Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective 9781788929059

Citation preview

Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

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

PSYCHOLOGY OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING: 16

Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Edited by Jo Mynard and Scott J. Shelton-Strong

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Jackson

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/MYNARD9042 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Names: Mynard, Jo, editor. | Shelton-Strong, Scott J., editor. Title: Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom: A   Self-Determination Theory Perspective/Edited by Jo Mynard and Scott J.  Shelton-Strong. Description: Bristol; Jackson: Multilingual Matters, [2022] | Series:   Psychology of Language Learning and Teaching: 16 | Includes   bibliographical references and index. | Summary: ‘Through the   application of self-determination theory (SDT) to research and practice,   this book deepens our understanding of how autonomous language learning   can be supported and understood outside of the classroom. The chapters   deal with learning environments and open spaces, communities and   relationships, and advising and self-access’ – Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2021060508 (print) | LCCN 2021060509 (ebook) | ISBN   9781788929035 (paperback) | ISBN 9781788929042 (hardback) | ISBN   9781788929059 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788929066 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Second language acquisition – Psychological aspects. |   Language and languages – Study and teaching – Psychological aspects. |   Autonomy (Psychology) | Motivation in education. | Informal language   learning. | Non-formal education. | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC P118.2 .A99 2022 (print) | LCC P118.2 (ebook) | DDC   401/.93 – dc23/eng/20220106 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021060508 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021060509 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-904-2 (hbk) ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-903-5 (pbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol, BS1 2AW, UK. USA: Ingram, Jackson, TN, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2022 Jo Mynard, Scott J. Shelton-Strong 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 Riverside Publishing Solutions.

Contents

Tables and Figures Contributors

vii ix

Introduction: Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective Jo Mynard and Scott J. Shelton-Strong

1

Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings 1 A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory13 Johnmarshall Reeve 2 What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’ in a Self-Determination Theory Analysis Johnmarshall Reeve

31

Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces 3 Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners’ Out-of-Class Technology Use for Language Learning Ali Dincer and Tuba Işık

47

4 Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation Viewed through Self-Determination Theory Xuan Hoang, Alice Chik, Ruth French and Sue Ollerhead

69

5 Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective Yanling Li, Jiaxiu Zhang and Pingying Hu

91

6 Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom: How Interest-based Learning Communities Support Learners’ Basic Psychological Needs Satoko Watkins v

109

vi Contents



Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

7 Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom: Interpersonal, Intergroup and Intercultural Processes Mustafa Firat, Kimberly A. Noels and Nigel Mantou Lou 8 The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory in Independent Language Learning W.L. Quint Oga-Baldwin 9 Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme: Relationships Motivation Theory Satoko Kato

133

149

164

Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

10 Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate: Advising in Language Learning and Basic Psychological Needs Scott J. Shelton-Strong and Maria Giovanna Tassinari 11 Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective Micòl Beseghi

185

206

1 2 Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive Jo Mynard

224



242

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here? Scott J. Shelton-Strong

Index

259

Tables and Figures

Tables

3.1 Demographic characteristics of the qualitative sample and data types 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

Comparison of pre-test and post-test Descriptive statistics of the questionnaires Results of independent-samples tests Comparison of the results of post-questionnaire Evidence gathered from the interviews

55 97 97 98 99 101

6.1 Interviewee and community information

117

9.1 Coding related to the Relational Mentoring Index 9.2 Structure of a one-year mentoring programme

175 176

11.1 Survey questions

216

Figures

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

Basic Psychological Needs Theory Cognitive Evaluation Theory Causality Orientations Theory Organismic Integration Theory Goal Contents Theory Relationships Motivation Theory SDT’s dual-process model

2.1 Interconnections among autonomy, autonomy support and agentic engagement 3.1 The self-determination continuum of motivation 3.2 Participant recruitment and data collection 3.3 Modelling the online OCLL within the SDT framework vii

17 18 19 21 21 22 24 40 51 54 63

viii  Tables and Figures

4.1 Self-determination theory’s taxonomy of motivation 4.2 Journal prompts

72 77

5.1 The mechanism of improving EFL writing

104

6.1 Interest-based learning community’s need satisfaction and motivation system

123

7.1 A schematic illustration of sociocultural contexts, interpersonal relations, self-dynamics, actions and capitals in language learning motivation

136

9.1 Examples of pictures of life (PL)

177

10.1 A classification of advising behaviours supportive of basic psychological needs 12.1 Features of an autonomy-supportive self-access learning centre

199 233

Contributors

Micòl Beseghi is a Lecturer in English Language and Translation at the University of Parma, Italy. She holds a PhD in Comparative Languages and Cultures from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Her main research interests and publications include learner autonomy in foreign language learning, language advising, the role of emotions in language learning, the use of technology in the EFL classroom, the didactics of translation and audiovisual translation. Alice Chik is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and Associate Director of the Macquarie University FMHHS (Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences) Multilingualism Research Centre. Her research interests include language learning in informal and digital contexts and multilingualism as urban diversities. Her recent projects include language equity in education and literacy teaching and learning with augmented reality. Ali Dincer (PhD, Ataturk University) is a teacher educator in the Department of English Language Teaching at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Turkey. Currently, he serves as the editor-in-chief of Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty. His primary research interests center on the self-determination theory in language learning and include motivation, learner autonomy, and student engagement. Presently, he is concerned with the cross-cultural comparison of language learner autonomy and language learning with technology beyond the classroom. Mustafa Firat received his BA in Translation and Interpreting Studies and his MA in Psychology from Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey. After obtaining his MSc in Psychology from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, he is currently pursuing his PhD in Sociology at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. His research interests include intergroup relations, acculturation, and language learning. Ruth French is a Lecturer in Literacies Education (Early Childhood & Primary) at Macquarie University, Australia. She has a professional background in primary school teaching. Her research and teaching interests ix

x Contributors

include language and literacy education, children’s literature, curriculum and pedagogy. A particular focus is the development of children’s metalinguistic knowledge. Xuan Hoang is currently a doctoral student in the School of Education at Macquarie University, Australia. Her main research interests include language learning environments, self-directed language learning beyond the classroom, technology in language education, second language pedagogy, and qualitative research methods. Pingying Hu is the team leader of Independent Language Learning at the Language Centre and Associate Dean of the School of Humanities, Fujian University of Technology, PR China. She works as a language teacher, language learning advisor and as a teacher trainer. Her research interests are learner autonomy, language advising and language learning motivation. She is editor-in-chief and co-editor of three books and the author of articles and book chapters in Chinese and English. Tuba Işık is a PhD student in the Department of English Language Teaching at Cukurova University, Turkey and also works as a research assistant in the Department of English Language Teaching at Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Turkey. She worked on teachers’ readiness for promoting language learner autonomy in her MA thesis. Currently, she is involved in projects focused on teacher autonomy support and autonomous language learning with technology beyond the classroom.  Satoko Kato is a Senior Education Coordinator/Lecturer, at the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE), Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS), Japan. She has conducted more than 3,800 advising sessions as a learning advisor and is currently focusing on developing and implementing advisor education programs for advisors/teachers, domestically and internationally. She holds a PhD in Education from Hiroshima University and an MA in TESOL from Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. She is the author (with Jo Mynard) of Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning (Routledge, 2016), and (with Hisako Yamashita) of the English Learning Planner (KUIS Press, 2012, 2013 and 2014). Yanling Li is the head of Foreign Language Teaching and the Research Section at the School of Humanities, Fujian University of Technology, PR China. She works as a language teacher and language learning advisor. Her research interests are learner autonomy, language advising, cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics. She is editor-in-chief and co-editor of two books and author of articles and book chapters in Chinese and English.

Contributors xi

Nigel Mantou Lou is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Victoria, Canada. His research focuses on three interrelated topics: motivation and emotion (e.g. language mindsets, selfdetermination, and language anxiety), intergroup relations, and intercultural communication. Jo Mynard is a Professor in the Faculty of Global Liberal Arts, Director of the Self Access Learning Center (SALC), and Director of the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE), at Kanda University of International Studies (KUIS), Japan. She has an MPhil. in Applied Linguistics from Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland and an EdD. in TEFL from the University of Exeter, UK. She has coedited and co-authored a number of books on language learner autonomy, social learning spaces and advising and is one of the founding editors of Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal and the Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning. She is particularly interested in research related to advising, self-directed language learning, language learning beyond the classroom/self-access language learning, and the social and affective dimensions of language learning.  Kimberly A. Noels (PhD, University of Ottawa, Canada) was trained in psychology, linguistics, and communication, and is currently a Professor of social and cultural psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Alberta, Canada. Her research interests focus on the interconnections between language learning and use, ethnic identity, and psychological well-being; the interpersonal and sociocultural ecologies within which these psychological processes unfold; and the temporal dynamics by which language development and acculturation occur. Her studies have received awards from the Modern Language Association, the International Association of Language and Social Psychology, the National Communication Association and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. W.L. Quint Oga-Baldwin, PhD has taught at every level of the Japanese education system. He currently trains teachers at Waseda University, Japan. He has authored papers using self-determination theory in journals such as Contemporary Educational Psychology, Motivation and Emotion, System and Japanese Psychological Research. He is co-editor of a 2019 Special Issue of System on New Directions for Individual Differences Research in Language Learning. Sue Ollerhead is a Lecturer in Additional Languages Education at Macquarie University, Australia. Her expertise lies in language teacher education, in particular the development of classroom pedagogies that support students for whom English is an additional language. Her other research interests include multilingual education,

xii Contributors

language-in-education policy, literacy across the curriculum and oracy development. Johnmarshall Reeve is a Professor in the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at the Australian Catholic University. He is both an educational psychologist and a motivational psychologist. Professor Reeve’s major research interests include teachers’ motivating styles, students’ engagement, and the neuroscience of motivational constructs central to self-determination theory. He has published 80 articles in journals such as the Journal of Educational Psychology, four books, including Understanding Motivation and Emotion (7th edn) and three edited volumes. He was past Editor-in-Chief at Motivation and Emotion and chair of AERA’s Motivation in Education SIG. Scott J. Shelton-Strong is a Learning Advisor and Lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. His research interests include learner autonomy, advising in language learning, self-determination theory, and developing an understanding of the connections that interlink these areas to learner well-being and engagement. He has authored and co-authored book chapters, journal articles and presented on a range of areas related to his research interests. Current projects include a focus on the application of self-determination theory to advising in language learning and self-access learning environments. Maria Giovanna Tassinari is Director of the Centre for Independent Language Learning at the Language Centre of the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. She works as a language teacher, language learning advisor and as a teacher trainer. Her research interests are learner autonomy, language advising, and emotion and feelings in language learning. She is co-editor of several books and author of articles and book chapters in German, English and French. Satoko Watkins is a Principal Learning Advisor/Lecturer in the SelfAccess Learning Center at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. She completed her MA in TESOL at Hawaiʻi Pacific University. Her research interests include learner autonomy, self-directed language learning, learning communities, and the empowerment of students. Jiaxiu Zhang is group leader of the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Section at the School of Humanities, Fujian University of Technology, PR China. She works as a language teacher and language learning advisor. Her research interests are learner autonomy, language advising and applied linguistics. She is the author of articles and book chapters in Chinese and English.

