L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts 9781783096756

Citation preview

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Series Editors: Professor David Singleton, University of Pannonia, Hungary and Fellow Emeritus, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland and Dr Simone E. Pfenninger, University of Salzburg, Austria This series brings together titles dealing with a variety of aspects of language acquisition and processing in situations where a language or languages other than the native language is involved. Second language is thus interpreted in its broadest possible sense. The volumes included in the series all offer in their different ways, on the one hand, exposition and discussion of empirical findings and, on the other, some degree of theoretical reflection. In this latter connection, no particular theoretical stance is privileged in the series; nor is any relevant perspective – sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, etc. – deemed out of place. The intended readership of the series includes final-year undergraduates working on second language acquisition projects, postgraduate students involved in second language acquisition research, and researchers, teachers and policy-makers in general whose interests include a second language acquisition component. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION: 106

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Edited by Matthew T. Apple, Dexter Da Silva and Terry Fellner

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Apple, Matthew T., editor.|Silva, Dexter Da., editor. | Fellner, Terry, editor. Title: L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts/Edited by Matthew T. Apple, Dexter Da Silva and Terry Fellner. Description: Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters, [2017] | Series: Second Language Acquisition: 106 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016030413| ISBN 9781783096749 (hbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781783096732 (pbk : alk. paper) | ISBN 9781783096770 (kindle) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages--Study and teaching learning--Asia.| Second language acquisition. | Learning, Psychology of. | Motivation (Psychology) Classification: LCC PE1068.A7 L28 2017 | DDC 428.0071/05--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016030413 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-674-9 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78309-673-2 (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 © 2017 Matthew T. Apple, Dexter Da Silva, Terry Fellner and the authors of individual chapters. 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 papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, 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 Deanta Global Publishing Services Limited. Printed and bound in the UK by Short Run Press Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by Edwards Brothers Malloy, Inc.

Contents

Contributors

vii

1

Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Selves within Systems Terry Fellner, Matthew T. Apple and Dexter Da Silva

2

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attribution in ESL/EFL Contexts: Toward an Alternative Model Peter Gobel, Siew Ming Thang and Setsuko Mori

3

The Theoretical Interface between Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and Sociocultural Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research: A Qualitative Investigation Tae-Young Kim

1

11

29

4

L2 Selves in Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language: The Case of Taiwanese Adolescents Hung-Tzu Huang and I-Ling Chen

51

5

Fluctuation of L2 Motivation and Possible Causes: Taiwanese EFL Learners Szu-An Chen

70

6

Examining the Relationship between Foreign Language Learning Motivation and Critical Thinking Motivation: The Case of Filipino Foreign Language Learners Marcos Y. Lopez and Richard D.L.C. Gonzales

v

94

vi

7

Contents

The Impact of Studying Abroad Experience on the Affective Changes Related to L2 Motivation: A Qualitative Study of the Processes of Change Michiko Ueki and Osamu Takeuchi

8

The Discursive Construction of University English Language Learners in China Mingyue (Michelle) Gu and Xiaoyuan (Doris) Qu

9

Teacher Classroom Behaviour and Teacher Motivation Amol Padwad and Krishna Dixit

10 Research on Second Language Teacher Motivation from a Vygotskyian Activity Theory Perspective: A Case Study of Two Novice English Teachers in China Qian-Mei Zhang

119

134

151

172

11 In Their Shoes: What Successful Indonesian School Teachers Do to Motivate Their Pupils Martin Lamb, Sri Puji Astuti and Nilawati Hadisantosa

195

12 Beyond Essentialism: Apprehending ‘Identity’ and ‘Motivation’ through a Poststructural Lens Nathanael Rudolph

217

13 Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Current Trajectory and Possible Future Matthew T. Apple and Dexter Da Silva

228

Index

239

Contributors

Matthew T. Apple MFA (University of Notre Dame), MEd, Ed D (Temple University), is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan. For the better part of two decades, he has taught at various levels of education in Japan, including secondary, tertiary and graduate. His main research interests are speaking anxiety, L2 motivation and intercultural communication. Sri Puji Astuti is an English teacher at a high school, SMA 1 Kota Solok, West Sumatra, Indonesia. She is currently a PhD student at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She is interested in learner motivation and in how school teachers motivate their students to learn English as a foreign language. I-Ling Chen is a master’s candidate of Language Cognition and Teaching at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Her research interests are second language motivation, language identity and learning strategies. Szu-An Chen is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Foreign Language Instruction in Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Her research interest is to explore L2 (de)motivation and motivational changes through using quantitative and qualitative research methods. Her students are mainly young Taiwanese adult learners who are at the low level of English proficiency and need sufficient support and guidance in learning this foreign language. Dexter Da Silva BA, Dip Ed, MA (Sydney), PhD (SELF Centre, University of Western Sydney), is Professor of Educational Psychology at Keisen University, Tokyo, Japan. His dissertation focused on Japanese university students’ motivation. He has presented at conferences in Asia, Australia, Europe and the United States, and authored or co-authored book chapters and journal articles in this area. He has been teaching at tertiary level in Japan for over 25 years.

vii

viii

Contributors

Krishna Kalyan Dixit is currently Head of the Department of English, Yeshwant College of Arts and Commerce, Seloo (Dist. Wardha) in India. He has an MA in English Literature and an MEd (English Language Teaching) from Marjon/University of Exeter, UK, on the Hornby Trust/British Council scholarship. He has also undertaken a Certificate Course on Critical Thinking in ELT from the University of Oregon, USA on an American Embassy/RELO scholarship. He has 15 years of teaching experience at tertiary level. He also works as a freelance teacher trainer. He has published several papers on ELT and teacher development. His areas of interest include teacher motivation, history of ELT in India, continuing professional development of teachers and bird watching. Terry Fellner BA, BEd, MA TEFL (Birmingham University), is Associate Professor of English in the Center for General Education at Saga University, Saga, Japan. He has more than 20 years of experience as a teacher, teacher trainer and researcher in North America, Africa and Asia. Peter Gobel is a Professor in the Faculty of Cultural Studies at Kyoto Sangyo University. His research interests include the use and acquisition of language learning strategies, anxiety and motivation in language learning and cultural factors affecting language learning. Richard D.L.C. Gonzales is the founding president of the Philippine Educational Measurement and Evaluation Association (PEMEA) and holds a doctorate degree specializing in educational research and evaluation with cognates in educational psychology and industrial relations from the University of the Philippines. At present, he is the President, CEO and Principal Consultant for Education of the Development Strategies International Consulting, Inc., and concurrently is a Professorial Lecturer of Psychology and Statistics at the University of Santo Tomas, Manila. Mingyue (Michelle) Gu is Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include language and identity, language and ideology, discourse theory and analysis, second language learning motivation, linguistic ecology and teacher education. She has published in international referred journals such as the Journal of Pragmatics, Language and Education, the Teacher Education Quarterly, the Asia Pacific Journal of Education and the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Nilawati Hadisantosa is a Senior Lecturer in TEFL at the English Department, Faculty of Education, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia. Her research interests are learner and student teachers’

Contributors

ix

motivation in learning and teaching English, classroom interaction and bilingual education. Tae-Young Kim is an Associate Professor/CAU Distinguished Scholar in the Department of English Education at Chung-Ang University, Seoul, South Korea, where he teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses in applied linguistics and TESOL. His areas of interest include L2 learner/ teacher (de)motivation, sociocultural theory, L2 learner identity and qualitative research methodology. His recent studies have been published in international journals such as the Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, the Asia Pacific Education Review, the Canadian Modern Language Review and System. Martin Lamb is Senior Lecturer in TESOL at the School of Education, University of Leeds, UK, where he teaches undergraduate and postgraduate courses in aspects of language teaching methodology and second language acquisition. His main research interest is in people’s motivation to learn and teach, especially English in the globalization era. He has also worked as a teacher/trainer in Sweden, Indonesia, Bulgaria and Oman. Marcos Y. Lopez holds a PhD in linguistics with specialization in applied linguistics. He is an Associate Professor at the Centro Escolar UniversityMalolos, Philippines where he teaches Communication Skills and Literature for tertiary students. He also teaches in the graduate school handling applied linguistics courses at the Bulacan State University-Malolos. His research interests lie in critical thinking in relation to English language teaching, assessment and testing. He has been in the teaching profession for 20 years. Setsuko Mori is a professor in the Faculty of Law at Kinki University, in Osaka, Japan. She has a doctorate degree in education, and her research interests include how individual differences such as motivation, attributional tendencies and personality affect learning behavior. She is on the editorial board of Reading in a Foreign Language and the JALT Journal. Amol Padwad is currently Head of the Department of English, J.M. Patel College, Bhandara (India) and has 29 years of teaching experience. He obtained an MEd TESOL from Leeds University, UK, through a British Council scholarship. Formerly, the National President of the English Language Teachers’ Association of India, he is now the National Convener, All India Network of English Teachers (AINET). He is a teacher trainer and ELT consultant for agencies like the British Council and OUP. He has several research articles, reviews and innovative projects to his credit. Xiaoyuan (Doris) Qu is a research assistant in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education at the Chinese University

x

Contributors

of Hong Kong. She received her doctoral degree in applied linguistics at the Hong Kong Institute of Education in 2013 and her research interests include language learning strategy and motivation, and metacognition in language learning. Nathanael Rudolph is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Mukogawa Women’s University in Nishinomiya, Hyogo, Japan. His research interests include postmodern and post-structural approaches to learner, user and teacher identity, teacher education, the contextualization and teaching of English as an international language and equity in the ‘field’ of English language teaching. Osamu Takeuchi, PhD, is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Kansai University, Osaka, Japan, where he directs MA and PhD programs in language learning and teaching. His current research interests include L2 motivation, learner strategy and self-regulation in language learning. His work has appeared in such professional journals as Applied Linguistics, SYSTEM, the RELC Journal, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching and Language Teaching Research. Siew Ming Thang is Professor and Chair at the School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Her areas of interest are learner autonomy, computer-enhanced learning, open learning and learning styles and strategies. She has published extensively and is on the editorial boards of numerous well-known CALL and Language Education journals. Hung-Tzu Huang is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature of the National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. She received her PhD in Second Language Studies at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Her main research interests include second language vocabulary acquisition, corpus linguistics and language teaching and the motivation to learn a second language. Michiko Ueki is an Associate Professor in the Department of Foreign Language Studies at Kansai University, Osaka, Japan. Her research interests cover L2 motivation, L2 anxiety and language learning in study abroad contexts. Her work has appeared in such professional journals as Language Education & Technology, the Journal of Asia TEFL and Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching. Qian-Mei Zhang recently received her PhD from the Department of English Education at Chung-Ang University, South Korea. Her research

Contributors

xi

interests include L2 students’ learning (de)motivation, L2 teacher (de)motivation, sociocultural theory and qualitative research methodology. She recently conducted a qualitative study investigation of L2 teacher motivation from a Vygotskian Activity Theory perspective by analyzing four novice Chinese teachers’ changes in motivation for teaching English.

1

Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Selves within Systems Terry Fellner, Matthew T. Apple and Dexter Da Silva

Why a Book on Language Learning Motivation in Asia? During the past half-decade, there have been quite a number of published books concerning themes such as the interaction of cultural and personal identity and language learning motivation. For example, recent volumes have examined self concept (Csizér & Magid, 2014; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Mercer & Williams, 2014; Taylor, 2013) and possible selves and dynamic systems (Dörnyei et al., 2015). However, to our knowledge, there is no book directly addressing motivation in Asian language learning contexts. While many language learning motivation books focus on learners in North America and Europe, the number of language learners, particularly English learners, in Asia dwarfs that of other regions. The two most populous countries in the world (China and India) are in Asia and are major players in the global economy. As Ushioda (2013) has pointed out, while the seemingly global motivation to learn languages, and particularly to learn English, is being driven by the forces of globalization, this perceived need to learn English for business and market expansion has both positive and negative impacts on issues of cultural and self-identity. The primacy of the English language is also evident in scientific fields of inquiry, where English by far dominates the publishing of social and natural scientific papers (Lillis & Curry, 2006). Although language motivation is not isolated to any single second (L2) or foreign language, the study of language learning motivation is generally dominated by the study of English learning motivation. In the increasingly globalized world culture, English adds something other than pure study for learners: it expands access to other cultures and ways of thinking, it opens other study and job opportunities and it increases cultural and economic capital. One could therefore logically infer that 1

2

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

the desire for employment, wealth or travel (or indeed all three) should be sufficient motivation for students in Asian contexts to learn English. Yet, the sheer amount of English language learning motivation research produced by Asian context-based scholars – particularly the growing subfield of ‘demotivation’ research (cf. Kikuchi, 2015) – would seem to belie that assumption.

Culturalizing Language Learning Motivation This book, while focusing on Asia as a central powerhouse of the global economy, has another emphasis. Following the recent trend in educational psychology and motivational science, it takes a more situated approach to learning, emphasising the importance of the social and cultural contexts of learning. A stimulus to taking this approach was the success of our previous book of studies based in Japan (Apple et al., 2013), which convinced us of the need for a book like this. The feedback we received was not only very positive, but also pointed to similarities and differences between cultures found in similar research studies. This suggested a focus on one of the key issues in current psychological and educational research – how do we balance our recognition of the importance of the cultural context and situation with the need to extract generalisations considering the universal aspects of humans? Despite the wide variety of motivational theories within the field of educational psychology, a major drawback to educational motivation studies is its limited generalizability across the cultural milieu. The fact that most such studies take place in WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic) countries raises the question of whether any of the existing theories of motivation apply in ‘non-WEIRD’ cultural contexts (Henrich et al., 2010). However, when trying to define the non-WEIRD cultural context of ‘Asia’, an additional difficulty emerges. ‘Asia’ as a continent comprises some 30% of all total land area on the planet and well over 4 billion people. In no way could ‘Asia’ be construed as a single cultural context. ‘Asia’ is a geographical area, not a cultural area. Not only is the term ‘Asian context’ not accurate, the various ‘Asian contexts’ represented in the present book may not even resemble each other. Yet, in common parlance, researchers, teachers and learners alike have a tendency to compare ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ cultures and peoples. These are convenient labels but ultimately they are too simplistic and fail to capture the range of historical, educational, religious and philosophical differences both between and within cultures. Researchers would never attempt to argue that learners in Hungary, France and Greece behave the same way or have the same learning motivations for English. If language learning motivation is not the same across European countries, why should we expect learner culture within Asia to be representative of a single ‘Asian’ context?

Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Selves within Systems

3

Bearing all this in mind, the present volume presents studies from various foreign language learning contexts in Asian countries, in which multiple motivational theories, cultural identities and ‘selves’ may be at play. While the researchers investigate the cross-cultural validity of existing language learning motivation theories in Asian contexts, and compare motivations of Asian students of foreign languages across cultures, the reader should bear in mind that the countries and cultures represented in this book are not necessarily representative of ‘Asia’ as a whole, and that there may exist educational situations within the countries represented that are different to those examined in this volume. To start the book, we provide a quick summary of the research themes present in the studies followed by a short description of each chapter. Themes covered in this volume include whether L2 possible selves as a theoretical model of motivation can be applied to an Asian context, the role of teacher motivation and demotivation in non-European educational systems, cross-cultural differences in learner motivation among Asian cultures and language motivation and cultural identity. Individual chapters can of course be read independently of each other; however, taken collectively they represent both conflicting and yet complementary approaches to language learning motivation theory. While the purpose of this introductory chapter is not to give a general overview of motivational theories, we will touch upon what we regard as the main theories that have informed L2 motivational learning theories that L2 researchers and teachers have relied upon during the past few decades before proposing an old (new) approach to the use of theory in language motivation research.

