We will consider questions of methodology in general at much greater length in Section III. Here we will briefly indicate the main lines of enquiry that have been developed to investigate the temporal dimension of L2 motivation.
Focus on global changes in motivation
A number of studies have investigated global changes in motivation during a course of study or over several years of learning, typically using questionnaire-type instruments to obtain measures of attitudes and motivation at different points in time, or from students in different year groups or stages of learning, and then examining change or dif-ference. Studies of this kind include, for example, Chambers (1999), Gardner et al. (2004), Inbar et al. (2001), Tachibana et al. (1996), Williams et al. (2002). A fairly consistent finding in longitudinal research on student motivation is evidence of some decline in levels of motivation, typically as students progress through the upper years of schooling and face increasing curricular, cognitive and linguistic demands and pressures.
While longitudinal surveys of this kind may offer only a fairly global picture of change, they can usefully shed light on particular dimen-sions of motivation which are more or less susceptible to change. In their study of university students learning French, for example, Gardner et al. (2004) found that situation-specific motivation (attitudes toward the learning situation) was prone to much greater changes than integrativeness, and that such changes were associated with students’
ultimate success in the course.
Undoubtedly, the most extensive and ambitious attempt to track motivational change to date is the large-scale longitudinal survey of Hungarian language learners conducted by Dörnyei and his colleagues (Dörnyei et al., 2006; see also Dörnyei and Clément, 2001; Dörnyei and Csizér, 2002). The survey of motivation and attitudes spanned the period from 1993 to 2004 and involved over 13,000 language learners aged 13–14. It entailed three phases of data collection timed to coin-cide with significant stages in the sociopolitical transformation of Hungary: Spring 1993 (just a few years after the fall of Communism);
late 1999 (end of the first decade of political freedom and on the eve of the new millennium); and Spring 2004 (shortly before Hungary’s membership of the European Union). Space does not of course permit a detailed summary of the findings of this major survey, except to note a steady decline in students’ interest in learning foreign languages over this time span, with the clear exception of instrumental motivation for learning English, which showed a marked growth. We will return to this finding and its repercussions at the end of this chapter and in Chapter 4.
Investigating motivation across the lifespan
Another developing area considers changes in motivation within indi-vidual learners’ experiences across extended periods of their lives, prompted perhaps by growing interest in biographical and auto-biographical methods of enquiry in applied linguistics and the social sciences in general (Chamberlayne et al., 2000). Studies of this kind include, for example, Lim’s (2002) autobiographical analysis of her motivation through experiences of learning English through different phases of her life from formal schooling as a child to her later life as a graduate student in the US.
Shoaib and Dörnyei (2005) developed this lifespan perspective on motivation further using retrospective qualitative interviews with 25 learners of English ranging in age from 18–34, and explored patterns of motivational influence and change in participants’ language learning histories and experiences over a period of several years (for more details, see Study 8.2 at the end of Chapter 8). The researchers iden-tified a number of recurring temporal patterns and key transformational episodes affecting motivation, including for example transitions to new life phases (such as leaving school and entering the world of work) or the experience of visiting an English-speaking environment.
Investigating motivational self-regulation
Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) process model of L2 motivation and the growing body of literature on motivation in relation to autonomy and strategy use have highlighted the importance of developing self-regulatory strategies to manage, reinforce or sustain one’s motivation during the course of learning. In her interview-based study of university learners of French, Ushioda (1998, 2001) identified various patterns
69
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
of thinking and strategic actions reported by students as a means of sustaining motivation. These included the positive attribution patterns summarised earlier (see Concept 3.5 above), as well as self-motivational strategies such as setting themselves targets, engaging in positive self-talk or rediscovering their enjoyment of learning by engaging in an L2 activity they find intrinsically motivating. As she later argues (Ushioda, 2003), learners’ capacity to take strategic measures to regulate their motivation is a function of the degree to which they are aware of them-selves as agents in constructing the thoughts and belief patterns that shape their motivation, and are thus able to step outside maladaptive belief systems and think positively and constructively to stay self-motivated. We will discuss the pedagogical implications of motiv-ational self-regulation in Chapter 5 (in 5.2.3).