Motivation. Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System & LESLLA learners
By Kaatje Dalderop & Live Grinden
After the online 2021 LESLLA Symposium, a group of LESLLA focused PhD researchers decided to come together once in a while to discuss LESLLA related research topics. In the summer of 2022, two LESLLA founders, Heide Spruck Wrigley and Jeanne Kurvers, encouraged us to share our discussions with a wider LESLLA audience. Therefore, we will create a blog post after each meeting about what we have discussed. This is the first post.
Motivation: Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System & LESLLA learners
Motivation is important in language learning, for several reasons. Research has related learners’ motivation to learning outcomes, persistence and attendance (e.g Ushioda, 2008). It is also important to explore what motivates individual learners. In a tailor made approach to teaching, we discuss the learners’ life goals in order to set learning goals.
Researchers have focused on conceptualizing second language (L2) learning motivation. One of the frameworks that is most used nowadays, is the one that is proposed by Dörnyei, called the L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) (Dörnyei, 2009). A core element of this theory is that of the future self: the discrepancy between one’s actual self at present and the ideal or ought to self in the future is seen as the essence of what motivates learners. The ideal self is the learners’ own image of what they want to be, the ought to self is influenced by the social environment and refers to what learners believe they need to be. In other words: according to Dörneyei, learners are motivated by what they want to be or what they think or feel they should be.
One of the main questions our group has discussed in the last meeting, is whether this theory applies to LESLLA learners. Much of Dörnyei’s theory is based on what he learnt through administering an extensive questionnaire among large groups of learners. The groups have been diverse in terms of countries of origin (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2010) but less so when it comes to educational experience. Filling out the questionnaire requires advanced reading skills, so we can be pretty sure that LESLLA learners have not been included in the research. That doesn’t tell us that the theory doesn’t apply to LESLLA learners, just that we can’t be sure, and it has not been tested.
A point we have reflected on, is at what point in time should L2MSS be applied, and in case early in the language learning process, if it would be possible for LESLLA learners to imagine their future self in a new country that they do not yet know. Another question that we have asked but could not answer, is how cultural background and social position may influence this ability to create an image of the future self. We also realized that the learners’ image of their future self and policy makers image of the learners’ future, may very well differ. And that separating the two might be challenging, since the dominant discourse about language learning might be internalized in the individual.
Policy makers in many European countries are at the moment increasing civic integration demands (Rocca et al., 2020). In Norway for example, this increase is framed as motivational: with higher demands, learners are expected to make more learning gains. But a theory like Ryan and Deci’s gives us reasons to doubt if this is true, at least for LESLLA learners: in their self-determination theory, Ryan and Deci say that in order to remain motivated, learners need ‘competence’: the feeling that the task at hand is doable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). If the demands are too high or the tasks too complex, learners may drop out (Schalge & Soga, 2008). Even if we should be careful in applying general theories and analyses from SLA to LESLLA learners (Bigelow & Pettitt, 2016), a theory like L2MSS can increase an understanding of where things go wrong in the architecture of policies. If one of the conditions for motivation is that the future ideal self has to be attainable, meaning that the discrepancy between one’s actual self and the ideal self should not be too high, as Ryan and Deci’s theory suggests, then ‘the bigger the gap, the stronger the motivation’ is certainly not true.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9–42).
Dörnyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bigelow, M., & Pettitt, N. (2016). Narrative of Ethical Dilemmas in Research. I P. I. De Costa (Red.), Ethics in Applied Linguistic Research—Language Researcher Narratives (s. 66–82). Routledge
Rocca, L., Carlsen, C. H., & Deygers, B. (2020). Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants: Requirements and Learning Opportunities. Survey on Language and Knowledge of Society for Migrants. Council of Europe.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68
Schalge, S., & Soga, K. (2008). “Then I stop coming to school”: understanding absenteeism in an adult English as a second language program. Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 2(3), 151–160.
Ushioda, E. (2008). Motivation and good language learners. In C. Griffiths (Ed.), Lessons from good language learners. (pp. 19–34). Cambridge University Press.