Motivational Theories and Approaches Motivational theories form what Pintrich (2003) termed ‘motivational science’, or a scientific framework of inquiry into what motivates students to learn. He posited three main themes to all forms of theory and inquiry into learning motivation (Pintrich, 2003: 668): (1) Approach motivational studies from a scientific perspective; in other words, demand empirical evidence, whether qualitative or quantitative, as long as the data and the inferences drawn from them are well-reasoned. (2) Use multidisciplinary approaches; in other words, theories, constructs and methods of data collection and analysis can be and should be informed by not only psychology, anthropology and sociology, but also linguistics, philosophy, neuroscience, biology, education and other fields of human inquiry. (3) Favor use-inspired research; in other words, move away from research for research’s sake, and toward the utility and practical usefulness of the research in specific learning situations.

4

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Theories of motivation purport to explain human behavior, i.e. why people decide to do certain things (choice), how much they are willing to do (effort) and for how long (duration). Some of the main theories borrowed from educational psychology and used by L2 researchers in the past include: expectancy-value theories (Atkinson, 1957), Social Cognitive (self-efficacy) Theory (Bandura, 1977), Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), Achievement Goal Theory (Ames, 1992; Pintrich, 2000), Self-Worth Theory (Covington, 2000), Attribution Theory (Weiner, 1985) and possible selves and Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1987; Markus & Nurius, 1986). One of the most influential L2 motivation theories, based partly on these previous existing motivational theories, has been the socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). In this model, integrative motivation is composed of integrativeness, attitudes toward target culture and motivational intensity, and is further informed by language learning history, motivators and other motivational factors such as instrumental orientations. A relatively new L2 motivational model, the L2 motivational self-system (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009), stems largely from the concepts of possible selves and Self-Discrepancy Theory. The model proposes that language learners are guided by visions of ‘second language selves’, one which attracts them toward becoming an idealized L2 user (ideal L2 self) and one which pushes them from societal obligation or a fear of failure (ought-to L2 self). Finally, a new approach, Complex Dynamic Systems (CDS), is increasingly finding use as a term within the field of second language acquisition (SLA) to distinguish it from the mathematical concepts of Dynamic Systems Theory (Birkhoff, 1927) and Chaos Theory (Lorenz, 1963) from which it derived. CDS is used to describe the complicated interactional nature of language usage within a social system (Dörnyei et al., 2015).

L2 Selves and Motivations: A Summary In this section, we briefly summarize the chapters in the book, arranged into four themes. The first major theme deals with motivation among younger learners at the primary and secondary level of education in China (Taiwan) and Korea. The second theme examines motivation among university-age learners in the Philippines, China (Hong Kong) and Japan. The third theme presents insights into teacher motivation in India, China and Indonesia. A fourth theme examines alternative views of what is meant by ‘selves’, ‘motivations’ and even ‘Asian’, which is discussed in two chapters that bracket the studies in the book and serve as bookends framing the discussion. In the first bookend (Chapter 2), Gobel, Thang and Mori provide new insights into Attribution Theory, specifically the effect the dependent/ interdependent self and the self-promoting/self-improvement bias has on

Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Selves within Systems

5

student motivation within three Asian countries. The authors point out that specific assumptions of many predominant researchers on motivation often miss what actually occurs in some Asian contexts. Specifically, they highlight the influence of teachers on student motivation in teachercentred classes, which are not only prevalent in Asia but also in many other developing nations’ educational contexts. In Chapter 3, Chen and Huang provide us with our first look at L2 motivation among younger students. In a quantitative examination of Taiwanese junior high school students’ motivation, they find that the concept of ought-to L2 self rather than the ideal L2 self may have a greater effect on language learning motivation among younger Taiwanese students. This in itself may not be surprising as junior high school students are unlikely to have idealized first language (L1) selves let alone ideal L2 selves due to a lack of experience. However, Chen and Huang’s findings may illustrate the influence of Confucianism and Confucian ideals on some Asian cultures, where the individual self is subordinated to the sense of a community self. Kim (Chapter 4) also examines younger students (elementary, junior high school and high school students in Korea) using CDS Theory and Sociocultural Theory (SCT) in an attempt to provide a more robust and descriptive picture of student motivation. He found that both CDS and SCT are useful as they are able to examine and explain fundamentally related but different aspects of motivation when examining the same data. Specifically, CDS adequately shows parental involvement and social pressure playing a key role in student L2 motivation while SCT illustrates that good learners start to view the external learning environment in a positive and supportive manner through the linking of short-term learning goals with initial motives. This view regarding the importance of social relations affecting younger learners’ L2 motivation is also discussed by Chen (Chapter 5), where the author examines motivation fluctuation among high school English learners in Taiwan. In Chen’s study, the role of significant others, namely teachers and parents, positively affects student motivation and also again illustrates the Confucian influence of the self as a part of a larger whole rather than separate and individual. The next three chapters specifically focus on university students in Asian contexts. Lopez and Gonzales (Chapter 6) investigate Filipino university student motivation to learn multiple languages and examine relationships between Filipino university students’ motivation and critical thinking motivation. The researchers find that there is a difference in the level and kinds of motivation among male and female students in general and between female students studying different languages. Interestingly, female students studying Mandarin showed a significantly greater affinity to integrative motivation while female students studying French had the highest instrumental orientation.

6

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

In another study of university students from a qualitative critical discourse perspective, Gu and Qu (Chapter 7) examine the motivation of four English language learners in China through their discourse on interpersonal relationships, imagined identities, challenges faced and their alignment with social norms. Their findings illustrate how relationships with peers, teachers, family, positions in the social and learning community and access to opportunities affects motivation and L2 identities. Japanbased researchers Ueki and Takeuchi (Chapter 8) take a different approach and look at the effects of study abroad experiences on student motivation. They found that the ought-to L2 self played a significant role in boosting motivated learning behavior while mastery experiences positively influence self-efficacy, which in turn has a powerful effect on L2 motivation. The volume also features three chapters that touch upon an important element of teacher motivation. Qian-Mei Zhang (Chapter 9) examines the changes in motivation of two novice English teachers in China through the lens of Vygotskian Activity Theory, which identifies the importance of teacher reflection. Zhang finds that novice English teachers’ motivation is not dissimilar to that of their students and changes a great deal over a relatively short period of time. She concludes that L2 teacher motivation among new teachers can be enhanced through the role of teacher reflection and the support of the teaching community. A similar relationship is found by Padwad and Dixit (Chapter 10), in their inquiry into how teacher motivation affects L2 student motivation. Based upon the results of a small-scale study in the Bhandara and Wardha districts of central India, the authors discovered that providing professional training for L2 teachers not only has a positive effect on L2 student motivation but additionally creates a dialectical relationship whereby the L2 teachers’ motivation benefited as well. Padwad and Dixit point out that learner and teacher motivation are reciprocated in either a virtuous or vicious cycle and that it is ultimately up to the teacher to break a vicious cycle and replace it with a virtuous cycle. The final chapter on teacher motivation (Lamb, Astuti and Hadisantosa, Chapter 11) also discusses the influence of teachers on student motivation. The focus is exclusively on eight successful teachers in Indonesia, four from western Sumatra and four from Jakarta. An interesting point is how the successful teachers were identified: the teachers from western Sumatra were identified through contacting high school principals whereas the teachers based in Jakarta were selected by high school students through an online survey. The authors’ findings support previous research claiming that teachers who act as positive, impactful agents on student motivation share similar behaviors such as building rapport with students, evaluating students in a sensitive manner, providing enjoyable lessons and convincing students that they can become strong English speakers. A key conclusion made by Lamb et al. is that individual behaviors do not motivate students

Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Selves within Systems

7

by themselves but rather a primary factor for student motivation is the ‘habit of mind’ possessed by successful English teachers. Finally, Rudolph (Chapter 12) introduces a new/old view of L2 motivation, identity and imagined communities through the prism of poststructuralism. Rudolph challenges the notion of ‘native speakers’ and ‘non-native speakers’ while pointing out that this artificial distinction has a serious impact on the concept of the ‘ideal self’. Native speakerism in countries such as Japan, Korea and China in particular constitutes a major role in the formation of L2 identity and motivation, which may indeed undermine many of the models and approaches to L2 motivation that researchers have attempted to use in Asian contexts.

A Post-Paradigm, Supra-Thematic Motivational Research Approach Perhaps one of the roles of volumes like the current one is to bring together research in contexts that clearly have similarities and differences, to be able to bring the research approach to a more universalist stance. Indeed, recent work in mainstream education (i.e. outside the field of SLA and L2 education) has provided insights into the value of seeking a universalistic middle ground for language motivation. It is to the possibility of embracing both the etic and emic as complimentary approaches to motivational research that we turn our attention. Two recent articles (King & McInerney, 2014; Zusho & Clayton, 2011) in Educational Psychologist, the top-ranked journal in its field, both suggest Martin Maehr’s Personal Investment Theory (Maehr, 1984; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986) as exemplary in its ability to draw out both universality and variability, the etic and the emic, in motivational research. Likewise, a recent book (Kaplan et al., 2009) honors Maehr’s influential contribution to Achievement Motivation Theory and commitment to promoting the importance of the specific and sociocultural contexts to motivation. To our knowledge, apart from a handful of studies in Japan (e.g. Da Silva, 2016; Da Silva & McInerney, 2008), Personal Investment Theory has not been applied directly to language learning motivation. However, Maehr’s ideas have influenced Achievement Goal Theory, which in turn, as mentioned before, has had an impact on theories of language learning motivation. One of the cornerstones of Maehr’s work has been his emphasis on the role of meaning in people’s choices and actions. This focus on individuals’ meaning-making of their specific contexts within their sociocultural environments may in fact be the key to identifying meaningful, generalisable patterns or models which differ in their specific context-bound details.

8

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

As language educators and researchers originating in ‘non-Asian’ WEIRD contexts but (more or less) permanently living and working in ‘Asian’ contexts, we editors have come to the conclusion that while the social context no doubt has influence on individual behavior and thought, it is still the individual who has beliefs, motives and agency that operate independently of and yet within culturally bound contextual restraints. Similar to the ‘post-method’ pedagogical approach called for in the 1990s that sought to encourage educators not to rely on a single method for language teaching (cf. Kumaravadivelu, 1994, 2003), we therefore call for a new approach to language motivation research in SLA that does not rely on a single theory, a single research method, a single cultural or societal context – what we term a ‘post-paradigm, supra-thematic’ approach by combining both etic and emic into a holistic, universalist middle ground for understanding the individual in context. The present volume thus presents exemplary research from scholars in various Asian countries, from various cultural and educational backgrounds, using multiple research methods and resulting in, at times, conflicting views and opinions on the nature of language motivation. Although each chapter in this book is designed to stand alone, we encourage readers to discover for themselves how the various themes and approaches to language learning motivation research play out, how they interact and complement each other, to give a greater sense of what it means to learn a foreign language in an ‘Asian’ context. It is our hope that by bringing together the absolutist and the relativist into a single book that we can encourage readers, both educators and researchers, to consider motivation from the middle, universalist ground: the etic and the emic as two sides of a coin, both of which are necessary to grasp language learning motivation as a unitary whole of the individual learner within his or her cultural context. At the end of the present volume, we will return to discuss the concepts of absolutist, relativist and universalist approaches (Zusho & Clayton, 2011), which we hope will enable us to see a clear path forward in language learning motivation research in Asian contexts.

References Ames, C. (1992) Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 84 (3), 261–271. Apple, M.T., Da Silva, D. and Fellner, T. (eds) (2013) Language Learning Motivation in Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Atkinson, J.W. (1957) Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review 64, 359–372. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84 (2), 191–215.

Language Learning Motivation in Asia: Selves within Systems

9

Birkhoff, G.D. (1927) Dynamical Systems. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society. Covington, M.V. (2000) Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology 51, 171–200. Csizér, K. and Magid, M. (eds) (2014) The Impact of Self-Concept on Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Da Silva, D. (2016) Japanese students’ motivation towards English as a foreign language. In R.B. King and A.B.I. Bernardo (eds) The Psychology of Asian Learners: A Festschrift in Honor of David Watkins (pp. 301–316). Singapore: Springer. Da Silva, D. and Mclnerney, D.M. (2008) Motivational and self goals of female students in contemporary Japan. In O.S. Tan, D.M. McInerney, A.D. Liem and A-G. Tan (eds) What the West Can Learn from the East: Asian Perspectives on the Psychology of Learning and Motivation (pp. 191–216). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9–42). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds) (2009) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. and Henry, A. (eds) (2015) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466, 29. Higgins, E.T. (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review 94, 319–340. Kaplan, A., Karabenick, S.A. and de Groot, E. (2009) Culture, Self, and Motivation: Essays in Honor of Martin L. Maehr. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Kikuchi, K. (2015) Demotivation in Second Language Acquisition: Insights from Japan. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. King, R.B. and McInerney, D.M. (2014) Culture’s consequences on student motivation: Capturing cross-cultural universality and variability through personal investment theory. Educational Psychologist 49 (3), 175–198. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994) The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/ foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28 (1), 27–48. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J. (2006) Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars: Interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication 23 (1), 3–35. Lorenz, E.N. (1963) Deterministic non-periodic flow. Journal of Atmospheric Science 20, 130–141. Maehr, M.L. (1984) Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In R. Ames and C. Ames (eds) Research on Motivation in Education (pp. 115–144). New York: Academic. Maehr, M.L. and Braskamp, L.A. (1986) The Motivation Factor: A Theory of Personal Investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

10

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41, 954–969. Mercer, S. and Williams, M. (eds) (2014) Multiple Perspectives on the Self in SLA. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Pintrich, P.R. (2000) Achievement goal theory perspective on motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 92–104. Pintrich, P.R. (2003) A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (4), 667–686. Taylor, F. (2013) Self and Identity in Adolescent Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E. (ed.) (2013) International Perspectives on Motivation. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Weiner, B. (1985) An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92 (4), 548–573. Zusho, A. and Clayton, K. (2011) Culturalizing achievement goal theory and research. Educational Psychologist 46 (4), 239–260.

2

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts: Toward an Alternative Model Peter Gobel, Siew Ming Thang and Setsuko Mori

Weiner’s (1986) attribution theory is concerned with degrees of achievement and perceptions of how that achievement was or was not attained. Weiner (2000) later revised the theory to include two models, one for interpersonal and one for intrapersonal motivational processes although both models follow a similar structure containing outcomes, causal antecedents and behavioral responses. Weiner (2010) attempted to address criticisms that he has not recognized the effects that cultural diversity, the environment or personal history may have on his models. Having taken these variables into account, he still believes his conceptual approach is universal, with those variables acting only to modify operational definitions and linkages within the theories, and thus the theory is not in need of alteration. However, there is growing evidence in East Asian contexts to suggest that patterns for causal attribution may significantly differ based on cultural and group affiliations, and that similar differences exist regarding self-enhancement tendency. These differences may be a result of the interdependent view of self, dominant in some Asian cultures, where self, social norms and modes of thought are viewed as being interconnected. This chapter revisits studies on attribution theory in general, and studies in the learning of English as a second/foreign language (ESL/ EFL) specifically, to unravel the causal attributional patterns in several Asian contexts. Drawing upon recent empirical studies undertaken in such countries as Japan, Thailand and Malaysia, the authors examine similarities and differences in attributional patterns among those cultures in the ESL/EFL context. A series of papers published by the authors and their team of researchers will be used to help elaborate on the variations in patterns and to explicate an alternative model of attributions that is more relevant to Asian contexts. Finally, the authors discuss the pedagogical 11

12

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

implications of the alternative model toward teaching and learning pedagogies in Asian contexts.