Introduction: Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom: A SelfDetermination Theory Perspective Jo Mynard and Scott J. Shelton-Strong

Origins

The inspiration for this book came during the Third Psychology of Language Learning Conference (PLL3) in Tokyo in June 2018, particularly from Professor Richard Ryan’s keynote talk. Although at the time, both of us had a general interest in self-determination theory (SDT), we had not yet begun to seriously draw on this field in our own practice and research. Our work mainly concerns supporting language learners outside the classroom in university settings. Although we have both had more than 20 years of second language teaching experience in various countries, we currently work as learning advisors in a university in Japan. Prior to 2018, our approach to research and practice was mainly anchored in sociocultural views of learning within the field of language learner autonomy. Through the process of creating this book, in addition to our ongoing and more recent research and discussions with colleagues, we feel confident that SDT can offer a comprehensive and robust framework for conceptualising the ways we support learners beyond the classroom. After decades of significant and compelling research where an SDT framework has been applied to diverse fields such as sports, business, and education, we believe the time is ripe to apply it to this emerging area of study. We see this book as a collaborative opportunity to enhance our knowledge and contribute to the field by examining theory, practice and research in different contexts. The ultimate goal of this volume is to enhance (and 1

2  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

further develop) our understanding of how we can support language learners beyond the classroom. To do this, we explore in some depth what autonomy support beyond the classroom looks like and how it can be theoretically conceptualised. We also probe into diverse ways to research it. What Do We Mean by Autonomy?

A key term used throughout the volume is, of course, autonomy, but this concept is defined differently depending on the underlying theory. Although the concept of autonomy will be discussed in more detail in different chapters, particularly in Chapter 2 by Reeve, to avoid confusion we offer brief definitions here. Autonomy from an SDT perspective will be simply termed ‘autonomy’ throughout the volume. In this sense, autonomy is considered a basic psychological need and the inner endorsement of one’s goals and actions. Autonomy is referred to as an experience of psychological freedom and volition, which, when satisfied, allows people to feel they can be themselves and it is characterised by a sense of ownership of one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours (Reeve, 2016; Reeve et al., 2004; Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). Autonomy in this sense is a precondition of motivation (Lamb, 2018), or as Reeve (this volume, Chapter 2: 32) writes: ‘autonomy is a motivational state that energizes and directs such ways of behaving and managing the environment’.  Alternatively, when referring to autonomy as it has been conceptualised in language teaching and learning, we use the term language learner autonomy throughout the volume. In this sense, autonomy is viewed as the ability and willingness to take charge of one’s own language learning, generally in collaboration with others (Benson, 2011; Dam et al., 1990; Little, 1991). A level of motivation is needed in order to want to exercise autonomy in this sense (Lamb, 2018; Lou et al., 2018; Ushioda, 2011). Although autonomy from this viewpoint is associated with action and ‘taking charge’ of one’s learning, this active participation is referred to as ‘agency’ or ‘agentic engagement’ in SDT terms rather than autonomy per se (Reeve, Chapter 2 of this volume). There has been some recent discussion about how the two concepts of autonomy in both fields relate to one another (Lou et al., 2018), and this volume will further aid our understanding. Despite the different conceptualisations and terminologies used to refer to autonomy, there is much to be gained from examining the research and practice from both traditions. With this in mind, we purposefully draw upon SDT in this volume in order to also enhance our understanding of language learner autonomy. We would like to see how the two fields – although they developed separately – can inform each other. Rather than attempt to blend the two fields or to create entirely new definitions, we intend to draw upon SDT as a way to examine language learning support outside the classroom in as-yet unexplored ways.

Introduction 3

The Purpose of this Volume

The purpose of this volume is to explore different ways in which SDT can be applied to research and practice, with the aim of developing a deeper understanding of how autonomy can be supported and understood within environments outside of the classroom. Through theoretical and empirical chapters, which are all grounded in real-world applications, we will examine autonomy support through an SDT lens in order to build on the extensive work already done within the field of language learner autonomy. In a range of contexts and settings, the contributing authors explore how language learners are motivated to learn beyond the formal classroom environment and how the role of the socio-environmental affordances within which they interact play a part. This will inevitably lead to a deeper sense of how the application of SDT can enhance our understanding of supporting language learner autonomy beyond the classroom.  We have chosen several reasons to focus on SDT and its supporting mini-theories in this volume. Firstly, we aim to develop and extend our understanding of how language learners can be supported as they pursue their learning outside the classroom environment. SDT is a robust theoretical model with decades of supporting research in different spheres, and there is developing interest in the field of language learning. Since the 1990s, more than 300 studies on language learning and SDT have been published – more than half of them within the last five years (Noels et al., 2019). However, SDT is practically unknown in relation to research connected to supporting language learners outside the classroom.  Secondly, the goal of language learner autonomy has become an accepted part of language teaching and learning and has decades of documented ways of promoting autonomy in practice. However, the field lacks sufficient empirical research (Benson, 2011). By adopting and adapting SDT instruments and models, we can begin to address this deficit.  These are likely to shine a light on how support for SDT’s basic psychological needs of autonomy – along with competence and relatedness – can be instrumental in enriching our approaches to supporting language learners and promoting language learner autonomy. At the same time, this volume will capitalise on our existing practical knowledge of language learner autonomy and enhance it within an SDT framework in order to develop an agenda for research and practice for the coming years. A final point worth mentioning is that much of the work in SDT to date has been quantitative. This body of knowledge has made an enormous impact on education and has inspired international replication studies. However, relatively few qualitative studies or examinations of practice have been explored. This volume aims to address this deficiency

4  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

by showcasing studies of a smaller scale, with the depth needed to uncover details of learner experiences. Although such studies cannot be generalisable, we hope to lead the way in inspiring further studies that add to the depth of knowledge in relation to SDT and supporting language learning beyond the classroom. What Do We Mean by ‘Outside Class’ and ‘Beyond the Classroom’?

We use the terms ‘outside class’ and ‘beyond the classroom’ interchangeably in this volume. We acknowledge that there are nuances to these terms and others, such as ‘out-of-class’, ‘extra-curricular’, and ‘non-formal’ learning but, as these are explored elsewhere, they have not been discussed nor defined in great detail in this volume. (See Reinders & Benson, 2017, for a descriptive model of learning beyond the classroom.) We are essentially trying to shift the focus from classroom-based research and teacher-facilitated explorations of practice and instead turn our gaze to what happens when no teachers are directing the language learning process. Much has been written about the bias towards documenting the fostering of learner autonomy within classroom environments (Benson, 2011; Benson & Reinders, 2011; Reinders et al., forthcoming; Sockett, 2014, forthcoming) and there is a growing interest in how language learning can be supported outside the classroom. However, this is still an under-represented area of research and practice in SLA. It may, in fact, be the case that most language learning takes place outside the classroom, yet most published research draws on classroom-based studies. There are several likely reasons for this. Firstly, it is easier to have access to participants that one regularly sees, for example, in a classroom. Moreover, instruments can be administered more easily with a group that meets regularly. Also, research conditions, interventions and control groups can be established more systematically in classroom-based studies. It is much more difficult to research participants engaging in unknown activities at any time of the day and in various locations, but the learning occurring is likely to be personally meaningful and particularly significant for the development of language proficiency. We are attempting to circumvent the constraints of researching learners engaging in outside-class learning by narrowing the scope somewhat. We intend to focus on the systems and the environments that provide autonomy support for learners and the influence this has on learning. Although not all these examples feature in this book, outside-class environments and support systems might include the following: • Physical environments such as self-access centres, writing centres, conversation lounges or learning commons. • Advising/counselling for language learning.

Introduction 5

• • • • • •

Peer-assisted language learning or peer tutoring.  Language learning communities and events. Student leadership programmes.  Teacher/advisor education and mentoring programmes. Technology-enhanced environments or tools for supporting learners. Self-access modules/curricula for supporting language learning outside the classroom.

Although we acknowledge that classroom support is an important part of the overall ecology of language learning opportunities, we are particularly interested in what occurs beyond the classroom: how language learners are being supported, how SDT can help us to understand further the processes and the kinds of support necessary to enhance autonomous language learning in this way. We will ensure that appropriate connections are made where relevant to bridge in-class and outside-class support. Still, the main focus is on the support for activities and processes occurring aside from classroom-based instruction and support and how socialising agents support autonomous motivation through promoting a sense of choice, initiative and engagement (Roth et al., 2019).  What Do We Hope to Achieve in this Volume?

