Languagelearningmo-va-oninAsia

Ma#hewAppleRitsumeikanUniversityTerryFellnerSagaUniversityDexterDaSilvaKeisenUniversity

Drawbackswithexis-ngtheoriesandpossiblesolu-ons

Languagelearningmo-va-oninAsia

Ma#hewAppleRitsumeikanUniversityTerryFellnerSagaUniversityDexterDaSilvaKeisenUniversity

Drawbackswithexis-ngtheoriesandpossiblesolu-ons

Defini-ons

“[M]oBvaBoncanbedefinedasthedynamicallychangingcumulaBvearousalinapersonthatiniBates,directs,coordinates,amplifies,terminates,andevaluatesthecogniBveandmotorprocesseswherebyiniBalwishesanddesiresareselected,prioriBsed,operaBonalised,and…actedout.”

(Dörnyei&O#o,1998,p.65)

Whatis“mo-va-on”?

Defini-ons

Mo-va-onexplains… !

-whyaparBcularacBvity? -howlongtheywillpersist? -whatefforttheyinvestinit?!

Defini-ons

Mo-va-onexplains… !

-why? -howlong? -howhard?!

Defini-ons

Mo-va-onexplains… !

-why? -howlong? -howhard?!

ChoicePersistenceEffort

PublishedinOctober2013Studies:•MulBpleanalysistechniques•MulBpleeducaBonallevels•PrimaryfocusonPossibleL2Selves!Overviews•AnoverviewofwhytherearesomanystudiesonmoBvaBoninJapan (E.Ushioda)•ExaminingtheuseofSelf-determinaBontheoriesincross-culturalcontexts(K.Noels)•InternaBonalposture,communiBesofpracBce(T.Yashima)•Comparingteachers’,researchers’,andteachereducators’viewsofmoBvaBon (Y.Nakata)

L2SelvesandMoBvaBonsinAsianContexts!Japan MalaysiaChina(PR) IndonesiaChina(HongKongSAR) IndiaChina(Taiwan) VietnamSouthKorea Philippines!Winter2016/Spring2017

Overview

1. MoBvaBonaltheories

2. Assessingappropriateness

3. Flawsincurrentmodelsandapproaches

4. Apost-paradigm,suprathemaBc

approach

Overview

1. MoBvaBonaltheories

2. Assessingappropriateness

3. Flawsincurrentmodelsandapproaches

4. Apost-paradigm,suprathemaBc

approach

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-onaltheoriesSocioeduca-onalmodel(Gardner,2010)Influences

mo=va=onalintensity (persistenteffort)

desiretolearn(desire)a?tudestowardL2learning(posiBveaffect)

integra=venessintegraBveorientaBon

interestinforeignlanguagesaotudestowardL2communitya?tudestowardlearningsitua=on

(instrumentality)

Aspects

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-on

SelfDetermina-onTheory(Deci&Ryan,2000)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Cogni-veEvalua-onTheory(CET)

OrganismicIntegra-onTheory(OIT)

1.Mo-va-on1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Cogni-veEvalua-onTheory(CET)

feelingcompetentandasenseofcontrol=

leadtointernalizingofexternalrewardsandgoals

SelfDetermina-onTheory(Deci&Ryan,2000)

1.Mo-va-on1.Mo-va-onaltheories

OrganismicIntegra-onTheory(OIT)

aseriesofsteps/categories=

!showthedegreetowhichmoBvaBonisself-directed

SelfDetermina-onTheory(Deci&Ryan,2000)

1.Mo-va-on

SelfDetermina-onTheory(Deci&Ryan,2000)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Mo-va-onisenhancedby: 1.Autonomy -capacitytochoosetoengagein– certainacBviBes

! 2.Competence -abilitytocarryoutanacBvityand torisetoachallenge!

