Four research gaps in terms of the relationship between self-perceived affective
experiences and self-reported performances have been identified. First, in terms
of this relationship, two conflicting views of the role of an emotion exist. These
views diverge on the question of whether to consider emotions as causes or
effects. For example, as previously stated, although both MacIntyreet. al.(1997)
and Cheng (2008) investigated the relationship between FL anxiety and self-
reported performances in SLA/FLA, their research emphasis, methodology,
conceptual illustrations and findings largely differed. This is because in essence,
MacIntyreet. al.(1997) considered emotions as causes; whereas Cheng (2008)
considered emotions as effects.
In response to this issue, Coulson and Duff (1998) and Hegel (1807) suggested
that a logical solution to this conundrum was to consider both emotions and
performances existing and operating in an iterative system as a whole. Emotions
can cause performances just as much as performances can cause emotions. With
this dialectical solution in mind, we do not ask questions, such as ‘Does positive
emotions lead to better self-evaluations?’ because such a question suggests a
linear cause-and-effect relationship. However, another question is immediately
experiences and self-evaluated learner performances which are both fluid in
nature, and might change from time to time?’ This question focuses on whether
an appropriate toolkit exists to facilitate studying such an unstable and dynamic
unit (MacIntyre & Serroul, 2014).
Second, few studies can be found which have focused on the relationship
between the intensity of an emotion and self-evaluated learner performances. A
question is raised, ‘What is the relationship between the intensity of an emotion
and the learner’s self-evaluations?’ Can we use the self-evaluation as a proxy for
the objective performance to identify whether the relationship between self-
perceived affective experiences and self-evaluations follows the inverted U-
shape curve in the manner suggested by studies building upon the Yerkes-
Dodson original hypothesis (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908, p. 472)?
Third, researchers have tended to stick to well-established theories and
frameworks (Howe & Lewis, 2005). For example, a discrete emotion, FL anxiety
in particular, has been much more studied than other positive or negative
emotions, or several simultaneous emotion blends. On the other hand, a given
emotion is usually tied up with the discussion of certain self-related theories
(Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005). For example, fear is usually discussed together
with the Possible Selves Theory, and disappointment is usually discussed
together with the Self-discrepancy Theory.
When we start to conduct our studies with a well-established theory, such as the
prohibit us from seeing other things. With such a limitation on how we see
problems in mind, a question is raised, ‘If we keep a more open mind, can we
identify emotions other than those which were usually discussed together with a
given theory?’
Fourth, although there are a number of studies with a focus on the exploration of
emotions in SLA/FLA or of self-evaluations in SLA/FLA, few studies discuss
the relationships between these. From the few studies with a focus on self-
perceived affective experiences’ relationship with self-evaluated learner
performances, a performance-oriented self-evaluation used for the evaluation of
the learner’s performance at one particular point of time is predominantly studied
(Bachman, 2000). A more development-oriented self-evaluation used to observe
‘the participants for an extended period in order to detect changes and patterns of
development over time’ (Dörnyei, 2001, p. 194) is understudied.
With above concerns in mind, I am interested in the question, ‘What is the
relationship between the learners’ self-perceived affective experiences and their
self-evaluated performances?’ I employ the Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) as
an appropriate toolkit to assist me to study such phenomena which are fluid in
nature, and might change overtime. The rationale first is that DST would allow
me to situate emotions and performances in one iterative system. In this dynamic
system, both emotions and performances exist and operate equally at the same
time (in response to the first research gap). Second, DST would allow me to keep
an open mind to study several simultaneous emotion blends rather than discrete
emotions. Because I defined an emotion as ‘an emergent, dynamic process based
1307). That is, emotions are what people say they are (Frijdaet. al.,1995), rather
than predetermined by researchers or tied up with the discussion of certain well-
established self-related theories (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005) (in response to the
third research gap). Third, DST would allow me to investigate the intensity of
emotions and the learners’ self-ratings of their performances over time. DST
would also allow me to identify the learners’ developmental trajectory through a
period of time (in response to the second and fourth research gap). Therefore, I
employ DST to facilitate researching and comparisons. In section 2.7, I will
elaborate DST’s origins and characteristics. The main research question in this
study is as follows:
From a dynamic perspective, what is the relationship between the self-perceived
affective experiences of a group of learners and their self-evaluated performances
in a foreign language classroom?