Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education: Exploring Implications for Pedagogy 9781788928861

Citation preview

Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING Series Editors: Sarah Mercer, Universität Graz, Austria and Stephen Ryan, Waseda University, Japan This international, interdisciplinary book series explores the exciting, emerging field of Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching. It is a series that aims to bring together works which address a diverse range of psychological constructs from a multitude of empirical and theoretical perspectives, but always with a clear focus on their applications within the domain of language learning and teaching. The field is one that integrates various areas of research that have been traditionally discussed as distinct entities, such as motivation, identity, beliefs, strategies and self-regulation, and which also explores other less familiar concepts for a language education audience, such as emotions, the self, and positive psychology approaches. In theoretical terms, the new field represents a dynamic interface between psychology and foreign language education and books in the series draw on work from diverse branches of psychology, while remaining determinedly focused on their pedagogic value. In methodological terms, sociocultural and complexity perspectives have drawn attention to the relationships between individuals and their social worlds, leading to a field now marked by methodological pluralism. In view of this, books encompassing quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are all welcomed.  All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found at http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING: 8

Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education Exploring Implications for Pedagogy

Christine Muir

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/MUIR8854 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Muir, Christine, author. Title: Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education: Exploring Implications for Pedagogy/Christine Muir. Description: Bristol, UK; Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters, 2020. | Series: Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching: 8 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: ‘This book presents empirical research which investigates directed motivational currents (DMCs) in the context of second language learning and motivation. The studies explore participants’ individual experiences of DMCs, and the practical implications of DMC theory for L2 pedagogy through the use of intensive group projects’ – Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020018824 (print) | LCCN 2020018825 (ebook) | ISBN 9781788928847 (paperback) | ISBN 9781788928854 (hardback) | ISBN 9781788928861 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788928878 (epub) | ISBN 9781788928885 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: English language – Study and teaching – Foreign speakers. | Second language learning. | Motivation in education. Classification: LCC PE1128.A2 M844 2020 (print) | LCC PE1128.A2 (ebook) | DDC 428.0071 – dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020018824 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020018825 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-885-4 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-884-7 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2020 Christine Muir. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use paper that is natural, renewable and recyclable, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Riverside Publishing Solutions. Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by NBN.

Contents

Figures and Tables Acknowledgements Preface

ix xii xiii

Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects 1 Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research and the Emergence of Directed Motivational Currents From Macro to Micro Perspectives: Unavoidable Complexity Changing Methodological Priorities and Perspectives Possible Selves, the L2 Motivational Self System and Vision Language Learner Self-concept Language Learner Emotions Group-level Investigation: Motivation, Agency, Affect and Flow The Emergence and the Significance of Directed Motivational Currents Conclusion  2 What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics (1) Goal Orientedness (2) The Launch of a DMC (3) DMC Structure (4) Positive Emotional Loading (5) The End of DMCs Conclusion 3 DMCs in the L2 Classroom: Group DMCs and Intensive Group Projects (‘with DMC Potential’) Projects in the L2 Classroom How Do Projects Align with Other Pedagogical Approaches in SLA?

v

1 3 4 7 8 10 12 14 17 20 22 24 27 31 34 38 41 43 45 48

vi Contents

Introducing Group DMCs: Designing Projects ‘with DMC Potential’ for the L2 Classroom Conclusion

51 61

Part 1 Summary: Next Steps for DMC Research Next Steps for DMC Research Key Contributions of this Book

63 63 65

Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

67

4 Part 2 Methodology Development of the DMC Disposition Questionnaire Piloting the DMC Disposition Questionnaire Procedure  Participants Data Analysis Conclusion

69 69 73 74 74 75 77

5 Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs 78 First Look Results 78 Identifying DMCs in the Dataset 79 Creating a Composite DMC Disposition Scale  82 Interrogating the DMC Group: Comparisons with the General Long-term Motivation Group 84 Interim Summary: What Do We Know So Far? 90 A Closer Look at the DMC Group: Who Experienced DMCs?91 DMCs and Language Learning 94 Conclusion 97 6 Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs Investigating Commonly Reported Triggers Reasons for or Against Wanting to Repeat the Experience Conclusion

98 99 105 115

Part 2 Summary: Key Findings, Limitations and Pedagogical Implications116 Summary of Findings 116 Methodological Decisions and Limitations  117 Pedagogical Implications 117 Concluding Thoughts 118

Contents vii

Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

119

7 Part 3 Methodology Participants Instruments Procedure Data Analysis Conclusion

123 123 125 129 130 131

8 Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence Was the Intervention Successful in Facilitating a Group DMC? Interim Summary: A Group DMC Emerged! Benefits to Language Learning How Did these Benefits Come About? Conclusion

132

9 Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’: Key Criteria for Success  Conclusion

133 142 143 147 149 151 151 171

Part 3 Summary: Key Findings, Limitations and Pedagogical Implications172 Summary of Findings 172 Methodological Decisions and Limitations 173 Pedagogical Implications  174 Concluding Thoughts 175 Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

177

10 Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions and the Future of DMC Research Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions Study Abroad Longer-term Effects of Study Abroad Experiences Longer-term Effects of DMC Experiences? Key Contributions of this Book  The Future of DMC Research Conclusion

179 180 183 185 186 189 192 201

vii

viii Contents

Afterword 203 Some Practical Advice 203 Useful Websites 206 Researching Projects ‘with DMC potential’ (A Guide to the Appendices)207 Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire with Response/Routing Options208 Appendix 2: Student Diary Template and a Sample Completed Page 217 Appendix 3: Teacher Journal Template and a Sample Completed Page 219 Appendix 4: Traditional School Timetable and the Timetable for Week 1 of the Project 221 Appendix 5: Project Framework 224 References

225

Index

249

Figures and Tables

Figures

4.1 Description of DMCs used in the DMC Disposition Questionnaire71 5.1 Duration of the experience for the DMC and general long-term motivation groups  5.2 Ages of respondents within the DMC group versus the sample as a whole  5.3 Age range of respondents in the Never group compared to the sample as a whole 5.4 Language levels at the time that participants experienced this type of motivation in the context of language learning, for those who answered ‘Strongly Agree’ (N = 277) 5.5 Contexts in which DMCs were experienced in the context of language learning, for those who answered ‘Strongly Agree’ (N = 277) Afterword.1  Sketch of a project on creating a video clip to be used as class material

87 92 94

96 96 205

Tables

3.1 Seven frameworks for focused interventions 

58

4.1 Number of responses from the top 20 most well represented countries (in terms of number of respondents) 4.2 Number of responses broken down by continent  4.3 The age spread of respondents

76 76 77

5.1 Summary of responses to initial questions regarding participants’ recognition and experience of this type of intense motivation 5.2 Summary of responses to the question: ‘How often do you think you have experienced a project to this kind of motivational intensity?’ ix

79 79

x  Figures and Tables

5.3 Chi-square results: Level of intensity x whether participants would like to repeat the experience 81 5.4 Results of the exploratory factor analysis (Extraction method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation) 83 5.5 Results of the exploratory factor analysis with a forced two factor solution (Extraction method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation)83 5.6 Descriptive statistics for the four response groups submitted to ANOVA to compare scores on the DMC Disposition Scale 84 5.7 Descriptive statistics for the four response groups submitted to ANOVA to compare scores in the level of intensity reported 85 5.8 Descriptive statistics of responses on the DMC Disposition Scale in the general long-term motivation group for each of the seven age groups 85 5.9 Descriptive statistics of responses on the DMC Disposition Scale from participants in the DMC group for each of the four regrouped age categories  86 5.10 Chi-square analysis comparing the DMC and general long-term motivation groups by way of the duration of the experience 87 5.11 Descriptive statistics of the five groups put forward for ANOVA: Both the DMC group and the general long-term motivation group together (N = 1185; 1 = Not very intense, 5 = Very intense) 88 5.12 Descriptive statistics of the five groups put forward for ANOVA: The general long-term motivation group (N = 655) 88 5.13 Descriptive statistics of the five groups put forward for ANOVA: The DMC group (N = 530) 89 5.14 Summary of responses to the question: ‘Have you seen this type of intense motivation in people around you?’ 89 5.15 A 2 × 3 Chi-square analysis between participants’ own experience of DMCs and whether they have witnessed DMCs in others 90 5.16 Chi-square analysis comparing the DMC group and the rest of the sample by way of the ages of participants 92 5.17 Nationality make-up of the DMC group and the sample group as a whole for the top 15 most populous nationalities represented 93

Figures and Tables  xi

5.18 Nationality breakdown of the top 15 most populous nationalities in the Never group compared to the sample as a whole 5.19 Summary of responses to the statement: ‘I have personally experienced this type of intense motivation specifically while learning a language’

95 95

6.1 Group 1: Trigger linked to external influences (positive connotation) 101 6.2 Group 2: Trigger linked to external influences (negative connotation)  101 6.3 Group 3: Trigger outcome led 102 6.4 Group 4: Trigger connected to intrapersonal reasons  102 6.5 Summary of responses to the question: ‘How did this period of intense motivation begin?’104 6.6 Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 1: Outcome-based reasons 107 6.7 Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 2: Process-based reasons 107 6.8 Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 3: More intrapersonal reasons 108 6.9 Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 4: General/other reasons 108 6.10 Summary of responses as to why individuals reported wanting to repeat the experience 109 6.11 Why participants would not like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 1: Personal emotional/health reasons113 6.12 Why participants would not like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 2: Project specific/other reasons  113 6.13 Summary of responses as to why individuals reported not wanting to repeat the experience114 7.1 Overview of student participants

124

A4.1 Traditional course timetable A4.2 Lesson outlines for Week 1 of the study described in Part 3

221 222

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to have been able to collaborate with Zoltán Dörnyei, Alastair Henry and Zana Ibrahim in developing our understanding of directed motivational currents, and I am indebted to Zoltán for his dedicated and kind mentorship. My thanks go equally to the participants who freely gave of their time to participate in this research, and to Jessica Florent and David Leach for their unending patience, enthusiasm and openness in allowing me into their classrooms. I look forward to repaying this debt to all, with continued friendship and collaboration over the years to come.

xii

Preface

The course of human history is replete with stories of individuals who have accomplished extraordinary feats. Whether related to technological or scientific innovation, remarkable discoveries about the world around us, or astonishing feats of endurance, before such achievements are realised it can often be hard to think them even possible. Take, for example, two feats recently achieved by Tommy Caldwell and Alex Honnold: after years of striving, both have succeeded in ‘impossible’ rock climbs up El Capitan. ‘El Cap’, as it is affectionately known, is one of the crown jewels of Yosemite National Park. It is a 3000-foot sheer granite rock face and a lifetime ambition of rock climbers the world over. Caldwell ‘free climbed’ the – previously considered ‘unclimbable’ – Dawn Wall route alongside Kevin Jorgeson, using ropes and other aids only to save them from falls. Honnold later ‘free soloed’ the Freerider route up El Cap, completing the entire ascent without any ropes, harnesses or other safety measures. Their remarkable stories are captured in the recent feature length documentaries The Dawn Wall (2017) and Free Solo (2018). The passion and drive required to see such projects through to completion, enduring years of hardship and struggle in the process, are nothing short of colossal. These are extraordinary, personal passion projects, both of which led Caldwell and Honnold to experience remarkably robust outpourings of highly focused, intensely motivated, extended goal striving. Similarly motivated passion projects can be found in all arenas of life. For another example, in a different learning context, let us turn to the story of Rifath Sharook. Rifath was a young Indian boy who, in the words of Forbes India, lived to both ‘breathe and eat space research’.1 He grew up spending evenings in the garden with his astronomer father, gazing up at the night sky through a telescope. On watching the explosion of the INSAT-4C satellite just 72 seconds after its launch in 2006, he struggled to understand the difficulties surrounding the launch of a satellite into space. His father told him he would see for himself, when he launched his own satellite in the future – Rifath quietly committed to himself that he would. Rifath’s story took a turn when, at the age of 10, his father died and he was left without his teacher. xiii

xiv Preface

In his own words: ‘All the things I got is a slow 2G internet connection in my village. So I used the internet as my teacher, I started learning about all the space research and technology.’2 His passion and intense drive later saw him join a team through Space Kidz India,3 and ultimately – and while he was still in the process of completing his undergraduate degree in physics – design the smallest satellite in the world, which was launched into space by NASA in 2016.4 Through this project, Rifath and his teammates had clearly achieved something extraordinary. Driven by an intensely personal goal – rooted in his relationship and shared passion with his late father – he had worked immensely hard to achieve it. In a TEDx talk discussing their accomplishment, Rifath and one of his teammates, Mohammed Abdul Kashif, emphasised the importance of leadership, team management and positive group dynamics. Yet, as they described, having a common goal and joint vision was core to their success. They had a crystal clear idea of what it was they wanted to achieve, and this served both to block out competing opportunities for action and to continually trigger their attention back towards their goal. Indeed, their toughest hurdle was ultimately overcome via inspiration sparked from eating gulab jamun (a type of sweet and sticky fried dough ball) over dinner: What if they could build a satellite just as small and light? Remarkably, the reaction to their achievements was not universally positive. As Rifath went on to describe in this TEDx talk: Even a lot of big scientists and a lot of experts also told, why you students are concentrating in this kind of research? You have to study first, you have to settle up in the life, after that you can peacefully do the research. But we don’t want to wait for that time.

They did not want to wait, and – in today’s world, where they were able to access all the resources and support structures needed in order to achieve their goals – why should they have had to? I am unable to comment on the levels of Rifath’s engagement with his physics degree throughout this period, but the question would surely not be unwarranted. With such experiences of success and achievement in his own time – experiences that allowed him to act wholly authentically to his most personal goals and ambitions – to what extent could his formal studies have facilitated the same levels of engagement? In the context of English language teaching (ELT), such a stark authenticity gap has certainly been documented. In Sweden, for example, students are not only surrounded by English in their lives outside the classroom, but their using it as a means of communication is becoming increasingly commonplace. As Henry (2013) has explored, this includes through online gaming, a pastime that offers a very real avenue of language learning for many around

Preface xv

the world. Compared to the authenticity and autonomy that students can experience in the context of playing video games, the dry reality of classrooms can be unable to compete. As Henry describes, in order to succeed, players are required to work collaboratively, creatively, develop and draw on deep wells of knowledge, and interact not only with each other but ‘with the game itself’ (Henry, 2013: 137). It is therefore unsurprising to read his subsequent observation: ‘the English of today’s ­classrooms may by comparison seem less meaningful. Less “real”. A credibility problem seems to be emerging. There would appear to be an authenticity gap between the two worlds’ (Henry, 2013: 139). The students in our classrooms today live their lives in a world different to that seen even as recently as two decades ago. They have access to extraordinary resources and are increasingly technology savvy (and increasingly technology equipped), entirely at home with ‘the “twitchspeed” pace and multilayered delivery of modern media’ (Barcley, 2010: xi). Striving to establish motivating classroom conditions (cf. Dörnyei & Muir, 2019) and facilitative learning environments may no longer be sufficient to ensure that initial motivational impetus is translated into action and into productive learning behaviours (cf. Mercer, 2019; Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). One response to this challenge has been a resurgence in the use of projects as educational tools. The lure of projects is rooted in their potential to be able to facilitate for students the same intense surges of motivation they experience when following their own passion projects outside the classroom. Rifath’s story offers one such example of a motivational project experienced in the extreme. By way of offering another, I draw again on a quote describing the extraordinary outcome of a motivational project that we offered in Dörnyei et al. (2016). In the following, an EFL teacher is describing the outcome of a fundraising project that students had recently completed together in her class, which raised money for the Cancer Council:5 the autonomy the students worked with was beyond anything I had seen before. The most telling thing came right at the end when we were debriefing on the whole experience and sharing thank yous. The feedback from the students, in addition to the usual comments on making new friends, having great memories and feeling more confident in their English abilities, also included things like ‘having a new purpose,’ ‘being useful,’ ‘seeing themselves as capable of new things,’ ‘wanting to do it again,’ ‘wanting to teach others to do the same.’ All of these ideas made me realize that on top of the massive high they were on throughout the event and afterwards (as their success was celebrated quite publicly at the school), that they had learnt much more than language and new skills and knew that they could work with a heightened level of intensity towards their English language goals. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: xiv)

xvi Preface

Whether in contexts outside that of ELT and/or formal educational environments (such as in Rifath’s case and that of Caldwell and Honnold), or in the context of ELT classrooms such as that described by the teacher above, it is exactly these intense, long-term surges of motivation that are at the heart of this book. Even though to many, this type of extended, intense motivation is immediately recognisable, it is only in recent years that its theoretical basis has been explored. How is it, exactly, that individuals are able to maintain such extraordinary levels of motivation over such extended periods of time? And, more significantly still, how does it come to pass that – even when such motivational surges often come at considerable personal expense – people report enjoying doing so? Inspired by these questions, in collaboration with colleagues at the University of Nottingham and worldwide, we set out to explore the theoretical underpinnings of these intense motivational experiences, in so doing coining the term directed motivational currents (cf. Dörnyei et al., 2016; Dörnyei, Ibrahim et al., 2015; Dörnyei et al., 2014; Henry et al., 2015; Ibrahim, 2016a, 2016b; Muir & Dörnyei, 2013). A directed motivational current, or a DMC, is a surge of motivational energy that seemingly picks an individual up and carries them sometimes unimaginable distances. Oftentimes, people who have experienced DMCs look back and question how it is they achieved so much (often much more than they could have thought possible: think back to Caldwell and Honnold’s previously unthinkable climbing feats, Rifath and the launch of his team’s satellite into space, or the group of English language students’ extraordinary successes from their fundraising endeavours). During a DMC, an individual’s time often becomes highly structured, with clear routes mapped out to success and daily routines in place to help them achieve it. Significantly, throughout this time, these routines are followed without conscious volition. For example, an individual experiencing a DMC who is training for a marathon does not decide every morning to get up and go for a run. Instead, this simply becomes a part of who they are throughout this time: no debate or decision is needed. Actions and focus across all areas of an individual’s life align so as to work together to best achieve this outcome and – a final hallmark of a DMC – this is all directed towards the achievement of a personally highly valued goal. The motivational drive wrapped up in DMCs facilitates intense goal striving and extended periods of deep engagement towards a clearly defined outcome. As we have previously described them, DMCs represent ‘the optimal form of engagement with an extended project’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 33). Since DMCs came to the fore, empirical investigation has primarily sought to assess the validity of key cornerstones of the framework, including its goal/vision directedness, facilitative structure, and intensely experienced positive affect. This has been highly valuable in

Preface xvii

shoring up and refining our understanding of DMCs, but has left key research questions unexplored. Foremost among them is the broader relevance of DMCs (are DMCs only experienced by the lucky few whom we have had the pleasure of speaking with throughout these years?) and their relevance with regards to L2 pedagogy (might there be a way in which we can apply this theoretical knowledge to our pedagogy, in order to facilitate such experiences becoming a practical reality for learners in L2 classrooms?). The answers to both these questions are foundational to furthering the DMC research agenda. In this book, I explore the results of two international research studies, the focus of which was aimed directly towards the investigation of both these novel avenues of inquiry. Overview and How to Read this Book

This book is split into four parts. In Part 1, I situate the research that I go on to present within the field of SLA more widely. I begin in Chapter 1 by highlighting key developments in the field of L2 motivation research in recent years, using this to the trace the path to the emergence of DMCs. In Chapter 2, I offer a full overview of the theoretical underpinning of the DMC framework, before going on in Chapter 3 (the final chapter in Part 1) to root discussion in the potential educational applications of DMCs. Here, I introduce and explore both group DMCs and intensive group projects (‘with DMC potential’). I conclude Part 1 with a short summary, bringing together this opening narrative and setting the scene for what is to follow. In Parts 2 and 3 I present the findings of two empirical studies, each exploring one of the two key research questions identified above: Part 2 is more rooted in theory (exploring the broader relevance of the DMC framework), and Part 3 in practice (exploring implications with regards to L2 pedagogy and motivation). The first chapters of each part (Chapters 4 and 7) detail the methodologies of each study, before the following two chapters explore key findings and results (Chapters 5 and 6, and Chapters 8 and 9). I conclude Parts 2 and 3 by again offering concise interim summaries. In so doing, while this book can certainly be read from beginning to end, by bookending each Part in this way, I hope also to aid readers dipping in and out at those points most relevant to them or of greatest interest. I conclude the book with Part 4. After a brief introduction, in the single chapter here – Chapter 10 – I draw together findings and conclusions from the book as a whole. I return again to consider the ‘seven frameworks for focused interventions’ (the seven project templates we introduced in Dörnyei et al., 2016), and conclude by highlighting what I believe to be the most fruitful avenues for future research. The book concludes with a short Afterword, in which I both offer further practical

xviii Preface

advice with regards to running educational projects and direct readers towards additional practical resources freely available elsewhere. A Personal Note

The writing of this book has been both a challenge and a privilege. Throughout much of this book, I discuss the possibilities that collaboration can afford. Even though this book is sole authored it, too, would simply not have come into being without the colleagues with whom I have collaborated, the mentorship I have received and those friends and family who have acted as ever patient sounding boards and ‘silent partners’. I owe them all a huge debt of personal and professional ­ ­gratitude. While I cannot claim to have experienced a DMC throughout the writing of this book – I wish to begin writing as honestly as I intend to go on! – the past years have doubtless been punctuated with remarkable motivational experiences, reminiscent of the very essence of directed ­motivational currents. I hope that the ideas I present in these pages will be able to play their own modest part in furthering our collective understanding of DMCs – of long-term, individual and group-level motivational currents – and of our ability to facilitate such experiences for ­language learners in classrooms worldwide. Notes (1) http://www.forbesindia.com/article/innovation-nation/for-these-wonder-kidsthe-sky-is-not-the-limit/50043/1. (2) This TEDx talk is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7Oir4reI4E. (3) http://spacekidzindia.com/index.html. (4) Cubes in Space: http://www.cubesinspace.com/index.html. (5) www.cancer.org.au: known by slightly different names worldwide, it is comparable, for example, to the UK’s Cancer Research: www.cancerresearchuk.org.

1 Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research and the Emergence of Directed Motivational Currents

In the 60 years since the emergence of the new field of second language (L2) learner motivation (cf. Gardner & Lambert, 1959), the field has amassed a rich and diverse history. Multiple new perspectives and ideas have been translated into the field from other disciplines. Each has shed new light and offered fresh perspectives on our understanding of L2 motivation, and some have even pushed us to re-evaluate existing knowledge in light of these new contributions. Dominant perspectives have risen to the forefront and have driven the direction of the field throughout clear periods of its history (see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), yet, instead of overriding that which went before, each has opened new spheres of investigation and contributed unique insight. The field of L2 motivation research currently finds itself at an exciting juncture. Over the past two decades it has been revitalised with the broad adoption of a complexity approach to research and understanding, and this has posed possibilities equally as captivating as the magnitude of the challenges that have arisen alongside. Complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) has forced us to re-evaluate what it is we think we know about L2 motivation, and to revisit the methods we employed to reach these conclusions. Concurrent with this has been the emergence of several new strands of research, the reconceptualisation of our understanding of L2 motivation rooted in ideas of the self being key among them. It is no exaggeration to say that the challenge for beginning PhD candidates aiming to become familiar with the full history of the field is becoming increasingly daunting: Research output is continuing to grow year on year (Boo et al., 2015). 3

4  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Presenting a full overview of the field of L2 motivation research within a single introductory chapter – such is the space I have available here – is quite simply an impossible task. Happily, it is also a redundant one, as excellent overviews detailing the development of the field as a whole can already be found elsewhere (see e.g. Boo et al., 2015; Dörnyei, 2019a; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Lamb, 2017). Instead of offering a chronological overview of the field’s development, in this chapter I focus instead on key ideas and research strands currently dominant, included because they are best able to situate understanding relating to the emergence of directed motivational currents (DMCs) and the findings that I explore throughout this book. This has naturally led to a highly selective narrative, which will doubtless exclude areas that some readers would argue to be of critical importance. I defend myself against any potential criticism in this regard by foregrounding this primary purpose. I begin the chapter by introducing in more detail the ‘complexity turn’ the field continues to experience, before going on to highlight the impact that this has had on our methodological choices and decisions. I then discuss the reconceptualisation within the field towards an understanding of self, in doing so reviewing research on possible selves, the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b) and vision. I go on to overview key findings and ideas in the literature investigating language learner self-concept, learner emotions and several aspects of group-level investigation. I conclude the chapter by tracing the emergence of directed motivational currents (DMCs) and by highlighting their wider significance. From Macro to Micro Perspectives: Unavoidable Complexity

In nearly all respects, the ideas in this section underpin all those that I subsequently go on to explore in this chapter (and, indeed, throughout this book). Throughout the 1990s, concurrent with the absorption into the field of a broad range of cognitive theories (including, for example, self-determination theory, Deci & Ryan, 1985, and the notion of selfefficacy, Bandura, 1977a, 1997; for further see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), the field began to adopt an increasingly situated approach to research. No longer was research interest dominated by the investigation of the motives and attitudes of collective groups of language learners: a newly emerging focus was concerned with understanding the motivations of specific learners, in specific classroom contexts. If one were to observe a learner in any classroom, for any length of time – even if only over the course of a single lesson – it would not be possible to do otherwise than acknowledge the norm of motivational change: of ‘motivational flux rather than stability’ (Ushioda, 1996: 241). This narrowing focus brought out from the shadows a level of

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   5

complexity which – while it had, of course, always been there – could now not be ignored (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). What followed was an inescapable acknowledgement, awareness and focus not only on motivational change but on the complexity of the innumerable, interlinked factors affecting language learning and teaching. LarsenFreeman described this recognition in a seminal paper: Progress in understanding SLA will not be made simply by identifying more and more variables that are thought to influence language learners. We have certainly witnessed the lengthening of taxonomies of ­language-learner characteristics over the years, and we doubtless will continue to add to the lists. Schumann (1976) mentions 4+ factors, by 1989, Spolsky notes 74. However, it is not clear that we have come any closer to unraveling the mysteries of SLA now than before. If SLA is indeed a complex nonlinear process, we will never be able to identify, let alone measure, all of the factors accurately. And even if we could, we would still be unable to predict the outcome of their combination. (Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 156–157)

The emerging tradition developed understanding of motivation for the first time beyond that of a stable individual difference factor (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; see also Dörnyei, 2017). In this current book, exploring aspects of long-term L2 learner motivation, this recognition is key: not only are different individuals guided by different motives, but these motives should likewise be expected to evolve over time (Ushioda, 1998, 2001). Several new motivational frameworks were proposed during the decade prior to the new millennium (e.g. Dörnyei & Ottó, 1998; Williams & Burden, 1997); however, none gained widespread prominence. Even their most complex iterations failed to capture the full complexity of the classroom experience and the dynamicity of the motivational factors affecting any L2 classroom context (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009a). An even more radical reframing was needed. The emerging complexity perspective (de Bot et al., 2007; LarsenFreeman, 1997, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) provided exactly this. Having already exerted a considerable effect in the natural sciences (as Larsen-Freeman reports, some describe it as having ‘shaken science to its foundation’, see Larsen-Freeman, 1997: 142), the scene was set for it to evoke a similar effect on the field of SLA. As Hiver and Al-Hoorie (2016: 743) have argued, not only has a recognition of complex dynamic systems theory (CDST) become indispensable for furthering our understanding of L2 motivation, it is inescapable: CDST has become ‘an integral part of empirical research’, having reached ‘critical mass’ across multiple strands of SLA. Indeed, CDST has even been positioned as marking the ‘coming of age of SLA research’ (Ellis, 2007: 23).

6  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

To provide a fuller basis for discussion throughout this book, it is worth briefly overviewing some key concepts. As Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008: 25) explain, ‘an important feature, perhaps the most important feature, of complex systems is change’. All elements of a complex system are continually in flux, moment-by-moment change occurring in tandem with semester-by-semester and decadeby-decade change. Change is continually occurring, therefore, over multiple different timescales (cf. de Bot, 2015). A key implication is that traditional notions of linear cause and effect cease to offer up any inroads. As Larsen-Freeman and Cameron describe – and as LarsenFreeman’s quote at the start of this section also alludes – ‘To be able to predict behavior, we would need to know absolutely accurately every small detail of the starting state, called its “initial conditions”’ (2008: 57). Yet, the complexity of not only the classroom environment but also the rich tapestry of experiences each learner brings with them into the classroom, of course relegates this to the impossible. Having emphasised the centrality of change, complex systems can nevertheless settle into attractor states and experience periods of relative stability. As Hiver describes, systems are not ‘attracted’ towards attractor states in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, attractor states ‘are critical outcomes that a system evolves toward or approaches over time’ (Hiver, 2015: 21). This direction is 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).

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   7

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 LarsenFreeman’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-incontext-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-bymoment motivational change; social-network analysis (Mercer, 2015), investigating relationships between students acting within a group/

8  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

‘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. Regret­ fully 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

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   9

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 user that we would ideally like to become); the ought-to L2 self (that which we feel we should become); and the L2 learning experience (including the teacher, the textbook, the classroom environment and so on). Much has been written about the L2MSS since its introduction to the field. It has been validated and explored in diverse contexts (for example, Hungary: Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Saudi Arabia: Al-Shehri, 2009; and across Asia and areas of the Middle East: Matthew et al., 2017; Papi, 2010; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009) and from secondary school students to adults, including investigation of change over time (Hsieh, 2009; Kim, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012; Ryan & Dörnyei, 2013; Zhan & Wan, 2016). The L2MSS has further been investigated from qualitative perspectives (e.g. Aubrey & Nowlan, 2013; Irie & Brewster, 2013; Lamb, 2007, 2009, 2011; Taguchi, 2013), related to languages other than L2 English (e.g. German: Busse, 2013; Csizér & Lukács, 2010; although it should be noted that the vast majority of L2MSS research has been with L2 English, see Thompson & Vásquez, 2015); to the simultaneous study of multiple languages (Dörnyei & Chan, 2013; Huang et al., 2015); and with regards to teacher selves (Hiver, 2013; Kubanyiova, 2009, 2012). Of the two selfbased elements of the framework, research interest has tended to focus on the ideal L2 self. The ideal L2 self has largely been demonstrated to

10  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

be of greater relevance than the ought to L2 self, which has sometimes lacked explanatory power (the following offer several recently proposed developments and reconceptualisations in this regard: Lanvers, 2016; Papi et al., 2018; Teimouri, 2017; Thompson & Vásquez, 2015). Vision is argued to be an indispensable element in the motivating power of possible selves. This is because it is not only a cognitive goal that is evoked, but also ‘the sensory experience of a future goal state’ (Dörnyei & Chan, 2013: 454). Such sensory experiences of the future are largely generated through the same neural mechanisms as if we were to experience the event in reality (e.g. Moulton & Kosslyn, 2009; Reisberg & Heuer, 2005). Indeed, the brain can have difficulty in distinguishing an event that is occurring in reality from a detailed vision of the same event (Cox, 2012). Significantly, it is this ‘experiential element that makes possible selves “larger” than any combinations of goal-related constructs’ (Dörnyei, 2009b: 15). I return to explore further this motivational potential later in the chapter, in considering the relationship between vision/imagination and language learner emotions. What is common across all these strands of research is that focus is not on the day-to-day motivation of students but, instead, on the exhibition of long-term motivated behaviour. Csizér and Lukács (2010: 9) describe the ideal L2 self not only as a ‘crucial component to long term success in language learning’, but also more generally as ‘an indispensable part of motivated learning’. The zoning in of attention on vision was motivated by a search for higher-order factors which could explain the sustained periods of motivation that are required for remaining committed to long-term learning processes, such as language learning (Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014). Indeed, Dörnyei and Kubanyiova (2014: 4) have even argued that over the long term, a strong L2 vision may be ‘one of the most reliable predictors’ of learners’ intended effort. Possible selves and vision are central to DMCs, and we have positioned DMCs as a direct extension of the vision concept (Dörnyei et al., 2016; see also Henry, 2019). Language Learner Self-concept

A fascination with the self has long been a predilection of psychologists, and it is therefore unsurprising that it ‘headlines more psychological variables than any other concept’ (Higgins, 1996: 1062). As is clear from the previous sections, a considerable body of work in recent years by applied linguists, too, has centred on learner-internal constructs related to self and identity (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Mercer, 2011a) and many of these shared roots can be traced back to the introduction of the L2MSS (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b). As Markus and Nurius (1986: 954) state in their seminal paper, possible selves ‘provide the essential link between the self-concept and motivation’.

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   11

In educational research outside SLA, ‘the idea that students’ self-beliefs play a central role in their academic success is so widely accepted that self-constructs are a regular staple in studies of academic motivation’ (Pajares & Schunk, 2005: 95). In highlighting the plurality of these self-constructs, however, Pajares and Schunk also pinpoint a major cause of concern. The field of SLA already has several self-based constructs in regular use, including, for example, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and L2 linguistic self-confidence (Clément, 1980), and the adoption of another into the field has rightly been met with caution (MacIntyre et al., 2009). Yet, as Mercer describes, the self-concept represents: a more widely encompassing set of self-beliefs, it subsumes the more tightly domain-specific constructs, such as self-efficacy and L2 linguistic self-confidence, and also forms the psychological basis underpinning the diverse range of identities learners want and feel able to adopt. (Mercer, 2011a: 3; see also Mercer, 2011b)

In the context of SLA, the self-concept has been defined as ‘an individual’s self-descriptions of competence and evaluative feelings about themselves as a FL [foreign language] learner’ (Mercer, 2011a: 14). In 2011, Mercer noted her surprise at the scarcity of ‘in-depth, focused studies examining the nature and development of learners’ selfbeliefs specifically in the domain of Foreign Language Learning (FLL)’ (2011b: 335). In the years since, the body of related research has steadily expanded (cf. Csizér & Magid, 2014; Henry, 2009, 2014, 2015; Hsieh, 2009; Mercer, 2011a, 2011b; Walker, 2015), comprising investigation of both domain specific, cognitive and affective dimensions of the selfconcept, self-concept change over time, and the relationships between global and local aspects of the self-concept. For example, in one study investigating the motivations of dyslexic and non-dyslexic Hungarian students, Kormos and Csizér found that students’ L2 self-concept played ‘an important role in influencing motivated behaviour’ (Kormos & Csizér, 2010: 247). The authors highlighted the particular importance of L2 self-concept in understanding and supporting dyslexic students’ motivation, and of teachers’ influential capacity in this regard. Understanding a learner’s self-concept is a key element contributing to the initial conditions (see the first section of this chapter) that a learner will bring with them into the classroom (see also Falout and colleagues’ related work on the antecedent conditions of the learner rooted in, for example, Gorham & Millette’s, 1997, research exploring antecedent conditions, a conglomeration of learner-internal psychological factors with self-concept included among them: Carpenter et al., 2009; Falout & Maruyama, 2004; Falout et al., 2009). Understanding who learners are as people, holistically and respecting all elements of their lived experience, is critical to understanding their

12  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

motivation and consequent exhibition of motivated behaviours in L2 classrooms. It is this which is the foundation of Ushioda’s person-incontext-relational-view of motivation (Ushioda, 2009) and it is the selfconcept that likewise forms the basis of the stories that we tell about ourselves. Newly emerging approaches with respect to narrative identity provide a fascinating vehicle to investigate these issues, offering an intriguing and potentially highly fruitful avenue for further research (cf. McAdams, 2018; McAdams & Pals, 2006). The success or failure of any motivational intervention will inescapably relate back to its alignment with learners’ self-concepts, and understanding various aspects of a learners’ self-concept is likely to be particularly important in the context of understanding and exploring long-term motivation. Mercer (2019: 8) has recently argued that ‘in order to enhance active engagement on task, educators can also work at promoting a positive, healthy self-concept as a key antecedent for engagement’. While some elements of the self-concept are more open to fluctuation and change – possible selves are ‘the first elements of the self-concept to absorb and reveal such change’ (Markus & Nurius, 1986: 956) – they nevertheless comprise ‘relatively stable dimensions to self-beliefs’ (Mercer, 2011b: 343). These notions of self are particularly important in the context of DMCs. (I return in Chapter 2 to extend this discussion further by highlighting the importance of self-concordant goals; cf. Sheldon & Elliot, 1999.) Language Learner Emotions

Research into language learner emotions is certainly not a new area of study. Research into anxiety, for example, has a long history within SLA (see Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012). However, it is fair to say that the focus of research on emotions in this context has largely been restricted to the investigation of negative emotions (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014), and the resurgence of interest in recent years has been rooted in a drive to investigate their positive counterparts (a broadening focus that is likewise identifiable across other disciplines). Positive psychology centres on understanding the significance of positive emotions and their effect on the way we live and work (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000): it is ‘the empirical study of how people thrive and flourish’ (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014: 153). This broadened research focus has also brought with it critical conceptual clarification. Indeed, MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012) argue that a foremost finding to date has been the recognition that positive and negative emotions are not opposite ends of a single, dichotomous continuum. The absence of one does not indicate the presence of the other (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). For example, the lifting of an affective filter (a barrier to effective learning often experienced when

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   13

highly anxious; Krashen, 1981), does not equate to the presence of positive emotion (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014). Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory (1998, 2001, 2003, 2006) posits that some positive emotions – for example joy, interest or pride – ‘share the ability to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires and build their enduring personal resources, ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources’ (Fredrickson, 2001: 219). For example, whereas a negative emotion can limit our thought-action repertoire (for example manifested as a fight or flight instinct), certain positive emotions can actually serve to broaden it. As Fredrickson describes: Joy, for instance, broadens by creating the urge to play, push the limits, and be creative. … Interest, a phenomenologically distinct positive emotion, broadens by creating the urge to explore, take in new information and experiences, and expand the self in the process. (Fredrickson, 2001: 220)

It is significant that one citation Fredrickson draws on with reference to interest is Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975/2000; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) work on flow. Flow is characterised by focused concentration on and through the enjoyment of an activity during which people lose track of time and other elements of the human experience. Archetypical examples of flow include an artist working on a painting, a rock climber scaling a demanding rock face, a surgeon completing a challenging procedure or a dancer lost in experiencing the movement of their body (for flow research in the context of SLA see Egbert, 2003; Piniel & Albert, 2019). This experiential element is clearly reminiscent of the experience of DMCs, and I return to expand on this further later in this chapter. There are clear links between the study of emotion and that of possible selves and visualisation (introduced in previous sections). As MacIntyre and Gregersen (2012: 194) describe: ‘Imagination works best when it activates emotion’: it transforms the former from existing as cold cognition and imbues possible selves with their potential potency (MacIntyre et al., 2009). Indeed, links between possible selves and emotions were highlighted as far back as Markus and Nurius’ initial paper in 1986, which stated that in relating motivation and selfcognition, by proxy possible selves concurrently relate ‘self-cognitions and self-feelings or affect’ (Markus & Nurius, 1986: 958). Historically, sufficient attention to the emotional dimension of classroom language learning has been lacking (Dewaele, 2015), yet involving student emotions can be a highly effective means by which to garner student engagement. As Arnold describes: ‘To get the necessary attention for learning to occur, the brain needs to connect to meaningful

14  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

experience. One way to do this is through emotions: they engage meaning’ (Arnold, 2011: 13). It is important to note that attention to affect does not negate a focus on other cognitive processes (a common criticism of humanistic approaches to language teaching; see, for example, Arnold, 1999, for discussion). To this end, Arnold (2011) highlights both Forgas’s (2008) and Bless and Fiedler’s (2006) work investigating the key role of affect and emotion in cognitive development, and she also foregrounds additional neurobiological research further exploring their interdependency (cf. Storbeck & Clore, 2007). The current research climate is primed for further investigation into areas of positive psychology (MacIntyre & Mercer, 2014). The ‘complexity turn’ described at the outset of this chapter has laid the groundwork, so facilitating investigation of such complex phenomena, as has the widening of our methodological toolkit particularly with respect to the greater prominence of qualitative approaches and the more situated approach adopted by the field as a whole. I return to this discussion, and the ‘potentially powerful effects’ (MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012: 198) of positive emotions as yet so little studied in the field of SLA, in foregrounding the significance of DMCs at the end of this chapter.

Group-level Investigation: Motivation, Agency, Affect and Flow

At the turn of the century, Dörnyei (2001b: 49) noted that a ‘feature of task motivation which makes it a particularly intriguing research domain is the fact that the motivation of task participants is not independent of each other … task motivation is co-constructed by the participants’ (see also Dörnyei, 2002). This taps into a fascinating aspect of L2 motivation research that has been, and which continues to be, the focus of remarkably little investigation (for exceptions see, for example, Murphey et al., 2012; Sampson, 2015, 2016). Yet, concurrently to the changes within the field documented already throughout this chapter, a further development has been a drive away from prominently individualistic approaches to L2 motivation research. In their 2012 chapter, Murphey et al. foreground the relevance of groups and the importance of social learning, a fundamental tenet of ‘one of the most significant theories of learning of the twentieth century, Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory’ (Murphey et al., 2012: 221). They foreground the significance of socio-cognitive approaches (e.g. Atkinson, 2010), which integrate sociocultural ideas (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky, 1981) with more traditional theories of learning focusing on individual cognition. Atkinson’s work introduced the ideas of extended and embodied cognition. The former understands an individual’s ‘mind/ brain to be inextricably tied to the external environment’ (Atkinson,

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   15

2010: 599), i.e. investigation into the mind of an individual learner simply cannot be achieved without reference to and contextualization within the surrounding environment. As Murphey et al. (2012: 222) describe of embodied cognition: ‘context is internalized by the individual and the way it is internalized can change our moods, physiology, and ability to think in different ways. We refer to this as “context-in-person”’ (the authors playing with wording relating to Ushioda’s work on ‘personin-context’, introduced previously). Murphey et al. (2012) argue that such a perspective of extended and embodied cognition can be found in multiple key concepts within SLA, including the zone of proximal development (that which a learner is able to complete with the support of a more knowledgeable peer; Vygotsky, 1962) and role modelling (Bandura, 1997; Muir et al., 2019; Murphey & Arao, 2001). The powerful influence of groups on individuals is well documented: language learners’ motivation is shaped not only by internal processes but also by the surrounding L2 learning environment (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009b; Islam et al., 2013; Lamb, 2012). It is noteworthy that that there has been a stark lack of research into this core component of the L2MSS, with Dörnyei (2019b) going so far as to dub it ‘Cinderella’. Acknowledging the significance of group dynamics and of intergroup relationships within language classrooms (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Henry & Thorsen, 2018), it therefore follows that individual investigation of learner motivation should also be complemented by ‘a focus on what is emergent at the class group level’ (Sampson, 2016: 169; Muir, 2021). We can understand the emergence of group-level energy by referring to processes of emotional contagion, i.e. the catching or ‘infection’ of the cognitions and emotions of others (Barsade, 2002). The ripple effects of emotional contagion, which diffuse throughout a group, are capable of furnishing an entire group with positive mood, which subsequently impacts positively – or negatively – on attitude and the collective motivational level of the group (see Sampson, 2015, 2016). As Barsade and Gibson explain, not only is it the case that ‘affect at the group level can be generated through social interaction’, but this can ‘influence individual- and group-level outcomes’ (Barsade & Gibson, 2012: 119). In fact, they argue that group affect is an essential element of a group’s development (Barsade & Gibson, 2012), and group positive mood (mean-level group affect) has also been found to be positively related to group-level efficacy (Gibson, 2003). A fascinating related area of enquiry has been team/group flow. Research into flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; see also earlier in this chapter) has typically been limited to individual experiences. However, there is evidence that not only can flow be experienced at a pair or group level, and that ‘positive social interactions are particularly conducive to the flow experience’ (Aube et al., 2014: 121), but also that social

16  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

experiences of flow may be even more intensely experienced (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Walker, 2010). Keith Sawyer defines group flow as ‘a property of the entire group as a collective unit’ (Sawyer, 2006: 158). Even though Sawyer’s research is rooted in exploring the creativity of jazz musicians, he posits that the same may likewise apply to less overtly creative group endeavours – such as groups in education – providing that the group is united in its goal striving. In such productoriented collaborative situations, group flow will most likely occur ‘when the degree to which the group must attain an extrinsic collective goal is matched by the number of pre-existing structures shared and used by the performers’ (Sawyer, 2003: 167). In the same way that emotional contagion functions, empirical evidence has indicated that flow can likewise be ‘contagious’ (Bakker, 2005; Bakker et al., 2011; Schiepe-Tiska & Engeser, 2012). Although flow has typically only been investigated with regards to its prerequisites (e.g. Jackson, 1992, 1995), research has also begun to investigate the outcomes of group flow, for example relating to productivity (Aube et al., 2014), and this emerging strand of research is particularly relevant when considering these experiences in the context of education (see, for example, Salanova et al.’s 2014 study investigating collective flow and collective efficacy among work groups). A final, related line of relevant research here is that of goal contagion, describing how, in social contexts where goals are inferred by the behaviour of others, goal pursuit can also be automatically triggered (Aarts & Custers, 2012). These literatures can also contribute to our understanding of leadership within groups. For example, in the context of team sports, Swann et al. (2012: 815) posited that it may be the case that ‘players in flow act as the leaders within the team’. In the context of education, Bakker (2005) also found that students are more likely to experience flow when their music teachers are experiencing flow. Through processes of emotional contagion group leaders can transmit their mood to other individuals in a group (Sy et al., 2005), and, by modelling appropriate affective responses to specific challenges, leaders can likewise positively influence group processes and performance. Leaders can therefore consciously utilise emotional expressiveness ‘to influence group affect and behaviour – using positive affect, for example, to foster group cohesiveness and enthusiasm and negative affect to increase motivation and signal a change in direction’ (Barsade & Gibson, 2012: 121). The reason that group-level processes are so important in the context of this book is rooted in the fundamental acknowledgement that language learning primarily occurs with groups of language learners. Therefore, when considering the relevance of DMCs to L2 classrooms this likewise demands we adopt a group-level approach: we must explore

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   17

the notion of group DMCs. (I return to explore this idea in detail in Chapter 3.) The Emergence and the Significance of Directed Motivational Currents

Each of the topics I have introduced in this chapter is directly relevant to our understanding of DMCs: each is able to contribute to situating them within the wider field or, alternatively, has a tale to tell in the story of their emergence. It is immediately clear that DMCs fit well within the new zeitgeist characterising the socio-dynamic era of motivation research (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011) overviewed at the start of this chapter. The significance of DMCs stems from their ability to channel and align motivational impetus and energy down a single productive path, even in the midst of surrounding ‘chaos’. During a DMC, individuals’ behaviour becomes largely predictable, therefore providing a window of opportunity for systematic research (Dörnyei, Ibrahim et al., 2015). We have argued that DMCs may offer one response to addressing the research challenges that have arisen from the broad adoption of CDST perspectives. At their heart, DMCs are inherently goal/vision oriented and can be considered as being born as a direct extension of the vision concept (Dörnyei et al., 2016; Henry, 2019). A core feature of a DMC is a clear, personally important goal or vision channelling action. In this way, we can understand DMCs as representing an optimal form of approach motivation (approach motivation being ‘the energization of behavior by, or the direction of behavior toward, positive stimuli (objects, events, possibilities)’, Elliot, 2008: 3). In the context of language learning, this goal is invariably rooted in an individual’s ideal L2 self and supported by the surrounding imagery and experiential aspects this evokes. It may even be that learners with strong ideal L2 selves are particularly predisposed to experiencing L2 DMCs (Tsunoda, 2018). I expand further in Chapter 2 upon the means by which a goal can result in such an intense motivational outcome, but the genesis of this can be found in the fact that these goals are rooted in an individual’s core sense of self (i.e. reflecting the heart of one’s self-concept). In a DMC, a goal always links to the core of who an individual feels they really are (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; I introduce the notion of self-concordant goals in detail in the next chapter). The experience of such positive goal striving is what underpins the acutely experienced emotional affect characteristic of all DMC experiences. Within a DMC, this is experienced ‘not only to be positive, but very positive’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 90): for the period of time that a DMC is ongoing, DMCs truly do allow individuals to flourish. Recent work elsewhere has highlighted the relevance of intensely experienced

18  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

emotions to language learning and their potential to facilitate L2 development (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014). For example, eudaimonia (a core characteristic of the DMC experience, see Chapter 2) has been highlighted by MacIntyre and Mercer (2014) as one of several topics awaiting more detailed investigation. In this respect, too, the emergence of DMCs can be considered highly timely: they focus on an issue which had previously received relatively little attention. Rather than ‘focusing on self-regulatory strategies which help to limit the loss of momentum that occurs through encountering obstacles and difficulties during task performance’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 35), Dörnyei et al. continue: DMCs concern the motivational components and conditions that can energize engagement with an ongoing project, and reflect exactly the kind of holistic coming-together of all the necessary parts which the theoretical accounts in mainstream psychology have been lacking. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 35)

As noted earlier in this chapter, DMCs clearly share this experiential element with Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975/2000) notion of flow. We can understand the ways in which these two phenomena differ by comparing several other key characteristics of each. Firstly, flow experiences are almost always framed within the limits of individual tasks, typically not outlasting a period of several hours. As Csikszentmihalyi states: ‘To remain in flow, one must increase the complexity of the activity by developing new skills and taking on new challenges’, through a process of ‘spiralling complexity’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988: 30). A good example of this is the way in which players are kept ‘in the zone’ through effective videogame design: their increasing skill levels are matched by correspondingly more difficult levels within the game. Pleasure and enjoyment (the ‘flow experience’) are therefore derived directly from the act of completing the activity itself. (The preferred term to describe flow was initially ‘autotelic experience’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000), precisely because it required ‘no goals or rewards external to itself’ (1975/2000: 47.) By contrast, DMCs are a single stream of motivational energy that encompasses multiple, varied tasks, linked together by an overarching goal pathway and held together in a cohesive manner through the existence of a highly valued end goal/vision. It could well be the case, therefore, that some tasks, if they were to be experienced in other contexts, may not be at all enjoyable (for example, spending hours in a car travelling multiple times weekly to be able to attend language lessons in a different city, cf. Safdari & Maftoon, 2017). However, within the context of a DMC, such tasks function as an integral cog within an overarching goal pathway and, as such, are experienced in a remarkably positive manner. Positive emotionality does not emerge from engagement with each discrete activity – as in flow – but instead from the fact that

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   19

each task is taking an individual forwards towards a highly desired and personally significant end goal. The anticipated emotion linked with the achievement of the end goal is projected back throughout the entire journey. As Baumgartner et al. describe, anticipated emotions: do not involve any uncertainty because they are based on the assumption, through mental simulation, that the future event has already happened or will not happen. The person imagines how good or bad it would feel to experience certain outcomes, given that the imagined future event has actually occurred. (Baumgartner et al., 2008: 686)

Regardless of the nature of the activity itself, within a DMC each step taken or activity completed in pursuit of the final goal is imbued with the highly positive anticipated emotion associated with ultimate goal achievement. Learning a language is a considerable commitment, which requires us to understand broader motivational processes underpinning longterm learning behaviours, significantly, as they unfold over time. Theories such as the L2MSS have been successful in ‘creating a holistic, futureoriented perspective’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 32), yet they have been able to contribute little to furthering understanding with regards ongoing interactions between motivation and subsequent behavioural engagement. Indeed, even looking to the mainstream motivation literature, there is no theory which has yet striven to link, over time, goal-related dispositions with specific behavioural occurrences. As we concluded in 2016: the temporal emphasis of the two self-image components of the L2 Motivational Self System (i.e., the ideal and the ought-to L2 selves) was not matched by a similar temporal perspective of the third component, the L2 learning experience, which has typically been operationalized in a very general and unchanging form as the sum of a learner’s attitudes toward L2 learning. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 32; see also Dörnyei, 2019a)

By contrast, DMCs offer ‘a motivation construct which handles goals and goal-related behaviors together in an experiential form within a concrete learning context’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 33). Their significance stems from the belief that the motivational basis of DMCs is comprised of the same building blocks as the motivational basis energising longterm behaviours more generally: DMCs thus represent an optimal form of engagement with extended projects (Dörnyei et al., 2016). (As I introduce in Chapter 3, in the context of L2 classrooms, we have understood DMCs as emerging via intensive group projects.) DMCs capture the power of a final vision and transfer it through a unique structure into sustained engagement, in so doing prolonging an initial vision-led surge and enabling individuals to function consistently at levels over and above what they might normally be capable of. We can understand DMCs as

20  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

representing the perfect match between a vision and an accompanying action plan, which amplifies rather than absorbs energy: DMCs are thus unique within the field of L2 motivation research. It is of relevance here to return briefly to the flow literature, and its recognition that flow can be experienced to varying degrees of intensity. The distinction has been made between ‘deep-flow’ or ‘macro-flow’ experiences and ‘micro-flow’ experiences. Examples of micro-flow experiences include ‘daydreaming, smoking, talking to people without an expressed purpose, or more clearly defined activities like listening to music, watching television, or reading a book’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000: 141). That is, seemingly ‘unnecessary’ behaviours, yet those which, if omitted from our daily lives, have the potential to cause considerable negative physical and psychological effects (see Csikszentmihalyi’s, 1975/2000, fascinating chapter titled ‘Effects of flow deprivation’). As Csikszentmihalyi reflected: ‘microflow activities may be as intrinsically rewarding as deepflow activities, depending on a person’s like situation. In fact, the flow model suggests that flow exists on a continuum from extremely low to extremely high complexity’ (1975/2000: 141). In a later publication, Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre went on to suggest that ‘extremely intense and complex flow experiences probably occur at best only a few times in a lifetime’ (Csikszentmihalyi & LeFevre, 1989: 818). Returning to the current discussion, we might also think of ‘DMCs’ and ‘partial realisations of DMCs’ or ‘partial DMCs’. Partial DMCs may occur when elements are slightly misaligned, yet in instances that are nevertheless characterised by the same sense of ‘effortless effort’ (that is, not when momentum is maintained by resilience or will power) and where individuals are moving towards rather than away from a desired target (i.e. characteristic of approach motivation). It is important to note, therefore, that not all instances of highly motivated, long-term behaviours can be characterised as DMCs or as partial DMCs (see also Henry & Davydenko, 2020). In considering the pedagogical implications of DMC theory, discussion of such partial realisations may be highly relevant. We will never be able to rely on the sure emergence of (group) DMCs in L2 classrooms as a result of the introduction of a motivational group project (even one ‘with DMC potential’, see Chapter 3). Yet, owing to the fact that the motivational basis of DMCs and of long-term behaviour more generally is comprised of the same building blocks, even partial realisations may nevertheless manifest as relatively potent, positive motivational experiences. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have overviewed several key threads currently dominant within the field of L2 motivation research, each of which is

Key Threads in the Field of L2 Motivation Research   21

able to offer an important contribution in terms of situating DMCs, understanding their emergence and explaining their significance. I began by detailing the relevance of the broad adoption of a complexity perspective throughout the field of SLA and its implications with regards to our approaches to research. I then went on to overview several key findings rooted in our understanding of self, language learner selfconcept, emotions, and several areas of group-level investigation. I concluded by highlighting the significance of DMCs, both for the field of L2 motivation research and more widely (the challenge of incorporating the element of time into theoretical perspectives, for example, is certainly not limited solely to the study of motivation in SLA). In the following chapters, I further develop this foundation. First, in Chapter 2, I introduce five key elements of the DMC framework in full. In Chapter 3, I then go on to consider in more detail the related notion of group DMCs, and consider which types of intensive group project – ‘with DMC potential’ – might be capable of facilitating their emergence in L2 classrooms.

2 What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics

Although DMCs have only recently been explored theoretically, there is compelling evidence to suggest that they have never been far from the consciousness of those who have seen or experienced them. Not only anecdotally, but in the research literature, too, prior to the first publications on DMCs we can find descriptions of episodes highly reminiscent of DMC-like experiences. Lepp-Kaethler and Dörnyei (2013) explored the experiences of translators of religious texts and the extraordinary levels of sustained motivation they exhibited, remarkable both in terms of its intensity and longevity. They described it as a ‘jet stream’, in which ‘learners are caught up in a powerful inner current’ (Lepp-Kaethler & Dörnyei, 2013: 186), and similar motivational experiences have also been seen elsewhere described as a ‘fast track’ (Harber et al., 2003: 262). Fascinating foreshadows can also be found looking back further still to Peter Adler’s (1981) book Momentum: A Theory of Social Action. Adler describes momentum as ‘the charged flow of people acting at their peaks or nadirs’ (Adler, 1981: 14), and many aspects of his initial description bear a striking resemblance to our understanding and conceptualisation of DMCs, including a clear goal, performance over and above what an individual would usually expect of themselves, and accompanying positive emotionality. In Dörnyei et al. (2016) we noted that the concepts of DMCs and flow (introduced in the previous chapter) were born out of the same genesis of curiosity: researchers recognised powerful motivational phenomena in the world around them for which existing theory was unable to account, which subsequently pushed them to dissect the powerful mechanisms at work (see Dörnyei et al., 2016 and Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000). Interestingly, Adler describes his work on momentum as being born of exactly this same beginning, describing it in essence as ‘a basic “folk” idea’ (Adler, 1981: 14). Throughout the intervening years, research on

22

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  23

momentum has matured, and the term ‘psychological momentum’ has also been introduced (Markman & Guenther, 2007; for a recent discussion see Briki & Markman, 2018). The definition of the latter can be understood as something akin to a layperson’s understanding of momentum – for example, reflecting the upward spiral of ‘success breeds success’ – and with this in mind, it is unsurprising to note that much of the research conducted in this domain has been in the context of competitive sports (see Hubbard, 2015, 2017, for an overview of recent research into various aspects of momentum, and Dörnyei, 2020, for more detailed discussion of the relationship between momentum/psychological momentum and DMCs). Past literature has come tantalisingly close to recognising the unique motivational experience of DMCs, yet has fallen short of recognising the potential of this framework when viewed as a whole. This may be due, first, to a dominant focus on goal setting over goal striving: motivation has traditionally been considered largely in isolation from subsequent behaviour. Second, there has been the challenge in motivational psychology to fully account for the notion of time, and the fact that there is ‘no mainstream account of human motivation which would consider motivation to be a process’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 36; see also the previous chapter). Although several fascinating approaches have offered unique perspectives to the conceptualisation of action over time (e.g. time perspective as brought to the fore in Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999; Raynor’s, 1974, contingent path theory; and the notion of velocity in goal pursuit, see Carver & Scheier, 1990), when viewed in isolation none is able to fully account for the DMC experience. Third, it may even be that investigation of DMCs was supressed because they represented such a stark departure from dominant perspectives, which primarily sought to investigate strategies aimed towards limiting the loss of motivation (see previous chapter), that our eyes were simply not able to recognise a motivational phenomenon that was fundamentally contrary to this: a process which instead functions to energise long-term learning behaviours, in which ‘the outworking of the initial motive becomes part of the energy source itself’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: xii; see Chapter 1 of Dörnyei et al., 2016, for a fuller exploration of these ideas than I am able to include here). While no single theory has previously been able to fully account for the DMC experience, our understanding of DMCs as a whole is nevertheless rooted in many well established and deeply rooted theories, principles and ideas. Comprehensive overviews – both concise (Henry, 2019) and full length (Dörnyei et al., 2016) – can be found elsewhere, yet this book would not be complete without including its own precis and introduction. In this chapter, I summarise the theoretical underpinning of the five most prominent facets of DMCs: (1) Their goal/vision orientedness: a DMC is always directional, and always has a clear end goal.