Until now, areas of research and practice related to learning beyond the classroom have generally been theoretically underpinned by the field of language learner autonomy (Benson, 2011; Dam et al., 1990; Little, 1991; Little et al., 2017) within sociocultural views of learning (Lantolf et al., 2015; Vygotsky, 1987). We are beginning to see how our understanding of the complex processes of supporting language learners can be enhanced when taking an SDT perspective (Lou et al., 2018; McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019; Noels et al., 2019; Reeve, 2016). However, until now, SDT has not been widely applied to researching language learning beyond the classroom. In order to explore this potential in further depth, in this volume we bring together work from international colleagues that will contribute to the field and inspire interest in conducting further research in this area. Contents of this Volume

This volume contains chapters that draw upon theory, research and practice in order for the editors and contributing authors to explore autonomy support in different settings. The chapters are organised into four parts containing chapters dealing with (1) theoretical underpinnings, (2) learning environments and open spaces, (3) communities and relationships and (4) advising and self-access. 

6  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Reeve sets the scene with two key chapters. Firstly, in Chapter 1, he provides a succinct yet thorough overview of SDT in which he explains how it is a macro-theory of human motivation comprising six minitheories. Reeve explores theoretical assumptions for intrinsic activity and what it means to support or thwart these activities. This chapter anchors the entire book and shows how SDT is a coherent theoretical approach that considers both (1) learners’ needs and (2) environments as catalysts for flourishing and well-being. In Chapter 2, Reeve asks ‘what it means to take ownership over one’s own learning’ and, in order to answer this, he begins by exploring the concept of agency in one’s environment. If learners are to be agentic and take the initiative to change their circumstances, this needs to be motivationally supported beyond the classroom. The three interrelated concepts of language learner autonomy, environmental autonomy support, and agentic engagement are examined, as they are responsible for fuelling a productive learning trajectory. Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

We then turn to Part 2, where we examine autonomy support in learning environments and open spaces. In Chapter 3, Dincer and Işık investigate the motivational orientations and basic psychological need satisfaction of language learners engaged in out-of-class language learning (OCLL) while using online resources in a university setting in Turkey. Based on the research, the authors suggest a framework for online OCLL beyond the classroom and provide suggestions for language teachers aiming to bridge in-class with out-of-class learning. In Chapter 4, Hoang, Chik, French and Ollerhead, examine secondary school students’ motivation for English learning beyond the classroom in Vietnam. Drawing on two case studies of upper secondary students examined through the lenses of cognitive evaluation theory and organismic integration theory, the authors uncover findings that reveal that the students were predominantly extrinsically motivated in out-ofclassroom English learning. However, their autonomous motivation was crucial in sustaining their English learning engagement beyond the classroom. The findings contribute to theorising types and mechanisms of motivation among young EFL learners beyond the classroom context within the framework of SDT. In Chapter 5, Li, Zhang and Hu report on an action research project designed to investigate whether an application tailored to support online EFL writing in a university setting in China could stimulate motivation for writing beyond the classroom. The study takes a mixed-methods

Introduction 7

approach to researching the autonomy-supportive potential of incorporating an online platform in the development of writing skills and highlights the need for teachers to be more aware of motivational processes and autonomy support both inside and outside the classroom. In Chapter 6, Watkins explores how interest-based communities in Japan support learners’ basic psychological needs. Through an analysis of learner narratives, the author reports that learners develop a profound and reciprocal sense of relatedness and also achieve the fulfilment of other psychological needs. The participants exercised agency while participating in their chosen communities in ways that they would be unlikely to do in class or alone. The study shows how such a holistic approach to learning has the potential to promote persistence and enjoyment in learning. Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

In Part 3, we turn our attention to how autonomy is supported in communities and relationships. In Chapter 7, Firat, Noels and Lou look at the role of interpersonal and intercultural processes outside the classroom. The authors report on research involving target language speakers and other significant people such as family members and friends in relation to supporting or undermining learners’ motivational processes. In Chapter 8, Oga-Baldwin explores how the quality of our connections matters, particularly in the context of independent language learning. The author outlines the potential applications of relationships motivation theory (RMT) in a language learning community where highquality relationships support authentic communication in addition to emotionally fulfilling connections. The author outlines the potential of RMT for out-of-class language learning and provides a research agenda for further investigation.  Also drawing on RMT, in Chapter 9 Kato presents a mentoring programme for learning advisors that cultivates high-quality relationships. The author focuses on the reciprocal process of giving and receiving autonomy support through a relational mentoring programme (Ragins, 2012) based on strong connections between a mentor and a mentee maintained through supportive dialogue. Learning advisors (and indeed teachers) who receive this kind of autonomy support will, in turn, be best placed to provide autonomy support for their own learners. Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

In Part 4, we look specifically at the role of advising in the process of supporting autonomy beyond the classroom. As advising is often situated within a self-access context, we include this focus in Part 4. In Chapter 10, Shelton-Strong and Tassinari examine how advising

8  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

dialogue supports learners’ basic psychological needs by creating an autonomy-supportive learning climate. The advising process is designed to promote reflection and transformation in language learners through dialogue and has great potential to be an autonomy-supportive endeavour. The authors examine advising encounters and key techniques used in practice from the perspective of how they support learners’ basic psychological needs. After providing a theoretical rationale, the authors present a practical classification of these techniques that could be the starting point for further research. In Chapter 11, Beseghi looks at the role and potential benefits of mindfulness in advising. Mindfulness is the state of being attentive and aware of what is taking place (Kabat-Zinn, 2003) and is reported to promote well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003). The author examines practical ways that mindfulness can be integrated into language advising sessions by drawing on a small case study conducted in a university setting in Italy. The study revealed that participants who made efforts to be mindful felt a deeper sense of competence and autonomy in learning and were more open about sharing experiences with others. Environments, in addition to support from teachers, learning advisors, peers and other people, are a particularly important focus. As Reeve writes in Chapter 2 (p. 40): ‘if the environment is unresponsive to or frustrates the learner’s need for autonomy, the likely motivational experience is one of autonomy frustration, rather than one of autonomy satisfaction’. Finally, in Chapter 12, Mynard presents a reimagining of the self-access learning centre (SALC) as a space not only to learn and practise languages but also to thrive. A SALC is a physical learning space that typically provides access to resources and study spaces and provides opportunities to practise the TL. The author makes a case for taking an SDT approach to framing learners support in a SALC and provides a theoretical framework that can be applied to practice. In the conclusion, Shelton-Strong reflects on the degree to which the motives for the volume have been achieved and reflects upon the process. He draws out pertinent themes running throughout the book and suggests some implications for further theorising, continued research and applications to practice. References Benson, P. (2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Benson, P. and Reinders, H. (eds) (2011) Beyond the Language Classroom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brown, K.M. and Ryan, R.M. (2003) The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (4), 822–848. Dam, L., Eriksson, R., Little, D., Miliander, J. and Trebbi, T. (1990) Towards a definition of autonomy. In T. Trebbi (ed.) Third Nordic Workshop on Developing Autonomous

Introduction 9

Learning in the FL Classroom, Bergen, August 11-14, 1989: Report (pp. 102–103). Bergen, Norway: Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk, Universitet i Bergen.   Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003) Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 10, 144–156. Lamb, M. (2018) Which came first, the worm of the cocoon? In E.J. Everhard and J. Mynard with R.C. Smith (eds) Autonomy in Language Learning: Opening a Can of Worms (pp. 119–122). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. Lantolf, J., Thorne, S.L. and Poehner M. (2015) Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge. Little, D. (1991) Learner Autonomy 1: Definitions, Issues and Problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik. Little, D., Dam, L. and Legenhausen, L. (2017) Language Learner Autonomy: Theory, Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lou, N.M., Chaffee, K.E., Vargas Lascano, D.I., Dincer, A. and Noels, K.A. (2018) Complementary perspectives on autonomy in self-determination theory (SDT) and language learner autonomy (LLA). TESOL Quarterly 52 (1), 210–220.  McEown, S.M. and Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019) Self-determination for all language learners: New applications for formal language education. System 86, 102–124.  Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Lascano, D.I.V., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2019) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Ragins, B.R. (2012) Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. In K.S. Cameron and G.M. Spreitzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 519–536). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reeve, J. (2016) Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In J.C.K. Wang, W.C. Liu and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-Determination Theory (pp. 129–152). New York, NY: Springer. Reeve, J., Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2004) Self-determination theory: A dialectical framework for understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. In D. McInerney and S. Van Etten (eds) Big Theories Revisited (pp. 31–60). Greenwich, CT: IAP. Reinders, H. and Benson, P.  (2017) Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom. Language Teaching 50 (4), 561–578. Reinders, H., Lai, C. and Sundqvist, P. (eds) (forthcoming) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Roth, G., Vansteenkiste, M. and Ryan, R. (2019) Integrative emotion regulation: Process and development from a self-determination theory perspective. Development and Psychopathology 31 (3), 945–956.  Sockett, G. (2014) Online Informal Learning of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Sockett, G. (forthcoming) Learning beyond the classroom and autonomy. In H. Reinders, C. Lai and P. Sundqvist (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom. New York, NY: Routledge. Ushioda, E. (2011) Why autonomy? Insights from motivation theory and research. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 5 (2), 221–232. Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L. and Soenens, B. (2019) Seeking stability in stormy educational times: A need-based perspective on (de)motivating teaching grounded in self-determination theory. In E.N. Gonida and M.S. Lemos (eds) Motivation in Education at a Time of Global Change (pp. 53–80). Bingley: Emerald. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) Cognition and Language. The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. Problems of General Psychology (R.W. Rieber and A.S. Carton, editors). New York, NY: Plenum.

Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

1 A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory Johnmarshall Reeve

Two generations ago, Edward L. Deci completed his dissertation by asking how different types of extrinsic reinforcements (e.g. money, praise, threats of punishment) might affect intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1972a, 1972b). The basic finding was that task-related intrinsic motivation decreased after receiving an ‘if-then’ contingent reward (money), a threat of punishment for poor performance, or negative performance feedback. Through these studies, Deci (a) introduced selfdetermination theory’s first major phenomenon (i.e. intrinsic motivation; Deci, 1975); (b) created the first mini-theory to explain these findings (i.e. cognitive evaluation theory; Deci & Ryan, 1980); and (c) laid out a road map for how SDT would be built – namely, by resolving a specific and controversial research question, which was: ‘How do extrinsic rewards affect intrinsic motivation?’ The practical implications of this work were immediately obvious, so Deci also used SDT to (d) speak to issues of practical application. Self-Determination Theory

Today, self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017) exists as an integrative macro-theory of human motivation and personality. SDT is an amalgamation of six mini-theories, each of which was created to resolve a separate research question. What unites these mini-theories into a single macro-theory is a set of three shared assumptions about the nature of human motivation and how social conditions affect it. SDT’s overarching goal is to use empirical methods to explain how social conditions sometimes enhance but other times undermine human flourishing. 13

14  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Theoretical Assumptions

SDT is built on three key theoretical assumptions. The first assumption is that of intrinsic activity. SDT assumes that it is human nature to be inherently active. In education, the assumption is that every student-learner is naturally prone toward activity, engagement, learning, and personal growth. Proactive, agentic interaction with the environment is the natural state of motivation, while motivational passivity is a symptom of something gone awry. This first assumption highlights the importance of motivational constructs such as intrinsic motivation. SDT’s second assumption is that of inherent tendencies toward growth. SDT is an organismic approach to human motivation. Organisms are always in active exchange with their environmental surroundings, and their flourishing depends on access to a nurturing environment. When environments provide the resources and opportunities to support organisms’ growth-oriented nature, organisms thrive and fulfil their inherent tendencies toward growth, differentiation and integration. When the surrounding environment fails to provide these resources and nutriments, organisms and organismic development suffer and flounder. This second assumption highlights the source of people’s inherent growth tendencies – the three psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness as essential nutriments.1 SDT’s third assumption is the person–environment dialectic. In a dialectic, each agent (person, environment) changes the other, and the relationship evolves either toward synthesis and mutual support or toward conflict and mutual antagonism. In an educational setting, the learner eagerly seeks out and proactively interacts with the educational environment – seeking resources, learning new information, discovering new and more effective ways to cope, internalizing more mature ways to think and behave, and trying to create a more motivationally supportive environment for oneself. In turn, the environment affords the learner with new and constructive ways of thinking and acting. If the learner finds these environmentally recommended and modelled ways of thinking and acting to be helpful, two benefits occur. First, the learner experiences need satisfaction, personal growth and well-being. Second, the learner willingly internalises these environmentally sourced motivations into the self-structure (e.g. acquired beliefs, values, goals, standards, ways of coping). SDT’s third assumption highlights the importance of agency, internalization, differentiation, integration and autonomous extrinsic motivation. It highlights that people have inherent sources of motivation and that further they have acquired (internalized) sources of motivation. Originally, each assumption was adopted as a theoretical position, one that was assumed to be true but was not open to empirical testing. Since SDT’s early formulation, however, advances in technology and the emergence of new and sophisticated data analytic techniques

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  15

have enabled hundreds of clever researchers from all around the globe to discover ways to put these theoretical assumptions to empirical test. For instance, the assumption of inherent sources of motivation (intrinsic motivation, psychological needs) has been affirmed by neuroscientific investigations of brain structure and functioning (Reeve & Lee, 2019). The assumption of environmental supports and thwarts that satisfy or frustrate psychological needs has been affirmed by ‘dualprocess theory’ research on ‘bright side’ and ‘dark side’ catalysts and functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011). New and highly sophisticated statistical software programs (e.g. multilevel structural equation modeling analyses) allow global researchers to test for SDT’s predicted longitudinal, reciprocal causation and cross-cultural effects (Reeve et al., 2020). The capacity to put SDT’s theoretical assumptions to empirical test has informed the debate about the theory’s validity and generalizability. Empirical evidence has overwhelmingly supported the theory. That said, almost all the controversies involving SDT occur not around its empirical evidence but, instead, with its theoretical assumptions. For instance, not all educators and motivation researchers share SDT’s assumptions of inherent intrinsic motivation and psychological needs and that learners universally benefit from autonomy support but suffer from interpersonal control (Chao, 1994; Sagiv & Schwartz, 2000). For two generations, SDT has eagerly embraced each new controversy (e.g. Do extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation? Do students in collectivistic nations benefit from autonomy need satisfaction? Is a controlling motivating style universally problematic?). With each published empirical study, the theory has amassed an incredibly successful track record to support both its theoretical assumptions and predictions. Six Mini-Theories

SDT is the macro-theory that integrates its six mini-theories. SDT arose for a purpose, as each mini-theory was created to address, understand, explain and resolve a specific research question, as follows: • Basic psychological needs theory: Does need satisfaction lead to effective functioning and well-being; does need frustration lead to maladaptive functioning and ill-being? • Cognitive evaluation theory: How do external events affect intrinsic motivation? • Causality orientations theory: What does self-determination in the personality look like? Do internal events affect motivation and functioning in the same way that external events do? • Organismic integration theory: How differentiated is the concept of extrinsic motivation? Can degrees of internalization explain the different types of extrinsic motivation?

16  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

• Goal contents theory: Why do some goals generate more effort, progress and well-being than do other goals? • Relationships motivation theory: Why do some relationships become close and deeply satisfying while other relationships leave partners defensive, insecure and unhappy? Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT)

Basic psychological needs theory provides the SDT perspective on well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001, 2017; Ryan et al., 2008). To do so, BPNT highlights the motivational properties of the three universal psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy is the psychological need to experience personal ownership during one’s behavior. Its hallmarks are feelings of volition and selfendorsement. Competence is the psychological need to experience mastery during environmental challenges. Its hallmarks are feelings of effectance and a sense of making progress and stretching one’s skills and capacities. Relatedness is the psychological need to experience acceptance and emotional connection in one’s close relationships. Its hallmarks are feelings of closeness and authenticity (i.e. a sense that the person we are interacting with truly accepts us for who we are). BPNT identifies psychological need satisfaction as the essential nutriment for wellness and flourishing. As shown in Figure 1.1, when these basic psychological needs are satisfied, flourishing occurs in terms of intrinsic activity, adaptive functioning and wellness. When these basic psychological needs are frustrated, functioning and well-being are impoverished in terms of passivity, defiance, maladaptive functioning, ill-being and even psychopathology. Need satisfaction and need frustration vary between persons, but they also vary within the same person over time, across contexts, and across different relationships. Fundamentally, any factor that enables moment-to-moment or situation-to-situation need satisfaction will produce corresponding gains in well-being, while any factor that produces moment-to-moment or situation-to-situation need frustration will produce corresponding gains in ill-being. BPNT is at the center of cross-cultural research. Psychological needs are defined as inherent inner motivational resources that are necessary for optimal functioning, development, and well-being. SDT assumes that all three psychological needs apply to all individuals, irrespective of their nationality, culture, age, special need status or economic and political circumstances. Cultures and political systems do vary in their socialization styles – and, therefore, in their values, priorities, and norms – but need satisfaction is universally associated with well-being while need frustration is universally associated with ill-being (Chen et al., 2015; Chirkov et al., 2003).

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  17

Figure 1.1  Basic Psychological Needs Theory

Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)

Cognitive evaluation theory provides SDT’s social psychological perspective (Deci & Ryan, 1980; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Its central motivational concept is intrinsic motivation. CET was created to explain how any external event (e.g. a reward, praise, an assessment, feedback) sometimes enhances but other times undermines intrinsic motivation, which is the inherent desire to seek out novelty and challenge, to explore, to investigate, to learn, to take an interest in activities and to stretch and extend one’s skills and capacities. For intrinsic motivation to be maintained or enhanced, certain types of experiences are required – namely, satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2017). As illustrated in Figure 1.2, any external event can be offered in: (1) an autonomy-supportive and competence-informing way to maintain autonomy, enhance competence and therefore to enhance intrinsic motivation; (2) a controlling and pressure-inducing way to frustrate autonomy and therefore to undermine intrinsic motivation; or (3) an incompetence-communicating way to frustrate competence

18  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Figure 1.2  Cognitive Evaluation Theory

and therefore to undermine intrinsic motivation. The predictive power of CET to explain the ups and downs of intrinsic motivation has been demonstrated across a wide range of external events, including rewards (Deci et al., 1999), rules/limits (Koestner et al., 1984), choices (Patall et al., 2008), praise (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002), feedback (Mouratidis et al., 2010), verbal communications (Curran et al., 2013), goals (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004), assessment criteria (Haerens et al., 2018) and behavior change requests (Vansteenkiste et al., 2018). For each external event, the CET prediction is the same, because it is not so much what the external event is, as it is how it is administered. CET’s explanatory range includes not only specific external events but also the larger interpersonal context (e.g. advisor-learner relationships, classroom climate, school atmosphere, national ethos). Just as an external event can be presented in an autonomy-supportive, controlling, or amotivating way, so can an interpersonal context. Autonomy-supportive contexts and relationships offer understanding, information and need-support; controlling contexts and relationships offer prescriptions, pressures and are need-thwarting; and amotivating contexts and relationships offer neglect, unfulfillment and needindifference (Bhavsar et al., 2019; Reeve & Cheon, 2021). Causality Orientations Theory (COT)

Causality orientations theory provides SDT with a personality perspective (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017). COT proposes that, through their unique developmental histories, learners acquire varying levels of three causality orientations (autonomy, control and

