Process-Oriented Perspective

The central precept of the process-oriented perspective on language learning motivation is the dynamic nature of motivation, particularly its variability across time. This paradigm is part of the cognitive-situated orientation born out of the need to account for the fluctuation of the L2 motivation of learners over time especially since learning an additional language requires commitment over long periods. This point of view recognises motivation as a dynamic aspect of language learning rather than a static trait inherent to some learners and not others. It defines language learning motivation in terms of a number of distinctive phases experienced by learners as they go through the language learning process. Various researchers distinguished a range of different phases they believe may explain the changeability of learner motivation. For instance, William and Burden (1997) defined motivation as a three-phased process consisting of the reasons for doing something, deciding to do something and persisting in doing it. Manolopoulou-Sergi (2004) similarly distinguished three phases in the motivation process; however, these were based on the information-processing model and identified input, central processing, and

50

output (Dörnyei, 2005) which does not reflect the idea of progress over time as well as the categorisation of William and Burden does.

Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) developed a process-oriented theory of motivation

consisting of three consecutive phases, the preactional, actional, and postactional stages. The first of these, the preactional phase, also known as choice motivation, relates to goal setting, forming intentions and launching action. It is in this phase that the motivation which results in a particular task or goal being chosen is generated. The next stage, the actional stage which involves executive motivation relates to maintaining the motivation generated in the previous stage for the duration of the task. Here the motivational

functions include generating and executing sub-tasks, appraisal of achievement and self- regulation. The third and final stage is the postactional stage which follows the conclusion of an action and is also referred to as motivational retrospection. During this stage, the learner looks back on the completed task in an evaluative manner which would impact on future choices of tasks in which the learner would be motivated to participate.

The strength of this approach relates to its ability to accommodate a variety of relevant motivational factors and organize them into continuous chronological phases. In this way there is no need to discard the multitude of established language learning theories, but rather these can be successfully integrated into the relevant stage of the mentioned system. For instance, the social psychological framework relates closely to the preactional phase in that it explains the dynamics of choice motivation well, but does not relate well to the other two phases where a more situated approach is required, according to Dörnyei (2005).

51

In a later publication, Dörnyei (2005, 2009) acknowledged the limitations of the Process Model associated with the mismatch between its linear nature and the complex nature of language learning motivation. Despite the comprehensiveness of this approach and its potential to account for the fluctuations in learner motivation which is characteristic of the language learning situation, it has some significant drawbacks. The Process Model is based on the assumption that the actional process is well defined and the various stages operate within clearly demarcated boundaries. This is problematic for the typical language learning situation in which it is hard to define the beginning of an educational action because of the interrelatedness of the various aspects in this context. In other words, any given action is influenced by the general milieu and learning context in which it happens. Therefore, it is a challenge to delineate any particular learning activity within the limited confines of the Process Model. The other significant challenge presented by this model is that it does not take into account the dynamic nature of the learning situation in which actions rarely occur in isolation. Most often a multitude of steps occur at the same time in such a manner that they overlap with each other. Some actions are initiated even before some others are concluded, and the learner had an opportunity to evaluate them. For example, the classroom is not a sterile environment, free of all other forms of activity which may influence learning activities, but rather students are involved in a number of ongoing actions related to the sociocultural dynamics of the classroom. Students may find themselves not only involved in learning but also participating in various identity relevant activities which co-occur in the classroom. Thus, the Process Model may explain the fluctuation in motivation over time, but it does not consider the complexity and dynamic nature of language learning motivation (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2011, 70).

52

The theories mentioned above represent the huge strides made by language learning motivation researchers over a number of decades and the vital influence of disciplines other than SLA theory and Applied Linguistics. The later theories consider a wider range of variables along with learner motivation to provide a more robust view of the driving force behind successful L2 learners. However, they still do not embody a holistic view of motivation and therefore still appear to be limited in their approach. It is for this reason that further efforts were made to address some of these limitations. The next section discusses the L2 Motivational Self-System which represents an attempt to further broaden the idea of language learning motivation beyond the confines of previous theories in general and more specifically as a response to the inadequacies of the integrativeness concept. Dörnyei, who is the principal proponent of the L2 Motivational Self-System, is one of the foremost researchers in the language learning motivation field due to the

contemporary relevance of his approach which has resulted in a surge of research in the field.