24  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

(2) The launch of a DMC: a DMC always has a clear starting point at which action towards a goal is triggered. (3) DMC structure: action and engagement within DMCs are highly structured, with regular feedback loops underpinning the selfpropelling nature of the current. (4) Positive emotional loading: a key characteristic of DMCs is their acutely experienced positive emotionality. (5) The end of DMCs: DMCs are always finite, with motivation ceasing at varying rates, but via the same underlying processes. (1) Goal Orientedness

DMCs are in each and every case directional, with motivational energy channelled down an explicit goal pathway. It is clear, however, that not all goals inspire DMCs – DMCs are certainly the exception and not the norm in the context of goal striving! So, what is it that distinguishes a goal capable of inspiring a DMC-like surge of motivation? Of all the ideas incorporated into the field from mainstream motivational psychology in the 1990s (cf. Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011), goal theories were notably underexplored (although not entirely ignored, see, for example, Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). A reasonable argument to explain this is the surface incompatibility of the conceptualisations of ‘goals’ in mainstream versus L2 motivation research. In educational psychology, motivation literature has tended to consider generic goals such as mastery versus performance (Ames, 1992) or learning versus performance (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Both fall under the heading of goal-orientation theory and, as Dweck describes, these two dichotomies function largely in the same way: ‘Put simply, with performance goals, an individual aims to look smart, whereas with learning [or mastery] goals the individual aims at becoming smarter’ (Dweck, 1985: 291). In the field of L2 motivation, from its very inception goals had been conceptualised at a fundamentally different level: primarily viewed as ‘orientations’ (c.f. Gardner, 1985), much of this work exploring language learner motivation had directed a primary focus towards student attitudes. Research into goal setting is a discrete strand of investigation that has delved into the importance of goals in motivated action. A central tenet of goal theory is that for a goal to stimulate high levels of commitment, an individual must be convinced that the goal is important (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2006). Focus has centred particularly on the practical aspect of goal setting, and has sought to explain relative performance differences between individuals by way of goal attributes (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2006). This has highlighted three key areas in particular – specificity, difficulty and goal commitment (see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Locke, 1996). Three key strands of research are relevant

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  25

to furthering this understanding, these are vision theory, self-concordant goals and proximal subgoals: it is their collective insight that underpins our understanding of the powerful functioning of a goal in the context of a DMC. As introduced in Chapter 1, vision theory has already had a considerable impact on the field of L2 motivation. In the following sections, I further this discussion by introducing the notions of selfconcordant goals and proximal goal setting, neither of which has been fully explored within the domain of L2 motivation. Self-concordant goals

In tracing the trajectories of the DMC experiences of three Swedish learners, Henry et al. (2015) found that while participants did not immediately appear to have an explicit final goal – something which seemed counterintuitive against the backdrop of DMCs presented as intensely and explicitly goal-oriented – the strong desire of these learners to integrate into their target country nevertheless functioned exceptionally effectively. That is, while their goals appeared transitory, nebulous and continually subject to reappraisal, they nevertheless inspired the strong sensory experiences that we saw in the previous chapter are linked with clear visualisations. As Henry et al. described: Whether we choose to conceive of this ultimate goal/vision in terms of an integrative motive (Gardner, 2001), investment (Norton, 2013), or the desire to become one’s ideal L2-speaking self (Dörnyei, 2009b), the point is that it is one which operates at a heightened level of phenomenological abstraction. It is a feeling. A sensation. A sense of being or becoming. (Henry et al., 2015: 342; see also Colombo, 2017)

That is, the DMC experiences of these students were rooted in highly self-concordant goals. Self-concordant goals ‘belong to the self in a deeper sense’ (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999: 494; see also Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). They tap into our core values and beliefs and correspondingly are deep-seated and highly identity-relevant. Sheldon and colleagues have argued that it is not sufficient for a goal to be selfdetermined. Instead, when a goal connects directly to our core set of beliefs or values, we pursue it not due to a sense of either external or internal obligation but from a strongly held conviction (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Two features related to the pursuit of self-concordant goals are particularly relevant. The first derives from the fact that self-concordant goals are connected to an individual’s self-concept (see Chapter 1) and core sense of being, meaning that goal striving pushes individuals to act in ways that are identity-congruent. The second feature relates to

26  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

DMCs as a manifestation of periods of intense long-term motivation. As Sheldon and Elliot (1999: 483) explain: ‘the developing interests and deep-seated values that such goals express are relatively enduring facets of personality’. We should not be surprised, therefore, that selfconcordant goals tend not only to be pursued with more determination and vigour, but are also sustained over time in a generally more persistent manner. An interesting narrative is offered by Ibrahim (2017), who suggests that goals for L2 DMCs often emerge from or are rooted in selfconcordant goals that are held in other areas of an individual’s life. He describes the translation of goals from one domain to another as occurring when a participant’s self-concordant goal is paired with a suitable trigger (see following section). It was only at this point that his participants’ goals ‘changed from general to specific, from non-L2 to L2 related, and from abstract to tangible’ (Ibrahim, 2017: 29). Among several examples of this, Ibrahim offers that of Alan, whose L2 German DMC was sparked when he was required to reach a certain proficiency so that he might be offered a visa to move to Germany to live with his wife. A second example offered is that of Ali, whose L2 English DMC was sparked after an unsuccessful job interview, a change rooted in a desire to work in an ‘environment with more opportunities for personal growth’ (Ibrahim, 2017: 29). A similar example can be found in Selҫuk and Erten (2017: 134), who quote a learner describing their L2 English DMC goal: ‘I felt that it would give me something more than learning an only language; it would enable me to be a successful and active person in my future life.’ All these goals clearly have a very high level of selfconcordance: they are far bigger than being rooted solely in the further development of L2 competence. Proximal subgoals

Research into proximal subgoals began in 1977 with the publication of a paper by Bandura and Simon examining the relative effects of different goal setting conditions on individuals’ dieting success. The authors found that individuals who set more regular subgoals achieved a substantially greater weight loss, leading them to conclude that proximal subgoals have a key motivational role. This finding, relating to the functioning of distal and proximal goals, has since been replicated in multiple contexts, both outside and within the field of education (cf. Bandura & Schunk, 1981). This line of research was extended in 2004 by Miller and Brickman. Their starting point linked to self-concordant goals: they found that such ‘self-relevant’ goals created the foundation for individuals to ‘purposefully generate a coherent framework or system of proximal subgoals to guide action toward the attainment of those valued future

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  27

goals’ (Miller & Brickman, 2004: 15). This is reminiscent of DMCs that spiral upwards, with motivation increasing exponentially towards an end goal. A good example of this would be a DMC experienced in the run up to ‘race day’ after months of training for a half-marathon (such as Caroline’s experience as described in Dörnyei et al., 2016). Miller and Brickman explain: ‘As the system of subgoals becomes clearer and particular subgoals are accomplished, the level of commitment to the future goals grows stronger (Markus and Ruvolo, 1989)’ (Miller & Brickman, 2004: 15). A further function of proximal subgoals therefore also connects to the affective reactions elicited as each subgoal is completed, and this is a key contributor in maintaining the motivational current and in driving motivation onwards. Further to offering the final piece in the puzzle of our understanding of goals within DMCs, proximal subgoals, as we will see, also play a crucial part in the functioning of a DMC’s structure. (2) The Launch of a DMC

A second key feature of the DMC framework is the existence of a clearly defined starting point and identifiable trigger. The initiation of a DMC is dependent on two key factors: ‘the alignment of the necessary conditions (i.e., contextual, personal and time factors), and the availability of a specific triggering stimulus’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 59). In this section, I explore the basis of these initial conditions and triggering stimuli in more detail, and explain how it is they function together to maintain a continued flow of motivation through a process of continued re-triggering. Initial conditions

Concordant with a complexity approach (see Chapter 1), a triggering stimulus will only be effective in conjunction with an appropriate configuration of initial conditions. So far in this chapter I have already touched on several important conditions: for example, a strongly selfconcordant goal and the existence of a clear and appropriate set of proximal subgoals. A further key condition is a complete sense of ownership and control over the process and its outcome: individuals must feel capable of achieving success, both at each individual stage and ultimately overall. Ajzen (1991) labelled this perceived behavioural control, and defines it as an individual’s personal belief that they are capable of achieving their goal because it lies within their means to achieve a favourable outcome. A key principle of flow theory is the importance of an appropriate balance between challenge and skill, and this notion is similarly important within DMCs. However, while this delicate balancing act leads to the inherently fragile nature of the flow

28  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

experience (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988), DMCs are far more robust due to their elaborate re-triggering mechanism (I return to discuss this in detail in the following sections). A final key condition for the emergence of a DMC involves a link between an openness to the DMC experience and a ready disposition to engage positively with projects in a concentrated and conscientious manner. In personality psychology, research has investigated the correlates of a propensity to experience flow and has confirmed the existence of an autotelic personality (that is, someone particularly prone to experiencing flow-like experiences, Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000; see also Harmat et al.’s, 2016, edited volume). The aforesaid disposition is understood as a particular set of metaskills and competencies that combine to enable an individual to enter and stay in flow (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). These metaskills include ‘a general curiosity and interest in life, persistence and low self-centeredness’ (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2002: 93). Findings have demonstrated a strong negative relationship between autotelic personalities and procrastination (Ross & Keiser, 2014) and, conversely, that conscientiousness (Ross & Keiser, 2014), novelty-seeking and persistence (Teng, 2011) may be positively related to the likelihood of experiencing flow. Baumann and Scheffer have further identified an achievement flow motive, a composite construct involving total absorption in an activity, high concentration without effort, and the merging of thought and action. The authors argue that it is an ‘amalgam of the aroused need to master challenging tasks (seeking or seeing difficulty) and its mastery-approach implementation (mastering difficulty)’ (Baumann & Scheffer, 2010: 1306). In Dörnyei et al. (2016), we posited that this construct offers an integration of the dispositions mentioned above and forms a bridge to Elliot’s (2008) concept of approach motivation (it is worth remembering from the previous chapter the definition of DMCs as an optimal form of approach motivation). This growing literature clearly suggests that there are certain characteristics that make people particularly susceptible to experiencing flow, and it is likely that some of these may also apply to DMCs. This is a fascinating area for further study. Triggering stimuli

In order for a DMC to emerge, a clearly identifiable (although often only retrospectively) trigger is required to initiate action: this is the final piece of the puzzle falling into place, sparking a DMC into being. As the body of research into DMCs has grown, so has the number of DMC triggers that have been identified. The type that I have most often referred to so far throughout this book has been an opportunity for action – for example, the chance to take part in a half-marathon

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  29

(e.g. Caroline’s experience described in Dörnyei et al., 2016). Safdari and Maftoon (2017) describe a similar opportunistic trigger in an L2 context, born from the chance to move to Italy. Ibrahim (2017) identified further triggers, including emergent opportunities, moments of realization/ awakening, new information, negative emotion and new connections with others who share similar goals, and Zarrinabadi et al. (2019) describe several socially rooted triggers – for example, chance meetings and comments from significant others. A further interesting trigger that has emerged is related to exposure to appropriate role models (cf. Bandura, 1997). A role model is someone that we look up to or admire and that we would like to become more like (Muir et al., 2019; Murphey & Arao, 2001). For example, Tsunoda (2018) notes that in the Japanese context, proficient teachers appear to serve as strong role models paving the way for DMC experiences. Pietluch also reports on a learner whose DMC was triggered in the company of a highly motivated group of friends. As ‘Daniel’ describes: At that point in my life, I found it extremely difficult to motivate myself. I had no vision whatsoever of what I wanted to do. One day, when I was visiting my friends, they told me about the trip to Argentina they had been planning for months. As this was not easily affordable, they both took extra hours at work to gather the necessary funds. Although they were obviously very tired, I was astonished by how much they enjoyed every small progress bringing them closer to their dream holidays. I found this extremely motivating and soon decided to join them in their efforts. (Pietluch, 2018: 53)

While Pietluch explains this in the context of Bandura’s (1997) notion of role modelling, referring back to the notion of goal contagion, introduced in Chapter 1, one might also wonder to what extent this may shed further light on this participant’s experience. As Aarts and Custers (2012) describe: an appreciation of the goals motivating other people we interact with allows one to entertain similar goals and to try to attain them oneself. It promotes successful pursuit of one’s own needs, desires, and goals. Furthermore, by pursuing the goals of others, people may become more similar in what they desire and strive for, and hence in their plans for the future (Aarts, Dijksterhuis & Dik, 2008). (Aarts & Custers, 2012: 235)

The implications of this with regards to group DMCs (introduced fully in the next chapter) are certainly fascinating. Relating this discussion to a complexity approach to understanding, introduced in the previous chapter, it is clear that the effectiveness of any trigger, on any given occasion, can only be understood with reference to the wider context and surrounding conditions. When this powerful

30  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

match occurs, DMCs tend to begin both immediately and with great intensity. In the words of Hanna, whose L2 Polish DMC was triggered by a negative experience, this comprised a single comment made when she was unable to converse with a particular interlocutor: ‘after this everything changed, after this moment’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 9). Such a sudden and significant effect from seemingly small events is known colloquially as the butterfly effect (Gladwell, 2000) – or a phase shift in CDST terminology (see Sampson, 2016, for detailed discussion and further examples) – and such strong reactions are invariably rooted in the highly identity-relevant nature of the self-concordant goals fuelling DMCs. Many further examples of discrete triggers can be found across the emerging DMC literature (see Safdari & Maftoon, 2017; Selҫuk & Erten, 2017; Zarrinabadi & Tavakoli, 2017 for good examples of carefully documented DMC experiences), and in Chapter 6 of this book I present a considerable body of new evidence in this regard. Continual re-triggering: Maintaining the current

A triggering stimulus provides a key role in initiating a DMC, and a similar mechanism also plays a critical role in maintaining the current of motivation as it unfolds. To a certain extent, DMCs always remain domain specific: there will be times during which a DMC must necessarily take a back seat to the tasks and obligations of daily living. The DMC process is supported through such interruptions via the continual re-triggering of the current of energy. We can find a theoretical account for this by returning to the bodies of literature surrounding both goal and vision theory. At any point in time we each have multiple possible selves, both L2- and non-L2-related, and it is simply not possible that all might be held concurrently in our working self-concept (Markus & Kunda, 1986; Markus & Nurius, 1986). As Markus and Nurius (1986: 957) describe: ‘The working selfconcept derives from the set of self-conceptions that are presently active in thought and memory … a continually active, shifting array of available self-knowledge’ (emphasis added). The limited capacity of the working self-concept stipulates that specific self-conceptions only become active ‘when they are triggered by significant self-relevant events, or they can be tuned in by the individual in responses to an event or situation’ (Markus & Kunda, 1986: 859). Indeed, a basic tenet of the motivating power of future self-images is that they must be regularly activated and kept alive for any motivational potential to be realised (Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014). A further important piece of the puzzle is the principle of chronic accessibility (Higgins et al., 1982). Throughout a DMC, the vision of an idealised future self is not only more frequently activated, but it is

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  31

activated more widely, and in situations not overtly associated with an individual’s goal. This is further explained by Markus and Kunda: Some self-conceptions because of their importance in defining the self and their extensive elaboration, are probably constantly available for characterizing the self; they are what Higgins has called chronically accessible (Higgins et al., 1982). These conceptions reflect one’s behaviour in domains of enduring salience, investment or concern, and they have been variously labelled as core self-conceptions or as self­schemas (e.g. Markus, 1977). (Markus & Kunda, 1986: 859)

Within a DMC, the underpinning goal/vision acquires an enduring salience, becoming chronically accessible in the working self-concept. As Bargh et al. explain, chronically accessible constructs are ‘automatic perceptual biases that reflect the long-term nature of one’s social experience’ and as such become ‘default interpretive mechanisms’ (Bargh et al., 1988: 604). The authors go on to argue that while such chronic accessibility might be overridden temporarily by the demands of everyday life, ‘it is just a matter of time before one’s dispositional perceptual set will be restored to ascendancy’ (1988: 604). In the context of DMCs, this means that once a goal or vision exceeds a critical threshold of personal importance – that is, identity-congruence – it becomes an automatic regulator of behaviour, ensuring that resulting actions and the vision itself become an integral part of an individual’s life. This continual re-triggering mechanism and chronic accessibility of a vision within a DMC is a key differentiating feature from flow. During a DMC, the chronic accessibility of the goal or vision triggers the continuation of a single current of energy across a wide range of vision-congruent actions that may only be linked by the overarching goal pathway itself. This sensitive re-triggering mechanism of a DMC means that an individual becomes highly attuned to the potential possibilities of each environment and how each might be optimally exploited. Individuals possess, therefore, a chronic capacity to block out competing possibilities for action: it is this which forms the essence of the DMC ‘hyperdrive’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016). (3) DMC Structure

The structure of a DMC plays an active role in maintaining the motivational current (Dörnyei et al., 2016). In this section, I highlight three key areas which, when viewed concurrently, are able to offer a compelling theoretical explanation: automatised behavioural routines; subgoals and progress checks; and the important role of affirmative feedback.

32  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Behavioural routines, motivational autopilot and nonconscious self-regulation

Clearly perceptible throughout any DMC is the existence of routines that become entrenched patterns of behaviour: for example, always and everywhere carrying L2 vocabulary flashcards, such as in Louise’s DMC experience in Ibrahim (2016b), or rising early and staying up late to study, as Tuba in Zarrinabadi and Tavakoli (2017). Throughout the time a DMC is ongoing, these tasks do not require volitional control, leading to a type of motivational autopilot. When in a DMC, individuals perform successfully without conscious awareness of the need to expend effort. This is particularly relevant when considering the changing nature of this effort as it is perceived as DMCs end. I return to discuss this further in the final section of this chapter. Nonconscious self-regulation is a strand of research in motivational psychology that has become increasingly active in recent years (see, for example, Aarts & Custers, 2012; Bargh & Chartrand, 1999; Bargh et al., 2001; Custers & Aarts, 2007; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004; Papies & Aarts, 2010). While the term is something of an oxymoron – for how can ­something be unconscious yet self-regulated – it nevertheless effectively communicates the recognition that human behaviour is influenced by processes not solely under volitional control (for an overview of nonconscious motivation in SLA see Al-Hoorie, 2019). Non-conscious self-­regulation functions to enable people to automatically prepare for goal-directed action while blocking out potential interference from temptations. Two primary processes have emerged as possible sources for these seemingly ‘spontaneous’ reactions. The first of these is linked to the chronic accessibility of an individual’s goals/visions within their working self-concept, and the emergence from this of certain automatic perceptual biases which influence how they interact with their environment. The second process suggests that, when repeatedly activated, goals become associated with performance situations and, as a result, behaviours in these situations become automatised (see previous section on continual re-triggering). Nonconscious self-regulation concerns not only the automatic activation of goal-relevant action but, concurrently, affords individuals an increased ability to ignore distractions and to resume goal pursuit after disruptions (Bargh et al., 2001; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003; Shah et al., 2002). These findings are able to explain the protective shield of visionary single-mindedness (Dörnyei et al., 2016) experienced by individuals throughout DMCs, within which levels of commitment to a certain goal/ vision become so high as to become pervasive and the resulting behaviours habitualised, effectively ruling out competing opportunities for action. Fitzsimons and Bargh (2003) refer to this as ‘chronic motivation’, an eloquent term highly apt in describing the protective layer formed around goal pursuit and the all-encompassing nature of a DMC surge.

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  33

Subgoals and perceptions of progress

The important role of progress checks is reflected in a point underemphasised in Csikszentmihalyi’s description of the flow experience and across the flow literature more broadly. As Csikszentmihalyi recollects: ‘as I watched and photographed painters at their easels, one of the things that struck me most vividly was the almost trancelike state they entered when the work was going well’ (1975/2000: xiv; emphasis added). Even within flow – a process fuelled entirely by an intrinsic enjoyment of the activity at hand – positive evaluations of progress and a feeling that it is productive are key to maintaining this heightened state (Kimiecik & Stein, 1992). For example, in the context of flow experiences described by elite figure skaters, lack of audience response was reported as a factor perceived as instrumental in preventing or even disrupting flow experiences (Jackson, 1992). From a DMC perspective, this means that positive appraisals of the velocity of goal pursuit (how quickly someone is progressing towards achieving their goal; Carver & Scheier, 1990) are critical to supporting its continuation. Measures calculated solely through personal perceptions are inherently subjective and so regular proximal subgoals (introduced earlier in the chapter) become indispensable for maintaining a clear sense of progress: they offer standards from which personal perceptions can be measured, mark progress and offer both immediate feedback and future incentives. Affirmative feedback

Also known as progress feedback, affirmative feedback is a type of discrepancy feedback that focuses on highlighting differences between an individual’s initial and current levels of performance, i.e. by highlighting what an individual has already achieved (Voerman et al., 2012). In the context of DMCs, affirmative feedback plays a particularly important role by highlighting and contributing to positive student perceptions of progress and is another key cog in the structure of a DMC. Affirmative feedback can manifest itself in varied forms throughout a DMC. For example, Henry et al. describe how not only was feedback and explicit validations of progress from ‘experts’ (such as language teachers) important, but that participants actively sought out further, ‘more ecologically valid’ (Henry et al., 2015: 339) forms of feedback on the same pieces of work from L2 speaking friends. A participant in Sak’s study described the importance they ascribed to homework in this regard: I know it may sound odd, but I feel happy when we are assigned homework because I understand how much I have learned when I complete homework assignments. If I see that I am able to complete tasks, and I am able to give correct answers, I feel happy. I talk to myself and say that ‘Yes, I am doing well.’ (Sak, 2019: 163)

34  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Certain nonverbal cues can also be perceived as providing affirmative feedback, as described by Asan, who experienced an L2 English DMC soon after graduating as a social worker in Iraqi Kurdistan: I would see the effect of this when I was talking to others in English and I could see in their eyes that they saw a change in me – a change in my skills for the better. … I would see these things in the eyes of people around me on a daily basis, these occasions were very happy moments. They would make me super happy. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 93). (4) Positive Emotional Loading

A core characteristic of DMCs is the positive emotional tenor experienced in relation to all aspects of a DMC pathway. Manifested as a seemingly irrational sense of joy, satisfaction and well-being, individuals experience a unique feeling of contentedness and fulfilment, of connectedness between activity and identity. This is often experienced both emotionally and physically, as a feeling ‘in the pit of your stomach’ or in the way in which an individual interacts and represents themselves to the world around them (see, for example, ‘Bina’ in Henry et al., 2015). So far in this book, I have already touched on three areas able to contribute to our understanding of the positive emotional loading of DMCs, each with different theoretical roots. Firstly, ideas of possible selves from social psychology can help account for how, in a DMC, an individual’s ideal self becomes highly accessible and frequently activated. Goal theories in motivational psychology have foregrounded the relevance of self-concordant goals, and I have also highlighted key links between DMCs and flow in positive psychology (albeit with the unique ‘high’ characteristic of each emanating from starkly differing sources). Drawing again from positive psychology, in the following I review the concept of eudaimonic well-being as conceptualised by Waterman (1993, 2008), with particular reference to two core features: dedicated effort in the pursuit of excellence and authenticity (Huta & Waterman, 2013). Eudaimonia

The concept of eudaimonic well-being (Huta & Ryan, 2010; Huta & Waterman, 2013; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 1993, 2008) originated with Aristotle and is now widely used in positive psychology to refer to a deep and often enduring sense of personal contentment, specifically linked to the experience of actualising one’s potential and the realisation of personal fulfilment (as contrasted to hedonia, a more transitory, euphoric ‘in-the-moment’ experience of happiness). Eudaimonia involves experiences and feelings of ‘rightness’ and a ‘centeredness’ in one’s actions (Waterman, 2008) and a sense of ‘being where one wants to be,

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  35

doing what one wants to do’ (Norton, 1976: 216): it is experienced as a feeling of being intensely alive and entirely fulfilled. The majority of research carried out into eudaimonia within positive psychology has been through the conceptualisation of it at the trait level (Huta & Waterman, 2013) – such as that by Deci and Ryan (Deci & Ryan, 2006; Ryan et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2013), Ryff (Ryff, 1989; Ryff & Singer, 2008) and Seligman (Seligman, 2002) – and focus has generally centred on its experience in relation to a ‘manner’ or ‘way’ of living. Although such research undoubtedly touches on the feelings of deep inner joy experienced within DMCs, the definition of DMCs as a structured stream of energy, facilitating specific goal-directed behaviour, aligns them more closely with research conducted into eudaimonia at the state level. State level eudaimonia has been most thoroughly explored through Alan Waterman’s eudaimonic identity theory (Waterman, 1993). The central tenet is that feelings of eudaimonia are generated by acting in a manner consistent with the actualisation of personal potential. Feelings of personal expressiveness in such situations function as a signal to individuals that they are acting in a manner consistent with goals that have an intrinsic value, the consequence of which is that such actions are reinforced (Huta & Waterman, 2013). A defining element of Waterman’s work is the positioning of self-realisation and living a life with meaning and direction together as a core defining feature, and around this central core exists what Huta and Waterman (2013) describe as three ‘near-core markers’: purpose and meaning in life; dedicated effort in the pursuit of excellence; and authenticity. The first of these overlaps with experiences of trait eudaimonia, in that it operates at a broadly more general level. The latter two, however, are particularly relevant to the current narrative exploring positive emotional loading within DMCs. Dedicated effort in the pursuit of excellence

When viewed within a longer-term context – for example, that of DMCs – dedicated effort in the pursuit of excellence can make starkly clear the difference between the two forms of pleasure introduced above: the transient highs associated with hedonic pleasure, and the deep-seated feelings of eudaimonic well-being. Waterman et al. (2008) draw on the example of an alpine skier. The intrinsic thrill of alpine skiing is able to generate powerful feelings of hedonic pleasure, yet for some – for example, someone working to hone their skills in the hope of qualifying for the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics – such time spent on the slopes generates not only hedonic pleasure but also eudaimonic well-being from the pursuit of a highly self-concordant goal and an idealised personal vision. Self-concordant goals therefore function as a mediating construct, as Sheldon and Houser-Marko (2001: 163) explain: ‘It is possible to

36  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

become happier through one’s striving pursuits, if one picks the right goals and does well at them.’ Ericsson’s (2006) research into expert performance suggests that for those who strive to achieve such goals, a crucial part of developing and maintaining high-function capabilities is the devotion of time to what, when viewed in a different light, might be considered monotonous activities. Such activities are not only valued highly because they are perceived to generate long-term rewards and satisfaction, but also for the actual enjoyment and well-being generated during the process of carrying them out. The positive emotional loading of a DMC can be understood in exactly this way. On-task engagement is considered as rewarding regardless of the activity being completed, with the ultimate joy anticipated upon goal accomplishment being projected backwards onto each step in the pathway. Such a motivational basis even has the power to support individuals’ ability to recover quickly and effectively from distraction, and to override what in any other context would be highly energy-sapping factors – such as exhaustion. In a DMC, this instead leads to continually regenerating reserves of energy, creating an almost permanent channel of positive feelings (cf. Henry et al., 2015). As Tina describes of her L2 Italian DMC experience: Everything seemed fantastic about Italy: its culture, language, and people. I felt the whole world was focusing in Italy. I heard about it more frequently on TV and in the news. I was aware that it was my own feeling, but it was all around me. (Safdari & Maftoon, 2017: 50) Authenticity

Researched in parallel to eudaimonia, the third of Huta and Waterman’s near-core markers, authenticity, is widely accepted as being indispensable in the generation of such experiences (Huta & Waterman, 2013). Coming from the Greek authenteo, meaning ‘to have full power’, authentic functioning refers to an individual’s experience of being ‘the master of his or her own domain’ (Kernis & Goldman, 2006: 293). Viewing the concept of authenticity from a DMC perspective, the most relevant body of work is again that which conceives of it at the state level. State authenticity is experienced when activities in the present are concordant with core values and features of the self. Authenticity is therefore conceptualised as ‘a situational emotional experience rather than a condition of being’ (Vannini, 2006: 239). As Vannini and Burgess describe, the indicator of realness or authenticity is the degree of congruence between one’s actions and one’s core self-conceptions – consisting of fundamental values, beliefs, and identities to which one is committed

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  37

and in terms of which one defines oneself. When actions are congruent with core self-conceptions, one’s self is affirmed and one experiences authenticity. (Vannini & Burgess, 2009: 104)

State authenticity is an affective quality that people are motivated to obtain (e.g. Gecas, 1994; Lenton et al., 2014; Vannini & Burgess, 2009), and success in doing so positively impacts on their experiences of ­satisfaction and well-being (e.g. Lenton, Slabu et al., 2013; Sheldon et al., 1997). Vannini describes two distinctly recognisable experiential patterns of authenticity that are particularly relevant (Vannini, 2006; Vannini & Burgess, 2009). The first is highly reminiscent of the peak moments of hedonia and connectedness experienced during flow, and Vannini and Burgess describe these situations as being instinctive: where ‘the self awakens to the importance of its meaningfulness and willpower’ (Vannini & Burgess, 2009: 108). The second pattern is one characterised by authenticity becoming chronic, creating ‘sensation plateaus’ exemplified through constant feelings of satisfaction, serenity, contentment and inner peace. Such patterns can be highly enduring, lasting ‘for semesters or even years’ (Vannini & Burgess, 2009: 110). Both types of authenticity experiences are relevant to the discussion of DMCs. Evidence of peak moments of flow throughout DMC pathways may not be unusual, although it is the second pattern that is clearly better able to explain the enduring, deep satisfaction so synonymous with the DMC experience. A recent line of research into the relationship between state authenticity and the activation of ideal selves has found strong overlaps, and this is highly instrumental in explaining the manner by which authenticity experiences within DMCs are maintained: ideal selves are likely to be not only highly accessible (that is, easily triggered and brought into awareness) but also frequently activated (in situations where the goal is directly in focus and in situations that are not overtly goal-related). In researching this interrelationship, Lenton and her colleagues drew on the principle that people may feel most authentic when ‘conforming to their own ideal selves’ (Lenton, Bruder et al., 2013: 277). They found that participant characterisations of their ‘most-me’ authentic-self experiences often included ‘low-arousal positive emotions’ (2013: 282) such as calmness and contentment, reflecting highly idealistic views of the self. Further to this, these ‘most-me situations’ tended to be characterised by high levels of satisfaction reported in relation to both current and future selves, leading the researchers to conclude that in situations where authenticity is experienced, this relates to both current and future ideal-self states. They consequently argued for a reciprocal relationship between the two constructs, where not only can the activation of an ideal self ‘make people feel “real”’, but it can also become active following on ‘from experiencing oneself as “real”’ (2013: 285).

38  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

The reciprocal relationship between experiences of authenticity and the activation of the ideal self argued for by Lenton and colleagues is of particular significance when we view it within the context of DMCs. In a DMC, activities taking an individual forwards towards the achievement of self-concordant goals generate enduring low-arousal feelings of authenticity, caused in part by the chronic accessibility of ideal selves. When this emotional dimension is permeated by feelings of authenticity and eudaimonic well-being, this may stand as a factor that actively facilitates the accessibility of the ideal self (Dörnyei et al., 2016). The sustained motivating power of a DMC current maintains its overall positive emotional loading from this symbiotic relationship: On the basis of these considerations, it may be reasonable to assume that in a DMC the ideal self becomes a more or less permanent part of the learner’s conception of the self. Thus, the vision of the future self is so pervasive that it becomes part of who the learner is; part of ‘the real me’. (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 113) (5) The End of DMCs

Many DMCs will end at the point of achievement of the final goal (for example, on the day of the marathon, or when a visa or new job is successfully obtained). However, it is sometimes the case that a DMC will lose energy and the current of motivation will dissipate prior to this. When the latter occurs, this can result from a discord between an individual’s final subgoal and their overall vision. For instance, this might occur if an individual realises that even with the completion of all their planned subgoals they would nevertheless remain a considerable distance from their final goal (good illustrations can be found in Henry et al., 2015 and Safdari & Maftoon, 2017). A DMC might similarly break down if the person experiencing it were to lose a set of resources or a support structure that they had been relying on. Depending on the nature of this loss, the dissonance originating from such realisations might either see motivational energy slowly ebb away (for example, if a favourite website suddenly becomes unavailable, requiring reliance on other resources) or it could cause an abrupt break (for example, as was the case for Tina after her anticipated move to Italy was cancelled, reported in Safdari & Maftoon, 2017). In either eventuality, this breakdown leads the structure and processes forming the DMC backbone to cease to function effectively (or, indeed, to cease to function at all). In the final section of this chapter, I overview two key resultant outcomes, equally relevant to all types of DMC endings (i.e. it is the timescales over which they unfold that differ): the disappearance of the protective shield of visionary single-mindedness and the increasing perception of effort as a subjective experience.

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  39

The disappearance of the protective shield of visionary ­single-mindedness

Throughout a DMC, the final goal maintains a chronically accessible presence in the working self-concept. Once the goal is successfully achieved – or if anything occurs to weaken the overall functioning of the structure of a DMC, as in the examples offered above – the protective shield of visionary single-mindedness, which forms a strong protective layer around goal pursuit, becomes correspondingly weakened. As a consequence, the diminishing prominence of the final goal allows competing outlets for motivational energy to surface, concurrently allowing the surfeit of alternative activities that previously could have been pursued to once again become attractive. This can be understood as occurring with the culmination of several underlying processes (Dörnyei et al., 2016). The first stems from a change in the structure of goal constellations. The diminishing prominence of a final goal brings with it a diminishing level of identity-relevance and self-concordance, so creating opportunities for other goals – previously viewed as unimportant – to gain new levels of significance. As other goals emerge as equally self-concordant and personally meaningful, they can take over prominence in an individual’s working self-concept. This therefore leads to the loss of the dominance of the ideal self in working cognition. Throughout a DMC, the chronic accessibility of the final vision gives it a remarkable ability to resist challenges from competing self-concepts and, in practical terms, this also insulates it from potentially detrimental self-knowledge. The decline in the phenomenological strength of the end vision diminishes this robustness to withstand challenge, and self-images from other domains become increasingly successful in dislodging the prominence of the DMC-related ideal self from its prominent position in the self-concept (see Henry (2015) for a more detailed discussion of the dynamic interrelationships between L2 self-images). Outside the context of DMCs, goal-directed behaviour is guided by an information processing system which continually evaluates the relative costs and benefits of pursuing a particular course of action (constantly appraising the rewards that a particular goal-directed activity might deliver, and the amount of effort required for these rewards to materialise). In the context of research investigating self-improvement intentions, Hockey (2013: 134) describes this process as ‘where the thrill of anticipated outcomes meets the reality of time commitments, frustration and practice needs’. While a DMC is ongoing and its structure functioning effectively, these evaluation processes are suspended and the high level of self-concordance of the goal pushes this threshold up in excess of usual levels. As goals diminish in self-concordance, however, traditional evaluation processes again resume charge.

40  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

The last of these processes stems from the fact that the resolution of conflicts between competing goals becomes less effective. This means that the effectiveness of the triggering and re-triggering mechanisms underpinning DMCs begins to wane, resulting in increased time lags in the reaction of the – previously highly effective – conflict-resolution patterns triggered in response to challenges. Rather than the ideal self being automatically activated in working cognition, causing the flow of energy to continue virtually uninterrupted and attention to the task to be rapidly renewed so preserving well-being, what occurs instead is a heavy expenditure of energy, coupled with an encroaching feeling of tiredness, energy depletion and deteriorating mood. Effort as a subjective experience

The culmination of the above processes results in the dissipation of the control mechanisms of the DMC’s salient structure, meaning that it ceases to function effectively (cf. Dörnyei et al., 2016). Rather than experiencing rapid, effortless progression towards a final goal, action once again requires self-regulated concentration and effort, tasks rapidly become energy-sapping and may even trigger feelings of frustration and guilt. Throughout this chapter, I have described how, when in a DMC, cognitive effort both feels different and generates different affective reactions. I have also highlighted that the expenditure of cognitive effort in conflict resolution processes, for example, actually serves to generate motivational energy and increase personal well-being and satisfaction. The uniqueness of DMCs in this respect is perhaps most acutely experienced when the current of energy begins to wane, and effort is once again felt as a subjective experience. Research into subjective effort (Robinson & Morsella, 2014) suggests that in most circumstances it is both predictable and consequential: individuals tend to avoid tasks that require the investment of high levels of subjective effort. However, there stand several exceptions. As Robinson and Morsella explain: ‘There are conditions in which the degree of task difficulty is orthogonal to that of subjective effort, as in the experience of flow’ (Robinson & Morsella, 2014: 833). Applying equally to DMCs, this means that the completion of challenging tasks is accompanied by a perception of zero levels of effort. This is a function of the chronically accessible nature of a vision within DMCs and, as Robinson and Morsella describe, this ‘actively strengthens processes associated with task-relevant demands and actively suppresses taskirrelevant processes/information’ (2014: 833). The literature conceptualises fatigue as a loss of energy, coupled with an inability to make productive use of mental resources. A unique line of research is, again, that completed by Hockey (1983, 2011, 2013), which posits that fatigue has an adaptive function in an individual’s

What Exactly is a DMC? Key Definitions and Core Characteristics  41

control of actions and motivation, where it concerns the selection and control of goals. The practical upshot of this novel perspective on the phenomenology and effects of fatigue is that it is commitment to goals that are not highly desired – and so which as a consequence require high levels of effort to complete – that generates fatigue: intense cognitive endeavours invested into highly valued goals rarely lead to such negative affective reactions. Hockey suggests that instead of viewing fatigue as a barrier to the successful completion of tasks, it should be understood as a sensory state or emotional resource, able to make us ‘aware of the opportunity costs of current activities, and of the attraction of neglected needs and alternative goals’ (Hockey, 2013: 4). More specifically, by interrupting ongoing activity, fatigue ‘provokes a reappraisal of the benefits and costs of current goals, and allows alternatives to compete for access to motivational control’ (Hockey, 2013: 10). In a DMC that dissipates gradually, fatigue (the affective signal marking increasing difficulty in goal maintenance), and an increasingly negative appraisal of the level of effort required to continue with goal oriented behaviour, build slowly; in a DMC that finishes with a surge of invested energy towards an end goal (such as an exam or a performance), experiences of fatigue may instead be felt as a sudden, overwhelming rush of exhaustion. While the onward propulsion of a DMC current of motivation can be considered to function as a consequence of an upwardly spiralling dynamic process, the slow ebbing away of motivational energy as it draws to a close takes the form of a downward spiral (cf. Hockey, 2013): goal maintenance requires greater effort, resulting in increasingly acute feelings of fatigue and the promotion of an increasingly greater resistance to investment in further tasks. Although some empirical studies have explored the end stages of DMCs, to date the vast majority of empirical work has focused on documenting and exploring the other end of the process (i.e. the launch and unique motivational ‘high’ of DMCs). This is an important area of focus for future research, particularly in considering the implications of DMC theory with regards to L2 pedagogy (the focus of the subsequent chapter and Part 3 of this book). L2 DMCs are likely to be a small part of a far longer language learning journey, and the affective experience relating to the way a DMC ends is likely to have a material impact on subsequent – either positive or negative – L2 engagement. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have overviewed all key elements of the DMC framework: their goal/vision-orientedness, launch, structure, positive emotional loading and final dissipation. In doing so I have referred to an array of literature from a broad variety of disciplines, both within and external to the field of SLA, all of which contribute a piece to the

42  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

complex jigsaw depicting the functioning of this unique motivational experience. Although some areas of discussion are necessarily brief in the wider context of this book (see Dörnyei et al., 2016, for a fuller discussion of all these issues), I have endeavoured to offer readers unfamiliar with DMCs a systematic grounding in key ideas (and for familiar readers, a succinct refresher). There is one aspect of DMCs, however, which I have not addressed in this chapter. It is to this question of the pedagogical relevance of the DMC framework that I now turn in Chapter 3.

3 DMCs in the L2 Classroom: Group DMCs and Intensive Group Projects (‘with DMC Potential’)

Although DMCs emerged from a drive to understand a unique type of intense long-term motivation in the context of language learning, the DMC framework itself is not inherently language related. Indeed, some of the very first participants I interviewed in beginning to investigate this novel motivational experience (some of which are reported on in Dörnyei et al., 2016) shared with me details of their DMC experiences in the contexts of running a half-marathon and in practising kung fu! The data I present in Part 2 of this book, too, lend support to the belief that DMCs may be experienced across a broad range of contexts and in diverse areas of our lives. Focusing attention on L2 DMCs, they may be experienced either concurrently to or independent of enrolment in formal language tuition: for example, the students in Henry et al. (2015), whose DMC experiences were triggered when they were offered a place to attend a specific language course, or Hanna in Dörnyei et al. (2016), who studied independently after her DMC was sparked by a negative comment from a friend’s father that disparaged her limited L2 Polish abilities. It can further be the case that DMCs are experienced as a direct result of what happens in the classroom, i.e. sometimes the L2 learning experience can be organised in such a way for it to facilitate the emergence of a DMC experience for a class of learners together as a group. I offered an example of exactly this in the preface to this book, where after being challenged to organise and host a charity fundraising event in aid of the Cancer Council, students experienced a remarkable surge of collective motivation towards this shared goal. 43

44  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

When discussing DMCs in the context of instructed language learning, it is most useful to think in terms of group DMCs. As I have already argued, this is for the simple fact that most language teaching and learning occurs with groups of learners. Group DMCs in educational contexts can be understood to emerge from engagement with intensive group projects (Dörnyei et al., 2016). At first glance it is easy to see why, because the key elements of DMCs and well-designed projects are highly analogous: for example, centring around an engaging goal and a clearly defined structure. Other examples of projects in educational contexts might be a group of students getting carried away in the build up to a school play or working together to create an edited video for a school website. Mooting the use of projects in educational contexts can be met with hesitation, however, and such concerns are certainly not unfounded (for detailed discussion see Muir, 2019). Projects have a long history and our flawed understanding has led to inconsistent and highly variable implementation. In turn, this has led to often unreliable and fickle experiences of success (e.g. Turnbull, 1999). I begin this chapter with an extended introduction describing what it is exactly that I mean when I talk of ‘projects’. Rather than repeating a fuller critique of projects, which I have recently offered elsewhere (see Muir, 2019; Beckett, 1999, also presents a thorough discussion in this regard), throughout this chapter I instead highlight key areas of critique as they arise, and I focus on why I believe returning to projects again now offers up such compelling possibilities. To support this contention, I also consider the relationship between projects and several currently dominant teaching methodologies – communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching – and highlight the core foundations that these methodological approaches all share in common. In the main body of the chapter, I go on develop this narrative further and discuss projects particularly in relation to group DMCs. In doing so, I interweave two separate narratives. The first thread highlights key areas of difference between individual and group DMCs. Although the same trademark eudaimonic experience is characteristic of both, there are several key differences with regards to the functioning of the underlying structural framework (for example, the similar affective experience of individual DMCs and group DMCs emanates from differing primary sources). The second thread explores how each of these aspects might be practically realised in L2 classrooms with the design and implementation of an intensive group project. This builds on the hypothesis that while group DMCs have been seen to emerge organically from what is happening in the classroom (as in the charity fundraising project example offered previously), it may also be possible to design a project ‘with DMC potential’. That is, to design a project in such a way as to aim to purposefully facilitate group DMC emergence (in Part 3 of this book I go on to explore this question empirically).

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   45

Projects in the L2 Classroom

The popularity of projects in educational contexts has waxed and waned significantly over time. Research within the field of adult education and adult engagement with projects may, however, offer an explanation for educators’ continued return to the use of projects as educational tools. One reason underpinning the value of projects may lie in the fact that it is at the very core of our nature as human beings to undertake projects within the natural course of our lives, and that this has resulted in a wealth of experience that is unrealised and underexploited in education (Tough, 1979, 1978). Referring to this ‘covert project expertise’, Mohan and Lee (2006) argue that it can sometimes be difficult to identify specific experiences with projects. Precisely because they are such an integrated part of daily living, they simply do not stand out to us as unique. Livingstone similarly describes this as the ‘iceberg of adult learning’ (Livingstone, 2001: 22), referring to our lack of understanding about the nature and significance of this avenue of knowledge acquisition. There are certainly substantial parallels between projects and DMCs. Using Tough’s (1979) terminology, his descriptions of learning projects likewise described individuals being ‘swept up’ in the enthusiasm of the experience. While the projects that Tough described may not always contain within them the same intense energy as DMCs, his description nevertheless positioned them as enabling individuals to ‘detect and resist’ (Tough, 1979: 6) those forces which might otherwise influence action or distract attention. As I described in Chapter 1, DMCs have this same capacity ‘to align the diverse factors that are simultaneously at work in a complex system’ (Dörnyei, Ibrahim et al., 2015: 96). In the context of L2 classrooms, the significance of this cannot be overstated. Everyday distractions can pose a strong barrier to sustained periods of motivated learning, where initial motivational impetus does not routinely lead to motivated action (see Mercer, 2019; Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020). This potential of DMCs, that they may be able to facilitate such deep engagement by blocking out distractions and channelling focus down a single productive path, is certainly worthy of serious consideration. What exactly is a ‘project’?

The wide array of educational contexts in which projects are used is reflected in the number of labels that can be found to describe them (see Stoller, 2006). In the field of SLA, most commonly seen is perhaps discussion of a ‘project/project-based approach’ (e.g. Beckett & Chamness Miller, 2006; Levis & Levis, 2003) or of ‘project work’ (e.g. Fried-Booth, 2002; Haines, 1989; Henry, 1994; Phillips et al., 1999). I prefer simply the term ‘projects’, and in this book I deliberately do not

46  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

distinguish between any project/problem-based approaches. Regardless of terminology, all projects can be understood to involve collaborative learning, to be process oriented and to result in tangible products (Park & Hiver, 2017). The foundations of each of these related traditions are highly comparable, and research rooted within each can productively contribute to our practical understanding of project pedagogy in L2 classrooms. While teachers themselves sometimes interpret the term ‘project’ in different ways, they, too, tend to report agreement with respect to these same core principles, and this is likewise also reflected in students’ reported understanding of the term (Peterson & Nassaji, 2016). As I have recently discussed elsewhere (see Muir, 2019), every project is inherently rooted in the educational environment in which it is implemented. Henry (1994) reasons that with no single accepted definition of ‘projects’, we might instead approach the construction of one by focusing on the key elements that must be in place for a project to be successful. This practical reasoning is one that I continue to believe makes intuitive sense: … a definition is attempted by specifying the numerous conditions that should be present for effective project-based learning to take place: Project-based learning should (a) have a process and product orientation; (b) be defined, at least in part, by students, to encourage student ownership in the project; (c) extend over a period of time (rather than a single class session); (d) encourage the natural integration of skills; (e) make a dual commitment to language and content learning; (f) oblige students to work in groups and on their own; (g) require students to take some responsibility for their own learning through the gathering, processing, and reporting of information from target language resources; (h) require teachers and students to assume new roles and responsibilities (Levy, 1997); (i) result in a tangible final product; and (j) conclude with student reflections on both the process and the product. (Stoller, 2006: 23–24)

The literature is peppered with examples of projects found in multiple L2 contexts and with varied groups of language learners (see Beckett, 1999; Beckett & Chamness Miller’s seminal anthology, 2006; Coleman, 1992; Fang & Warschauer, 2004; Gardner, 1995; Kobayashi, 2003; Leki, 2001; Park & Hiver, 2017; Turnbull, 1999). Many of these studies that I reference here describe highly positive experiences of projects, yet it is inescapable that, in practice, many projects are in fact unsuccessful. Much of the research literature has also focused on teacher perspectives of projects, which has served to disguise what are sometimes more variable student experiences (Beckett, 1999, 2002). Teacher and student evaluations can sometimes be starkly different (Kim, 2015; Peterson & Nassaji, 2016). The notion of ‘success’, too, has

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   47

multiple dimensions, for success in what exactly are we referring to? L2 development should clearly be central to any definition of success in the context of language learning. Yet, projects also introduce other desired aims and outcomes, project goals that are not inherently L2 related, such as putting on a play or performance, filming and editing a video segment for an educational blog, or hosting a local community fete. It is further likely that the levels of success achieved across each of these elements will not be uniform. For example, a project might lead to moderate levels of L2 development, low levels of student collaboration, yet might satisfy all non-L2-related project goals. For all the challenges connected with educational projects, their continued re-emergence means we cannot consider them as merely another trend in educational thinking. With this in mind, it is therefore crucial to understand why projects have not previously succeeded in becoming a more mainstream pedagogical approach (van Lier, 2006). Since the publication of van Lier’s Foreword in 2006 (and the seminal volume in which it was published: Beckett & Chamness Miller, 2006), the body of research in the context of L2 education, although small, has been steadily growing. The considerable and continuing developments within the field of information technology, the increased opportunities to access information via the internet and, in many teaching contexts, the increase in technological and other practical resources available for use, have had a dramatic impact on the scope, range and possibilities of educational projects (Patton, 2012). The increase in research into, for example, group dynamics and group-level processes (see Chapter 1) is contributing to the development of a more robust theoretical understanding, which should, in time, lead to more effective teacher training and guidance with regards to project design and management. With the rising popularity of project work, so too have there already been several practical manuals published offering dedicated advice for teachers (e.g. National Academy Foundation, n.d.; New York City Department of Education, 2009; Patton, 2012; although this remains an area that is sorely lacking, see also the Afterword of this book for directions to selected further resources). It is significant, too, that currently reigning research paradigms are better suited to be able to investigate the challenges posed by projects than has historically been the case. Adopting a more qualitative, situated approach to research (see Chapter 1), more fully able to capture the lived teacher and student experiences of classroom projects, has laid the groundwork to allow for investigation in a more rigorous, comprehensive and ecologically valid manner. This is especially important because, as I have already noted, high achievement in terms of students’ satisfying an overall project goal cannot be assumed to occur in tandem with positive motivational experiences, positive student evaluation of the project, or with tangible L2 development.

48  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

I am not alone in positing that the possibilities of L2 projects have yet to be fully realised (see also Beckett, 2002, 2006a; Chamness Miller, 2006; Dörnyei et al., 2016; Henry et al., 2019).1 As we argued in Dörnyei et al. (2016: 151): ‘There is a convergence of accounts in the literature suggesting that successful group projects are capable of energizing and empowering groups in a way seldom otherwise possible in a classroom context.’ Quite simply, projects are capable of doing something unique, and as our understanding of project implementation develops in tandem with our understanding of DMC theory, so too does the tangible possibility of being able to employ projects in L2 classrooms for more consistent – and potentially even outstanding – results. How Do Projects Align with Other Pedagogical Approaches in SLA?

Although projects occupy a space rather on the periphery of methodological approaches in the field of SLA, their underlying principles and the learning situations they are capable of facilitating have direct links with currently reigning ideas in pedagogical thinking. In this section, I highlight in particular parallels with communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching. Communicative language teaching (CLT) emerged throughout the 1970s as a means of promoting ‘the development of functional language ability through learner participation in communicative events’ (Savignon, 1991: 265), and it has since gone on to have a ubiquitous impact worldwide. CLT is broadly characterised by its promotion of functional language use in representative real-life communicative contexts, and it is described as having both strong and weak forms (where strong forms include little to no formal/explicit language teaching; cf. Howatt & Widdowson, 2004). Activities typical of classrooms adopting a CLT approach may include role plays, discussions or problem-solving tasks. Although the term is perhaps more likely than not to be found in many language school prospectuses worldwide, its boom in popularity on such a significant scale has led to it being realised in diverse contexts in vastly different ways. Not only is there ‘no single text or authority on it [CLT], nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative’ (Richards & Rodgers, 2001: 155) but, in some cases, variants are starkly different (see Littlewood, 2014). A welcome development of CLT in recent years has been the introduction of the principled communicative approach (PCA) (Arnold et al., 2015; Dörnyei, 2009a, 2013). Part of the rationale of the PCA was to create a firmer foundation for CLT, and, in doing so, this has also created a more robust basis to better facilitate research and the comparison of findings across contexts. The PCA is built around seven key principles, each with roots in learner psychology (see Dörnyei, 2009a).

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   49

These principles include the need for language to be ‘meaning-focused and personally significant as a whole’ (the personal significance principle); that there should be elements of explicit initial input and opportunities for controlled practice, with attention paid also to ‘the formal/structural aspects of the L2 that determine accuracy and appropriateness at the linguistic, discourse and pragmatic levels’ (the declarative input, controlled practice and focus-on-form principles); not forgetting a focus on formulaic language (the formulaic language principle). Finally, the importance of extensive exposure to L2 input (the language exposure principle) is foregrounded, along with the creation of opportunities for learners ‘to participate in genuine L2 interaction’ (the focused interaction principle; Dörnyei, 2013: 168–169). These principles can be realised in multifarious ways in the classroom, and one such vehicle is certainly project work. Indeed, one of the primary aims often touted as justifying the initial introduction of projects to L2 classrooms was their potential as a vehicle for comprehensible output (Beckett, 2002; for further history of projects in L2 classrooms see also Peterson & Nassaji, 2016). A second methodology of note that has concurrently been dominant in recent years is task-based language teaching (TBLT). TBLT is subsumed within the broader banner of CLT, ‘in which communicative “tasks” have special roles and special prominence for planning, learning and teaching’ (Littlewood, 2014: 350). The difficulty in defining a ‘task’ is similar to that noted above in defining projects (see Bygate et al., 2001; Ellis, 2009). Bygate et al. (2001: 11) offer the following definition as a starting point: ‘an activity which requires learners to use language, with emphasis on meaning, to attain an objective’. As with CLT, strong and weak versions of TBLT have likewise been described (Skehan, 2003). As with projects and CLT, so TBLT is not without its critics (for discussion see Ellis, 2016; Erlam, 2016; Seedhouse, 2005; Swan, 2005). Within this critique, an interesting distinction is made between ‘tasksas-workplan’ and ‘tasks-as-process’ (Breen, 1989; see also Ellis, 2003, 2009). ‘Tasks-as-workplan’ refers to the planning a teacher engages in prior to stepping into the classroom, and ‘tasks-as-process’ refers to what actually happens. As Seedhouse (2005: 533) describes, the notion of ‘task’ therefore has a split personality, leading to remarkably poor construct validity: ‘Conceptualization is based on the task-as-workplan, but data are gathered from the task-in-process.’ As research into projects continues, it, too, will need to be mindful that such a critique may equally apply to a similar disassociation between ‘projects-asworkplan’ and ‘projects-as-process’. One might even question whether the differences in teacher and student evaluations of projects (noted in the previous section) are also rooted here: might it be the case that teachers tend to report on the potential they see in projects (‘projectsas-workplan’), whereas more variable student reports are born from the classroom reality (‘projects-as-process’)?

50  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Research into TBLT was led by Peter Skehan and colleagues around the turn of the new millennium (see Wen & Ahmadian, 2019, for a recent edited book on TBLT in Skehan’s honour). Yet, as Dörnyei (2019c) narrates in his contribution to this volume, even many studies centred on motivation have nevertheless tended to focus on cognitive rather than motivational aspects (although see, for example, Dörnyei, 2019d; Henry et al., 2018). Dörnyei (2019c) has argued that redressing the balance in TBLT to balance a focus on the investigation of cognitive versus motivational/affective factors is sorely needed, and that doing so would address a stark lack of ecological validity. The exclusion of motivational variables functions on the premise that language classrooms are comprised of motivated and highly engaged learners, something that all language teachers know is (regrettably!) not necessarily reflective of reality. Although this is a necessarily superficial exploration of these ideas in the overall context of this chapter, I have striven to demonstrate the strong parallels between projects and several cornerstones of understanding with regards to currently dominant L2 pedagogical approaches. The L2 goals for many projects are often inherently communicative and, as such, align with the proposed principles of the PCA, particularly with regards to personal significance, language exposure and focused interaction. Jeon-Ellis et al. (2005) go so far as to position what they describe as ‘project-oriented learning’ underneath the CLT banner. Research into TBLT can likewise offer valuable insight because, at a fundamental level, projects are formed from a linked series of discrete tasks (which during a group DMC take on additional significance, because each task forms a single step within a cohesive, overarching goal pathway). Project design is likewise able to address a criticism of TBLT (albeit perhaps, an unwarranted one) which suggests that TBLT is solely meaning focused (see, for example, Swan, 2005). Projects do not by definition exclude a focus on form nor the teaching of new material: indeed, it is likely that the series of tasks making up any project pathway will be of a broad variety, and may even include instances of direct teaching. Stoller (2002: 111) describes such tasks as ‘language “intervention” lessons’, arguing that their aim is to provide ‘explicit language instruction at critical moments’. Ahlquist offers a good example of this, describing an activity in which students worked collaboratively in developing a ‘vocabulary bank’: students were ‘given a word category [such as “appearance”, or “hobbies”] and a short time to write as many words as they could in L2 (or L1) on the paper’ (Ahlquist, 2013: 43). This list was then passed around between groups, who were invited to add additional vocabulary items, after which the list was returned to the original group who confirmed meanings and translations. These were finally affixed to the walls for all students to use in developing the characters for their project (see Chapter 10 of this

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   51

book for a more detailed introduction of the Storyline project approach Ahlquist reports on in this study). Ahlquist has further highlighted the fact that language items that are newly introduced during projects might also be returned to and ‘worked with in more traditional ways’ (Ahlquist, 2013: 42) after a project has finished. Indeed, it is likely that doing so would be of great benefit in making students’ language development more tangible (see Part 3 for discussion of the importance of this). Even elements of individual work within the wider context of a group project are likely to have considerable value, with Mercer reflecting that even though ‘as social beings we tend to flourish through positive interpersonal relationships’ (Mercer, 2019: 13), the ‘chance to concentrate on one’s own tasks in one’s own way alone can be an important opportunity for learners to become deeply, personally engaged in class work’ (Mercer, 2019: 14). Finally, the extended nature of projects has the potential to facilitate not only the introduction of new material but also the proceduralisation of both this and material already known (DeKeyser, 1998; see also Skehan, 2003; I return to discuss the significant potential of this in Parts 3 and 4). Introducing Group DMCs: Designing Projects ‘with DMC Potential’ for the L2 Classroom

The phrase projects ‘with DMC potential’ was coined by Martin Lamb during a week of workshops we ran together at the Indonesian University of Education (Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia) in Bandung, January 2017. It stemmed from the fundamental recognition that not all projects are likely to be capable of inspiring the emergence of a group DMC. In fact, some project designs may be unlikely to inspire any kind of motivated engagement at all! Regardless of the level of care, time or effort devoted to design and planning (this is the ‘project-as-workplan’, see previous section), we can only ever consider a project as having ‘DMC potential’. Referring back to the principles of a complexity approach to understanding introduced in Chapter 1, the unknowable set of initial conditions governing any classroom environment means that motivational emergence simply cannot be guaranteed. Yet, careful project design and management may mean that although such experiences ‘cannot be scripted or managed into existence’, they may sometimes – Davis and Sumara postulate – ‘be occasioned’ (Davis & Sumara, 2006: 152). A further key issue in continuing this chapter relates to the plethora of teaching and learning contexts that can be found worldwide. Diverse learners around the globe are studying second languages; third, fourth and nth languages; foreign languages; heritage languages; world languages; minority languages; and other languages (the list goes on). Some willingly, in order to open up new opportunities and possibilities,

52  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

some potentially unwillingly. For example, some language learners may be studying English in order to be considered competitive in the global marketplace, or unwillingly enrolled in compulsory language lessons at school. Still further, languages are being learned in a plethora of disparate social contexts, many of which are highly inequitable. In a recent paper, Ortega has highlighted what she has termed the linguistic and social duress experienced by many learners, referring to sometimes considerably restricted access to the L2 and the ‘sociocultural and ideological forces in L2 users’ social worlds’ (Ortega, 2018: 20). Intensive group projects are unlikely to be suitable for all learning environments, and in this book I do not mean to argue for the contrary: in some contexts, even the most carefully designed project may possess little ‘DMC potential’. The remainder of this chapter is structured in order to achieve two objectives. The first is to introduce and discuss key differences between individual DMCs and group DMCs. Group DMCs function in broadly the same manner as individual DMCs; however, several key elements differ. In the following, I focus discussion on six of these key areas: even greater importance of initial conditions; goals for group DMCs; an integrated trigger; structure; positive emotionality; and finally, the end of group DMCs. The second objective of the remainder of this chapter is to consider how each of these aspects might be practically translated into the design of projects ‘with DMC potential’. While certain decisions (for example, the exact goal of a project or the specific language items/ skills under the spotlight) can only be considered in relation to a specific learner group, broader principles can certainly be inferred. (Even greater) importance of initial conditions

To recap briefly from the previous chapter, the main conditions required for an individual DMC to emerge are a clear set of goals, a sense of ownership and control and a perception that the available skills match the task demands. These are likewise required for the emergence of a group DMC. However, in the context of group DMCs, the final condition discussed in Chapter 2 – openness to the DMC experience – is argued to be superseded by the maturity of the group to work independently (Dörnyei et al., 2016). This is a direct function of a group’s dynamics and its successful arrival at the ‘performing’ stage of group development (see Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), at which point learners become a balanced and cohesive group with high levels of acceptance and trust, and where sufficient advances have been made towards the division of labour. Although many aspects of teaching through projects differ in comparison to more traditional classroom teaching, a key foundation to all teaching environments is the existence of a basic set of classroom conditions conducive to learning (Dörnyei & Muir, 2019). Two of

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   53

the most important factors in this respect are appropriate classroom dynamics and adequate support structures and facilities. I return to explore the importance of classroom dynamics later in this chapter in discussing the positive emotionality of group DMCs, and with this in mind, focus here on the importance of adequate support structures and facilities. Implications for designing projects ‘with DMC potential’

Student support structures can be formal or informal and provided by either teachers or peers (or, indeed, all of the above). Regular and varied opportunities to receive affirmative feedback (see Chapter 2) are important in order for students to form accurate perceptions of progress; and further, regular meetings can also help identify student needs and areas of difficulty. Consistency in this regard throughout a project is likely to be a key factor for success. The existence of adequate support structures is of even greater importance when there is significant diversity among a group, and underlines the need to develop a strong, positive dynamic and positive relationships between group members (by diversity is meant, for example, students with different life experiences, L1s, skillsets, etc.; see Davis & Sumara, 2006, for discussion of diversity and of redundancy – features group members have in common – within groups in educational contexts). If students are not aware of their peers’ strengths they may feel unable to engage with a project because, pondering solely their own personal resources, they are unable to see a route through to success (for an example, see the discussion of Gabriella’s experience in Colombo, 2017). The facilities available to students both inside and outside the classroom are a further core element of the basic classroom conditions required for effective learning through projects. Providing the right kind of space and general physical environment is a major factor in creating optimal learning environments: ones that not only offer sufficient scope for focused autonomous work but that are also rich with objects of exploration (Shernoff & Anderson, 2014). This principle is supported by the accepted notion in group dynamics that postulates a strong interplay between the social dynamics of a group and their physical environment (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), and the fact that elements of ‘the quality and nature of the physical space’ – for example, wall displays – ‘can convey implicit messages about learning’ (Mercer, 2019: 14). These ideas are further supported by recent work in other disciplines exploring theories of creativity, which have also emphasised the important role ‘of the social and material environments in which creative processes are carried out’ (Bishop, 2018: 3). It is of note that optimal environmental/ situational conditions are also a key factor in the occurrence of flow experiences (Jackson, 1995).