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  19

Figure 1.3  Causality Orientations Theory

impersonal) that reflect acquired beliefs about what forces best initiate and regulate their behavior. As illustrated in Figure 1.3, COT proposes that all learners hold all three causality orientations but that their relative strengths vary from person to person. With an autonomy orientation, the learner treats the environment as a source of information that provides opportunities and action choices. When autonomy-oriented, students– learners are interest-taking, autonomously self-regulating, and rely on identified regulation, integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation to initiate and regulate their behavior. With a control orientation, learners become motivationally dependent on rewards, incentives, social controls and external contingencies as they need environmental forces or their own strong internal drives and emotions (i.e. extrinsic regulation, introjected regulation) to initiate and regulate their behavior. With an impersonal orientation, learners see the environment as a source of obstacles to goal attainment. When impersonally oriented, people lack initiative, intentionality and a sense of personal causation (i.e. amotivation). Causality orientations emerge as developmental outcomes that manifest as individual difference characteristics. These individual differences are not traits or types because people possess all three characteristics – but with different relative strengths. Learners with a history of interacting with autonomy-supportive relationships and environments tend to develop a relatively strong autonomy orientation; learners with a history of interacting with controlling relationships and environments tend to develop a relatively strong control orientation;

20  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

and learners with a history of interacting with need-indifferent and amotivating relationships and environments tend to develop a relatively strong impersonal orientation. As learners acquire these orientations, they come to rely on different sources and types of motivation to initiate and regulate their day-to-day behavior. It is worth taking a moment to see the parallel structure between Figures 1.2 and 1.3. In Figure 1.2, social psychology-based CET emphasizes how learners experience external and social events as autonomysupportive, controlling or amotivating. In Figure 1.3, personality-based COT emphasizes how learners experience their own internal tendencies as autonomy-supportive, controlling or amotivating. Organismic Integration Theory (OIT)

Organismic integration theory provides the SDT perspective on extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT emphasizes three types of motivation: intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation. While intrinsic motivation and amotivation are unidimensional motivations, four types of extrinsic motivation exist: namely, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation. OIT also specifies the antecedents, consequences and unique characteristics of each of these types of extrinsic motivation. The two central concepts within OIT are internalization and integration. Internalization is the process of taking in a value, belief or behavioral regulation from an environmental source and transforming it into one’s own value, belief or way of behaving. Integration is the developmental process in which the learner brings (‘assimilates’) an internalized value, belief, or behavioral regulation into some degree of harmony both with existing beliefs and into the self-system more generally. Different degrees of internalization and integration result in the four types of extrinsically motivated behaviors. As shown in Figure 1.4, each type of extrinsic motivation varies in its degree of autonomy (personal ownership), and the more autonomous the internalization/integration is, the greater its capacity to support behavioral persistence, effective performance and well-being (Koestner, 2008; Koestner et al., 2002; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Overall, OIT explains how learners transform (accept and internalize) an originally externally endorsed value or behavioral recommendation into a self-endorsed and authentically held value or behavior and, in doing so, acquire new adaptive sources of volitional motivation. Goal Contents Theory (GCT)

Goal contents theory provides the SDT perspective on life aspirations and goal pursuits (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2017). GCT focuses on the ‘what’ of goal striving. For instance, when a learner

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  21

Figure 1.4  Organismic Integration Theory

declares ‘My life aspiration is to become a counsellor’, the goal content is ‘to become a counsellor’. GCT starts with the core assumption that not all goals are equal because some goals satisfy psychological needs and foster wellness while other goals do not. As illustrated in Figure 1.5, intrinsic goals represent reliable pathways toward frequent and recurring experiences of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction, while extrinsic goals do not. Prototypical intrinsic goals are those for personal growth, relationship growth and helping others, while prototypical extrinsic goals are those for money, fame, power or popularity (Jang, 2019; Kasser

Figure 1.5  Goal Contents Theory

22  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

& Ryan, 1993, 1996). Extrinsic goals collectively represent ‘financial materialism’ but, in education, extrinsic goals (e.g. ‘achieve high test scores’, ‘be accepted into a prestigious school’) represent ‘educational materialism’ (Jang & Reeve, 2021). It is important to stress that an intrinsic goal puts the learner on a pathway to need-satisfying experiences, which is important because need satisfaction generates the energy needed for greater effort, engagement and goal progress – as well as for greater well-being. This relation holds not only for goal strivings but also for goal attainments (e.g. the person becomes the class valedictorian). This is because the pursuit of an extrinsic goal often puts the learner in the position of having to sacrifice their psychological needs in the pursuit of that extrinsic goal (e.g. ‘To become class valedictorian, I need to treat my classmates not as my friends but, instead, as my rivals’). The overarching contribution of GCT is to illustrate how and why intrinsic goals generate greater effort, goal progress and well-being. Relationships Motivation Theory (RMT)

Relationships motivation theory provides the SDT perspective on what constitutes a close, high-quality and deeply satisfying relationship (Deci et al., 2006; Knee et al., 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2017). RMT starts with the proposition that not all relationships afford experiences of relatedness need satisfaction. People do pursue close relationships to experience relatedness satisfaction but, as illustrated in Figure 1.6, some

Need for relatedness inclines people to pursue close relationships

Figure 1.6  Relationships Motivation Theory

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  23

relationships yield the fruits of relationship satisfaction, attachment security and wellness, while other relationships leave partners feeling dissatisfied, defensive, insecure and unhappy. Close, satisfying relationships are those characterized by both the giving and receiving of autonomy support. In these relationships, experiences of autonomy and relatedness satisfaction go hand in hand. One person gives autonomy support to the other, who then experiences autonomy satisfaction, while the other person in turn also gives autonomy support to the other, who also experiences autonomy satisfaction. This mutuality of giving and receiving autonomy support not only satisfies autonomy but it satisfies relatedness as well. RMT makes the unique claim that a relationship cannot be close and relatedness satisfying without the mutuality of autonomy support. In distant, low-quality and conflictual relationships, the autonomy and relatedness needs are turned against one another as relationship partners try to control and pressure each other. When relationship partners try to control one another, it is the need frustration that contributes to the ensuing relationship dissatisfaction and dysfunction. The prototypical example of such a need-frustrating relationship is conditional regard (Assor et al., 2004; Moller et al., 2016). With conditional regard, the person makes his or her attention, affection and love contingent on the other doing what is requested (i.e. the advisor gives the learner more attention and displays warmth after compliance but withholds attention and warmth after non-compliance), which puts the learner in a position of having to sacrifice personal autonomy to get relatedness satisfaction. Autonomy Support

SDT exists as a set of three key assumptions and six interconnected mini-theories. This complexity may be a bit overwhelming for the person trying to see the big picture that ties everything within SDT into a coherent whole. The assumptions and the mini-theories are like individual pieces of a larger jigsaw puzzle that need to be interlocked to allow the big picture to emerge. Different readers and different SDT theorists may put these puzzle pieces together a little differently but, for this author, the anchor construct that allows this clear, big picture to emerge is that of autonomy support. One way to put the individual pieces of SDT together into a coherent whole appears in Figure 1.7. This integrated model is SDT’s dual-process model (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Its starting point is the shaded oval of autonomy support. Autonomy support is the catalyst that sets in motion the ‘bright side’ processes of need satisfaction, adaptive functioning and well-being

Figure 1.7  SDT’s dual-process model

24  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  25

featured in the upper part of Figure 1.7. Formally defined, autonomy support is the adoption of a student-focused attitude and an understanding interpersonal tone that enables the skillful enactment of seven autonomy-satisfying instructional behaviors that serve two purposes – support intrinsic motivation and support internalization. (Reeve & Cheon, 2021: 56)

Those seven autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors are as follows: take the students’ perspective; invite students to pursue their personal interests; present learning activities in need-satisfying ways; provide explanatory rationales; acknowledge and accept negative feelings; rely on invitational language; and display patience. These behaviors are all highly positively intercorrelated and, when put into practice while working with student–learners, produce the two benefits of supporting intrinsic motivation and supporting the internalization of external regulation. When the important people in the learning environment (e.g. advisors) provide instruction, mentoring, and counselling in autonomysatisfying ways (i.e. through the seven aforementioned autonomysupportive instructional behaviors), they energize learners’ intrinsic motivation and valuing. Interpersonal control is the adoption of a teacher-focused authoritarian attitude and an interpersonal tone of pressure in which the teacher– advisor prescribes what students are to think, feel, and do, irrespective of what students prefer (Aelterman et al., 2019; Bartholomew et al., 2018). In practice, when controlling, educators first prescribe what learners should think, feel, and do and second apply an increasing amount of pressure until learners forgo their own needs and preferences to instead think, feel and do as they are told. Controlling educators rely on practices that are both externally controlling (i.e. behavioral control) and internally controlling (i.e. psychological control). Behavioral control is the interpersonal effort to gain control over students’ behaviors, as exemplified by pressuring– inducing tactics such as yelling, intimidating, commanding, bribing and denying rights (Assor et al., 2005). Psychological control is the interpersonal effort to gain control over another’s thoughts and feelings so that they will pressure and coerce themselves into performing prescribed behaviors, as exemplified by various manifestations of positive conditional regard, negative conditional regard, expressions of disappointment, guilt inductions and shaming (Kaplan, 2018; Roth et al., 2009; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). As shown in the lower part of Figure 1.7, interpersonal control is the catalyst that sets in motion the ‘dark side’ processes of need frustration, maladaptive functioning and ill-being.

