Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed)

by Rod Ellis

  Post-actional phase. This is when the learner evaluates the outcome of the actions undertaken and forms causal attributions about the reasons for the success or failure of the action plan. During this phase, the learner will also consider what changes need to be made to the choice of action-specific strategies to ensure a more successful outcome in the future.

  The Process Model of L2 Motivation constitutes an attempt to build on previous L2 motivation research. The pre-actional phase draws on Gardner’s social-psychological perspective although it includes a much wider range of factors influencing choice motivation. The actional stage draws on the importance that self-determination theory attaches to the intrinsic motivation derived from performing learning tasks. The post-actional stage incorporates attribution theory.

  The model is an impressive attempt to construct a comprehensive theory of motivation that acknowledges its dynamic nature. Change can originate in any of the three phases of the model. However—as Dörnyei (2005) acknowledged—it has its limitations. As the labels of the different stages suggest, it reflects a linear view of motivation, whereas motivation must involve parallel action processes. Learners are involved in making choices, deciding on and implementing action, and evaluating outcomes concurrently in what Dörnyei calls a ‘motivational complex’. The model is useful, however, because it provides a basis for identifying specific strategies that teachers can employ to help motivate learners (see Dörnyei 2001).

  Group dynamics and motivation

  The second major development during this period centred on the powerful motivating force of group dynamics. As Dörnyei and Murphey (2003) noted, ‘groups have been found to have a ‘life of their own’—that is, individuals in groups behave differently from the way they do outside the group’ (p. 3). In other words, while motivation is a construct that relates to the individual learner, it will be influenced by the other members of the group that the learner is part of. A good example of this can be found in Dörnyei’s (2002) study of the motivational forces at work when learners performed a communicative task in pairs. He obtained measures of the motivation of Hungarian secondary-school learners’ of L2 English and also their attitudes to task-based teaching. He then asked them to perform an argumentative task in pairs and obtained measures of the number of words and turns produced by each student. He found that the learners were strongly influenced by their partner’s motivational disposition and this affected how they performed the task. He concluded that task-motivation is co-constructed (i.e. one learner’s motivation affects the other’s).

  Self-regulation and motivation

  Self-regulation, broadly defined, refers to the actions people take to organize and manage their learning. It is relevant to all three phases of Dörnyei and Otto’s Process Model but, arguably, is of central importance in the actional stage. Strong learning goals without effective self-regulation will have limited impact on learning.

  Kormos and Csizér (2014) investigated the inter-relationships between motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and learner autonomy in 638 Hungarian learners of English. Using a questionnaire, they obtained separate measures of motivation (for example, the learners’ attitudes to English as an international language and the instrumental value of learning English); self-regulation (for example, the learners’ willingness to actively seek out opportunities for learning English and their ability to plan their study time efficiently); and autonomy (for example, their capacity to exert control over learning resources). The results suggested that the learners’ motivation was a prerequisite for effective use of regulatory strategies, which in turn influence their level of autonomy.

  Motivation as an act of communication

  Finally, motivation can be seen as constructed in and through interaction. As McNamara (1973) noted long ago, ‘the really important part of motivation lies in the act of communication itself’ (p. 252). This perspective affords the most dynamic view of motivation.

  The theoretical basis for this approach was spelled out by Ushioda (2009). She proposed what she called a ‘person-in-context relational view of motivation’ (p. 220). Rejecting the dualism of ‘context’ and ‘learner’ inherent in earlier models of motivation, she argued that the learner is part of the context, both influenced by it, but also able to influence and shape it. Ushioda went on to suggest that questionnaires were not the best way to investigate learners’ motivation and that instead researchers should focus on the discourse that learners participate in. Drawing on Richards’ (2006) study of the different identities that teachers and students can enact in a classroom and how these affect the interactions they participate in, she noted that what Richards called ‘transportable identities’ (i.e. the identities that the classroom participants possess as individuals and can bring into the classroom) have a powerful motivational impact on the nature of classroom talk. However, very little is currently known about how interactional practices constitute social displays of motivation or how motivation arises or is lost in the interactions that learners participate in.

  The recognition that motivation is displayed in and developed through interaction potentially brings motivation research closer to one of the main branches of SLA we noted in Chapter 1—the role of interaction in L2 learning. Does the negotiation of meaning foster motivation or—as Aston (1986) noted—can it sometimes frustrate? There has been little attempt to relate models of motivation to the information-processing model that informs much of SLA research. Krashen (1981) saw motivation as an ‘affective filter’ that influences how much comprehensible input a learner processes. Schmidt (2010) proposed that more motivated learners notice more and also develop higher levels of awareness. However, there is currently little research to support either of these propositions.

  Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System

  Drawing on the insights from the range of theories considered in the previous sections, Dörnyei (2009) proposed a new theory of L2 motivation. The underlying principle of this theory is that motivation does not arise when learners identify with other speakers of the language (as in Gardner’s socio-educational model), but with future versions of their own selves. Dörnyei argued that learners have ideas of what they might become—their ‘possible selves’—and that these function as ‘future self-guides’ which set the standards the learner hopes to achieve. He proposed that a learner’s self-image as a second language speaker is partly based on actual experiences of the second language community and partly on imagination. The theory also recognized the impact that environmental conditions can have on motivation.

  There are three components to the L2 Motivational Self System:

  Ideal L2 Self. ‘If the person we would like to become speaks an L2, the ‘ideal L2 self’ is a powerful motivator to learn the L2 because of the desire to reduce the discrepancy between our actual and ideal selves’ (Dörnyei 2009: 29)NOTE 3. This component incorporates both integrative and instrumental aspirations relating to a desired end state, such as a better job. The ideal self also facilitates the self-regulation needed to succeed.

  Ought-to Self. This ‘concerns the attributes that one believes one ought to possess to meet expectations and to avoid possible negative outcomes’ (p. 29). Instrumentality is involved here but is preventive—directed at preventing negative outcomes (for example, performing poorly in an examination).

  L2 Learning Experience. This refers to the ‘executive motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience’ (p. 29). Important factors here are the impact of the teacher, the curriculum, the peer group, and the experience of success. This component, therefore, incorporates insights from self-determination and attribution theories.

  Dörnyei (2009) claimed that the results of a number of early studies provided ‘solid confirmation’ of the L2 Motivational Self System. He noted that the Ideal L2 Self was closely related to integrativeness, but that it explained a higher percentage of variance in measures of learners’ intended effort. The Ideal L2 Self also correlated with measures of promo
tional instrumentality while the Ought-to Self correlated with measures of preventive instrumentality, as predicted by the theory.

  Later studies, however, have not always supported the important role the theory attaches to the Ideal L2 Self. Lamb (2012) investigated the motivation of adolescent Indonesian learners in three contexts—a metropolitan city, a provincial city, and a rural district in Indonesia. Using a questionnaire based on Dörnyei’s own research, he was unable to obtain a satisfactory measure of the Ought-to Self. Of the other two components, it was L2 Learning Experience rather than the Ideal L2 Self that was found to be of greater importance in motivating the learners. Interestingly, the Ideal L2 Self was found to contribute significantly to learning in the metropolitan context (but less so than L2 Learning Experience), but did not contribute at all in the provincial and rural contexts.

  The L2 Motivational Self System has been shown to work well with learners in Hungary and in a number of other foreign language contexts (for example, Japan and Chile), but Lamb’s study suggests that the theory does not apply to all learning contexts. Perhaps the drive to develop a theory of L2 motivation that is applicable to every context is mistaken as separate theories may be needed to take account of contextual differences.

  Another limitation of Dörnyei’s theory is that it does not really account for the dynamic nature of motivation, a point acknowledged by Dörnyei. Like so many of the other theories, it has been investigated by means of a questionnaire that taps the general factors that shape learners’ motivation and assumes these to be stable. There is clearly a need for more qualitative studies of the kind Ushioda (2009) argued for. A final limitation is that, like all the other theories we have examined, no attempt has been made to relate motivational constructs to the underlying cognitive processes involved in second language learning.

  Summing up

  Over the years, thinking about motivation has evolved and complexified. The following is a summary of the main dimensions of motivation that have been identified:

  The Socio-educational Model emphasized the role of integrativeness in L2 achievement. In some contexts, such as bilingual Canada, learners who have a desire to identify with the target-language culture and its speakers achieve more than those who lack this desire.

  Learners’ self-confidence also plays a role in second language learning.

  Situation-specific factors are influential in facilitating learners’ intrinsic motivation, which is likely to be more powerful than extrinsic motivation in promoting learning.

  Learners form attributions about their success and failure and their subsequent motivation will depend on these attributions.

  Motivation should ultimately be seen as a ‘process’ rather than a ‘state’. Dörnyei and Otto proposed a model of motivation-as-process by distinguishing the factors involved in choice, executive, and retrospective motivation.

  Motivated learners are self-regulated (i.e. they plan, monitor, and evaluate their attempts to learn).

  A learner’s motivation is influenced by other learners; the dynamics of a classroom or of a learning group affect the extent to which individual learners are motivated, both overall and when performing specific tasks.

  In part at least, motivation is an interactional phenomenon as it is generated and maintained in and through the social interactions a learner participates in.

  Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System constitutes an attempt to construct a composite theory of L2 motivation by distinguishing three components—the Ideal L2 Self, the Ought-to Self, and the L2 Learning Experience.