54  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Care in organising the classroom environment is important because many of the resources as well as the space (including, for example, table configurations and room layout) required for project work may not be readily available in many L2 classrooms. For example, in Colombo’s study, she describes how for one participant the multiple screens in the classroom played an important role in keeping her engaged at points when she felt tired, as did the opportunity for her to ‘get up and write on the boards’ fixed around the room when her mind was wandering elsewhere (Colombo, 2017: 168). As Colombo notes: the physical learning environment was an important factor in the L2 Learning Experience because not only did it trigger the development of an Ought-to L2 Self, but because it also helped regulate behavior at times when motivation was less intense. (Colombo, 2017: 149)

It is further important that students are sufficiently confident in working with any new technology introduced with or during a project, because on encountering issues, students are likely to revert back to their L1 in striving to overcome them (Jeon-Ellis et al., 2005; Leahy, 2004). Goals for group DMCs

Individual DMCs are underpinned by a personally significant end goal that is highly identity relevant. Within the context of group DMCs, a project’s final goal is of no less importance. There are many ways in which goals might be tailored for specific student groups, yet it is particularly pertinent that students perceive goal content to be both relevant and ‘real’, and that there are tangible outcomes shored up with clearly defined success criteria (see Dörnyei et al., 2016). It is further important that students are given room to negotiate and, as far as is possible, personalise the goal to align with their own L2 (and non-L2related) possible selves and aspirations. Implications for designing projects ‘with DMC potential’

There is much that can be said with regards to designing motivating project goals. Ensuring that instructional content is learner-centred has long been recognised as a core motivating principle (Arnold et al., 2015; Dörnyei, 2001; Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014; Lamb, 2017). Relevant project goals are able to clarify the importance of the subject matter to what students would like to do with it (Hafler, 1997) and make tangible the reasons why and how the project could be of value to students (cf. Mercer, 2019). They can also bridge the gap between in-class interaction and students’ lives outside of it (Fried-Booth, 2002; this has also been empirically demonstrated as linked to positive motivational outcomes, see Alrabai, 2016; Moskovsky et al., 2013; Poupore, 2014). Scope for student

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   55

creativity is a further feature of motivational goals (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; Hafner & Miller, 2011; Henry et al., 2018). The latter two studies referenced here also highlight the potentials of technology and the affordances this can create with regards not only to linking a task/project goal to an authentic content, but also in allowing students to act in ways that they perceive to be authentic (Hafner & Miller, 2011; see Henry, 2013, for an interesting, related discussion rooted in the Swedish EFL context). In considering the importance of tangible outcomes, principles of accountability and opportunities for external appraisal (oftentimes, see Cates & Jacobs, 2006; Gu, 2001; Hafner & Miller, 2011; but not always, see for example, Henry et al., 2018) are both important, and the existence of tangible outcomes can also be important with regards to the level of care students take over their L2 accuracy (Skehan, 1998). The existence of tangible outcomes further ensures that within all projects there is equally something to work on and to work for, ideas likewise stressed in relation to the generation of group flow (Shernoff & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Shernoff et al., 2014). When teamed with clearly defined subgoals, such outcomes can also function as tangible progress markers, creating additional opportunities for affirmative feedback (see Chapter 2). Clarity with regards to the goal itself and what is expected of students throughout a project is likewise crucial. Teachers can sometimes be unclear themselves as to specific project goals (Beckett, 2006b), or neglect to define content matter goals (Jakar, 2006). Explicitness in this regard – at the outset and as projects progress – is needed because, as action unfolds, student attention can sometimes become fixated on project-related goals (Peterson & Nassaji, 2016). As Arnold (2011: 19) also ponders: ‘teachers might consider linguistic proficiency as the necessary beginning, but not the only end of what they hope to achieve’. Much of the research into L2 projects draws heavily from findings in general education, and Beckett (2002, 2006a) has advocated greater alignment with the additional elements of project goals found there. These include critical thinking, problem solving and decision making, and skills involved with working both individually and collaboratively (see also Chamness Miller, 2006). Finally, although in group settings it is highly unlikely a project goal will be able to reach the same level of identity-relevance for students when compared to individual DMCs, it is nevertheless important that students are able to achieve a sufficient level of personalisation in relation to their individual aspirations. Not only is autonomy a key antecedent in the context of engagement (cf. Mercer, 2019), but ‘Choice is inherently motivating’ (Arnold, 2011: 15). There is certainly evidence that some project goals are able to facilitate this level of individualisation. For example, Colombo reports on a Business Spanish ‘Wiki’ project, and reflects that ‘the course seemed to have fulfilled the needs and wishes of all the students involved in the study regardless of

56  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

their different backgrounds, L1s and language learning experiences’ (Colombo, 2017: 207). This is all the more remarkable because, among the students in this tertiary level classroom, there were Spanish L2 and L3 speakers, as well as heritage language Spanish speakers and even Spanish L1 speakers. This is also instructive in highlighting the fact that the primary sources of individual learners’ motivation may be rooted in diverse elements of a project’s multi-layer structure. An integrated trigger

In individual DMCs, the initial goal – for example, an individual’s desire to turn their life around in terms of personal fitness – and the trigger that sparks action – such as the offer of a place to run in a halfmarathon – are two separate entities. In a group DMC, these are most often combined to form a single integrated trigger (Dörnyei et al., 2016): goals for group DMCs in educational contexts are very often required to act concurrently as the catalysing force triggering the initiation of motivated action. Implications for designing projects ‘with DMC potential’

The introduction of a challenging and engaging goal is the starting point in the design of any successful project. It acts as the ‘driving force behind students’ learning’ (Dolmans & Schmidt, 2010: 13) and provides the ‘trigger’ for learning to take place (Mauffette et al., 2004: 14). For it to be able to do so, students must be able to see from the outset how the project relates to their lives, experiences and interests, and be confident that they will have access to all the relevant support and resources necessary for their success (see subsections earlier in this chapter on the importance of initial conditions and on goals for group DMCs). To create the best chance for an integrated trigger to be effective, it is likely important that the project goal be introduced with fanfare and enthusiasm. In many contexts, projects are likely not to be the traditional teaching approach, which fact also has the potential to increase their allure. This links again with our growing understanding of the importance of emotion in L2 classrooms: ‘emotions (both positive and negative) are the driving force behind FL learning’ (Dewaele, 2015: 14; see also Chapter 1 of this book). That teachers need to exhibit passion and drive is important in all L2 classrooms (Kramsch, 2009), and it is equally so here: if students do not believe in the project and get on board at the outset, it may be very difficult to try to pull them aboard later. Structure

The longitudinal structure of individual and group DMCs function similarly, with only a few key differences. In the former, subgoals tend

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   57

to be formulated in a more fluid and spontaneous manner, emerging as the individual DMC progresses and in response to emerging demands and requirements. When considering group DMCs in instructed L2 contexts, such fluidity is neither desirable nor feasible. Goals, subgoals, discrete steps and progress checks need to be collaboratively agreed upon and finalised at an early stage, and might even be presented to students at the outset (following on from having noted in the previous subsection that a project needs to be introduced with ‘fanfare and enthusiasm’, this initial impetus would soon fade if students were unable to see how they could succeed). This variation is also reflected in the often differing pace of action exhibited at the beginning of individual and group DMCs. The former is likely to begin in a manner both immediate and intense (see Chapter 2). In contrast, the latter may gather momentum more conservatively (see, for example, Case, 2006; Doherty & Eyring, 2006) while excitement builds, remaining conditions fall into place, and the structure and goal is collaboratively agreed by the group. Implications for designing projects ‘with DMC potential’

The longitudinal structure of any classroom-based project will always be central to its success. Poorly structured projects may be at the root of many of the frustrations of project work (see Muir, 2019). Several examples of previously proposed L2 project frameworks can be found (see Beckett & Slater, 2005, for a particularly detailed example; also Dooly & Masats, 2011; Dooly & Sadler, 2016; Jakar, 2006; Legutke & Thomas, 1991; Sheppard & Stoller, 1995; Stoller, 1997, 2002; Tessema, 2005), yet in 2016 we put forward our own set of project templates explicitly rooted in DMC theory (Dörnyei et al., 2016). Specific classroom realities, and the peculiarities of discrete educational contexts and learner groupings, means that equal attention to all elements underpinning group DMC experiences is, in practical terms, unlikely to be a feasible possibility. With this in mind, in each of the seven project variants we put forward, a different signature component is positioned as taking on principle responsibility for inspiring and sustaining motivated action (see Table 3.1). I return to discuss these seven project templates in further detail in Chapter 10. Yet, by way of introduction (and because it is the structure of the project that is central to Part 3 of this book), in the following I offer an overview of the ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ variant. The primary energising focus of this project framework is a strong drive to realise a salient end goal, the existence of which often eclipses the role of any subgoals encountered en route. This type of project is arguably the one that is most commonly found in educational contexts, and examples are wide ranging: for example, students being tasked with creating a blog, vlog or other media product with educational, informative or entertainment purposes in mind, or the staging of a theatre or musical

58  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Table 3.1  Seven frameworks for focused interventions Framework

Signature component

All Eyes on the Final Product

An end-goal and accompanying vision which energises the entire project

Step by Step

The energising power of a contingent path

The BIG Issue

A driving question which provokes reactions and energises behaviour

That’s Me!

A strong sense of ‘connectedness’ both between students themselves and between the learner group and the project

Detective Work

An intriguing problem, the solution of which sustains extended periods of concentration and motivated action

Story Sequels

An engaging temporal axis fixed around an unfolding longitudinal structure

Study Abroad

A distal goal which generates initial motivational momentum, subsequently supported by a systematic structure of subgoals

Source: Dörnyei et al., 2016: 177.

performance, where preparation may involve any or all of writing the script, designing the set, managing the lighting, writing programmes and honing performances (see Foss et al., 2008, for further detailed examples of this type of project). The inherent positioning of a real audience for students’ work with this approach to project design can further safeguard motivational momentum, and a high level of quality with regards to the work students produce. In Dörnyei et al. (2016), we highlighted the following as key to the successful classroom implementation of an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ variant, with a view to maximising the potential for group DMC emergence. Assuming appropriate initial classroom conditions (see earlier subsection on initial conditions) and appropriate group dynamics (see the following subsection on positive emotionality), the first of these is of course a tangible outcome and real audience. The project goal must be well defined, widely recognisable and highly salient. It must also be both real and authentic (it is the final product, in this instance, that is primarily responsible for the generation and maintenance of motivational momentum). The goal must be linked explicitly to a specific aspect (or several aspects) of L2 competence, and finally, while regular subgoals may be of relatively less importance in terms of the maintenance of a group DMC, their existence is nevertheless critical from a practical standpoint, where a clear timeline is required in order to ensure that no elements are forgotten or side-lined due to poor planning, and to ensure that the project does not overrun. Positive emotionality

The experience of acute positive emotionality is a core characteristic of all DMC experiences. Within an individual DMC, positive

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   59

emotionality is ultimately a function of the high level of identity-­relevance and self-concordance of an individual’s personal goal (see Chapter 2). In the context of a group DMC – due to the fact that regardless of any potential for personalisation, it is highly unlikely a single goal will reliably always reach similar levels of self-concordance – the positive affective experience is strongly rooted in the social well-being experienced from collaborating within a cooperative group. Implications for designing projects ‘with DMC potential’

Carl Rogers (1983) terms the type of acceptance that group members experience within successful groups unconditional positive regard: this is the full acceptance of someone as they really are, in full acknowledgement and respect of their strengths and weaknesses. When considered in tandem with the universal need for human interaction – a basic principle of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) – and the fact that one of the main pillars of the high motivational capacity of cooperative learning rests in the understanding that harmonious collaboration in group work can cater to this need (see Dörnyei, 1997; Ferguson-Patrick & Jolliffe, 2018), we should not be surprised that this element of project work contributes so significantly to the mechanism through which such powerful emotional responses are engendered in group DMCs. Although the question of group dynamics remains largely on the periphery of language teacher training, there is a modest literature available in the context of SLA (Dörnyei & Malderez, 1997; Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003; Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998; Hadfield, 1992/2013; Schmuck & Schmuck, 2001; Scrivener, 2012; Senior, 1997, 2006; for a recent overview of core ideas see Dörnyei & Muir, 2019). Key issues include the fact that group cohesion can be intentionally fostered, through means as straightforward as students simply learning more about each other (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), as can the development of productive group roles and norms. Positive group norms – conscious or unconscious ‘rules of conduct’ among group members – create a stable basis for group functioning due to their powerful ability to unconsciously enforce positive working practices (Chang, 2007; Dörnyei & Malderez, 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1994; see Oakley et al., 2004, for an excellent discussion of practical approaches to facilitating productive teamwork in educational contexts). Not only physical or practical norms, but emotional group norms are likewise important: for example, establishing a norm of caring and compassion (Barsade & Gibson, 2012) or of positive peer critique (Patton, 2012). This is certainly a fascinating area for further investigation. However, as alluded to in Chapter 1, at present there is unfortunately scarce research available investigating the relationship between motivation and group-level processes in L2 classrooms (Chang, 2010; Poupore, 2016).

60  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

Finally, discussion of group dynamics in the context of projects cannot omit recognition of the fact that, for teachers, running motivational group projects requires very different skillsets to those that they are likely to have honed in more traditional teacher-fronted classrooms. It is unsurprising, therefore, that teachers often report not feeling sufficiently prepared (Guo, 2006; Turnbull, 1999). Teacherstudent relationships are modified to such an extent that teachers are required to rethink their traditional professional roles, to act in roles that might not be immediately comfortable, such as that of facilitator, and to co-construct the classroom environment with students (something critical to student empowerment and feelings of ownership over a project; see Dörnyei et al., 2016, for a more detailed discussion). It is further inescapable that teaching through projects very often demands considerable teacher investment in terms of time and energy (Fang & Warschauer, 2004). If we hope that the projects we introduce may inspire group DMC experiences, the importance of students seeing and believing in teachers’ similar levels of passion and commitment is unavoidable (cf. Kramsch, 2009). After all, the actions of group leaders can significantly influence the affective context of a group (Barsade & Gibson, 2012; see also Chapter 1), and ‘learners’ relationship with their teacher is perhaps the key contributory factor to their sense of belonging as a valued member of the classroom community’ (Mercer, 2019: 11; see also Gkonou & Mercer, 2017 and Henry & Thorsen, 2018). To end on a more encouraging sentiment, it is always worth remembering: ‘Like pretty much everything in life, projects get better with practice’ (Patton, 2012: 67). The end of group DMCs

In Chapter 2, I explained that individual DMC experiences may either come to an end abruptly, or that specific contextual factors might cause the strength of the current to diminish gradually. In the context of group DMCs, the former is far more likely to be the norm (consider an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ framework building towards a final event, concert, launch or screening). If a project does not naturally lead to such a culmination (as may be the case in several of the other seven frameworks for focused interventions proposed; see also Chapter 10 for further discussion), in educational contexts it may be important that such a celebratory end be actively manufactured (Patton, 2012). For example, if a project’s goal requires students to develop ideas or solutions to a specific problem or issue, such a culmination might take the form of a public presentation or debate to showcase their conclusions. The final stages of individual DMCs pose specific challenges requiring individuals to reorient themselves to life not driven by such

DMCs in the L2 Classroom   61

a powerfully experienced current of motivation (when they are once again required to make decisions about what to do and when, and where maintaining the same level of momentum seems – and is likely to be – impossible). Students transitioning out of group DMCs in the L2 classroom are required to navigate this same transition. In educational contexts, careful management of the dissolution of group DMCs is of critical importance because this is likely to have a material impact on students’ recollections of both the project and the DMC experience as a whole, and also on their overall motivation and ongoing engagement with their L2 studies. Implications for designing projects ‘with DMC potential’

The importance of the dissolution stage and the benefits of appropriate closure is a well-established principle within group dynamics (cf. Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), and the emotional tenor at such closing events and celebrations can be highly charged. For example, Jakar (2006) reports on one such event in Israel attended by parents and grandparents of children in the class. She writes that students were ‘“high” on selfesteem’ and describes how there was ‘obvious joy’ in the classroom, even that students’ ‘delight in their achievements was contagious’ (Jakar, 2006: 187). In the context of group DMCs, this final stage has both motivational and instructional functions, and teachers are ideally placed to positively influence both. Whether this is through explicit affirmative feedback, simple awareness raising tasks to help students understand all it is that they have achieved (particularly in terms of L2 development, but also pertaining to other project goals), or even explicit discussion of the types of emotions they may experience throughout this time, guiding students to better understand the nature of the fatigue and increasing effortfulness of their actions (see Chapter 2) may significantly benefit their understanding as to why they are unable to achieve now what they were able to seemingly so easily accomplish while under the ‘spell’ of the group DMC. It may even be that some routines or habits developed throughout a group DMC can be maintained after the experience has come to a close, even if at a lower level of intensity. Where possible and where appropriate, students might be actively encouraged to do so. Conclusion

This chapter has been defined by its focus on potential practical applications of DMC theory to L2 classrooms, through the introduction and exploration of both group DMCs and intensive group projects (‘with DMC potential’). Projects have a long history in education, and a recent revival has led to a growing resurgence in research and published advice devoted to developing understanding surrounding project design, introduction and management. As highlighted throughout this chapter, the

62  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

development of our understanding of the processes underpinning longterm motivation alongside the development of DMC theory contributes a novel dimension within this. I conclude this chapter by reiterating that I do not mean to argue, nor do I believe, that projects offer a panacea. Undoubtedly, there are contexts and times when projects are likely to be highly unsuitable, and for which even the most considered project design may have little tangible ‘DMC potential’. In the context of TBLT, Ellis (2003) talks of a ‘task-supported’ rather than a ‘task-based’ approach, and this is a characterisation that may be equally relevant to projects (see also Ellis, 2009). A significant draw of projects is that they can offer students (and teachers) educational experiences different to those typical of ‘normal’ classes experienced on a day-to-day basis. Projects ‘should be something learners look forward to taking part in’ (Ahlquist, 2013: 48), and, when used judiciously, they have the potential to motivationally revitalise learning environments. Whether the development of our understanding of long-term motivational processes through DMC theory is able to offer a further, focal piece in the puzzle, allowing us to design and implement projects in a way that may lead to more predictable and consistent motivational and other outcomes – so that projects might be awarded a more permanent standing at the forefront of language teaching methodology – is a compelling area of inquiry. Note (1) In finalising the manuscript of this book, two new volumes on projects are also on their way into print: Gulbahar Beckett and Tammy Slater’s (2020) edited volume Global Perspectives on Project-based Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment: Key Approaches, Technology Tools, and Frameworks and Adrian Gras-Velazquez’s (2020) edited volume Project-Based Learning in Second Language Acquisition: Building Communities of Practice in Higher Education. This offers further evidence that projects are again coming to the fore as both a serious research focus and L2 instructional approach, and I very much look forward to reading both.

Part 1 Summary: Next Steps for DMC Research

Part 1 began in Chapter 1 with a review of relevant research and findings drawn from various fields of inquiry, each topic area being included owing to its ability to both situate DMCs within the wider landscape and to trace the path to their emergence. I opened the chapter by summarising the ‘complexity turn’ the field of SLA has experienced in recent years and highlighted the impact this has had on our methodological choices and decision making. I then went on to overview a number of prominent self-based approaches to L2 motivation research – possible selves, the L2MSS, and vision theory – and highlighted key ideas relating to language learner self-concept, emotions, and several aspects of group-level investigation. From this basis, I then traced the narrative leading up to the emergence of DMCs and argued for their significance and potential with regards also to our understanding of long-term motivational processes more broadly. In Chapter 2, I offered a full overview of the DMC framework, describing the theoretical underpinning of all key elements: their goal/ vision orientedness, launch, facilitative structure, positive emotionality and the means by which DMCs lose momentum. I carried this discussion further into Chapter 3, introducing the notion of group DMCs. By situating discussion deliberately within instructed L2 contexts, I foregrounded the relevance of intensive group projects and highlighted key issues with regards to designing motivational projects ‘with DMC potential’ for L2 classrooms. In this Part 1 Summary – and to set the scene for the two empirical Parts to follow – I now ask: Where next for DMC research? Next Steps for DMC Research

Having begun less than a decade ago, the exploration of both theoretical and empirical issues relating to DMCs remains in its infancy. Initial conceptual papers (Dörnyei et al., 2014; Dörnyei, Ibrahim et al., 2015; Muir & Dörnyei, 2013) have been followed up not only by a book length 63

64  Part 1: Introducing DMCs and Intensive Group Projects

exploration of the theoretical underpinning of DMCs (Dörnyei et al., 2016), but also by a steadily growing body of empirical work (cf. Henry et al., 2015; Ibrahim, 2016a, 2016b; Safdari & Maftoon, 2017; Selҫuk & Erten, 2017; Zarrinabadi & Tavakoli, 2017; Zarrinabadi et al., 2019). Several key questions, however, remain entirely unexplored. In the following, I pinpoint two areas in particular that encapsulate those aspects which I believe are most critical in furthering understanding. I conclude by describing the ways in which this book takes deliberate steps in addressing each of them. Methodological choices

The results presented within the empirical work published to date very convincingly shore up initial theorising regarding DMCs. This cumulative dataset offers support for the existence of the core DMC dimensions identified, and is supported by several dedicated validation studies (Henry et al., 2015; Safdari & Maftoon, 2017; Selҫuk & Erten, 2017; Zarrinabadi & Tavakoli, 2017). Research has also begun to focus in on developing a more detailed understanding of discrete aspects of the DMC framework (for example, on the experience of positive affect as in Ibrahim, 2016a; links with self-efficacy, cf. Rasman, 2018 and Zarrinabadi et al., 2019; experiences of autonomy and willingness to communicate, cf. Zarrinabadi et al., 2019; and dynamic interactions between the L2MSS, DMCs and context, cf. Colombo, 2017). In order to further the DMC research agenda, there is now a need to address two primary methodological biases identifiable within this growing body of research. A reliance on retrospective accounts

Research to date has tended to focus on retrospective accounts of DMCs. These accounts have been complemented by the graphical plotting of students’ motivational trajectories (e.g. Henry et al., 2015; Selҫuk & Erten, 2017; Zarrinabadi et al., 2019), and it is testament to the personal significance of these experiences that individuals have retained such vivid recollections, which have thus allowed researchers to explore them in such a thorough and comprehensive manner. However, as with all retrospective approaches, it is unclear to what extent these memories have evolved over the intervening years, and to what extent participants may be retelling their experiences with ‘rose tinted glasses’. Particularly in the context of group DMCs in L2 classrooms, catching and documenting instances of this experience as it unfolds over time will be key to furthering understanding. Qualitative versus quantitative approaches

The qualitative research tradition employed by much of the empirical work completed thus far has been highly apt in investigating primary

Part 1 Summary  65

questions of interest, yet it has been unable to provide answers to a parallel set of fundamental questions relating to DMCs. These include, for example, how widely recognisable the DMC framework is, in what types of domain DMCs are most commonly experienced, and whether there are some contexts, professions, cultures, environments or other areas in which DMCs might be more commonly reported. The deeply situated, in-depth nature of qualitative research is unable to address these questions, highlighting the need for a complementary, quantitative research strand. Educational applications

DMC theory is of little practical use to language teachers unless it is framed around clear, accessible guidelines that pinpoint primary issues of importance in the potential facilitation of group DMCs in L2 classroom contexts. The beginnings of such a proposal certainly exists (see Dörnyei et al., 2016: Chapter 9). Yet, to date, these proposed ‘seven frameworks for focused interventions’ remain largely conceptual in nature: they have yet to be borne out in practice, in real language classrooms and with real language learners. To put this in other words: To what extent is the purposeful facilitation of a group DMC, from a carefully designed project ‘with DMC potential’, a realistic proposition? Key Contributions of this Book

The two international studies I present within the pages of this book directly address these challenges, with each representing a novel step forward in the development of our understanding of DMC theory and its practical applications in L2 classrooms. In Part 2, I report on the first large-scale DMC questionnaire study, its primary aim being to seek initial answers to questions such as those listed above pertaining to the broader relevance and recognisability of DMC experiences. The online format allowed for the global dissemination of this questionnaire, and, in Part 2, I present the findings drawn from this dataset collected from participants worldwide. In Part 3, I report on what is (to the best of my knowledge) the first classroom-based group DMC intervention study. This study adopted an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ framework variant (Dörnyei et al., 2016), with the final product being the organisation and hosting of a charity fundraising event. The primary research question for this study was a very simple one (on paper, if not in practice!): Is it possible to purposefully facilitate a group DMC experience for a class of Business English language learners through the introduction of an intensive group project ‘with DMC potential’?

4 Part 2 Methodology

In Dörnyei et al. (2016), we presented evidence of DMCs experienced across multiple different contexts, in the pursuit of diverse goals and outcomes and ultimately argued that – given a suitable set of initial conditions and appropriate triggering factors – DMCs might be experienced by individuals with varied cultural and demographic backgrounds and across diverse contexts. Anecdotal evidence can certainly be found in favour of the broader relevance of DMCs, yet to date this question has lacked systematic empirical investigation. In this chapter, I describe the development of a bespoke DMC Disposition Questionnaire designed specifically for this purpose. Its primary aim was to address rudimentary questions relating to the broader recognisability and relevance of DMCs. A complimentary goal was to validate the DMC construct on a more general level by striving to create a single multi-item ‘DMC Disposition’ scale, and to create the blueprint of a robust questionnaire format that might be utilised as a basis for future research. I begin the chapter by discussing the development and piloting of the questionnaire itself and then go on to describe the procedure, participants and my approach to data analysis. Development of the DMC Disposition Questionnaire

In general terms, questionnaires facilitate the collation of three types of non-evaluative (i.e. responses are judged as neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’) data: behavioural, attitudinal and factual (Dörnyei, 2010). Oftentimes all three types of data are collected. Behavioural data collected through this questionnaire included whether participants had or had not experienced a DMC or a period of DMC-like motivation, attitudinal data strove to understand participants’ perceptions of any DMC/DMClike experiences, whilst factual demographic data included, for example, participants’ sex and L1. Owing to the desire to reach a global audience, an online questionnaire was the pragmatic choice: online questionnaire formats have become increasingly commonplace in recent years and can offer distinct advantages. They are cheap (often free) to administer, and responses are 69

70  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

delivered immediately after completion, very often in accessible formats ready to be copied into preferred software for analysis. There has also been some evidence that online questionnaires provide data that is superior to other types of survey: for example, in terms of level of completeness and improved data quality, reducing negative effects linked to social desirability bias (participants responding with what they feel to be the ‘right’ answers or the answers expected of them) and satisficing (completing a task to only the minimum level of acceptability; Fricker et al., 2005; Ilieva et al., 2002). A further feature of online questionnaires is their ability to be interactive (see Ganassali, 2008). Interactive questionnaire formats – i.e. where participants are routed between screens as appropriate, dependent on the responses given – are able to mimic the essentials of a dialogue between researcher and participants. As Ganassali (2008: 24) notes: ‘The ultimate objective would be to simulate a so-called “tailored” interview.’ (See Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire with response/routing options.) Online questionnaires must, however, shoulder a significant load. They are often required to introduce the researcher and create investment on the part of the respondent, maintain motivation to completion and anticipate potential questions and misunderstandings. This is because in most cases participants will only be able look to the questionnaire itself for answers (for discussion see Couper et al., 2001). Support has been found in favour of the use of ‘point of completion’ indicators (Dillmann et al., 1998; Healey et al., 2005) as a way of managing participants’ perceptions with regards to the length of the questionnaire (perceived length being more important than actual length; Ganassali, 2008). It is noteworthy that as the popularity of online research has boomed in research years, so has research dedicated to investigating the implications of this relatively new avenue of data collection (see Sargis et al., 2014; Wilson & Dewaele, 2010). A specific difficulty with the design of the questionnaire for this study was encountered at the outset. If questionnaires allow us to tap into people’s feelings and beliefs, by definition participants must have a good understanding of what it is they are being asked about. For most questionnaire designs, this does not pose significant difficulties, as the topic of interest tends to be highly tangible or familiar to those responding. For example, participants might be asked to rate the quality of the service received from a visit to a local restaurant, or to rate the teaching on a specific undergraduate module. In this instance, however, before participants could be asked about any possible experiences of DMCs, the questionnaire first needed to describe to participants what a ‘DMC’ actually was (certainly, the overwhelming majority would not be familiar with the term ‘directed motivational current’!). Initially, this appeared an insurmountable challenge. Were the questionnaire to begin with a section of lengthy prose, it is likely that this

Part 2 Methodology  71

would have served to skyrocket the number of participants simply closing the web browser (participant drop-out tends to be most pronounced in the first two screens of an online questionnaire; Ganassali, 2008); yet, if it were too brief, participants might misunderstand the true essence of the motivational experience that they were being asked to reflect on. Rather than trying to craft a description of DMCs in my own words, I turned to the descriptions of DMC experiences I had already collected through prior interviews (some of which are reported on in Dörnyei et al., 2016). The definition would need to reflect all key elements of the DMC experience, and – owing to the parallels between DMCs and intense periods of long-term motivation experienced while completing projects (see Chapter 3) – I opted to use the descriptive term ‘projects’. This initial description was also key to ensuring that participants’ individual reflections on DMC-like states had a common baseline. These descriptive statements were curated both to highlight all key elements of the framework and to be as relevant as possible to DMCs experienced in diverse contexts and in pursuit of varied goals (see Figure 4.1). We find accounts on the internet of people being totally absorbed in VERY INTENSE PROJECTS which motivate them for weeks or even months at a time. These people say things like: • “I think about this project day and night – I feel like it’s taken over my life!” • “I’m amazed I’ve been able to stay focused for so long, I’m so enjoying it that putting in all the work feels easy!” • “I never thought I could achieve so much!” • “My friends an definitely see that something special is happening to me, they say they’ve never seen me so motivated!” • “I wish I could experience this type of motivation while working towards all my goals!” Figure 4.1  Description of DMCs used in the DMC Disposition Questionnaire

The fact that participants may have been reading this in their L2 posed a further consideration (although there may also have been some benefits to participants self-selecting out – i.e. giving up before the end and so not submitting a completed questionnaire – with regards to the fidelity of responses received). Vocabulary was kept to higher frequency bands wherever possible, and the picture, too, aimed to capture the enthusiasm and enjoyment of the DMC experience, providing a further non-verbal elaboration of the quotes given. The overall quality of the responses and the multiple corresponding cross-checks completed during analysis (see Chapter 5) all point to the conclusion that a suitable solution was reached.

72  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

The questionnaire comprised three main sections: Section 1

Section 1 sought to understand whether or not participants had personally experienced a DMC or a period of DMC-like motivation. Participants were presented the above description (see Figure 4.1) and were asked to indicate whether they recognised this type of intense motivation, whether they had personally experienced it, and – where relevant – they were asked to respond to brief follow-up questions related to its duration and trigger. The latter question with regards to triggers collected qualitative data, with participants invited to respond to the prompt: ‘Would you mind writing a few sentences about how this intense period of motivation began?’ Section 2

The main body of the questionnaire comprised a series of 12 statements requiring responses along a 5 point Likert scale reading: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Agree and Strongly Agree (all points were labelled with words rather than numbers, cf. Krosnick & Berent, 1993). As this questionnaire was the first of its kind, there were no previous surveys from which these statements could be drawn, so, as is often standard practice in such situations (DeVellis, 2003; Sudman & Bradburn, 1983), an item pool of possible questions was drawn up based on the existing body of DMC interview data. Statements were designed to tap into all aspects of DMCs and effort was made to ensure that they were as representative as possible of the way in which the phenomenon had been described in the words of past interview participants (Dörnyei, 2010), although minor alterations were made to aid intelligibility. Statements included ‘During this time I was able to work more productively than I usually can’ and ‘When looking back now, I have very good memories of this time.’ This section also incorporated questions as to whether participants would or would not like to experience this type of intense motivation again, and qualitative data was collected with an aim to understanding why. Finally, participants were asked whether they had witnessed such periods of heightened motivation in people around them and, if they had, they were invited to share a few short comments on this. Section 3

The final section of the questionnaire collected relevant personal data – for example, participants’ sex, age and nationality – and also requested participants’ informed consent that they might allow their data to be used anonymously for research purposes.

Part 2 Methodology  73

Piloting the DMC Disposition Questionnaire

The development and testing of this new instrument were subjected to a process of ‘ongoing piloting’ (Dörnyei, 2010), whereby it was continually discussed and debated with peers and colleagues. However, two more formal pilot studies were also conducted. Pilot study 1

The aim of the first pilot study (N = 7) was to gather basic feedback on both the layout and user-friendliness of the online format as it appeared on a range of electronic devices. Participants were a convenience sample of friends and colleagues, and a ‘talk aloud’ methodology was used in order to gain greater insight. Also known as cognitive pretesting, this can identify confusion or misunderstanding and offer insight into the ways participants approach forming their responses (see Krosnick, 1999). In addition to that described below, changes made to the questionnaire at this time primarily related to its physical layout, or minor wording changes in order to address ambiguity. The key change made at this point was in the possible response options to the question: ‘How often do you think you have experienced a project of this kind of motivational intensity?’ This initially offered three possibilities: never, once, or several times. However, it was clear that some participants were looking to place themselves within the grey areas in between (for example, what should they do if they thought they had experienced this, but were unsure whether the intensity of their experience matched up to that implied in the initial description?). Two further response options were added, incorporating a further variable related to the level of intensity at which participants rated their experiences: to a similar level of intensity or not quite as intense. This created five possible responses to this question, ranging from ‘I have NEVER experienced this type of motivation’ and ‘I have experienced this type of motivation ONCE, but NOT QUITE AS INTENSE as above’, to ‘I have experienced this type of motivation SEVERAL TIMES to a SIMILAR LEVEL OF INTENSITY as above’. This amendment later proved critical in facilitating the isolation of participants believed to be reporting on ‘true’ DMC experiences. Pilot study 2

The second pilot study (N = 81) was conducted with three class groups, two in Japan and one in Hungary. Pilot study 2 aimed to test the robustness of the online questionnaire format, the length of time required for completion, and to provide initial data for item analysis. The latter was of particular importance for this novel questionnaire and it provided encouraging results, with the Likert scale statements included

74  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

in the main body of the questionnaire creating an overall scale with strong internal consistency. This second pilot led to the addition of two further Likert statements, again with a view to building in further means by which descriptions of DMCs could later be better distinguished in analysis. Their aim was to tap into the experience of high levels of motivation fuelled by highly disciplined self-regulated behaviour: i.e. an experience from which the same final outcome might nevertheless have been achieved, but lacking the same sense of ‘effortless effort’ and eudaimonic well-being that underpins the DMC experience (experiences which therefore might not be considered as DMCs). These two statements sought to isolate participant experiences that were successful instead due to, for example, highly developed self-determined strategies, grit or perseverance (‘Many times it felt like a real struggle to keep going’ / ‘It was a really enjoyable experience’). Procedure

The questionnaire was developed online through Google’s questionnaire tool, and an identical version was created using Survey Monkey specifically for use in mainland China (where Google services are not accessible). Although layout changes such as those that are inevitable with the use of multiple survey tools/technologies may have led to differences in responses (c.f. Sanchez, 1992; Smith, 1995, in the context of paper-based questionnaires and Dillman et al., 1998, in the context of online surveys), ultimately, the small number of responses collected through the latter platform meant that this caused little concern. Shortcut links to the questionnaire were created and sent out extensively to colleagues and contacts around the world, with the aim of reaching as diverse and numerous a participant body as possible. Recipients were asked to complete the questionnaire themselves and/or to invite their students to do the same; for student participants, teachers were told that this could be completed either during class time or set as a short (noncompulsory) homework assignment. Participants were asked to forward the link on to people they believed might be willing to participate in the same way: participants were therefore reached through a combination of both convenience and snowball sampling (Dörnyei, 2007). All important information was included on the introductory page of the questionnaire and no further implementation procedures were specified. Data collection ran for approximately five months, from August to December 2015. Participants

Data was collected from a total of 1,563 participants, comprised of current language teachers/students (of any language), and current

Part 2 Methodology  75

teachers/students of any of the following: second language acquisition, applied linguistics, TESOL, CELTA or other teacher training courses, and other related subjects. 39 responses (2.5%) were identified as unreliable and discarded at the outset. Reasons for exclusion included insufficient levels of English manifested as clear misunderstandings evident within the qualitative responses, or where responses indicated a lack of care (e.g. ambiguous qualitative responses combined with the answering of every question in the same way), or where comments evidenced the questionnaire was not being taken seriously. Finally, a further 72 responses (4.5%) were omitted: 50 (3%) because they did not give consent for their data to be used, and 22 (1.5%) because respondents indicated they were under 16 and so were unable to give informed consent. The total number of responses taken forward for analysis (N = 1,452) comprised 1,043 (72%) female and 409 (28%) male respondents (interestingly, this split is typical of many online language-related questionnaires, Wilson & Dewaele, 2010). Respondents were of 71 nationalities, and an additional two nationality groups were made up of participants of dual nationality and another titled ‘Other’, which included responses that were unclear (e.g. ‘Caucasian’ or ‘Hispanic’). Table 4.1 lists the number of responses from the top 20 most well represented countries, whilst Table 4.2 lists the number of responses broken down by continent. Table 4.3 offers a breakdown of the ages of participants. Data Analysis

Data collected via the two questionnaire formats was immediately combined: 1,530 (98%) responses were collected via Google’s online questionnaire tool and 33 responses (2%) via Survey Monkey. Data was cleaned and responses removed where necessary (see previous section), before being coded ready for analysis. Quantitative data analysis was completed using SPSS 22. Commensurate with the aims of the study and the nature of the sample group, analysis centred on the collation of detailed descriptive statistics to describe the occurrence patterns of DMCs across different contexts and participant subgroups, and relied heavily on basic statistical procedures such as chi-square analyses, t-tests and analyses of variance (ANOVA). Thematic analysis of the qualitative data (see Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012) began with multiple readings of the full dataset in order to build familiarity. Key themes emerging in the responses to each question were then identified and coded into non-overlapping, mutually exclusive categories. These categories were then clustered together into wider umbrella groups depicting the overarching themes that had emerged (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Kumar, 2019). Finally, responses falling within each of these wider groups were considered as a whole to

76  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Table 4.1  Number of responses from the top 20 most well represented countries (in terms of number of respondents) Nationality

Number

Percentage

British (including English, Scottish and Welsh)

163

11.2

Chinese

129

8.9

Korean

89

6.1

Brazilian

83

5.7

Finnish

82

5.6

Spanish (including Basque and Catalan)

77

5.3

Japanese

70

4.8

Saudi

69

4.8

Thai

68

4.7

American

67

4.6

Croatian

64

4.4

Turkish

54

3.7

Hungarian

35

2.4

Polish

29

2.0

Greek

27

1.9

Dual nationality

26

1.8

Maltese

21

1.4

Canadian

19

1.3

Swedish

17

1.2

Indonesian

13

0.9

Table 4.2  Number of responses broken down by continent (Russia is included as within Europe, and Armenia, Turkey and Indonesia as within Asia) Continent

Number

Percentage

Europe

614

42.3

Asia

574

39.5

South America

105

7.2

North America

86

5.9

Africa

23

1.6

Australasia

13

0.9

Dual

26

1.8

Other

11

0.8

ensure homogeneity and consistency. Analysis subsequent to this was primarily quantitative in nature and focused on a comparison of the number of responses in each category given by respondents in different subgroups.

Part 2 Methodology  77

Table 4.3  The age spread of respondents Age

Number

Percentage

16–17 years

86

5.9

18–21 years

340

23.4

22–30 years

452

31.1

31–40 years

261

18.0

41–50 years

159

10.9

51–60 years

124

8.5

61 and over

30

2.1

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have overviewed the development of the DMC Disposition Questionnaire, the piloting, procedures, participants and my approach to analysis. I begin the following chapter by describing the process undertaken to isolate participant responses reporting on ‘true’ DMC experiences, before reporting findings relating to the broader relevance and recognisability of DMCs. I then continue in Chapter 6 to explore commonly reported DMC triggers, and participants’ opinions with regards to wanting to repeat their experience.

5 Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs

In this chapter, I begin to explore the broader relevance and recognisability of DMCs worldwide. I start by addressing the most important issue of analysis: the need to isolate as accurately as possible a ‘DMC group’, comprising participants reporting on ‘true’ DMC experiences. I go on to discuss the creation of a composite DMC Disposition Scale – formed from the Likert scale statements in the main body of the questionnaire – and explore differences in the responses of participants in the ‘DMC group’ and those of other subgroups. I also present other key comparisons – for example, differences in the reported length of participants’ experiences, and the responses of participants of different demographic backgrounds. I then take a closer look at the participant make-up of the DMC group itself: i.e. who was it exactly that reported experiencing DMCs? (And who is it that reported never having experienced this type of motivation?) I conclude the chapter by overviewing the findings emerged in the data collected from those questions directed towards understanding participants’ experiences of DMCs specifically in the context of language learning. First Look Results

Let us begin by noting some initial statistics. After having read the bullet-pointed descriptors describing DMCs (see Chapter 4/Appendix 1), participants were asked to indicate along a 5 point Likert scale whether they recognised this type of intense motivation (M = 3.78, SD = 1.09, N = 1452) and whether they had personally experienced it (M = 3.66, SD = 1.18, N = 1,452). A substantial proportion of respondents reported that they recognised it (64.8%, N = 941 responded either Agree or Strongly Agree), and a similarly high percentage (62.2%, N = 903 responded either Agree or Strongly Agree) reported that they had experienced it themselves (see Table 5.1). 78

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  79

Table 5.1  Summary of responses to initial questions regarding participants’ ­recognition and experience of this type of intense motivation ‘I recognise this type of intense motivation’ Strongly Disagree

‘I have personally experienced this type of intense motivation while doing a project’

62 (4.3%)

91 (6.3%)

Disagree

121 (8.3%)

175 (12.1%)

Neither Agree nor Disagree

328 (22.6%)

283 (19.5%)

Agree

508 (35.0%)

496 (34.2%)

Strongly Agree

433 (29.8%)

407 (28%)

This constitutes a considerable proportion of participants. Yet, participants invariably differed in their understanding of the experience the descriptive statements strove to tap into, and the level of intensity they believed sufficient for them to affirm their personal experience of it. So, how many respondents within the current dataset actually experienced DMCs? Identifying DMCs in the Dataset

Recognising the paramount importance of this question to subsequent analysis, multiple cross-checks and comparisons were completed to further refine this potential DMC group initially identified. First steps to identifying ‘true’ DMC experiences

I began by probing deeper into participants’ appraisals of whether their experience matched the intensity portrayed in the descriptive statements. It was critical to first allow participants to be able to indicate if they felt the experience they were describing was not quite as intense as the descriptors implied. Participants who indicated that they had experienced this type of motivation (to either level of intensity) were also asked to indicate how many times they had experienced it; once or several times (see Table 5.2). That only 9.2% of the sample reported never having experienced this type of engagement with a project lends support to a tentative initial conclusion that DMC-like experiences are not only recognisable, but may in fact be a relatively common phenomenon among respondents (I return to discuss the ‘Never’ subgroup later in the chapter). It is of note that this Table 5.2  Summary of responses to the question: ‘How often do you think you have experienced a project to this kind of motivational intensity?’ Less intense

Similar intensity

Never

Once

Several times

Once

Number

134 (9.2%)

158 (10.9%)

590 (40.6%)

213 (14.7%)

Total

134 (9.2%)

748 (51.5%)

Several times 357 (24.6%)

570 (39.3%)

80  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

figure (N = 134) is half the figure returned above (N = 266 either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement I have personally experienced this type of intense motivation while doing a project, see Table 5.1), yet it is likely that this can be simply explained through the inclusion of the not quite as intense option facilitating a more nuanced response. Isolating participants who had experienced this type of motivation to a similar level of intensity was a key first step to distilling ‘true’ DMC experiences in the dataset. Respondents who reported their experience to be not quite as intense were understood either to have experienced partial manifestations of DMCs, or to have experienced something akin to a more generalised form of long-term motivation resulting from a form of highly regulated self-determined behaviour. The initial basis of the DMC group was therefore formed, comprising participants reporting having experienced this type of motivation to a similar level of intensity, either on one occasion or several times. The DMC group at this point comprised 570 participants, 39.3% of respondents as a whole. It is interesting to note here that analysis of the qualitative dataset (see Chapter 6) indicates that a considerable number of the respondents who marked their experience as ‘not quite as intense’, did exhibit clear hallmarks that were indicative of ‘true’ DMC experiences. However, with insufficient information available to justify the ‘upgrade’ of any of these responses to the DMC group, and to ensure the final DMC group was not over-inflated, these responses were not altered for inclusion. Investigating reported levels of motivational intensity

The first validation of the isolation of these responses was provided through comparison of participants’ appraisal of the level of motivational intensity of their experience. Participants were asked to indicate on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 how intense their motivation felt throughout this period, where 1 equalled Not very intense and 5 equalled Very intense. An independent samples t-test was carried out to compare the intensity scores reported by the DMC group (N = 570) and the general long-term motivation group (N = 748; participants who reported experiencing this type of motivation to a level not quite as intense). There was a significant difference in scores between the former (M = 4.29, SD = .63) and the latter (M = 3.59, SD = .76), t (1183) = 17.4, p < .05, and the magnitude of the effect size was large (eta squared = .2; Pallant, 2011). Assuming that the DMC group does comprise true DMC experiences, this is exactly as would be expected. Further validation of the DMC group: ‘Would you like to ­experience this type of intense motivation again?’

In order to further distil the DMC group, at a later point in the questionnaire, after participants had reflected on their experience in

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  81

Table 5.3  Chi-square results: Level of intensity x whether participants would like to repeat the experience Do you want to experience this again?

Level of intensity

Yes

No

Total

Not quite as intense

Count

655

93

748

Expected count

672.5

75.5

748.0

Similar intensity

Count

530

40

570

Expected count

512.5

57.5

Total

570.0

Count

1185

133

1318

Expected count

1185.0

133.0

1318.0

greater detail, they were asked to indicate whether they would like to experience this type of motivation again in the future. Owing to the high levels of eudaimonic well-being, self-authenticity and positive emotionality at the core of DMCs (see Chapter 2), individuals who have experienced them tend to readily report wanting to do so again. A chi-square test for independence (see Table 5.3) indicated a significant relationship between the group to which respondents had been assigned (the DMC group or the general long-term motivation group) and their response as to whether they desired to repeat the experience, c2 (1, N = 1318) = 9.87, p < .002. Results indicated that the proportion of ‘yes’ responses was higher than would be expected in the DMC group, with the opposite true of the general long-term motivation group. This again lends support to arguing that these two groups have been correctly identified, and that the DMC group may indeed be representative of DMC experiences. Further, this also supports an assertion that participants’ understanding and experience of DMCs converge with how they have been conceptualised to date in the literature. The final DMC group

Exact interpretations of this type of motivational experience will have varied from participant to participant, yet the juxtaposition of these findings as a whole offers a robust case in support of the contention that participants’ understanding of DMCs broadly aligned (for example, in demonstrating the same positive attitude in reporting wanting to experience it again), that participants’ interpretations likewise aligned with how DMCs have been conceptualised in the literature, and that participants included within the DMC group may indeed be reporting on ‘true’ DMC experiences. After removing the 40 participants earmarked for the DMC group but who did not wish to repeat the experience (this is an intriguing

82  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

subset of responses, which I return to discuss in more detail in the next chapter), the final DMC group comprised a total of 530 of the 1,452 respondents, 36.5% of the sample group as a whole. In studies that have been completed since, using adaptations of this questionnaire, similar figures have been returned. For example, Pietluch (2018) reported a figure of 41.5% of participants describing DMC experiences from 212 students studying at universities across Rzeszow, Poland. Hashimoto (2018) collected data from 22 EFL college students in Japan and found that 46% of participants reported having experienced an individual DMC, and 55% a group DMC. While these studies do not detail the processes used to isolate DMC groups within their datasets (which may explain the slightly higher percentages), the figures are distinctly comparable. Creating a Composite DMC Disposition Scale

The focus of analysis next turned to the creation of a composite DMC Disposition Scale. This was initially designed to comprise the 12 Likert scale items presented within the main body of the questionnaire, to which participants were asked to indicate their responses on a 5 point scale from Strongly Disagree (= 1) to Strongly Agree (= 5). Each of these statements was designed to tap into a different attitudinal facet of the DMC construct, and, owing to the novel nature of this study, I first conducted an exploratory factor analysis to assess the underlying factor structure of the construct, in order to check the legitimacy of considering all 12 items as belonging to a single attitudinal scale. Maximum likelihood extraction with direct oblimin rotation produced a three factor solution (see Table 5.4). However, because Factor 1 was made up of only two variables – one loading significantly more strongly than the other – a two factor solution was tested (see Table 5.5). This solution merged Factors 1 and 2, and, as the outstanding two items – ‘It didn’t feel like hard work at the time – I was just caught up in the flow’ and ‘Many times it felt like a real struggle to keep going’ – did not have high factor loadings, it was concluded that the construct underlying the dataset did contain only one salient dimension. A reliability analysis was then conducted, at first including all 12 items. Although the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient reached .80, this increased to .84 with the deletion of the two items noted as loading separately above. Considering this in tandem with the results of the factor analysis, these two outstanding variables were deleted in order to keep the composite variable as homogeneous as possible. Thus, the resulting DMC Disposition Scale comprised 10 Likert scale items, with strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = .84). This reliability analysis was then conducted separately for the DMC group (N = 530) and the general long term-motivation group (N = 655, comprised of

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  83

Table 5.4  Results of the exploratory factor analysis (Extraction method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation) Factor 1 I remember thinking about my goal all the time

1.061

I often imagined myself achieving my final goal

.516

2

3

I surprised myself with how much I was able to do

.740

I think something special happened to me during this experience – it was an amazing time

.709

When looking back now, I have very good memories of this time

.643

This experience helped me to achieve all I had wanted to and more

.601

During this time I was able to work more productively than I usually can

.563

The people around me could see that I was experiencing something special

.497

At the time, this project became a central part of my life

.353

It didn’t feel like hard work at the time – I was just caught up in the flow

.562

Many times it felt like a real struggle to keep going It was a really enjoyable experience

.498 .478

.491

Table 5.5  Results of the exploratory factor analysis with a forced two factor solution (Extraction method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalisation) Factor 1 I think something special happened to me during this experience – it was an amazing time

.670

I surprised myself with how much I was able to do

.633

The people around me could see that I was experiencing something special

.618

This experience helped me to achieve all I had wanted to and more

.606

I remember thinking about my goal all the time

.595

When looking back now, I have very good memories of this time

.553

During this time I was able to work more productively than I usually can

.531

I often imagined myself achieving my final goal

.528

At the time, this project became a central part of my life

.525

It didn’t feel like hard work at the time – I was just caught up in the flow It was a really enjoyable experience Many times it felt like a real struggle to keep going

2

.375

.552 .445

.537 .463

84  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

respondents who reported experiencing this type of motivation to a lesser intensity but who also reported wanting to experience it again). The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients reached acceptable levels of .85 and .79 respectively. Interrogating the DMC Group: Comparisons with the General Long-term Motivation Group

Using the newly formed DMC Disposition Scale, an independentsamples t-test was used to compare scores on this attitudinal measure between the DMC group and the general long-term motivation group. There was a significant difference between the responses of the former (M = 4.16, SD = .29) and the latter (M = 3.77, SD = .54), t (1183) = 12.0, p < .001, with the magnitude of the difference reaching a reasonably large effect size (eta squared = .11, again validating the isolation of the DMC group as representative of ‘true’ DMC experiences). To probe this further, the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups were each split in half on the basis of whether the respondents reported experience of this once or several times (see Table 5.6 for descriptive statistics). A one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant difference in DMC Disposition scores between the groups, F (3, 1181) = 62.12, p < .001, and that the effect size was large (eta squared = .14). S-N-K post hoc analysis showed that each of the groups differed significantly from the others (p < .05), with the sequence of means following the expected order: participants who reported having experienced this several times responded more positively on the DMC Disposition Scale than those who reported they had experienced it only once, and participants in the DMC group responded more positively on the DMC Disposition Scale than those in the general long-term motivation group. Further to the results presented previously relating to the intensity of the experience (see section ‘Investigating reported levels of motivational intensity’), it is interesting to note that a one-way analysis of variance comparing the intensity levels reported by individuals falling into each of these four groups likewise highlighted a significant difference, F (3, 1181) = 119.65, p < .000, and that S-N-K post hoc analysis shows that each Table 5.6  Descriptive statistics for the four response groups submitted to ANOVA to compare scores on the DMC Disposition Scale Number

Mean

Standard deviation

General long-term motivation group/once

128

3.57

.58

General long-term motivation group/several times

527

3.82

.52

DMC-group/once

191

4.03

.60

DMC-group/several times

339

4.24

.57

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  85

Table 5.7  Descriptive statistics for the four response groups submitted to ANOVA to compare scores in the level of intensity reported Number

Mean

Standard deviation

General long-term motivation group/once

128

3.32

.90

General long-term motivation group/several times

527

3.66

.71

DMC-group/once

191

4.08

.63

DMC-group/several times

339

4.42

.59

group differed significantly from each of the others, with the sequence of means increasing in accordance with this same expected order. The effect size was likewise large (.23; see Table 5.7 for descriptive statistics). The effect of sex and age on responses on the DMC Disposition Scale

An independent-samples t-test was carried out to compare responses on the DMC Disposition Scale from men and women, both in the DMC group and the general long-term motivation group. In the DMC group there was no significant difference in the scores of men (M = 4.14, SD = .55) and women (M = 4.17, SD = .60), t (528) = –.607, p = .54, and this non-significant result was replicated when making the same comparison between men (M = 3.70, SD = .57) and women (M = 3.79, SD = .52) in the general long-term motivation group, t (653) = –1.86, p = .06. This result is highly encouraging with regards to the pedagogical relevance of DMCs, providing initial evidence that DMCs may be experienced and appraised similarly by both sexes. Within the general long-term motivation group, comparing responses on the DMC Disposition Scale from participants within the seven different age brackets gave a very clear picture. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was no significant difference in attitudes among the seven age groups, F (6, 648) = 1.13, p = .34 (see Table 5.8 for descriptive statistics). Table 5.8  Descriptive statistics of responses on the DMC Disposition Scale in the general long-term motivation group for each of the seven age groups Age groups

Mean

Standard Deviation

16–17 years

47

3.68

.74

18–21 years

163

3.69

.59

22–30 years

227

3.80

.49

31–40 years

90

3.80

.55

41–50 years

68

3.83

.48

51–60 years

52

3.81

.40

8

3.74

.47

61 years and over

Number

86  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Table 5.9  Descriptive statistics of responses on the DMC Disposition Scale from ­participants in the DMC group for each of the four regrouped age categories Age groups (regrouped)

Number

Mean

Standard Deviation

16–21 years

125

4.00

.65

22–30 years

144

4.14

.48

31–50 years

188

4.28

.54

51 years and over

73

4.19

.58

In comparing responses on the DMC Disposition Scale between the different age ranges in the DMC group, a one-way analysis of variance did, however, highlight significant differences, F (6, 523) = 3.39, p < .003, although various post-hoc analyses painted an ambiguous picture because of the proximity of some of the results to the .05 significance threshold. The analysis was therefore re-run having merged several of the data categories to create four age groups (see Table 5.9). A one-way analysis of variance indicated a significant difference in DMC Disposition scores amongst these new groups, F (3, 526) = 6.08, p < .000, but the effect size was relatively small (eta squared = .03). S-N-K post hoc analysis showed that the group aged 16–21 years was statistically different from the groups aged 31–50 years and 51 years and over (p < .05), but that the group 22–30 years did not differ significantly from either the 16–21 group, or the groups aged 31–50 years or 51 years and over. In sum, younger participants tended to respond less emphatically on the DMC Disposition Scale than their older counterparts. The small effect size, however, indicates that, even in the DMC group, age differences may not play a decisive role, and these differences may simply be attributable to older respondents’ increased opportunities due to their longer lifespan. This is certainly a question to be followed up in future research. Comparing the lengths of the experiences reported by participants in the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups

I next turned to explore the duration over which each period of intense motivation was reported to have lasted (see Figure 5.1 for a graphical representation of these results). A 2 × 5 chi-square test revealed a significant relationship between the type of experience an individual reported (i.e. whether a DMC or not) and the duration of this experience, c2 (4, 1185) = 87.47, p < .000. As can be seen in Table 5.10, within the DMC group more participants than expected reported longer experiences, and fewer participants than expected reported shorter experiences. The inverse is true of the general long-term motivation group. Considering the intensity of the goal-directed motivational energy contained in DMCs, and the drive this can create even over

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  87

Figure 5.1  Duration of the experience for the DMC and general long-term motivation groups (figures given are percentages to allow for direct comparison) Table 5.10  Chi-square analysis comparing the DMC and general long-term ­motivation groups by way of the duration of the experience Duration (months)

DMC group General long-term motivation group Total

Less than 1

1–2

2–4

4–6

89

83

96

67

195

530

Expected count

136.9

110.0

85.0

59.0

139.1

530.0

Count

217

163

94

65

116

655

Expected count

169.1

136.0

105.0

73.0

171.9

655.0

Count

306

246

190

132

311

1185

Expected count

306.0

246.0

190.0

132.0

311.0

1185.0

Count

Longer than 6

Total

considerable periods of time, this result continues to be consistent with the characteristics we might expect of a ‘true’ DMC group. A one-way analysis of variance also demonstrated significant results when examining how long participants’ experiences lasted and the reported level of intensity of these experiences. In running this analysis first with the DMC group and the general long-term motivation group pooled together, results indicated that there was a significant difference in the level of intensity reported by individuals whose experiences lasted varying lengths of time (see Table 5.11 for descriptive statistics), F (4, 1180) = 22.73, p < .000, with a moderate effect size (eta squared = .072). S-N-K post hoc analysis showed that individuals whose experienced lasted the longest – 4–6 months and longer than 6 months – reported levels of intensity that were significantly greater than those whose experiences lasted either 1–2 or 2–4 months, whose reported level

88  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Table 5.11  Descriptive statistics of the five groups put forward for ANOVA: both the DMC group and the general long-term motivation group pooled together (N = 1185; 1 = Not very intense, 5 = Very intense) Number

Mean

Standard deviation

Less than 1 month

306

3.65

.86

1–2 months

246

3.80

.75

2–4 months

190

3.87

.73

4–6 months

132

4.16

.60

Longer than 6 months

311

4.17

.73

of intensity was in turn also significantly greater than individuals for whom this experience lasted less than one month. In sum, the longer the experience, the greater the level of intensity of the experience reported. Although both analyses did reach levels of significance, these neat post-hoc results were not replicated when conducting the same analysis for the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups separately. A one-way analysis of variance indicated that there was a significant difference in the intensity scores reported by individuals in the general long-term motivation group whose experiences lasted different durations (for descriptive statistics see Table 5.12), F (4, 650) = 7.538, p < .000. The effect size was small (eta squared = .044). S-N-K post hoc analysis showed that while there was no significant difference between participants whose experience lasted 4–6 months and longer than 6 months, the intensity scores of individuals whose experience lasted from 4–6 months was significantly different from those whose experience lasted from 2–4 months, and the intensity scores of individuals whose experience lasted over 6 months were significantly different from individuals in the three groups whose experiences lasted less than 4 months: levels of intensity increased up to 4–6 months but dropped off for individuals whose experiences lasted over 6 months. This is perhaps what we might have expected from the general long-term motivation group, in which the level of intensity required to provide continual motivational impetus becomes more important – and more intense – the longer a current of motivation is required to be maintained. Table 5.12  Descriptive statistics of the five groups put forward for ANOVA: The general long-term motivation group (N = 655) Number

Mean

Standard deviation

Less than 1 month

217

3.43

.83

1–2 months

163

3.55

.69

2–4 months

94

3.61

.74

4–6 months

65

3.91

.55

116

3.78

.78

Longer than 6 months

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  89

Table 5.13  Descriptive statistics of the five groups put forward for ANOVA: The DMC group (N = 530) Number

Mean

Standard deviation

Less than 1 month

89

4.19

.69

1–2 months

83

4.30

.62

2–4 months

96

4.13

.64

4–6 months

67

4.40

.55

Longer than 6 months

195

4.39

.60

In looking at the results for the DMC group, a one-way analysis of variance likewise indicated a significant difference between the intensity scores of individuals whose experiences lasted different durations (see Table 5.13 for descriptive statistics), F (4, 525) = 4.189, p < .002. The effect size was likewise small (eta squared = .031). A clear pattern for the DMC group was far harder to discern. Paired with the small effect size, this may indicate that the difference in intensity scores of individuals who experienced DMCs for different lengths of time could be relatively less meaningful overall. One might argue that we should expect this of a DMC group: the intensity of DMC experiences is not linked to the lengths of time over which they are experienced. Instead, the heart of DMC experiences is rooted in their coherence with an individual’s selfconcept (see Chapters 1 and 2). Further research will be able to assess the validity of this conclusion. Participants’ reports of DMCs witnessed in others

Owing to the fact that DMCs are such all-encompassing motivational experiences, it is entirely possible to recognise their occurrence in others, in both close acquaintances and in individuals less well known – for example, classmates or colleagues. In light of this, participants were invited to report on whether they had witnessed this type of intense motivation in people around them. Almost exactly half of respondents reported having witnessed DMCs in people around them (see Table 5.14) and comparing responses to this question Table 5.14  Summary of responses to the question: ‘Have you seen this type of ­intense motivation in people around you?’ Whole sample

DMC group

Not experienced a DMC (rest of sample)

Yes

728 (50.1%)

326 (61.5%)

402 (43.6%)

No

172 (11.8%)

40 (7.5%)

132 (14.3%)

Not sure

552 (38.0%)

164 (30.9%)

388 (42.1%)

1452

530

922

Total

90  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Table 5.15  A 2 × 3 Chi-square analysis between participants’ own experience of DMCs and whether they have witnessed DMCs in others DMC experience?