Attribution Theory When things go right (or wrong), how do people explain the outcome to themselves and others? Researchers in mainstream psychology have attempted to understand achievement behavior by analyzing the perceived causes of success or failure (Burke, 1978; Elig & Frieze, 1979; Weiner, 1979). These perceived causes, known as causal attributions, are thought to affect expectations for future success or failure. Weiner’s (1986, 2000) attribution theory created a framework that aids in understanding peoples’ beliefs and explanations of their performance. In Weiner’s model, causal attributions are described in the three dimensions of locus, stability and control. Locus is concerned with whether a cause is perceived as being internal or external. For example, ability and effort are generally classified as internal, whereas the difficulty of a task and the luck of the draw would be classified as external. Stability refers to the cause being either fixed and stable, or variable and unstable over time. So, ability could be seen as stable, and effort as unstable or variable over time. Finally, control refers to how much control a person feels that he or she has over a cause. Teacher assignment for a required course could be an uncontrollable cause for a student. In attribution theory, these three dimensions are the foundation for a taxonomy used to classify the specific causes of any outcome. Weiner (1986, 2000) postulated that attributions spring from selfperceptions, and as a result, may influence a person’s expectations, emotions, values and views about self-competence. Such self-perceptions in turn influence motivation. Differences in attributions have been reported for individuals depending on performance success or failure (e.g. Carr & Borkowski, 1989; Kristner et al., 1988) and it has been suggested that attributions may also differ by culture, with some cultures attributing their successes more to internal, personal factors (self-enhancement bias) and other cultures attributing failures to internal, personal factors (self-depreciation bias) (Kitayama & Uchida, 2003).

Attribution theory in educational contexts In the field of education, a number of studies have investigated student attributions regarding test and task performance (Farmer et al., 1991; Marsh, 1984; Meyer & Koelbl, 1982; Vispoel & Austin, 1995), the relationship between causal attributions and expectancy (Betancourt & Weiner, 1982) and teacher expectation and causal attributions (Cooper & Burger, 1980; Seegers et al., 2004). The majority of these studies analyzed attributions and performance across academic subjects as well as other school contexts

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

13

such as club and sports activities. These varied studies have highlighted the importance of specific attributions on performance and expectation, and have shown how a variety of attributions can be interpreted in terms of Weiner’s dimensions of locus, stability and control. Weiner (1979, 1986) has proposed that internal attributions produce greater changes in esteem-related affect than external attributions, while stable attributions are more concerned with expectancy for success or failure and controllable attributions are more closely connected with persistence than uncontrollable attributions.

Attribution theory in an ESL/EFL context In the area of language education, it is a given that people may spend a great deal of time studying another language, yet there is no guarantee that they will reach a reasonable level of proficiency. For language learners who struggle, there are frequent and varied ways in which to fail, and language learning, in many people’s minds, is associated with failure, risk taking and losing face (Horwitz, 1988). As a result, attribution theory is a relevant research area in the second language (L2) field. A few researchers have provided insight into the L2 causal attribution process. Studies of foreign language learning with British and American students found a variety of factors, such as teacher influence, family, classroom environment, ability, attitude and learning context to be attributes related to either positive or negative outcomes, suggesting that these attributions may act as a filter for experiences in an attempt to maintain a positive self-image (Tse, 2000; Ushioda, 2001; Williams et al., 2001, 2004). Hsieh and Schallert (2008) attempted to combine two motivational constructs, self-efficacy and attribution, to explore the motivation of 500 undergraduate foreign language learners in the US and found that self-efficacy was the strongest predictor of achievement, supplemented by ability attributions.

Recent studies on attribution in Asian educational contexts With previous studies on attribution in educational contexts and Weiner’s model as a starting point, the following studies were undertaken by the authors. The first study explored perceived reasons for successes and failures in speaking and reading classes among first-year Japanese university students, using 12 possible attributions for success and failure (Gobel & Mori, 2007). The results revealed that students who reported performing poorly attributed poor performance to a lack of ability and a lack of effort (internal attributions), while those who reported performing well attributed their performances to external causes (teacher, classroom atmosphere). This finding is incongruent with the results of most North American studies that repeatedly show a self-enhancement tendency, and supports the claim

14

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

of Heine and Hamamura (2007) and Markus and Kitayama (1991) that cultural differences significantly influence attributions. In order to examine if this pattern of attributions extended to other cultures in Asia, a series of studies were performed. Mori et al. (2010) compared Thai (n=355) and Japanese (n=350) university student attributions, and found similar attributional patterns with both groups. The theoretical structure of causal attributions between the two groups was also quite similar, suggesting a possible attributional cultural bias that extends beyond the Japanese environment, and possibly to a number of Asian cultures in the region. A third study was then undertaken by the authors and their team of researchers, comparing Thai (n=335), Japanese (n=350) and Malaysian (n=298) university students (Gobel et al., 2011). The results of this study also showed evidence of a lack of self-enhancing bias across the three groups. Students in all three groups tended to have stronger attribution ratings for successes than for failures. In particular, they focused more on external factors, especially teacher influence, when they succeeded. On the other hand, when they failed, these students tended to focus more on internal causes, namely lack of ability, preparation and effort, and inappropriate use of strategy (Table 2.1). Despite the overall self-critical tendency, there were differences between the groups. Japanese students were less willing to attribute success to personal ability than Malaysian and Thai students while Thai students Table 2.1 List of significant success and failure attributions across three cultural groups Thailand (n=335)

Malaysia (n=298)

Japan (n=350)

Five most endorsed success attributions (1)

Interest in grades

Interest in grades

Teacher influence

(2) Teacher influence

Teacher influence

Class atmosphere

(3) Class atmosphere

Interest in activity

Class level

(4) Class level

Effort

Interest in activity

(5) Effort

Class level

Effort

Five most endorsed failure attributions (1)

Lack of ability

Lack of ability

Lack of preparation

(2) Inappropriate use of strategy

Lack of effort

Lack of effort

(3) Lack of preparation

Lack of preparation

Inappropriate use of strategy

(4) Lack of effort

Inappropriate use of strategy

Lack of ability

(5) Lack of enjoyment

Task difficulty

Task difficulty

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

15

had a greater propensity for attributing success to teacher influence and classroom atmosphere than Japanese students. Regarding failure attributions among the three groups, Thai students placed greater blame on lack of interest and class factors, whereas Japanese students blamed lack of effort more, and the Malaysian students attributed failure more to a lack of ability. To explore the reasons for these differences, further studies were undertaken in the Malaysian context using differences in universities, proficiency levels and urban–rural environment as independent variables. When investigating attributional differences resulting from differences in universities, Thang et al. (2011) found that an interest in getting good grades and teacher influence were the most endorsed success attribution across the six universities (n=1060), while a lack of preparation and ability were cited as the main failure attributions. A self-critical tendency was also found across English proficiency levels (n=670) in Mori et al. (2012), with low- and mid-proficiency students showing a greater self-effacing bias than the high-proficiency students. Using Malaysian urban and rural environments as the independent variable (n=1156), an overall self-critical tendency was seen, with rural students being more self-critical than their urban counterparts (Gobel et al., 2013). These follow-up studies supported the general finding of the previous studies (Gobel & Mori, 2007; Gobel et al., 2011; Mori et al., 2010) while underscoring attributional differences among groups. More importantly, they reiterated the point that although there may be some variation in attributional patterns within groups as a result of differences in sociocultural, educational and environmental factors, the underlying general patterns remain the same in these three Asian contexts.

The Need for an Alternative Model A sociocultural approach The results of the studies summarized above clearly show the need to revisit the standard models of motivation, taking culture and cultural values and beliefs into consideration. One problem with studying motivation is that we are not dealing with a physical phenomenon, but rather with abstract concepts and constructs that are formed into a dynamic system which changes in a very non-linear way (de Bot et al., 2007). In other words, we are trying to describe a process rather than a state, and the behavior of the whole is comes out of an interaction of its parts. Culture and cultural beliefs play a key role in this interaction. It is for this reason that we feel a need to add a sociocultural dimension to the model. Culture, as defined for our purposes, is a series of concepts, beliefs and behaviors that seek to make order of and define the world. We have used the

16

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

word sociocultural rather than cultural, because sociocultural includes within its scope both the conceptual and the material. In other words, it includes meanings (ideas, attitudes and values), cultural products, interpersonal interactions and institutional practices and systems. The participants in any society are not merely the passive recipients of the culture, but also the shapers of culture and society. In the field of sociocultural psychology, both the brain and behavior are considered to be socioculturally constituted (Markus & Hamedani, 2007). This view postulates that there is interdependence among self-systems and social systems. This interdependence is an active process moving the individual from the biological to the social. Thus, the individual is a dynamic self that mediates and regulates behavior in a social environment. In short, individuals are not separate from social contexts and social contexts do not exist outside of people. As a result, a sociocultural approach to motivation demands a social model of the person in which the person exists in a dynamic bond with the context. For the purposes of our model, we will focus on two concepts from sociocultural psychology: the view of the independent/interdependent self and the self-promoting/self-improvement bias, and how they affect motivation and group dynamic.

Dichotomous views of the self Hofstede (1991) has suggested that cultures vary on a spectrum running from individual to collective. This idea proposes that some cultural groups view themselves as more independent in nature and others are more interdependent. Those with a more interdependent view of self, for example, may view the self as embedded within a larger group affiliation, and malleable. Individuals in a collectivistic culture may feel more comfortable forming in-groups, feel more comfortable in unequal vertical hierarchical relationships, focus on maintaining harmony in the group and focus on group goals and expectations. Those in a more individualistic culture would view the self as independent, unique and relatively immutable. These people would feel more comfortable expressing individual views, they may prefer horizontal, equal relationships and attach more importance to individual goals. This is not to say that these two are mutually exclusive. As Markus and Kitayama (1991) point out, within each individual lies an independent self, which sees oneself as separate from others, and an interdependent self, which sees oneself connected to others. Depending on the activity, one or the other of these two selves will dominate, with individual differences also being in evidence. Markus and Kitayama (1991) found that in Asian cultures the interdependent self is dominant, while in Western cultures the independent self comes to the fore. The independent view of the self, as seen in a European American cultural context can be traced back to the value

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

17

placed on rational thought and the expression of the ‘natural self ’ found in the legacy of the Enlightenment. In the same way, the interdependent self, as reflected in Japanese culture, has roots in the concepts of compassion (Buddhism) and role obligation (neo-Confucian teaching). These ideas are both historically constructed and socially distributed, and over time have helped shape the various cultures in which they reside. The varying views of self affect the social dynamic and have consequences for individual attitude and behavior.

Self-enhancement and individualistic cultures Self-enhancement is a well-known habitual psychological tendency to dwell on positive information about the self rather than negative information (see Greenwald [1980] for a review of literature). One can exhibit a self-enhancement tendency either by enhancing the positivity (self-advancing) or reducing the negativity (self-protecting). Decades of research with North American participants has consistently indicated that such a tendency is deeply rooted and pervasive. In individualistic cultures such as North America, the self is viewed as an autonomous entity with a unique set of attributes and qualities (entity theory of the self: Chiu et al., 1997; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Hong et al., 1999). Since those internal attributes are believed to be relatively immutable across situations and responsible for behavior, it is essential to obtain a positive evaluation of the self in order to maintain self-esteem. Consequently, Westerners (e.g. North Americans) tend to credit themselves (i.e. ability) when they succeed, and blame external factors that they have no control over (i.e. luck) when they don’t. Westerners are also more likely to focus on activities and skills in which they already excel. This is known as self-promotion behavior. In addition, in individualistic cultures that emphasize independence and goal-orientedness, one’s principal form of action tends to be using his or her own goals, needs, desires, judgments and other internal qualities in an attempt to cause changes in the environment. Morling et al. (2002) call this mode of action ‘influence’. Since North Americans regard another person’s act as a form of influence, they have a tendency to focus on internal factors that may cause the person to engage in the act while ignoring possible external causes. Such a tendency is so strong and pervasive (Choi et al., 1999; Norenzayan et al., 2007) that it has been called the ‘fundamental attribution error’ (Nisbett & Ross, 1980) or correspondence bias. This goal-directed nature of Western cultures also encourages focused attention toward a goal-relevant object or individual in the environment. A single object is identified and isolated from the immediate context, and is then scrutinized and categorized in terms of a general taxonomic system. Therefore, this mode of thought is called ‘analytic’ (Nisbett et al., 2001).

18

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Interdependence and the Eastern perspective Unlike studies framed in individualistic cultures, a plethora of cultural psychological research (Heine et al., 1999; Kitayama et al., 1997; Markus & Kitayama, 1991) indicates that East Asians, especially those participating in Confucian cultures such as Japanese, Chinese and Korean, do not show a tendency for self-enhancement. Heine and Hamamura (2007), in their stateof-the art paper, meta-analyzed cross-cultural studies of self-enhancement, and found that 88 of 91 studies showed that Westerners (primarily European North American) self-enhanced more than East Asians (d>0.70). Interestingly enough, in 14 of the 16 studies comparing Westerners, Asian Americans and East Asians, Asian Americans fell in between the other two groups in terms of their self-enhancing motivations. Heine and Hamamura (2007) contend that the lack of self-enhancement in East Asian cultures is best explained by a culturally unique view of the self typically observed among East Asians. In the field of cultural psychology, the way East Asians view the self (as described by Kitayama et al., 2007) has often been used to explain the concept of ‘self-enhancement’. It is postulated that in East Asian cultures, the self is considered to be more fluid and positioned in a hierarchical set of social relationships, and behavior is believed to be a consequence of being responsive to role obligations within those relationships. Since internal attributes and qualities are regarded as more malleable and adjustable, failure is not considered as much of a serious threat to self-esteem (Heine et al., 2001). Consequently, more importance is attached to adjusting oneself to role obligations than enhancing the positivity or reducing the negativity of the self. As a result, members of a collectivistic culture would be socialized to attend to their negative attributes and aspects of themselves that are seen as improvable. Thus, self-perceptions highlight the idea that one can become a better person, and that this self-improvement behavior is expected by the group. These psychological tendencies involving the self are sustained by the ways in which the social realities are collectively constructed in a cultural context. It is true that self-improvement is found in individualist cultures as well. North Americans are quite concerned with self-improvement, and most large bookstores have a self-help/self-improvement section. However, it is important to understand that using the term ‘self-improvement’ in this way is different from the usage above. The interdependent view of self-improvement is focused on finding shortcomings and correcting them. This is a focus on process rather than product. Self-improvement is for the betterment of the group and one’s relationship with the group. This is quite different from trying to actualize one’s self-potential. In short, in both of these views, the individual may share similar goals in wanting to do his or her best; however, they may use different strategies to achieve these goals.

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

19

Those with a self-promoting bias may work harder while focusing on their strengths, and those with a self-improving bias may work harder while focusing on their shortcomings. This self-improving bias can be seen in the concept of face. Face has been defined as the amount of social value given if you live up to your social position (Ho, 1976). What is important is not how positively people think of themselves, but whether significant group members think they are doing well. Face is more easily lost than gained, thus one is very vulnerable in social situations. By attending to potential weaknesses, the chance of losing face is decreased. This kind of defensive, cautious position is consistent with a prevention focus and very different from a concern with a promotion focus (self-enhancement behavior). In collectivistic cultures, the self is encouraged to conform to the expectations and needs of others. This mode of action is called ‘adjustment’ (Morling et al., 2002). Since East Asians view another person’s act as a form of adjustment, they look for external factors that may induce the person to engage in the act. Therefore, the fundamental attribution error or correspondence bias typically observed among North Americans is often mitigated or non-existent in cultures that emphasize interdependence and other-oriented communal practices. Additionally, responsiveness to social contingencies fosters holistic attention rather than analytic attention. In the ‘holistic’ mode of thought (Nisbett et al., 2001), as individuals direct their attention to a number of potentially significant elements of the environment rather than identifying a single cause, they tend to understand the outcome within a holistic, broader scheme or context. Consequently, outcomes are more likely explained in terms of contextspecific factors and unstable internal dispositions such as task difficulty and effort (Choi et al., 1999).