3.Relatedness -feelingofsecuritybetweenlearner andothers(family,friends,teacher,

classmates)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

“Possible”or“imagined”selves

• IdealL2Self theselfonedesirestobecome

• OughttoL2Selftheselfoneisobligedtobecome

• L2learningexperiencesituaBon-specific

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem(Dörnyei,2005)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

“Self-congruency”-guidespushustoward/away

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem(Dörnyei,2005)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

PeoplearemoBvatedtoreducethediscrepancybetweenwhotheycurrentlyareandwhotheywanttobe/donotwanttobe(Higgins,1987)IdealL2Self>Ought-toL2Self

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

DynamicSystemsTheory(DST)!

ChaosTheory!

ComplexSystemsTheory(CST)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)—Mo-va-onisindividual dependentuponsocialcontextinterac-onsamongindividual/situa-on specificeventsas“triggers”

!—Mo-va-onisdynamic respondstoaUractors,partofasystembothstableandunpredictable

Overview

1. MoBvaBonaltheories

2. Assessingappropriateness

3. Flawsincurrentmodelsandapproaches

4. Apost-paradigm,suprathemaBc

approach

2.AssessingAppropriateness

InAsiancontexts…

• Englishasrequiredsubject• Englishas“greatdivider”ofsociety• LackofL2community(varyingdegrees)

• Geo-poliBcal/historicalcontext

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

30

Much research on human behaviour and psychology assumes that everyone shares most fundamental cognitive

and affective processes, and that findings from one population apply across the board. A growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case.

Experimental findings from several disci-plines indicate considerable variation among human populations in diverse domains, such as visual perception, analytic reasoning, fairness, cooperation, memory and the herit-ability of IQ1,2. This is in line with what anthropologists have long suggested: that people from West-ern, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) socie-ties — and particularly American undergraduates — are some of the most psychologically unusual peo-ple on Earth1.

So the fact that the vast majority of studies use WEIRD participants presents a challenge to the under-standing of human psychology and behaviour. A 2008 survey of the top psychology journals found that 96% of subjects were from Western industrialized countries — which house just 12% of the world’s population3. Strange, then, that research articles routinely assume that their results are broadly representative, rarely adding even a cautionary footnote on how far their findings can be generalized.

The evidence that basic cognitive and motivational processes vary across populations has become increasingly difficult to ignore. For example, many studies have shown that Ameri-cans, Canadians and western Europeans rely on analytical reasoning strategies — which separate objects from their contexts and rely on rules to explain and predict behaviour — substantially more than non-Westerners. Research also indi-cates that Americans use analytical thinking more than, say, Europeans. By contrast, Asians tend to reason holistically, for example by con-sidering people’s behaviour in terms of their situation1. Yet many long-standing theories of how humans perceive, categorize and remember emphasize the centrality of analytical thought.

It is a similar story with social behaviour related to fairness and equality. Here, research-ers often use one-shot economic experiments such as the ultimatum game, in which a player

decides how much of a fixed amount to offer a second player, who can then accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects it, neither player gets anything. Participants from industrialized societies tend to divide the money equally, and reject low offers. Peo-ple from non-industrialized societies behave differently, especially in the smallest-scale non-market societies such as foragers in Africa and horticulturalists in South America, where peo-ple are neither inclined to make equal offers nor to punish those who make low offers4.

Recent developments in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and related fields sug-gest that these differences stem from the way in which populations have adapted to diverse culturally constructed environments. Ama-zonian groups, such as the Piraha, whose languages do not include numerals above three, are worse at distinguishing large quan-tities digitally than groups using extensive counting systems, but are similar in their abil-ity to approximate quantities. This suggests the kind of counting system people grow up with influences how they think about integers1.

Costly generalizationsUsing study participants from one unusual population could have important practical consequences. For example, economists have been developing theories of decision-making incorporating insights from psychology and social science — such as how to set wages — and examining how these might translate into policy5. Researchers and policy-makers should recognize that populations vary con-siderably in the extent to which they display certain biases, patterns and preferences in economic decisions, such as those related to optimism1. Such differences can, for example,

affect the way that experienced investors make decisions about the stock market6.