 

DMC group Yes

Witnessed in others?

No

Not sure

Total

Rest of sample

Total

Count

326

402

728

Expected count

265.7

462.3

728.0

Count

40

132

172

Expected count

62.8

109.2

172.0 552

Count

164

388

Expected count

201.5

350.5

Count

530

922

1452

Expected count

530.0

922.0

1452.0

552.0

from participants in the DMC group and the rest of the sample (i.e. participants who did not report on DMC experiences) was instructive: a 2 × 3 chi-square test for independence revealed a significant relationship between an individual’s experience of DMCs and whether they reported having witnessed DMCs in others, c2 (2, N = 1452) = 45.5, p < .000. As can be seen in the expected counts in Table 5.15, having experienced a DMC means that not only were individuals more likely to recognise and report having witnessed DMCs in others more than expected, but they were also less likely to report that they were unsure whether or not they had witnessed DMCs in others. The inverse was true of those who had not experienced DMCs: they reported not only that they had not, or that they were not sure whether they had, seen this type of experience in others more than would be expected, but also fewer of them than would have been expected reported having noticed DMCs. In sum, for participants who had experienced DMCs, they were not only significantly more likely to report recognising when others were going through similar experiences, but also less likely to report uncertainty over whether they had or had not witnessed this. Interim Summary: What Do We Know So Far?

The analyses and cross-checks presented so far have offered consistent support for the conclusion that the so-labelled ‘DMC group’ does comprise individuals who are reporting on DMC experiences, and that these participants’ descriptions of their reported DMC experiences seem not only to be consistent with other participants’ understanding of the experience but also with how the concept has been operationally defined in the literature. This provides strong overall validation for the DMC framework. Furthermore, the DMC group is demonstrated to be significantly different from the general long-term motivation group in terms of participants’ responses on the DMC Disposition Scale, as well

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  91

as in the reported longevity, frequency and intensity of their experiences, all of which further supports the assertion that DMCs might be correctly understood as a ‘perfect’ form of long-term approach motivation. Overall findings suggest that DMCs may indeed be well-recognisable and relatively widely experienced. There are two key questions, however, that I have yet to address. The first relates to who it is exactly that comprised the DMC group, and the second to how the relationship between the demographic make-up of the DMC group compares to that of the participant make-up of the sample as a whole. A Closer Look at the DMC Group: Who Experienced DMCs?

The impact of demographic factors such as sex, age and nationality is critical in considering any potential pedagogical applications of DMC theory. In order to explore this further, in this section I investigate how the demographic characteristics of the DMC group and the ‘Never group’ (participants who reported never having experienced this type of motivation) compare to the sample as a whole. The DMC group versus the whole sample

The first characteristic explored was the sex of the respondents. A straightforward comparison makes immediately clear the similarity between the male/female split within the DMC group (N = 154/376, equal to 29.1%/70.9% of the subsample) and participants as a whole (N = 409/1,043, equal to 28.2%/71.8%). A 2 × 2 chi-square test for independence revealed no significant relationship between participants’ sex and their reports of DMC experiences, c2 (1, N = 1452) = .26, p = .61, substantiating the tentative finding reported earlier in the chapter suggesting that neither sex appears to have a significant dispositional advantage to experience DMCs over the other. The next basic characteristic considered was the age of participants in the DMC group versus the whole sample. Plotted as a bar graph in Figure 5.2, the results reveal a similar visual pattern as that which emerged previously, namely that there is a visible split at the age of around 30. Participants under the age of 30 appear to be marginally less well represented in the DMC group than they are within the sample as a whole, and this is reversed for participants older than 30. After merging the age groups in the same way as before, I conducted a 2 × 4 chi-square analysis to examine the ages of participants in the DMC group relative to the rest of the sample (see Table 5.16). This revealed a significant relationship, c2 (3, 1452) = 33.88, p < .000, with participants over the age of 30 over-represented in the DMC group compared to the sample as a whole, and participants under this age under-represented in the DMC group.

92  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Figure 5.2  Ages of respondents within the DMC group versus the sample as a whole (figures given are percentages to allow for direct comparison) Table 5.16  Chi-square analysis comparing the DMC group and the rest of the sample by way of the ages of participants (regrouped in the same way as described ­previously) Age range

  DMC group

Count

Rest of sample

Count

Group

Total

Expected count

Expected count Count Expected count

16–21

22–30

31–50

51+

125

144

188

73

Total 530

155.5

165.0

153.3

56.2

530.0

301

308

232

81

922

270.5

287.0

266.7

97.8

922.0

426

452

420

154

1452

426.0

452.0

420.0

154.0

1452.0

These findings thus parallel those already reported, and it may be that individuals over the age of 30 are more likely to experience DMCs than those who are younger. However, the residuals are small in relation to the sample size, and again it may be that this result could simply be attributed to older participants’ increased lifespans and opportunity. (Such a conclusion is supported by the fact that the participants in both Pietluch (2018) and Hashimoto (2018) were predominantly all aged under 30; see also the related findings presented in Part 3 of this book.) The final demographic characteristic investigated was respondents’ nationality. Table 5.17 lists the number of respondents within the top 15 most populous nationality groups found within both the DMC group and the sample as a whole, the percentage make-up of each nationality group, and the percentage difference between them. This same ‘top-15’ list applies equally to the DMC group and the whole sample, and their contributions show only marginal differences. Accordingly, we may

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  93

Table 5.17  Nationality make-up of the DMC group and the sample group as a whole for the top 15 most populous nationalities represented Nationality

DMC group (N = 530) (% of DMC group)

Whole sample (N = 1452) (% of whole sample)

Percentage difference

British

57 (10.8%)

163 (11.2%)

–0.4

Chinese

40 (7.5%)

129 (8.9%)

–1.4

Spanish

36 (6.8%)

77 (5.3%)

+1.5

Brazilian

33 (6.2%)

83 (5.7%)

+0.5

Korean

30 (5.7%)

89 (6.1%)

–0.4

American

26 (4.9%)

67 (4.6%)

+0.3

Croatian

24 (4.5%)

64 (4.4%)

+0.1

Saudi

23 (4.3%)

69 (4.8%)

–0.5

Japanese

20 (3.8%)

70 (4.8%)

–1.0

Finnish

18 (3.4%)

82 (5.6%)

–2.2

Hungarian

17 (3.2%)

35 (2.4%)

+0.8

Thai

17 (3.2%)

68 (4.7%)

–1.5

Dual

16 (3.0%)

26 (1.8%)

+1.2

Greek

13 (2.5%)

27 (1.9%)

+0.6

Turkish

12 (2.3%)

54 (3.7%)

–1.4

conclude that in the current dataset the DMC subsample did not deviate from the overall sample of respondents in this respect, and that DMC experiences appear as likely to be equally commonly reported across all nationalities represented. The ‘Never group’ versus the whole sample

In order to further corroborate the above conclusions, I looked towards the group of participants within the ‘Never group’ (N = 134): if it stands that DMCs are largely neutral in terms of participants’ sex, age and nationality, this should likewise be reflected in similar comparisons here. The percentage breakdown of the male/female split within the Never group (N = 41/93, equal to 30.6%/69.4%) is again remarkably similar to the split within the sample as a whole (N = 409/1043, equal to 28.2%/71.8%), and a 2 × 2 chi-square analysis revealed no significant relationship between the sex of participants reporting never having experienced this type of motivation and the rest of the sample c2 (1, N = 1452) = .308, p = .58. The pattern in Figure 5.3 concerning the ages of those in the Never group does not reveal any strong discrepancy, and indeed, after regrouping the age categories as previously, a 2 × 4 chi-square analysis revealed no significant relationship between the age of respondents in the

94  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Figure 5.3  Age range of respondents in the Never group compared to the sample as a whole (figures given are percentages to allow for direct comparison)

Never group and in the rest of the sample as a whole, c2 (3, 1452) = 2.57, p = .46. Finally, Table 5.18 presents the top 15 most populous nationalities in the Never group and in the sample as a whole. There is only one category where a two-digit percentage difference occurs: Saudi respondents are overly represented. However, this might be explained by the fact that a significant proportion of the Saudi sample was excluded from analysis due to insufficient levels of English comprehension (primarily as judged through the coherence of their qualitative answers, see Chapter 4), and it may be the case that the responses of even those remaining skewed the results of this analysis due to language proficiency issues. This conclusion is given additional credence in light of the fact that all other nationalities show little discrepancy. DMCs and Language Learning

Although the focus of this study was not centred on DMCs experienced specifically in the context of language learning, several questions collected basic information about participants’ reported L2 DMC experiences. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had experienced this type of intense motivation while learning a language, with their responses collected along a 5 point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree (M = 3.38, SD = 1.17, N = 1452; see Table 5.19). Owing to the fact that the questionnaire offered no further means of identifying how many within this subset are referring to ‘true’

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  95

Table 5.18  Nationality breakdown of the top 15 most populous nationalities in the Never group compared to the sample as a whole Never group (N = 134) Nationality

Number

Percentage

Whole sample (N = 1452) Number

Percentage

Percentage difference

Saudi*

29

21.6

69

4.8

+16.8

British*

18

13.4

163

11.2

+2.2

Chinese*

9

6.7

129

8.9

–2.2

Turkish*

8

6.0

54

3.7

+2.3

Finnish*

8

6.0

82

5.6

+0.4

Korean*

7

5.2

89

6.1

–0.9

Croatian*

7

5.2

64

4.4

+0.8

Japanese*

6

4.5

70

4.8

–0.3

American*

4

3.0

67

4.6

–1.6

Brazilian*

4

3.0

83

5.7

–2.7

Thai*

4

3.0

68

4.7

–1.7

Maltese

4

3.0

21

1.4

+1.6

Indonesian

3

2.2

13

0.9

+1.3

Greek*

3

2.2

27

1.9

+0.3

Vietnamese

2

1.5

10

0.7

+0.8

*= Nationality also occurs in the top 15 nationalities in the DMC group.

Table 5.19  Summary of responses to the statement: ‘I have personally experienced this type of intense motivation specifically while learning a language’ Number

% of 1452 total

Strongly Disagree

105

7.2

Disagree

228

15.7

Neither Agree nor Disagree

409

28.2

Agree

433

29.8

Strongly Agree

277

19.1

DMCs, to avoid the risk of over-exaggeration, in the following I include only those who answered most emphatically (N = 277). The two key questions specific to language learning included the respondent’s language level at the time they experienced this, and the context in which it occurred. Figure 5.4 displays the proficiency-based distribution of the Strongly Agree group. Each proficiency band is represented and the range in the frequency of responses is relatively narrow (43–61). Although these figures come from a small subsample of unsubstantiated DMC experiences, they do not indicate any strong proficiency-related variation in the experience of L2 DMCs. With regards to context (see Figure 5.5),

96  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Figure 5.4 Language levels at the time that participants experienced this type of motivation in the context of language learning, for those who answered ‘Strongly Agree’ (N = 277)

Figure 5.5 Contexts in which DMCs were experienced in the context of language learning, for those who answered ‘Strongly Agree’ (N = 277)

it is likewise encouraging that a significant proportion of respondents reported L2 DMCs as occurring while studying in formal instructional contexts – at school, university, and in private language schools – which stands ready to counter any suggestion that DMCs may only be capable of emerging within environments in which participants have greater levels of personal freedom. It is perhaps unsurprising that relatively few DMCs occurred during periods of study abroad, as significant variation in students’ experiences throughout this time is well-documented (I return to discuss the context

Investigating the Wider Relevance and Recognisability of DMCs  97

of study abroad at length in Chapter 10). That only a limited number of participants indicated they had experienced this type of motivation when acting in the role of teacher/lecturer may be explained partly by their relatively small representation in the sample, or possibly by the limitations in this context linked to factors such as fixed curriculums, timetables and exams. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented initial findings able to speak for the first time to the wider relevance and recognisability of DMCs. The nature of the data collected did not lend itself to complex statistical analyses, nor were they needed in order to answer the primary questions of interest. The validity of the conclusions drawn has been strengthened by the multiple cross-checks and cross-comparisons completed, which have collectively served to shore up the conclusion that the DMC group does comprise participants who are reporting on ‘true’ DMC experiences. Respondents’ seemingly consistent interpretation of the DMC construct compared to how it has been defined in the literature further supports the validity of this categorisation, and equally strengthens the conclusions of previous theorising. Viewed as a whole, these findings provide evidence that is testament to the fact that participants interpreted the initial bullet-pointed descriptions of DMCs in the way that they were intended. It is not possible from this dataset – obtained from a self-selected sample – to propose estimates as to how many people have experienced DMCs or to generalise further to wider populations. However, these initial findings offer clear support that DMCs seem to represent something more than a unique phenomenon experienced only by a rare, lucky few. The number of responses received over a relatively short period of time, from demographically diverse individuals, corroborates a claim that DMCs are a well recognisable, and may even be a relatively widely experienced, motivational phenomenon. The subsequent interrogation along various demographic factors indicates that DMCs do appear to be a universal element of the human experience, transcending boundaries such as sex, age and nationality. From a pedagogical perspective this is highly encouraging, and suggests that DMCs might be experienced in disparate classrooms and in varied contexts worldwide. This forms a strong foundation from which to move forward and explore pedagogical applications of DMC theory, which I go on to do in Part 3. Before this, however, in Chapter 6 I overview the further insight that the qualitative questionnaire data was able to contribute to these conclusions.

6 Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs

From the outset of this study, I had anticipated the qualitative element to be largely of secondary importance. After all, the primary aim was to seek initial answers to questions related to the wider relevance and recognisability of this unique type of motivational experience (see Chapter 5). The qualitative data was therefore principally collected with a hope that it might shore up the conclusions of the quantitative dataset. It succeeded in doing this very well, and in this sense this qualitative element can be thought of as functioning as a quasi-confirmatory study validating the findings of its quantitative counterpart: participants’ voices certainly describe the highly motivated experiences that the quantitative results indicated we might expect them to. Yet, as soon as I started to delve into this dataset, it immediately became clear that it contributed a considerable amount of unexpected insight, further serving even to highlight several productive and unanticipated directions for future research. In this chapter, I focus discussion on two discrete bodies of qualitative data collected. The first of these documents the ways in which participants’ experiences began and what it was that led to their emergence. The second question that I explore overviews the body of data collected concerning whether participants would or would not like to experience this type of motivation again and – significantly – why. Something that became clear at the outset of the analysis was the fact that the themes and ideas arising from participants who had been grouped within the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups (see Chapter 5) were highly similar. Of course, we might argue that this should not have been entirely unexpected. DMCs represent a subset of long-term motivation whereby various factors have fallen into optimal alignment, and so we can conceive that there should be strong similarities between the motivational experiences of DMCs proper, and

98

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  99

experiences reported as similar, if not quite as intense. Indeed, many of the descriptions shared by participants in the general long-term motivation group bear striking hallmarks of ‘full’ DMC experiences. Reflecting this, I present the qualitative data collected from the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups in tandem, offering data examples from both groups concurrently. I subsequently go on to offer short commentaries on the themes and ideas that emerged with regards to their prevalence among the DMC and the general long-term motivation separately. The quotes taken from participants in the DMC group are identifiable throughout this chapter with an asterisk. Investigating Commonly Reported Triggers

Recapping briefly from Part 1, a trigger can be understood as the final opportunity, event or other factor which ultimately sparks action and brings a DMC to life. In some respects we can think of triggers as acting in similar ways as catalysts. In the natural sciences, catalysts are substances that function to increase the rate of chemical reactions. A well recognisable example is the infamous ‘volcano’ experiment, typical of a child’s science project. This results from combining the catalyst potassium permanganate with hydrogen peroxide, and results in an explosion of energy released as soon as the catalyst is added.1 However, there are key differences in the functioning of this type of reaction and the impact of triggers in the context of DMCs. By deliberately measuring out specific amounts of potassium permanganate and hydrogen peroxide, the resulting reaction can be accurately predicted in advance. In the social sciences, things are not quite as straightforward: it is impossible for us ever to be able to fully comprehend any situation’s initial conditions (see Chapter 1). As I described in Chapter 2, triggers exert a type of butterfly effect. What might function as a DMC trigger for one person might not for someone else, even in what may seem to be largely identical circumstances; or a specific trigger may not lead to the emergence of a DMC on one day, but go on to do so the next. We will never be able to reliably predict when a trigger will lead to the emergence of a DMC, but retrodictive analyses investigating the types of triggers which lead to this type of motivational emergence nevertheless have considerable potential in furthering our understanding. An additional core tenet of complex systems (further to those introduced in Chapter 1) is their self-organisational capacity, which ultimately serves to reduce variation within a system: this means that rather than expecting infinite variation with regards to the types of trigger identifiable, we should expect to be able to identify a finite number of core trigger ‘archetypes’ (see Dörnyei, 2014, on ‘retrodictive qualitative modelling’).

100  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Key triggers emerged from the dataset

All participants who indicated at the start of the questionnaire that they had experienced this type of motivation in the past were asked to think of one instance that stood out in their memory particularly strongly, and to write a few sentences about how it started. I began analysis by following a three-step coding process (see Chapter 4). Each participant response was assigned a primary category – representing the most salient reason given as causing their period of heightened motivation to begin – and, where appropriate, a secondary category was also assigned. In the following analysis, I focus on the primary category assigned to each response. The 15 categories identified in the responses to this question were then organised into five wider umbrella groups. This created four groupings, with the fifth comprised of responses where either no reason was given, or where the reason given was unclear or ambiguous. Let us begin with a straightforward overview of these coding categories: (1) Trigger linked to external influences (positive connotation). Categories in this group were linked to triggers connected to influences external to the individual, but which were perceived as acting in a positive manner. (a) External pressure/influence (positive connotation) (b) Something external fell into place (positive connotation), e.g. a good teacher/curriculum, motivating class group, an unplanned/ unexpected opportunity (c) Element of competition (positive connotation) (2) Trigger linked to external influences (negative connotation). Here, triggers were also linked to external influences, yet their impact on individuals’ lives was perceived in a more negative manner. (a) External pressure/influence (negative connotation) (b) A form of reactance/need to save face (3) Trigger outcome led. This group includes categories that are explicitly goal/vision led, or which are otherwise focused primarily on a specific achievement or outcome. (a) Single and explicit goal/vision (b) Several periods of intense motivation while working towards a longer term goal (c) The potential possibilities from a rewarding outcome (4) Trigger connected to intrapersonal reasons. This grouping includes triggers connected more intimately to the core of an individual’s sense of self and are more personal in nature. (a) Saw was good at/could do something which inspired confidence (b) Started doing something they got caught up in and which snowballed (c) Finding a passion/interest for something and immediately getting hooked by it

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  101

(d) Believing the work was significant/had real value (e) Connected to a big life decision/change, something they had always wanted to do (5) No reason given. This grouping includes response categories in which no reasons were given, or where the reason given was unclear or was ambiguous. Tables 6.1 to 6.4 offer further information on each of these triggers identified in Groups 1 to 4 through illustrative data examples, with representative responses from both the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups provided. Even a brief glance through the qualitative data extracts in Tables 6.1 to 6.4 offers immediate evidence of the positive emotionality, passion and drive integral to the very core of DMC experiences. What is also interesting to note when looking at this data – even the limited amount that I have been able to include here – is that in many instances it is not immediately apparent whether participants have been categorised into the DMC or the general long-term motivation groups. The isolation of the DMC group was purposefully stringent so as not to artificially Table 6.1  Group 1: Trigger linked to external influences (positive connotation) 1(a) External pressure/ influence (positive connotation)

‘I suppose it all started when the deadline was set and I had certain amount of time to complete the project’* ‘I feel the starting motivation came from an external source (I HAD to be ready on a given date) but because at some point I started to be motivated and excited by the subject I was writing about I was gripped by the “flow”. And it felt awesome!’

1(b) Something external fell into place (positive connotation), e.g. a good teacher/curriculum, motivating class group, an unplanned/ unexpected opportunity

‘It started with an opportunity to write my final paper with a wonderful professor. I felt great about being accepted as her advisee’ ‘I believe it began when I was introduced to a textbook/ curriculum that directly aligned with my goals in learning the language. It also coincided with studying one-on-one with an instructor who was very flexible and recognised my goals’*

1(c) Element of competition (positive connotation)

‘I have wanted to win a language competition to which we had to do research and make a presentation’ ‘It was very good because I’m very competitive and it and good for min [sic] so much like those motivations’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

Table 6.2  Group 2: Trigger linked to external influences (negative connotation) (2a) External pressure/ influence (negative connotation)

‘Parents pressure over success. Personal fear of failure’* ‘There are too many readings during this period so that I am worrying about my final exam because I can’t finish them’

2(b) A form of reactance/ need to save face

‘some of my friend said to me that, you can’t achieve your goal. this intense period of motivation began with this sentence’ ‘It was an absolute deliberated period of very intense motivation after a period of bad results in my bachelor degree in Economics. The motivation leaded me to pass 25 subjects in my two last years of degree with good marks’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

102  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Table 6.3  Group 3: Trigger outcome led (3a) Single and explicit goal/ vision

‘it happened when I prepared for the postgraduate entrance examination’* ‘I decided in November of year 11 that I wanted to do Spanish for A-Level so I had until June to learn Spanish. I was engrossed in learning the language for those six months’*

(3b) Several periods of intense motivation while working towards a longer-term goal

‘My motivation usually begins with a feel of a growing vision within me. Usually I can’t even put it into words or express what the vision will even entail but the feeling grows until certain conversation, words, readings or varying insights come together suddenly and the vision is born. It keeps me going throughout the project. At times, motivation wanes if I feel the project to be too difficult or less feasible than it originally seemed but the motivation comes back every time’* ‘It began when I started my phD, and it never stopped. However, it is worth noting that I went through a period which I would regard as being less intense, but this intense motivation was resumed after a while’*

3(c) The potential possibilities from a rewarding outcome

‘I could clearly see what the project would bring to me and my career. Whenever my motivation decreased, I would stop and think for a while about the final result and outcome’ ‘that intense period of motivation began when I started thinking about “great things” I can do after I finish the project’

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

Table 6.4  Group 4: Trigger connected to intrapersonal reasons (4a) Saw was good at/could do something which inspired confidence

‘I think it began when I started achieving things. I felt like I was actually able to do what I was trying to do, so it was very motivating and exciting to try to do more’ ‘I remember that when I arrived to Cuba, I wasn’t able to maintain a spontaneous flow of conversation and, when this changed after a month, it was like the wind in the sails; it gave me even more will to take advantage of every opportunity to use and learn the language’*

(4b) Started doing something they got caught up in and which snowballed

‘It started out with a little research and one thing led to another. It was a bit like falling down a rabbit hole’* ‘… In this case the experience was like a train that slowly started chugging out of the station and gradually picked up speed until suddenly it was going full throttle and nothing could stop it’*

(4c) Finding a passion/ interest for something and immediately getting hooked by it

‘When I took the first course of Mandarin Chinese I felt a “wow”feeling: I finally found something what I really wanted to learn! Two years after the first “connection” I took the exam to get to university and I made it: I majored in East-Asian Studies and specially China and Chinese language’ ‘I suddenly found exciting ways to teach EFL that “turned on a light” for me about teaching in general … I couldn’t get enough!’*

(4d) Believing the work was significant/ had real value

‘I was given an assignment to do something I really enjoyed and felt like the contribution I was making with this project was significant’* ‘It all began when I was asked to translate a book about children with attachment disorders. Since the author is a great specialist in this field of psychology, I felt quite proud and, therefore, motivated to complete the task set before me’*

4(e) Connected to a big life decision/ change, something they had always wanted to do

‘Because I feel that the project I was am [sic] working on is part of my overall purpose in life...’ ‘I decided that I wanted to do something big with my life at an important turning point in my life. That’s when I took the decision to study an MA’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  103

over-inflate this proportion of respondents, yet it is clear some of these responses not included within the DMC group appear to be highly reminiscent of DMCs proper. To explore the balance of these responses in more depth, Table 6.5 offers a more detailed overview of this analysis. Having ignored Group 5 – No reason given – up until now, let us consider this grouping first. The number of responses from participants in the DMC group is nearly half the number of those from the general long-term motivation group (13.4% versus 23.5%). There are two reasons why a participant may have opted out of answering this question. Putting to one side language proficiency issues holding participants back from engaging, participants may simply not fully remember what happened at the time, or they might remember yet not be inclined to take the time to share any details. Either of these two possibilities may serve to shore up the integrity of the DMC group. It is perhaps the case that individuals who have experienced DMCs will be more likely to remember what started this period of motivation, and that they may be more likely to be willing to take the time to share their experiences. This is rooted in the strong positive emotionality of DMCs, the overtones of which have been seen to remain for many years (and even decades) after the event was experienced. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that participants in previous studies have even been found when they have spontaneously made contact with us at the University of Nottingham, after they have identified so strongly with published writing on DMCs that they have felt compelled to write and share their stories. For both the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups, the most common reasons given as triggering such periods of motivation were found in Group 4, Intrapersonal reasons. This is most marked within the DMC group, with it comprising nearly 40% of responses. This is again commensurate with an understanding and recognition that DMCs are intimately connected to self-concordant goals and to an individual’s core sense of self, such as the categories in this grouping represent. The high percentage of responses here from participants in the general long-term motivation group (34% of responses), may support the supposition in Chapter 5 that a proportion of participants categorised within this group may perhaps be describing ‘true’ DMC experiences. It may also be that to maintain an extended period of motivation when not in a DMC, such a highly personal goal is critical for the maintenance of motivational impetus. With respect to the four primary groups identified, that with the largest difference between the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups is Group 3 – Trigger outcome led – with 31.7% of the DMC group responses being categorised in this way compared to 24.1% of the general long-term motivation group. As described in Chapter 2, a core feature of DMCs is their goal/vision-orientedness, and so it is perhaps unsurprising that it is this which differs most notably from the

(5) No reason given

(4) Intra-personal reasons

(3) Outcome led

(2) Linked to external influences (negative)

(1) Linked to external influences (positive)

187 38

(b) Reason given unclear

49

(b) Started doing something they got caught up in and which snowballed

(a) No clear reason for beginning given

73

(a) Saw was good at/could do something which inspired confidence

62

30

(c) The potential possibilities from a rewarding outcome

(e) Connected to a big life decision/change, something they had always wanted to do

24

(b) Several periods of intense motivation while working towards a longer term goal

20

272

(a) Single and explicit goal/vision

(d) Believing the work was significant/had real value

21

(b) A form of reactance/need to save face

227

25

(a) External pressure/influence (negative connotation)

(c) Finding a passion/interest for something and immediately getting hooked by it

6

128

22

(c) Element of competition (positive connotation)

(b) Something external fell into place (positive connotation)

(a) External pressure/influence (positive connotation)

Both groups

8

63

31

7

115

18

38

4

14

150

3

10

2

63

4

No. each category

1.5%

11.9%

5.9%

1.3%

21.7%

3.4%

7.2%

0.8%

2.6%

28.3%

0.6%

1.9%

0.4%

11.9%

0.8%

% of category

71

209

168

13

69

No. in each group

DMC group

Table 6.5  Summary of responses to the question: ‘How did this period of intense motivation begin?’

13.4%

39.4%

31.7%

2.5%

13.0%

% each group

30

124

31

13

112

31

35

26

10

122

18

15

4

65

18

No. each category

4.6%

18.9%

4.7%

2.0%

17.1%

4.7%

5.3%

4.0%

1.5%

18.6%

2.8%

2.3%

0.6%

9.9%

2.8%

% of category

154

222

158

33

87

No. in each group

23.5%

33.9%

24.1%

5.0%

13.3%

% each group

General long-term motivation group

104  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  105

general long-term motivation group. However, all periods of long-term motivation are likely to be in some way goal-oriented, and so without further supporting evidence this observation must not be overstated. It should likewise be remembered that these results are based, in the vast majority of cases, on a maximum of two to three sentences shared by each participant, and that comparisons such as the above should not be given undue credence. What these qualitative responses are fully able to do, however, is contribute concise illustrative examples of DMCs in the current dataset, offering further support for the conclusions drawn in Chapter 5 with regards to the fidelity of the DMC group. The triggers identified in this dataset contribute to findings already highlighted in studies published to date (see Chapter 2), and this overview also provides a thorough, detailed baseline for future research on this topic. Reasons for or Against Wanting to Repeat the Experience

The second qualitative dataset explored in this chapter looked at reasons as to whether participants reported wanting to repeat their experience. On a basic level, it provided two sets of responses: those who would like to, and those who would not. (It is of note that some of the qualitative comments of those who answered positively also included some negative assessments of their experience. I return to discuss this separately later in the chapter.) Categorisation of responses within each dataset was achieved through the same methods as above. Owing to the fact that respondents commonly identified more than one reason in their answer – which could not always easily be categorised into primary and secondary reasons – where necessary, participant responses were coded into more than one category. Where respondents listed more than two reasons, the first two reasons listed were prioritised, unless there were discernible indications that implied a different solution was more appropriate. ‘I would like to experience this again’

The 19 discrete categories identified in the analysis of this question were clustered together to form four wider umbrella groups. This created three primary reasons why participants reported wanting to repeat the experience, and one group comprised of general/other reasons. A final group comprised of responses where either no reason was given, or where the reason given was unclear or ambiguous. This analysis can be summarised as follows: (1) Outcome-based reasons. Reasons linked to overall achievement or goal-directedness. (a) Because of the positive outcome and the pleasure of achievement (b) Because it enabled them to achieve more than they had expected/ believed possible

106  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

(c) Because it pushed them to maximise their potential (d) Because it provided direction/meaning to life (2) Process-based reasons. Reasons linked to the day-to-day experience of this type of motivation throughout its duration. (a) Because it was generally a nice, enjoyable, rewarding experience (b) Because it made everything feel easy (c) Because it was a very productive/satisfying experience, which was very fulfilling (d) Because of the heightened level of clarity/focus experienced (e) Because it pushed/helped them to keep going (f) Because of the experience of putting everything into trying to achieve it (3) More intrapersonal reasons. Reasons connected to an individual’s deeper sense of self, and to the intimate personal experience of this time. (a) Because it inspired lasting feelings of confidence, competence, courage, pride (b) Because they grew and learned about themselves as a person, because it was life-changing (c) Because it also energised/had a positive effect on other areas of life (d) Because it was something more than just a ‘nice’ experience, it was truly special/unique (e) Because it really challenged them (f) Because of the positive health benefits (4) General/other reasons (a) Because participants believe this type of motivation is important for achievement (b) Because it’s simply who they are/the way they engage with projects normally (c) Participants are currently experiencing this type of motivation (5) Unclear response/no reason given Tables 6.6 to 6.8 list the categories included within each of the three primary groups identified (Outcome-based, Process-based, and More intrapersonal reasons) and offer illustrative data examples representative of responses (again, quotes from participants who were categorised within the DMC group are identifiable via an asterisk). The fourth group, General/other, included three response categories: (a) general beliefs that this type of motivation is important for achievement; (b) that it is the way an individual ‘normally’ engages with such extended projects; and (c) responses from individuals currently experiencing this type of motivation (see Table 6.9 for illustrative examples). The number of mentions in each category and in each group was totalled, as was the number of mentions from participants in the DMC

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  107

Table 6.6  Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 1: Outcome-based reasons (1a) Because of the positive outcome and the pleasure of achievement

‘Because it helps you achieve your goals’ ‘It yields results and feels like an accomplishment’* ‘To feel the satisfaction of achievement’

(1b) Because it enabled them to achieve more than they had expected/believed possible

‘It was amazing to see how I exceeded all my wildest expectations’* ‘Because the experience helped me achieve what I had thought impossible to achieve’*

(1c) Because it pushed them to maximise their potential

‘Feeling… like I am, or at least could be, the best version of myself’ ‘It feels like I’m maximizing my potential, putting it all out there’*

1(d) Because it provided direction/ meaning to life

‘My life made sense finally’ ‘I felt like I was really on to something – I felt like I was about to grasp a key to something that would give life greater meaning. And even in the grasping, life was given greater meaning for me. It was magical’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

Table 6.7  Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 2: Process-based reasons (2a) Because it was generally a nice, enjoyable, rewarding experience

‘In a nutshell, it was fun!’ ‘In spite of all the hard work, I felt HAPPY’* ‘Because it felt good to be so interested, enthusiastic, and engaged in the activity’*

(2b) Because it made everything feel easy

‘… the whole process was effortless’ ‘Even when it’s hard it’s still easy. Because back-sets doesn’t feel like failure or struggle, more like a challenge and I felt motivated by that the feeling after conquering it will be awesome. It’s hard work without feeling like a burden’*

(2c) Because it was a very productive/satisfying experience which was very fulfilling

‘Because this was the most efficient time that I have ever experienced’ ‘It really was an exceptional time and I felt extremely, and increasingly productive, having reached levels of productiveness I usually have a hard time reaching’*

(2d) Because of the heightened level of clarity/focus experienced

‘I was very focused and motivated at that time. I know very clearly what I was doing and what my goal was’ ‘Because I felt so focused. It was a very happy feeling, that my mind wasn’t wandering about, but stayed at the topic and only dived deeper and deeper into it’*

(2e) Because it pushed/ helped them to keep going

‘Because this kind of intense motivation provides you with a lot of stamina. Nothing seems impossible to you then’ ‘It made it seem worthwhile and when it got tough, gave me reason to carry on with it’*

2(f) Because of the experience of putting everything into trying to achieve it

‘It is a really nice feeling to be FULLY absorbed in a task I really like’* ‘because I like the level of immersion that results from it’* ‘It’s great to feel like that you feel like you have offered so much’

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

and general long-term motivation groups separately (see Table 6.10). Group 4 – General/other reasons – shows very little difference between the DMC and general long-term motivation groups. As might be expected, the number of responses within Group 1 – Outcome-based reasons – was similarly balanced: whether fuelled by a DMC or by

108  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Table 6.8  Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 3: More intrapersonal reasons (3a) Because it inspired lasting feelings of confidence, competence, courage, pride

‘I felt it had boosted my confidence and my whole global self-worth’* ‘It was also a turning point in my career and after that I “knew” I could make a good researcher’*

(3b) Because they grew and learned about themselves as a person, it was life-changing

‘A great transformation was happening inside of me’* ‘I learned immensely about myself as a person’ ‘My previous experience was a life-changing one. I’m hoping it will be the same in the future (if it happens again)’*

(3c) Because it also energised/ had a positive effect on other areas of life

‘it helps you with having a positive perspective on things and actually good things start happening because of your overall positive attitude’* ‘each time I experience this kind of motivation it flows through everything that I do. So experiencing this kind of motivation makes me more motivated overall’

(3d) Because it was something more than just a ‘nice’ experience, it was truly special/unique

‘It’s a high, a natural dopamine rush in which your mind is high-jacked by a meaningful task that is greater than you and worthy of following’* ‘In those days I just knew where I was and what I wanted ... an incredible feeling of “wholeness”’ ‘It makes me feel like I am a precious person’

(3e) Because it really challenged them

‘It’s an alternative form of joy … I think happiness is about having purpose, a reason to get up and create. It isn’t about easiness, it’s about challenge – not so hard you can’t do it – hard enough that you have to puzzle it out, tease it into something new’* ‘It encourage me to challenge myself next time and achieve anther difficult goals, which is the most important part of my whole life’*

3(f) Because of the positive health benefits

‘During this experience my psychological situation improved, and I used to feel happier’ ‘Because it felt physically (and emotionally) good’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

Table 6.9  Why participants would like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 4: General/other reasons (4a) Because participants believe this type of motivation is important for achievement

‘I feel I’m not doing my best without such intense motivation’ ‘Only with such intense motivation can I achieve something new on a higher level’ ‘I need this kind of inspiration to keep me innovative and do things successfully’

(4b) Because it’s simply who they are/the way they engage with projects normally

‘I try to do it every year. This is just my way of relaxing’ ‘I actively try to work in this way’ ‘it is the only way I know of working, I do not question myself I like the experience or if I want to experience it again’*

4(c) Participants are currently experiencing this type of motivation

‘Well technically I am still in the middle of it but hope I will have this much passion for something again in the future’* ‘Because I am still working hard to reach my goal’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

highly developed self-regulation or perseverance, projects completed over significant periods of time are invariably directional, with clear goals marking out explicit aims and end points. The biggest difference in the reasons given by the two groups for wanting to repeat the experience comes from Group 2 – Process-based

(2) Processbased reasons

(1) Outcomebased reasons

Group

50 43 54 174 30 109 59 60 19

1(c) Because it pushed them to maximise their potential

1(d) Because it provided direction/meaning to life

2(a) Because it was generally a nice, enjoyable, rewarding experience

2(b) Because it made everything feel easy

2(c) Because it was a very productive/satisfying experience, which was very fulfilling

2(d) Because of the heightened level of clarity/focus experienced

2(e) Because it pushed/helped them to keep going

2(f) Because of the experience of putting everything into trying to achieve it

121

1(b) Because it enabled them to achieve more than they had expected/believed possible

1(a) Because of the positive outcome and the pleasure of achievement

Category

Total no. of mentions

10

29

27

49

14

66

32

22

23

53

DMC group

195

130

Sum of group

9

31

32

60

16

108

22

21

27

68

General long-term motivation group

Table 6.10  Summary of responses as to why individuals reported wanting to repeat the experience

256

138

Sum of group

–61

–8

Difference between no. of mentions in each group

(Continued on next page)

1

–2

–5

–11

–2

–42

10

1

–4

–15

Difference between no. of mentions in each category

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  109

(4) General reasons

(3) More Intrapersonal reasons

Group

25

4(a) Because participants believe this type of motivation is important for achievement

TOTAL

1089

8

8

3(f) Because of the positive health benefits

4(c) Participants are currently experiencing this type of motivation

20

3(e) Because it really challenged them

8

117

3(d) Because it was something more than just a ‘nice’ experience, it was truly special/unique

4(b) Because it’s simply who they are/the way they engage with projects normally

37

60

3(b) Because they grew and learned about themselves as a person, because it was life-changing

3(c) Because it also energised/had a positive effect on other areas of life

87

3(a) Because it inspired lasting feelings of confidence, competence, courage, pride

Category

Total no. of mentions

526

6

5

10

4

13

65

19

32

47

DMC group

21

180

Sum of group

563

2

3

15

4

7

52

18

28

40

General long-term motivation group

20

149

Sum of group

Table 6.10  Summary of responses as to why individuals reported wanting to repeat the experience (Continued)

–37

4

2

–5

0

6

13

1

4

7

Difference between no. of mentions in each category

+1

+31

Difference between no. of mentions in each group

110  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  111

reasons. This grouping also contains the single category with the biggest difference in the number of responses from each group; there are 42 more mentions from participants in the general long-term motivation group than the DMC group with regards to wanting to repeat it again ‘Because it was generally a nice, enjoyable, rewarding experience’ (2(a)). On first glance, because enjoyment of the process is such a primary characteristic of the DMC experience, this may appear counter-intuitive. However, it may be that without the overwhelming positive emotionality of a DMC experience, the importance stemming from simple enjoyment of the day-today experience of engaging in the project becomes heightened with regards to the continuance of motivated action: i.e. had the process not been so enjoyable, these participants from the general long-term motivation group may not have kept going with their project, and so instead may have found themselves members of the Never group. For those in the DMC group, however, a different grouping of motives appeared more instructive in understanding participants’ desire to repeat the experience. Group 3 – More intrapersonal reasons – taps into something deeper than the simple day-to-day enjoyment of the experience as it progresses, including categories relating to significant personal change (3(a): ‘Because it inspired lasting feelings…’) or as connected to deeper issues linked with individuals’ learning more about their true self ((3(b)). This latter reason (see also 3(d)) takes to the level of a DMC the reason discussed above, with respondents reporting wanting to experience it again not because the experience was good, nice, or fun, but because of superlatives: it was ‘uplifting’, ‘invigorating’, ‘amazing’ and ‘worth getting out of bed for’. To these participants, it represented something with a far deeper level of significance. This, again, is exactly as we might expect, assuming the DMC group does comprise individuals reporting on ‘true’ DMC experiences. As I have already noted, I am conscious that throughout this chapter I do not overstate the findings of this analysis. This is not only because participants’ responses are expressed only in limited terms (with respect to the limited word count of responses), but also because, compared to the sample size overall, some of the differences identified could be argued to be relatively minor. The significance of this broad overview comes from its ability to offer more detailed insight into respondents’ experiences of DMCs than has previously been achieved (due to the smaller-scale nature of much of the work completed to date), and its ability, therefore, to complement and develop current understanding. Concurrently, it also provides a basis for further investigation of these issues. A final key aspect of its significance is highlighted in the final sections of this chapter. Negative responses within the positives

The negative responses emerged within the positives were a particularly intriguing – and somewhat unexpected – finding. In describing why

112  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

participants would like to experience this type of motivation again, an intriguing complementary theme emerging was that even these respondents who wished to experience this type of motivation again likewise expressed some negative emotion about it. Across both groups, a total of 33 negative comments were identified, split almost equally with a ratio of 16/17 between the DMC group and the general long-term motivation group. This finding highlights an important direction for future research agendas, as it undoubtedly represents an important aspect of the lived experiences of these individuals. This aspect of DMCs is of particular importance in considering potential applications of DMC theory in educational contexts, where a greater understanding of the genesis and impact of such negative emotional responses demands more detailed investigation. The primary body of knowledge gained from the current study in this respect is presented in the following section, which explores participant responses as to why some participants did not want to experience it again. The themes emerged and presented there are reflective of the same comments made by these participants. ‘I would not like to experience this again’

The negative effects of DMCs form a limited part of the current study, yet these findings are critical to the development of DMC theory as a whole. Due to their significant impact on individuals’ mental and physical health, furthering understanding of this aspect of the DMC experience is essential with respect to potential pedagogical applications. The most significant conclusion of the responses given by individuals here – particularly those initially earmarked for inclusion in the DMC group (N = 40, see Chapter 5) – is arguably that they exist at all. Since DMCs have been both conceptualised and observed as being characterised by an overt positive emotionality, one may not expect strong objections against re-living them. The views of the following participants function as a valuable eye-opener and suggest important directions for further research. A total of 133 participants reported that they did not want to experience this type of motivation again, 40 initially earmarked for the DMC group and 93 the general long-term motivation group (7.02% and 12.43% of each group respectively). Data analysis followed the same methods as above, and the nine categories identified from participants’ explanations of why they would not like to experience this again were clustered together into two broader umbrella groups (see Tables 6.11 and 6.12 for illustrative examples): (1) Personal emotional/health reasons (including both physical and mental health) (a) Because it requires too much personal investment (often at the expense of other areas of life) (b) Because of the significantly increased levels of stress/feelings of pressure

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  113

Table 6.11  Why participants would not like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 1: Personal emotional/health reasons (1a) Because it requires too much personal investment (often at the expense of other areas in life)

‘I want a work life balance. I have children and a wife. I don’t need to get satisfaction from doing a work or study project, as they often distract from me spending quality time with friends, family, and so on’ ‘Because I prioritised the project and neglected other areas of my life, notably people who needed my time and attention’

(1b) Because of the significantly increased levels of stress/feelings of pressure

‘This is simply because it was a compulsive period. I felt more pressure than I ever felt in my life’ ‘I’m not the type that can handle much pressure with work’

(1c) Because of other health conditions e.g. anxiety, depression

‘It is time consuming and at times it causes depression, anxiety, sleeplessness and other disorders’ ‘Because later on it led to intense stress and panic attacks’ ‘I can’t sleep well in these situations. I can’t think about anything more. It isn’t a healthy situation’

1(d) Because it was generally not a good experience/ feeling

‘I think it’s a bad memory and I don’t want to realise it again’ ‘I don’t like this kind of struggling feeling’ ‘it was not completely a pleasant experience’*

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

Table 6.12  Why participants would not like to experience this type of motivation again. Group 2: Project specific/other reasons (2a) Because it is better to be able to work at a more steady pace

‘Ideally I’d be able to have enough time to do at more measured speed’* ‘I actually continue to do this in a more moderate way. The main difference is that I simply can’t commit such a large part of my life now to language learning as I was able to do back then’

(2b) Because it was externally imposed/ they were not really interested in the project

‘It was my responsibility to do this project, but I was not really interested in it’ ‘I don’t like being forced to prepare a project on topic I’m not interested in’

(2c) Because this intense level of motivation is not required/is not worth it

‘I dun [sic] think this is something I need’ ‘I think I could have managed with less type of motivation’*

2(d) Other/miscellaneous

‘I do not know whether I have this courage again or not’ ‘I think I have had enough those intense motivation activities, it’s the time to utilize them’

Note: quotes from participants in the DMC group are marked with an asterisk.

(c) Because of other health conditions e.g. anxiety, depression (d) Because it was generally not a good experience/feeling (2) Project specific/other reasons (a) Because it is better to be able to work at a more steady pace (b) Because it was externally imposed/they were not really interested in the project (c) Because this intense level of motivation is not required/is not worth it (d) Other/miscellaneous As overviewed in Table 6.13, the starkest difference in responses between the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups

(2) Project/other reasons

(1) Personal emotional/ health reasons (including both physical and mental health) 27 9 10 8 7 2 7 51 138

1(c) Because of other health conditions e.g. anxiety, depression

1(d) Because it was generally not a good experience/feeling

2(a) Because it is better to be able to work at a more steady pace

2(b) Because it was externally imposed/they were not really interested in the project

2(c) Because this intense level of motivation is not required/is not worth it

2(d) Other/miscellaneous

No reason given

Total

17

1(b) Because of the significantly increased levels of stress/feelings of pressure

1(a) Because it requires too much personal investment (often at the expense of other areas of life)

Total both groups

42

15

1

0

2

4

4

2

5

9

DMC group

35.71

2.38

0

4.76

9.52

9.52

4.76

11.90

21.43

% of total

7

20

Sum of group

16.67

47.62

%

Table 6.13  Summary of responses as to why individuals reported not wanting to repeat the experience

96

36

6

2

5

4

6

7

22

8

General long-term motivation group

37.5

6.25

2.08

5.21

4.17

6.25

7.29

22.91

8.33

% of total

17

43

Sum of group

17.71

44.79

%

114  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

Exploring Commonly Reported Triggers and the Experience of DMCs  115

pertained to the significant levels of personal investment demanded: there are nearly three times as many mentions in the DMC group (1(a), 21.43% compared with 8.33%), likely rooted in the more allencompassing nature of DMCs. The fact that there are twice as many responses from the general long-term motivation group reporting significantly increased feelings of stress and pressure (1(b), 22.91% compared with 11.90%) may be linked to the fact that they were not protected by the positive emotionality experienced within DMCs, which functions to help insulate individuals from this (see Chapter 2). A remarkable finding is that there were four responses from participants in the DMC group indicating that the experience was generally not a good experience/feeling (1(d)). This is entirely contrary to DMC theory and it would be fascinating to be able to interview these participants to be able to explore these responses more thoroughly. The overall modest numbers represented here, and the fact that these conclusions were drawn from such a limited dataset, means that these conclusions, again, should not be over-inflated. The most significant conclusion of value relates to the categories themselves: the investigation of the negative effects of DMCs has not previously been thoroughly explored in the literature, or indeed fully on the radar of DMC theory, and this stands as a key area for future research and provides a baseline from which it might begin. Conclusion

The findings presented in this chapter have contributed a considerable amount of novel insight, expanding our understanding of commonly reported DMC triggers from what has already been described in published literature (see Chapter 2). This has shored up the fidelity of the conclusions presented in Chapter 5, broadened understanding of the types of triggers commonly associated with the spontaneous emergence of DMCs, and pointed towards a significant new avenue of enquiry: investigating possible negative aspects of DMC experiences. The pedagogical implications of the last of these, in particular, I continue further discussion of in Part 3. Note (1) Many examples of this can be found on YouTube!

Part 2 Summary: Key Findings, Limitations and Pedagogical Implications

I began Part 2 in Chapter 4 by overviewing the methodology of this study, describing the development of the DMC Disposition Questionnaire, participants, procedures and my approach to data analysis. In Chapters 5 and 6, I presented findings that emerged from the quantitative and qualitative datasets respectively. I begin this Part Summary by first drawing together key findings from Part 2 as a whole, before acknowledging the limitations of the study and highlighting its principal pedagogical implications. Summary of Findings

The most significant finding that emerged arguably pertains to the proportion of respondents who reported personal experiences of DMCs. Although the nature of the dataset does not allow for generalisation to the wider population, over a third of participants (N = 530, 36.5%) were included within the narrowly defined DMC group. Indeed, when initially asked at the outset of the questionnaire, as many as 62.2% answered positively (N = 903 answered Agree or Strongly agree, see Table 5.1) in response to whether they thought they had experienced this type of motivation. This corroborates previous claims that DMCs are not only well recognisable across borders and contexts, but that they may be widely experienced by diverse individuals. The figure of 36.5% (see section ‘The final DMC group’ in Chapter 5) is especially remarkable owing to the fact that it represents a conservative estimate of DMCs within the dataset: subsequent investigation of the qualitative responses indicated that many participants excluded from the DMC group did exhibit clear DMC-like characteristics. Previous claims attesting to the universality of DMCs have likewise been substantiated: analysis of this dataset has shown DMCs to largely transcend gender, age and nationality boundaries, with participants’ 116

Part 2 Summary  117

attitudes to DMCs as indicated by their responses on the DMC Disposition Scale likewise indicating the universality of DMC experiences in these terms. I acknowledge the variation identified in participants’ age and their experience of DMCs – participants over the age of 30 reported more frequent and more positive experiences of DMCs – yet only further research will be able to speak to the meaningfulness of this finding. It may be that greater life experience has simply provided greater opportunities. In methodological terms, the study represents an important step forward for DMC research. The DMC Disposition Questionnaire, and the DMC Disposition Scale comprised within, offer a now triedand-tested blueprint from which future studies might continue to build in order to obtain more finely tuned data, and to corroborate – or otherwise develop – the findings presented throughout Part 2. Methodological Decisions and Limitations

Although the questionnaire reached a considerable number of participants, the most significant limitation pertaining to this study relates to the self-selected nature of the sample. It is likely that the sample is far more heterogeneous than one which might have been obtained with methods other than snowball and convenience sampling (Dörnyei, 2010). Participant self-selection also leads to the inevitable over-representation of certain participants: more motivated individuals and individuals with whom the initial description of DMCs resonated particularly strongly are likely to have continued to complete the questionnaire in full more often than those with whom it did not resonate quite as meaningfully (Brown, 2001). This study also focused on the experience of DMCs across a broad range of contexts, rather than focusing on DMC experiences in the context of language learning. Future research with more structured participant sampling methods, and research rooted specifically in order to investigate L2 DMCs, will be welcomed. Finally, it is of note that the main body of the questionnaire relies heavily on positively worded questionnaire items. In questionnaire theory, good practice suggests that it is important to include both positively and negatively worded items in order to limit the effects of acquiescence bias, referring to ‘the tendency for people to agree with sentences when they are unsure or ambivalent’ (Dörnyei, 2010: 9). It was decided that, in this instance, positively worded items were to be tolerated, primarily because of limitations on the length of the questionnaire so as to keep it at a manageable limit for this type of online data collection. Pedagogical Implications

Although the research that I go on to present in Part 3 is able to contribute far more by way of pedagogical implications, the research

118  Part 2: DMCs Worldwide

presented in Part 2 offers some initial, critical contributions. The findings presented indicate that DMCs are experienced by individuals of diverse demographic backgrounds, thus suggesting that related pedagogical interventions have the potential to be fruitful in language classrooms worldwide. In the following chapters, I directly explore the potential of an intensive group project ‘with DMC potential’ to facilitate a group DMC with an international class of business English language learners. Concluding Thoughts

This study does not claim to be exhaustive nor to offer definitive answers, yet, by demonstrating that the DMC phenomenon is not only intriguing from a theoretical perspective but that it is also recognised and endorsed by a wider population, it has put DMCs firmly on the research agenda within second language motivation research. Csikszentmihalyi’s principle of flow – the theoretical concept experientially most akin to DMCs – grew in acceptance when it became apparent that it tapped into an experience that many people held as precious, and the current study may go towards demonstrating the same broad relevance of DMCs. By looking at DMCs for the first time with a wider lens, this study has provided a solid foundation and springboard for further exploration. This has laid the groundwork both for more comprehensive and situated quantitative studies, and for deeper exploration into discrete elements of the DMC phenomenon here brought to light (for more detailed suggestions for future research, see Chapter 10).