Effort and ability As we can see from the previous section, one’s bias will greatly affect how one approaches a task, the amount of effort one puts into it and how one views the successes or failures. Heine et al. (2001), in a trio of studies focusing on Japanese (n=261) and North American (n=219) college students, conclude that the self-promoting/self-improvement bias has a significant effect on effort and ability in a task. For instance, when the outcome of a task is negative, the self-critical tendency of the Japanese in all three studies (which the authors also found in their battery of studies) seemed to allow the Japanese to perform at their best. By focusing awareness on areas of weakness, they were better able to notice places where self-improvement was needed. In addition, the Japanese had a tendency to work harder following failure than following success. In other words, certain kinds of failure were seen as a motivating force among the Japanese participants. In

20

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

contrast, the North American participants, when confronted with failure, abandoned a task far more frequently. Heine et al. (2001) conclude that North Americans tend to be sensitive to their strengths and weaknesses and thus pursue activities that allow them to affirm their positive characteristics. By continuing to work on tasks that have met with success in the past, while avoiding tasks that reveal their shortcomings, North Americans are able to maintain a positive self-image. The results of Heine et al.’s experimental manipulations and measures of concrete responses are in accordance with the results of survey research conducted with Chinese students (Hau & Salili, 1991, 1996; Ho et al., 2007; Lau & Chan, 2001; Salili & Hau, 1994), indicating differences in how cultural context may affect views of ability and effort. If individualist cultures view ability as more fixed and immutable, then failure in a task is a direct affront to the self-image. This would explain a self-enhancing bias. Conversely, if collectivistic cultures view ability as variable, failure at a task could be overcome in the future by continued effort. Ability is largely a function of an individual’s efforts. In fact, the studies indicate effort and ability loaded together in principal components analysis, suggesting that for the participants in these studies the two attributes were interchangeable (Gobel & Mori, 2007; Gobel et al., 2011, 2013; Mori et al., 2010, 2012; Thang et al., 2011). We can see an example of this kind of dichotomy in something that is found in both individualistic and collectivistic cultures: university entrance procedures. In many Asian countries, performance on university entrance exams is greatly helped by attending cram schools, as many entrance exams require a great deal of factual knowledge. Attendance at such schools may take place over many years. In comparison, performance on North American exams is not seen as reliant on years of fact cramming to the same extent. This example illustrates that the way a given social event is collectively defined and maintained varies according to the culture that engenders its existence.

An Alternative Attribution Model Based on the authors’ research in Asian contexts, and research in the area of sociocultural psychology, we are proposing a revised model of causal attribution and motivation that we feel is more appropriate for Asian perspectives (Figure 2.1). Bearing in mind cultural variation and the desire to avoid stereotypes, the model includes both dependent and interdependent modes. The model starts from an ontogenetic maintenance level (Valsiner, 2007) encompassing cultural values, action regulation and modes of being. This is followed by the mesogenetic process level, which explains the response to the outcome of a particular task or activity, identifying causal ascriptions (self-enhancement or self-critical bias) and causal dimensions

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

21

Figure 2.1 Model of attribution for independent and interdependent self (adapted from Kitayama et al., 2007; Valsiner, 2007; Weiner, 2010). It is hypothesized that ‘ability’ in interdependent cultures is often inseparable from ‘effort’.

in line with Weiner’s (2010) model. The microgenetic process level lists possible psychological behavioral consequences related to task outcome and persistence or abandonment of the task. Throughout the model, arrows represent the interdependency of all levels, implying a dynamic influence. An example might help to clarify the model. Let’s take the example mentioned before – the entrance examination process – and place it in the context of Japanese society and culture. At the ontogenetic level, being a more collectivistic culture, the high school student will be expected to respond to teachers as the main authority figure for learning and direction regarding examinations (cultural patterns of social relations). Whether students choose to enter the examination process or not depends more on peers and teachers than on their own future goals (central principle of action regulation). Students (and families) may adjust their activities and time schedules to fit cram school schedules and exam-related functions, bearing in mind that exam preparation is a long-term endeavor and sacrifices must

22

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

be made by all involved (modes of being). Within reason, students may apply to take exams at a number of universities or university faculties with exams of varying difficulties. When the exam results come back, a positive result may see the candidate thanking the teachers and family members for all their attention, and a negative result might be met with a ‘work harder for next time’ (causal ascriptions and causal dimensions). If failure is total or unacceptable, students in Japan have the option of taking the next year to prepare for entrance exams, frequently spending hours every day at a cram school. There are many students who choose this route and work hard in the hopes that they will pass the exams the following year (psychological consequences and behavioral consequences). It is tempting to view any model as static and immutable, but we would like to stress the dynamic and interconnected nature of our model. In the interest of avoiding stereotypes, it must be stressed that no culture or its society is completely individual or collective. Indeed, there are differences within cultures. For example, Gobel et al. (2011) found differences in attributional patterns depending on whether the respondents were from urban or rural settings. At every level of the model, we should view cultures and societies on a spectrum, and assume that causal ascriptions and dimensions are both affected by and affect culture at the ontogenetic level.

Pedagogical Implications for Language Teaching and Learning in the Asian Contexts The discussion in this chapter and the model that was developed focus on how the view of the dependent/interdependent self and the selfpromoting/self-improvement bias affect motivation and group dynamic in Asian contexts. From the discussion, it can be concluded that in some Asian cultures the interdependent self is dominant, while in many Western cultures (e.g. North America) the independent self comes to the fore. This has led to patterns of attributing success to external factors such as teacher influence and the general perception among Asian students that the teacher factor is crucial to learning. Teachers are perceived as having a tremendous impact on student learning, to the extent that studying on their own without teachers’ support is considered less beneficial. Viewed from a North American or Western European educational context this may appear negative, but studies in Asian contexts have revealed that despite displaying teacher-centered tendencies, students are capable of working on their own when necessary. For example, Jones (1995) found that his Cambodian students were ready to work independently of the teacher in their own contexts; Ho and Crookall (1995) described how enthusiastically their students engaged in a project where much of the work

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

23

was conducted in groups working independently of the teacher. Similar patterns were found in research studies with Japanese students by Marshall and Torpey (1997) and Aoki and Smith (1996); with Malaysian students by Thang and Azarina (2007), Thang (2009) and Jaafar and Thang (2014); and with mainland Chinese scholars by Chia (2009). Thus, it would appear that what is crucial is not whether students are interdependent or independent but whether they are capable of negotiating different versions of autonomy according to the context when required to do so (Aoki & Smith, 1996). Littlewood (1999) describes this type of autonomy as reactive autonomy to differentiate it from proactive autonomy, which is the type of autonomy that is usually intended when the concept of autonomy is discussed in the West. He describes reactive autonomy as … a preliminary step towards the first or goal in its own right. This is the kind of autonomy which does not create its own directions but, once a direction has been initiated, enables learners to organize their resources autonomously in order to reach their goal. (Littlewood 1999: 75) As shown in the abovementioned examples, Asian students are more likely to display what Littlewood describes as reactive autonomy. The dominance of the interdependent self among Asian students should not be viewed as a major problem pedagogically as it can still lead to successful learning. However, it cannot be denied that it is beneficial for Asian students to move away from being too teacher dependent. It is proposed here that by using their position of respect, teachers in Asian contexts can act as a catalyst to bring about such a change. For example, they can introduce measures to help students develop approaches and styles of learning that are more independent in nature. In addition, teachers can introduce self-enhancement and skill development approaches to help students alter their perceptions of themselves and their own abilities, hence enabling them to take a more active role in contributing to their own academic successes. This includes being more goal-oriented and bold enough to use their own needs, desires, judgments and other internal qualities to try to bring about change in the environment. It is our belief that by doing so, the students will develop a more balanced view of the contributions to their successes. Another interesting feature of Asian students drawn from the discussion in this chapter is that individuals in the cultures studied tend to have a self-improving bias. Failures are not seen as a serious threat to self-esteem, but rather areas that need improvement. Those with a self-improving bias would tend to focus on their shortcomings whereas those with a self-promoting bias would focus on their strengths. The self-improving bias prevalent in Asian students will have them attend to their negative

24

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

attributes and aspects of themselves that they believe can be improved in an attempt to fit better into the mode of action expected of them. Morling et al. (2002) called this behavior ‘adjustment’ which, according to them, can direct the students to be more humble and industrious in trying to improve themselves. Under similar circumstances, there is a greater likelihood that North American students will abandon the task. While Asian students’ strong self-improving bias can be considered a positive attribute in that it encourages them to strive harder to overcome adversities that impede their successes, this attribute may lead to an overemphasis on studying to pass examinations and not studying for the sake of learning. Take for example the case of studying for public examinations in many Asian countries. The public examination systems in these countries tend to focus more on acquiring largely factual knowledge rather than developing basic skills and aptitudes. To succeed in this endeavor, students in these countries expend a great deal of effort, which often translates as cramming in the facts rather than being critical or analytical in their approach to learning. This behavior, which is formed at the ontogenetic level, may result in students being less critical or analytical as revealed in research studies undertaken on Asian students (e.g. Biggs, 1997; Cadman, 2000; Durkin, 2010; Egege & Kutieleh, 2004; Gunawardena & Petraki, 2014). Thus, if educators in Asian contexts wish to promote critical thinking skills, changes need to be implemented from the top such as the government and the Ministry of Education. A few such changes can be seen in school assessment systems in Asia nowadays, in that course work and progress reports are now taken into consideration. Informal evaluation is given greater prominence, too. It is not possible for Asian countries to move completely away from their current examination systems as they are ‘social events’ that are collectively defined and maintained according to cultures that have perpetuated rigid examination systems since ancient times. However, it is hoped that Asian countries will be able to move toward a more balanced approach that encourages diligence as well as critical and analytical thinking skills. In the classroom, teachers can contribute toward moving students away from fact cramming by focusing on more effective learning strategies and critical thinking skills rather than examinations. Teachers should also not adhere too much to principles and theories on motivation that they have studied in books and apply them without carefully thinking them through, as many of these principles and theories are designed with Western contexts in mind. They should instead make the effort to design materials and tasks more appropriate to their learners, taking into consideration the attributional patterns discussed in this chapter, and other sociocultural factors in the countries in which they are teaching.

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

25

References Aoki, N. and Smith, R. (1996) Learner autonomy in cultural context: The case of Japan. Abstract for paper presented at the 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Jyva’skyla’, Finland, August. Betancourt, H. and Weiner, B. (1982) Attributions for achievement-related events, expectancy and sentiments: A study of success and failure in Chile and the U.S. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 13, 263–374. Biggs, J. (1997) Teaching across and within cultures: The issue of international students. In R. Murray-Harvey and H.C. Silins (eds) Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Advancing International Perspectives (pp. 1–22). Adelaide: Flinders Press. Burke, J.P. (1978) On causal attribution: The interactive relationship between self-esteem and task performance. Social Behavior and Personality 6, 211–221. Cadman, K. (2000) Voices in the air: Evaluations of the learning experiences of international postgraduates and their supervisors. Teaching in Higher Education 5 (4), 475–491. Carr, M. and Borkowski, J.G. (1989) Attributional retraining and the generalization of reading strategies by underachievers. Human Learning and Individual Differences 1, 327–341. Chia, C.S.C. (2009) Is the Chinese culture of learning a barrier to fostering autonomous learning among PRC students? In S.M. Thang and B. Sinclair (eds) Learner Autonomy: Research and Practice in Malaysia and Singapore (pp. 34–60). Petaling Jaya: Pearson Longman. Chiu, C., Hong, Y. and Dweck, C.S. (1997) Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 19–30. Choi, I., Nisbett, R.E. and Norenzayan, A. (1999) Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin 125, 47–63. Cooper, H.M. and Burger, J.M. (1980) How teachers explain students’ academic performances: A categorization of free response academic attributions. American Educational Research Journal 17, 95–109. de Bot, K., Lowie, W. and Verspoor, M. (2007) A dynamic system theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21. Durkin, K. (2010) The adaptation of East Asian masters’ students to western norms of critical thinking and argumentation. UK Intercultural Education 19 (1), 15–27. Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988) A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review 95, 256–273. Egege, S. and Kutieleh, S. (2004) Critical thinking: Teaching foreign notions to foreign students. International Education Journal 4 (4), 75–85. Elig, T. and Frieze, I. (1979) Measuring causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 621–634. Farmer, H., Vispoel, W. and Maehr, M. (1991) Achievement contexts: Effect on achievement values and causal attribution. Journal of Educational Research 85, 26–38. Gobel, P. and Mori, S. (2007) Success and failure in the EFL classroom: Exploring students’ attributional beliefs in language learning. In L. Roberts, A. Gürel, S. Tatar and L. Martı (eds) EUROSLA Yearbook 7 (pp. 149–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gobel, P., Mori, S., Thang, S.M., Kan, N. and Lee, K. (2011) The impact of culture on student attributions for performance: A comparative study of three groups of EFL/ ESL learners. JIRSEA Journal 9 (1), 27–43. Gobel, P., Thang, S.M., Sidhu, G.K., Oon, S.I. and Chan, Y.K. (2013) Attributions to success and failure in English language learning: A comparative study of urban and rural undergraduates in Malaysia. Asian Social Science 9 (2), 53–62.

26

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Greenwald, A.G. (1980) The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist 35, 603–618. Gunawardena, M. and Petraki, E. (2014) Critical thinking skills in the EAP classroom: Negotiating tensions in the Sri Lankan context. In I. Liyanage and T. Walker (eds) English for Academic Purposes (EAP) in Asia (pp. 65–78). Rotterdam: Sense. Hau, K.T. and Salili, F. (1991) Structure and semantic differential placement of specific causes: Academic causal attributions by Chinese students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology 26, 175–193. Hau, K.T. and Salili, F. (1996) Prediction of academic performance among Chinese students: Effort can compensate for lack of ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65, 83–94. Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1999) Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review 106, 766–794. Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D.R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C. and Matsumoto, H. (2001) Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (4), 599–615. Heine, S.J. and Hamamura, T. (2007) In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychological Review 11 (4), 4–27. Ho, I.T., Hau, K.T. and Salili, F. (2007) Expectancy and value as predictors of Chinese achievement goal orientation. In F. Salili and R. Hoosain (eds) Culture, Motivation and Learning: Multicultural Perspectives (pp. 69–90). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Ho, J. and Crookall, D. (1995) Breaking with Chinese cultural traditions: Learners autonomy in English language teaching. System 23 (2), 235–243. Ho, O.Y.F. (1976) On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81, 867–884. Hofstede, G. (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C.S., Lin, D.M. and Wan, W. (1999) Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 588–599. Horwitz, E.K. (1988) The belief about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. Modern Language Journal 72, 283–294. Hsieh, P. and Schallert, D.L. (2008) Implications from self-efficacy and attribution theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language course. Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (4), 513–532. Jaafar, N. and Thang, S.M. (2014) Revisiting autonomy and attributions: A case in a Malaysian university. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 13 (2), 41–64. Jones, J.F. (1995) Self-access and culture: Retreating from autonomy. ELT Journal 49 (3), 228–234. Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H. and Norasakkunkit, V. (1997) Individual and collective processes in the construction for the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, 1245–1267. Kitayama, S. and Uchida, Y. (2003) Explicit self-criticism and implicit self-regard: Evaluating self and friend in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39, 476–482. Kitayama, S., Duffy, S. and Uchida, Y. (2007) Self as cultural mode of being. In S. Kitayama and D. Cohen (eds) Handbook of Cultural Psychology (pp. 136–173). New York/London: Guilford. Kristner, J., Osborne, M. and LeVerrier, L. (1988) Causal attributions of LD children: Developmental patterns and relation to academic progress. Journal of Educational Psychology 80, 82–89. Lau, K.L. and Chan, D.W. (2001) Motivational characteristics of under-achievers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology 22, 417–430.