We offer four suggestions to help put theories of human behaviour and psychology on a firmer empirical footing. First, editors and reviewers should push researchers to support any generalizations with evidence. Second, granting agencies, reviewers and editors should give researchers credit for comparing diverse and inconvenient subject pools. Third, granting agencies should prioritize cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural research. Fourth, researchers

must strive to evaluate how their findings apply to other populations. There are several low-cost ways to approach this in the short term: one is to select a few judiciously chosen populations that provide a ‘tough test’ of universality in some domain, such as societies with limited count-ing systems for testing theories about numerical cognition1,2.

A crucial longer-term goal is to establish a set of principles that researchers can use to distinguish variable from universal aspects of

psychology. Establishing such principles will remain difficult until behavioural scientists develop interdisciplinary, international research networks for long-term studies on diverse populations using an array of methods, from experimental techniques and ethnography to brain-imaging and biomarkers.

Recognizing the full extent of human diver-sity does not mean giving up on the quest to understand human nature. To the contrary, this recognition illuminates a journey into human nature that is more exciting, more complex, and ultimately more consequential than has previously been suspected Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan are in the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada. Joseph Henrich is also in the Department of Economics.e-mail: joseph.henrich@gmail.com1. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X (2010).2. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000725 (2010).3. Arnett, J. Am. Psychol. 63, 602–614 (2008).4. Henrich, J. et al. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010).5. Foote, C. L., Goette, L. & Meier, S. Policymaking Insights from

Behavioral Economics (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2009).6. Ji, L. J., Zhang, Z. Y. & Guo, T. Y. J. Behav. Decis. Making 21,

399–413 (2008).

Most people are not WEIRD To understand human psychology, behavioural scientists must stop doing most of their experiments on Westerners, argue Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan.

GRA

CIA

LAM

29

Vol 466|1 July 2010

OPINION

© 20 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved10

2.AssessingAppropriateness

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

31

Much research on human behaviour and psychology assumes that everyone shares most fundamental cognitive

and affective processes, and that findings from one population apply across the board. A growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case.

Experimental findings from several disci-plines indicate considerable variation among human populations in diverse domains, such as visual perception, analytic reasoning, fairness, cooperation, memory and the herit-ability of IQ1,2. This is in line with what anthropologists have long suggested: that people from West-ern, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) socie-ties — and particularly American undergraduates — are some of the most psychologically unusual peo-ple on Earth1.

So the fact that the vast majority of studies use WEIRD participants presents a challenge to the under-standing of human psychology and behaviour. A 2008 survey of the top psychology journals found that 96% of subjects were from Western industrialized countries — which house just 12% of the world’s population3. Strange, then, that research articles routinely assume that their results are broadly representative, rarely adding even a cautionary footnote on how far their findings can be generalized.

The evidence that basic cognitive and motivational processes vary across populations has become increasingly difficult to ignore. For example, many studies have shown that Ameri-cans, Canadians and western Europeans rely on analytical reasoning strategies — which separate objects from their contexts and rely on rules to explain and predict behaviour — substantially more than non-Westerners. Research also indi-cates that Americans use analytical thinking more than, say, Europeans. By contrast, Asians tend to reason holistically, for example by con-sidering people’s behaviour in terms of their situation1. Yet many long-standing theories of how humans perceive, categorize and remember emphasize the centrality of analytical thought.

It is a similar story with social behaviour related to fairness and equality. Here, research-ers often use one-shot economic experiments such as the ultimatum game, in which a player

decides how much of a fixed amount to offer a second player, who can then accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects it, neither player gets anything. Participants from industrialized societies tend to divide the money equally, and reject low offers. Peo-ple from non-industrialized societies behave differently, especially in the smallest-scale non-market societies such as foragers in Africa and horticulturalists in South America, where peo-ple are neither inclined to make equal offers nor to punish those who make low offers4.