  Ultimately, motivation is a highly situated phenomenon; the factors that shape it will vary according to the macro- and micro-settings learners find themselves in and will change dynamically in both the short and long term. For this reason, qualitative case studies of individual learners may prove a more effective way of investigating motivation than quantitative, survey-based methods.

  Language anxiety

  I turn now to consider briefly one of the key affective factors that has been shown to impact on L2 learning. Language anxiety is the anxiety that results from learners’ emotional responses to the learning conditions they experience in a specific situation. It differs from, but is related to, trait anxiety (i.e. the learner’s overall tendency to be anxious as a result of their personality). It has been investigated primarily in classroom learners by means of both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

  Much of the research has focused on the sources of language anxiety. Bailey (1983) analysed the diaries of 11 learners and found that they tended to become anxious when they compared themselves with other learners in the class and found themselves less proficient. Other sources of anxiety include being asked to communicate spontaneously in the second language, fear of negative evaluation, and tests. Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope (1986) developed a questionnaire that has been widely used by researchers—the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale—based on these three major sources. Learners, however, differ in what they find anxiety-provoking. Horwitz (2001) noted that ‘in almost all cases, any task that was judged “comfortable” by some learners was also judged “stressful” by others’ (p. 118).

  Researchers disagree about how anxiety affects language learning although the prevailing view is that high levels of anxiety impede learning. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991a), in a comprehensive review of the research, concluded:

  Covering several measures of proficiency, in several different samples, and even in somewhat different conceptual frameworks, it has been shown that anxiety negatively affects performance in the second language. In some cases, anxiety provides some of the highest simple correlations of attitudes with achievement.

  (MacIntyre and Gardner 1991a: 103)

  However, as with motivation, anxiety can be both the result as well as the cause of poor achievement. Sparks, Ganschow, and Javorsky’s (2000) Linguistic Coding Difference Hypothesis claims that success in foreign language learning is primarily dependent on language aptitude and that students’ anxiety about learning an L2 is a consequence of the learning difficulties they experience because of deficits in their aptitude.

  As with language aptitude, attempts have been made to relate language anxiety to the process of learning. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991b) proposed that learners generally experience little anxiety initially, so there is no immediate effect on learning. Subsequently, language anxiety develops if learners have bad learning experiences (such as those documented in Bailey’s diary studies). These have a debilitative effect on learning. Their model also recognizes that poor performance can be the cause as well as the result of anxiety. MacIntyre and Gardner (1991b) hypothesized that anxiety can affect the different stages of the learning process: the input stage (i.e. when learners encounter material for the first time); the processing stage (i.e. when they make connections between the new information and existing knowledge); and the output stage (i.e. when they demonstrate the new knowledge). Sheen (2008) showed that anxiety can affect the learners’ ability to process input. She found that the low-anxiety learners were much more likely to repair their errors following recasts and consequently learn from them. High anxiety, then, can impede learning because it interferes with the learners’ ability to process input in their working memory.

  Anxiety can be seen as an aspect of motivation as it impacts negatively on learners’ motivation to learn. It can also be seen as a personality variable. However, it would be a mistake to see low anxiety as a necessary condition for successful second language learning. In some cases, anxiety can be facilitative, driving learners to make more effort.

  Learning strategies

  Oxford (1989) defined learning strategies as ‘behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable’ (p. 235). There are, however considerable problems in deciding exactly what constitutes a ‘learning strategy’. Researchers differ in whether they should be restricted to strategies directed at attempts to learn or shoul
d also include communication strategies (i.e. strategies such as ‘requesting clarification’ used to resolve a communication problem). They also differ in whether they see them as involving conscious application on the part of the learner or as performed automatically without consciousness. One possibility—compatible with Skill-learning Theory (see Chapter 1)—is that they start out as conscious but subsequently, as a result of continuous use, become automatic and unconscious.

  Typologies of learning strategies

  A further problem is that there is no agreed typology of learning strategies. Different typologies appear with regularity. Some of the typologies (for example, Cohen and Chi 2001) distinguish the strategies associated with different language skills (for example, strategies for speaking, listening, reading, and writing). Others, such as O’Malley and Chamot (1990), list and classify the strategies believed to contribute to general language proficiency. Their typology has proven one of the most popular. It distinguishes three basic categories of strategies:

  Metacognitive strategies, for example ‘selective attention’ (deciding in advance to attend to specific aspects of language input).

  Cognitive strategies, for example ‘inferencing’ (using available information to guess meanings of new items, predict outcomes, or fill in missing information).

  Social/affective strategies, for example ‘question for clarification’ (asking a teacher or another native speaker for repetition, paraphrasing, explanation).