Revisiting Studies on Causal Attributions in ESL/EFL Contexts

27

Littlewood, W. (1999) Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics 20 (1), 71–94. Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) Cultural variation in the self-concept. In G.R. Goethals and J. Strauss (eds) Multidisciplinary Perspectives on the Self (pp. 18–48). New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Markus, H.R. and Hamedani, M.G. (2007) Sociocultural psychology: The dynamic interdependence among self systems and social systems. In S. Kitayama and D. Cohen (eds) Handbook of Cultural Psychology (pp. 3–46). New York/London: Guilford. Marsh, H. (1984) Relations among dimensions of self-attribution, dimensions of selfconcept, and academic achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology 76 (6), 1291–1308. Marshall, N. and Torpey, M. (1997) Autonomy and interaction in a self-directed classroom. In V. Berry, B. Adamson and W. Littlewood (eds) Applying Linguistics: Insights into Language in Education (pp. 107–122). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Meyer, J. and Koelbl, S. (1982) Students’ test performances: Dimensionality of causal attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 8 (1), 31–36. Mori, S., Gobel, P., Thepsiri, K. and Pojanapunya, P. (2010) Attributions for performance: A comparative study of Japanese and Thai university students. JALT Journal 32 (1), 5–28. Mori, S., Thang, S.M., Nor, F., Vijaya, L. and Oon, S.I. (2012) Malaysian students’ attributional tendency in the learning of English as a second language: Its relationship with actual and perceived proficiency. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 11 (3), 199–218. Morling, B., Kitayama, S. and Miyamoto, Y. (2002) Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28, 311–323. Nisbett, R.E. and Ross, L. (1980) Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A. (2001) Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108, 291–310. Norenzayan, A., Choi, I. and Peng, K. (2007) Perception and cognition. In S. Kitayama and D. Cohen (eds) Handbook of Cultural Psychology (pp. 569–594). New York/London: Guilford Press. Salili, F. and Hau, K.T. (1994) The effect of teachers’ evaluative feedback on Chinese students’ perception of ability: A cultural and situational analysis. Educational Studies 20, 223–236. Seegers, G., Van Putten, C. and Vermeer, H. (2004) Effects of causal attributions following mathematics tasks on student cognitions about a subsequent task. The Journal of Experimental Education 72 (4), 307–328. Thang, S.M. (2009) Investigating autonomy of Malaysian ESL learners: Comparison between public and private universities, 3L Language, Linguistics and Literature. The South East Asian Journal of English Language Studies 15, 97–124. Thang, S.M. and Azarina, A. (2007) Investigating readiness for autonomy: A comparison of Malaysian ESL undergraduates of three public universities. Reflections on English Language Teaching Journal 6 (1), 1–18. Thang, S.M., Gobel, P., Nor, F. and Vijaya, L. (2011) Students’ attributions for success and failure in the learning of English as a second language: A comparison of undergraduates from six public universities in Malaysia. Pertanika 19 (2), 459–474. Tse, L. (2000) Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal 84 (1), 69–84.

28

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Ushioda, E. (2001) Language learning at university: Exploring the role of motivational thinking. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 171–184). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i. Valsiner, J. (2007) Culture in Minds and Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vispoel, W. and Austin, J. (1995) Success and failure in junior high school: A critical incident approach to understanding students’ attributional beliefs. American Educational Research Journal 32 (2), 377–412. Weiner, B. (1979) A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology 71, 3–25. Weiner, B. (1986) An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Weiner, B. (2000) Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review 12 (1), 1–14. Weiner, B. (2010) The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist 45 (1), 28–36. Williams, M., Burden, R. and Al-Baharna, S. (2001) Making sense of success and failure: The role of the individual in motivation theory. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 171–184). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii. Williams, M., Burden, R., Poulet, G. and Maun, I. (2004) Learners’ perceptions of their successes and failures in foreign language learning. Language Learning Journal 30, 19–29.

3

The Theoretical Interface between Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and Sociocultural Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research: A Qualitative Investigation Tae-Young Kim

Like many other Asian countries, South Korea (hereafter Korea) places great emphasis on English education. Since 1997, English has been taught in elementary school and for 10 years from Grades 3 to 12, students are required to learn English (Kwon, 2000). English is one of the four main subjects in the College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT), which is administered only once in the second week of November every year. The CSAT score is the most crucial determining factor for university admission. As Seth (2002) states, education is of utmost importance in Korea, and many Koreans tend to judge a person’s potential, intelligence and even the probability of his or her future success based on the name of the university that the person graduated from. Therefore, gaining admission to a prestigious university becomes a great source of family pride, and more than $18 billion a year is spent on private education for the purpose of getting a better score in the CSAT (Statistics Korea, 2014). English accounts for the largest portion of the expenses of private education. Within this educational context, students’ English-learning (de)motivation has been one of the central themes in second language (L2) research in Korea (Kim, 2013). In the previous era, most research on L2 motivation was significantly influenced by the psychometric tradition (e.g. Gardner, 1985) with only scant attention paid to the social and contextual influence. However, since the turn of the century, we have witnessed the introduction of alternative approaches to L2 learning (Atkinson, 2011), and Complex Dynamic Systems (CDS) theory (Dörnyei et al., 2015) and 29

30

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

sociocultural theory (SCT) (e.g. Kim, 2011; Swain et al., 2015) provide insights to help accurately explain the intricate developmental nature of L2 learning and motivation. The present chapter intends to compare and pinpoint the similarities and differences between these two frameworks by analyzing semi-structured interviews on L2 learning motivation, collected from nine students of English as a foreign language (EFL) in Korea.

Background From an applied linguistics perspective, L2 learning is characterized by unpredictability, non-linearity and instability. Even a highly motivated student in an EFL class may not show the same level of enthusiasm at a different time and in a different place. Previous research paradigms based on modern Newtonian reductionism (Kim, 2010a; Larsen-Freeman, 2015) did not fully capture this developing, contextualized nature of L2 learning motivation. As a result, the uniqueness found within an L2 learner and among L2 learners was relegated to ‘noise’ or insignificant exceptions, which hampers the regularity of the L2 learning process (de Bot & LarsenFreeman, 2011). In this chapter, I take the position that CDS and SCT are viable alternative frameworks that can describe the complexity of L2 learning motivation in ways that prior research has not. However, with only a few notable exceptions (e.g. Kimura, 2014; van Geert, 1998), little attention has been paid to the theoretical compatibility between CDS and SCT to date. LarsenFreeman and Cameron (2008: 157) have noticed a significant theoretical overlap between CDS and SCT by stating that ‘both try to unify the social and the cognitive, although they do so in different ways, and neither is exclusively a theory of SLA’. Therefore, the unique characteristics of these two theories deserve our attention, starting with CDS and then with SCT.

L2 motivation from the perspective of CDS According to Dörnyei (2010, 2014), we can identify the non-linear and disproportional nature of L2 motivation in L2 classrooms since the same instruction leads to qualitatively different reactions among L2 learners. Some learners will be motivated, whereas others will not and may even be demotivated. The challenge that each L2 teacher faces on a daily basis is that the effect of their instruction on L2 learners’ motivation is difficult to predict. Additionally, lessons taught with identical educational contents often lead to different learning outcomes, arguing against the causeand-effect relationship between the instruction and learning assumed in previous L2 motivation literature (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). L2 learning clearly is an example of a complex system. An L2 classroom always consists of heterogeneous agents: students, teachers, friends and

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

31

parents, and it constantly affects and is equally affected by internal and external factors. In attempting to gain an understanding of the learning process, CDS provides a useful epistemological lens with which to see through the haze. It does this because CDS fully embraces non-linearity and unpredictability thereby putting these phenomena in its foreground. As Larsen-Freeman (2011: 52) stated, ‘one of complexity theory’s innovations is that in acknowledging the complexity of natural systems, it avoids reductionist solutions’. CDS views language learning as complex and dynamic systems that are non-linear, self-organizing and emergent (Fusella, 2013). de Bot et al. (2007) and MacIntyre and Legatto (2011) defined two different states in CDS: attractor states (i.e. dynamic systems’ self-organization into preferred states) and repeller states (i.e. the states that will not be preferred). This represents a key concept of CDS, as finding strong attractor states is one of the promising future directions of investigating L2 learning motivation (Dörnyei, 2010, 2014; Hiver, 2015). An attractor state is defined as ‘a region of a system’s state space into which the system tends to move’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008, 50). Attractor states lead to a higher order of equilibrium within dynamic systems. Since the focus of CDS is the reciprocation between variability and stability, the crucial research questions in L2 learning motivation viewed from CDS are: What kind of coaction between the attractor states and repeller states is identified in L2 learning motivation? How do these different states lead to fluctuations in L2 learners’ motivation? Demotivation should also be counted as one of the central themes of CDS in language learning and has been defined by Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011: 139) as a decrease in motivation originating from ‘specific external forces that reduce or diminish the motivational basis of a behavioral intention or an ongoing action’. As illustrated in Kim’s (2012a) study, Korean EFL students exhibit a consistent decrease in every subcomponent of L2 learning motivation until they reach high school. However, the level of motivation found among high school students did not catch up with the previous higher level of elementary school students’ motivation. Given the EFL context in Korea, where virtually all elementary and secondary school students are required to learn English, it is incredibly useful to analyze the motivational dynamics and diagnose the source of their motivational change through the lens of CDS (Kikuchi, 2015). Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008: 51) presented a visual representation of the trajectory of a complex system focusing on attractors in various phases. As shown in Figure 3.1, if we regard the black ball as the L2 learner’s level of motivation, we can think of two states that project students’ motivational changes. The first type is an attractor state falling into the attractor basin, and the other is a repeller state that diminishes L2 learners’ motivation. The attractor basin, or ‘region in which the

32

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Figure 3.1 The trajectory of an L2 learner’s motivational level in a complex system

attractor exerts a force on the system’ (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008: 52), functions as the force increasing the learner’s L2 learning motivation. However, due to a variety of internal or external obstacles to L2 learning motivation, such as the lack of willingness to communicate or negative influence from friends, the attractor state may lose its relative equilibrium, and move toward opposing repeller states. This occurs at the crest of the mount in Figure 3.1. Due to the great number of L2 learning experiences, L2 learning motivation can fluctuate between high levels of motivation (the attractor state of relative stability located in the attractor basin at the base of the mount) and low levels of motivation (or demotivation) at the peak of the mount in Figure 3.1. It is important to note that different learners show different attractor states influenced by different system (control) parameters, defined as ‘the specific principles, constraints or rules which govern the interactions between system components and the patterns of change that take place’ (Hiver, 2015: 24). For example, some students might experience motivational fluctuations when they realize that a considerable gap exists between their L2 proficiency and that of their close friends in the same classroom. Others may experience motivation fluctuations due to their teachers’ specific teaching method. In the former case, the system parameter is the influence from classmates, whereas in the latter, it is the instructional method. In other words, system parameters are conditionally motivating factors, which are activated differently within each L2 learner. Therefore, when examining students’ L2 learning (de)motivation, the system parameters as well as the attractor and repeller states are crucial concepts in capturing students’ motivational change (Kikuchi, 2015).

L2 motivation from the perspective of SCT Given that social factors influence individual L2 learners’ creation, maintenance and possible termination of L2 learning motivation, Vygotskian SCT shares a conceptual affinity with CDS. Although SCT has been adopted as one of the major alternative theoretical frameworks in applied linguistics (Atkinson, 2011; Swain et al., 2015), very few L2 motivation studies can be found in SCT literature (e.g. Kim, 2009, 2011). Previous L2 motivation research based on the SCT framework is often associated with activity theory (AT), which was first initiated by Vygotsky

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

33

(1978, 1987) and then further developed by his associate Leont’ev (1978). Activity is defined as a system of purposive behavior, and any activity conducted by participants includes ‘goals, means, the process of molding the object [i.e., long term goal], and the result’ (Davydov, 1999: 39). Previous L2 motivation research from an SCT perspective was centered mostly on clarifying the nature of participation and learner goals in creating motivation (Markova, 1990). Initial motives, defined as drives to fulfill psychological or social needs (Swain et al., 2015), do not have much guiding power to trigger the appropriate motivated L2 behavior unless the motives are put into action, with the support of learner goals and participation in communities of L2 practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, when a motive aligns with a goal and participation, it is transformed into motivation (Kim, 2010a). This conceptualization may seem similar to Gardner’s (1985) integrative orientation or integrative motive, but it is not. In Gardner’s socio-educational model, integrative motives include both the orientation and also the motivation and intensity toward learning the language (Gardner, 1985). However, SCT-based L2 motivation does not make a conceptual distinction between integrative and other motives. This is relevant because currently in East Asian EFL learning contexts, most students are required to learn English for a variety of utilitarian purposes. Therefore, integrative motives, which reflect ‘a goal to learn a second language because of a favourable interest in the other language community’, (emphasis added) are not frequently found (Gardner, 1985: 54). When motivation does occur, an environment gains new meaning potential and becomes an affordance (van Lier, 2000). The environment ‘provides opportunities and resources for action, and information for what is to be perceived so as to guide action’ (Gibson & Pick, 1986). Affordance means ‘a particular property of the environment that is relevant’ to students (van Lier, 2000). In this regard, an affordance, created when an L2 learner is motivated, portrays the unique interaction between the learner and the environment. From Kim’s (2010a, 2010b) perspective, motivated learners exhibit two distinctive characteristics: a clear sign of participation and concrete, shortterm goal(s). Since L2 learners’ participation may not be actual physical engagement in L2 communities due to peripherality (Lave & Wenger, 1991), the concept of participation needs to incorporate Wenger’s (1998: 178) concept of ‘belonging through imagination’. As Wenger emphasized, imagination is not a collection of ‘personal fantasies’ but a mental enactment of yet-to-be-realized, expanded reality. A short-term goal also needs to be identified among the learners. According to Engeström (1999: 381), ‘goals are attached to specific actions. Actions have clear points of beginning and termination and relatively short half-lives’. Therefore, unless we identify the L2 learner’s specific learning behavior and concrete learning goals through either physical or imagined participation, it is difficult to grasp the learner’s level of motivation.

34

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts Motive + Goal + Participation

Motivation

Demotivation (from motivation to motive)

Figure 3.2 The relationships between motive, motivation and demotivation (Kim, 2010a)

In CDS, a phase shift from a motivated, attractor state to a demotivated, repeller state is implied, whereas from an SCT/AT perspective (Kim, 2010a, 2010b), as shown in Figure 3.2, demotivation is seen as a gradual process of disintegration from motivation to simple motive, whereby learner goals and participation are all dissociated from motive. In this regard, a demotivated learner may have a motive or an extant drive but does not actually have the willingness to put his or her energy into action due to the lack of goals and participation in L2 communities. Although learner goals and participation are not identifiable with the learners’ L2 learning situations in either school or other proximal communities, demotivation can occur due to the learners’ recognition of disparity between their goals, participation and L2 learning situation. After L2 learners become conscious of this, their motivation, which is corroborated from their active participation in L2-related communities, is gradually dissipated; in this case, motives signify an extant desire to learn the L2, which does not gain full momentum (see Figure 3.2).

The study In this chapter, data obtained from nine Korean students from various public schools are examined in order to clarify the theoretical interface between CDS and SCT in L2 learning motivation using Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System as a framework of inquiry. To this end, three research questions are proposed: (1) How can we describe Korean EFL learners’ motivational variation by using attractor/repeller states and system parameters in CDS? (2) How can we describe Korean EFL learners’ motivational variation from an SCT perspective? (3) What are the similarities and disparities between CDS and SCT in explaining the learner’s motivational change?