Recent developments in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and related fields sug-gest that these differences stem from the way in which populations have adapted to diverse culturally constructed environments. Ama-zonian groups, such as the Piraha, whose languages do not include numerals above three, are worse at distinguishing large quan-tities digitally than groups using extensive counting systems, but are similar in their abil-ity to approximate quantities. This suggests the kind of counting system people grow up with influences how they think about integers1.

Costly generalizationsUsing study participants from one unusual population could have important practical consequences. For example, economists have been developing theories of decision-making incorporating insights from psychology and social science — such as how to set wages — and examining how these might translate into policy5. Researchers and policy-makers should recognize that populations vary con-siderably in the extent to which they display certain biases, patterns and preferences in economic decisions, such as those related to optimism1. Such differences can, for example,

affect the way that experienced investors make decisions about the stock market6.

We offer four suggestions to help put theories of human behaviour and psychology on a firmer empirical footing. First, editors and reviewers should push researchers to support any generalizations with evidence. Second, granting agencies, reviewers and editors should give researchers credit for comparing diverse and inconvenient subject pools. Third, granting agencies should prioritize cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural research. Fourth, researchers

must strive to evaluate how their findings apply to other populations. There are several low-cost ways to approach this in the short term: one is to select a few judiciously chosen populations that provide a ‘tough test’ of universality in some domain, such as societies with limited count-ing systems for testing theories about numerical cognition1,2.

A crucial longer-term goal is to establish a set of principles that researchers can use to distinguish variable from universal aspects of

psychology. Establishing such principles will remain difficult until behavioural scientists develop interdisciplinary, international research networks for long-term studies on diverse populations using an array of methods, from experimental techniques and ethnography to brain-imaging and biomarkers.

Recognizing the full extent of human diver-sity does not mean giving up on the quest to understand human nature. To the contrary, this recognition illuminates a journey into human nature that is more exciting, more complex, and ultimately more consequential than has previously been suspected Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan are in the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada. Joseph Henrich is also in the Department of Economics.e-mail: joseph.henrich@gmail.com1. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X (2010).2. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000725 (2010).3. Arnett, J. Am. Psychol. 63, 602–614 (2008).4. Henrich, J. et al. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010).5. Foote, C. L., Goette, L. & Meier, S. Policymaking Insights from

Behavioral Economics (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2009).6. Ji, L. J., Zhang, Z. Y. & Guo, T. Y. J. Behav. Decis. Making 21,

399–413 (2008).

Most people are not WEIRD To understand human psychology, behavioural scientists must stop doing most of their experiments on Westerners, argue Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan.

GRA

CIA

LAM

29

Vol 466|1 July 2010

OPINION

© 20 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved10

2.AssessingAppropriateness

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

32

Much research on human behaviour and psychology assumes that everyone shares most fundamental cognitive

and affective processes, and that findings from one population apply across the board. A growing body of evidence suggests that this is not the case.

Experimental findings from several disci-plines indicate considerable variation among human populations in diverse domains, such as visual perception, analytic reasoning, fairness, cooperation, memory and the herit-ability of IQ1,2. This is in line with what anthropologists have long suggested: that people from West-ern, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic (WEIRD) socie-ties — and particularly American undergraduates — are some of the most psychologically unusual peo-ple on Earth1.

So the fact that the vast majority of studies use WEIRD participants presents a challenge to the under-standing of human psychology and behaviour. A 2008 survey of the top psychology journals found that 96% of subjects were from Western industrialized countries — which house just 12% of the world’s population3. Strange, then, that research articles routinely assume that their results are broadly representative, rarely adding even a cautionary footnote on how far their findings can be generalized.