26  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

The contemporary thinking is that autonomy support and interpersonal control exist as two separate dimensions of motivating style (Bartholomew et al., 2011). This is because (1) the two styles are only modestly negatively correlated; (2) a low level in one style does not imply a high level in the other; (3) autonomy support strongly predicts high need satisfaction and adaptive functioning but only weakly predicts low need frustration and maladaptive functioning; and (4) interpersonal control strongly predicts high need frustration and maladaptive functioning but only weakly predicts low need satisfaction and adaptive functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Cheon et al., 2016; Gunnell et al., 2013; Haerens et al., 2015). In practical terms, this means that teachers, advisors and learning environments generally need to be responsible for learning two skills: namely, (1) how to become more autonomy supportive but also (2) how to transform their existing controlling style into a more autonomy-supportive style (e.g. replace ‘utter directives’ with ‘provide explanatory rationales for behavioral requests’). Teachers, advisors and learning environments need to promote these skills because greater autonomy support catalyzes learners’ bright-side processes while lesser interpersonal control minimizes learners’ dark-side processes. Recognizing this, intervention research has shown that educators who participate in an SDT-based workshop designed to help them upgrade the quality of their motivating style become fully capable of: • supporting learners’ need satisfaction, which catalyzes bright-side outcomes such as agency, engagement, conceptual learning, skill development, academic achievement, academic progress and success, positive self-concept, prosocial behavior and vitality and well-being (Cheon et al., 2012; Cheon et al., 2020; Cheon, Reeve & Ntoumanis, 2018, 2019; Cheon, Reeve & Song, 2019; Niemiec & Muñoz, 2019; Reeve et al., 2004; Reeve et al., 2020); and • minimizing learners’ need frustration, which diminishes dark-side outcomes such as passivity, disengagement, amotivation, negative feelings, cheating and problematic peer relationships including bullying, antisocial behavior and classroom violence (Assor et al., 2018; Cheon & Reeve, 2013, 2015; Cheon et al., 2016; Cheon et al., 2021; Cheon, Reeve & Ntoumanis, 2018, 2019; Cheon, Reeve, Lee, et al., 2019; Kaplan & Assor, 2012; Reeve et al., 2020). Because SDT speaks to so many issues of applied significance, the theory has been applied to a wide range of domains of application, including not only schooling and parenting but also the worlds of work, sports, therapy and healthcare (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This applied research has often been conducted through intervention research that has used rigorous methodologies, such as randomized control trials. Given this

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  27

track record of successful practical application, it is now time to apply SDT in contexts beyond the traditional classroom, which is the essential purpose of this volume. Note (1) The classic plant metaphor is illustrative. Just as plants that receive sunshine, water, and nutritious soil thrive while those that receive pollution, drought and toxins suffer, people who experience autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction thrive while those who experience autonomy, competence and relatedness frustration suffer.

References Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., Haerens, L., Delrue, J. and Reeve, J. (2019) Toward a fine-grained understanding of the components of needsupportive and need-thwarting teaching: The merits of a gradual approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 111, 497–521. Assor, A., Roth, G. and Deci, E.L. (2004) The emotional costs of perceived parental conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality 72, 47–87. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y. and Roth, G. (2005) Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction 15, 397–413. Assor, A., Feinberg, O., Kanat-Maymon, Y. and Kaplan, H. (2018) Reducing violence in non-controlling ways: A change program based on self-determination theory. The Journal of Experimental Education 86 (2), 195–213. Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., Mouratidis, A. and Katartzi, E. (2018) Beware of your teaching style: A school-year-long investigation of controlling teaching and student motivational experiences. Learning and Instruction 53, 50–63. Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R.M., Bosch, J.A. and Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011) Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology 37, 1459–1473. Bhavsar, N., Ntoumanis, N., Quested, E., Gucciardi, D., Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., Ryan, R.M., Reeve, J., Sarrazin, P. and Bartholomew, K. (2019) Conceptualizing and testing a new tripartite measure of coach interpersonal behaviors. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 44, 107–120. Chao, R.K. (1994) Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training. Child Development 65, 1111–1119. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R.M., Sheldon, K.M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S. and Verstuyf, J. (2015) Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion 39, 216–236. Cheon, S.H. and Reeve, J. (2013) Do the benefits from autonomy-supportive PE teacher training programs endure? A one-year follow-up investigation. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 14, 508–518. Cheon, S.H. and Reeve, J. (2015) A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 40, 99–111. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Moon, I.S. (2012) Experimentally-based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 34, 365–396.

28  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., and Song, Y.-G. (2016) A teacher-focused intervention to decrease PE students’ amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 38, 217–235. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Ntoumanis, N. (2018) A needs-supportive intervention to help PE teachers enhance students’ prosocial behavior and diminish antisocial behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 35, 74–88. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J. and Ntoumanis, N. (2019) An intervention to help teachers establish a prosocial peer climate in physical education. Learning and Instruction 64, December 2019. Article 101223. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Song, Y.-G. (2019) Recommending goals and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students’ psychological needs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 41, 107–118. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2020) Expanding a traditional autonomysupportive intervention into a multiple motivating styles intervention for PE teachers: Benefits to students, benefits to teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Marsh, H. (2021) Autonomy-supportive teaching improves the classroom climate: An intervention-based multilevel randomized control trial. Manuscript under review. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., Ntoumanis, N., Gillet, N., Kim, B.R. and Song, Y.-G. (2019) Expanding autonomy psychological need states from two (satisfaction, frustration) to three (dissatisfaction): A classroom-based intervention study. Journal of Educational Psychology 111, 685–702. Chirkov, V.I., Ryan, R.M., Kim, Y. and Kaplan, U. (2003) Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientation, gender, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, 97–110. Curran, T., Hill, A. and Niemiec, C. (2013) A conditional process model of children’s behavioral engagement and behavioral disaffection in sport based on self-determination theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 35, 30–43. Deci, E.L. (1972a) Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22, 113–120. Deci, E.L. (1972b) The effects of contingent and non-contingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 8, 217–229. Deci, E.L. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation. New York, NY: Plenum. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980) The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 39–80). New York, NY: Academic Press. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) The general causality orientations scale: Selfdetermination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality 19, 109–134. Deci, E.L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R.M. (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 126 (6), 627–668. Deci, E.L., La Guardia, J.G., Moller, A.C., Scheiner, M.J. and Ryan, R.M. (2006) On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 313–327. Gunnell, K., Crocker, P.R.E., Wilson, P.M., Mack, D.E. and Zumbo, B.D. (2013) Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: A test of basic psychological needs theory in physical activity contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14, 599–607. Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B. and Van Petegem, S. (2015) Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 16, 26–36.

A Brief but Comprehensive Overview of Self-Determination Theory  29

Haerens, L., Krijgsman, C., Mouratidis, A., Borghouts, L., Cardon, G. and Aelterman, N. (2018) How does knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test relate to adolescents’ situational motivation in physical education? A self-determination theory perspective. European Physical Education Review 20 (11), 1–19. Henderlong, J. and Lepper, M.R. (2002) The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin 128 (5), 774–795. Jang, H.-R. (2019) Teachers’ intrinsic vs. extrinsic instructional goals predict their classroom motivating styles. Learning and Instruction 60 (1), 286–300. Jang, H.-R. and Reeve, J. (2021) What teachers strive to attain: Intrinsic instructional goal adoption increases autonomy-supportive teaching. Learning and Instruction 73, 101415. Kaplan, H. (2018) Teachers’ autonomy support, autonomy suppression and conditional negative regard as predictors of optimal learning experience among high-achieving Bedouin students. Social Psychology of Education 21 (1), 223–255. Kaplan, H. and Assor, A. (2012) Enhancing autonomy-supportive I-Thou dialogue in schools: Conceptualization and socio-emotional effects of an intervention program. Social Psychology of Education 15 (2), 251–269. Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M. (1993) A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (2), 410–422. Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M. (1996) Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22 (3), 280–287. Knee, C.R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A. and Patrick, H. (2005) Self-determination and conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (6), 997–1009. Koestner, R. (2008) Reaching one’s personal goals: A motivational perspective focused on autonomy. Canadian Psychology 49 (1), 60–67. Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., Bernieri, F. and Holt, K. (1984) Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on children’s intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality 54, 233–248. Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T.A. and Chicoine, E. (2002) Attaining personal goals: Self concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83, 231–244. Moller, A.C., Roth, G., Niemiec, C.P., Kanat-Maymon, Y. and Deci, E.L. (2016) Mediators of the associations between parents’ conditional regard and the quality of their adultchildren’s peer relationships. Motivation and Emotion 43, 35–51. Mouratidis, A., Lens, W. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2010) How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: The motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supportive way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 32, 619–637. Niemiec, C.P. and Muñoz, A. (2019) A need-supportive intervention delivered to language teachers in Colombia: A pilot investigation based on self-determination theory. Psychology 10, 1025–1042. Patall, E.A., Cooper, H. and Robinson, J.C. (2008) The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin 134 (2), 270-300. Reeve, J. and Lee, W. (2019) A neuroscience perspective on the self-determination theory framework. Journal of Personality 87 (1), 102–114. Reeve, J. and Cheon, S.H. (2021) Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its benefits, malleability, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist 56 (1), 54–77. Reeve, J., Cheon, S.H. and Yu, T.H. (2020) An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development 44 (4), 325–338.

30  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S. and Barch, J. (2004) Enhancing high school students’ engagement by increasing their teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion 28, 147–169. Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C.P., Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2009) The emotional and academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Developmental Psychology 45, 1119–1142. Ryan, R.M. and Connell, J.P. (1989) Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, 749–761. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001) On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 141–166. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M., Huta, V. and Deci, E.L. (2008) Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 9 (1), 139–170. Sagiv, L. and Schwartz, S.H. (2000) Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology 30, 177–198. Sheldon, K.M. and Elliot, A.J. (1999) Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (3), 482–497.  Soenens, B. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2010) A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review 30 (1), 74–99. Vansteenkiste, M. and Ryan, R.M. (2013) On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration 23 (3), 263–280. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M. and Deci, E.L. (2004) Motivation learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, 246–260. Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., De Muynck, G.-J., Haerens, L., Patall, E. and Reeve, J. (2018) Fostering personal meaning and self-relevance: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization. Journal of Experimental Education 86, 30–49.

2 What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’ in a Self-Determination Theory Analysis Johnmarshall Reeve

‘Individual development for students cannot be administered by a teacher – it has to be based in the students’ own awareness of what they want to learn and how they can go about it’ (Eriksson, 1990: 22–23). To bear fruit, language learning depends on two favorable conditions: (1) the learner’s willingness to take ownership over his or her own learning and (2) access to learning environments that support and are responsive to the learner’s inputs and initiatives. The first condition emanates from the learner’s autonomous motivation and depends on qualities of the learner. The second condition emanates from the environment’s capacity to meet the learner’s needs and depends on the qualities of the surrounding environment. But like two ships that pass unaware in the night, these two conditions often miss each other. Many autonomous language learners fail to find or create supportive physical and interpersonal surroundings for themselves, just as many supportive learning environments open their doors each day hoping to host absent autonomously motivated language learners. Recognizing this, the purpose of the present chapter is to identify the bridge that connects autonomous learners with their sought-after supportive surroundings. That bridge is the learner’s agency, or agentic engagement.