7 Part 3 Methodology

In this chapter, I overview the methodology underpinning the focal study in Part 3. I describe the participants and the wider school context, offer further details with regards to the project itself and outline the multiple approaches taken to data collection. Achieving sufficient depth and diversity in data collection was particularly important: to be able to comment authoritatively on any potential emergence of a group DMC, data collection and the subsequent analysis and findings that emerged would need to be in-depth, internally consistent and leave little room for alternative interpretations. Multiple discrete datasets were gathered to allow for triangulation of results, from both student and teacher perspectives. I conclude the chapter by outlining my approach to data analysis. Participants

Information here is presented in three parts. I describe separately the wider school context, the students, and finally the teachers themselves. The school

The focal business English classroom for this study was located in a large English language school (upward of 700 students) attached to a prominent Australian east coast university. Classes at the institution are typically structured around five-week courses, and the student make-up for each course can include students joining the school for the first time studying alongside current students remaining at the school for longer periods. Students can stay at the school for any length of time but typically remain for a maximum of one year, often in preparation to undertake degree courses either at the university or with other English language higher education institutions worldwide. The school offers courses in general English, IELTS and other exam preparation courses, CELTA and other teacher training courses, as well as general preparatory courses for university entrance.

123

124  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

Table 7.1  Overview of student participants Nationality

L1

Number

Male

Female

Japanese

Japanese

9

4 (Hotaka, Hatsuo, Rokurou, Ayumu)

4 (Masuyo, Atsuko, Sakura, Namika)

Colombian

Spanish

2

0

2 (Paula, Daniela)

Brazilian

Portuguese

1

1 (Matheus)

0

Ecuadorian

Spanish

1

1 (Guillermo)

0

Peruvian

Spanish

1

0

1 (Eva)

Thai

Thai

1

0

1 (Prija)

Italian

Italian

1

1 (Danilo)

0

German/Italian

German

1

1 (Dieter)

0

The students

The students comprised a single class of 16 English language learners. Students were aged between 18 and 40, although were predominantly (more than 13) in their late teens or twenties. Table 7.1 offers an overview of students by way of nationality, L1 and sex, including their pseudonyms used throughout this book. Following the first week of the course, one female Japanese student (Chiyako; not included in Table 7.1) left the course, choosing instead to switch to a non-project-based class in the school. In a Skype interview on her departure, Chiyako described feelings of general anxiety and homesickness, which compounded her discomfort in being asked to share her opinion openly with her older Japanese peers. Her feelings for changing courses were primarily rooted in her personal situation and continuing feelings of unease in adapting to life in Australia. Chiyako continued to stay in touch with her peers on the course and with the developments of the project, and enjoyed attending the event itself. Student plans after the course were varied. These included continuing on to another five-week course at the university, returning to home countries to continue with work or study, beginning an internship/ volunteer work in Australia and – in the case of recent graduates – searching for a job. Students reported choosing this particular institution for reasons that included its location, its attachment to a major Australian university, and its stellar reputation.

Part 3 Methodology  125

The teachers

This study was conducted in collaboration with two highly experienced language teachers, Jessica Florent and David Leach (see also Muir et al., under review). Both Jessica and David have strong personal interests in project-based learning, and prior to the study had each independently enjoyed teaching using projects in their classrooms. They had regularly collaborated together prior to this study and had a considerable history of team teaching together. During this five-week course, Jessica taught on Mondays and Wednesdays, and David taught on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. As already noted, Jessica and David were very much involved in the design of this project and were the sole teachers throughout the five weeks. Academic-practitioner research, able to bridge the gap between research and practice, is sorely lacking in the field of SLA (cf. DeKeyser & Prieto Botana, 2019; Muir, 2021; Sampson & Pinner, 2021; Ushioda, 2016), and this study offers a template of a successful collaboration of this kind (see Chapter 10 for further discussion). Jessica and David were privy to the aims of the study and cognisant of the unique type of motivational surge that the project was aiming to facilitate, yet were unfamiliar with the theory underpinning the DMC framework itself. This collaboration doubtless influenced their commitment to the success of the project, and I discuss this further in considering the limitations and wider implications of findings in the Part 3 Summary. Instruments

The primary objective of data collection was to attain a complementary network of datasets, capable of effectively capturing and recording any evidence of a group DMC which might – or might not – emerge. Each dataset was therefore also required to contribute to the triangulation of findings. Data was collected from two primary perspectives and via two primary avenues: from both teachers and students, and via both Skype interviews and personal diaries/journals. All data collection tools were designed in collaboration with Jessica and David to ensure that they were appropriate for the context and in their most practical format. In the following, I overview the data collected from each of these four primary sources, highlight the modest amount of additional data collected, and overview the steps taken with regards to satisfying relevant ethical requirements. Student diaries

Students were asked to complete structured diary entries on Wednesday and Friday of each week, beginning on Wednesday of

126  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

Week One and ending Wednesday of Week Five. This gave a possible total of nine diary entries per student (see Appendix 2 for the student diary template, and an example of a completed page). A total of 129 student diary entries were completed throughout the course. Students completed between five and nine entries each, with most students completing a total of eight. Four additional diary entries were completed by Chiyako before she opted out of the course, but were omitted from analysis. Students completed the diaries with Jessica on Wednesdays and with David on Fridays. This turned out to be an elegant solution, as it also reflected the last time each teacher would formally meet with the group each week. The student diaries were based on those designed by Beckett and Slater (2005), and functioned similarly as a tool and impetus for the setting and keeping track of personalised L2 and project goals throughout the course. They also sought to create opportunity for personal reflections of progress throughout the project. As far as was possible, they were designed to be of practical use to students, and not overtly as a means of data collection. A hard-copy diary was printed for each student. This allowed them to write their name on and personalise the title page, page 1 also invited them to reflect on their broader language learning goals and ambitions. Pre-printed pages were included for each possible data collection/ reflection point. These were kept by the teachers for safekeeping between sessions, although students were free to ask for them at any time. Student Skype interviews

I conducted Skype interviews with students on a daily basis from Monday to Thursday each week. These took place immediately at the end of the final class of the day. The only exception to this was on Wednesday of Week Five, when sessions were held both before and after the school day in order to accommodate all students who wanted to participate in a final interview. Students were assured these interviews were entirely voluntary and were invited to sign up to these ­sessions at the start of the course. In practice, however, there was a considerable amount of change to this initial schedule. Although unintended, this may have actually served to increase the richness of the data collected: participants were most keen to attend and rearranged their times to make appointments when they most felt they had something to say. Each interview lasted approximately 10-12 minutes, and typically two to three were conducted each day. Interviews began on Wednesday of Week Two and ended Wednesday of Week Five, with 33 completed in total. (Note that one of these interviews was with Chikayo who ultimately left the course; I briefly summarised the contents in

Part 3 Methodology  127

introducing her above and it is otherwise omitted from analysis.) All 16 students were interviewed at least once and many chose to return for follow-up interviews: nine students were interviewed twice, two were interviewed three times and one student was interviewed four times. These interviews were largely well received by students, who were keen to take advantage of and increase their one-on-one contact time with a native English speaker. It was stressed at the outset that their comments and ideas on the project would be both highly valuable and fully respected, and to further encourage students to feel able to speak freely they were reassured that content would not be discussed with Jessica and David while the course was ongoing. These Skype interviews aimed to capture students’ immediate feelings from each day and trace the day-to-day experience of the project in a more nuanced manner than possible via the student diaries. Outline interview schedules were planned before each session to reflect day-today activities, although interviews were deliberately semi-structured to allow students to direct conversation towards issues they felt to be important. Sample questions include: • • • •

What have you enjoyed most/least about today? How is progress coming for ‘the big day’? How do you feel about your English development? Is there anything that you would change about this project/course?

Teacher journals

At the end of each teaching day, the working teacher completed a structured journal entry. This began Tuesday of Week One and finished Monday of Week Five. On the day the project was launched, and additionally on the day of the event itself, both teachers were present and both completed diary entries. Jessica completed 10 entries and David completed 12, giving a total of 22 teacher journal entries for analysis. As with the student diaries, prior to the start of the course these were printed out and collated into a paper booklet to be completed each day by hand (as was Jessica and David’s preference). The journals were divided into two sections: Evaluation – of students’ teamwork, their language development, and the progress of the project – and Description/Documentation. The latter section covered details of the language/content/skills covered each day, specific project tasks completed, highlights and lowlights, and provided space to note down any DMC-like behaviour observed. Although these prompts were given, they were designed as a guide and sections were only completed each day where relevant. Space was also left open for more general impressions and comments (see Appendix 3 for the template and a sample completed entry).

128  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

Teacher Skype interviews

I conducted two Skype interviews with Jessica and David throughout the duration of the course: the first on Tuesday of Week Three and the second on Thursday of Week Four (the day of the event itself). Both these interviews were conducted jointly with both teachers and took place after the end of the teaching day, in both instances after I had concluded the student interviews. These followed a similarly semistructured format to allow focus to be directed to the most important issues that had arisen, and the questions asked were similar to those posed to students (see ‘Student Skype interviews’). Additional data sources

Additional secondary data was also collected. This included the recording of some one-to-one feedback sessions and a focus group interview with students at the end of the course (conducted in person by Jessica). At this time students were also asked to complete a general personal information sheet requesting basic information such as their reasons for choosing the school and their plans for the future (summarised in the previous ‘Participants’ section). Individual student presentations are recorded as standard as part of course assessment in the school. Ultimately, however, as they were outside the scope of the specific motivational focus of this study, I refer to these data sources only tangentially. The focus groups were initially intended to collect further student feedback at the end of the course, but it was unfortunately only possible to arrange this with a limited number of students in the final days of the course, due to time pressures. The recorded presentations provided insight into students’ language at the end of the course, yet, without any baseline measures taken, their empirical significance remained largely anecdotal. L2 development was unrelated to the primary aim of the study – investigating the possibility of purposefully facilitating a group DMC – yet this is unquestionably a key avenue for future study (see Chapter 10 for further discussion of future directions for DMC research). Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the study was received and fully complied with. The school required unanimous agreement from students for the project to go ahead. Students were assured that participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and that there would be no negative consequences should any of them not wish to participate in data collection. As already noted above, students were assured that interview content would not

Part 3 Methodology  129

be immediately discussed with Jessica and David, to encourage their confidence in speaking freely. Students were asked to review and sign an informed consent form to confirm that they understood the broad aims of the study, their right to withdraw at any point without consequence, and that they were happy for their data to be used anonymously for research purposes. All students agreed to participate. Procedure

Students were tested and assigned groups on Monday of Week One, in line with standard school practice. The project was presented to students and consent for it to go ahead was gained on Tuesday. The project was launched in full on Wednesday morning, when students met with school management and were formally presented with their ‘client brief’ (reflecting the business English focus of the course; see Chapter 9 for further details). In order to accelerate my relationship and the development of my rapport with students, they were shown a short, pre-recorded introductory video message in which I introduced the study and thanked them for agreeing to participate. In this video, I additionally strove to generate interest and encouraged them to sign up for Skype interviews. The event itself fell on Thursday of Week Four. During the final week of the course – Week Five – attention necessarily focused on the assessment tasks required by the school. As far as possible, these were re-written to reflect the aims of the project and the specific skills and competencies it was designed to develop. From the perspective of the project, however, the primary aim of Week Five was on reflection, the celebration of personal and group achievements, and on the facilitation of positive group dissolution prior to it disbanding. Project structure

The day-to-day teaching of the course included both structured taught components – more typical of non-project-based classrooms – and periods that were freer, and in which students were supported to take control of the lesson’s direction in planning their event. The traditional school timetable was therefore largely maintained. Direct teaching included, for example, grammar lessons or listening practice as relevant to each stage of the project: the content of these lessons was tailored to reflect the skills, content and vocabulary that students needed in order to be successful at each stage (akin to the ‘language “intervention” lessons’ described in Chapter 3, providing students with ‘explicit language instruction at critical moments’, Stoller, 2002: 111). In Appendix 4, I include an overview of the school’s traditional timetable and its modification for the first week of this project. The split between

130  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

traditional taught components and project time fluctuated over the five weeks as the project traversed different phases, yet was balanced approximately 40/60. A dedicated course content booklet was collated prior to the start of the course, and a copy was given to each student at the outset. This booklet included multiple texts and activities typical of those that might be found in more ‘traditional’ language classrooms. It was used as a basis both for classwork and for homework assignments, and formed a key cornerstone of the academic content of the course. This was also designed to reassure students that even though tasks and objectives would be presented to them in a different way (i.e. through a project), the course had nevertheless been meticulously planned and would provide high-quality language tuition. At the start of the course, students also received a copy of the Project Framework (based on Beckett & Slater, 2005; see Appendix 5). Tailored specifically for this course, this document offered students a detailed overview of the skills and competencies they would develop throughout the project. Students were encouraged to refer back to it as the project progressed, both to tick off those tasks they had already completed and the skills they had already practised, and to act as a prompt for future goal setting. Data Analysis

All Skype interviews were transcribed immediately after they were recorded. This was to try to ensure that no unspoken details or context surrounding the recordings were forgotten and to allow, where necessary, for difficulties in transcription to be immediately clarified. This also ensured that full transcripts were available were they to be requested. Distracting surface phenomena, such as ‘uming and erring’, were removed. This created a full interview corpus of around 51,400 words (approx. 44,800 words for student interviews and 6,600 words for teacher interviews). Soft copies of the student diaries and teacher journals were created in Microsoft Excel: this allowed for a greater level of accessibility in navigating these datasets, and more structured opportunities for note taking and marking up during analysis. The corpus created from the student diaries and teacher journals comprised around 11,400 words (approx. 7,700 words from student diaries and 3,700 words from teacher journals). At this point the overall dataset was split into two, one part comprising the student diaries and student Skype interviews, and the second comprising the teacher journals and teacher Skype interviews. Analysis of the student and teacher datasets was initially conducted independently. This began with each dataset being read several times to build familiarity, and with key themes being identified, categorised, and

Part 3 Methodology  131

clustered into wider umbrella groups (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012). Key themes were identified related to: (1) their relevance in assessing the success or failure of the project in general terms; (2) their relevance in assessing students’ perceived L2 progress and other skills development; (3) their relevance in providing evidence for or against the emergence of a group DMC. Analysis of the student and teacher datasets was then triangulated through multiple and iterative cross-referencing between datasets. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have overviewed the methodology for the study underpinning Part 3, providing information related to the participants, data collection, procedures, the project itself and my approach to data analysis. In the following two chapters, I explore the results of the study. I begin in Chapter 8 by discussing findings pertaining to its primary aim: assessing evidence as to whether a group DMC was seen to emerge throughout this five-week course. In Chapter 9 I go on to discuss the project in more practical terms, considering how each element of the project was conceived and designed, its relative success, and ways in which it might be further developed in future iterations.

8 Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence

The primary aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that, through the introduction of a carefully designed group project ‘with DMC potential’ (see Chapter 3), it may be possible to purposefully facilitate the emergence of a group DMC in a class of students studying in an instructed language learning environment. The main body of this chapter addresses the most pertinent question of analysis: Was the project successful in achieving this? As outlined in Chapter 7, multiple datasets were collected throughout the five-week course, broadly categorised into two discrete groupings: teacher data and student data. A strong focus was retained on both throughout, and this dual focus enabled triangulation of findings in pursuit of robust conclusions. In doing so, this design also directly addressed calls for project-based studies to straddle both teacher and student viewpoints (Beckett, 1999, 2002). Throughout this chapter, I present the findings of both these datasets in tandem, highlighting key points of difference where necessary. In line with the primary research focus, I centre discussion on assessing the evidence for this unique type of motivational emergence at the class group level: that is, on the potential emergence of a group DMC. This necessitated overlooking elements of individual variance, which were undoubtedly present. Individual experience of group DMCs is a fascinating area for future study, particularly in educational contexts. Throughout Chapters 8 and 9, I note key instances of this where relevant and I return to discuss this issue further in Chapter 10 when discussing the future of DMC research (see also Muir, 2021). I begin this chapter by assessing the evidence as to whether a group DMC emerged, approaching the question from several different angles. Following a short interim summary, the second part of this chapter explores the success of the project in broader terms, focussing in particular on participants’ perceived L2 development. I conclude by highlighting elements of the project that students positioned as most important in facilitating this. 132

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  133

Was the Intervention Successful in Facilitating a Group DMC?

The five-week project was highly structured, meticulously planned and drew not only on the growing the body of literature rooted in project pedagogy (see Chapter 3) but also on both teachers’ prior experience of teaching through projects and of teaching in this context. Each of the following subsections assesses the evidence for the emergence of a group DMC by evaluating evidence of discrete hallmarks of the DMC experience. In order to be able to argue convincingly for any group DMC emergence, clear evidence of all the characteristic features of the DMC experience would need to be strongly emergent in the data. I begin by considering whether, and in what ways, students surpassed their expectations, look at the time and effort students invested in the course, to what extent the goal was on their minds, and whether they experienced it as ‘special/unique’. I continue by exploring whether students would like to repeat the experience, before finally considering evidence of teacher DMCs (for, if a group DMC were to have emerged, we would anticipate Jessica and David to have become wrapped up in the same outpouring of motivational energy). Surpassing expectations ‘I think that the event exceeded all my expectations, it was a success … it exceeded all my expectations’ (Matheus, W5D3pm)1

A key indicator of a DMC is that individuals or groups are empowered and carried forward to surpass their expectations, oftentimes achieving far more than they might have believed possible at the outset. Positive evidence in this regard would form a strong initial point of departure in assessing the evidence pertaining to the emergence of a group DMC. Put into words by Matheus, such a feeling among students is clearly perceptible: ‘I think that the event exceeded all my expectations, it was a success … it exceeded all my expectations’ (Matheus, W5D3pm). A more detailed look indicates that this is not only perceptible in general terms, but also in relation to discrete aspects of the course. Three areas of achievement in this regard stood out particularly strongly across both student and teacher accounts: the sum of money raised, the levels of support received from peers and colleagues, and – key from a pedagogical perspective – perceived L2 development. One of the most immediate impressions that emerged from the analysis is the students’ pride and surprise with regards the amount of money raised – a total of AU$3,558.20 – which placed them among the most successful student fundraising groups in the country. This was

134  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

put into words particularly well by Paula. Interviewed briefly during celebrations after the event, her first impression is clear: ‘I think that all of us are surprised because we raised more than 3000 dollars!’ (Paula W4D4). She went on to reflect on her feelings the following week: I think that all of us were really, how to say, we are really … impressed, that we fundraised 3,500 dollars. Because we never expected to achieve that goal … So, yes! But now it’s like ok yes we did it! [laughter] … I guess that everyone here expect [to raise] like less than 2000. Because 3 thousand and a half is like a lot, that’s like too much! But, ­actually, no! … After we see the, we saw the results, we were so proud of ­ourselves. … Because at the beginning we underestimated [that we had] the capacity and our skills to organise this event. … So, when we saw the result, the final result, I think that after that I realised that we underestimate our abilities at the beginning. (Paula, W5D3pm)

Further analysis supports Paula’s speaking for her peers in stating: ‘we underestimate our abilities at the beginning’, as similar sentiments are expressed by other students, which similarly portray the unexpected pride at what they were able to achieve: ‘I think we pull it off!! So glad that we could collect $3558.20’ (Ayumu, W4D5d); ‘The project final results went best than we could imagine’ (Matheus, W4D5d); and, quite simply, ‘$3558.20!!!!’ (Masuyo, W4D5d). This depth of feeling was also reported by their teachers: ‘amazing, they’re over the moon with that’ (Jessica, W4D4). Such an event cannot succeed without collaboration and the support of individuals external to the immediate classroom environment. However, worries about ticket sales were soon quelled – ‘ticket sales for 1st day were amazing! People very interested and queues for tickets at break!!’ (David, W3D5d); ‘We could sell more than 70 tickets today! I think this is a good start:)’ (Atsuko, W3D5d) – and practical support in terms of helpers for the event, sponsorship, and even the donating of raffle prizes, was received in abundance. As part of the catering for the event, students asked other teachers at the school to contribute muffins for a bake sale and, as Daniela explains: ‘we have like, I don’t know, like 70 people who are going to make muffins for us! So it’s amazing! Really I thought oh, so hard to get all those people but now we have like 70 people!’ (Daniela, W4D2). It was only on the day of the event itself that the true scale of this became apparent: Jessica (W4D4) surmised as many as 1000 cupcakes, and, in David’s words: ‘We had so many cupcakes we were giving them away to university students today … We were wandering around the campus saying […] please take these we’ve got too many you know!’ (David, W4D4). As Eva succinctly summarises: ‘I think we had more muffins than we expected!’ (Eva, W5D1).

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  135

In terms of language learning, students also reported surpassing expectations. This is most acutely perceptible when offset by students’ worries at the outset. Prija described the enormity of the project in terms of its language requirements, and admits she felt daunted by the task: Actually I was thinking about changing my class, at the first! Because we had a, I’m not sure that I can do it or not because it’s like a big, really a massive project! … but at the end I asked myself that maybe I can learn enough … so I decide to continue with it. … Yeah! I think that, I feel really good that I didn’t change the class. (Prija, W5D3am)

Atsuko also described feelings of uncertainty at the start of the course, yet by the end exhibited a similar change: ‘I’m not afraid of speaking English to them, because of them’ (W5D1), linking her success to the support and encouragement of her peers. These initial feelings – students lacking confidence and beliefs that they could raise their abilities to match the demands of the project – were also expressed by others, who responded positively to the impetus the course created in requiring communication both among peers and with those outside the classroom. This formed highly positive learning opportunities, requiring students to push the boundaries of where they believed the limits of their abilities lay: I feel my English is improved than before, because, for example, when I feel like really impressed or really stressful, I really wanted to talk the others or I really wanted to tell my feelings, so that time I needed, I needed to speak English or I desired to use a range of English so, that makes me, how can I say – that makes me, wanting to study English more … I can say I, that session makes me yeah really improve my English. (Sakura, W5D3pm)

This drove some students seemingly to reach an epiphany in their learning milestones. One student, Matheus, described the experience of the course as unique because ‘for me it was the first time that I speak in English! [laughter]’ (Matheus, W5D3pm). Although an outwardly confident and accomplished L2 English speaker, he went on to describe the impact of the course as having a significant effect on his relationship with, and confidence in, using the language: ‘Something like, I discover that I can, yeah I know that it’s not good but I can speak a little bit of English, and before the course, I didn’t know about it’ (Matheus, W5D3pm). I return later in this chapter to discuss students’ perceived L2 gains in more detail. Regardless of the high expectations that David and Jessica held prior to the course, they likewise appear to have been taken aback by the students’ progress early on – ‘their progress has been phenomenal …

136  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

Absolutely impressed by their participation and commitment’ (David, W1D5d) – and this was further noticed by other staff, sponsors and stakeholders: The comments from everyone were, were amazing – it was very impressive – the whole event was very impressive. To all of our stakeholders … And they were amazed at how much was offered – the activities, the entertainment, the face painting, the photo booth… (Jessica, W4D4) Investing considerable levels of effort and time ‘Normally I wasn’t, I didn’t think about school things after I went back home – but now…! [laughter]’ (Sakura, W3D3)

The project necessitated the investment of considerably higher levels of time and effort than is demanded in more ‘traditional’ language classes. Yet, this core feature of a DMC – evidence of students enjoying doing so – is likewise clearly identifiable. Students described their effort levels in comparison to more traditionally taught sessions: ‘Ah yes, much more, much more. [laughter] It’s hard to compare! [laughter]’ (Matheus, W5D3pm); ‘No! Really, really different!’ (Sakura, W3D3). For some students, this was manifested through a perceived transformation of the nature of their effort: Ah, actually I try, I always try to do my best, so… ! … But, it’s a different kind of effort [laughter]. I can’t explain very well but, the last session I was just studying for the words, for business words, business information, so, that was also very useful, but, now I have to use my brain more, much more! [laughter] How can I say!? … it’s different kind of effort. (Masuyo, W3D3)

Rather than the passive learning of given material, students appear to have been pushed to become actively engaged in their learning, and to invest more of themselves. Masuyo goes on to suggest that she enjoyed this type of engagement more, because it pushed her to ‘try harder’: ‘Ahhh, I think this one [prefer this type of course]. Because I, it’s first time I experienced like, real business. But I have to do, I have to try to my best more, much more than before – I think so! … Yes, I enjoy it very much!’ (Masuyo, W3D3). Another student reported on his experience of the effort required throughout the course in a different way, as David explained in a brief diary comment; ‘Asked them to think of 3 good things/or things that they realised about themselves through doing the project. One student said in (Brazil) we just repeat what the teacher says, but I found myself having to think in English!’ (David, W4D5d).

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  137

Hand in hand with transformation in the nature and level of students’ effort, was the amount of time they devoted to study throughout the course: Normally I wasn’t, I didn’t think about school things after I went back home – but now…! [laughter] I’m like keeping thinking about the project, yeah! And also even I’m hanging out with my friends who is my classmates! We are talking about the project! [laughter] After school! (Sakura, W3D3)

Similar responses were also given by other students as to whether such heightened levels of engagement were typical: such as from Ayumu, ‘No, no! [Normally] we’re just going home after class! [laughter]’ (Ayumu, W5D3am); ‘definitely in this session I’m spending more time than before, than in any last sessions’ (Ayumu, W3D1); and from Atsuko, ‘For example yesterday, we went to go eat something and after that we went to see a movie with classmate, 5 or 6 classmate. So, half of time we talk about this project! … No! [It’s not normal!]’ (Atsuko, W3D2). The increase in time devoted to study and to the project outside of the classroom was similarly noted by Jessica and David: ‘Using lunch break and morning tea to revisit sponsors, make phone calls and draft emails’ (Jessica, W3D1d); ‘Large group of students worked on ticket numbering until 5pm (1.5 hours over)’ (David, W3D3d). Time in the classroom also passed quickly, as Jessica recalls: ‘Me: “Okay, it’s lunchtime.’” Them: “Really? Now?”’ (Jessica, W2D1d). In itself, this created numerous additional opportunities for communication in the target language, yet, perhaps even more significantly, this translated into increased levels of student collaboration: you know Hatsuo, Japanese guy? … he contacted me via Facebook and asked, have you thought about, do you need, does your friend need a [system to hold audio service (for the singers)] or anything? And I just, like ah I forgot to think about this … And this is my first time that I contact with my classmate about the lesson. (Prija, W5D3am)

The course demanded that students invest increased levels of time and effort to achieve success, yet the data overwhelmingly supports that this was appraised by students in a positive manner. As Jessica notes, students were ‘Working hard and smiling harder’ (W4D4d). Goal constantly on students’ minds ‘[laughter] A lot! Yeah a lot, I think in that a lot’ (Daniela, W4D2)

A further DMC marker would be evidence of the goal being constantly on students’ minds, and their attention continually triggered

138  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

back to it, even when engaged in seemingly unrelated activities. There is certainly evidence of the fact that students thought about the project frequently in their free time: ‘Yeah of course, yeah! [laughter] A lot! Yeah a lot, I think in that a lot. And also I have talked with my parents, with my brother with my boyfriend with friends about all this, about the project’ (Daniela, W4D2). Not only was the goal constantly on students’ minds but, even when not explicitly working on it, students reported their attention being continually, seemingly involuntarily, triggered back to it: Actually, I wanted to forget! [laughter] At the weekend! Because, until the weekdays, from Monday to Friday I’m exhausted, I’m exhausted. But, we have a Facebook group, you know … So, I want to forget, but I have to think about it! Every day! (Masuyo, W3D3) Sometimes I see, when I was walking on the street I can see an event and try to find something that we, try to find some idea to use on the project. But I try to be, I try not to think it – it’s my time to relax. I’m on vacations now! (Matheus, W3D4)

It is important to note that, again, this is not the way students reported typically engaging with their English studies: ‘Oh no no no – in the last session I didn’t think about studying!’ (Hotaka W4D1), a sentiment corroborated by others in the class: ‘We have a Facebook group, so I check this every night, after class … normally I don’t! [laughter] After the class, different things…!’ (Namika, W3D2). Experienced as something special ‘They were the project – they weren’t “doing” one’ (Jessica, W4D3d)

At the core of all DMC experiences is an appreciation that something unique or special is occurring, something different from the way in which an individual usually engages with a task or topic, and that this pushes them to achieve something unexpected and oftentimes extraordinary. Hotaka described the experience in the following way: ‘Yeah, I was surprised. And this experience becomes, nutrition of my life, in the future … and this course made, made my life complete!’ (Hotaka W5D3am). Other students also described it in similarly exaggerated terms: ‘Yeah, yeah, it was worth it, for my life I think! Yeah!’ (Sakura, W5D3pm). Although the truth of such comments might be interpreted with hesitation in the context of more traditional taught courses – as they rightly should be in this context, too – they are reflective of the sentiment that might be expected in the context of a DMC: ‘I didn’t find words to describe how much I enjoyed’ (Ayumu, W5D3am). Other students likewise described their experience in similar terms of growing up, finding themselves, and of maturing: ‘Through this project I learned

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  139

lots of things and I think I grew up’ (Hotaka, W5D3am); ‘First, I think I am more mature’ (Prija, W5D3am). Matheus described the event itself as being ‘our time’, describing the intensity and seemingly unique nature of the course in his eyes: Yeah, I’d give 10. 10 [out of 10]. Yeah, it will be our time, to put in practice everything that we have projected until now until this week. So it’s the time to see what, what we can do. To see if our work, if we did, if we did our tasks, if we did our job properly. It will be our time. (Matheus, W3D4)

In addition to the course generally being described in superlatives, there emerged a tangible theme running throughout the datasets that this course was special because of the ‘real’ experience students had of working with different nationalities and cultures within the class: For me it was really interesting the opportunity to work with people from different countries. Thinking specifically about it, it was an amazing experience to see people from different cultures, like, learn with them … it was an amazing experience because, yeah, few people have this opportunity to work with people from different countries, yeah it was amazing. (Matheus, W5D3pm)

This is particularly interesting, because in many language learning contexts students often study in mixed-nationality groups (as is also the case in this school context). However, there is evidence that something different occurred in this instance, which pushed them to work more closely together and collaborate in a way that is not typically achieved within more ‘traditional’ language classrooms. This is a point that Jessica and David also noted: J:  It’s not like they haven’t been presented with that information before. Because how many times in an English language textbook are you given ‘and these cultures do this and these cultures do that’. So they surely have been exposed to those stereotypes – if you like – enough times … it’s like you can’t learn from that at all. D: The most of them have experienced that in their classes too … It’s only when you come to the situation when you’re forced to do something, that suddenly you click! And realise, ah these people are different and they think in a different way, they approach things differently, and this is a real experience. (Jessica & David, W4D4)

It was this ‘real experience’, created throughout the course of this project, which underpinned the environment that facilitated students engaging so deeply with their classmates and with their studies. As Jessica describes: ‘They were the project – they weren’t “doing” one’ (Jessica, W4D3d).

140  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

A final, important note in this respect is that the course was experienced as special because students felt deeply that they would not have had the chance to experience it elsewhere: ‘I have experienced the thing that I can’t experience if I was in Japan’ (Ayumu, W5D3am); ‘It was an opportunity that you only have, doing this kind of thing, you never see it in your country [Brazil], it’s impossible, so for me it was amazing, thank you’ (Matheus, W5D3pm). Wanting to repeat the experience ‘to be honest I don’t want to take the normal class anymore! [laughter]’ (Sakura, W5D3pm)

A final key marker of a DMC is that individuals tend to report wanting to repeat the experience. Where similar results are achieved in situations not fuelled by a DMC, the considerable levels of effort demanded from the intensity of the situation have the potential to lead to detrimental outcomes. The feeling from the group was that they would like to take a similar project-based course again – ‘Yes yes, definitely’ (Paula, W5D3pm); ‘Yeah – I want to do, if they do the same thing next course, I want to do it again’ (Ayumu, W5D3am) – with justifications ranging from increased learning opportunities to the deepened relationships they formed with their classmates. ‘Yeah! I think I want to do it again … after this session I learn more and I want to, like I want to use this in the next project that – and I want to see that, I can do it or not, can I do it …’ (Prija, W5D3am). In her answer, Sakura goes one step further: I have one more session in this school, and to be honest I don’t want to take the normal class anymore! [laughter] Because I, I think it’s really different between here and the other class, and here is much more, like, active and people having really enthusiasm and the, most of students, most of the classmates having confidence with themselves to speak English, so I wanted to involve with them to improve my English more. So, yeah, maybe I want to take this class again, if I can yeah. (Sakura, W5D3pm)

Sakura describes the confidence growing in students throughout the course as being contagious (see Chapter 1 for related discussion of emotional and goal contagion), that it drew her in and pushed her to strive for the same levels of confidence and achievement she was witnessing her peers striving for. This sentiment is further echoed by Jessica and David in their own reflections: The scary thing when you do something like this is you think – how many weeks of students’ lives have we wasted by not giving them a project? … Do you know what I mean?! How, we’ve had these poor

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  141

students sitting in classrooms, sitting in classrooms – not taking them outside, not giving them real people or real situations, for 25 hours a week! It’s almost not fair! It’s almost rude to take their money and not offer them that! (Jessica, W4D4)

Although the feeling of wanting to complete the class again was almost wholly positive (see Chapter 9 for discussion of the single student who reported not wanting to), notes of caution were sounded by some against any thought of jumping immediately into another project: ‘Again? Maybe a year later! [laughter] I need to rest!’ (Hotaka, W5D3am). Evidence of teacher DMCs ‘… but we’re happy, we’re happy look at us, look at us suckers! We worked double and we’re still happy – so let’s just call that a DMC, so we don’t sound insane!!’ (Jessica, W3D2)

As is evident in the following extract from the teacher Skype interview mid-way through the course, Jessica and David also clearly exhibit all the DMC markers discussed so far: surpassing expectations, investing significant levels of time and effort, the goal being constantly on their minds, and their experiencing it as something special: D: I woke up this morning one o’clock heart pounding! Thinking […] we’ve got so much to do! Yesterday Jess was spun out, her head was exploding, and I was going ah it’s ok relax we’ve got it, and then I come to work this morning sending Jess a text, my head’s exploding! And she’s going it’s ok, you’ve got it…!! J: I feel like our colleagues kind of go oop! There they go…! … The adrenaline, it’s the adrenaline – it’s pumping. D: … We’re exciting ourselves! We’re here early in the morning we’re leaving late at night – we’ve only been home once in daylight in 3 weeks!! J: But we’re happy, we’re happy look at us, look at us suckers! We worked double and we’re still happy – so let’s just call that a DMC, so we don’t sound insane!! (W3D2)

Evidence of the final DMC marker discussed above – wanting to repeat the experience – is likewise clear: ‘Definitely, definitely … We have already been talking about “the next one”!’ (Jessica, W4D4; see Muir et al., under review, for a discussion of the multiple iterations of this project completed since). The behemoth level of motivation and engagement that Jessica and David committed to the project did not go unnoticed by the students:

142  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

‘The enthusiasm of the teachers, they really could help to keep the best from each person of the class’ (Danilo, W1D3d); and from Eva, too: they have too much energy, and they are always willing to help you and listen to you and yes, I think they are awesome! (Eva, W3D1) sometimes when I feel like a, I want to give up, I don’t want to do more project anymore, I really really want to say thanks to David and Jessica. Because they encouraged all of us every day. (Eva, W5D1) Interim Summary: A Group DMC Emerged!

The above sections offer compelling evidence that the course was successful in its aim of facilitating a group DMC. Final evidence is offered by the existence of an identifiable beginning, signifying the point at which the current of motivation took off. Concordant with our understanding of DMCs, this is what we should have expected to find (see Chapter 2): I’ve got a funny feeling that between yesterday and today there was a bit of a handover. In that we – I definitely pushed yesterday, you [David] definitely pushed today, and I just saw them all hovering, they’re downstairs now, there’s like 8 of them hovering – you know this is half an hour after, now nearly an hour after class. Oh no longer, an hour and a half, and they’re still down there … they’ve got a real idea of what they’re doing now I think, I think we’ll see a difference now, I have a funny feeling. (Jessica, W3D2)

It was after this point that students took control of what they were doing in a far more active way: ‘they are more focused and now know where they are going and have a better idea of how to reach their goal’ (David, W3D4d); ‘Moving forward at a rapid pace. Great culmination of the week! … Great to see all the work this week reaching the stage where the project starts!’ (David, W3D5d). The group DMC appears to have begun, therefore, in all its intensity in the third week of the five-week course: the period of the DMC ‘high’ experienced by students lasting from part way through the third week to the end of the fourth week, with the time before and after seeing motivation gradually build pace and wind down. Considered as a whole, the dataset offers strong support for the conclusion that this course was successful in facilitating a group DMC. The primary focus of this study was to investigate potential motivational outcomes from implementing this project framework in this classroom, and its overall success in facilitating a group DMC is a significant step forwards for DMC research: it speaks directly in support of the compelling pedagogical applications of DMC theory previously proposed. For the first time, it attests to the claim that DMC theory may indeed have real practical potential to help learners experience

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  143

these extraordinary motivational episodes in structured educational contexts. This not only offers encouraging initial evidence that group DMCs may be purposefully facilitated, it also indicates that doing so might concurrently facilitate relevant and worthwhile L2 (and other) gains for students. The first of these claims I have explored above. In the following sections of this chapter, I consider in more detail the latter. The data indicates multiple and varied positive outcomes of the group’s DMC experience throughout this course, both in relation to language learning specifically and in relation to the development of other professional skills. In the following sections, I focus on exploring students’ perceived L2 development, before concluding by highlighting the primary means that students believed to have been most important in facilitating this. Benefits to Language Learning

In lieu of the availability of specific empirical measures of L2 development – a critical area for future research, see Chapter 10 – in this section I explore the various means by which this project appeared to have had the most impact on students’ L2 development, by listening foremost to students themselves. This is a key first step in the design of future studies looking to pinpoint and measure tangible L2 gains. In Matheus’s words: We’re learning lots of, lots of vocabulary, business vocabulary. So, many words that I, I’ve never heard in my life we are learning now. But, not only these vocabulary, just when you are listening the teacher speaking we are learning something new, you are learning something different. You are practicing your listening. And when you have to work in a group, obviously you have to speak and you don’t have much time to think about you are, what you are thinking and so you have to be fast and you have to speak quickly. So, you don’t see but you, you lose, you lose your fear at the first moment because you have this pressure. (Matheus, W3D4)

In this extract Matheus sums up many of the perceived L2 gains highlighted more broadly across both the student and teacher datasets: developed vocabulary knowledge and listening skills, increased competence in speaking and sharing ideas, and considerable groundswells of confidence in personal abilities. In the following subsections, I address each of these in turn. Verbal communication skills: Speaking and listening

As might be anticipated owing to the nature of this project, one area of language development where progress appeared to have been

144  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

particularly marked was students’ speaking skills: ‘the speaking I’m really happy – I think my speaking much, improved much, and I am more comfortable to speak with other people … I feel more safe speaking in front of more people’ (Dieter, W5D1). As Rokurou explains, the impetus that was put on students to collaborate and collectively market their event required them to find creative ways to share their ideas to ensure that listeners fully comprehended their meaning. This required them to work more conscientiously than they had sometimes needed to previously: ‘we explained in the presentation. But, maybe people don’t understand it. So maybe, we have to explain it many times’ (Rokurou, W4D1); ‘when we want to express our feelings we need to speak English and we have to make sure what we’re saying, and what others feel it – or if others could get what I’m thinking. So, it’s really good for my English I think’ (Sakura, W3D3). As David noted in one journal entry: Output and opportunities to discuss, negotiate, compromise, change tack, understand each other, use appropriate language [underline in original] for situations: they have huge opportunities for this. Great example of language being changed to suit situation: Student 1: We don’t know what you want! Seemed blunt, Student 2 listening to this said ‘what you need’ (much softer), and Student 1 changed the wording. (David, W1D5d)

The positive change in students’ willingness to communicate (cf. MacIntyre et al., 1998) and their L2 self-efficacy throughout the course appeared considerable, and this concurrently impacted on their speaking: At the beginning you are so afraid maybe that no one is going to understand you, maybe for your accent or maybe because you are not pronouncing the right way … it’s a good practice for, for lose that, like that feeling to be afraid of doing that. (Paula, W5D3pm) For me it’s really useful, because, because you, you lose your fear? I was usually afraid to talk to other people, and now we are under pressure you have to, you have to answer you have to listen you have to speak … for me it’s a good experience. (Matheus, W3D4)

For one student, Rokurou, this development is particularly apparent looking throughout his diary entries over the second and third weeks: ‘Listening – my biggest problem – so I can’t follow the class’ (W2D3d) / ‘My listening is gradually getting better. I could share my idea with my group’ (W2D5d) / ‘It’s really going well!! In Week 1 and 2 I didn’t feel comfortable with my project but it’s really fun now’ (W3D3d). By the end of the course initial inhibitions had waned and, instead, students were actively reaching out for language to be able to thrive in the communicative encounters they were proactively creating for

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  145

themselves. As Jessica describes, the project pushed students to interact in a way we wish all students would: I have never seen students grabbing hold of language, you know, like it was their saviour – say it one more time Jessica say it one more time! And you know I’m giving them all these phrases – More! More phrases! And I’m giving them more giving them more, and they were like little sponges, just sucking it up, because they needed it then – then for that purpose! (Jessica, W4D4; see also Thornbury, 2012, for an interesting related narrative on this) Presentation skills

Amongst reports of more generalised communicative development, a skill that was reported on particularly insistently was students’ presentation skills. The practical nature of the course allowed students diverse and numerous opportunities to develop these abilities: ‘[laughter] before I really really didn’t like presentation! And I afraid of that! But in this class we have a lot of opportunity to presentation’ (Atsuko, W5D1); ‘last session we learned about how to make a presentation or about how to make a pitch, but we didn’t really do a lot of presentation. But this time we doing a lot more than last time’ (Sakura, W3D3). Students were not just learning about these skills in abstract contexts: they were practising them in real situations. That students’ confidence and fluency were developed in this arena is supported by their teachers’ evaluation of the students’ progress, and in the reports of other teachers at the school: ‘Speeches better, more connected and flowing … Highlights: Much better presentations / feedback from other teachers all positive and full of praise of appropriateness of delivery to level of ability’ (David, W3D5d). Vocabulary

The second key feature of L2 development reported throughout this project related to perceived gains in vocabulary knowledge. As students recounted: More vocabulary, because now we have more, much more vocabulary than before. For example me, I have learned a lot of words that I didn’t know, and I know now – or maybe I heard the words before, but I didn’t know how to use it? So now I know how to use it … I think it’s the best idea that they could have, like to really practice and learn a lot more English. (Daniela, W3D1);

‘I learned a lot about the vocabulary with this project. Vocabulary about organisation and fundraising’ (Prija, W5D3am). The sentiment expressed was not simply that the course had expanded students’ vocabulary, but that it solidified their existing knowledge and productive

146  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

ability to use partly mastered vocabulary in appropriate contexts: ‘I didn’t know how to use vocabulary, and create sentence, in normal conversation. … I knew the vocabulary, the meaning of vocabulary, but I didn’t know how to use it. So, it helped me, to use it’ (Hotaka, W5D3am). This development in students’ productive vocabulary skills was particularly important in allowing them to form more effective arguments and to better achieve their communicative aims. As the following two extracts describe, the course pushed students to do this both in the wider context of the university while marketing the event – ‘they’ve got to start convincing people that you know, that it’s a good idea to buy the tickets’ (David, W3D2) – and within the class group itself. In order to find ways to get their ideas heard, students were forced to consider more carefully the vocabulary and the language they were using: additional language features such as tone and register further impacted on their successful communication. There is also evidence in this respect that fluency development did not dominate at the expense of accuracy or complexity, as the latter were concurrently demanded of students, particularly in the context of their wider engagement with the university community. The fact that so much repetition was built into the project – for example, visiting multiple classes to market tickets, or trying to persuade people to buy cupcakes – satisfied a basic requirement of effective fluency activities (Nation & Newton, 2008), and, in so doing, seamlessly weaved into the overall project structure the types of valuable fluency tasks commonly found in communicative L2 classrooms (c.f. Rossiter et al., 2010). So first I try to listen to them [students of different nationalities], and understand what they are talking about, and then, if I think they are wrong, or I’ve got better idea, I try to speak more persuasively than usual. … I’m really enjoying speaking more persuasively and which language I think about, which language should I choose, should I you know, pick – to be more persuasive. (Ayumu, W3D1) We asked the students or the executives [marketing managers at the school] to do something, for example I would like to use the Facebook account of [the school], but, in this case, if I say ‘I want to’ – a little bit rude for English people. And especially David, will be angry if I use ‘I want’! [laughter] I don’t, I didn’t – use ‘would you’ or ‘could you.’ (Hotaka, W5D3am) Looking at language tasks differently

A final theme that emerged, already touched on tangentially in this chapter, was an indication that students may have begun to engage with their studies in a different light. Daniela, for example, describes the grammar exercises that they were given throughout the course as being

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  147

somehow different (and more useful) than those she received in more ‘traditional’ classrooms. One reason this difference was perceived may have been due to the fact that she was better able to relate the knowledge she was developing to specific practical uses: D: We now have a lot of grammar homework that is not like the grammar we have learned. I think it’s different, because it’s more – maybe more, we have to think more. It’s not just fill like a word and that’s it, you have to think and to read better the sentence to know how should you do it, and I think it’s really good, thing to learn. Interviewer: So, do you think, are the grammar exercises different or do you just look at them differently? D: Oh, I don’t know! [laughter] I don’t know, I don’t know maybe. Yeah, maybe I’m looking different? Maybe? I don’t know. I don’t know! But for me, it’s different! (W3D1)

Further indications also came from Atsuko: ‘Yeah so good, it was so good grammar, this grammar homework is also useful phrase or useful word, so I think that’s good’ (W5D1). Although much of the taught content was highly comparable to the standard business English course run by Jessica and David – certainly it was not ostensibly different – the context in which it was introduced meant that the language was always considered in terms of its practical application: This is more useful I think, because real situation to organise event, in the other course we learned grammar or speaking or writing, but that is on textbook, or with textbook or, some print or something like that. But in this course we organised our event in English, so I think, more useful English I learned, in this course. (Atsuko, W5D1)

Similar parallels have also been documented in projects elsewhere. For example, Fang and Warschauer (2004: 311) describe how in the midst of their engagement with a project students ‘began to engage in language behaviors that are often taught but seldom practiced, such as skimming or scanning prior messages for information, relying on context to determine the meaning of a particular word, or reading between the lines to evaluate the belief system behind a supposedly factual statement’: students were not merely practising these skills: they were using them in real contexts. How Did these Benefits Come About?

In the next chapter, I discuss in detail the specific factors that appeared to be most instrumental in facilitating the emerging group DMC. However, in drawing this chapter to a close, and before moving

148  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

on to centre discussion more squarely on L2 motivation, in this section I briefly note several characteristics of the project that students’ identified as having had a key bearing on their perceived L2 development as reported above: (1) the considerable amount of speaking demanded of them; (2) the fact that they were required to go into unplanned situations/contexts with multiple different speakers; and (3) the deep bonds they formed with their classmates. (1) The sheer volume of speaking and communicative interaction required

The sheer volume of communication required of students throughout the project is one factor students foregrounded particularly strongly: ‘I’m using only English, all day. And, my English is also improving. It’s really nice … Completely different yes, completely different [to normal classes]’ (Rokurou, W4D1); ‘you are talking from the moment when you arrive in the class to the moment when you are going back to your home. So yeah, it was like 7 hours, 8 hours talking and talking. Yeah, maybe you can’t see it in one day, but after five weeks, yeah of course you can see the difference’ (Matheus, W5D3pm). The claim that these changes were perceived to be perceptible over just these few weeks is further attested to by Atsuko (see extended quote below in ‘(3) Relationships with classmates’). (2) Unplanned situations and with different people

The course demanded that students interact with varied individuals at multiple stages throughout the project, and this is a further factor that students pinpointed as having had a significant bearing on their perceived L2 achievements. Students reported being able to use these opportunities to continually test their abilities: ‘Because you’re not prepared for this situation, and you need to go there and speak. And is other, other challenge for us. That is very good and I’m, is good to test our learning and how much do we know about the language too’ (Guillermo, W2D3); and voiced similarly by Daniela: I think it’s really good because we have a chance to speak a lot, with a lot of people here at the university, to do jobs. (Daniela, W3D1) the chance to speak much more with all the people, with the sponsors, with you, with Jessica. And it’s not just discussing things about the vocabulary or grammar, it’s like a looot of things. (Daniela, W4D2) (3) Relationship with classmates

A final element to which students attributed their successes was the deep bonds they formed with their classmates: ‘Honestly, in my last

Group DMC Emergence: Assessing the Evidence  149

session, classmate is just classmate [laughter] just classmate! But in this class, I spent lunchtime with them or I spent weekend with them, so, yeah I gained a good relationship, and because of good relationship my English improves dramatically I think’ (Atsuko, W5D1); ‘When I studied in last session, I studied alone. But now, if there is one problem, we are going to fix it together, and we can, we can share the opinions. Yeah. And if I say, if I tell the opinion to other teammates, they give us their feedback and we can improve, and I can improve my opinion’ (Hotaka, W4D1); and from Prija: ‘Feel closer with the others by working together through the project. They push me to get involved in every discussion’ (W1D5d). In considering Atsuko’s L2 development, evidence of this emerged through meetings before and part-way during the course with her sponsor, with whom she was later due to complete an internship: Last Monday I went to the company which is my host company, yeah and I talk with my host manager, and she said your English has completely improved than last time. … before this class I had an interview for my internship with my host manager, so she said compared that time, my English was very improved … So I’m so happy about this! … only 5 week, only 4 weeks, so I feel big achievement on my English. … now I have a confidence, and I want to do internship as soon as possible! But because, that is because of my friends in this class I think, they always cheering me up and always help me, so I really really thanks of all the classmates. (Atsuko, W5D1) Conclusion

The results of the study discussed throughout this chapter have not disappointed the potential that DMC theory has purported to possess in the context of language teaching and learning. The multiple datasets collected have provided robust evidence in support of the conclusion that a group DMC did emerge throughout this five-week course. Evidence is abundant in support of all expected DMC markers: students surpassing expectations – both their own and the expectations of those around them, and both in relation to their L2 development and other skills and competencies; students investing considerable time and effort; students enjoying doing so; the goal being constantly on their minds; the project as a whole being experienced as something special/unique; and students’ willingness and desire to repeat the experience. Further, there is also clear evidence indicating that Jessica and David became equally rapt with the emerging group DMC in teaching the course. Although no aspects of language development were specifically tracked throughout this study, students and teachers spoke in chorus as to discrete L2 gains they perceived to have experienced/witnessed. The most prominent among these included students’ speaking and

150  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

listening skills and their vocabulary development, with an emphasis on the development of productive vocabulary skills. While a project may potentially impact on an endless number of L2 competencies, for this project goal and framework in particular these findings indicate a productive starting point for future empirical work in this regard. It is significant that the development of productive vocabulary skills has recently been highlighted as a key area for future research in vocabulary studies (Schmitt, 2019; I return to discuss this further in considering future directions for DMC research in Chapter 10). Non-L2 related positive outcomes identified throughout the analysis are too numerous to be examined in detail in this chapter, yet they include reported gains in general collaborative and teamwork skills, particularly in relation to interaction in multicultural teams, more general communication, negotiation and presentation skills, and students’ organisation skills. The following chapter extends this discussion. The fundamental tenets of a complexity approach to our understanding of L2 motivation and pedagogy remind us that such outcomes should never be considered as ‘guaranteed’. In the context of this study, we cannot know to what extent the overall success of this project in inspiring a group DMC was influenced by, for example, the Skype interviews students participated in, the specific project goal itself, or Jessica and David’s immense dedication in the context of our collaboration. It is also clear that such a project is unlikely to be able to be directly translated to different learning environments, without a certain amount of tailoring or adaptation to the new context. Yet, the way projects are designed and implemented undoubtedly plays a significant role in influencing the likelihood of group DMC emergence, and it is instructive to consider the specific factors that emerged as instrumental in this instance as contributing to the success of this project, in this context, and with these participants. In Chapter 9, I examine in detail the design aspects of this project that appeared to contribute most appreciably to its success. Note (1) References to interview extracts are presented in the following way throughout: e.g. ‘Matheus, W5D3pm’. Matheus is the student’s pseudonym, W5 refers to the fifth (and final) week of the course, D3 to the third day of the week (i.e. Wednesday). Only W5D3 has an am/pm marker, as two sets of interviews were conducted on the last day to accommodate all students who wished to participate (see Chapter 7). References followed by a ‘d’ are taken from teacher journals/student diaries, all others are from Skype interviews.

9 Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success

In the previous chapter, I explored initial findings from this study, results which, when viewed as a whole, suggested that the emergence of a powerful group DMC was clearly identifiable across the datasets collected. In this chapter, I continue this discussion by focusing on the practical ways in which this success was achieved. As in any classroom, there were elements with regards to both the project’s design and its implementation that allow room for revision, refinement and further finessing. I explore individually each of the key criteria for success suggested as foundational for this type of project framework identified in Dörnyei et al. (2016), and I systematically evaluate their effectiveness in this specific context. For each criterion, I further consider the ways in which each aspect might be refined for future interventions, both with respect to the Australian context in which this current study was conducted and elsewhere. ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’: Key Criteria for Success

In parallel to the seven frameworks for focused interventions that we put forward in Dörnyei et al. (2016), we laid out a set of guidelines positioned as key to their success. These criteria were specific to each framework variant and were presented as cornerstones of effective implementation. We argued that the following would be key to the successful classroom implementation of an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ variant, the basis of the project design for this study (see also Chapter 3): (1) A project goal that is well defined, widely recognisable and highly salient. (2) A tangible outcome and real audience. 151

152  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

(3) (4) (5) (6)

Content that is both real and authentic. Highly developed project roles and norms. Regular subgoals. Explicit links to specific aspects of L2 competence.

Using these criteria as a starting point, throughout this chapter I explore how each was achieved in the context of this project, how effectively each functioned, and I further reflect on the overall impact of each in relation to the emerging group DMC. To ensure the current dataset is fully represented, I interweave other factors for success that emerged as important in this context by elaborating on these criteria with additional subheadings where necessary. Key criterion 1: A project goal that is well defined, widely ­recognisable and highly salient

For any educational project, not only one ‘with DMC potential’, ensuring that the goal is well defined from the outset is a key contributor to success. To achieve this – commensurate with the aims of the business English course in which this project was run – on Tuesday of Week One, students were invited to a formal meeting room in the university and were met by representatives of the school, who presented them with a formal ‘client brief’. The nature of the setting not only contributed to the ‘real’ nature of the project (see also ‘Key Criterion 3’), it also allowed us to be specific and explicit as to what we expected of students. Students were told that the school was looking to hire an event management and marketing firm to organise and promote an institutewide event. They were told that this event should: • • • •

support the university’s brand and market positioning strategy; deliver an exceptional ‘value-added’ experience for students; create social media engagement; achieve promotional returns within the [university] community and through targeted media channels (public relations); and • give back and make a real contribution to a real-world problem. To ensure the L2 goals of the project were equally well defined, students were also given a copy of the Project Framework (see Appendix 5; adapted from Beckett & Slater, 2005). Following Beckett and Slater, this highlighted three discrete areas of study – language, content, and skills – and was tailored specifically for the current project (see ‘Key Criterion 6’ for a more detailed discussion). The project was not only well defined but, due to the nature of the goal itself, soon became well recognisable and highly salient throughout the school body. Even before full marketing campaigns began, individuals

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  153

outside the class group were inescapably cognisant of the project and the event it was building towards. Students themselves also contributed to increasing the saliency of the project goal as they became wrapped up in the emerging current of motivational energy, it being constantly on their minds as they engaged in the day-to-day academic and social life of the school (see previous chapter). Students’ visualisations

Some students spontaneously augmented the project’s goals with an additional visualised dimension. These included both imagined personal emotional depictions, and also more practical aspects of the event: I imagine everyone with a lot of work, like really tired at the end of everything, but really happy like, oh my God we finally do it, and everyone is so happy! [laughter] Yeah, maybe like that. And, also, like I think that the people is going to be so happy – all the people, all the guests are going to be so happy. Yeah I imagine everyone laughing a lot like with the activities, everyone enjoys the muffins, everyone taking photos of everything! (Daniela, W4D2) I imagine that day a really good day, and, and I think that we, that our students – or our class – will feel happy, because of the project, because, as I told you before we worked hard, so, we, we just, we just have to, how can I say – see the results, the good results of the hard working. (Danilo, W3D4)

No specific visualisation training or explicit encouragement in this respect was given to students throughout the course. As a result – owing to individual differences with regards to personal preferences and skillsets (Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014; see Keogh & Pearson, 2018, for an interesting recent discussion of aphantasia, an inability to visualise) – this element naturally played a greater role in some students’ experiences than others. An interesting addition to future studies may be investigation of to what extent students’ group DMC experiences might be strengthened, or otherwise affected, through the use of interwoven targeted visualisation techniques (see, for example, Hadfield & Dörnyei, 2013), or a dedicated investigation of interconnected changes in students’ imagined possible selves throughout this time (see Colombo, 2017, for an excellent discussion of this in the context of a Spanish project in an American university classroom). Relevance: A personalisable goal

A difficulty inherent to group projects is that they must have a single goal, but that it must be relevant and personalisable by the entire student group. As Hatsuo summed up, students inevitably arrived on the first day with personal expectations, priorities and foci as to what they wanted

154  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

to achieve: ‘we all have another background, another culture so, for each people, person, has their priorities’ (Hatsuo, W2D4). It is critical that students are able to tailor a goal to align with their own aspirations and desires. It may be that this is particularly important within this particular project framework, as it is the end goal that functions as the central pillar underpinning the entire process. The collected dataset does provide evidence that students were able to achieve a high level of personalisation. This is partly rooted in the fact that the aims of the project were well tailored to the context and demographics of the group, and that they likewise reflected the fact that students were largely either soon to be graduating, or had recently completed undergraduate degrees: ‘after this project I have an internship … so this experience is going to be useful for me’ (Rokurou, W4D1); ‘this is really good opportunity, before start working’ (Hotaka, W4D1); ‘I’m really excited about running a business, so this is a good opportunity to learn business’ (Namika, W3D2); ‘I feel that this project is really challenging and this would be beneficial to me in the future for my working life’ (Prija, W3D3). Students reported their levels of effort as directly related to this: For me, I am trying to do more than 100%, because I think that this project could be useful for me for my, for my professional life. Because now I am looking for a volunteer in Melbourne. … I think that I am doing more, because I have a second propose [purpose] behind that, and I think that this could be a good. Like, how to say, a good something to show! I already did this one in Australia, I think that will be so useful for me. (Paula, W2D3)

Students further demonstrated the malleability of the overall goal in their ability to gravitate towards particular aspects of the project, as well as the freedom to develop discrete skillsets and specific experiences: I am an engineer – a software engineer. Normally I work with solving problems, but more with technology … I select to stay in the Marketing because I want to build my relationships with people. I think that is one of my weakness. … I am technical, that is my background. But I know I need to build other skills in my life! … I am in the, in the marketing team because I want to speak with people, I want to encourage people to follow our social media, to go to our event. I want to speak with our sponsor, with other people. And build my confidence to speak with people, to sympathise with people. (Guillermo, W2D3) Half of my classmates are from Latin. From South America. Their English is, you know, similar to Spanish. Yeah, so, sometimes I can’t understand. They, speak very fast so, sometimes I can’t follow them. But in the future, maybe I will work with Latin people maybe … So yeah, it’s a good opportunity I think. (Rokurou, W2D4)

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  155

Lessons learned and considerations for the future

One of the strengths of this course was the detailed manner in which the goal and outcomes were laid out to students with the client brief, and the resulting consistency of this message throughout. This allowed the final goal to form a strong spine underpinning the project’s longitudinal structure. Thanks to the nature of this goal, it became highly salient in the wider school context early on, and this strong driver continued to increase in potency as the saliency of the event increased exponentially up to the day itself (and indeed which continued beyond, as students worked both formally and informally to thank those who had participated). The formality of the way in which the goal was introduced likewise stressed the relevance of the project and its overall alignment with the business English aims of the course: the varied dimensions of the goal allowed students to position themselves, for the most part, towards achieving personally important goals. The saliency of the event throughout the school undoubtedly impacted on the emerging group DMC. However, in many school environments, such project goals may not be feasible, whether due to a lack of institutional support or limited financial or other resources available (and considering this specific project goal, the convenience of an internationally recognised fundraising event falling at a suitable point during a language course!). Other approaches might be needed in designing a motivating project goal, and this may even be through the use of a different project framework. For example, a ‘That’s Me!’ project framework is centred not around a clear goal but, instead, is rooted in a strong sense of ‘connectedness’, both among students themselves and between the learner group and the project itself (Dörnyei et al., 2016). A good example of this working in practice is depicted in the 2007 film Freedom Writers, based on the true story of a teacher who strove to motivate her students by allowing them to act in ways congruent with their true identities: students were able to act truly and wholly as themselves, instead of being required to ‘put on’ acceptable academic or school identities before they might be accepted within the school environment. The Freedom Writers project was centred on diary writing, and empowered students to tell their own stories of hardship and personal overcoming (the Freedom Writer’s Diary Teacher’s Guide (Gruwell & The Freedom Writers, 2007) offers practical advice and activities for conducting similar projects in other classrooms). In essence, such a project follows a Learners’ Lives as Curriculum approach (Weinstein, 1999, 2006), and key criteria posited as critical to its success include the appropriateness of the topic choice, flexibility in goal setting and pursuit, and the importance of a platform for the final project outcome to be exhibited or shared (Dörnyei et al., 2016).