The evidence that basic cognitive and motivational processes vary across populations has become increasingly difficult to ignore. For example, many studies have shown that Ameri-cans, Canadians and western Europeans rely on analytical reasoning strategies — which separate objects from their contexts and rely on rules to explain and predict behaviour — substantially more than non-Westerners. Research also indi-cates that Americans use analytical thinking more than, say, Europeans. By contrast, Asians tend to reason holistically, for example by con-sidering people’s behaviour in terms of their situation1. Yet many long-standing theories of how humans perceive, categorize and remember emphasize the centrality of analytical thought.

It is a similar story with social behaviour related to fairness and equality. Here, research-ers often use one-shot economic experiments such as the ultimatum game, in which a player

decides how much of a fixed amount to offer a second player, who can then accept or reject this proposal. If the second player rejects it, neither player gets anything. Participants from industrialized societies tend to divide the money equally, and reject low offers. Peo-ple from non-industrialized societies behave differently, especially in the smallest-scale non-market societies such as foragers in Africa and horticulturalists in South America, where peo-ple are neither inclined to make equal offers nor to punish those who make low offers4.

Recent developments in evolutionary biology, neuroscience and related fields sug-gest that these differences stem from the way in which populations have adapted to diverse culturally constructed environments. Ama-zonian groups, such as the Piraha, whose languages do not include numerals above three, are worse at distinguishing large quan-tities digitally than groups using extensive counting systems, but are similar in their abil-ity to approximate quantities. This suggests the kind of counting system people grow up with influences how they think about integers1.

Costly generalizationsUsing study participants from one unusual population could have important practical consequences. For example, economists have been developing theories of decision-making incorporating insights from psychology and social science — such as how to set wages — and examining how these might translate into policy5. Researchers and policy-makers should recognize that populations vary con-siderably in the extent to which they display certain biases, patterns and preferences in economic decisions, such as those related to optimism1. Such differences can, for example,

affect the way that experienced investors make decisions about the stock market6.

We offer four suggestions to help put theories of human behaviour and psychology on a firmer empirical footing. First, editors and reviewers should push researchers to support any generalizations with evidence. Second, granting agencies, reviewers and editors should give researchers credit for comparing diverse and inconvenient subject pools. Third, granting agencies should prioritize cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural research. Fourth, researchers

must strive to evaluate how their findings apply to other populations. There are several low-cost ways to approach this in the short term: one is to select a few judiciously chosen populations that provide a ‘tough test’ of universality in some domain, such as societies with limited count-ing systems for testing theories about numerical cognition1,2.

A crucial longer-term goal is to establish a set of principles that researchers can use to distinguish variable from universal aspects of

psychology. Establishing such principles will remain difficult until behavioural scientists develop interdisciplinary, international research networks for long-term studies on diverse populations using an array of methods, from experimental techniques and ethnography to brain-imaging and biomarkers.

Recognizing the full extent of human diver-sity does not mean giving up on the quest to understand human nature. To the contrary, this recognition illuminates a journey into human nature that is more exciting, more complex, and ultimately more consequential than has previously been suspected Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan are in the Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4, Canada. Joseph Henrich is also in the Department of Economics.e-mail: joseph.henrich@gmail.com1. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X0999152X (2010).2. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J. & Norenzayan, A. Behav. Brain Sci.

doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000725 (2010).3. Arnett, J. Am. Psychol. 63, 602–614 (2008).4. Henrich, J. et al. Science 327, 1480–1484 (2010).5. Foote, C. L., Goette, L. & Meier, S. Policymaking Insights from

Behavioral Economics (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2009).6. Ji, L. J., Zhang, Z. Y. & Guo, T. Y. J. Behav. Decis. Making 21,

399–413 (2008).

Most people are not WEIRD To understand human psychology, behavioural scientists must stop doing most of their experiments on Westerners, argue Joseph Henrich, Steven J. Heine and Ara Norenzayan.

