Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education. Christine Muir
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