156  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

Key criterion 2: A tangible outcome and real audience

A means that proved important both in making the specifics of the final outcome and the ways by which it might be achieved more tangible were the invited speakers who regularly joined the class. These ‘outside experts’ gave students direct input and advice as to how they might be able to take their ideas forward and exploit them for their own event. Speakers included Neil, who ran a teamwork session in the first week and whose talk was marked by many students in their diaries as a highlight of the week; Deborah from the Cancer Council, a session which ‘had them “buzzing” with ideas and very, very focused’ (David, W1D4d); local businesswoman Jess, sharing with students ‘her unconventional business story’ (Jessica, W3D3d) and who spoke to students about her experience in growing a business purely through social media, to whom students responded particularly strongly; and finally Frances, who gave a talk on designing a media release, which very effectively focused students’ energies – ‘When Frances left they began work on what they knew needed finishing’ (David, W4D2d). These diverse opportunities helped crystallise the students’ ideas and broke down into digestible tasks what and how they were going to achieve each element of their goal, emphasising at every step the reality of whom they were creating it for by hearing from partners working professionally in relevant fields. This further served to create accountability outside the classroom, and marked out success as being more than simply a course grade. In doing so, however, it also increased the levels of pressure students were working under during these weeks. Just enough pressure to work productively

The degree of pressure created from the fact that it was a real situation brought with it public scrutiny and accountability. The challenge in this educational context was to ensure positive management of the balance between productive and overwhelming levels of pressure (the latter negating any possibility of meaningful L2 development, with students’ focus hijacked by too-demanding content goals). Ayumu describes the pressure he felt as what he was looking for: ‘No I don’t think it was too much, because I like, I think I like working hard. That’s why I’m here – I come here in Australia and studying English’ (W5D3am). Matheus likewise describes the pressure as offering a positive challenge for his English skills: Sometimes you need, how can I say, do something real, not work only in hypothetical situations, you need to do something real, you need this, this small pressure, under your head, above your head. You know, because if you only work in hypothetical situations, sometimes you’re not … you lose your motivation. So I think that’s the big difference when you’re doing something real, like this project. (Matheus, W3D4)

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  157

Matheus goes on: ‘we know that it’s a kind of game, but you have a little bit, a little, a small pressure. So, we know that we won’t lose our jobs because of it!’ (W3D4). The levels of pressure were contained, yet were nevertheless sufficient to inspire strong feelings of accountability and responsibility: I want to really successful about this project. So, and I can’t absent the class … Yeah this is not normal class! So if I absent and, we then have a group, and so in pair, and we have to go to the sponsors and negotiate. So, I can’t absent so, we have a responsible – I think. Yeah, every student have a responsible, for us. Yeah! (Namika, W3D2) For example, if you’re not in a good day, you don’t want to work, but here, how is real with a real situation, you can’t, you can’t do – you must to be well every day because it’s important for the group, people are waiting for you, people need to work with you, so you are important in the group. (Matheus, W5D3pm)

This was the case even as the level of pressure students experienced fluctuated throughout, and at times was experienced relatively acutely, as Sakura described: It was [laughter], it was really hard! Like physically and mentally it was, yes, but, mmm, yeah, it was really hard. But it was also fun. (Sakura, W4D3) I have enjoyed a lot more compared than normal class, and also I can say I got stressed and I feel pressure a lot, than the other class! So I feel, I staying here like 9 months now, but this session was the longest session. (Sakura, W5D3pm)

The successful overall management of this aspect of the project was entirely due to Jessica and David’s dedication and skill in this regard. (I return to touch on this further in the Part 3 Summary.) A related positive impact of this was on the group’s dynamic. The experience of joint hardship has long been recognised as being able to facilitate group cohesiveness (Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003), and the development of a robust, positive group dynamic was a conscious focus of Week One of the project. This did not allow students to disappear into the body of the group, and instead created an atmosphere where everyone was valued, was known by name and through which everyone supported – and was supported by – their peers (as quoted from Matheus previously: ‘you are important in the group’ (W5D3pm); see also ‘Key criterion 4’). Lessons learned and considerations for the future

The outside speakers who presented to and worked with students (alongside others with whom the group had contact throughout the course – for example, school management, owners of local businesses

158  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

on campus and other students) not only provided considerable opportunities for language development but also played a significant role in continually foregrounding the audience that students were catering to with their event. Being exposed to so many individuals working professionally within the fields into which they had been plunged was key also because it made students’ route to success – i.e. each of the tasks/subgoals they needed to complete – highly tangible. In teaching and learning contexts situated in non-L2-speaking environments, access to ‘outside experts’ may be considerably more challenging. However, harnessing the internet might be one way to overcome this, whether this is through online tutorials specific to projectrelated tasks, or presentations, interviews and question-and-answer sessions arranged through Skype. Dooly and Sadler (2016) describe in detail an interesting project in this respect, which positioned young language learners (aged seven/eight) as ‘little scientists’, with interaction occurring with teachers, each other, technology – in this case, Second Life – and with collaborators via Skype videoconferencing. This line of research is referred to in the literature as PrOCALL – project-oriented computer assisted language learning – or, to use Dooly and Sadler’s reframing and foregrounding of projects, TEPBLL – technology-enhanced project-based language learning (although it is unfortunate to note that, to date, the focus of much of this work has been on linguistic rather than motivational concerns in this context, e.g. Jeon-Ellis et al., 2005). A further approach might be via role modelling (Bandura, 1977b, 1997). Role modelling holds considerable potential for language learners (see also Muir et al., 2019), and in this context such benefits might even be possible by positioning L1 speakers as ‘experts’ for specific project tasks. Pairing students, positioning one as a translator for their peer (depending on the nature of the talk, with key new vocabulary provided on a ‘cheat sheet’ by the teacher) and then changing roles part way through, would provide both a relevant role model for a specific project task and, concurrently, contribute tangibly to L2 development. Near peer role models (Murphey & Arao, 2001; Murphey & Murakami, 1998) may be a further valuable resource. For example, teachers might invite into the class – either in person or virtually via technology – students who have previously completed the project. If this is the first time a project is being run, past students might instead be invited to reflect on what they feel they could have gained from such a project experience or how it could have been of use to them subsequently, throughout their next steps following the completion of the class. Key criterion 3: Content that is both real and authentic

‘We gave them what we had promised – a real task’ (Jessica, W4D4d). The very nature of this project meant that many project tasks

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  159

were inherently ‘real’, in the sense that they had a true communicative purpose and were completed outside the isolation and (relative) safety of the classroom. This is something that was felt acutely and students were keen to emphasise its importance: ‘Yes of course [it impacted positively] because it was a real practice. Because sometimes it becomes boring in the other courses just to practice in hypothetical situations. And it’s important to practice your English in a real situation’ (Paula, W5D3pm); ‘Still feeling excited but a little bit worried…it’s a real project!’ (Matheus, W1D5d); ‘You’re not just playing a game’ (Dieter, W5D1). Finally, as Masuyo outlines in a diary entry response describing the highlight of her week after marketing the event in other classrooms: ‘Presentation for each classes. It’s real presentation!’ (W3D5d). From a pedagogical perspective, students noted the impact this exerted on their attention to accuracy: Before this project we, we practiced that kind of, these kind of things, but it was just practice, like simulation like – yeah, not real, just, let’s negotiate about this topic, go ahead and negotiate. And teacher said ok finish, well done, like this. But now, I, yeah this is very real negotiation, so, to sponsorship. So I have to, take more care about my language, like right word, we have to use right word and yes, so, for my English it’s also very good experience. (Masuyo, W3D3)

The need for students to act authentically in real communicative encounters was manifested at every turn, where even something as mundane as the abundance of leftover muffins after the event created copious opportunities: ‘they had the opportunity to speak to people, to real people, not just their fellow students … saying take a muffin please because it’s free, because we have got too many muffins, and students are reacting like, why are you giving me a muffin? What the hell is this?! It’s free? Is it poisoned!?’ (David, W4D4). The reality of the situation took on even greater levels of importance for students like Namika, who had little business experience beyond the business English course she had completed with Jessica and David in the previous session: Actually, I never study about the business, in my life … [laughter] And really don’t like – not don’t like but, I’m really not good at negotiate, at negotiation, so it’s really difficult for me and I don’t know the, I cannot imagine about the situation – this is all imagination but I can’t imagine that situation about the negotiate. (Namika, W3D2)

A more traditional business English class would have required Namika to imagine herself in specific business scenarios, instantly creating an additional layer of difficulty, and likely concurrently taking a significant proportion of her attention away from the L2 focus of the

160  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

task (see Colombo, 2017, for a similar discussion). As David notes, too: ‘It’s a whole different ballgame for a lot of people, they’ve never been in this situation’ (David, W3D2). Too real to be true?

The requirements set out in the client brief aimed to ensure that the outcome was clear, and that it was as tangible as possible from the outset. However, we were surprised to note that students did not immediately engage with it as such. As Jessica describes: ‘the client brief left them temporarily speechless’ (W1D3d). It may be that in trying to design and present to students a goal that was truly ‘real’, it was such a significant departure from their expectations of what they ‘should’ be doing in their English classes that they were unsure how to engage with it. Several weeks passed before this was fully appreciated: At the beginning … I thought it’s like a small project in our class … something just like 50 people? Just invite some people to … how to say, to watch our, our product. Something like that! … Definitely I think it’s better [the actual challenge], but it’s also hard I think yeah. (Prija, W3D3)

It was not until the true nature of the goal became real and it truly settled on students’ shoulders – as noted in the previous chapter this was not until the third week of the project – that their group DMC experience took flight. This delay was something Jessica and David were also cognisant of: ‘It’s become theirs yeah – I mean I think it was theirs in their heads, but it wasn’t theirs in their hands? Like they didn’t know they had to do it? Even though we said that 60 thousand times!’ (Jessica, W3D2); ‘I think they are beginning to see finally that this is “real” and that they have to invest themselves in the task … they’ve come so far this week that it might be the “tipping point” where total involvement is a given’ (David, W3D2d). Jessica further noted that she felt the Japanese students in the group experienced an even greater ‘penny drop’ moment, because the project represented an even more distinct departure from the style of teaching they had experienced prior to joining the school: ‘It’s kind of like – Oh they really want us to do it! It’s like it’s just hit, and oh! I can do that!’ (Jessica, W3D2). In future iterations of the same project template in this context, Jessica and David have solved this with the introduction of a minimorning tea in the first week of the course (see Muir et al., under review). This event is organised for students, who are invited simply to participate in hosting the event on the day. It has not only served to make the goal immediately more tangible, but it has also given them a baseline starting point from which to begin planning their own event. The fact that the wider school body is aware that this same project now runs

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  161

regularly (even for students joining the school since the last event, to an extent the mythos of the project has become ingrained into the school culture) has also helped to foster motivational impetus from the outset and, potentially, earlier group DMC emergence, as on each occurrence students set out to better the event and the amount of money raised previously. Lessons learned and considerations for the future

It is clear that the project gave students a real challenge in a context they perceived as relevant, and at an appropriate level in terms of both their professional and business experience and in relation to their language abilities. There is evidence of students feeling under pressure throughout the five weeks, yet the reported fluctuations in the balance students felt between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ pressure tipped only ever temporarily towards the latter; overall evidence suggests that for the most part students thrived under the conditions created. Jessica and David were acutely aware of the importance of managing this, and their awareness and skilled management in this regard was critical in maintaining a positive balance between facilitative and detrimental levels of pressure, and in ensuring students were fully equipped to succeed at each successive stage. If such a project design is not appropriate or practically feasible, similar levels of ‘realness’ might be created via alternative means. One alternative might be to adopt a ‘BIG issue’ framework variant (Dörnyei et al., 2016). Here, the sense of realness is instead rooted in the topic content of a project, one that is chosen to be of inherent value and interest to learners: i.e. something that pushes them to engage more deeply, over and above the all-too-often-accepted superficial level of discussion seen in many L2 classrooms. For example, this could challenge learners ‘with developing a local solution to a global problem’ (Challenge Based Learning, 2010: 10), or to publicise an issue – or a strength – within a local community to a wider audience. The aim is to present learners with a powerful driving question, and to empower them to find solutions and share their ideas (see Chapter 10 for further discussion and examples of this framework variant). From an implementation perspective, important factors specific to ‘BIG issue’ projects include the topic itself, an engaging project launch, and clear subgoals. The journey may indeed be more valuable than the final goal, and so documenting the journey is key, and an emphasis on peer critique (see Patton, 2012) is also likely to be highly valuable (Dörnyei et al., 2016). Key criterion 4: Highly developed project roles and norms

A core foundation for the development of positive group roles and norms is the creation of a strong group dynamic. Fundamental to the

162  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

success of any language classroom (see Dörnyei & Muir, 2019), this element takes on even greater significance in this context of aiming to facilitate the emergence of a group DMC. As discussed in Chapter 3, within a group DMC, an individual’s openness to the DMC experience (important for individual DMC emergence) is superseded instead by the maturity of the group to be able to work together. The strong group dynamic developed was clearly evidenced in the previous chapter, yet several key transitions warrant further emphasis: the assimilation of new students at the outset, the emergence of clear roles and norms within the group, and the ability of the group to work effectively to overcome obstacles. The challenge to the group dynamic in Week One was rooted in the fact that several new students joined an already existing class group, which had been together for at least one session prior. The teambuilding exercise with Neil on Wednesday of Week One (see ‘Key criterion 1’) and with it the explicit emphasis on the importance of the group as a whole was central to beginning this process. Atsuko, a Japanese student new to the group, describes her feelings over these first weeks, and their gradual change as the cohesiveness of the group developed: Yeah, I am happy! At first, last week, I really really didn’t want go school! Because, last week I’m not good then with other classmates. Because they are, classmates last session, some of them. So they are good, they have a good relationship already, so I couldn’t join it. But last weekend we had a BBQ with this class, with these classmates, so, yeah. I can join this community. (Atsuko, W2D3) Last week I really fear about these things, last week I become a little bit good friends than first week with them. So I can say my opinion, little bit with them, talk to them. And this week I become a more good friends, because I spend this weekend with my classmate, so it become more easy for me to say my opinion. So, recently I really think that the, how to say, the relationship with team member is very very important for making a project. (Atsuko, W3D2)

Once the group was formed, students began to find their feet within it and to grow in their roles, learning more each day about their capacity to contribute. Once the group was ‘up and running’, as Jessica describes: ‘They had the full gamut of team work – delegating, overcoming problems, supporting each other, offering help…’ (W4D4d). For some students – most notably those slightly older/with prior professional experience – their group roles emerged relatively effortlessly. Paula, for example, emerged as one of the maternal leaders of the group and a skilled designer, and Hatsuo – an engineer – the practicalities man. However, this process was more challenging for younger students who were yet to have honed their skills outside of the classroom, and so were unable to offer up this part of themselves within it. Rokurou, a Japanese

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  163

university student who began the course hesitant in his English abilities in the presence of his more accomplished classmates, worried about the personal contributions he could make. In his words: Paula can make a poster and design, can design many things. And Guillermo can, Guillermo can be a good leader. And do you know Hatsuo? From Japan? … Hatsuo can make a graph, for getting our project started. And making our project very clear, so. They are very good person I think … That’s really nice. But, in other hand, I’m just a university student, in Japan, and actually I don’t have any skills … so I was looking for how to say, the things I can do in this project? So, yeah, I noticed there are many things I can do in this project … That’s a really nice opportunity for me. … Like, you know – I like chatting with many people. And I don’t hesitate to, to talk with who is, stranger for me. So, I could do that, I can do that … Yeah, and I really appreciate this. (Rokurou, W4D1)

It is encouraging that, regardless of previous experience, the project appeared to have succeeded in helping students find productive roles, and tangible ways in which they were able to actively contribute. Further evidence of the robustness of the resulting dynamic was evidenced in the final week, where student accounts reported minor conflicts between peers in the days before the event, as they rushed to complete the final arrangements. This was resolved so effectively that these frustrations are not detectable in Jessica and David’s accounts: in fact, this is the only aspect where student and teacher accounts of the project differ. Had there not been such an emphasis on the student experience throughout data collection, this would likely have been missed (yet I am keen to acknowledge that more regular, in-depth or observational data would have been able to capture this even more fully; De Bot, 2015; see also Muir, 2021, for further discussion). Lessons learned and considerations for the future

The development of a strong, positive group dynamic is a critical core component when considering the purposeful facilitation of a group DMC in educational contexts. Its development in this instance was strengthened by the fact that students began socialising with each other out of the classroom – after the importance of this was modelled in the first week within the classroom – and increased exponentially as students chose to do so increasingly more often as the course progressed. With this in mind, we should not perhaps be surprised that the group DMC only emerged proper in the third week: it was at this point that the group finally reached the ‘performing’ stage in its development. Whether consciously aware of it or not, teachers often have significant experience and tend to be highly skilled in developing and managing positive group dynamics in their classrooms. To borrow

164  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

Henry et al.’s (2019: 15) words: ‘Good teachers know far more about motivating students than the sum of knowledge that can be gained from research (Dörnyei, 2009[a]).’ Teachers overwhelmingly describe learner groups that get on well and are characterised by a positive dynamic as ‘good classes’, and Senior has demonstrated that often, teachers possess ‘an intuitive knowledge of how to foster and maintain a spirit of cohesion in their classes’ (Senior, 1997: 3; Senior, 2002, 2006; see also Borg, 2006). For example, this might be achieved through sharing selected personal details with a class to develop rapport or, where possible, by involving students in decision making regarding topics or content covered, or with regards to course assessment. Although some aspects of teaching through projects require teachers to draw on considerably different skillsets (see Chapter 3), their skills in this respect are equally as relevant, and just as valuable, in the context of completing project work. Key criterion 5: Regular subgoals

Although the occurrence of regular subgoals may be of relatively less importance to this project variant than others – owing to the fact that progress is primarily measured by the incremental coming together of the final product (Dörnyei et al., 2016) – they nevertheless play a key role in generating and maintaining momentum. Throughout the current project, goals largely emerged organically in response to tasks that required completion at certain stages of the project, and, overall, students collaborated well to make good progress: ‘sense of progress being made with goals being set … and sense of achievement for students after talking to potential sponsors. This makes me happy to see them achieving their goals … Sense of purpose working on common goals for next week’ (David, W2D5d). As Namika explains, clarity in this regard was very effective at raising interest and motivation: I’m so looking forward to the, organising the event. Yeah, really excited, I’m so excited! … Because I’m thinking, we are thinking about all of the things, like sponsors, activities, and all of the things. And then we are thinking every day, and we can see the – this event, this things, on the day, on the 28th of May. So, yeah, I’m so excited! (Namika, W3D2)

The subgoals that required completion throughout the project can clearly be understood – for example, in relation to sponsorship or activities, as mentioned by Namika – yet the size of the group as a whole at times made it challenging to achieve group consensus, an issue that was exasperated by the fact that it took students several weeks to fully realise exactly what it was they were being challenged with (see ‘Key criterion 3’). As a result, at points students sometimes voiced frustration

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  165

with a perceived lack of progress: ‘We need to stop talking and just do it!’ (Paula, W2D3d); We decide something today but tomorrow it’s another thing. So, we decide something today and everybody say ‘ok yeah let’s go with that’, but tomorrow someone ask, or maybe, couldn’t come the day before and now comes and says ‘no why don’t we do that’ and everyone, ‘ok ok’! So everything’s changing and is changing, and we don’t, like, keep the, the main idea, and work with that base. (Daniela, W4D2)

Students further expressed some frustration because they were unable to carry all their ideas forwards to fruition: ‘all the stuff that we put forward, we didn’t have the resources we didn’t have the time for it we are not allowed for it from the security stuff’ (Dieter, W5D1). This contributed to a negative impression of the fact that some goals that were set and some decisions that were made early on during the course were changed or amended as planning progressed. A point of interest directly related to students’ success in working together relates to the configurations of student groupings when doing so (for a related discussion see also Muir, 2021). At the start of the course, students divided themselves up into separate teams responsible for discrete aspects of the project – for example, activities, sponsorship or logistics. However, students worked notably better throughout the first few weeks when not in these groups. It is arguable, even, that splitting students up in this way may have temporarily stunted the development of the group’s dynamic as a whole. Working in smaller, more fluid groups meant that not only could there be multiple leaders (because, in effect, all students were responsible for all aspects of the project, not only those which their group had taken on) but also that interaction immediately increased: ‘Rather than have them in fixed groups (i.e. project stuff) lots of mix, mingle with new partners giving some who are finding their group dynamics challenging the opportunity to relax and work with others’ (David, W2D2d); ‘I broke the groups into pairs and made them choose a specific task. They had to write down and sign off on exactly what they were going to do. Much better interaction all round from pair work’ (Jessica, W3D1d). Working in smaller groups also functioned to help build the confidence of those naturally more introverted or less confident in their L2 abilities. Lessons learned and considerations for the future

It is important to note that, even though the students faced some difficulties with the lack of structured subgoals given to them at the outset, the momentum and strength of the group DMC ultimately did not appear dulled by this (although it is perhaps likely that it emerged slightly later than it otherwise might have). Straightforward practical

166  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

modifications might easily address these issues, widely applicable regardless of the type of project being undertaken. For example, students might be given a fixed schedule of subgoals, so their primary task is to work out how each might be achieved. Further, goals early on in the project might be kept to those that do not lead to capped responses (for example, event sponsorship or ticket sales: i.e. goals that can be thought of as ‘the more the better’). This would allow time for the group dynamic to develop while working in fluid and ill-defined groups, yet with all action still contributing to successful goal striving. These tasks might further be better designed so that all students are required to complete all tasks, further limiting possibilities of ‘freeloading’. To best aid L2 development – i.e. to allow students to focus their primary efforts on the L2 element of any task rather than the content-related practicalities – explicit checklists might be given to students at each stage so that they know immediately where to start (see Muir et al., under review). The additional consequence of delaying until later in the project decisions that require fixed responses would reduce possibilities for backtracking, and having later deadlines for these subgoals would nevertheless not preclude students from investigating the feasibility of other ideas in preparation for later presentation to the group, and final decision making. Key criterion 6: Explicit links to specific aspects of L2 competence

In the context of teaching through projects, it can sometimes be difficult for students to perceive links between the work they are doing and their L2 development (Beckett & Slater, 2005). The Project Framework document (see Appendix 5), which was given to students at the outset, was specifically designed to support this. The taught components of the project – covering all four skills; reading, writing, speaking and listening – likewise reflected the knowledge and skills required at each stage, and strove to draw explicit connections. This was needed not only to ensure that students were ‘armed’ with appropriate L2 knowledge at each stage, but also to stress at each point the relevance of the project to their language studies, and the relevance of what they were studying to the practical demands of the project. As David and Jessica describe with regards to these more traditional taught components throughout the project: ‘Good to have class time – reading/ listening/vocab. In the afternoon – writing proposals’ (David, W3D4d); ‘Intense as always. Teaching (checking homework, testing, checking answers, presentation, language input) felt safer, more concrete than “project” time’ (Jessica, W2D1d). Although there were numerous explicit links to specific aspects of L2 development throughout, and regardless of the fact that regular feedback was given, there is evidence of a need for even more explicit feedback

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  167

for students throughout the course (see Chapter 2 for the importance of affirmative feedback to DMCs). Feedback might be given by, or received from, a plethora of individuals, including those outside the immediate classroom environment: ‘But the last 2 week yeah … we got many feedback from the, many many people – some like are, from the sponsor, from the teacher, who gonna bring the cupcakes something like that and do that. And the last 2 weeks is the best 2 weeks! [laughter]’ (Prija, W5D3am). Specific L2 development, and specific feedback dedicated to this, was reportedly difficult for students to discern, and may not always have been fully appreciated: A:  So, honestly I don’t feel like [I’m] studying English! [­laughter] I’m not really sure which skills I’m improving, so yeah – probably, if I have to say, speaking. Because we are all the time we are speaking about, we are talking about the project. So, I think this is definitely good for my speaking. Interviewer: So, you are not quite sure what you are learning, but you are sure that you are learning? A: Yeah! I’m just enjoying it yeah! I’m just here to make this project. … I can’t see it myself, so I just, how I achieved, how I improved my English so, I don’t know! (Ayumu, W3D1) Ummm, actually I feel a little bit worried about that … like I don’t know if I am not conscious, or maybe, I don’t know sometimes it feels we need something more related, like how can I match the course, about the vocabulary and grammar, with our project … So I don’t, I don’t feel that I improve in the project, sometimes … sometimes for English I don’t know, it helps me or no?! [laughter] … I don’t know if I’m improving and maybe I don’t know? But, if I improve or no, yes I am sure. (Eva, W3D1)

Although Eva, like Ayumu, did believe she was improving, she was unable to elaborate on this in any greater detail. For Matheus, although he was sure his language had developed and he was confident that he had been successful in his language development throughout the course, it remained subtle: ‘of course when you are talking you are learning, you are improving your language, like you can’t see, you can’t, how can I say, after like 5 weeks you don’t see the difference, but yeah, it’s something like subtle you know’ (Matheus, W5D3pm). Two issues of relevance emerged in particular, in considering how this might have been more effectively approached: managing the balance of project versus classwork throughout the course, and managing the period directly after the event. Managing the balance of project versus classwork

A key factor in meeting the L2 aims of the course was finding the appropriate balance of time that was devoted to project work versus that devoted to more direct teaching. The data suggests that overall,

168  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

this challenge was overcome successfully. As students described: ‘we can learn not only about the project, but also normal class. So, we could, we can both, we can do both things’ (Hotaka, W4D1); ‘all the cases and the reading that we have done, it’s really important also, because it’s not just all about the project … I am learning a lot of other things’ (Daniela, W3D1); I didn’t have any thoughts, to have a project like this. I thought it, this class was going to, you know, like just a class. Sitting the table, and listening the teacher, and you know … But I, it’s not, it’s completely different from my image … I think now is better, you know. The best system … a good balance I think. (Rokurou, W2D4)

For some students, however, the balance was skewed too far towards the project, as Eva explains: We spend a lot of time planning the project, I think it’s good. But also, but sometimes I feel like, sometimes we spend too much time maybe? (Eva, W3D1) I think the project is very nice and is very good and is useful, but I mean that a little bit, for me could be better if could be like a more equilibrium between classes and project. Because yes, the project for me was sometimes too much. (Eva, W5D1)

It is interesting to note that the two students who felt most strongly in this regard – Eva and Dieter – both described their reasoning very clearly. Dieter arrived in Australia to attend a single five-week session at the school, but soon after arriving came to the realisation that a different school he had been researching online may have been a better fit for him and, as such, he never engaged fully with the course. It is of note that he is the only student who stated that he did not wish to repeat the experience: ‘Probably, from my purpose, I would decide to make the academic course. Because there you write more, and I think for me it’s the writing, it’s the thing that I wouldn’t learn alone – because I’m not a person that stays home and starts writing, if no one wants me to do it’ (Dieter, W5D1). Eva, quoted above, had already completed several sessions at the school and this course was her final session before returning home: as such, she felt very strongly that she needed to use her final weeks to absorb as much knowledge as she could. She described her time at the school as ‘high stakes’, owing to the fact she had quit her job prior to leaving Peru and had invested significantly in this period of her education here. It is of note that she tried to change course but, by the time she did, she had been told that alternative classes were unavailable. With this in mind, it is indeed remarkable – and testament to the power of the group DMC – that she became as inspired by and engaged in the project as she did. Her comments betray a conflict within her: on one hand, a fear that she

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  169

was not studying as much grammar as she ‘should’ be, yet on the other, the acknowledgement that she was learning a lot from the course, and that she would like to experience it again. ‘I have project all the day and some, sometimes I feel, like I don’t want to come because it’s all about the project, and I feel sometimes that I don’t learn too much. Because it’s too much free’; yet, later in the same interview: ‘also I think that was good for example to, to speak with other people who is not in the class. And, and speak with the sponsors, and have that relations with other people. And many many things that is very good, and also I think the project is very nice and is very good and is useful’ (Eva, W5D1). More explicit feedback on Eva’s L2 development throughout the course could clearly have been valuable to her (and indeed, for all students; it is noteworthy that similar findings have also been documented elsewhere, e.g. Ahlquist, 2013, 2019). The accompanying course booklet collated by Jessica and David allowed students to follow up content studied within class time, with further related readings and exercises. This was an especially valuable element of the course to students like Eva: ‘I like the book. Yeah, we have like reading and listening and some texts. I think it’s, it’s good’ (Eva, W3D1). This formed a key basis of the course for both in-class and homework tasks: ‘for example reading? We can do reading during class time but, we do reading just alone. So we don’t need to do reading during class time, it’s a waste of time I think. So reading, it’s good for homework … Yeah I’m happy, really happy’ (Hotaka, W4D1). In considering future iterations and projects in other contexts, while the Project Framework given to students at the outset functioned well in some respects, it might have been shored up further throughout, as the project progressed. Projects of this kind with a focus on spoken fluency could even, for example, ask students to record themselves speaking at regular intervals throughout the project, as a way of empowering them to personally track and become more aware of their own fluency goals and development. Effective management of the period directly after the event

The period of time immediately after the end of such a project, in which a powerful group DMC current is successfully facilitated, is critically important: not only in how the overall experience is remembered, but also from an educational perspective in terms of highlighting and consolidating L2 development. This is particularly important because perceived and actual levels of achievement may differ greatly (as already discussed in this section). Due to school requirements, the final week of this course was relatively assessment heavy, and students were required to complete speaking/presentation, writing and general review tests. This created a de facto and relatively immediate switch back to traditional ‘teacherstudent’ roles. Wherever possible, assessment tasks were rewritten

170  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

to ensure specific relevance to the project, and were interspersed with highly positive project-related tasks such as ensuring sponsors and peers who supported the event were publicly thanked. Time was also dedicated to pushing students to consider fully the extent of their collaborative and personal achievements, and during these days Deborah from the Cancer Council (who presented to students earlier in the project) returned to accept the students’ fundraising gift in person. From an educational standpoint, this final week was invaluable both in terms of consolidating language and project progress throughout the course. This final week was deliberately included within the schedule; even though organising the event during the final week of the course may have created a slightly longer group DMC, its overall value may ultimately have been lessened. Lessons learned and considerations for the future

The most significant area for improvement centres on the need for more structured avenues to offer students greater levels of affirmative L2 feedback. One way to do this could be through a greater focus on personal goal setting: for example, requiring students at the start of each week to choose one or two achievable language goals, and to support them in designing tangible steps as to how they will achieve them. This might be as simple as regularly referring back to these goals at set points throughout a project and allowing students time to reflect on their progress, to offer peer feedback in evaluating each other’s progress, and to share ideas for the following week. Making use of ‘Can do’ statements would be another way to achieve a similar outcome (cf. Mercer, 2019). Although the student diaries used for data collection were designed to allow for this, because it is something students were not used to completing, this might have been more consistently supported with a more explicit focus. Future research investigating concrete L2 gains from specific project templates, and from different iterations of this same design, would also contribute to understanding in this respect (see Chapter 10 for further discussion). Assessment is a challenge of project-based teaching that is yet to have been fully resolved (Slater et al., 2006). Although it is somewhat outside the scope of the current discussion, portfolio style assessment is one approach that may turn out to be particularly suited. As Jeon-Ellis et al. describe of their project: The students received a group mark for their Web site, and individual marks for a portfolio, which included their individual contributions to the Web site, a review of another group’s site, other work as negotiated with the coordinator (e.g., e-mail correspondence with a partner in France), and participation based on class work and e-mail correspondence with the coordinator. (Jeon-Ellis et al., 2005: 125)

Intensive Group Projects ‘with DMC Potential’: Refining the Key Criteria for Success  171

Conclusion

In this chapter, I have explored the ways in which the design of this project approached the key criteria for success previously positioned as foundational to this ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ project framework (Dörnyei et al., 2016). Each criterion did appear to play a critical role. Throughout the chapter, I have commented on ways in which these ideas might be translated to achieve similar results in other contexts. Yet, in some respects, this discussion has necessarily remained relatively superficial. Suggesting example topics for a ‘BIG issue’ project, for instance, or specific means by which it may be possible to make a project ‘real’ to students, is simply not feasible without detailed knowledge of the context in which it is to be implemented. As Hafner and Miller (2011) also concluded of their study exploring the potential of a video project at an English-medium university in Hong Kong, a primary focus of this study has similarly been to demonstrate the potential of an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ framework in facilitating a group DMC, and to offer detailed analysis of the ways in which it was realised in this specific context. In Muir (2021), I highlight the considerable parallels between the methodology employed in this study and that of formative experiments, a deeply pragmatic methodology that strives to test ‘theory and empirical research in the real world of practice’ (Reinking & Bradley, 2004: 155; 2007). Writing from a complexity perspective (introduced in Chapter 1), Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008: 244) explain: ‘Formative experiments investigate the potential of a system rather than its state … [and attempt] to describe the interconnected web of factors influencing change.’ Formative experiments look to answer two questions typically omitted from ‘conventional’ experimental designs, both of which are fundamental to pedagogy: ‘What factors add to or detract from an intervention’s success in accomplishing a valued pedagogical goal?’ And secondly: ‘How might the intervention be adapted in response to those factors to better accomplish that goal?’ (Reinking & Watkins, 2000: 384, 387). Both are key to furthering our understanding of L2 project implementation with a view to facilitating group DMC emergence, and I have addressed both directly throughout this chapter. The development of understanding with regards to designing and running intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’ in different L2 contexts will be an iterative and cumulative process, and will be best achieved by foregrounding the potential for academic-practitioner collaboration, and for practitioner-led research. Such is the draw of formative experiments: ‘“What works” is underpinned by a concern for “how, when, and why” it works, and by a detailed specification of what exactly, “it” is’ (Cobb et al., 2003: 13). Thick descriptions of the environments into which a project is introduced, as I have endeavoured to offer here, will be an important resource for facilitating comparisons across contexts, and the robust accumulation of knowledge.

Part 3 Summary: Key Findings, Limitations and Pedagogical Implications

In Part 3 I have presented and explored the results of what was, to the best of my knowledge, the first study to have investigated the feasibility of aiming to purposefully facilitate a group DMC experience among a class of students in an instructed L2 context. I began in Chapter 7 with an overview of the study’s methodology, introducing the context and the teachers with whom I collaborated, further detailing the project itself and means of data collection and analysis. In Chapter 8, I presented findings related to the key research question this study was designed to address, concluding that the data collected did indicate the emergence of a powerful group DMC. I further highlighted specific elements of perceived L2 development and reported on students’ perceptions as to the specific elements of the project’s design they believed to be most influential in facilitating this. In Chapter 9, I evaluated the success of the project against the key criteria for success put forwards by Dörnyei et al. (2016), discussed key lessons learned and concluded by highlighting the potential of formative experiments as a productive avenue for future research. In this Part 3 Summary, I draw together findings from the study as a whole, highlight its limitations and finish by considering its broader pedagogical implications. Summary of Findings

This study was the first of its kind to explore the feasibility of purposefully facilitating a group DMC in an instructed L2 environment, and the findings that emerged are highly encouraging: there is good evidence to suggest that a group DMC was successfully facilitated. Data evidence was found relating to all markers of the DMC experience: students surpassing their expectations, investing increased levels of time and effort (and enjoying doing so), the goal constantly being on their minds, and 172

Part 3 Summary  173

their experiencing this time as something special or unique. Convincing evidence of teacher DMCs was likewise strongly emergent from the data. From an educational perspective, it is particularly meaningful that many students reported believing that the experience had had a notable, positive impact on their language development. The focus of this study centred on the motivational outcomes of this pedagogical sequence, and reflecting this, no dedicated empirical data was collected to be able to corroborate any of the perceived L2 gains highlighted. However, the key areas of L2 development that came to the fore indicate highly productive directions for future research: speaking and listening skills, fluency, and developments in critical aspects of L2 vocabulary knowledge (namely, in productive vocabulary use). The project further served to develop other related professional skills and competencies, including students’ organisation skills and communication within multicultural teams. The context of this study was particularly suited: both teachers were highly experienced, and prior to the course had previous experience of successfully running projects with groups of learners. It is also relevant that they also had a sufficient level of autonomy over course content and the teaching approaches that they were able to adopt within their school environment. The very nature of such situated, qualitative studies means that the results obtained are not immediately generalisable, nor might the goal of this project (hosting a charity fundraising event, in this instance in aid of the Cancer Council) be suitable for direct transference to other contexts without a certain level of tailoring to ensure a good fit. However, the results indicate the tangible potential of this project framework, and its ability to facilitate suitable conditions capable of leading to group DMC emergence. In Chapter 9, I assessed the success of the project in practical terms, and the descriptive detail offered here I hope should serve as a productive basis from which further work might continue to investigate the potentials of the design and implementation of this intensive group project ‘with DMC potential’. Methodological Decisions and Limitations

The results of this study provided robust evidence of the emergence of a powerful group DMC, yet, as I have already noted, as with any qualitative study necessarily situated within a single, specific context, findings cannot easily be generalised. The results point towards highly promising outcomes, yet it is still to be demonstrated whether such periods of intense motivation might be as successfully facilitated in different contexts, with different student groups – and groupings – and in contexts where, for example, there are fewer contact hours per week or lower levels of external support available. An important factor for success in this instance was unquestionably Jessica and David’s experience and skills in teaching the course, and

174  Part 3: From Theory to Application: Group DMCs in the L2 Classroom

from this study alone it is unclear to what extent this impacted on its overall success. A further consideration is rooted in the fact that the project was centred primarily on the development of students’ speaking and listening skills. Only further research will be able to assess the possibilities of generating similarly powerful currents of motivation with projects whose focus of study is rooted in less inherently dynamic language skills: Is it possible, for example, to purposefully facilitate a group DMC with similar levels of intensity around a project goal with a dominant L2 reading or writing focus? I further acknowledge the fact that this project was born of a collaboration between myself, Jessica and David. The strong evidence that emerged indicating that they both became swept up in the group DMC suggests that, once the project had begun, they were not thinking about DMC theory, but rather ‘riding the wave’. Yet, they had an unquestionable stake in the success of the course, and as such are likely to have invested more time and energy than they might otherwise have done. Certainly, they invested a considerably greater level of time and energy than they usually would teaching this business English course. The implementation of any project will always require high levels of teacher investment, and individual decisions must always be made weighing the costs of the additional time and energy required of a specific project sequence on the one hand, against the motivational and educational benefits potentially on offer for students on the other. Pedagogical Implications

The pedagogical implications of these findings for the application of DMC theory to language classrooms seem promising. Group DMCs have been reported on previously through the anecdotal descriptions of intensive group projects in language classrooms, and these results indicate that there may be potential for such experiences to be purposefully and deliberately facilitated with groups of learners in L2 classrooms. Further, results also indicate that these experiences are capable of supporting students in achieving what were perceived to be meaningful gains in L2 development. The results of the questionnaire study presented in Part 2 indicated that DMCs were experienced by individuals of all demographic backgrounds, suggesting that such interventions might be successful in varied classroom contexts around the world. That the class group in this study, too, presented variation across all the demographic features investigated – age, sex, nationality, L1 – proffers further support for this. Even acknowledging that such motivational emergence can never be guaranteed, and that the wider social environments of some teaching and learning contexts might possess remarkably little ‘DMC potential’ (see Chapter 3), the overall outlook for DMC-inspired interventions

Part 3 Summary  175

in L2 classrooms nevertheless appears positive indeed. A particularly encouraging element of this study relates to the fact that the project was not devoid of limitations (as with the realisation of any planned pedagogical sequence). It has therefore very effectively served to demonstrate that an intensive group project (‘with DMC potential’) does not need to be “perfect”, or devoid of areas for improvement, to nevertheless have the ability to facilitate the emergence of a powerful group DMC. Concluding Thoughts

This was a challenging, inspiring study, and one of its highlights was undoubtedly the opportunity to work so closely with Jessica and David. I am fully cognisant of the fact that none of this would have been possible without their immense dedication and infinite reserves of optimism and enthusiasm. I offer them my heartfelt thanks again, here! Such collaborations will be an important avenue in continuing to explore the potential of DMC theory for L2 pedagogy, along with practitionerled research aimed towards the same. As I go on to discuss this further in Chapter 10, my hope is that the coming years will see a marked increase in both.

10 Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions and the Future of DMC Research

In the final chapter of this book I look both backwards and forwards, reflecting on the past, present and future of DMC research. I begin by returning again to consider the seven frameworks for focused interventions proposed in 2016 (Dörnyei et al., 2016). This book was the first full-length exploration and overview of DMCs, and it considerably extended past writing on the topic with regards to the theoretical underpinning of the DMC framework. In the final chapter, we drew both on the developing understanding of DMC theory and the growing body of literature on educational projects, and outlined seven project templates that we posited might be capable of inspiring group DMC experiences. In this book, I have explored one of these in detail – the ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ framework variant – and this has provided compelling evidence that such a project design does indeed have the potential to inspire a group DMC in an instructed classroom context. I begin this chapter by reflecting on the other project frameworks we concurrently put forward at that time, focusing on one in particular which stands somewhat apart from the others: ‘Study Abroad’ (SA). Drawing on the SA literature, I also move on to discuss a further key question with regards to L2 DMC experiences: Might there be any longer-term positive effects for learners? I next offer a concise overview of the key contributions of this book, both with regards to DMC theory and the practical translation of this with respect to language pedagogy. I conclude by considering more broadly the future of DMC research, highlighting tangible directions for future work. 179

180  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions

In Chapter 3, I briefly introduced the seven frameworks for focused interventions proposed by Dörnyei et al. (2016), focusing discussion on the ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ project variant, which was at the heart of Part 3. To recap briefly, while all seven project frameworks are derived from the same underlying foundation, within each, a different signature component is given the central role in fuelling the current of motivated action. An idealised version of a project template would include all key components: a clearly defined target perceived by students as both relevant and real, which allows them to act in ways authentic to their true selves; a robust structure with regular subgoals, capable of acting as progress markers and providing opportunities for regular feedback; and a strong group dynamic manifesting as a mature and cohesive class group. The practical reality, however, is that the existence of all elements in any given learning situation is likely to be neither a realistic aim nor possibility. In search of a pragmatic solution, each of the seven frameworks functions by positioning one of these signature components as bearing principal responsibility for sustaining motivated action. Six of the seven: The more ‘traditional’ project frameworks

Of the seven project framework variants put forward, six are what might be considered as more ‘traditional’ project templates (the outlier, ‘Study Abroad’, I discuss separately below). In the ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ variant (used as the basis for the charity fundraising project discussed in Part 3), primary responsibility for generating and sustaining motivational impetus is the existence of a clear end goal. For the ‘That’s me!’ variant, the primary motivational driver is instead a strong connection between the project and students’ core identity and sense of self (for a good example of a project of this kind, see the Freedom Writers diary project introduced in Chapter 9). The effectiveness of the ‘Step by Step’ framework variant is rooted in its elaborate structure and interconnected set of multiple subgoals. This type of project is typical of many nationally coordinated schemes: for example, the UK’s Duke of Edinburgh’s Award.1 This award is a well recognised CV item in the UK for school graduates, recognised in the context of both further education and professional employment. Students work towards achievement at three different levels – Bronze, Silver and Gold – and across four areas – volunteering, physical, skills, and expedition. From a motivational perspective, it is rooted in contingent path theory (Raynor, 1974; Raynor & Entin, 1983): tasks are chained together and the next task can only be undertaken upon successful completion of the one before, leading to ‘a type of cumulative chain reaction’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 180; see also Dörnyei et al., 2016:

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  181

Chapter 9, for more detailed discussions of how each of these project frameworks might be realised in L2 classrooms, for elements argued to be central to their success, and key issues with regards to implementation and management). The ‘BIG Issue’ variant challenges learners to address and find solutions to a real world issue, with motivational impetus being driven by a powerful driving question. As noted also in the previous chapter, this variant is designed to push learners to engage with a topic both more deeply and at a higher level than they might otherwise do in L2 classroom discussions. Larmer and Mergendoller describe these driving questions as giving students a ‘sense of purpose and challenge’ (2010: 35). They should: be provocative, open-ended, complex, and linked to the core of what you want students to learn. It could be abstract (When is war justified?); concrete (Is our water safe to drink?); or focused on solving a problem (How can we improve this website so that more young people will use it?). … Without a driving question, students may not understand why they are undertaking a project. They know that the series of assigned activities has some connection with a time period, a place, or a concept. But if you asked, ‘What is the point of all these activities?’ they might only be able to offer, ‘Because we’re making a poster.’ (Larmer & Mergendoller, 2010: 35)

The Apple Corporation’s Challenge Based Learning programme is a good example of this type of project framework. Motivational impetus is rooted in the realness of the issue for learners and its importance in their local context, challenging students to turn ideas into action: The challenge turns the essential question into a call to action by charging participants with developing a local solution to a global problem. A challenge is immediate and actionable. Choosing and setting up the challenge is crucial. (Challenge Based Learning, 2010: 10)

The ‘Detective Work’ variant taps into the large body of literature that has grown up around the notion of problem-based learning (PBL) (cf. Amador et al., 2006; Savin-Baden & Howell Major, 2004), an instructional approach rooted in the understanding of learning as centred around inquiry. Initially begun in the context of medical education in order to facilitate the translation of students’ ‘book smarts’ into practical application in real-life diagnostic environments, this framework variant draws on the near ubiquitous human penchant for solving puzzles and unravelling mysteries. This method is now well established across a broad number of disciplines – including, for example, law and engineering – and is shored up by a strong body of empirical research. At its heart, these problem-based sequences always begin ‘by posing a complex, authentic

182  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

problem, one which students might encounter in real life’ (Amador et al., 2006: ix). It is thus similar to the ‘BIG issue’ framework. However, where the ‘BIG Issue’ framework encourages learners to look for tangible solutions to real-world problems, which might be practically realised in their local context, the ‘Detective Work’ framework is instead rooted in encouraging learners to explore their understanding or ideas on a chosen topic: i.e. to pursue ‘an intellectual treasure hunt’ (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 191). An excellent example of this type of project in an L2 context is that followed by learners in Hanks (2017b). Under the guise of exploratory practice (cf. Hanks, 2017a, 2019; see also the end of this chapter), learners were challenged to puzzle and work collaboratively for understanding relating to an issue that most intrigued them with respect to their language learning. Examples of these puzzles included, ‘Why can’t I remember and use new vocabulary?’ and ‘Why can’t I speak English well after studying for a long time?’ (I introduce this study more fully at the end of this chapter.) The last of these six frameworks, the ‘Story Sequels’ project variant, roots motivational impetus in a gradually unfolding storyline, which is introduced to students in carefully curated sections, in order to keep interest and curiosity high. Although not referencing DMCs directly, in an interesting study Bruckmaier (2019) has recently described a project of exactly this kind, in which she introduced a reading project with her fifth grade German EFL students. Throughout the project students read an entire graded reader in English – generally perceived by students to be a significant accomplishment, not typically expected of them at this level – and completed classroom exercises (over approximately 20 lessons) that were tailored to fit around the unfolding narrative, all of which was accompanied by three final creative tasks, including a collaborative drama project. The results were encouraging not only from a motivational perspective but, similarly reflecting the findings in Part 3 of this book, in relation to perceived L2 gains (e.g. related to pronunciation and to vocabulary development). This project is also noteworthy because it describes a successful project based around L2 reading. Motivating younger learners

It is interesting to note that, similar to the context in which Bruckmaier’s (2019) study is based, the genesis of the ‘Story Sequels’ project as we introduced it in Dörnyei et al. (2016) was likewise built around a project designed for younger learners. A similar design can also be found within the Storyline approach.2 This project approach was initially developed in Scotland, for L1 primary school classrooms, in order to provide a more integrated curriculum (Bell et al.’s 2007 volume offers a good introduction and overview; see in particular Kocher’s chapter discussing the potential of Storyline in foreign language classrooms). Tasks are introduced to students with ‘key questions’,

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  183

and while teachers maintain control of the core focus of each of the ‘chapters’ of the story, they work in partnership with students to develop the characters and further content (for examples see Ahlquist, 2013, 2019). Indeed, it may be that the ‘Story Sequels’ framework is particularly (although by no means exclusively) suited to younger learners. The implications of this are potentially significant. The field of L2 motivation as a whole has largely marginalised issues related to motivating younger learners (Boo et al., 2015), and DMCs, too, are not inherently relevant to this learner group due to their core goal/vision/outcome-orientedness. The significance of the ‘Story Sequels’ framework in this instance comes, therefore, from the fact that it is the project’s structure that is primarily responsible for maintaining and channelling motivational impetus. Built around a gradually unfolding storyline, proximal subgoals at each stage play a far more central role than the distal goal that the project is working towards. Study Abroad

Although periods of ‘Study Abroad’ (SA) are not typically considered as falling under the same ‘project’ rubric, they are nevertheless capable of transforming students’ relationships with a language and with their studies, leading to positive motivational and other affective outcomes and to considerable developmental success (cf. Allen & Herron, 2003; Freed, 1998; Kinginger, 2013; Tanaka & Ellis, 2003). In recent years, there has also been a marked rise in short-term study abroad (STSA) programmes, typically of between three and eight weeks (Badstübner & Ecke, 2009; as contrasted to more traditional year-long programmes). Although as yet STSA is less thoroughly researched than its longer-term counterpart, it has likewise been linked to similar positive outcomes (cf. Allen, 2010; Cubillos et al., 2008; Gorka & Niesenbaum, 2001; Ingram, 2005; Llanes & Muñoz , 2009). While SA experiences are sometimes purported to constitute an ‘ideal means of learning a foreign language’ (Allen, 2010: 27), the potentials of SA are not always fulfilled: progress in general terms may not always be as marked as research has suggested, and it is inescapable that the language gains achieved by students are rarely uniform, often varying significantly between individuals, even in the same context (Churchill & DuFon, 2006; Freed, 1995; Kinginger, 2008). SA ‘intensifies individual differences in achievement’ (Kinginger, 2011: 58), and, correspondingly, Allen has argued that the need for ‘curricular intervention in SA contexts’ is clear (Allen, 2010: 27). Regardless of length of the period of SA/STSA, at a basic level the motivational processes involved remain similar: an initial period of preparation and then a subsequent stay in the L2 country. The former

184  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

is energised by an individual’s distal goal but, once arrived in the L2 country, the accumulated motivational impetus can easily dissipate if this is not shored up with a systematic structure of subgoals put in place through principled preparation for the visit. Allen (2010) explores these ideas in her analysis of the experiences of six American students completing a six-week period of STSA in Nantes, France. She highlights in particular a lack of goal specificity, in the case of linguistic goals in particular, unresolved goal conflict – for example, between linguistic and other goals for the period abroad, such as travel and sightseeing plans – and a lack of a clear pathway of subgoals to achievement, as road blocks to meaningful progress. Here, Allen has unknowingly also pinpointed features fundamental to the success of a DMC, and for those students who were able to overcome these issues, Allen’s data is indeed suggestive of powerful DMC experiences: ‘I now have the self-esteem to know if there is something I want to accomplish, there is nothing holding me back’ (Allen, 2010: 43; see also Zarrinabadi et al., 2019, for discussion of the relationship between DMCs and selfesteem). When the initial burst of motivation connected to periods of SA/STSA is effectively capitalised on, there is evidence that it may be capable of supporting strong DMC experiences throughout the duration of the time in the country (the ‘executive’ period of motivation). A particularly successful SA project example is that reported on by Roberts et al. (2001) as a part of the Ealing Ethnography Research Project (see Gorka & Niesenbaum, 2001, and Lewis & Niesenbaum, 2005, for discussion of similarly designed STSA projects). Stemming from a research aim directed towards understanding whether language teachers could ‘learn to teach an ethnographic program’, this study was concerned with whether the implementation of ethnographic approaches might be used to make a period of study abroad ‘an active learning experience’ (Roberts et al., 2001: 13). The three-year programme began (in Year 2 of the students’ undergraduate course) with training being given to equip the students to be able to complete an ethnographic study while abroad about a personally chosen aspect of the host country (Year 3), to be written up upon return to their home university (Year 4). The high level of structure provided an overall purpose for engaging with the target language by creating a motivating intellectual challenge to prepare for, undertake and evaluate, and, in so doing, it likewise provided a clear framework through which students might successfully achieve it. In the context of the current discussion, periods of STSA in particular seem to offer the most tantalising possibilities with regards to the facilitation of DMC experiences. This is due to the simple fact that the shorter time frames they extend over provide an arguably more realistic scaffold to build around. The experience of a DMC over an entire year during longer-term periods of study abroad may be a rare occurrence. However, for projects designed around any of the above

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  185

framework variants – or, indeed, any other project or pedagogical sequence rooted in DMC theory not encompassed within Dörnyei et al.’s seven frameworks for focused interventions (Dörnyei et al., 2016) – their potential compatibility with periods of six or eight weeks of STSA is alluring. Beginning ‘with the end in sight’ also allows for a greater practical emphasis on ensuring students maintain plausible goals for their time abroad (see Mendelson, 2004), and that they are better able to conceptualise and effectively plan tangible routes to success. Rather than aiming to facilitate group DMC experiences (as was the focus of Part 3 of this book), it may even be that, with proper planning and support, such experiences – owing to their potential to lead to life-changing experiences in the host country, and because students undertake them for diverse, highly personal reasons – when interlinked with appropriate pedagogical sequences, can facilitate the emergence of individual DMC experiences. Longer-term Effects of Study Abroad Experiences

Calls for, and the investigation of, potential longer-term effects of study abroad experiences, both in relation to linguistic and other affective factors, are certainly not new (see, for example, Allen & Herron, 2003). In a recent study, Fryer and Roger (2018) present the results of a longitudinal investigation into motivational change and the transformation of the L2 selves of eight Japanese university students as they prepared for and embarked on a month-long EFL STSA in Australia. As the authors describe of one participant: ‘even six months after his SA his L2 motivation and ideal self were being influenced positively’, leading to ‘sustained effort directed at both test scores and communicative ability’ (Fryer & Roger, 2018: 164). Using a form of retrodictive qualitative modelling (Dörnyei, 2014), the first pattern of motivational change that Fryer and Roger identified (of which this student was representative) they labelled ‘an empowering ideal L2 self’: ‘a combination of engaging L2 learning experiences and interactions’ leading to ‘sustained strengthening and increased clarity associated with [the student’s] changing ideal L2 self’ (Fryer & Roger, 2018: 163). There are clear overtones of DMCs in the description of this student’s experience, and the conclusion that such notable effects were still being felt as long as six months after he had returned home is significant. Although only followed up at interview two months after returning from a one-year period of SA, Ueki and Takeuchi (2016) also report similar findings relating to sustained positive changes to students’ L2 selves and in their levels of self-efficacy. (See both Fryer & Roger, 2018, and Ueki & Takeuchi, 2016, for further patterns of change identified, including clearly changing inter-relationships between ideal and ought-to L2 selves during and after periods of SA/STSA. Colombo, 2017, also offers a complementary narrative investigating the inter-relationships between

186  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

the L2MSS and DMCs in the context of projects completed in the students’ home country.) A further fascinating finding that emerged from Fryer and Roger’s paper, is that not only do they themselves draw links between these STSA experiences and DMCs (describing their study as offering ‘an interesting counterpoint to the findings of Henry et al., 2015’, 2018: 167), but they also indicate that the period of STSA might itself also have the potential to act as a trigger for subsequent motivation and/or DMC experiences. In their words: our participants – through their study abroad sojourn – had experienced a mere glimpse of what a future with English might be like for them, before returning to life-as-usual in Japan. The key point is that this ‘taste’ of the possible future appears to have ignited their future self visions in ways that continued to fuel motivation even six months after the study abroad experience. (Fryer & Roger, 2018: 167)

This finding is certainly significant. While not all students may feel that they have the resources or support structures available to them to be able to do so, this indicates that for some students, such an opportunity may allow them to capitalise on the drive generated during their time spent in the host country and transform it into a DMC on arrival back home. Reflecting on the genesis of some DMCs as a form of reactance (see Chapters 2 and 5), we might also imagine that some DMC experiences may be triggered in this way too, subsequent to a period of SA/STSA from, for example, a sense of frustration that they were not able to communicate in the host country in the ways that they had hoped. Longer-term Effects of DMC Experiences?