GRA

CIA

LAM

29

Vol 466|1 July 2010

OPINION

© 20 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved10

WesternEducatedIndustrializedRichDemocraBc

2.AssessingAppropriateness

2.AssessingAppropriatenessAbsolu=st —moBvaBonaltheoriescanbeapplieduniversally(eBcapproach)

Rela=vist—onlywithintheindigenousorlocalframesofreference—nogeneralisaBonpossibleacrossculturalcontexts(emicapproach)

Universalist—someaspectsareuniversal,butthesocioculturalcontextisalsocrucial (Zusho&Clayton,2011)

Absolu=st

Rela=vist

Universalist

2.AssessingAppropriateness

Absolu=st Rela=vistUniversalist

SocioeducaBonal ComplexDynamicSystems

Self-determinaBon

L2MoBvaBonalSelfSystem

Overview

1. MoBvaBonaltheories

2. Assessingappropriateness

3. Flawsincurrentmodelsandapproaches

4. Apost-paradigm,suprathemaBc

approach

Socioeduca-onalmodel!

Self-determina-ontheory(SDT)!

L2Mo-va-onalSelf-System!

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)!

**Note:ThisisplayingDevil’sAdvocate…

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromhardsciencesUsedtomathemaBcallypredictbothlinearandnonlinearsystems

!Ouenreferredtosupportclaimsthat-individualsareunpredictable-findingscannotbegeneralizedacrosscontexts-modelscannotpredictpa#erns-staBsBcsareuseless

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromhardsciencesUsedtomathemaBcallypredictbothlinearandnonlinearsystems

!Ifeveryoneisuniqueandunpredictable…!—thenwhybotherconductresearch?whybotherreadwhatotherswrite?

Complex/DynamicSystems(CDS)

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromhardsciencesUsedtomathemaBcallypredictbothlinearandnonlinearsystems

!IsthisamodelofmoBvaBon,oranapproachtoresearchmethodology?

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromcogniBvepsychology-Idealself,fearedself,probableself!L2experiences—notaselfconceptIdealL2Self—>whatdo/canstudentsimagine?Ought-toL2Self—>Isthisthesameas“feared”?

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromcogniBvepsychology-Idealself,fearedself,probableself!Ought-toL2Self—Englishisarequiredcourse…so…—Thisisthe*current*self—Ouencombinedwithfamily/socialexpectaBons(esp.Confucian-influenced)

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromcogniBvepsychology-Idealself,fearedself,probableself!IdealL2Self—The“idealL2self”asfutureuserofEnglish……whousesEnglish?—naBvespeakers…whoarenaBvespeakers?—whitemaleUS

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromcogniBvepsychology-Idealself,fearedself,probableself!IdealL2Self—CanaspeakerofanotherlanguagebeacceptedashavinganL2selfbyL1speakers? Russian.Bantu.Urdu.German.Japanese.

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromcogniBvepsychology-Idealself,fearedself,probableself!IdealL2Self—Selfispartlyself-determined,partlyother-determined

—Caughtupinissuesofethnicity,religion,gender,history,poliBcs…

—whenistheL1selfstable?theL2?Proficiency?

L2Mo-va-onalSelfSystem

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

OriginallyfromcogniBvepsychology-Idealself,fearedself,probableself!Isthisreally“moBvaBon”?!Orapre-exisBngcondiBonleadingtomoBvaBngsituaBonsorfactors?

Self-determina-ontheory

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

Assumeschoice—Whatifthereisnone?—Whatifstudentshavetostudy?—WhatifthegoalisgraduaBon?orajob?travel?!—Whatifthereischoice,butthereisalsooverwhelmingpressure(societal,monetary)?

Socioeduca-onalmodel

Self-determina-ontheory

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

AssumestheexistenceofanL2community—Whatifthereisnonephysicallypresent?—WhatiftheL2communityistoolargetobedefined?

—WhatiftheL2communityisessenBalizedas“theOther”?