Method Participants A total of nine students (three in elementary school; three in junior high school; and three in high school) participated in this study. The various grades were chosen because it enabled the author to examine the motivation of

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

35

Table 3.1 Participant profile Level Elementary school

Junior high school

High school

Name (school grade)

Proficiency

Type of English learning motivation

Hyun-Ah (4)

High

Ought-to L2 self

Yoon (6)

High

Ideal L2 self, instrumentality (promotion)

Jung-Eun (6)

Low

Ought-to L2 self

Da-Hyon (7)

High

Ought-to L2 self, instrumentality (prevention)

Min-Seo (8)

Low

Ought-to L2 self, instrumentality (prevention)

Sun-Min (9)

Low

Ought-to L2 self, instrumentality (prevention)

Jin-Ah (10)

High

Ideal L2 self, instrumentality (promotion)

Yong-Ha (10)

Low

Ought-to L2 self, instrumentality (prevention)

Kyu-Jin (12)

High

Ideal L2 self, ought-to L2 self

students in all 10 years of Korea’s English education (see Table 3.1). In order to highlight the participants’ different motivational characteristics, students of different ages having had either high or low English proficiency were recruited. The students’ English proficiency was determined by in-house test scores and interviews with their English teachers. In this sense, the research utilized a maximum variation sampling (Dörnyei, 2007; Patton, 1990) for the data collection method. This method is particularly useful because it is able to identify and describe ‘central themes or principal outcomes that cut across a great deal of participant or program variation’ (Patton, 1990: 172). An average of 20 minutes was used for the interviews, which were conducted at a time and place convenient to the participants. In order to prevent social desirability, the interviews were conducted by a qualified research assistant enrolled in a PhD program in applied linguistics hired by the author.

Procedure and method of analysis After completing piloting in September 2010, semi-structured interview items were modified and used in the main study, which was conducted from November 2010 to January 2011. Guided by Dörnyei’s (2009) conceptualization of L2 Motivational Self System, a total of four major areas were discussed during the interviews: (1) the ideal L2 self (i.e. the representation of the attributes that someone would ideally like to possess), (2) the ought-to L2 self (i.e. the attributes that one believes one ought to

36

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

possess), (3) the EFL learning experience in Korea and (4) demotivation. For data analysis, after transcribing the interview data, the computerized files went through a series of NVivo analyses, which significantly enhanced the quality of data analysis by providing systematic coding and sorting of the qualitative data (Richards & Richards, 2002). The coding process was guided by Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) three steps: open, axial and selective codings. After adopting Miles and Huberman’s (1994) cyclical reading of the open coding strips, the prominent and recurring themes were identified, and a conceptual hierarchy was made among them (i.e. axial coding), of which only the most salient findings are presented in this chapter (i.e. selective coding).

Results Korean EFL students’ motivation from a CDS perspective The first notable theme identified in the interview data is that of heavy parental involvement, particularly the mothers’ active role in their children’s English learning. It appears that the younger a participant is, the more influential the mother’s role is. In some cases, without knowing the reason as to why their parents want them to learn English, the participants expressed a strong desire to learn English. Excerpt 1: Hyun-Ah (Grade 4, elementary, high L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I)

Why do your parents say that you should learn English?

Hyun-Ah (H):

Perhaps, my mom thinks my English is not good enough...

I:

Then, why do they want you to study English then?

H:

Um...I don’t know.

I:

Did your parents influence you to become motivated in studying English?

H:

Yes. [smile]

I:

How do they do this?

H:

...My mom tells me how important it is to see the world as a global village.

Parental involvement seems to function as a powerful influence on the participants and in many cases, extends its influence to junior high school students.

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

37

Excerpt 2: Da-Hyon (Grade 7, junior high, high L2 proficiency) Da-Hyon (D):

My mom says that in my generation, we are expected to meet tons of foreigners when we grow up. So my mom says we need to learn English seriously.

Interviewer (I):

Oh, did your mom say that you need to learn English because there will be lots of foreigners [in Korea]?

D:

Yes.

I:

Oh, I see. What’s your opinion, Da-Hyon? Do you agree with that?

D:

Well. I guess so.

As presented in Excerpts 1 and 2, the participants’ mothers place an emphasis on learning English by providing future, imaginary situations of meeting English-speaking foreigners in Korea. Being influenced by their mother’s persuasion, students become motivated. This resulted in both Hyun-Ah’s and Da-Hyon’s high English proficiency. Parental influence on L2 motivation is often found in English learning contexts in East Asia and has been identified in China (Chen et al., 2005; Magid, 2011), Korea (Kim, 2012b) and Japan and Iran (Taguchi et al., 2009). For example, Chen et al. (2005: 623) emphasized a strong family bond among English learners in China by stating that ‘if they excel in the traditional structures of Chinese society such as filial piety, respect for teachers, and excellence in examinations, they can obtain their dreams’ and ‘individual success in the exams reflects positively not on individuals, but on families and clans’ (Chen et al., 2005: 613). Similar findings are also reported in Kim’s (2012b) qualitative study where parental influence was an important predictor of students’ English proficiency. However, the mother’s persuasion seems to cease to be an effective motivational attractor when participants pass adolescence. This was first noted in a Grade 6 students’ response (Jung-Eun) and is frequently identified among junior and senior high school participants. Excerpt 3: Jung-Eun (Grade 6, elementary, low L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

Who do you study for?

Jung-Eun (J):

My mom always tells me that my English learning is only for me. So, thinking of my mother, I guess it is for my own sake.

I:

For your sake? Did your mother say it’s for you?

J:

Yes.

38

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Excerpt 4: Sun-Min (Grade 9, junior high, low L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

Did your interest in learning English change a lot?

Sun-Min (S):

Well, quite a while ago, I enjoyed it, but all I have now is entirely an obligation to study it. It’s nothing related to my own interest or curiosity.

I:

You mean you have a sense of duty to study English?

S:

Right.

I:

What comes to your mind when your parents say you should study English hard?

S:

Well...If they insist, I must do it. ...But that’s not what I want to do.

In both Jung-Eun’s and Sun-Min’s statements, we can see the separation of the self from the parents. In Excerpt 3, Jung-Eun shows a typical case of an ought-to L2 self, which originates from parental aspiration. She is aware that her mother instills the need of learning English, but this does not seem to be her wish per se. Sun-Min in Excerpt 4 reports the increasing gap between her own desire to learn English and the psychological pressure to learn English coming from her parents. In summarizing the above excerpts, parental persuasion to learn English appears to have a powerful influence on Korean EFL students motivation or maintaining high levels of motivation at the initial stage of English learning (Grades 3 and 4). The gentle nudge (or the not so gentle nudge at times) from parents seems particularly effective when the participants are relatively young, particularly when they are susceptible to significant others’ opinions (Nicholas et al., 2013). Nonetheless, for the pre-teenage participants, this previously efficacious attractor gradually ceases to be perceived as useful. Excerpts 3 and 4 give evidence that the learners’ motivational state has settled into a demotivated state which is characterized by a feeling of duty toward their parents, but not an intrinsic interest in learning English. In other words, the demotivation observed in these excerpts suggests that the learners’ initial attractor state is transformed into a repeller state once they feel that their parents’ suggestions are no longer efficacious. In this case, the learners’ cognitive maturity in gauging the effectiveness of parental suggestions functions as a system parameter. In contrast to the maternal influence, it is noteworthy that the fathers’ intervention continues to exert a powerful influence on participants and brings them to motivated attractor states. This is exemplified in Excerpt 5, where Yoon elaborates on his ideal L2 self and English learning motivation in conjunction with his father’s active involvement in English learning.

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

39

Excerpt 5: Yoon (Grade 6, elementary school, high L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

Well, Yoon, who was the most influential person for your English learning?

Yoon (Y):

My dad. He tries to teach me a lot of English. He explains difficult English grammar rules.

I:

Oh, I see. Then what do you want to become in the future?

Y:

A veterinarian.

I:

Veterinarian? How is it related to English learning?

Y:

Well, there are 8 major departments of veterinary medicine in South Korea. Above all, English is the common language among the people in this field. So, it would be good to learn English. Also, who knows? I may want to become a greater man than a vet. I don’t just want to become a vet in my village in Korea. For this future necessity, I’m learning English.

Note that among all participants, Yoon provided the most detailed ideal L2 self. His pinpointing the exact number of veterinarian schools across Korea and elaborating on the relationship between becoming a vet and learning English indicate that Yoon internalized the need to learn English in order to fulfill his dream job in the future. In the Korean context, wherein the Confucian patriarchal family system still remains (cf. Seth, 2002), in many cases, the father is responsible for family support, and his detailed suggestions reflecting his life experience can uphold a student’s English learning motivation. Excerpt 6 illustrates more on the paternal intervention as a powerful attractor. Excerpt 6: Jin-Ah (Grade 10, high school, high L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

Why do you think they [Jin-Ah’s parents] encourage you to study English?

Jin-Ah (J):

My dad tells me that it would be really tough if I cannot speak English well. And I also would like to learn it...

I:

Why does your father keep telling you that?

J:

The English test score will be required when I apply for a job at a company or for a government officer position. So, I think my dad emphasizes studying English.

40

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Another major attractor found in students’ interview data was the social pressure to learn English. This attractor was particularly salient for high school students’ interview data. Often associated with globalization (Kubota & McKay, 2009) or international posture (Yashima, 2009), the necessity to learn English is reiterated in the Korean mass media and pressure is felt by Korean EFL students, as shown in Excerpts 7 and 8. Excerpt 7: Kyu-Jin (Grade 12, high school, high L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

There are many different views on learning English. Some students think it is important, while others don’t think it is important at all. Do you think that learning English is important, Kyu-Jin?

Kyu-Jin (J):

Yes. I admit that it is important. Since we are living in the era of globalization, English plays a key role these days and without any question, English is a must.

I:

You ‘admit’ that it’s important? What do you mean? Does that mean you don’t actually study it? Why do you think we must learn English?

K:

It’s because everyone does it. Also, in our daily life, English will be used. So, it is important to learn English and we have to learn it.

Excerpt 8: Yong-Ha (Grade 10, high school, low L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

Then why do you think you should study English?

Yong-Ha (Y):

It’s on TV. You know, we can hear the importance of learning English from TV. To keep up with the global era, we have to learn it

From the above excerpts, we may draw the conclusion that for Korean EFL students, two major attractors are prominent: parental (particularly paternal) involvement and social pressure. Both of them are closely connected to the practical need to learn English as a global language. In some cases, however, the participants did not exhibit much motivational effort even though they perceived parental involvement or social pressure. It indicted that if the parents’ suggestions are not detailed enough and are perceived only as habitual nit-picking, they quickly become wasted and stop functioning as attractors. In such cases, the students did not show motivated behavior.

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

41

Excerpt 9: Min-Seo (Grade 8, junior high school, low L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

Min-Seo, in your opinion, why do we need to learn English?

Min-Seo (M):

In the future, I must speak in English to strangers... So, in order to converse with foreigners.

I:

Have you ever had an experience of talking to foreigners in English?

M:

No.

I:

Then who told you about this? I mean talking to foreigners.

M:

My mom.

I:

I see. How do you feel when your mom tells you to study English?

M:

whew...[sigh]

I:

Not that good? What does your mom say to you for your English study?

M:

She does not teach me much. She just says, ‘Do your homework first and memorize everything!’

I:

When you hear what she says, how do you feel?

M:

I get upset.

I:

Why?

M:

Sitting back, she does nothing. She simply says, memorize everything without giving me any advice or tips about memorizing the word.

Min-Seo, in Excerpt 9, clearly conveys that parental involvement per se may not be an effective attractor unless this is elaborated on and calibrated to each child’s circumstance. Parental intervention may not be efficacious and may stop functioning as a powerful attractor once it is perceived as habitual by the learners. This may be because the children start to view the negative parental remarks as criticizing their learning behavior or as vague reminders of their parents’ nervousness of their child lagging behind other children in terms of English proficiency. The situation reported in Excerpt 9 may not be limited to English learning but can be equally applied to most situations in school learning and parental involvement in it. The above findings provide supporting evidence that two major attractors play a key role among Korean EFL learners: parental involvement (Excerpts 1 through 6) and social pressure (Excerpts 7 and 8). These attractors have already been identified as important factors in students’

42

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

school achievement and motivation. For example, an authoritative parenting style, when mediated by close parent–child relationships, functions as a key determinant of students’ school performance (Chao, 2001). Also, strong social pressure to learn English is reported to be the main motivational factor for students in Korea (Kim, 2012a), China (Magid, 2011) and Japan (Tsuda & Lafaye, 2005). They function as strong attractors and thereby make noticeable changes in motivated behavior. As shown in Excerpts 1 and 2, the mother’s learning suggestion, be it elaborate or vague, seems to function as an attractor. On the other hand, in Excerpts 3 and 4, as participants enter their adolescent years, they develop sensitivity toward the self and others and start to recognize themselves objectively. In this case, the attractor of maternal influence loses its strength and another attractor having more energy is anticipated ‘to make the system move on to another attractor state’ (de Bot et al., 2007: 8). In this sense, the students’ level of appreciation of their parents’ advice seems to function as a strong system parameter regulating students’ motivational thinking and behavior. Excerpt 9 demonstrates that parental influence may need to be finely tuned and specific enough to provide educational guidance to the agent in the complexity system. This excerpt provides evidence that a vague and inaccurate suggestion from parents ceases to affect the system and is no longer perceived useful, and from then on, motivation declines. Note that Excerpts 5 and 6 illustrate that paternal, not maternal, influence can function as a powerful attractor. This indicates that suggestions reflecting life experience and sensitivity for the child’s needs enhances motivation and keeps the learner in the attractor basin. Taking the role of a tutor, Yoon’s father in Excerpt 5, for example, attempts to instruct Yoon and gives a detailed grammatical explanation. This is different from Min-Seo’s adversity in Excerpt 9.1 As stated earlier, in a dynamic system, demotivation is the repeller state at the pinnacle of the mount metaphorically (see Figure 3.1). This does not mean, however, that the phenomenon of demotivation is fixed and precludes any possibility of future change. When another attractor having sufficient energy is perceived as being efficacious, remotivation occurs and the system experiences a phase shift and ushers into a new motivational, attractor state. Because such patterns of attractor state cannot be predicted and present irregularity, this is a strange or chaotic attractor state (Hiver, 2015).

Korean EFL students’ motivation from an SCT perspective From an SCT perspective, particularly from an AT framework (Kim, 2010a; Leont’ev, 1978), the mediational process between the learner and society is the key factor in L2 learner motivation. Reinterpreting Dörnyei’s (2009) L2 Motivational Self System from an SCT perspective, Kim (2010b) has explicated the relationship between the ought-to L2 self and the ideal L2

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

43

self. As shown in Figure 3.2, when a learner’s L2 learning motive is integrated with a specific goal and sense of participation, the initial motive or drive is transformed into motivation. As mentioned earlier, motives do not have much regulating power in initiating an enhanced level of learning behavior unless a specific learning goal is associated and participation in either physical or imagined communities of L2 practice is identified. Learners having an ought-to L2 self may express varying degrees of motives, not motivation, where close association with goals and participation is not identified because this type of L2 self is ‘a representation of someone else’s sense of duty, obligation, or responsibility’ (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009: 4). Because learners with the ought-to L2 self do not initially set personally meaningful goals (Kim, 2009, 2012b), their learning context remains as an objective environment and not an affordance, which does not gain personal significance. Contrary to this, learners who have a strong ideal L2 self (i.e. ‘a representation of personal hope, aspirations or wishes’, Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009: 4) have specific learning goals and actively participate in actual or imagined L2 communities of practice (Kim, 2009, 2010b). For them, a community (or environment in general) gains personal meaning and starts to function as an affordance (van Lier, 2000). Regarding this, Kozulin’s (1995) meaning/sense distinction is illuminating: Meaning preserves the core of the object’s already established characteristics. These characteristics, however, may have marginal importance in a particular situation in which the given object becomes involved in individual thinking. In sense the object is becoming defined by its contextual meanings, but it does not yet exist as an entity of its own apart from its context. (Kozulin, 1995: 125, italics in original) From Kozulin’s (1995) viewpoint, Yoon (Excerpt 5) exhibited an internalized ideal L2 self, where he clearly states the number of veterinary schools in Korea with his father’s active intervention playing a key role in creating his future images. This suggests that Yoon’s father assisted him in formulating manageable learning goals and participating in imaginary professional communities of L2 practice (i.e. school of veterinary medicine). With his father’s active participation, Yoon could attach personal meaning (i.e. to become a veterinarian and eventually a great man) to English learning. In this regard, he made ‘sense’, not meaning, of learning English. Contrary to Yoon, Sun-Min (Excerpt 4) showed only an ought-to L2 self estranged from her aspired future self-image. The interview data show that she was the only daughter of the family, and her parents’ high expectations seemed to provide her with the strong pressure to study English, In Excerpt 4, Sun-Min finds very little personal meaning, or sense in Kozulin’s (1995) view, in her learning, and what she does for her English was to acquiesce to other people around her in order to keep up with their expectations. However, the data does not reveal her acceptance of the necessity of learning

44

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

English. This indicates that despite the fact that Sun-Min’s parents put an emphasis on English learning, she expressed neither personalized learning goals nor enthusiasm for participating in L2 communities. In sum, Yoon’s recognition of L2 learning was sense and related to an ideal L2 self, whereas Sun-Min’s was limited mostly to meaning and to an ought-to L2 self. In Excerpt 9, Min-Seo’s case only indicates a superficial parental involvement. Her mother does not (and possibly cannot) provide short-term goals for her study nor is she actively involved in Min-Seo’s English learning. In this case, Min-Seo may still have a vague motive to learn English; however, this motive is not effectively attached to the learning goals and a sense of participation. As a result, it could not be transformed into motivation (see Figure 3.2). Because Min-Seo’s motive to learn English is not linked to concrete learning goals, she could not make meaningful connections between English learning and her future dream job, an important feature of the ideal L2 self. Excerpt 10: Min-Seo (Grade 8, junior high school, low L2 proficiency) Interviewer (I):

What do you want to become when you grow up?