Previous writing on DMCs has highlighted the fact that after DMC experiences come to an end, individuals sometimes maintain one or more of the habits that have emerged throughout the duration of a DMC. For example, this might be continuing to listen to L2 radio or podcasts during the commute to and from work, or continuing to keep up a diary listing new vocabulary items learned. The same might certainly be encouraged of students who have experienced a group DMC in an instructed classroom context. This again might be as simple as encouraging students to continue working with raised levels of willingness to collaborate with peers, or encouraging them to maintain their willingness to share and accept feedback and positive critique from their peers. It has certainly been emphasised – as I have also done throughout this book – that in instructed language learning contexts, careful management of the end of group DMC experiences is critical in managing potential negative implications and in maintaining an openness to future experiences (Dörnyei et al., 2016; drawing on the long

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  187

acknowledged finding in the context of group dynamics that highlights the importance of the ‘dissolution’ stage of group formation and disbandment, see Dörnyei & Murphey, 2003). Yet, similar to the recent emergence of research into positive emotions in language learning as a counterpoint to the previously dominant focus on negative emotions, in focusing on the importance of the end of group DMC experiences as a way of managing negative emotions and mitigating potentially negative future impact, have we, too, missed something important here, in not fully recognising potential positive long-term effects that DMC experiences may lead to? Although there has been no research to date investigating any longerterm effects of DMCs, there is good reason to believe that we might expect to observe similar findings to some of those I have highlighted in this chapter, which have begun to be documented through investigation of the longer-term effects of SA/STSA experiences. The reason that this body of literature is so relevant in this regard is rooted in the fact that some students do not exhibit any positive ongoing changes after their period of SA. To put this in other words: it cannot be the SA experience – in and of itself – which is the primary contributing factor to these longer-term motivational (and other) positive outcomes. A more significant contributing factor may in fact be that while these students were away, they experienced a DMC. Mastery experiences have long been acknowledged as important in building self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1977a, 1977b, 1997). Owing to the nature of the DMC experience and its pushing individuals to achieve more than they may previously have believed possible, we should perhaps be unsurprised to see emerging links between DMC experiences and increases in self-efficacy and self-esteem (e.g. Zarrinabadi et al., 2019). The experience of ‘Chiaki’, reported in Ueki and Takeuchi (2016), elegantly encapsulates this. Prior to beginning her period of SA, her levels of self-efficacy were positively influenced via the vicarious experiences of seeing her peers be successful: ‘I was sure I could do so well when I saw pictures on Facebook uploaded by the senior students who were studying abroad’ (Ueki & Takeuchi, 2016: 129; Bandura, 1977a, 1977b, 1997; see Murphey & Arao, 2001; Murphey & Murakami, 1998, on the motivating potential of near peer role models, and Muir et al., 2019, for a recent large-scale study on role modelling in SLA). Chiaki’s true transformation came, however, with the mastery experiences she had with the L2 while she was abroad. Speaking several months after her return, she reflects: ‘I was never confident about my English abilities before, but I think this experience truly formed my confidence and motivated me to study English further’ (Ueki & Takeuchi, 2016: 130). This led to notable changes in her learning habits: ‘Even since I returned to Japan, I have actively exposed myself to challenges related to the use of English, such as [taking] a tour guide

188  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

job for foreigners in Kyoto, something I used to shy away from due to my lack of confidence in English [before her period of SA]’ (Ueki & Takeuchi, 2016: 130). Encouragement with regards to the potential longer-term effects of DMC experiences can also be found elsewhere. In the context of investigating self-concordant goals (see Chapter 2 for their significance to DMCs), and to extend a quote I referred to earlier in this book, not only is it ‘possible to become happier through one’s striving pursuits, if one picks the right goals and does well at them’, but ‘furthermore, such changes should last and perhaps conduce to even more positive change’ (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001: 163; emphasis added). This is further shored up by findings in the context of emotions and language learning (see Chapter 1). In the context of her broaden-and-build theory, Fredrickson argues that the experience of positive emotions can lead to increases in personal resiliency and the ability to respond to and recover from difficult situations; also that: the personal resources accrued during states of positive emotions are conceptualised as durable. They outlast the transient emotional states that led to their acquisition. By consequence, then, the often incidental effect of experiencing a positive emotion is an increase in one’s personal resources. These resources function as reserves that can be drawn on in subsequent moments and in different emotional states. (Fredrickson, 2004: 220; emphasis added)

Structuring periods of SA/STSA around the tenets of DMC theory has the potential to offer learners not only more consistent experiences of success in terms of L2 development, but also potentially to lead to transformational motivational and affective experiences. It is inescapable, however, that in some contexts, whether due to financial, practical or other reasons, periods of SA/STSA are simply not feasible. In order to find ways around this, innovative solutions have been adopted. An approach that can be found across various disciplines – including language education – is that of ‘virtual SA’, which exploits technology to connect peoples and places (Dave & Danahy, 2000; Lipinski, 2013; Pertusa-Seva & Stewart, 2000). In a further novel approach to this challenge, Foss et al. (2008) report on short-term intensive summer English courses taught via projects (in the home country), favoured and sometimes even sponsored by universities because they are more cost effective than SA experiences, yet are believed to have the potential to be similarly effective (see also Yashima & ZenukNishide, 2008). In countries such as the UK, where the number of students studying foreign languages is notoriously low (Coleman et al., 2007), facilitating group DMC experiences for students, and the concurrent mastery

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  189

experiences that they can provide, may prove to be one productive avenue in striving to inspire students to engage with language study. This claim is given credence if we look again to the SA literature, where positive SA experiences have been demonstrated as leading students to take up further language study, even when students are studying otherwise seemingly unrelated disciplines (Cubillos et al., 2008; Ingram, 2005; Lewis & Neisenbaum, 2005; Shedivy, 2004; see also Paige et al., 2009, for a fascinating related narrative on this). In describing the altered motivations and future plans of five students after various types and periods of SA, Shedivy notes a pertinent comment from one of her participants, particularly telling in the context of the current discussion. In describing the impact of a two-week high school trip to Mexico as providing the spark that went on to fuel his desire to develop his L2 Spanish proficiency, Mateo notes that you just ‘need something to get you going’ (Shedivy, 2004: 111). In a world in which monolingualism is already by far the exception rather than the norm, and for countries such as the UK, which has a well documented and longstanding history of challenges in the context of language education, this is surely an avenue worthy of dedicated future exploration. Key Contributions of this Book

In this section, I overview the key findings and contributions that have emerged from the studies presented throughout this book. Arguably, one of the most significant contributions of the book as a whole is the robust empirical support it offers for DMCs being both recognisable and relevant across continents and contexts. In receiving responses from more than 1500 individuals, Part 2 presented evidence attesting to the fact that DMCs represent more than merely an exceptional occurrence only experienced by a lucky minority, and instead gives credence to a conclusion that DMCs are a well recognised and even a (relatively) commonly experienced motivational phenomenon. A conservative estimate found that as many as 36.5% of participants reported having experienced strong DMC-like periods of intense motivation, either once or on multiple occasions. This figure excludes the many participants grouped within the general long-term motivation group who appear to have reported on experiences singularly reminiscent of DMCs. The validity of grouping these responses together within the DMC group was demonstrated through multiple means. The DMC group differed significantly from the general long-term motivation group by way of the reported level of intensity of the experience and the duration over which it lasted, with participants in the DMC group reporting experiences both more intense and longer than those in the general long-term motivation group. It is interesting to note, too, that participants who had experienced DMCs were more likely to report

190  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

having recognised and witnessed DMC-like experiences in those around them. The multi-item DMC Disposition Scale – the first of its kind within the field of DMC research – was able to further support the isolation of the DMC group identified: differences in responses on the DMC Disposition Scale of participants in the DMC and the general long-term motivation groups were statistically significant. It was further demonstrated that within both groups, the scores on the DMC Disposition Scale and the reported level of intensity of the experience for individuals who experienced this several times, were significantly higher than those who had experienced it only once. Results consistently indicated that there was no difference in the reported experience of DMCs in the responses of men and women, and there was limited variation in responses among different age groups. The variation identified here – that participants over the age of 30 answered more positively on the DMC Disposition Scale and were more likely to report experience of DMCs than those under the age of 30 – may simply be attributable to older participants’ increased lifespan and opportunity. This conclusion is given some additional credence from the results of the study presented in Part 3, which saw a student body largely under the age of 30 become engaged in a powerful group DMC. With regards to language learning, a conservative estimate (representing only those who answered this question most emphatically: Strongly Agree, N = 277) indicated that more than 19% of questionnaire participants had experienced a DMC while learning a language. Results support previous claims that DMCs are bound neither to discrete proficiency levels nor to specific contexts, and, more encouragingly still, approaching two-thirds of these participants (N = 163/59%) indicated that their DMC experience occurred while they were studying in a formal instructed context: at school, university or a private language school. This is highly encouraging. While it is likely to be the case that at least some of these DMCs may have been unrelated or external to the language classroom itself (i.e. it was simply chance that participants were also involved in formal language tuition throughout this time), this nevertheless suggests that even in formal instructed ­contexts it can be possible for students to assert sufficient levels of autonomy to allow DMC/group DMC experiences to take hold. This conclusion is again shored up by the success of the project-based study that was the focus of Part 3. The qualitative results that participants shared in their questionnaire responses provided an insight into how these periods of motivation began, and into participants’ reasoning as to why they would or would not like to repeat the experience. One of the most noteworthy results identified in this respect related to the reasons given by participants for not wanting to repeat the experience. In the published literature to date, DMCs have tended to be described as a universally positive experience,

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  191

and little indication or discussion has been given to any negative ‘sideeffects’. These results suggest essential research in this vein be included in future studies, and this may turn out to be a particularly important strand of future work. Part 3 explored the possibility of purposefully facilitating a group DMC experience with a class of business English language learners. This study was based on the basic proposition that, in the context of instructed language learning group DMCs might be understood as emerging via intensive group projects (Dörnyei et al., 2016); more specifically, as emerging from intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’. The study was based on an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ project framework (Dörnyei et al., 2016), and in this case the project goal was rooted in the organisation of a charity fundraising event in aid of the Cancer Council. Results offer convincing support that a powerful group DMC did emerge, ­experienced by both students and teachers. While such outcomes can never be guaranteed, and likewise acknowledging that these findings were drawn from a project conducted in a single educational context, this study nevertheless furthers understanding of the key factors and support structures required to best facilitate this type of collective motivational emergence. Analysis of the multiple qualitative datasets collected – teacher and student Skype interviews and personal diary/journal entries – offered strong affirmation that all core DMC markers were identifiable. These included students surpassing their expectations, the goal constantly being on their mind and their enjoying investing the considerable levels of time and effort the course demanded. Both students and teachers described and experienced the course as being something special, and all but one student reported wanting to repeat the experience. Data was collected from both teacher and student perspectives, addressing a common criticism that has been levied against previous work relying primarily on teacher perspectives of project work (Beckett, 1999, 2002). Most notable from an educational standpoint were the considerable language gains perceived throughout the five weeks, as reported by students, teachers and those external to the immediate process, such as other staff at the school. These language gains appeared most pronounced in relation to students’ verbal communication skills – in speaking and listening – and in students’ overall presentation abilities. Vocabulary knowledge was a second area that was suggested to have been greatly impacted throughout the project, and not only did students report feeling that their vocabulary knowledge had considerably broadened, but also that the project had allowed them to put into active use vocabulary they had previously struggled to use productively. (This also provides an interesting connection to another field of SLA: it is of note that the development of productive vocabulary skills is currently a question at the forefront of the vocabulary research agenda; Schmitt, 2019.) Of significance, too, were teachers’ reports of students’

192  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

magnified desire to proactively seek out new words and phrases to use in communication with their peers and others outside the classroom: there is evidence that the project empowered students to take ownership of their learning in a way seldom seen in traditional classrooms. Finally, hand in hand with students’ perceived language gains, data from this study also provides evidence that students made notable strides in the development of related professional skills, such as working as a productive member of a team – particularly in multicultural teams – and in their organisational and general communication skills. The design of the project incorporated all key foundations suggested by Dörnyei et al. (2016), which were believed to be required for the success of such a project: a salient end goal that was both real and authentic and which created a tangible outcome and real audience; specific subgoals related to both the project and specific language competencies; and the creation of well developed group roles and norms within the class, leading to a strong group dynamic. Factors stressed by students themselves as key to aiding their perceived L2 development included the fact that it was a ‘real’ situation, the sheer volume of communicative interaction the course demanded in multifarious unexpected and unpredictable contexts and with a wide variety of speakers, and, finally, the relationships and deep bonds they formed with their classmates. The cumulative pedagogical implications for the application of DMC theory to language education seem exciting. Group DMCs have been reported on previously through the anecdotal descriptions of group projects in language classrooms, and the findings here provide initial empirical evidence that such experiences might be purposefully and deliberately facilitated. Such interventions will not always lead to group DMC emergence, yet even partial DMC experiences may still contain within them considerable levels of motivational energy. The empirical evidence discussed in Part 2 indicated that DMCs might be experienced by individuals of all demographic and contextual backgrounds, suggesting that such interventions might be successfully employed in diverse classroom contexts around the world. Although the results in these pages only scratch the surface of these questions, the future of DMC research in the context of language education is surely bright. The Future of DMC Research

Throughout this book, I have already highlighted several calls for further research as they have arisen throughout discussion. To stand alongside the tantalising future research directions discussed above in relation to SA and the potential longer-term effects of DMCs, in this final section I bring these other lines of thought together, collating them into a single narrative. I begin by highlighting future research avenues

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  193

able to build on the initial findings that emerged from the data collected via the DMC Disposition Questionnaire in Part 2, and I highlight a note of caution with regards to our methodological choices here. I continue by suggesting several promising avenues of research relating to the practical translation of DMC theory via the use of intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’, and conclude by foregrounding the potential, the opportunities and the need for academic-practitioner collaboration and for practitioner research in these areas. The overall success of the DMC Disposition Questionnaire and the development of the DMC Disposition Scale foregrounds an obvious starting point for future research. The initial challenge faced by this study – finding an appropriate way to explain to participants what a DMC is – appears to have been successfully overcome through the use of the initial descriptors. However, this is likely not to be the only, nor potentially even the most effective way to achieve this in all future iterations. Investigation of specific learner populations, for example, may be able to take advantage of this by tailoring these statements to participants’ backgrounds/context, or even to present them in participants’ L1. Future research might look in more detail at defined populations in specific contexts, and employ sampling techniques that do not rely on participant self-selection. Comparative studies would be welcome in order to compare different sample groups, both against each other and the findings presented here. Sample groups, for example, focusing in on the experience of L2 DMCs, both teacher and learner L2 DMC experiences, and an adapted version of this questionnaire might also differentiate between the experience of individual and group DMC experiences. It would be interesting to investigate whether individual and group DMC experiences are equally commonly reported, and the extent to which the experience of one correlates with experience of the other (i.e. is someone who reports having experienced a group DMC more likely also to report on individual DMC experiences? And vice versa?). An important finding presented in Part 2 was the unexpected richness of the insights that were achieved through the qualitative responses collected via the DMC Disposition Questionnaire. These datasets have not only expanded current understanding with regards to the variety of DMC triggers, but they have also opened up a new research direction with the identification of negative experiences within what otherwise appeared to be strong DMC experiences. This is a key area for further study, and future research to expand on this would be welcome through both quantitative and qualitative means. The finding relating to the split in responses from participants over and under the age of 30 is an additional interesting area for investigation, with work needed to assess the meaningfulness of this. Future research exploring the relationship between DMC Disposition and other individual difference factors is a further fascinating

194  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

avenue for future research. The presence of an ‘autotelic personality’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975/2000) has been identified within the flow literature, and we have likewise previously suggested that some individuals may also have a greater predisposition to experience DMCs (Dörnyei et al., 2016). A sensible point at which to begin may be to investigate similar factors to those identified in relation to autotelic personalities in the context of flow (for example, including conscientiousness, Ross & Keiser, 2014, persistence or novelty-seeking, Teng, 2011; see Chapter 1). Even in the context of flow research – far more mature than research on DMCs – Swann et al. (2012) have noted that this has remained a relatively minor focus. With this in mind, future DMC research might look to understand DMCs as emergent from both internal and situational variables working in dynamic interaction (see Kimiecik & Stein, 1992, for a similar argument in the context of flow, and Chapter 1 for the growing importance of a complexity approach in the context of L2 motivation research). In this way, in turn, DMC research may also be able to contribute to the further development of understanding with regards to flow. Research into DMCs has begun to highlight and explore the relationships between DMCs and other variables, such as individuals’ self-efficacy, self-esteem, willingness to communicate, and L2 selves. I do not doubt that further research in this regard could prove to be highly valuable. This may not only develop understanding of potential ongoing effects of DMC experiences but may, concurrently, better enable us to facilitate and nurture such experiences in instructed contexts. The clear value of exploring the potential of facilitating L2 DMC experiences as a way to encourage subsequent L2 study (as discussed earlier in this chapter in relation to SA/STSA) – and particularly in typically monolingual environments such as the UK – requires little justification. Investigations drawing on the DMC Disposition Questionnaire are likely to be an important source of knowledge moving forwards. However, I wish to sound a note of caution on any over-reliance on the DMC Disposition Scale presented within. As Csikszentmihalyi (1992: 182) has described of his ‘ambivalence’ with regards to creating a similar measure of flow: the history of psychology is replete with examples of how barren important ideas become as soon as they are precisely ‘measured’ (we need only remember what happened to the idea of intelligence once it was identified with the IQ score). (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992: 182)

While there are certainly fascinating research questions demanding a quantitative approach, qualitative methods, capable of more fully capturing the lived experiences of DMCs as deeply rooted in the context in which they occur, I hope will form a parallel, central strand of work

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  195

moving forwards. To adapt Csikszentmihalyi’s turn of phrase, if we are simply to say that a DMC is equal to ‘x’ on the DMC Disposition Scale, we have lost it ... We have mistaken the reflection for the reality. The concept of flow [or of DMCs] describes a complex psychological state that has important consequences for human life. Any measure of flow [or of DMCs] we create will only be a partial reflection of this reality. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1992: 183; cf. both Jackson & Kimiecik, 2008, and Kimiecik & Stein, 1992, for further discussion of these methodological challenges)

In considering possible avenues that might be taken to further the research and findings presented in Part 3, the most obvious first step may be to run replication studies both in the same (for initial work in this regard see Muir et al., under review) and in other educational contexts (see Marsden et al., 2018, for growing emphasis on the importance of replication in SLA). Being able to contrast relative successes on different occasions and in different contexts will best serve to develop knowledge pertaining to which factors are most fundamental with respect to realising the ‘DMC potential’ of this project template. Participants in the study presented in Part 3 were predominantly in their twenties, and the class group was made up of a varied mix of nationalities and cultural backgrounds. Although this variation posed difficulties for students early on, ultimately this mixed demographic impacted positively on the success of the project. Further research is therefore required to investigate the potential of facilitating a group DMC with more homogeneous student groups. For example, what impact does this have on the time it takes for a group to become fully cohesive, the point at which a group DMC takes off, or the resulting group dynamic and strength of any group DMC that ultimately emerges? We must remain cognisant, likewise, that published research is likely to be biased towards studies reporting on ‘successful’ outcomes, over projects that may achieve variable or little success. From a pedagogical perspective, understanding the factors contributing to the failure of a project ‘with DMC potential’ to facilitate a group DMC will be similarly important (focusing on ‘critical incidents’ (cf. Butterfield et al., 2005) throughout the course of a DMC – positive and negative – may prove to be a valuable approach in this respect; see also Ushioda, 2016). The current study was based around an ‘All Eyes on the Final Product’ framework variant (Dörnyei et al., 2016), with the final goal being the organisation and hosting of a charity fundraising event. Investigation of this project framework might further be conducted varying the nature and content of the final goal. An increased focus in other fields of research has increasingly been on processes of goal pursuit (see, for example, Mercer, 2019, on student engagement), and

196  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

other novel questions have also come to the fore, such as the question of multiple goal pursuit (see Ballard et al., 2018; Neal et al., 2017). These emergent bodies of research are likely to contribute important insights into developing an understanding of goals also in the context of DMCs. Future research investigating other variants of the seven frameworks for focused interventions – and indeed other project frameworks not encapsulated within these templates – will also form an important avenue in carrying this research agenda forwards. The focus on group-level motivational emergence in Part 3 necessarily came at the expense of a more nuanced understanding of the individual motivational and learning trajectories of students throughout this project. This recognition therefore highlights another area where further research will be invaluable. Following closely the motivational trajectories and experiences of individual students while involved in group DMCs would not only help to more accurately gauge the success of discrete elements of a project, it would also provide more in-depth information as to where future interventions might focus efforts in order to proactively address potential issues before they arise. It is further likely that this understanding of the individual experiences of group DMCs will also offer important insights with regards to their facilitation at the group level. Several interesting future directions for research can also be identified with regards to our understanding of DMCs more broadly. Research into flow has indicated that, in some instances, different elements of the flow experience are weighted variably in terms of their importance to its emergence and experience (see Jackson, 1992; Kimiecik & Stein, 1992; Swann et al., 2012; Zumeta et al., 2016). Investigation of similar issues in the context of DMCs likewise has the potential to be infor­ mative. For example, the existence of a clearly defined final vision is one element that has been variably reported in DMC experiences to date (e.g. Henry et al., 2015). This recognition is similarly reflected in the seven proposed frameworks for focused interventions, positing that different design templates might be similarly effective, even when emphasising and centrally positioning different core defining features (Dörnyei et al., 2016). Clear links between DMCs and the emerging body of engagement research in SLA (see Mercer, 2019; Mercer & Dörnyei, 2020) are also identifiable. Although there is not a clear consensus regarding the definitional distinctions between motivation and engagement, engagement is most often distinguished from motivation through its association with action (rooted in the argument that an individual may be highly motivated, yet this intention may not necessarily be translated into active learning – or other – behaviours; Mercer, 2019). Although historically this has not been a prominent research topic in the field of SLA, Svalberg (2009, 2018) argues that there have in fact been discrete

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  197

bodies of research investigating different aspects of engagement (e.g. cognitive, affective and social), if under different guises. As Mercer (2019: 5) explains: ‘she [Svalberg] suggests that much L2 motivational research is concerned with what drives engagement and similarly L2 strategy research often examines types of cognitive engagement’. Mercer goes on to say: What is needed is a holistic framework that brings together various strands to understand language learning engagement as an action component of dynamic motivational processes in multilevel ecologies, such as within schools, classrooms, and interactions, and on micro- and macro-timescales such as across years of schooling and within the ­ minutes of working on a task. (Mercer, 2019: 6)

Mercer positions DMC research as having already taken initial steps in this regard. No L2-specific data was collected throughout the study, and herein lies a final, critical avenue for future research. The findings of such an avenue seem particularly promising not only stemming from the findings presented in Part 3, but also because of the relationship documented elsewhere between engagement and the perceived value of course content with students’ use of deep learning strategies (Floyd et al., 2009). Following a similar study design, it would be interesting to seek to capture changes in students’ spoken fluency, listening and presentation skills, and to investigate students’ vocabulary development. Proceduralisation and the development of productive vocabulary skills are more challenging for learners than the acquisition of receptive knowledge (cf. Laufer & Goldstein, 2004). The significant scope for vocabulary repetition that this particular project design afforded may be one reason for students’ perceived successes in this regard: frequency of exposure and the repeated retrieval of vocabulary items is thought to be critical (Barclay & Schmitt, 2019). Although the measurement of productive vocabulary is not without its own challenges (see Fitzpatrick & Clenton, 2010), Uchihara and Saito (2019) have suggested that research is certainly warranted to investigate whether, over time, meaning-oriented activities (such as projects) are capable of developing students’ productive vocabulary knowledge (which they demonstrated as being significantly related to participants’ L2 oral ability). In the context of vocabulary research this has been positioned as a key concern for future research (Schmitt, 2019), and the results presented in Part 3 suggest the potential for highly productive interdisciplinary investigation. Such a collaboration would also offer a response in answer to Ushioda’s call for motivation research to focus itself ‘through a small lens’, in part to ‘understand better how motivation connects with […] particular features of linguistic development’ (Ushioda, 2016: 564).

198  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

Practitioner research and DMCs

I have already highlighted the importance of academic-practitioner collaboration and of practitioner-led research in the investigation of (group) DMCs. By way of further shoring this up, I conclude this discussion of the future of DMC research – and this book – by underlining its potential. The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy has long been something of an uneasy one (cf. Ellis, 1997; Spada, 2019; Ur, 2019). Each has specialised ‘Discourses’ (see Gee, 2012), and SLA research findings rarely find their way into teachers’ hands, for reasons as varied as time pressures to lack of access (see Marsden & Kasprowicz, 2017; Marsden et al., 2019; Nassaji, 2012). Classroom practitioners are not only limited consumers of SLA research but, historically, practitioner-led research has also been sidelined with respect to prestige and publication: ‘even good quality small-scale classroom research undertaken by teachers or by student-researchers is unlikely to get published and reach a wider audience’ (Ushioda, 2016: 574; see also Burns, 2019). Alongside a drive to ensure that the findings of SLA research are accessible more broadly, so too are there moves to more fully support and empower teachers in conducting their own research in their own classrooms (Banegas & Consoli, 2019; Hanks 2017a, 2019). Partly rooted in the fact that DMC theory has offered specific frameworks for focused interventions, there is excellent scope for teachers to drive this research agenda forward, and to investigate the practical potential of each in facilitating group DMC emergence. In order to further develop understanding of intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’, such research should not only be actively welcomed: it is keenly needed. In the following sections, I highlight two particularly suitable approaches that practitioner-researchers might adopt in investigating specific aspects of group DMCs in their own classrooms: formative experiments (already introduced in the conclusion to Chapter 9) and action research. Practitioner research and DMCs: Formative experiments

In the conclusion to Chapter 9, I introduced formative experiments and explained how the inherent pedagogic, practical focus of this method makes it an ideal vehicle for researching the design and implementation of intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’. Bradley and Reinking (2011: 161) propose the following six questions as a ‘useful guide for others interested in conducting formative experiments’. In listing them below, I offer my own brief responses from the perspective of group DMCs in L2 classrooms (see also Muir, 2021, for a more detailed discussion of the ways in which formative experiments might be exploited in investigating group DMCs):

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  199

(1) What is the pedagogical goal and what theory establishes its value? The facilitation of a strong current of group-level motivation (i.e. the facilitation of the emergence of a group DMC). The specific L2 goal of any intensive group project ‘with DMC potential’ will be dependent on the nature of the intervention (e.g. increasing spoken fluency or productive vocabulary knowledge). (2) What classroom intervention has the potential to achieve the pedagogical goal? The introduction of an intensive group project ‘with DMC potential’. (3) What factors enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of the intervention in achieving the pedagogical goal? Factors influencing the effectiveness of a project ‘with DMC potential’ include the nature of the goal, project structure, personal relevance and feedback, among others. This is likely to vary across contexts. (4) How can the intervention be modified to achieve the pedagogical goal more effectively? ‘More effectively’ might be interpreted in different ways. For example, the earlier emergence of a group DMC, more reliable/consistent success in facilitating a group DMC, or striving for all students to experience a group DMC to the same/similar levels of intensity. Success will be affected by all the factors that emerged in answering the previous question. (5) What unanticipated positive or negative effects does the intervention produce? Unanticipated positive effects may include, for example, the development of teamwork skills, critical thinking or problem-solving abilities. Unanticipated negative effects may include students feeling overwhelmed, tired or frustrated, during or after the experience. (6) Has the instructional environment changed as a result of the intervention? Positive changes may include a greater openness from others (teachers, students, parents, management) to projects, and greater financial and/ or time investment from relevant stakeholders (see also earlier in this chapter the discussion of potential long-term positive effects of DMC experiences). Negative experiences may lead to no change at all or, worse, increased reticence to engaging with projects. Practitioner research and DMCs: Action research

I title this subheading in alignment with Burns, who recently highlighted the use of the term ‘action research’ as being ‘sometimes seen as part of a more general movement toward teacher research, where a variety of different approaches and terminology may be found’ (Burns, 2019: 2). As Burns (2019) explains, this broader umbrella term may include practitioner research, teacher research, collaborative or critical inquiry (as listed by Borg, 2013), or similarly exploratory

200  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

practice (Allwright & Hanks, 2009; Hanks, 2019) or reflective practice (Farrell, 2018). Regardless of the terminology, all are ‘unified by the central idea of teachers reflecting on their practices and doing research in their own classrooms, teaching contexts, and educational settings’ (Burns, 2019: 2). From a methodological perspective, action research may take many different forms, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative approaches and disparate methods of data collection (from classroom observations and teacher journals to questionnaires and focus groups). Data collected will depend on the phenomenon of interest, yet all approaches tend to follow a largely similar cycle of reflection: plan, act, observe, reflect (Burns, 2010). To focus on just one of the traditions noted above, exploratory practice is particularly compelling thanks to the fact that it actively intertwines both research and pedagogy. Exploratory practice positions learners as co-researchers, rather than participants, and rather than a focus on finding ‘solutions’ to ‘problems’, the focus is on puzzling (Hanks, 2015a, 2015b). As Hanks explains: Arguing that solving the problem may be successful, but will not necessarily yield an explanation of why the problem happened in the first place, EP aims instead to focus on developing understanding(s). That is to say: ‘puzzling’ or ‘puzzlement’ or ‘being puzzled’ about an issue in the language learning lives of teachers and learners. The focus means moving away from ‘how (to)’, and embracing instead ‘why’, as the deeper rationale with research. (Hanks, 2017a: 6)

Allwright (2003) offers a good example of the relevance of teachers’ puzzling and working for understanding in this way. In response to concerns about her students being unable to stay in the L2 while undertaking group work, rather than looking to design and conduct a questionnaire study (‘the “academic” example of colleagues’ (Allwright, 2003: 118); this also taps into a wider criticism of some action research approaches that they place unrealistic burdens on language teachers to conduct research to be judged against the same standards as academic researchers, see Bailey, 1998), the teacher asked her students to discuss this issue themselves in groups. As Allwright describes: Impressed with her students’ seriousness, she felt she had learned a lot from attending to their group discussions, developing both intellectual and empathetic understanding of their problems. They too seemed more understanding of each other, both cognitively and affectively. Wonderfully, when they next got into groups to discuss something, they tried much harder than before to keep to English. So, a practical ‘problem’ that needed to be solved had become an issue of understanding that virtually resolved itself. (Allwright, 2003: 118–119).

Revisiting the Seven Frameworks for Focused Interventions  201

In other words, ‘sometimes, “understanding” [is] itself sufficient’ (Allwright, 2003: 118). In this sense, Allwright (2003) positions exploratory practice as a collegial activity. The understandings that emerge may not be immediately generalisable to a global audience: ‘who stands to gain most, most immediately, from any improved understanding will surely be the teacher and the learners (rather than “academic researchers”, say)’. Next in line to benefit will be teachers’ colleagues, their immediate professional networks, and so on (Allwright, 2003: 131). Such an approach to teaching and research has infinite potential to develop robust, situated understandings related to practical issues surrounding the facilitation of group DMC experiences in specific educational contexts (see also Medgyes, 2017). A final important element of exploratory practice is its use of ‘normal pedagogic practices as investigative tools’ (Allwright, 2003: 127). In the context of the current discussion of group DMCs, a fascinating example of this is offered by Hanks (2017b; see also Hanks, 2015a). She describes an exploratory practice approach in which students undertaking a pre-sessional EAP course were challenged to work for better understanding of their own puzzles. For students, this began with their attending an introductory lecture on exploratory practice (a ‘normal pedagogic practice’ used to develop skills such as listening and note taking), and led to students developing and investigating their own puzzles in collaboration with peers who were similarly curious (such projects also being typical of these types of courses). Students’ puzzles were directly relevant to their own experiences and personal learning journeys, and, for example, included questions such as ‘Why can’t I remember and use new vocabulary?’ and ‘Why can’t I speak English well after studying for a long time?’ It is fascinating to note that in Hanks’ (2017b) discussion, there is even evidence that students experienced a surge of motivational energy while completing this project, reminiscent of group DMCs. Exploratory practice therefore not only provides an excellent vehicle for teachers to puzzle their own topics of interest in relation to group DMCs in L2 classrooms, but may also itself form the basis of an intensive group project ‘with DMC potential’. This type of project design would fall under the ‘Detective Work’ framework variant, and Hanks’ (2017b) study provides an archetypal example of exactly the type of ‘intellectual treasure hunt’ that we imagined (Dörnyei et al., 2016: 191). Conclusion

DMC research doubtless remains in its infancy. As Part 4 of this book has highlighted, there remain multiple research avenues yet to be investigated, and it may well be the case that they bring unexpected or intriguing findings, possibly even some that may prove to be at odds

202  Part 4: The Future of DMC Research

with some of the conclusions presented in this book. This continued questioning and examination of DMCs will, I do not doubt, continue to develop and deepen our understanding of both their theoretical basis and pedagogical application, and is certainly to be welcomed. Throughout this book, I have overviewed the current state of understanding with regards both to directed motivational currents and educational projects, and I have introduced and explored the findings of two international studies. These results have served to considerably extend our understanding of DMCs as related to both theory and practice. Although the results presented within these pages are highly encouraging, they have provoked just as many questions as they have been able to answer. Only time will tell whether the full promise of DMCs and of DMC research will come to fruition. Yet, I am sure that these possibilities are real and rich. DMCs offer a very real advance with regards to our understanding of long-term motivational processes and prolonged engagement in language learning. Additionally, by drawing on the foundation of intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’, we are afforded a tangible avenue by which we may be able to harness the motivational potential that DMCs contain in instructed language learning contexts. Stoller (2006) has previously argued, in relation to projects, that there has been little on which to base a strong theoretical foundation, highlighting a reason as to why much of the research into projects in language education has drawn heavily from findings in related fields in general education. It may be that the DMC framework is able to provide the theoretical springboard for future research into L2 projects which the field has heretofore been lacking. This is a potential that educational projects have long promised, yet have previously so mercurially delivered. Over the years to come I look forward to witnessing the extent to which this promise is able to be fully realised in practice. Notes (1) www.dofe.org (2) www.storyline.org

Afterword

In this brief Afterword, I highlight further advice, resources and reading which may be of use in the planning, running and researching of projects ‘with DMC potential’. Some Practical Advice

Comprehensive practical advice on designing and managing intensive group projects ‘with DMC potential’ would comprise another book in itself. Yet, to complement the discussion in Chapter 9, in the following I hope to offer a productive starting point. A particularly useful reference article is Oakley et al. (2004) and its discussion with regards how to turn student groups into effective teams. Although much of the advice can also be found in writing in the field of SLA, this article includes several practical resources that might be easily adapted for any classroom, and it offers a concise overview of many of these issues in relation to managing educational projects. The authors further offer additional handout templates designed to be given to students as a basis for discussion at the outset and in setting up a project, and at key points throughout. They include, for example, sample Team Policies (to be amended/agreed by groups as appropriate), advice on Coping with Hitchhikers and Couch Potatoes (again to be discussed in groups and outcomes agreed collaboratively at the outset), and also for the Evaluation of Progress Towards Effective Team Functioning (to be given out part way through a project, either to identify and deal with problems or as a means to highlight particularly effective practices, or both). This article further offers a helpful ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section, in which the authors share how they themselves have dealt with common challenges and concerns. A further practical resource text, designed to help build positive dynamics among learner groups, is Hadfield’s (1992/2013) Classroom Dynamics (activities are grouped under three sections: ‘Forming the group’, ‘Maintaining the group’, and ‘Ending the group experience’). Rooted in our experience of running multiple iterations of the project presented in Part 3 of this book, Jessica Florent, David Leach 203

204  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

and I have also distilled several initial points of advice for the design and management of motivational group projects (Muir et al., under review). Some of these I have already highlighted throughout Part 3, yet all are summarised in full below: (1) Talking about the goal is not enough! The only way to make it clear to students is for them to experience it. Any instance of group DMC emergence will be held back until students are fully cognisant of what it is they need to do: even though the goal of the project was explicitly explained to students (see Part 3), it represented such a departure from the types of challenges they were used to being faced with throughout their language learning that students did not ‘believe’ it. In the context of this project, in subsequent iterations we helped students to experience what it was that we were asking of them through the introduction of a ‘minimorning tea’ in the first week of the course. (2) Get a calendar and fill it in with key subgoals before you start. In order to help channel students’ goal striving, limit the project to foregrounding a single content goal – for example, raising money for charity (in subsequent iterations of this project, the parallel project goals highlighted in Chapter 9, for example raising the profile of the school via engagement on social media, were omitted in order to provide students with a single focus for their energies). The schematic reproduced in Figure Afterword.1 offers a good example of the type of planning needed: this is able to make clear, prior to beginning, exactly the resources needed, competencies to be developed and tasks to be completed en route. (See also Appendix 5 for the Project Framework given to students for the project described in Part 3 of this book, offering students a similar representation of what they should expect from the project.) This might also be complemented with a similar planning graphic laid out on a calendar from the start to end dates of a course, also factoring in other responsibilities and deadlines that students might be required to meet elsewhere during this time. (3) The Hisashi principle: directly assess and address potential hurdles before they occur. During a later iteration of this project, Hisashi, the Japanese student after which this principle was named, suggested an excellent awarenessraising task to address an issue he was struggling with: engaging fully in debate and discussions with a group of peers with very different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. He suggested that students team with peers from similar backgrounds and perform short ‘role plays’, acting out what a typical business meeting would look like in their own contexts. This very effectively made clear the different ways in which meetings can be conducted, and the subsequent Q&A session

Afterword 205

Figure Afterword.1  Sketch of a project on creating a video clip to be used as class material (taken from Dooly & Masats, 2011: 45)

helped students to understand the roots of some of their frustrations with their peers. While potential hurdles themselves will be different in different contexts, they should always be consciously considered and, where possible, addressed directly. (4) Practice makes perfect. Projects can offer an excellent vehicle for various aspects of L2 fluency development, so be sure to exploit this! In the context of the current project, this led to checklists including, for example, ‘Ask 3 people if they would be willing to bake cupcakes’ and ‘Approach 15 people to sell raffle tickets’. All students were required to complete all checklist items, and, once students had overcome their initial fears with regards to each task by completing it the required number of times, they often proactively went on and continued further. The same process was always followed: prepare-do-debrief, prepare-do-debrief. (5) If you know your students, trust in the process. Full commitment from teachers is very important, and, as seen in Part 3, it may often be the case that teachers also become swept up in any emerging group DMC. With this in mind it is important to ensure that we do not overstep in ways that will lessen the potential benefits of the project for students: there is a need to be available without hovering, to offer specific language support and scaffolding without directing and limiting the course of discussion, to offer encouragement and affirmative feedback … and then to stand back and trust in the process. (Yes, sometimes curbing our own enthusiasm for the project in order to empower students to find theirs!).

206  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Useful Websites

With the rise in projects (and all related variants, e.g. problembased learning) across multiple educational disciplines, there has emerged a growing body of resources on the internet which not only offers ideas and advice with regards to project content and design, but also with regards to project implementation and leadership. While not all advice might be directly relevant to all contexts (indeed, much of this is not rooted in the context of SLA), there is a wealth of advice and information available. In this section, I list several particularly well known and well designed websites relating to educational projects. Buck Institute for Education’s PBLWorks (pblworks.org)

Perhaps the most comprehensive of all these websites, offering resources, project ideas and advice. Creating a free online account unlocks access to further content and resources. Edutopia (edutopia.org/project-based-learning)

In addition to offering project content ideas, this website is peppered with blogs and vlogs with advice regarding the practicalities of running projects – from helping students to stay on task, what to do when projects fail, and everything in between. High Tech High (hightechhigh.org/student-work/student-projects)

The High Tech High schools are a group of highly successful independent schools in the US which use projects as their primary method of instruction, catering for students from kindergarten to graduate level. This website includes a wealth of completed projects, the descriptions of many of which also include further useful practical information (for example, specific intended learning outcomes). REAL Projects (real-projects.org)

REAL here stands for Rigorous, Engaging, Authentic Learning. This initiative is supported by the UK based Innovation Unit and, while it is set up primarily to support schools rather than individual teachers, the stories and projects described may nevertheless offer inspiration and spark ideas. Global Schoolnet (globalschoolnet.org)

This website is a fascinating platform, which aims to connect teachers and learners worldwide looking to collaborate in diverse

Afterword 207

educational projects. Their ‘Online Expeditions’ section, for example, is particularly interesting (globalschoolnet.org/gsnexpeditions): this has not only facilitated class groups being able to follow global expeditions in real time, but it also provides a wealth of resources surrounding these expeditions that might be adapted as the basis for projects (‘with DMC potential’), even after they have finished. Storyline (storyline-scotland.com)

Introduced in Part 4, Storyline is an approach initially developed in Scotland (and it has since been adopted in contexts worldwide), aimed primarily at engaging younger learners with project work. Although at present it seems to be no longer regularly updated, the website links to further history, project reports and ideas that may nevertheless be of use. Researching Projects ‘with DMC potential’ (A Guide to the Appendices)

In the Appendices, I have included the data collection tools that were used in the study presented in Part 3. Although they are unlikely to be appropriate for direct use in all classrooms, they offer a tangible example of the way in which we adapted Beckett and Slater’s (2005) Project Framework for this specific project sequence (for example, note the links between the Project Framework document in Appendix 5 and the corresponding spaces in the student diaries for students to voice their thoughts in corresponding sections: language, content and skills, Appendix 2). Other means of data collection may encourage more engagement: for example, student data collected not via printed booklets but via technology could potentially be more effective (or even better still, allowing students to choose how they would prefer to participate). In Muir (2021) I explore in detail potentially interesting research questions, approaches and ideas with regards to researching group DMCs, and group-level motivational emergence more broadly. This chapter – (Muir, 2021) and indeed the entire volume in which it can be found (Sampson & Pinner, 2021) – is directly written for an audience of practitioner-researchers interested in beginning research from a complexity perspective, and as such offers considerable additional practical advice and explanation.

Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire with Response/Routing Options

Unless otherwise stated, completion of each page took participants directly on to the next. Page 1 (Front page)

If under 16 participant directed to Page 8

208

Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire with Response/Routing Options   209

Page 2

If NEVER, participant directed to Page 6

210  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Page 3

Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire with Response/Routing Options   211

Page 4

212  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Page 5

Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire with Response/Routing Options   213

Page 6

214  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Page 7

[Page 7 continues on next page]

Appendix 1: Full Questionnaire with Response/Routing Options   215

Page 7 (continued)

If No participant directed to Page 9

If Yes participant directed to Page 10 (confirmation of submission)

216  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10 (Confirmation of submission)

Appendix 2: Student Diary Template and a Sample Completed Page

217

218  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Appendix 3: Teacher Journal Template and a Sample Completed Page

219

220  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Appendix 4: Traditional School Timetable and the Timetable for Week 1 of the Project

Table A4.1  Traditional course timetable

The traditional course timetable is shown in Table A4.1:

221

Break

L1

Jessica

MON

David (& Jessica)

Language focus Key vocabulary/phrases introduced Jessica

David

Project/presentation focus ‘Rough’ presentation groups formed and areas of focus for presentation defined (to pitch ideas back to management on Friday)/discussion in small groups

THURS

10.30–11.00

Project focus Research in groups (fundraising, Cancer Council, the university, the ‘biggest morning tea’)

Presentations focus Presentation language & skills/preparation, practice and feedback/signposting language & pitching ideas

Project introduction Project idea pitched to students/ students watch pre-recorded Christine intro video/details of the study explained and consent forms signed by students/student diaries introduced

Introductory ‘get to know you’ activities

WED

TUES

David

(Continued on next page)

Presentation/project focus Presentations finalised and practised

Listening focus Reviewed language and structures from listening homework – reviewed vocab spelling from previous work

FRI

Table A4.2 shows the lesson plans for Week 1 of the study described in Part 3. (Monday of Week 1 was taken up with testing new students entering the school: the first week of each five-week course traditionally begins on the Tuesday.)

Class

Table A4.2  Lesson outlines for Week 1 of the study described in Part 3

222  Directed Motivational Currents and Language Education

Finish

L3

Break

L2

Class

3.45

Jessica

Jessica

MON

David

Writing focus Email introductions and various functions of first paragraphs, e.g. apologising, asking for information, etc. Students to write David an email formally introducing themselves

David

Jessica 3.30

Listening, note taking & discussion focus Guest speaker: team building workshop given by expert Neil First student diary entry completed/goals set for Friday/rest of week

12.45–1.45

Jessica

Project focus Students attend a formal ‘client brief’ at the university with the key stakeholders that they will be ‘working for’/project goals laid out in explicit terms/advice given as to how to approach the project/Q & A session

Reading focus Reading text & additional vocab on the topics of teamwork and fundraising

Pronunciation/listening focus Pair dictation/frequent changes in pair/ group combinations to help to establish the class group

WED

TUES

David

Language focus Pair dictation/work idioms

Speaking/project focus Teacher-led discussion to get as many ideas on the board as possible inspired by Deborah’s talk

Reading focus Key vocab/strategies from reading homework used in ‘ask your partner’ questions/frequent partner changes to make sure everybody knows everyone’s name

David

Listening/project focus Guest speaker: Talk given by Deborah from the Cancer Council/Q & A session

THURS

Table A4.2  Lesson outlines for Week 1 of the study described in Part 3 (Continued)

Friday afternoon activities

1.00

David

Presentation/project focus Pitch back to Frances with their ideas & what they want to do/ Feedback and Q & A session Student diary entries completed/goals set on Wednesday reviewed/new goals set for next week/Round up of work and achievements of the week

FRI

Appendix 2: Student Diary Template and a Sample Completed Page  223

Appendix 5: Project Framework

224

References

Aarts, H. and Custers, R. (2012) Unconscious goal pursuit: Nonconscious goal regulations and motivation. In R.M. Ryan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 232–247). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A. and Dik, G. (2008) Goal contagion. In J.Y. Shah and W. Gardner (eds) Handbook of Motivation Science (pp. 265–280). New York, NY: Guildford. Adler, P. (1981) Momentum. A Theory of Social Action. Beverly Hills & London: Sage Publications. Ahlquist, S. (2013) ‘Storyline’: A task-based approach for the young learner classroom. ELT Journal 67 (1), 41–51. Ahlquist, S. (2019) Motivating teens to speak English through group work in Storyline. ELT Journal 73 (4), 387–395. Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 (2), 179–211. Al-Hoorie, A. (2019) Motivation and the unconscious. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) Palgrave Macmillan Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (561–578). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Allen, H.W. (2010) Language-learning motivation during short-term study abroad: An activity theory perspective. Foreign Language Annals 43 (1), 27–49. Allen, H.W. and Herron, C. (2003) A mixed-methodology investigation of the linguistic and affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals 36 (3), 370–385. Allwright, D. (2003) Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research 7 (2), 113–141. Allwright, D. and Hanks, J. (2009) The Developing Language Learner: An Introduction to Exploratory Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Alrabai, F. (2016) The effects of teachers’ in-class motivational intervention on learners’ EFL achievement. Applied Linguistics 37 (3), 307–333. Al-Shehri, A.S. (2009) Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self, imagination and visual style. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 164–171). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Amador, J.A., Miles, L. and Peters, C.B. (2006) The Practice of Problem-Based Learning. A Guide to Implementing PBL in the College Classroom. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. Ames, C. (1992) Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 84 (3), 261–271. Anderman, E.M., Anderman, L.H. and Griesinger, T. (1999) The relation of present and possible academic selves during early adolescence to grade point average and achievement goals. The Elementary School Journal 100 (1), 3–17. Apple, M.T., Da Silva, D. and Fellner, T. (eds) (2017) L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Arnold, J. (ed.) (1999) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

225

226 References

Arnold, J. (2011) Attention to affect in language learning. Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 22 (1), 11–22. Arnold, J., Dörnyei, Z. and Pugliese, C. (2015) The Principled Communicative Approach: Seven Criteria for Success. London: Helbling Languages. Atkinson, D. (2010) Extended, embodied cognition and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 31 (5), 599–622. Aube, C., Brunelle, E. and Rousseau, V. (2014) Flow experience and team performance: The role of team goal commitment and information exchange. Motivation and Emotion 38, 120–130. Aubrey, S. and Nowlan, A.G.P. (2013) Effect of intercultural contact on L2 motivation: A comparative study. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan (pp. 129–151). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Badstübner, T. and Ecke, P. (2009) Student expectations, motivations, target language use, and perceived learning progress in a summer study abroad program in Germany. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German 42 (1), 41–49. Bailey, K. (1998) Approaches to empirical research in instructional settings. In H. Byrnes (ed.) Learning Foreign and Second Languages: Perspectives in Research and Scholarship (pp. 123–178). New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America. Bakker, A.B (2005) Flow among music teachers and their students: The crossover of peak experiences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66, 400–414. Bakker, A.B., Oerlemans, W., Demerouti, E., Slot, B.B. and Ali, D.A. (2011) Flow and performance: A study among talented Dutch soccer players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12, 442–450. Ballard, T., Vancouver, J.B. and Neal, A. (2018) On the pursuit of multiple goals with different deadlines. Journal of Applied Psychology 103 (11), 1242–1264. Bambirra, R. (2016) A snapshot of signature dynamics in an English class in Brazil: From a motivational attractor basin towards an attractor state. Turkish Online Journal of English Language Teaching 1 (1), 20–32. Bandura, A. (1977a) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84 (2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (1977b) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. and Schunk, D.H. (1981) Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 (3), 586–598. Bandura, A. and Simon, K.M. (1977) The role of proximal intentions in self-regulation of refractory behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research 1 (3), 177–193. Banegas, D.L. and Consoli, S. (2019) Action research in language education. In J. McKinley and H. Rose (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics (pp. 176–187). London: Routledge. Barclay, S. and Schmitt, N. (2019) Current perspectives on vocabulary teaching and learning. In X.A. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 799–819). New York, NY: Springer. Barcley, E.F. (2010) Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bargh, J.A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54 (7), 462–479. Bargh, J.A., Lombardi, W.J. and Higgins, E.T. (1988) Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation. Effects on person perception: It’s just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (4), 599–605. Bargh, J.A., Gollwitzer, P.M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K. and Trötschel, R. (2001) The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (6), 1014–1027.

References 227

Barsade, S.G. (2002) The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (4), 644–675. Barsade, S.G. and Gibson, D.E. (2012) Group affect: Its influence on individual and group outcomes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21 (2), 119–123. Baumann, N. and Scheffer, D. (2010) Seeing and mastering difficulty: The role of affective change in achievement flow. Cognition and Emotion 24 (8), 1304–1328. Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R. and Bagozzi, R.P (2008) Future-oriented emotions: Conceptualization and behavioral effects. European Journal of Social Psychology 38, 685–696. Beckett, G.H. (1999) Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school’s ESL classes: Goals and evaluations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Beckett, G.H. (2002) Teacher and student evaluations of project-based instruction. TESL Canada Journal 19 (2), 52–66. Beckett, G.H. (2006a) Project-based second and foreign language education: Theory, research and practice. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 3–16). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beckett, G.H. (2006b) Beyond second language acquisition. Secondary school ESL teacher goals and actions for project-based instruction. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 55–70). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beckett, G.H. and Chamness Miller, P. (eds) (2006) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Beckett, G.H. and Slater, T. (2005) The project framework: A tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT Journal 59 (2), 108–116. Beckett, G.H. and Slater, T. (eds) (2020) Global Perspectives on Project-based Language Learning, Teaching, and Assessment: Key Approaches, Technology Tools, and Frameworks. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Bell, S., Harkness, S. and White, G. (eds) (2007) Storyline: Past, Present and Future. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde. Bishop, L. (2018) Collaborative musical creativity: How ensembles coordinate spontaneity. Frontiers in Psychology 9, 1285. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01285. Bless, H. and Fiedler, K. (2006) Mood and the regulation of information processing. In J.P. Forgas (ed.) Affect in Social Cognition and Behavior (pp. 65–84). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z. and Ryan, S. (2015) L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding a publication surge and a changing landscape. System 55, 145–157. Borg, S. (2006) The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers. Language Teaching Research 10 (1), 3–31. Borg, S. (2013) Teacher Research in Language Teaching: A Critical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boudreau, C., MacIntyre, P.D. and Dewaele, J.-M. (2018) Enjoyment and anxiety in second language communication: An idiodynamic approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8 (1), 149–170. Bradley, B.A. and Reinking, D. (2011) Revisiting the connection between research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N.K. Duke and M.H. Mallette (eds) Literacy Research Methodologies (pp. 188–212). New York: Guildford Press. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2), 77–101. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2012) Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P.M. Camic, D.L. Long, A.T. Panter, D. Rindskopf and K.J. Sher (eds) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological (pp. 57–71). Washington: American Psychological Association.

228 References

Breen, M. (1989) The evaluation cycle for language learning tasks. In R.K. Johnson (ed.) The Second Language Curriculum (pp. 187–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Briki, W. and Markman, K.D. (2018) Psychological momentum: The phenomenology of goal pursuit. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 12 (9), e12412. Brown, J.D. (2001) Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruckmaier, E. (2019) The wildest lessons ever! A book project in fifth grade to foster reading motivation in ELT. CLELE Journal 7 (1), 21–45. Burns, A. (2010) Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge. Burns, A. (2019) Action research in English language teaching: Contributions and recent developments. In X.A. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York, NY: Springer. Busse, V. (2013) An exploration of motivation and self-beliefs of first year students of German. System 41, 379–398. Butterfield, L.D., Borgen, W.A., Amundson, N.E. and Maglio, A-S.T. (2005) Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research 5 (4), 475–497. Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (2001) Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan and M. Swain (eds) Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge. Carpenter, C., Falout, J., Fukuda, T., Trovela, M. and Murphey, T. (2009) Helping students repack for remotivation and agency. In A.M. Stoke (ed.) JALT 2008 Conference Proceedings (pp. 259–274). Tokyo, JALT. Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (1990) Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review 97 (1), 19–35. Case, R. (2006) Project work as a conduit for change in the newcomers classroom. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 123–141). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Cates, K.A. and Jacobs, G. (2006) Global issue projects in the English language classroom. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 167–180). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Challenge Based Learning: A Classroom Guide (2010) Apple Inc. Retrieved from https:// www.apple.com/education/docs/CBL_Classroom_Guide_Jan_2011.pdf. Chamness Miller, P. (2006) Integrating second language standards into project-based instruction. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 225–240). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Chan, L., Dörnyei, Z. and Henry, A. (2015) Learner archetypes and signature dynamics in the language classroom: A retrodictive qualitative modelling approach to studying L2 motivation. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 238–259). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Chang, C.-H.D., Johnson, R.E. and Lord, R.G. (2009) Moving beyond discrepancies: The importance of velocity as a predictor of satisfaction and motivation. Human Performance 23 (1), 58–80. Chang, L.Y.-H. (2007) The influences of group processes on learners’ autonomous beliefs and behaviours. System 35 (3), 322–337. Chang, L.Y.-H. (2010) Group processes and EFL learners’ motivation: A study of group dynamics in EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 44 (1), 129–154. Churchill, E. and DuFon, M.A. (2006) Evolving threads in study abroad research. In M.A. DuFon and E. Churchill (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 1–27). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

References 229

Clément, R. (1980) Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H. Giles, W.P. Robinson and P.M. Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford: Pergamon. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. and Schauble, L. (2003) Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32 (1), 9–13. Coleman, J.A. (1992) Project-based learning, transferable skills, information technology and video. Language Learning Journal 5 (1), 35–37. Coleman, J.A., Galaczi, A. and Astruc, L. (2007) Motivation of UK school pupils towards foreign languages: A large-scale survey at Key Stage 3. Language Learning Journal 35 (2), 245–280. Colombo, M.R. (2017) Understanding L2 motivation through selves and currents: Lessons from students in an innovative business Spanish course. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Iowa. Couper, M.P., Traugott, M.W. and Lamias, M.J. (2001) Web survey design and administration. Public Opinion Quarterly 65, 230–253. Cox, R.H. (2012) Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications (7th edn). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2016) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (4th edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975/2000) Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play (2nd edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988) The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi and I.S. Csikszentmihalyi (eds) Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness (pp. 15–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992) A response to the Kimiecik & Stein and Jackson papers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 4, 181–183. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Csikszentmihalyi, I.S. (eds) (1988) Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. and LeFevre, J. (1989) Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 (5), 815–822. Csizér, K. and Kormos, J. (2009) Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 98–119). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Csizér, K. and Lukás, C. (2010) The comparative analysis of motivation, attitudes and selves: The case of English and German in Hungary. System 38, 1–13. Csizér, K. and Magid, M. (2014) (eds) The Impact of Self-Concept on Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Cubillos, J.H., Chieffo, L. and Fan, C. (2008) The impact of short-term study abroad programs on L2 listening comprehension skills. Foreign Language Annals 41 (1), 157–185. Custers, R. and Aarts, H. (2007) Goal-discrepant situations prime goal-directed actions if goals are temporarily or chronically accessible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (5), 623–633. Dave, B. and Danahy, J. (2000) Virtual study abroad and exchange studio. Automation in Construction 9, 57–71. Davis, B. and Sumara, D. (2006) Complexity and Education: Enquiries into Learning, Teaching and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. De Bot, K. (2015) Rates of change: Timescales in second language development. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 29–37). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. De Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21.

230 References

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2006) Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of Happiness Studies 9, 1–11. DeKeyser, R. (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. In J. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeKeyser, R.M. and Prieto Botana, G. (2019) Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling Methodological Demands and Pedagogical Applicability. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DeVellis, R.F. (2003) Scale Development: Theory and Applications (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dewaele, J.-M. (2015) On emotions in foreign language and learning use. Language Teacher 39 (3), 13–15. Dewaele, J.-M. and MacIntyre, P.D. (2014) The two faces of Janus? Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 4 (2), 237–274. Dillman, D.A., Tortora, R.D. and Bowker, D. (1998) Principles for Constructing Web Surveys. Washington: Pullman. Doherty, D. and Eyring, J. (2006) Instructor experiences with project work in the adult ESL classroom. A case study. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Projectbased Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 95–122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Dolmans, D. and Schmidt, H. (2010) The problem-based learning process. In H. van Berkel, A. Scherpbier, H. Hillen and C. van der Vleuten (eds) Lessons from Problem-based Learning (pp. 13–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dooly, M. and Masats, D. (2011) Closing the loop between theory and praxis: New models in EFL teaching. ELT Journal 65 (1), 42–51. Dooly, M. and Sadler, R. (2016) Becoming little scientists: Technologically-enhanced project-based language learning. Language Learning and Technology 20 (1), 54–78. Dörnyei, Z. (1997) Psychological processes in cooperative language learning: Group dynamics and motivation. Modern Language Journal 81 (4), 482–493. Dörnyei, Z. (2001) Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2002) The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In P. Robinson (ed.) Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning (pp. 137–158). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner. Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009a) The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009b) The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Moti­ vation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. (2010) Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration, and Processing (2nd edn). London: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. (2013) Communicative language teaching in the twenty-first century: The ‘principled communicative approach’. In J. Arnold and T. Murphey (eds) Meaningful Action: Earl Stevick’s Influence on Language Teaching (pp. 161–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 47 (1), 80–91.