Socioeduca-onalmodel

Self-determina-ontheory

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

WhatkindofcommunicaBonisneeded?!“Theconstruct,IntegraBveness,reflectsagenuineinterestinlearning…forthepurposesofcommunicaBngwithmembersoftheotherlanguagecommunity…

Socioeduca-onalmodel

Self-determina-ontheory

3.Flawsincurrentmodels/approaches

“Intheextreme,thismightinvolvecompleteiden-fica-onwithandmembershipintheothercommunity…inlessextremeformitmightsimplyreflectawillingnesstoincorporatebehavioralpaUernsintheformofthelanguagefromtheothergroup…”(Gardner,2010,p.88)

Socioeduca-onalmodel

50

[In the global age, the world is your rival]

LinguisBcimperialism?“FearofanEnglishPlanet.”

Overview

1. MoBvaBonaltheories

2. Assessingappropriateness

3. Flawsincurrentmodelsandapproaches

4. Apost-paradigm,suprathema-c

approach

4.Apost-paradigm,suprathema-capproach

Universalistperspec=veonL2mo=va=on!—Allmodelsarewrong,butsomeareuseful—Allapproacheshavesomevalue,butnoneperfectlyexplaineverything—EBcandemicapproachesaretwocomplementarysides ofthesamecoin,andarebothnecessary—Individualwithinhisorherculturalcontextwhichcanalsoreflectsimilarpa#ernsinotherindividualsandcontexts

Absolu=st Rela=vistUniversalist

4.Apost-paradigm,suprathema-capproach

QuantumCogni-on

An(old)newapproachthatcanexplain:—howstudyparBcipantscanholdcontradictoryviewsofthesameissueortopic

—howusingthesamequesBonnairecanreturndifferentresults

—howreorderingquesBonnaireorinterviewitemscanleadtodifferentresults

Complementarity—itemsarenotindependent;influenceeachother!Superposi=on—possiblefortwodifferingopinionstobeheld!Entanglement—measuringonepartaffectsanotherinasystem

4.Apost-paradigm,suprathema-capproach

QuantumCogni-on

MoBvaBonisnotastatebuta!

dynamiccumula-veacEveprocess

thatexplains…! -why? -howlong? -howhard?

Thefinalword…

“Rememberthatallmodelsarewrong;thepracBcalquesBonishowwrongdotheyhavetobenottobeuseful.”

(Box,1987,p.74)

Thankyou!Ma#hewApple mapple@fc.ritsumei.ac.jpRitsumeikanUniversityTerryFellnerSagaUniversityDexterDaSilvaKeisenUniversity

Upcoming

L2SelvesandMoBvaBonsinAsianContexts!Japan MalaysiaChina(PR) IndonesiaChina(HongKongSAR) IndiaChina(Taiwan) VietnamSouthKorea!Winter2016/Spring2017

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel

IntegraBvemoBvaBonIntegraBveorientaBonIntegraBveness

InstrumentalmoBvaBonInstrumentalorientaBonInstrumentality

v

“NoL2targetculture”—>“Therefore,nointegraBvemoBvaBon”

“NoL2targetculture”—>“Therefore,nointegraBvemoBvaBon”

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

Socioeduca-onalmodel

IntegraBvemoBvaBonIntegraBveorientaBonIntegraBveness

InstrumentalmoBvaBonInstrumentalorientaBonInstrumentality

vX

1.Mo-va-on

SelfDetermina-onTheory

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

IntrinsicmoBvaBon!

—internal—thinginitself

ExtrinsicmoBvaBon!

—external—rewards

vX

Developmentofinternaliza-onoftheautonomousself !!

Text

Text

IdenBfiedRegulaBon

TIntrinsicMo-va-on

IntegratedRegulaBon

ExternalRegulaBon

AmoBvaBont

IntrojectedRegulaBon

(Ryan & Deci, 2002)

1.Mo-va-onaltheories

1.Mo-va-on1.Mo-va-onaltheories

—feelingofconnectedness=!helpsinternalizaBonofexternalmoBvaBngfactors

SelfDetermina-onTheory(Deci&Ryan,2000)