Min-Seo (M):

Well, just a teacher, something like that. I don’t know yet.

I:

What kind of subject do you want to teach when you become a teacher?

M:

I don’t know that either.

I:

Then how do you see the relationship between your future career and English learning?

M:

[2 seconds later] Well, there should be some [relationship], well...there must be...I don’t know...

What she expressed is not related to English learning, and her future dream of becoming a teacher is dissociated from the ideal L2 self accordingly. In Excerpt 9, Min-Seo did not indicate specific learning goals or the desire to participate in either physical or imaginary L2 communities; the disparity between her future job and English learning is illustrated in Excerpt 10. This implies that Min-Seo’s English learning is related to an ought-to L2 self, but not to an ideal L2 self. Also, from an SCT perspective, Min-Seo expressed an externally mandated motive not a personally meaningful motivation to learn English.

The interface between CDS and SCT Prominent attractors are identified and patternized into two factors in examining the comments of the learner: parental involvement and social pressure to learn English. In some cases such as Yoon in Excerpt 5, parental

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

45

involvement functions as a very strong attractor and thus L2 learners become motivated, whereas other parental efforts, as shown in Min-Seo in Excerpt 9, may yield no visible positive motivational enhancement when its value was not acknowledged by the learners themselves. The situation is the same in the case of social pressure perceived by each participant. SCT and AT can also provide a useful lens for grasping the idiosyncratic nature of L2 learning motivation. In this chapter, an expanded conceptualization of motivation, initiated by Leont’ev (1978), was used. If the learner sees the merit of their parents’ suggestion, appreciates and connects it to his or her future self, the objective environment is differentially perceived and gains a higher level of meaningful affordance (van Lier, 2000). In this case, the learners have a better chance of creating an ideal L2 self rather than an ought-to L2 self, as previously reported by Kim (2009, 2010b). If the learner does not see the interrelatedness of parental involvement or the social discourse of learning English with his or her EFL learning, the parental or social demand for learning English does not play a role in integrating the learners’ initial motive with specific learning goals and a sense of participation, thus failing to create motivation and to enact motivated behavior. In such a case, only the superficial motives, usually initiated by others, remain (as shown in Excerpt 10), and a disparity is found between the learners’ future career choice and the meaning of English learning. In this chapter, attractors and system parameters, both of which result in different attractor/repeller states, are introduced to CDS for the purpose of finding a clearer explanation for the varying degrees of EFL learning motivation in Korea through a CDS framework. Additionally, the concept of meaning and sense and the motive–motivation distinction together with the goal and actual or imagined participation are adopted under the realm of SCT. Based upon these findings, there exists a considerable interface between CDS and SCT. Many L2 motivation-related phenomena have been explained by either of these frameworks. For example, from the perspective of CDS, the positive influence of students’ parental involvement was explained by the concept of attractor and system parameter. Whereas SCT illustrates how similar events are the instance of development from motive to motivation wherein an external context acquires personal meaning and thus is transformed into an affordance or meaningful environment (van Lier, 2000, 2004). Despite such noticeable affinity, the complementary conceptual distribution between these two theories lies in the emphasis on learner agency, which Ahearn (2001: 112) defines as a ‘socioculturally mediated capacity to act’. Within SCT literature, various aspects of learner agency have been reported by Gillette (1994) for learner motive, by Norton (2001)

46

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

for imagined L2 communities and by Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) for L2 writers’ autobiographic narratives. In this chapter, parental involvement and the social discourse of English learning are subject to each individual learner’s judgement. Each learner has his or her own unique learning history and the accumulation of such ontogenetic history widens the individual uniqueness as life progresses. The subject or agent has long been the prime focus of SCT and the basic concern is how each human being perceives the mediational tool and succeeds in attaining the object or ultimate goal (Miettinen, 2005). Agency is a significant part of a person’s disposition. It is both historically and socially constructed, starting in childhood and continuing throughout our lives, and influences our actions and reactions (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001). In the case of L2 learning motivation, the learners’ initial motives are transformed into motivation upon the successful integration of short-term goals and participation in either physical or imaginary L2 communities. In this way, the learners’ agency has the potential to recognize an environment as a meaningful affordance, where the difference between meaning and sense (Kozulin, 1995) lies. In CDS, however, although agency is also an important topic, it is not more important than other elements in the system, and the discussion about the role of agency in the CDS framework is still in its incipient stage (Al-Hoorie, 2015). In the excerpts presented, we can identify multiple attractors and system parameters, and can also grasp the holistic picture of L2 learning motivation that yields to idiosyncratic trajectories in L2 motivational change. This is often represented as demotivational or remotivational processes, indicating repeller states and attractor states, respectively. In these conceptualizations, a learner’s agency, or the capacity ‘of exercising free will by choosing how to behave’ (Al-Hoorie, 2015: 56) does not seem to be the main focus of investigation. Instead, the dynamism of the complex system is the major concern. In this vein, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008) acknowledge that some critics of CDS ‘have pointed out that self-organization [of a system] may not be inevitable in human processes due to agency and volition’ (Al-Hoorie, 2015: 58). This issue of agency in CDS deserves more academic refinement in the future. Overall, both CDS and SCT share significant similarities in that they are high-abstraction analytical frameworks and require retrodictive explanations of an individual learner’s L2 learning (de)motivation. However, CDS seems to pay equal attention to both learners and their environment, and how such dynamics create unique system parameters that influence attractor and repeller states. SCT, conversely, places more emphasis on an individual L2 learner’s agency. External, social factors are related to each learner’s agency, and this provides a useful research tool for investigating the unique process from meaning to sense. Therefore, these two frameworks are not in opposing positions, but instead have their strengths in different areas and thus warrant complementary co-habitation.

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

47

Summary As Ushioda and Dörnyei (2012: 398) stated, most previous L2 motivation research that is based on linear quantitative models ‘have not taken adequate account of the dynamic and situated complexity of the learning process or the multiple goals and agendas shaping learner behavior’. In this chapter, I have attempted to highlight the prominent features found among nine Korean EFL learners from the perspective of CDS and SCT. The findings of the research in this chapter are summarized as follows. From a CDS perspective, Korean EFL learners’ motivational changes are affected by two major attractors: parental involvement and social pressure. Participants’ perception and appreciation of these factors resulted in unique phase shifts for each participant. From an SCT perspective, the same set of data is coherently explained by the concepts of motive and motivation (Kim, 2010a; Leont’ev, 1978). When the participants’ short-term learning goal(s) and sense of participation are linked with their initial motive, agentic learners begin to perceive the external learning environment as a useful affordance, and objective meaning is transformed into sense (Kozulin, 1995). In this chapter, it is thus argued that CDS and SCT highlight different aspects in L2 learning (de)motivation and thus are in complementary distribution.

Note (1)

Of course, we cannot deny the possibility that in a traditionally paternalistic society like Korea, the father’s presence per se may have exerted a subtle influence on students’ English-learning motivation. This needs to be investigated further in a different study.

References Ahearn, L.M. (2001) Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30, 109–137. Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2015) Human agency: Does the beach ball have free will? In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 55–72). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Atkinson, D. (ed) (2011) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. Chao, R.K. (2001) Extending research on the consequences of parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans. Child Development 72 (6), 1832–1843. Chen, J.F., Warden, C.A. and Chang, H.-T. (2005) Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly 39 (4), 609–633. Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2006) Integrativeness: Untenable for world Englishes learners? World Englishes 25 (3/4), 437–450. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A.L. (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davydov, V.V. (1999) The concept and unsolved problems of activity theory. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R.-M. Punamáki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 39–52). New York: Cambridge University Press.

48

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

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. de Bot, K. and Larsen Freeman, L. (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M.H. Verspoor, K. de Bot and W. Lowie (eds) A Dynamic Approach to Second Language Development: Methods and Techniques (pp. 5–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2009) Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning 59 (supplementary 1), 230–248. Dörnyei, Z. (2010) Researching complex dynamic systems: Focus on L2 motivation. Paper presented at the 2010 American Association for Applied Linguistics Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Dörnyei, Z. (2014) Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modelling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching 40 (1), 80–91. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2009) Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: A theoretical overview. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 1–8). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (2011) Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd edn). Harlow: Pearson. Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. and Henry, A. (eds) (2015) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Engeström, Y. (1999) Innovative learning in work teams. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R.-M. Punamáki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory (pp. 377–404). New York: Cambridge University Press. Fusella, P.V. (2013) Dynamic Systems Theory in Cognitive Science: Major Elements, Applications, and Debates Surrounding a Revolutionary Meta-Theory. Dynamical Psychology 2013 – dynapsyc.org. See http://dynapsyc.org/2013/Fusella.pdf (accessed February 2016). Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gibson, E.J. and Pick, A.D. (1986) An Ecological Approach to Perceptual Learning and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gillette, B. (1994) The role of learner goals in L2 success. In J.P. Lantolf and G. Appel (eds) Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 195–213). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 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. Kikuchi, K. (2015) Demotivation in Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kim, T.-Y. (2009) The sociocultural interface between ideal self and ought-to self: A case study of two Korean students’ ESL motivation. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 274–293). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kim, T.-Y. (2010a) Reductionism, activity theory, and L2 motivation research: Toward new concepts and definitions. The SNU Journal of Education Research 19, 87–118. Kim, T.-Y. (2010b) Ideal L2 self and sensitization in L2 learning motivation: A case study of two Korean ESL students. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 10 (2), 321–352. Kim, T.-Y. (2011) Sociocultural dynamics of ESL learning (de)motivation: An activity theory analysis of two adult Korean immigrants. The Canadian Modern Language Review 67 (1), 91–122. Kim, T.-Y. (2012a) The L2 motivational self system of Korean EFL students: Cross-grade survey analysis. English Teaching 67 (1), 29–56.

CDS Theory and SCT Theory in L2 (De)Motivation Research

49

Kim, T.-Y. (2012b) An analysis of Korean elementary and secondary school students’ English learning motivation and their L2 selves: A qualitative interview approach. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 12 (1), 67–99. Kim, T.-Y. (2013) Recent Trends in English Learning Motivation Research. Seoul, South Korea: Hankookmunwhasa. Kimura, Y. (2014) ELT motivation from a complex dynamic system theory perspective: A longitudinal case study of L2 teacher motivation in Beijing. In K. Csizér and M. Magid (eds) The Impact of Self-concept on L2 Learning (pp. 310–329). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kozulin, A. (1995) The learning process: Vygotsky’s theory in the mirror of its interpretations. School Psychological International 16, 117–129. Kubota, R. and McKay, S. (2009) Globalization and language learning in rural Japan: The role of English in the local linguistic ecology. TESOL Quarterly 43 (4), 593–619. Kwon, O. (2000) Korea’s English education policy changes in the 1990s: Innovations to gear the nation for the 21st century. English Teaching 55 (1), 47–91. Lantolf, J.P. and Pavlenko, A. (2001) (S)econd (L)anguage (A)activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M.P. Breen (ed.) Learner Contribution to Language Learning (pp. 141–158). Harlow: Longman. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed.) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 48–72). London: Routledge. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015) Ten ‘lessons’ from complex dynamic systems theory: What is on offer. In Z. Dörnyei, P. MacIntyre and A. Henry (eds) Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning (pp. 11–19). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leont’ev, A.N. (1978) Activity, Consciousness, and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall. MacIntyre, P.D. and Legatto, J.J. (2011) A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing and idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics 32 (2), 149–171. Magid, M. (2011) A validation and application of the L2 Motivational Self System among Chinese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham. Markova, A.K. (1990) Ways of investigating motivation for learning in school children. Soviet Psychology 28 (6), 21–42. Miettinen, R. (2005) Object of activity and individual motivation. Mind, Culture, and Curriculum 12 (1), 52–69. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nicholas, K., Fletcher, J. and Parkhill, F. (2013) Supporting 11 to 13 year old students’ reading: Perceptions of parents. International Journal about Parents in Education 7 (1), 18–29. Norton, B. (2001) Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M.P. Breen (ed.) Learner Contributions to Language Learning (pp. 159–171). Harlow: Longman. Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pavlenko, A. and Lantolf, J.P. (2000) Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Richards, L. and Richards, T. (2002) NVivo (Version 2.0). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seth, M.J. (2002) Education Fever: Society, Politics, and the Pursuit of Schooling in South Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press. Statistics Korea (2014) Survey result of private education expenses. See. http://www. kostat.go.kr/survey/pedu/pedu_dl/1/index.board?bmode=read&aSeq=311897 (accessed 16 April 2015). Swain, M., Kinnear, P. and Steinman, L. (2015) Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives (2nd edn). 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. Tsuda, S. and Lafaye, B.E. (2005) Japan’s experience of language contact: A case study of RADIO-i, a multilingual radio station in Nagoya. Language and Intercultural Communication 5 (3/4), 248–263. Ushioda, E. and Dörnyei, Z. (2012) Motivation. In S. Gass and A. Mackey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 396–409). Abingdon: Routledge. van Geert, P. (1998) A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological Review 105 (4), 634–677. van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L. (2004) The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) Thinking in speech. In R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton (eds) The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology (Vol. 1; pp. 37–285). New York: Plenum. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yashima, T. (2009) International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 144–163). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

4

L2 Selves in Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language: The Case of Taiwanese Adolescents Hung-Tzu Huang and I-Ling Chen

Since the turn of the millennium, the endurance of globalization and the dominant status of English as a world lingua franca have provoked critical discussion of how global English has impacted decision-making in language educational policy (Hu & McKay, 2012). English is prioritized in the language curriculum of many countries around the world, and the expansion of English in mainstream education is accelerating (Ushioda, 2013: 6). In Taiwan, the official language education policy has undergone its own radical changes over the past decade (Chen, 2006; Nunan, 2003; Tsao, 2008). To respond to the urgent need for economic growth and internationalization in Taiwan, in 2001 the Ministry of Education (MOE) not only mandated English courses at all levels of the national curriculum but also lowered the starting age of formal English language education from secondary level to the fifth grade of primary school (Hsieh, 2010; MOE, 2000). Although the compulsory starting age of English learning was lowered again in 2003 to the third grade (Chen & Hsieh, 2011), an MOE report indicated that English had already been introduced to the first grade in 6 of the 25 cities and counties in Taiwan (MOE, 2006). In addition to the increasingly early start of English learning, English as a curricular subject is growing in prominence and is featured in gatekeeping tests at every transitional stage of education. For example, English listening comprehension tests were formally introduced into college entrance examinations in 2011. Since then, institutes of higher education in Taiwan have considered applicants’ English listening proficiency and their certification in standardized English tests in admission reviews. Even at the tertiary level, English graduation policies are implemented in most universities and vocational colleges (Chu, 2009; Pan, 2011). The policies implemented in mainstream education over the past decade have thus impressed on many young learners in Taiwan – from a very early age – the importance of learning the English language. 51

52

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

This chapter reports on a study conducted to understand the motivations of adolescent English learners in Taiwan. In 2013 and 2014, we recruited junior high school students from seventh to ninth grade who have witnessed and experienced changes in the English language policy in their primary and secondary schooling years. These students were introduced in the first or third grade of primary school to programs focused on developing basic English communication skills and increasing interest in learning through play and fun activities (Butler, 2004). Upon entering junior high school, the students faced an exam-dominant English learning context that focused on mastering grammar and vocabulary; and more importantly, preparing for high school and college entrance exams. By utilizing the second language (L2) Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009) as a frame of reference, we attempt to understand whether adolescent English learners in Taiwan exhibit unique self-related motivation influenced by their socio-educational experiences related to English learning.