31

32  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Autonomy

In self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), autonomy is not a way of behaving or a way of managing one’s environment (e.g. making a plan, observing an expert role model, conversing with a partner, keeping a diary). Instead, autonomy is a motivational state that energizes and directs such ways of behaving and managing the environment. It is an inherent, ever-ready source of motivation that, when supported by environmental conditions, is fully capable of invigorating learners’ interest-taking, challenge-seeking, information assimilation (learning), volitional internalizations and proactive engagement with potential learning opportunities. Specifically, in SDT, autonomy is a psychological need. With a psychological need, what the person needs is a particular psychological experience: an experience that yields need satisfaction and, in so doing, fuels initiative, personal growth, healthy development and well-being (i.e. what the person needs in order to be well and thrive; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Autonomy is the need for personal ownership during one’s behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2017). It is the psychological need to experience selfdirection and personal endorsement in the initiation and regulation of one’s behavior. When deciding what to do, the learner wants the idea for the behavior to originate from within him or her and to express his or her personal interests and preferences. The learner wants to be the one who determines his or her actions and circumstances, rather than have someone force or make them do something. The learner wants to be the one who decides what to do, when to do it, how to do it, when to stop doing it and when and whether to do something else. The learner wants the choice to put himself or herself in one situation rather than in another. The tell-tale signs that one is experiencing autonomy satisfaction are the emergent feelings of volition and self-endorsement. Volition is an unpressured willingness to engage in an activity, one that centers on how free (vs. coerced) the learner feels while acting (e.g. playing, studying, attending school) and while putting oneself in one situation rather than in another (e.g. ‘I want to do x but not y’). Personal endorsement is a heartfelt sense of ownership over the action. It is an affirmative answer to questions such as: Is this my choice? Is this want I want to do? For decades, language learning educators have recognized that autonomy does not equate to independent or individualistic learning (Benson, 2011). Autonomy requires a great deal of environmental support: it is an environmentally dependent source of motivation. Autonomy exists as a latent potential that energizes and directs volitional action only when it is environmentally supported (Bartholomew et al., 2011). Thus, any analysis of the psychological need for autonomy necessarily includes a parallel analysis of the environmental conditions that support vs. hinder, undermine or thwart it (discussed in the next

What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’  33

section). When autonomy is supported, it vitalizes the learner’s energy and direction, and that energy manifests itself as intrinsic motivation, intrinsic goals, self-endorsed values and autonomously motivated types of extrinsic motivation (e.g. internalization, identified regulation) (Reeve et al., 2022). Briefly, intrinsic motivation is the inherent desire to seek out novelty and challenges, to explore new environments, to take interest in activities and new adventures, and to stretch and extend one’s abilities (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Any goal is a forward-looking desired end-state, but a goal that affords the goal-striver with frequent and recurring opportunities to experience need satisfaction is an intrinsic goal (e.g. ‘This goal pursuit allows me to feel free to do what I want to do, and to become the person I want to become’) (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). A self-endorsed value is an internalized and personally accepted belief as to what is desirable and attractive (‘For me, learning how to speak Korean is a desirable, attractive, and worthwhile thing to do’). Once integrated into the selfsystem, internalized beliefs serve as motivations to guide and inform the learner’s choices, goals, attitudes, lifestyle, identity and sense of self (Ahn & Reeve, 2020). Autonomy is an important motivational state because it predicts positive educational outcomes, such as learning, development, achievement and well-being. Experiment-based research studies show that increased autonomy satisfaction produces gains in each of the following indices of adaptive functioning: engagement, agency, learning, skill development, positive self-concept, achievement, prosocial behavior and well-being, and produces declines in each of the following indices of maladaptive functioning: disengagement, amotivation, passivity, negative feelings, cheating, problematic relationships, antisocial behavior and bullying (for a review, see Reeve & Cheon, 2021). Somewhat in contrast to the SDT definition of autonomy, the classic definition of autonomy that has driven decades of research and analysis in language learning has been the following (from Dam et al., 1990: 102): Learner autonomy is characterized by a readiness to take charge of one’s own learning in the service of one’s own needs and purposes. This entails a capacity and willingness to act independently and in cooperation with others, as a social, responsible person. An autonomous learner is an active participant in the social process of classroom learning, but also an active interpreter of new information in terms of what she/he already and uniquely knows. Accordingly, it is essential that an autonomous learner evolves an awareness of the aims and processes of learning and is capable of the critical reflection which syllabuses and curricula frequently require but traditional pedagogical measures rarely achieve. An autonomous learner knows how to learn and can use this knowledge in any learning situation she/he may encounter at any stage in her/his life.

34  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

The reason to highlight this classic definition is simply to point out that it is actually a definition of the autonomous learner in action (i.e. ‘autonomous learning’; Benson, 2011). As such, the above definition nicely conceptualizes the essence of what the later part of this chapter will refer to as ‘agency’ or ‘agentic engagement’ (rather than autonomy per se). This is an important distinction to make because autonomy is the motivational force that energizes and directs the sort of ‘taking charge of’ and ‘actively participating in one’s own learning’ described above. As recognized by Benson (2011), autonomy cannot be taught, learned or acquired; instead, autonomy needs to be appreciated and supported. What this means in terms of both theory-building and practical application is that the existing understanding of ‘learner autonomy’ needs to be expanded from one overarching concept to three interrelated but differentiated concepts: namely, autonomy, environmental autonomy support and agentic engagement. Environmental Autonomy Support

Autonomy support is the adoption of a student focus and an understanding interpersonal tone that enables the skillful enactment of seven autonomy-satisfying instructional behaviors that serve two purposes: supporting intrinsic motivation and supporting internalization (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). Those seven autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors are (Reeve et al., 2022): • • • • • • •

take the student’s perspective; invite the student to pursue his or her personal interests; present learning activities in autonomy-satisfying ways; provide explanatory rationales for requested behaviors; acknowledge and accept negative feelings; rely on invitational language; and display patience.

A student focus means that the environment takes a real interest in the learner’s ideas, preferences and goals, and that the environment is willing to bend its offerings to align with the learner’s preferences. An understanding tone is an effort to understand what the learner wants, needs and prefers. It is not giving in to the learner and is never a ‘learner vs. environment’ interaction; instead, it is the environment exercising empathy and care to work with the learner to help him or her successfully accomplish important tasks. Once an environment (e.g. conversation lounge, self-access center) adopts a student-focused and an understanding tone, then it becomes willing and able to provide the aforementioned seven autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors. Almost all existing research on autonomy support has focused on the teacher (i.e. teacher-provided autonomy support), although this

What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’  35

research also includes tutors, mentors, supervisors, coaches, parents, counselors, etc. In an outside-of-the-classroom learning context, the role of the teacher is not as central as it is in the in-classroom learning context. But autonomy support is still a very important construct in the study of out-of-the-classroom learning, and that is because there exists a multitude of additional opportunities for environmental autonomy support beyond the classroom teacher, including peers, peer climates, intrinsic goal pursuits, interesting and personally valued activities and environmental resources. Peer-provided autonomy support

Just as a teacher can support a learner’s autonomy, so can a peer. This is especially true in those cases in which learners interact with peers who have similar interests and goals. Peers can be controlling and autonomythwarting, but peers can also engage in all the relationship-supportive behaviors that teachers do, including perspective taking, encouraging the learner to pursue his or her personal interests, acknowledging negative feelings and so forth. These dyadic peer interactions sometimes occur within a more general peer-to-peer social climate, as the language learner can interact with an autonomy-supportive peer, an autonomysupportive peer group or both. In an autonomy-supportive peer climate, the learner can find (and be supported by) a group of peers who create norms, expectations, patterns of communication and group dynamics that emphasize improvement, interpersonal inclusion and working together (Ntoumanis & Vazou, 2005). Autonomy support from a peer climate produces much the same benefits for the learner as does autonomy support from a teacher (Joesaar et al., 2012). Intrinsic goal pursuit

A goal is a future-focused mental representation of a desired end state that guides behavior. According to self-determination theory, however, ‘all goals are not created equal’ (Ryan et al., 1996: 21), as some goals are more energizing, beneficial and satisfying (intrinsic goals) than are other goals (extrinsic goals). A goal is intrinsic if it puts the goal-striver on an inwardly oriented pathway of activity that opens up frequent and recuring opportunities to experience need satisfaction, especially autonomy satisfaction. Many learner goals can do this, but examples of prototypical intrinsic goals are those for personal growth, close relationships, and helping others (Niemiec et al., 2009). Thus, a goal such as ‘I want to join a club that allows me to pursue my interests’ puts the goal-striver on an autonomy-satisfying pathway of activity, just as a goal such as ‘I am going to learn Spanish to connect more closely with my surrounding community’ puts the goal-striver

36  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

on an autonomy- (and relatedness-) satisfying pathway of activity. The reason why intrinsic goal pursuits are especially beneficial is because the autonomy satisfaction they produce provides extra motivational support for greater effort, more goal progress, and greater well-being (Koestner, 2008). Thus, just as teachers, peers, and social climates can support autonomy, so can an intrinsic goal pursuit. Activity-based autonomy support