References 231

Dörnyei, Z. (2017) Conceptualizing L2 learner characteristics in a complex, dynamic world. In L. Ortega and Z. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 79–96). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2019a) From integrative motivation to directed motivational currents: The evolution of the understanding of L2 motivation over three decades. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) Palgrave Macmillan Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 39–70). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Dörnyei, Z. (2019b) Towards a better understanding of the L2 Learning Experience, the Cinderella of the L2 Motivational Self System. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 9 (1), 19–30. Dörnyei, Z. (2019c) Task motivation: What makes an L2 task engaging? In Z. Wen and M.J. Ahmadian (eds) Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In Honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 53–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2019d) Psychology and language learning: The past, the present and the future. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning 1, 27–41. Dörnyei, Z. (2020) Innovations and Challenges in Language Learning Motivation. London: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. and Chan, L. (2013) Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images, sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning 63 (3), 437–462. Dörnyei, Z. and Kubanyiova, M. (2014) Motivating Learners, Motivating Teachers: Building Vision in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. and Malderez, A. (1997) Group dynamics and foreign language teaching. System 25, 65–81. Dörnyei, Z. and Muir, C. (2019) Creating a motivating classroom environment. In X.A. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 719–736). New York, NY: Springer. Dörnyei, Z. and Murphey, R. (2003) Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. and Ottó, I. (1998) Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics 4, 43–69. Dörnyei. Z. and Ryan, S. (2015) The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. New York, NY: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2009) (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2011) Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman. Dörnyei, Z., Henry, A. and Muir, C. (2016) Motivational Currents in Language Learning: Frameworks for Focused Interventions. New York, NY & Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Dörnyei, Z., Ibrahim, Z. and Muir, C. (2015) ‘Directed Motivational Currents’: Regulating complex dynamic systems through motivational surges. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 95–105). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. and Henry, A. (2015) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., Muir, C. and Ibrahim, Z. (2014) Directed motivational currents: Energising language learning through creating intense motivational pathways. In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz and J.M. Sierra (eds) Motivation and Foreign Language Learning: From Theory to Practice (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dweck, C.S. (1985) Intrinsic motivation, perceived self-control and self-evaluation maintenance: An achievement goal analysis. In C. Ames and R. Ames (eds) Research on Motivation in Education. Vol. 2: The Classroom Milieu (pp. 289–305). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

232 References

Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95 (2), 256–273. Egbert, J. (2003) A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 87 (4), 499–518. Ehrman, M.E. and Dörnyei, Z. (1998) Interpersonal Dynamics in Second Language Education: The Visible and Invisible Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Elicker, J.D., Lord, R.G., Ash, S.R., Kohari, N.E., Hruska, B.J., McConnell, N.L. and Medvedeff, M.E. (2010) Velocity as a predictor of performance satisfaction, mental focus, and goal revision. Applied Psychology 59 (3), 495–514. Elliot, A.J. (2008) Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. In A.J. Elliot (ed.) Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation (pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Ellis, N.C. (2007) Dynamic systems and SLA: The wood and the trees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 23–25. Ellis, R. (1997) SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20, 69–92. Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2009) Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19 (3), 221–246. Ellis, R. (2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research 20 (3), 405–428. Ericsson, K.A. (2006) An introduction to Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance: Its development, organization, and content. In K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, R.R. Hoffman and P.J. Feltovich (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance (pp. 3–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erlam, R. (2016) ‘I’m still not sure what a task is’: Teachers designing language tasks. Language Teaching Research 20 (3), 279–299. Falout, J. and Maruyama, M. (2004) A comparative study of proficiency and learner demotivation. Language Teacher 28, 3–9. Falout, J., Elwood, J. and Hood, M. (2009) Demotivation: Affective states and learning outcomes. System 37 (3), 403–417. Fang, X. and Warschauer, M. (2004) Technology and curricular reform in China: A case study. TESOL Quarterly 38 (2), 301–323. Farrell, T.S.C. (2018) Research on Reflective Practice in TESOL. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Ferguson-Patrick, K. and Jolliffe, W. (2018) Cooperative Learning for Intercultural Classrooms: Case Studies for Inclusive Pedagogy. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Fitzpatrick, T. and Clenton, J. (2010) The challenge of validation: Assessing the performance of a test of productive vocabulary. Language Testing 27 (4), 537–554. Fitzsimons, G.M. and Bargh, J.A. (2003) Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (1), 148–164. Fitzsimons, G.M. and Bargh, J.A. (2004) Automatic self-regulation. In R.F. Baumeister and K.D. Vohs (eds) Handbook of Self-regulation (pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Floyd, K.S., Harrington, S.J. and Santiago, J. (2009) The effect of engagement and perceived course value on deep and surface learning strategies. Informing Science 12, 181–190. Forgas, J.P. (2008) Affect and cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (2), 94–101. Foss, P., Carney, N., McDonald, K. and Rooks, M. (2008) Project-based learning activities for short-term intensive English programs. Philippine ESL Journal 1, 57–76. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld P.C. and Paris A.H. (2004) School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74 (1), 59–109. Fredrickson, B.L. (1998) What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 2, 300–319.

References 233

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56 (3), 218–226. Fredrickson, B.L. (2003) The value of positive emotions: The emerging science of positive psychology is coming to understand why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist 91, 330–335. Fredrickson, B.L. (2004) The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 359 (1449), 1367–1377. Fredrickson, B.L. (2006) The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. In M. Csikszentmihalyi and I. Selega (eds) A Life Worth Living: Contributions to Positive Psychology (pp. 85–103). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Freed, B.F. (1995) Second Language Acquisition in a Study Abroad Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Freed, B.F. (1998) An overview of issues and research in language learning in a study abroad setting. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 4, 31–60. Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R. and Yan, T. (2005) An experimental comparison of web and telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 69, 370–392. Fried-Booth, D.L. (2002) Project work (2nd edn). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fryer, M. and Roger, P. (2018) Transformations in the L2 self: Changing motivation in a study abroad context. System 78, 159–172. Fukada, Y., Fukuda, T., Falout, J. and Murphey, T. (2011) Increasing motivation with possible selves. In A. Stewart (ed.) JALT 2010 Conference Proceedings (pp. 337–349). Tokyo: JALT. Ganassali, S. (2008) The influence of the design of web survey questionnaires on the quality of responses. Survey Research Methods 2 (1), 21–32. Gardner, D. (1995) Student-produced video documentary provides a real reason for using the target language. Language Learning Journal 12 (1), 54–56. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (2001) Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei and R.W. Schmidt (eds) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1–19). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Gardner, R.C. (2010) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition: The Socio-educational Model. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13 (4), 266–272. Gecas, V. (1994) In search of the real self: Problems of authenticity in modern times. In G.M. Platt and C. Gordon (eds) Self, Collective Behavior and Society (pp. 139–154). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gee, J. (2012) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses (4th edn). Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Gibson, D.E. (2003) Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science 14 (5), 591–610. Gkonou, C. and Mercer, S. (2017) Understanding Emotional and Social Intelligence among English Language Teachers. London: British Council. Gladwell, M. (2000) The Tipping Point. London: Abacus. Gorham, J. and Millette, D.M. (1997) A comparative analysis of teacher and student perceptions of sources of motivation and demotivation in college classes. Communication Education 46 (6), 245–261. Gorka, B. and Niesenbaum, R. (2001) Beyond the language requirement: Interdisciplinary short-term study-abroad programs in Spanish. Hispania 84 (1), 100–109. Gras-Velazquez, A. (ed.) (2020) Project-Based Learning in Second Language Acquisition: Building Communities of Practice in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Gregersen, T., Meza, M.D. and MacIntyre, P.D. (2014) The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of learners’ foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal 98 (2), 574–588.

234 References

Gruwell, E. and The Freedom Writers. (2007) Freedom Writers Diary Teacher’s Guide. New York, NY: Broadway Books. Gu, P. (2001) Multimedia English Teaching in China: Theory and Practice: Research report prepared for Advisory Committee of Tertiary Foreign Language Teaching. Guo, Y. (2006) Project-based English as a foreign language education in China: Perspectives and issues. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 143–155). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Hadfield, J. (1992/2013) Classroom Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hadfield, J. and Dörnyei, Z. (2013) Motivating Learning. Harlow: Longman. Hafler, J.P. (1997) Case writing: case writers’ perspective. In D. Boud and G. Feletti (eds) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning (2nd edn, pp. 151–159). London, UK & Stirling, USA: Kogan Page. Hafner, C.A. and Miller, L. (2011) Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language Learning and Technology 15 (3), 68–86. Haines, S. (1989) Projects for the EFL Classroom: Resource Material for Teachers. Waltonon-Thames: Nelson. Hanks, J. (2015a) Language teachers making sense of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research 19 (5), 612–633. Hanks, J. (2015b) ‘Education is not just teaching’: Learner thoughts on exploratory practice. ELT Journal 69 (2), 117–128. Hanks, J. (2017a) Exploratory Practice in Language Teaching: Puzzling and Principles and Practices. London: Macmillan. Hanks, J. (2017b) Integrating research and pedagogy: An exploratory practice approach. System 68, 38–49. Hanks, J. (2019) From research-as-practice to exploratory practice-as-research in language teaching and beyond. Language Teaching 52 (2), 143–187. Harber, K.D., Zimbardo, P.G. and Boyd, J.N. (2003) Participant self-selection biases as a function of individual differences in time perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 25 (3), 255–264. Harbour, K.E., Evanovich, L.L., Sweigart, C.A. and Hughes, L.E. (2015) A brief review of effective teaching practices that maximize student engagement. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 59 (1), 5–13. Harmat, L., Andersen, F.Ø., Ullén, F., Wright, J. and Sadlo, G. (2016) Flow Experience: Empirical Research and Applications. Switzerland: Springer. Hashimoto, T. (2018) Directed motivational currents of Japanese students. In J. Mynard and I.K. Brady (eds) Stretching Boundaries: Papers from the Third International Psychology of Language Learning Conference (pp. 36–38). Cape Breton: International Association of the Psychology of Language Learning. Healey, B., MacPherson, T. and Kuijten, B. (2005) An empirical evaluation of three web survey design principles. Marketing Bulletin 16, 1–9. Henry, A. (2009) Gender differences in compulsory school pupils’ L2 self-concepts: A longitudinal study. System 37, 177–193. Henry, A. (2013) Digital games and ELT: Bridging the authenticity gap. In E. Ushioda (ed.) International Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 133–155). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Henry, A. (2014) The motivational effects of crosslinguistic awareness: Developing third language pedagogies to address the negative impact of the L2 on the L3 self-concept. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 8 (1) 1–19. Henry, A. (2015) The dynamics of possible selves. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 83–94). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

References 235

Henry, A. (2019) Directed motivational currents. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 139– 162). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Henry, A. and Davydenko, S. (2020) Thriving? Or Surviving? An approach-avoidance perspective on adult language learners’ motivation. The Modern Language Journal 104 (2), 363–380. Henry, A., Davydenko, S. and Dörnyei, Z. (2015) The anatomy of directed motivational currents: Exploring intense and enduring periods of L2 motivation. Modern Language Journal 99 (2), 329–345. Henry, A., Korp, H., Sundqvist, P., Thorsen, C. (2018) Motivational strategies and the reframing of English: Activity design and challenges for teachers in contexts of extensive extramural encounters. TESOL Quarterly 52 (2), 247–273. Henry, A., Sundqvist, P. and Thorsen, C. (2019) Motivational Practice: Insights from the Classroom. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB. Henry, A. and Thorsen, C. (2018) Teacher-student relationships and L2 motivation. Modern Language Journal 102 (1), 218–241. Henry, J. (1994) Teaching through Projects. London: Kogan Page. Higgins, E.T. (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review 94 (3), 319–340. Higgins, E.T. (1996) The ‘self-digest’: Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (6), 1062–1083. Higgins, E.T. (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30, 1–46. Higgins, E.T., King, G.A. and Mavin, G.H. (1982) Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43 (1), 35–47. Higgins, E.T., Klein, R. and Strauman, T. (1985) Self-concept discrepancy theory: A psychological model for distinguishing among different aspects of depression and anxiety. Social Cognition 3 (1), 51–76. Higgins, E.T., Bond, R.N., Klein, R. and Strauman, T. (1986) Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 5–15. Hiver, P. (2013) The interplay of possible language teacher selves in professional development choices. Language Teaching Research 17 (2), 210–227. Hiver, P. (2015) Attractor states. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 20–28). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Hiver, P. (2017) Tracing the signature dynamics of language teacher immunity: A retrodictive qualitative modelling study. Modern Language Journal 101 (4), 669–690. Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2016) Putting complexity theory into practice: A dynamic ensemble for second language research. Modern Language Journal 100 (4), 741–756. Hiver, P., Obando, G., Sang, Y., Tahmouresi, S., Zhou, A. and Zhou, Y. (2019) Reframing the L2 learning experience as narrative reconstructions of classroom learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 9 (1), 83–116. Hock, M.F., Deshler, D.D. and Schumaker, J.B. (2006) Enhancing student motivation through the pursuit of possible selves. In C. Dunkel and J. Kerpelman (eds) Possible Selves: Theory, Research and Application (pp. 205–221). New York, NY: Nova Science. Hockey, R. (ed.) (1983) Stress and Fatigue in Human Performance. Chichester, UK: John Wiley. Hockey, R. (2011) A motivational control theory of cognitive fatigue. In P.L. Ackerman (ed.) Cognitive Fatigue: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Current Research and Future Applications (pp. 167–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hockey, R. (2013) The Psychology of Fatigue: Work, Effort and Control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

236 References

Howatt, A.P.R. and Widdowson, H.G. (2004) A History of English Language Teaching (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hsieh, C.-N. (2009) L2 learners’ self-appraisal of motivational changes over time. Issues in Applied Linguistics 17 (1), 3–26. Huang, H.-T., Hsu, C.-C. and Chen, S.-W. (2015) Identification with social role obligations, possible selves, and L2 motivation in foreign language learning. System 51, 28–38. Hubbard, T.L. (2015) The varieties of momentum-like experience. Psychological Bulletin 141 (6), 1081–1119. Hubbard, T.L. (2017) Toward a general theory of momentum-like effects. Behavioural Processes 141 (1), 50–66. Huta, V. and Ryan, R.M. (2010) Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies 11 (6), 735–762. Huta, V. and Waterman, A.S. (2013) Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies 15 (6), 1425–1456. Ibrahim, Z. (2016a) Affect in directed motivational currents: Positive emotionality in long-term L2 engagement. In P. MacIntyre, T. Gregersen and S. Mercer (eds) Positive Psychology in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 258–281). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ibrahim, Z. (2016b) Directed motivational currents: Optimal productivity and long-term sustainability in second language acquisition. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. Ibrahim, Z. (2017) Parameters inducing motivational surges in second language learning. UKH Journal of Social Science 1 (1), 24–33. Ilieva, J., Baron, S. and Healey, N.M. (2002) Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Market Research 44 (3), 361–376. Ingram, M. (2005) Recasting the foreign language requirement through study abroad: A cultural immersion program in Avignon. Foreign Language Annals 38 (2), 211–222. Irie, K. and Brewster, D.R. (2013) One curriculum, three stories: Ideal L2 self and L2-selfdiscrepancy profiles. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan (pp. 110–128). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Irie, K. and Ryan, S. (2015) Study abroad and the dynamics of change in learner L2 selfconcept. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 343–366). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Islam, M., Lamb, M. and Chambers, G. (2013) The L2 Motivational Self System and National Interest: A Pakistani perspective. System 41, 231–244. Jackson, S.A. (1992) Athletes in flow: A qualitative investigation of flow states in elite figure skaters. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 4 (2), 161–180. Jackson, S.A. (1995) Factors influencing the occurrence of flow state in elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 7 (2), 138–166. Jackson, S.A. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999) Flow in Sports. The Keys to Optimal Experiences and Performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jackson, S.A. and Kimiecik, J.C. (2008) The flow perspective of optimal experience in sport and physical activity. In T.S. Horn (ed.) Advances in Sport Psychology (pp. 377–399). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jakar, V. (2006) Knowing the other through multicultural projects in school EFL programs. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 181–193). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Jeon-Ellis, G., Debski, R. and Wigglesworth, G. (2005) Oral interaction around computers in the project-oriented CALL classroom. Language Learning and Technology 9 (3), 121–145.

References 237

Jones, K. (2012) Visualising success: An imagery intervention programme to increase two students’ confidence and motivation in a foreign language: Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Nottingham. Kaylor, M. and Flores, M.M. (2007) Increasing academic motivation in culturally and linguistically diverse students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Advanced Academics 19 (1), 66–89. Keogh, R. and Pearson, J. (2018) The blind mind: No sensory visual imagery in aphantasia. Cortex 105, 53–60. Kernis, M.H. and Goldman, B.M. (2006) A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 283–357. Kim, M.K. (2015) Students’ and teacher’s reflections on project-oriented learning: A critical pedagogy for Korean ELT. English Teaching 70 (3), 73–98. Kim, T.-Y. (2009) Korean elementary school students’ perceptual learning style, ideal L2 self, and motivated behaviour. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 9 (3), 261–286. Kimiecik, J.C. and Stein, G.L. (1992) Examining flow experiences in sports contexts: Conceptual issues and methodological concerns. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 4 (2), 144–160. King, J. (ed.) (2016) The Dynamic Interplay between Context and the Language Learner. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kinginger, C. (2008) Language Learning in Study Abroad: Case Histories of Americans in France. Oxford: Blackwell. Kinginger, C. (2011) Enhancing language learning in study abroad. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 31, 58–73. Kinginger, C. (ed.) (2013) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study Abroad. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kloep, M., Hendry, L.B., Gardner, C. and Seage, C.H. (2010) Young people’s views of their present and future selves in two deprived communities. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 20 (6), 513–524. Kobayashi, M. (2003) The role of peer support in ESL students’ accomplishment of oral academic tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review 59 (3), 337–369. Kormos, J. and Csizér, K. (2008) Age-related differences in the motivation of learning English as a foreign language: Attitudes, selves, and motivated learning behavior. Language Learning 58 (2), 327–355. Kormos, J. and Csizér, K. (2010) A comparison of the foreign language learning motivation of Hungarian dyslexic and non-dyslexic students. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 232–250. Kramsch, C. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. What Foreign Language Learners Say about their Experiences and Why it Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Krosnick, J.A. (1999) Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50, 537–67. Krosnick, J.A. and Berent, M.K. (1993) Comparisons of party identification and policy preferences: The impact of survey question format. American Journal of Political Science 37 (3), 941–964. Kubanyiova, M. (2009) Possible selves in language teacher development. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 314–332). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kubanyiova, M. (2012) Teacher Development in Action: Understanding Language Teachers’ Conceptual Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kumar, R. (2019) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners (5th edn). London: Sage. Lamb, M. (2007) The impact of school on EFL learning motivation: An Indonesian case study. TESOL Quarterly 41 (4), 757–780.

238 References

Lamb, M. (2009) Situating the L2 self: Two Indonesian school learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 229–247). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lamb, M. (2011) Future selves, motivation and autonomy in long-term EFL learning trajectories. In G. Murray, X. Gao and T. Lamb (eds) Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 177–194). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lamb, M. (2012) A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language Learning 62, 997–1023. Lamb, M. (2017) The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching 50 (3), 301–346. Lantolf, J.P. and Thorne, S.L. (2006) Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lanvers, U. (2016) Lots of selves, some rebellious: Developing the self discrepancy model for language learners. System 60, 79–92. Larmer, J. and Mergendoller, J.R. (2010) Seven essentials for project-based learning. Educational Leadership 68 (1), 34–37. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997) Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18 (2), 141–165. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory perspective. In C. Kramsch (ed.) Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives (pp. 33–46). London: Continuum.Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27 (4), 590–619. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laufer, B. and Goldstein, Z. (2004) Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language Learning 54 (3), 399–436. Lawrence, J.W., Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M.F. (2002) Velocity toward goal attainment in immediate experience as a determinant of affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32 (4), 788–802. Leahy, C. (2004) Observations in the computer room: L2 output and learner behavior. ReCALL 16 (1), 124–144. Legutke, M. and Thomas, H. (1991) Process and Experience in the Language Classroom. Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. Leki, I. (2001) ‘A narrow thinking system’: Nonnative-English-speaking students in group projects across the curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 35 (1), 39–67. Lenton, A.P., Bruder, M., Slabu, L. and Sedikides, C. (2013) How does ‘being real’ feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality 8 (3), 276–289. Lenton, A.P., Slabu, L., Bruder, M. and Sedikides, C. (2014) Identifying differences in the experience of (in)authenticity: A latent class analysis approach. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 1–9. Lenton, A.P., Slabu, L., Sedikides, C. and Power, K. (2013) I feel good, therefore I am real: Testing the causal influence of mood on state authenticity. Cognition and Emotion 27 (7), 1202–1224. Leondari, A. and Gonida, E. (2008) Adolescents’ possible selves, achievement goal orientations, and academic achievement. Hellenic Journal of Psychology 5 (2), 179–198. Lepp-Kaethler, E. and Dörnyei, Z. (2013) The role of sacred texts in enhancing motivation and living the vision in second language acquisition. In M.S. Wong, C. Kristjansson and Z. Dörnyei (eds) Christian Faith and English Language Teaching and Learning: Research on the Interrelationship of Religion and ELT (pp. 171–188). New York, NY: Routledge. Levis, J.M. and Levis, G.M. (2003) A project-based approach to teaching research writing to non-native writers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 46 (3), 210–221.

References 239

Levy, M. (1997) Project-based learning for language teachers: Reflecting on the process. In R. Debski, J. Gassin and M. Smith (eds) Language Learning Through Social Computing (pp. 181–191). Melbourne: Applied Linguistic Association of Australia. Lewis, T.L. and Neisenbaum, R.A. (2005) Extending the stay: Using community-based research and service learning to enhance short-term study abroad. Journal of Studies in International Education 9, 251–264. Lipinski, J. (2013) Virtual study abroad: A case study. Competition Forum 11 (2), 205–207. Littlewood, W. (2014) Communication-oriented language teaching: Where are we now? Where do we go from here? Language Teaching 47 (3), 349–362. Livingstone, D. (2001) Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps and future research. NALL Working Paper #21. Toronto, ON: New Approaches to Lifelong Learning (NALL), Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Llanes, á. and Muñoz, C. (2009) A short stay abroad: Does it make a difference? System 37, 353–365. Locke, E.A. (1996) Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology 5, 117–124. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2006) New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15 (5), 265–268. MacIntyre, P. and Gregersen, T. (2012) Emotions that facilitate language learning: The positive-broadening power of the imagination. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 2 (2), 193–213. MacIntyre, P.D. and Mercer, S. (2014) Introducing positive psychology to SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 4 (2), 153–172. MacIntyre, P.D. and Serroul, A. (2015) Motivation on a per-second timescale: Examining approach-avoidance motivation during L2 task performance. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 109–138). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. MacIntyre, P.D., Mackinnon, S.P. and Clément, R. (2009) The baby, the bathwater, and the future of language learning motivation research. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Language, Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 43–65). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. MacIntyre, P., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z. and Noels, K.A. (1998) Conceptualising willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal 82 (4), 545–562. Magid, M. and Chan, L. (2012) Motivating English learners by helping them visualize their ideal L2 self: Lessons from two motivational programmes. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 6, 113–125. Markman, K.D. and Guenther, C.L. (2007) Psychological momentum: Intuitive physics and naïve beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (6), 800–812. Markus, H. (1977) Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (2), 63–78. Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1994) The cultural construction of self and emotion: Implications for social behavior. In S. Kitayama and H. Markus (eds) Emotion and Culture (pp. 89–130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Markus, H. and Kunda, Z. (1986) Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (4), 858–866. Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41 (9), 954–969. Markus, H. and Ruvolo, A. (1989) Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals. In L.A. Pervin (ed.) Goal Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 211–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marsden, E. and Kasprowicz, R. (2017) Foreign language educators’ exposure to research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. Modern Language Journal 101 (4), 613–642.

240 References

Marsden, E., Trofimovich, P. and Ellis, N. (2019) Extending the reach of research: Introducing open accessible summaries at Language Learning. Language Learning 69 (1), 11–17. Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S. and Abugaber, D. (2018) Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews and recommendations for the field. Language Learning 68 (2), 321–391. Mauffette, Y., Kandlbinder, P. and Soucisse, A. (2004) The problem in problem-based learning is the problems: But do they motivate students? In M. Savin-Baden and K. Wilkie (eds) Challenging Research in Problem Based Learning (pp. 11–25). Maidenhead: Open University Press. McAdams, D.P. (2018) Narrative identity: What is it? What does it do? How do you measure it? Imagination, Cognition and Personality: Consciousness in Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice 37 (3), 359–372. McAdams, D.P. and Pals, J.L. (2006) A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist 61, 204–217. Medgyes, P. (2017) The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language teacher. ELT Journal 71 (4), 491–498. Mendelson, V. G. (2004) Hindsight is 20/20: Student perspectives of language learning and the study abroad experience. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10 (1), 43–63. Mercer, S. (2011a) Towards an Understanding of Language Learner Self-concept. London: Springer. Mercer, S. (2011b) Language learner self-concept: Complexity, continuity and change. System 39, 335–346. Mercer, S. (2015) Social network analysis and complex dynamic systems. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 73–82). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mercer, S. (2019) Language learner engagement: Setting the scene. In A. Gao (ed.) Second Handbook of English Language Teaching. New York, NY: Springer. Mercer, S. and Dörnyei, Z. (2020) Engaging Language Learners in Contemporary Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, R.B. and Brickman, S.B. (2004) A model of future-oriented motivation and selfregulation. Educational Psychology Review 16 (1), 9–33. Mohan, B.A. and Lee, G.I. (2006) Linking interpretive research and functional linguistics. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education (pp. 263–280). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S. and Ratcheva, S. (2013) The effects of teachers’ motivational strategies on learners’ motivation: A controlled investigation of second language acquisition. Language Learning 63, 34–62. Moulton, S.T. and Kosslyn, S.M. (2009) Imagining predictions: Mental imagery as mental emulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364 (1521), 1273–1280. Muir, C. (2019) Motivation and Projects. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 327–346). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Muir, C. (2021) Investigating group-DMCs and complexity in the L2 classroom. In R. Sampson and R. Pinner (eds) Complexity Perspectives on Researching Language Learner and Teacher Psychology (pp. 189–207). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Muir, C. and Dörnyei, Z. (2013) Directed motivational currents: Using vision to create effective motivational pathways. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 3 (3), 357–375. Muir, C., Dörnyei, Z. and Adolphs, S. (2019) Role models in language learning: Results of a large-scale international survey. Applied Linguistics, amz056, https://doi.org/10.1093/ applin/amz056.

References 241

Muir, C., Florent, J. and Leach, D. (under review) Managing motivational group projects. Journal of Languages, Texts and Society. Murphey, T. and Arao, H. (2001) Reported belief changes through near peer role modelling. TESL-EJ 5 (3). Available at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej19/a1.html. Murphey, T. and Murakami, K. (1998) Teacher facilitated near peer role modelling for awareness raising within the zone of proximal development. Academia 65, 1–29. Murphey, T., Falout, J., Fukada, Y. and Fukuda, T. (2012) Group dynamics: Collaborative agency in present communities of imagination. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan and M. Williams (eds) Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice (pp. 220–238). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Nakamura, J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002) The concept of flow. In C.R. Snyder and S.J. Lopez (eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 89–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Nassaji, H. (2012) The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research 16 (3), 337–365. Nation, I.S.P. and Newton, J. (2008) Teaching ESL/EFL Listening and Speaking. New York, NY & Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge. National Academy Foundation (NAF). (n.d.) Project-based Learning: A Resource for Instructors and Program Coordinators. New York, NY: National Academy Foundation. Available at: http://naf.org/files/PBL_Guide.pdf. Neal, A., Ballard, T. and Vancouver, J.B. (2017) Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour 4, 401–423. New York City Department of Education. (2009) Project-based Learning: Inspiring Middle School Students to Engage in Deep and Active Learning New York, NY: NYC Department of Education. Available at: http://schools.nyc.gov/documents/ teachandlearn/project_basedFinal.pdf. Nitta, R. (2013) Understanding motivational evolution in the EFL classroom: A longitudinal study from a dynamic systems perspective. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan (pp. 268–290). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Noels, K.A., Clément, R. and Pelletier, L.G. (2001) Intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations of French Canadian learners of English. Canadian Modern Language Review 57 (3), 424–442. Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clément, R. and Vallerand, R.J. (2000) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 50 (1), 57–85. Norton, B. (2013) Identity and Language Learning: Extending the Conversation (2nd edn). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Norton, D.L. (1976) Personal Destinies: A Philosophy of Ethical Individualism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Oakley, B., Felder, R.M., Brent, R. and Elhajj, I. (2004) Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centred Learning 2 (1), 9–34. Ortega, L. (2018) SLA in uncertain times: Disciplinary constraints, transdisciplinary hopes. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 33 (1), 1–30. Oxford, R.L. and Cuéllar, L. (2014) Positive psychology in cross-cultural narratives: Mexican students discover themselves while learning Chinese. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 4 (2), 173–203. Oyserman, D., Brickman, D. and Rhodes, M. (2007) School success, possible selves, and parent school involvement. Family Relations 56, 479–489. Oyserman, D., Bybee, D. and Terry, K. (2006) Possible selves and academic outcomes: How and when possible selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 91 (1), 188–204. Paige, R.M., Fry, G.W., Stallman, E.M., Josić, J. and Jon, J.-E. (2009) Study abroad for global engagement: The long-term impact of mobility experiences. Intercultural Education 20 (Suppl. nos S1–2), S29–S44.

242 References

Pajares, F. and Schunk, D.H. (2005) Self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs. In H.W. Marsh, R.G. Craven and D.M. McInerney (eds) International Advances in Self Research Volume 2 (pp. 95–121). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Pallant, J. (2011) SPSS Survival Manual (4th edn). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Papi, M. (2010) The L2 motivational self system, L2 anxiety and motivated behaviour: A structural equation modelling approach. System 38, 467–479. Papi, M., Bondarenko, A.V., Mansouri, S., Feng, L. and Jiang, C. (2018) Rethinking L2 motivation research: The 2x2 model of L2 self-guides. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42 (2), 337–361. Papies, E.K. and Aarts, H. (2010) Nonconscious self-regulation, or the automatic pilot of human behavior. In K.D. Vohs and B.R.F. (eds) Handbook of Self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 125–142). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Park, H. and Hiver, P. (2017) Profiling and tracing motivational change in project-based L2 learning. System 67, 50–64. Patton, A. (2012) Work that Matters: The Teacher’s Guide to Project-based Learning. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. Available at: http://www.innovationunit.org/sites/ default/files/Teacher’s%20Guide%20to%20Project-based%20Learning.pdf. Pertusa-Seva, I. and Stewart, M.A. (2000) Virtual study abroad 101: Expanding the horizons of the Spanish curriculum. Foreign Language Annals 33 (4), 438–441. Peterson, C. and Nassaji, H. (2016) Project-based learning through the eyes of teachers and students in adult ESL classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review 72 (1), 13–39. Phillips, D., Burwood, S. and Dunford, H. (1999) Projects with Young Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pietluch, A. (2018) Extraordinary motivation or a high sense of personal agency: The role of self-efficacy in the directed motivational currents theory. New Horizons in English Studies 3, 45–56. Piniel, K. and Albert, á. (2019) Motivation and flow. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 579–598). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Poupore, G. (2014) The influence of content on adult L2 learners’ task motivation: An interest theory perspective. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 17 (2), 69–90. Poupore, G. (2016) Measuring group work dynamics and its relation with L2 learners’ task motivation and language production. Language Teaching Research 20 (6), 719–740. Rasman, R. (2018) Overseas teaching experience and motivational currents: The case of EFL pre-service teachers in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 8 (2), 429–440. Raynor, J.O. (1974) Future orientation in the study of achievement motivation. In J.W. Atkinson and J.O. Raynor (eds) Motivation and Achievement (pp. 121–154). Washington, DC: Winston & Sons. Raynor, J.O. and Entin, E.E. (1983) The function of future orientation as a determinant of human behavior in step-path theory of action. International Journal of Psychology 18, 463–487. Reinking, D. and Bradley, B.A. (2004) Connecting research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N.K. Duke and M.H. Mallette (eds) Literacy Research Methodologies (pp. 114–148). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Reinking, D. and Bradley, B.A. (2007) Formative and Design Experiments: Approaches to Language and Literacy Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Reinking, D. and Watkins, J. (2000) A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students’ independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly 35 (3), 384–419. Reisberg, D. and Heuer, F. (2005) Visuospatial images. In P. Shah and A. Miyake (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking (pp. 35–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References 243

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ridley, J. and Ushioda, E. (1997) Using qualitative research methods to explore L2 learners’ motivation and self-perceptions. Teanga 17, 29–42. Roberts, C., Byram, M., Barro, A., Jordan, S. and Street, B. (2001) Language Learners as Ethnographers. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Robinson, M.M. and Morsella, E. (2014) The subjective effort of everyday mental tasks: Attending, assessing, and choosing. Motivation and Emotion 38 (6), 832–843. Rogers, C. (1983) Freedom to Learn for the 80’s. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Ross, S.R. and Keiser, H.N. (2014) Autotelic personality through a five-factor lens: Individual differences in flow-propensity. Personality and Individual Differences 59, 3–8. Rossiter, M.J., Derwing, T.M., Manimtim, L.G. and Thompson, R.I. (2010) Oral fluency: The neglected component in the communicative language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review 66 (4), 583–606. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001) On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1), 141–166. Ryan, R.M., Huta, V. and Deci, E.L. (2008) Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (1), 139–170. Ryan, R.M., Curren, R.R. and Deci, E.L. (2013) What humans need: Flourishing in Aristotelian philosophy and self-determination theory. In A.S. Waterman (ed.) The Best within Us: Positive Psychology Perspectives on Eudaimonia (pp. 57–75). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ryan, S. (2009) Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 120–143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ryan, S. and Dörnyei, Z. (2013) The long-term evolution of language motivation and the L2 self. In A. Berndt (ed.) Fremdsprachen in der Perspektive lebenslangen Lernens (pp. 89–100). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Ryff, C.D. (1989) Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (6), 1069–1081. Ryff, C.D. and Singer, B.H. (2008) Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (1), 13–39. Safdari, S. and Maftoon, P. (2017) The rise and fall of directed motivational currents: A case study. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning 7 (1), 43–54. Sak, M. (2019) Contextual factors that enhance and impair directed motivational currents in instructed L2 settings. Research on Youth and Language 13 (2), 155–174. Salanova, M., Rodríguez-Sánchez, A.M., Schaufeli, W.B. and Cifre, E. (2014) Flowing together: A longitudinal study of collective efficacy and collective flow among workgroups. Journal of Psychology 148 (4), 435–455. Sampson, R. (2012) The language-learning self, self-enhancement activities, and self perceptual change. Language Teaching Research 16 (3), 317–335. Sampson, R. (2015) Tracing motivational emergence in a classroom language learning project. System 50, 10–20. Sampson, R. (2016) Complexity in Classroom Foreign Language Learning Motivation. A Practitioner Perspective from Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sampson, R. and Pinner R. (2021) Complexity Perspectives on Researching Language Learner and Teacher Psychology. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Sanchez, M.E. (1992) Effect of questionnaire design on the quality of survey data. Public Opinion Quarterly 56 (2), 206–217. Sargis, E.G., Skitka, L.J. and McKeever, W. (2014) The Internet as psychological laboratory revisited: Best practices, challenges, and solutions. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (ed.) The Social Net: The Social Psychology of the Internet (2nd edn) (pp. 253–270). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

244 References

Savignon, S.J. (1991) Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL Quarterly 25 (2), 261–277. Savin-Baden, M. and Howell Major, C. (2004) Foundations of Problem-Based Learning. Cornwall: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Sawyer, R.K. (2003) Group Creativity: Music, Theatre, Collaboration. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sawyer, R.K. (2006) Group creativity: Musical performance and collaboration. Psychology of Music 34 (2), 148–165. Schiepe-Tiska, A. and Engeser, S. (2012) Flow in nonachievement situations. In S. Engeser (ed.) Advances in Flow Research (pp. 87–107). New York, NY: Springer Science. Schmitt, N. (2019) Understanding vocabulary acquisition, instruction, and assessment: A research agenda. Language Teaching 52, 261–274. Schmuck, R.A. and Schmuck, P.A. (2001) Group Processes in the Classroom (8th edn). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Schumann, J. (1976) Second language acquisition research. Getting a more global look at the learner. Language Learning 4, 15–28. Schumann, J.H. (2015) Foreword. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics and Language Learning (pp. xv–xix). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Scrivener, J. (2012) Classroom Management Techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seedhouse, P. (2005) ‘Task’ as research construct. Language Learning 55 (3), 533–570. Selҫuk, Ö. and Erten, İ. (2017) A display of patterns of change in learners’ motivation: Dynamics perspective. Research on Youth and Language 11 (2), 128–141. Seligman, M.E.P. (2002) Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize your Potential for Lasting Fulfilment. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Seligman, M.E.P. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000) Positive psychology. An introduction. American Psychologist 55 (1), 5–14. Senior, R. (1997) Transforming language classes into bonded groups. ELT Journal 51 (1), 3–11. Senior, R. (2002) A class-centred approach to language teaching. ELT Journal 56 (4), 397–403. Senior, R. (2006) The Experience of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shah, J.Y., Friedman, R.S. and Kruglanski, A.W. (2002) Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (6), 1261–1280. Shedivy, S.L. (2004) Factors that lead some students to continue the study of foreign language past the usual 2 years in high school. System 32, 103–119. Sheldon, K.M. and Elliot, A.J. (1998) Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24 (5), 546–557. Sheldon, K.M. and Elliot, A.J. (1999) Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (3), 482–497. Sheldon, K.M. and Houser-Marko, L. (2001) Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (1), 152–165. Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Rawsthorne, L.J. and Ilardi, B. (1997) Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big-Five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (6), 1380–1393. Sheppard, K. and Stoller, F. (1995) Guidelines for the integration of student projects in ESP classrooms. English Teaching Forum 33 (2), 10–15.

References 245

Shernoff, D.J. (2013) Optimal Learning Environments to Promote Student Engagement. New York, NY: Springer. Shernoff, D.J., Abdi, B., Anderson, B. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014) Flow in schools revisited: Cultivating engaged learners and optimal learning environments. In M.J. Furlong, R. Gilman and E.S. Huebner (eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools (pp. 211–226). New York, NY: Routledge. Shernoff, D.J. and Anderson, B. (2014) Enacting flow and student engagement in the college classroom. In A.C. Parks and S.M. Schueller (eds) The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Positive Psychological Interventions (pp. 194–212). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Shernoff, D.J. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009) Cultivating engaged learners and optimal learning environments. In R. Gilman, E.S. Huebner and M.J. Furlong (eds) Handbook of Positive Psychology in Schools (pp. 131–145). New York, NY: Routledge. Skehan, P. (1998) A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skehan, P. (2003) Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36 (1), 1–14. Slater, T., Beckett, G.H. and Aufderhaar, C. (2006) Assessing projects as second language and content learning. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education: Past, Present and Future (pp. 241–260). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Smith, T.W. (1995) Little things matter: A sampler of how differences in questionnaire format can affect survey responses. In Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 1046–51). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. Spada, N. (2019) Balancing methodological rigor and pedagogical relevance. In R.M. DeKeyser and G. Prieto Botana (eds) Doing SLA Research with Implications for the Classroom: Reconciling Methodological Demands and Pedagogical Applicability (pp. 201–215). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stoller, F. (1997) Project work: A means to promote language content. English Teaching Forum 35 (4), 2–9. Stoller, F. (2002) Project work: A means to promote language and content. In J.C. Richards and W.A. Renandya (eds) Methodology in Language Teaching. An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 107–119). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stoller, F. (2006) Establishing a theoretical foundation for project-based learning in second and foreign language contexts. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education (pp. 19–40). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Storbeck, J. and Clore, G.L. (2007) On the interdependence of cognition and emotion. Cognition and Emotion 21 (6), 1212–1237. Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N.M. (1983) Asking Questions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Svalberg, A.M.-L. (2009) Engagement with language: Interrogating a construct. Language Awareness 18 (3–4): 242–258. Svalberg, A.M.-L. (2018) Researching language engagement: Current trends and future directions. Language Awareness 27 (1–2), 21–39. Swan, M. (2005) Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics 26 (3), 376–401. Swann, C., Keegan, R.J., Piggott, D. and Crust, L. (2012) A systematic review of the experience, occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (6), 807–819. Sy, T., Côte, S. and Saavedra, R. (2005) The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (2), 295–305.

246 References

Taguchi, T. (2013) Motivation, attitudes and selves in the Japanese context: A mixed methods approach. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan (pp. 169–188). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Taguchi, T., Magid, M. and Papi, M. (2009) The L2 motivational self system among Japanese, Chinese and Iranian learners of English. A comparative study. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 66–97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Tanaka, K. and Ellis, R. (2003) Study-abroad, language proficiency, and learner beliefs about language learning. JALT Journal 25 (1), 63–85. Teimouri, Y. (2017) L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviours. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39, 681–709. Teng, C.-I. (2011) Who are likely to experience flow? Impact of temperament and character on flow. Personality and Individual Differences 50 (6), 863–868. Tessema, K.A. (2005) Stimulating writing through project based tasks. English Teaching Forum 43 (4), 22–28. Thompson, A.S. and Vásquez, C. (2015) Exploring motivational profiles through language learning narratives. Modern Language Journal 99, 158–174. Thornbury, S. (2012) Afterword: Dogme for beginners – The autonomy of the group. In K. Irie and A. Stewart (eds) Realizing Autonomy: Practice and Reflection in Language Education Contexts (pp. 257–265). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Tough, A. (1978) Major learning efforts: Recent research and future directions. Adult Education Quarterly 28 (4), 250–263. Tough, A. (1979) The Adult’s Learning Projects: A Fresh Approach to Theory and Practice in Adult Learning (2nd edn). Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Tremblay, P.F. and Gardner, R.C. (1995) Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. Modern Language Journal 79 (4), 505–518. Tsunoda, A.M.K. (2018) Psycho-emotional elements underlining L2 directed motivational currents: Insights from within Japan. In J. Mynard and I.K. Brady (eds) Stretching Boundaries: Papers from the Third International Psychology of Language Learning Conference (pp. 71–73). International Association for the Psychology of Language Learning (IAPLL). Turnbull, M.S. (1999) Multidimensional project-based teaching in French second language (FSL): A process-product case study. Modern Language Journal 83 (4), 548–568. Uchihara, T. and Saito, K. (2019) Exploring the relationship between productive vocabulary knowledge and second language oral ability. Language Learning Journal 47 (1), 64–75. Ueki, M. and Takeuchi, O. (2016) The impact of studying abroad experience on the affective changes related to L2 motivation: A qualitative study of the processes of change. In M. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds) L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts (pp. 119–133). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ur, P. (2019) Theory and practice in language teacher education. Language Teaching 52 (4), 450–459. Ushioda, E. (1993) Redefining motivation from the L2 learner’s point of view. Teanga 14, 76–84. Ushioda, E. (1994) L2 motivation as a qualitative construct. Teanga 14, 76–84. Ushioda, E. (1996) Developing a dynamic concept of L2 motivation. In T. Hickey and J. Williams (eds) Language, Education and Society in a Changing World (pp. 239–245). Dublin/Clevedon: IRAAL/Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E. (1998) Effective motivational thinking: A cognitive theoretical approach to the study of language learning motivation. In E.A. Soler and V.C. Espurz (eds) Current Issues in English Language Methodology (pp. 77–89). Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I. Ushioda, E. (2009) A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 215–228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

References 247

Ushioda, E. (2015) Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In Z. Dörnyei, P.D. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 47–54). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E. (2016) Language learning motivation through a small lens: A research agenda. Language Teaching 49 (4), 564–577. van Lier, L. (2006) Foreword. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education (pp. xi–xvi). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Vannini, P. (2006) Dead poets’ society: Teaching, publish-or-perish, and professors’ experiences of authenticity. Symbolic Interaction 29 (2), 235–257. Vannini, P. and Burgess, S. (2009) Authenticity as motivation and aesthetic experience. In P. Vannini and J.P. Williams (eds) Authenticity in Culture, Self, and Society (pp. 103– 119). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Voerman, L., Meijer, P.C., Korthagen, F.A.J. and Simons, R.J. (2012) Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (8), 1107–1115. Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1932.) Vygotsky, L. (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. Wertsch (ed.) The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology (pp. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Walker, C.J. (2010) Experiencing flow: Is doing it together better than doing it alone? Journal of Positive Psychology 5, 3–11. Walker, C.J. (2015) A study of self-concept in reading in a second or foreign language in an academic context. System 49, 73–85. Waninge, F., Dörnyei, Z. and De Bot, K. (2014) Motivational dynamics in language learning: Change, stability and context. Modern Language Journal 98 (3), 704–723. Waterman, A.S. (1993) Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (4), 678–691. Waterman, A.S. (2008) Reconsidering happiness: A eudaimonist’s perspective. Journal of Positive Psychology 3 (4), 234–252. Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J. and Conti, R. (2008) The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (1), 41–79. Watkins, J. (2016) Planning a curriculum to stimulate directed motivational currents. Language Education Research Center Annual Report 19, 59–73. URL: http://hdl. handle.net/10236/14805. Weinstein, G. (ed.) (1999) Learners’ Lives as Curriculum: Six Journeys to Immigrant Literacy. McHenry, IL: Delta Systems. Weinstein, G. (2006) ‘Learners’ lives as curriculum’: An integrative project-based model for language learning. In G.H. Beckett and P. Chamness Miller (eds) Project-based Second and Foreign Language Education (pp. 159–165). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Wen, Z. and Ahmadian, M.J. (2019) (eds) Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy: In Honour of Peter Skehan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Williams, M. and Burden, R. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, R. and Dewaele, J.-M. (2010) The use of web questionnaires in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research 26 (1), 103–123. Yashima, T. and Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2008) The impact of learning contexts on proficiency, attitudes, and L2 communication: Creating an imagined international community. System 36, 566–585. Zarrinabadi, N., Ketabi, S. and Tavakoli, M. (2019) Directed Motivational Currents in L2: Exploring the Effects on Self and Communication. Cham: Springer.

248 References

Zarrinabadi, N. and Tavakoli, M. (2017) Exploring motivational surges among Iranian EFL teacher trainees: Directed motivational currents in focus. TESOL Quarterly 51 (1), 155–166. Zhan, Y. and Wan, Z.H. (2016) College students’ possible L2 self development in an EFL context during the transition year. English Language Teaching 9 (1), 41–50. Zimbardo, P.G. and Boyd, J.N. (1999) Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable, individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6), 1271–1288. Zumeta, L., Basabe, N., Wlodarczyk, A., Bobowik, M. and Páez, D. (2016) Shared flow and positive collective gatherings. Anales de Psicologia 32 (3), 717–727.

Index

Aarts, H. 16, 29, 32 Academic-practitioner research 125, 171, 193, 198 Action research 199–201 Adler, P. 22 Affective filter 12–13 Ajzen, I. 27 Al-Hoorie, A. 5, 7, 32 Allen, H.W. 183–185 Ames, C. 24 Approach motivation 17, 20, 28, 91 Authenticity xvi–xvii, 34, 35, 36–38, 81 Automatic perceptual bias 31, 32 Awareness raising tasks, 61

Comprehensible output 49 Contingent path theory 23, 180 Cooperative learning 59 Csikszentmihalyi, M. 12, 13, 15–16, 18, 20, 22, 28, 33, 55, 194–195 Custers, R. 16, 29, 32 De Bot, K. 5, 6, 163 Deci, E.L. 4, 34–35, 59 Dewaele, J.-M. 7, 12, 13, 18, 55, 56, 70, 75 DMC Disposition Scale 82–86, 190, 193, 194–195 DMC Disposition Questionnaire 69–74, 193–195 DMC experiences 78–82, 84–89, 105–115 L2 DMCs 17, 26, 28–29, 30, 32, 33–34, 36, 38, 41, 43–44, 64, 94–97, 117, 133–142, 185–189, 193, 194 Individual differences 85–86, 91–94 Intensity 80 Language development 143–147; See also Projects/language development Longevity 86–89 Longer-term effects 185–189 Negative experiences 111–115 Partial DMCs 20, 192 Positive emotional loading 34–38 Triggers/re-triggering 26, 27–31, 40, 43, 56, 72, 99–105, 137–138, 186, 193 Dörnyei, Z. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8–10, 14, 15, 17–19, 22, 23, 30, 45, 48–49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 59, 61, 69, 72, 73, 74, 99, 117, 120, 153, 157, 162, 185, 196 Dweck, C.S. 24 Dyslexia 11

Bandura, A. 4, 11, 15, 26, 29, 158, 187 Bargh, J.A. 31–32 Barsade, S.G. 15, 16, 59–60 Baumgartner, H. 19 Beckett, G.H. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 57, 62, 126, 130, 132, 152, 166, 191, 207 Brickman, S.B. 26–27 Broaden-and-build theory 13, 188 Burgess, S. 36–37 Burns, A. 198, 199–200 Butterfly effect 30, 99 Carver, C.S. 9, 23, 33 Challenge based learning 161, 181 Chronic motivation 32 Clément, R. 8, 11, 13, 144 Communicative language teaching 48–49 Complex dynamic systems theory 4–8, 17 Attractor states 6 Complexity thought modelling 7 Dynamic ensemble 7 Initial conditions 5–6, 11, 27–28, 51, 52–54, 99 Parameters 6 Phase shifts 30 Timescales 6, 163, 197

Effortless effort 20, 74, 119 Egbert, J. 13

249

250 Index

Elliot, A.J. 12, 17, 25–26, 28 Ellis, N.C. 5, 198 Ellis, R. 49, 62, 183, 198 Emotions/affect 12–14, 16, 17–18, 56, 58–60, 61; See also Positive psychology Anticipated emotions 19, 36 Emotional contagion 15–16 Engagement 12, 13–14, 18–20, 45, 55, 120, 136–137, 146–7, 195, 196–197 Eudaimonia 18, 34–36, 44 Eudaimonic identity theory 34–35 Eudaimonic well-being 34, 35, 38, 74, 81 Exploratory practice 182, 200–201 Fatigue 40–41, 61 Feedback 6, 24, 166–167, 169, 170, 180, 186 Affirmative feedback 33–34, 53, 55, 61, 166–167, 170, 205 Non-verbal feedback 34 Flow 13, 18, 22, 27–28, 31, 33, 37, 40, 53, 194–195, 196 Autotelic experience 18 Autotelic personality 28, 194 Flow deprivation 20 Flow contagion 16 Micro-flow 20 Outcomes of flow 16 Team/group flow 15–16, 55 Fluency 145, 146, 169, 173, 197, 199, 205 Formative experiments 8, 171, 198–199 Frameworks for focused interventions – See Seven frameworks for focused interventions Fredrickson, B.L. 13, 188 Freedom Writers 155, 180 Gardner, R.C. 3, 8, 24, 25 Gibson, D.E. 15, 16, 59, 60 Goals 8–9, 16, 17–19, 23, 24–27, 29–33, 35–36, 37–41; See also Projects/Goals Self-concordant goals 12, 17, 25–26, 27, 30, 35–36, 38, 39–40, 59, 103, 188 Goal contagion 16, 29, 140 Goal orientation theory 24 Goals & DMCs 59, 100, 102–105, 119, 137–138, 141, 188 Multiple goal pursuit 196 Proximal subgoals 26–27, 33, 38, 55, 56–58, 120, 164–166, 180, 183, 184, 204 Velocity in goal pursuit 23, 33

Gregersen, T. 7, 12, 13, 14 Grit 74, 119 Group dynamics 15, 53, 58, 59–60, 61, 148–149, 157, 161–162, 163–166, 180, 195 Emotional group norms 59 Group cohesiveness 16, 59, 157, 164 Group development 52, 162, 165 Group dissolution 60–61, 129, 187 Group norms 59 Group roles 59, 161, 162–163 Joint hardship 157 Group-level efficacy 15 Gruwell, E. 155 Hadfield, J. 59, 120, 153, 203 Hanks, J. 182, 198, 200, 201 Hedonia 34, 37 Henry, A. 1, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20, 25, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 43, 48, 50, 55, 60, 164, 186, 196 Higgins, E.T. 8–9, 10, 30–31 Hiver, P. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 46 Hockey, R. 39, 40–41 Houser-Marko, L. 25, 35–36, 188 Huta, V. 34–35, 36 Ibrahim, Z. 8, 17, 26, 29, 32, 45, 63–64 Identity-congruence 25, 31 Idiodynamic methods 7 Investment 25 King, J. 6 Kinginger, C. 183 Kubanyiova, M. 9, 10, 30, 54, 153 Kunda, Z. 30–31 L2 linguistic self-confidence 11 L2 motivational self system 9–10, 15, 19, 64, 186 Ideal L2 self 9–10, 17, 19, 185 Ought to L2 self 9–10, 19, 54, 185 L2 learning experience 9, 15, 19, 43, 54, 185 Lamb, M. 4, 9, 15, 51, 54 Lantolf, J. 14 Larsen-Freeman, D. 5–7, 171 Latham, G.P. 24 Leadership 16 Learners’ lives as Curriculum 155 Lenton, A.P. 37–38 Locke, E.A. 24

Index 251

MacIntyre, P. 7, 11, 12–14, 18, 55, 144 Markus, H. 8, 10, 12, 13, 27, 30–31, 59 Marsden, E. 195, 198 Mastery experiences 187–189 McAdams, D.P. 12 Mercer, S. xvii, 7, 10–12, 12–14, 18, 45, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60, 120, 170, 195, 196–197 Miller, R.B. 26–27 Momentum 18, 20, 22–23, 57, 58, 61, 164 Psychological momentum 23 Morsella, E. 40 Motivational autopilot 32 Murphey, T. 9, 11, 14–15, 29, 52, 53, 59, 61, 157, 158, 187 Narratives/narrative identity 8, 12 Nonconscious self-regulation 32 Norton, B. 25 Nurius, P. 8, 10, 12, 13, 30 Optimal learning environments 53–54; See also Group dynamics Ortega, L. 52 Oyserman, D. 9 Papi, M. 9–10 Patton, A. 47, 59, 60, 161 Peer critique 59, 161 Perceived behavioural control 27 Person-in-context-relational-view 7 Pinner, R. 8, 125, 207 Positive psychology 12–14, 17–18, 34–35; See also Authenticity; Eudaimonia Creativity 16, 53, 55 Satisfaction 34, 36, 37, 40 Interest 13, 28, 182 Joy 13, 34, 35, 36, 61, 108 Possible selves 8–10, 12, 13, 30, 54, 153; See also L2 motivational self system Academic possible selves 9 Chronic accessibility 30–31, 32, 38, 39 Current selves 8 Feared selves 9 Ideal selves 34, 37–38, 39–40, 185 Intervention studies 9 Ought selves 9 Practitioner-led research 171, 198–201, 207 Problem-based learning 46, 181–182 Progress feedback – See Feedback/ Affirmative feedback Projects 19, 44–52 Accountability 55, 58, 155, 158–161, 166 Assessment 170

Defining success 46–47, 152–153 Driving question 58, 161, 181 Ending projects 60–61, 169–170, 186–189 Facilities – See Optimal learning environments Feedback – See Feedback/Affirmative feedback Goals 47, 50, 52, 54–58, 60–61, 120, 126, 152–156, 158, 160, 161, 164–166, 170, 171, 174, 180, 183, 184–185, 199, 204 Group size/composition 164–165 Language development 49, 51, 143– 147, 166–167, 169, 182, 186–187, 191–192, 197 Language ‘intervention’ lessons 50–51 Outside ‘experts’ 148, 156, 158 Personalisation 55–56, 153–154 Pressure 135, 140–1, 156–157, 159 Progress markers – See Goals/ Proximal subgoals Project Framework 130, 152, 166, 169, 204, 207, 224 Projects-as-workplan/projects-asprocess 49, 51 Researching projects 46–47, 132, 163, 171, 195–196, 198–201, 207 Structure 57–58, 129–130, 165–166, 167–170, 180–185 Teaching through projects 46–47, 52–53, 60, 65, 141–142, 160–161, 167–169, 203–207; See also Group dynamics Technology 55, 158, 188 ‘with DMC potential’ 51–52 Protective shield of visionary singlemindedness 32, 38–39 Proximal subgoals – See Goals Q methodology 8 Questionnaires 69–71 Raynor, J.O. 23, 180 Reactance 30, 100, 101, 104, 186 Re-triggering – See DMC experiences/ Triggers Retrodictive qualitative modelling 8, 99, 185 Robinson, M.M. 40 Rogers, C. 59 Role modelling 15, 29, 158, 187 Near peer role models 158, 187 Ruvolo, A. 27

252 Index

Ryan, R.M. 4, 34–35, 37, 59 Ryan, S. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 183 Sampson, R. 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 30, 125, 207 Sawyer, R.K. 16 Scheier, M.F. 9, 23, 33 Self-concept 10–12, 17, 25, 36–37, 39, 89 Working self-concept 30–31, 32, 39 Self-concordant goals 12, 17, 25–26, 27, 30, 35, 38, 39, 59, 103, 188 Self-determination theory 4, 8, 25, 59 Self-discrepancy theory 8–9 Self-efficacy 4, 11, 64, 144, 185, 187, 194 Self-regulation 18, 32, 40, 74, 108 Seligman, M.E.P. 12, 35 Seven frameworks for focused interventions 57–58, 60, 65, 151, 180–185, 196 All Eyes on the Final Product 58, 60, 65, 151–152, 171, 180, 191, 195 BIG issue 58, 161, 171, 181, 182 Detective Work 58, 181–182, 201 Step by step 58, 180–181 Story Sequels 58, 182–3 Study abroad 58, 96–97, 183–186 That’s me! 58, 155, 180 Sheldon, K.M. 12, 17, 25–26, 35–36, 37, 188 Shernoff, D.J. 53, 55, 120 Slater, T. 57, 62, 126, 130, 152, 166, 170, 207 Social-network analysis 7 Sociocultural theory 14 Storyline 50–51, 182–183, 207 Subgoals – See Proximal subgoals Subjective effort 40

Task-based language teaching 49–51, 62 Thematic analysis 75–76, 130–131 Time perspective 23 Tremblay, P.F. 24 Triggers/triggering stimuli – See DMC experiences/Triggers Unconditional positive regard 59 Ushioda, E. 3–7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 24, 119, 125, 195, 197, 198 Vannini, P. 36–37 Vicarious experience 187 Vision 10, 17, 19–20, 30–31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 100, 102, 153, 186, 196 Aphantasia 153 Intervention studies 9 Vision-inspired motivational teaching practice 9, 120, 153 Vocabulary development 143, 145–6, 182, 191 Productive vocabulary development 145–6, 191, 197 Vygotsky, L. 14–15 Waterman, A.S. 34–36 Willingness to communicate 64, 144, 194 Young learners 182–183 Zarrinabadi, N. 29, 30, 32, 64, 184, 187 Zimbardo, P.G. 22, 23