The L2 Motivational Self System and Teenage Learners By applying self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987) and the concept of possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986), Dörnyei (2009) proposed the L2 Motivational Self System, which reframes L2 motivation as an internal process of self-identification. According to Markus and Nurius (1987), individuals’ possible selves, or ideas of what they may become and are afraid of becoming, function as future self-guides to influence motivational behaviors. With a clear idea of the kind of language user that learners would like to become, they can see the discrepancy between their current and desired state and thus gain motivation to progress toward their projected goals. In a globalized and globalizing world where the study of English is becoming a basic educational skill and its use is independent of a clearly defined target community (Ushioda, 2013), the L2 Motivational Self System is now arguably more relevant than the construct of integrativeness (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972). Studies from diverse national and educational settings have provided strong empirical support for Dörnyei’s framework, finding the three primary constituents (Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self and L2 learning experience) to be significant in regulating language learners’ motivated behaviors. The Ideal L2 Self is reflected by one’s own future self-images. In the case of language learning, it refers to the L2-specific attributes that one would like to possess and one’s hopes and aspirations of becoming a proficient L2 user. The Ought-to L2 Self embodies the motives created through socially constructed external influences, which often concern the perceived expectations of significant others. Aside from future-oriented self-visions, the L2 learning

L2 Selves in Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language

53

experience dimension emphasizes the situated motives relating to the immediate context, such as the success and failure of ongoing learning experiences and the influence of interpersonal relationships, such as those with peers and teachers. Informed by the self-determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and works by Higgins (1987, 1998), which differentiate between different levels of internalized external motivation, Dörnyei (2005) further postulates that language learners’ Ideal L2 Self is associated with self-promotion, while their Ought-to L2 Self, or less-internalized self, is prevention focused and associated with a sense of duty or obligation. The explanatory power of the Ideal L2 Self on motivated behavior has been consistently demonstrated through studies with adult L2 learners. Using self-report surveys, research across different countries (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi, 2013; Taguchi et al., 2009), genders (Ryan, 2009) and languages (Csizér & Lukács, 2010) has found that adult learners’ Ideal L2 Self acts as the strongest predictor of their L2 motivation. For adolescent and younger learners, the significant role of Ideal L2 Self was reported in studies conducted in Hungary (Henry, 2009), Iran (Papi, 2010), the People’s Republic of China (Magid, 2009) and South Korea (Kim, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2012). In line with the general assumption that intrinsic interest and self-internalized motives are the more powerful predictors of effort investment (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Noels et al., 2000), these studies found that for teenage learners, Ideal L2 Self exerts more motivational impact than Ought-to Self or L2 learning experience. The pivotal influence of Ideal L2 Self was not consistently found in other studies examining adolescents’ self-concepts and language learning motivation. In comparing the English learning motivation of Indonesian secondary school students in different socioeconomic environments, Lamb (2012) observed that out of the three populations investigated (learners from metropolitan, provincial and rural areas), Ideal L2 Self was only meaningful in the metropolitan group. Rather than self-conceptualization, positive L2 learning experience was the strongest predictor of motivated learning and English proficiency for the learners in the study. How language learning experience may play a crucial role in younger learners’ L2 motivation is also evident in several studies that examined agerelated variations in L2 motivation. Cross-sectional surveys of secondary school students and university students showed that teenage language learners’ attitudes toward the language learning experiences contributed more to the criterion measures as compared to their adult counterparts (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Papi & Teimouri, 2012). The findings underlined the relative importance of L2 learning experience over future self-guides for secondary school students. During adolescence, individuals begin to try out possible selves that they may or may not internalize later. As teenage language learners explore

54

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

diverse potential routes to the future, their self-images may not yet be stable or crystalized enough to motivate self-regulated learning (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008). Even if a future self-image emerges, the younger learners’ Ideal L2 Self tends to be a vague fantasy rather than a realistic and achievable vision with concrete action plans and strategies (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Lamb, 2012). The compulsory nature of language learning as a school subject may also contribute to the prominent role of L2 learning experience for teenage language learners. With assigned homework and fixed learning schedules, the effort that adolescents invest in language learning is more responsive to curriculum, materials and teachers than to their still vulnerable future self-guides (Lamb, 2012). While the Ideal L2 Self and L2 learning experience continue to receive validation in empirical investigation, the Ought-to L2 Self is comparatively ambivalent in its role as a main determinant in explaining both adult and young learners’ L2 motivation. The Ought-to L2 Self dimension has been found to exert little motivational effect on teenage language learners’ motivated behaviors (Kim, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2012; Papi, 2010) and to be insignificantly related to self-perceived effort investment (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Papi & Teimouri, 2012). Aside from its marginal role in predicting effort investment, the Ought-to L2 Self tested through psychometric approaches has failed to meet internal consistency reliability coefficients (e.g. Csizér & Lukács, 2010; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Lamb, 2012). More explorations, with redefined constructs and revised questionnaire items, of Ought-to L2 Self are thus called for to understand the Ought-to Self as conceptualized by language learners across age, proficiency levels and language learning contexts. Investigations of the correlations between L2 selves and the two types of instrumentality (promotion and prevention) further reveal that the relationship between Ought-to L2 Self and instrumentality is more complicated than originally hypothesized. In highlighting the distinction between Ideal and Ought-to L2 Self, Dörnyei explains that a promotional type of instrumentality is associated with the Ideal L2 Self, while prevention-based instrumentality is related to Ought-to Self. Conflicting patterns of correlation between future self-guides and instrumentality have been reported. Some studies have confirmed the theory, finding higher correlations of the Ideal L2 Self with instrumentality – promotion and the Ought-to L2 Self with instrumentality – prevention (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Japanese and Iranian samples in Taguchi et al., 2009), while others have found that the Ought-to Self correlates highly with both types of instrumentality (Kim, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2012). Sociocultural factors, especially family influences, have been proposed to explain these findings. In countries such as the People’s Republic of China, Iran and South Korea, the Ought-to Self for learning English tends to have a promotional interpretation because ‘individuals view themselves not only in individualistic terms […] but also as a direct extension of their family’ (Taguchi et al., 2009: 80).

L2 Selves in Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language

55

While language learners may feel an obligation to become successful in the future by studying English to elevate their family’s socioeconomic status, they perceive the pressure derived from such external and social necessity in a positive light (Kim & Kim, 2012; Taguchi et al., 2009). The saliency of the Ought-to L2 Self in understanding English learning motivation was also reported in more recent studies conducted in Japan (Apple et al., 2013) and Taiwan (Huang et al., 2015), which attributed learners’ strong Ought-to Self to beliefs about fulfilling societal expectations and obligations prevalent in Confucian-influenced societies. In examining the motivational research conducted through selfperspective, it is evident that adult and younger learners exhibit different self-related motivation profiles. These differences may be an interaction between the extent to which learners’ future self-concepts are developed and the influences of social and educational contexts. The present study discusses the English learning motivation of Taiwanese junior high school students in order to understand how Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self and L2 learning experience is conceptualized by Taiwanese adolescent English learners. As possible selves are generated and maintained through one’s interactions with the proximal social environment, we aim to explore the features of Taiwanese adolescent English learners’ self-concepts, which are constructed by their unique sociocultural experiences related to English learning.

Method Participants A total of 1698 junior high school students from seventh to ninth grade in 17 junior high schools across Taiwan were recruited for the present study (Table 4.1). Participants included 850 males and 848 females. The average age of the students was 13.6 years. These students had from four to six years of formal instruction in English before junior high school.1 On average, they had 3.75 hours of English instruction at junior high schools per week.2

Table 4.1 Participants of the study (n=1698) Academic status

n

%

Age

Seventh grade

600

35.3

11–13

Eighth grade

509

30.0

13–15

Ninth grade

588

34.6

14–16

Not reported

1

0.1

56

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

Instruments The main instrument in this study was a 57-item questionnaire designed to measure Taiwanese adolescent language learners’ attitudes and motivation toward English learning. Ten variables were included: Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, Relational influences, Learning experience in school, Instrumentality – promotion, Instrumentality – prevention, English learning attitude, Intended learning effort, Class involvement and Voluntary learning. A 6-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 2=disagree; 3=slightly disagree; 4=partly agree; 5=agree; 6=strongly agree) was used for the subscales. The items of the variables were developed based on previously established L2 Motivational Self System questionnaires (e.g. Dörnyei et al., 2006; Lamb, 2012; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009). In the present study, Intended learning effort and Perceived regularity of motivated learning are taken as criterion variables. Items measuring Intended learning effort were developed based on previously established questionnaires (Dörnyei et al., 2006; Taguchi et al., 2009). Because English language courses are compulsory in junior high schools in Taiwan and the students’ expressed intended learning behaviors might be unreliable due to course requirements, we added the Perceived regularity of motivated learning as one of the criterion measures. The participants were asked to indicate how often they devote their efforts to English learning. The Perceived regularity of motivated learning is measured by two frequency-based self-reported subscales. The scale of Class involvement asks students to report the frequency of their courserelated English learning behaviors. The scale of Voluntary learning examines the students’ perception of how often they voluntarily made an effort to learn English outside formal classes. All items were scored on a 6-point Likert scale, with ‘1’ indicating ‘never’ and ‘6’ indicating ‘always’. The definitions of the 10 motivational subscales in the questionnaire and examples are given below: Ideal L2 self (α=0.95): Students’ visions of themselves as competent users of English. For example, I can imagine myself speaking English with international friends or colleagues. Ought-to L2 self (α=0.90): Students’ sense of duty, responsibility and obligation toward studying English. For example, Studying English is what I have to do. Relational influences (α=0.88): Students’ views of how people around them believe they should study English. For example, Studying English is important to me in order to gain the approval of my peers/teachers/ family. This subscale was added after tests of validity and internal consistency (see further explanation of this subscale in the following section).

L2 Selves in Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language

57

Learning experience in school (α=0.96): The extent to which students like learning English in their immediate academic context. For example, I like the atmosphere in my English classes at school. English learning attitude (α=0.96): The extent to which students enjoy learning English. For example, I really enjoy learning English. Instrumentality – promotion (α=0.94): Students’ goals that are related to the positive utilitarian benefits associated with learning English. For example, Studying English is important to me because I’ll need it for further studies. Instrumentality – prevention (α=0.83): Students’ learning goals that are more related to their sense of duty and obligation to study English and to avoiding negative consequences. For example, I have to study English because I don’t want to get bad marks in it. Intended learning effort (α=0.94): Students’ intended effort toward studying English. For example, If an English course was offered in the future, I would like to take it. Perceived class involvement (α=0.83): How frequently students exhibit English-learning behavior in their English classes at schools. For example, I participate actively in my English classes. Perceived voluntary learning (α=0.88): How often students volunteer to learn English outside the classroom. For example, I join in activities that require using English to communicate.

Procedure The questionnaire was translated into Mandarin Chinese and piloted on 12 students in Grades 7 to 9 from four different junior high schools in Taipei. Potentially problematic items were omitted or reworded. The finalized questionnaire was administered in June 2013 and March 2014. The following statistical analyses were conducted. First, the construct validity and internal consistency were examined with an exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. A Pearson’s productmoment correlational analysis was then conducted to examine the linear relationships among the motivational scales. Lastly, multiple regression analyses were performed to explore the predictive effects of each subscale on the Taiwanese adolescent learners’ English learning motivation.

Results Validity and reliability of scales In order to test the validity of the variables, an exploratory factor analysis was computed. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin statistic (>0.70) and the significance level of the Bartlett test of sphericity (=0.000) indicated the

58

L2 Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts

factorability of the data. The principal component analysis and varimax rotation were used as the extraction and rotation methods, respectively. The examination of the eigenvalues (>1.0) and the scree plot yielded unexpected results in regard to the construct of Ought-to L2 Self. Based on the questionnaire items from previous studies, we conceptualized Ought-to L2 Self as the obligation of the learners to learn English – more specifically, the pressure to meet the language expectations of people in the learners’ immediate community. However, the result of the principal component analysis showed that the construct of Ought-to L2 Self consisted of two latent dimensions. Three items that encapsulate the learners’ perceived obligation to learn English loaded on the same subscale, while four items that emphasize the learners’ sense of obligation deriving from others formed a different subscale (Table 4.2). We included both dimensions in our follow-up analysis and termed the two dimensions Ought-to L2 Self and Relational influences. Table 4.2 Items in ought-to L2 self and relational influences subscales Subscale Ought-to L2 self

Relational influences

Items

Factor loading

Means (SD)

Studying English is something that I should do.

0.89

4.50 (1.40)

I should be able to have good English listening, speaking, reading and writing skills in the future.

0.91

4.78 (1.29)

I should learn English well.

0.93

4.96 (1.19)

Studying English is important to me in order to gain the approval of my peers/teachers/family.

0.79

4.13 (1.53)

Studying English is necessary because my peers, teachers and family consider English an important skill.

0.90

3.93 (1.63)

Studying English is necessary because people surrounding me expect me to do so.

0.90

3.91 (1.62)

Studying English is important to me because people surrounding me (peers/teachers/family) believe that an educated person is supposed to be able to use English well.

0.84

3.95 (1.55)

L2 Selves in Motivation to Learn English as a Foreign Language

59

Table 4.3 Reliability coefficients Scales

No. of items

Variance explained (%)

Cronbach’s alpha

Ideal L2 self

9

74.03

0.95

Ought-to L2 self

3

83.16

0.90

Relational influences

4

74.09

0.88

Learning experience in school

9

77.78

0.96

Instrumentality – promotion

5

80.20

0.94

Instrumentality – prevention

4

67.42

0.83

English learning attitude

5

85.00

0.96

Intended learning effort

9

66.31

0.94

Class involvement

4

66.69

0.83

Voluntary learning

5

67.29

0.88

All subscales obtained acceptable validity, ranging from 66% to 85% (Table 4.3). Reliability coefficients above α>0.80 were also obtained from the 10 motivational variables.

Descriptive statistics and correlations among motivational variables Table 4.4 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of all the motivational subscales. Among the variables, Ideal L2 Self and Instrumentality – promotion had the highest mean values (mean values above 5 on a 6-point scale), while the mean of Relational influences was the lowest (M=3.98). As for the three criteria measures, the means of the participants’ voluntary learning effort outside the classroom (M=3.55) was relatively low compared to their intended learning effort (M=4.06) and course-related L2 learning behaviors (M=4.70). A correlational analysis was conducted to examine the relations among the motivational scales (Table 4.5). The three criteria measures (Intended learning effort, Class involvement and Voluntary learning) were positively correlated with all variables. Among the variables, English learning attitude had the strongest correlation with Intended learning effort (r=0.78, p