Activities vary in how interesting and how personally important they are to the learner. Learners find some activities to be highly interesting, and one of the defining features of what makes an activity an interesting thing to do is the extent to which the activity can provide the learner with an experience of psychological need satisfaction (Deci, 1992). If a learner finds language learning or interacting with fellow language learners or visiting a foreign country to be an autonomy-satisfying thing to do (e.g. ‘I feel free’, ‘This is something I want to do’, ‘Doing this activity allows me to be my true self’), then that activity will be experienced as an interesting, enjoyable activity, because the ‘satisfaction’ in ‘need satisfaction’ is nearly synonymous with an experience of interest, enjoyment and pleasure (Reeve & Lee, 2019). To the extent that an interesting activity enables autonomy satisfaction, then, that activity is an autonomy support. Similarly, even uninteresting activities can be autonomy-satisfying and hence an autonomy support. Autonomy is defined via experiences of personal ownership, self-direction, volition and self-endorsement. Interesting activities produce these experiences, but so can uninteresting activities – at least as long as they are perceived to be important, valuable and personally useful. The belief that this activity ‘is a useful, worthwhile thing to do’ supports not intrinsic motivation but internalization. Internalization is the process of taking in values, beliefs and ways of behaving from social sources and transforming them into one’s own (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Once a value, belief or way of behaving has been fully internalized by the learner, it gains the capacity to generate subjective experiences of personal ownership, self-direction, volition and self-endorsement (Reeve et al., 2002). This is true even if the activity itself is an inherently uninteresting thing to do (e.g. studying for hours and hours). Thus, just as task interest fuels autonomy satisfaction (via intrinsic motivation), so can a sense of task value, usefulness and importance (via internalization). Resource-based autonomy support

A final environmental source of autonomy support occurs in all those opportunities and resources afforded by a surrounding (physical) environment. Through clubs, organizations, programs, places to go

What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’  37

and technology (e.g. Duolingo app), the learner can find sources of autonomy support. Resource-based sources of autonomy support have not yet been investigated in the self-determination theory research literature, but the language learner literature seems ripe for investigating this source of autonomy support. Any journey in learning a foreign language offers many need-supportive places to go (e.g. conversation lounges, writing centers, community events, self-access centers, learning advising/counseling services) as well as technology-rich resources and tools to interact with, and the learner’s engagement with these sorts of opportunities and resources is likely to produce need-satisfying experiences. Agentic Engagement

An agent is someone who intentionally influences their surrounding circumstances (Bandura, 2006). In the context of (formal and informal) education, intentionally influencing one’s circumstances means contributing constructively to and shaping the conditions under which one learns and develops. By acting on, changing, improving and negotiating with the environments in which they learn and develop, learners gain greater capacity to change their lives for the better. Agentic engagement is the action, behavior and personal initiative that the agent undertakes in order to change their functioning and circumstances for the better (Reeve, 2013). It is what learners say and do to create more motivationally supportive social and physical environments for themselves – offer input, personalize the learning experience, communicate likes and dislikes, ask for a say in what to do and how to do it, etc. Its opposite is passivity (or ‘agentic disengagement’; Reeve, Cheon & Yu, 2020). The passive learner simply receives and accepts ‘as is’ whatever learning opportunities, learning partners, instruction, mentors, goals, activities, resources, events and circumstances happen to come his or her way. In contrast, the agentically engaged learner is full of personal initiative and is constantly striving to improve upon and contribute constructively to the betterment of the learning opportunities, learning partners, instruction, mentors, goals, activities, resources, events and circumstances that he or she makes sure come his or her way. Agentic engagement is both proactive and reciprocal. Proactively, agentically engaged learners take action before a learning experience begins, by creating and shaping the social and physical environment in which the learning will take place. In doing so, the hope is that the environment will be increasingly supportive and responsive and therefore better able to help the learner realize their goals and plans for the learning experience. Reciprocally, agentically engaged learners seek a pattern of interaction with the environment in which they

38  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

communicate their interests, needs, plans and goals so that the environment will adapt what it has to offer and, in so doing, become better able to support the learner’s expressed interests, needs, plans and goals. When environments are both responsive and supportive, the learner will tend to be changed by that supportive environment by developing new and better interests, needs, plans and goals. Overall, agentic engagement is a learner-initiated pathway to recruit (and benefit from) a more motivationally supportive learning environment. A focus on agentic engagement often raises the question of how it is different from behavioral engagement. Behavioral engagement refers to the observable action that learners take to be on-task and exert effort. It is typically conceptualized and measured in terms of one’s effort and persistence (Skinner et al., 2009); but it also involves participating, completing tasks and adhering to rules. The difference between the two is that behavioral engagement is largely reactive – the learner receives a task or assignment (e.g. read the book, participate in the discussion) and then responds with some level of attention, effort, persistence and participation. Agentic engagement, on the other hand, is proactive. The learner seeks out their own interesting book or discussion partners. There is a lot of attention, effort, persistence and participation in both these types of engagement, but the effort that arises out of behavioral engagement is a reaction to learning challenges and opportunities supplied by others, while the effort that arises out of agentic engagement is the proactive creation of one’s own learning challenges and opportunities. This distinction is important because learners who display both behavioral and agentic engagement make greater academic progress than do learners who display only behavioral engagement (Reeve, Cheon & Jang, 2020). Agentic engagement enables two key outcomes. First, greater agentic engagement improves the learner’s functioning, as increased agentic engagement predicts increased learning, skill development, and performance (Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). For instance, agentically engaged learners make better grades than do their non-agentically engaged peers (Reeve, Cheon & Jang, 2020). Agentically engaged learners simply learn more and learn better than do agentically disengaged students (Reeve, Cheon & Yu, 2020). So, the first reason why agentic engagement is important is because it represents a productive pathway to build skills and to make academic progress. Second, greater agentic engagement improves the circumstances under which one learns and develops, as increased agentic engagement predicts how much the environment changes to accommodate the learner’s interests, needs and goals. In a series of studies, we assessed agentically engaged students (in a classroom setting) at the beginning of the academic year to test the hypothesis that students’ agentic engagement would, over time, bring out greater autonomy support

What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’  39

from their teachers. These studies were all longitudinal in design and the consistent findings were: (1) the more agentically engaged that students were at the beginning of the semester, the more autonomy supportive their teachers became toward them by the end of the semester; and (2) the more agentically disengaged that students were at the beginning of the semester, the less autonomy supportive their teachers became toward them by the end of the semester (Matos et al., 2018; Reeve, 2013; Reeve, Cheon & Yu, 2020). Of these two findings relating to how agentic engagement translates into learning and academic progress, the role that agentic engagement plays in recruiting a more motivationally supportive environment for oneself seems to be primary (Reeve et al., 2021). We have not yet studied agentic engagement empirically in the outside of the classroom environment, but there are multiple opportunities for agentically engaged learners to improve the circumstances under which they learn and develop. As mentioned in other chapters in the volume, learning outside the classroom affords learners with potential access to a multitude of resources and opportunities, including (1) sources of social support, such as teachers, advisors, mentors, coaches, role models, counselors and peer collaborators, (2) community offerings and authentic settings, (3) physical environments, such as language laboratories, writing centers and conversation lounges, (4) technology resources, such as ‘how to’ audiobooks, apps (smartphone applications) and language software that offers modeling, feedback and practice opportunities, and (5) a host of additional resources, materials and whatever else the aspiring language learner feels he or she needs to improve skills and attain goals. To capitalize on these opportunities and resources, language learners have a multitude of ways they can ‘take ownership over their own learning’. To do so, autonomously motivated, agentically engaged learners can seek out autonomy supportive teachers and peers, set and pursue intrinsic goals, choose which activities and which materials to spend time with, decide for themselves how to go about the task of learning and improving, explore the surroundings to find new and better ways to learn, find others who share one’s interests and goals, ask competent others for guidance and support, find expert role models to observe and emulate, develop the standards necessary to evaluate one’s work, find experts who can evaluate one’s work objectively and offer constructive suggestions, and basically take responsibility for their own learning and developing. Essentially, what agentically engaged learners do is, first, clarify and give voice to what they want and need, second, continuously problemsolve to understand what resources and opportunities they need to meet their goals and improve their skills, and third, take the initiative to create or put themselves in the environments that will best allow them to fulfill their interests, develop their skills, learn new things and surround themselves with the people, resources and sources of support they need.

40  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

Integrating Autonomy, Autonomy Support and Agentic Engagement

How a learner’s autonomy, environmental autonomy support and agentic engagement fit together can be seen in Figure 2.1. Autonomy need satisfaction is agentic engagement’s motivational fuel. Agentic engagement then recruits greater environmental autonomy support, just as agentic disengagement (passivity) minimizes it. Finally, the extent of environmentally provided autonomy support explains experiences of autonomy satisfaction (vs. frustration), which fuels further agentic engagement in a self-reinforcing loop. As represented by the triangle in the center of the figure, the learner and learning environment become increasingly in sync with one another when autonomy support fuels autonomy satisfaction, autonomy satisfaction fuels agentic engagement, and agentic engagement fuels environmental autonomy support. If the environment is unresponsive to or frustrates the learner’s need for autonomy, the likely motivational experience is one of autonomy frustration rather than one of autonomy satisfaction. Autonomy frustration leads to agentic disengagement. Exhibiting such disengagement, the learner fails to take the initiative needed to otherwise pull greater autonomy support from their surrounding environment. Under these conditions, the learner–environment relationship dissolves into two independent actors, as little of what the learner does changes or improves the surrounding environment and the surrounding environment

Figure 2.1  Interconnections among autonomy, autonomy support and agentic engagement

What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’  41

in turn offers little to support the learner’s need for autonomy. If the environment changes from need-neglect to outright need-thwart (i.e. a controlling environment), then the learner–environment relationship deteriorates into conflict (me vs. you). The triangular relations depicted in Figure 2.1 have no obvious starting point, as each element is both cause and consequence to the other two. The environment can change from non-supportive to autonomy supportive and this change tends to increase learners’ autonomy need satisfaction (Cheon et al., 2019). The learner can experience greater autonomy need satisfaction and this change tends to increase learners’ agentic engagement (Reeve, Cheon & Yu, 2020). In other words, the learner can initiate greater agentic engagement and this change tends to render the learning environment significantly more autonomy supportive (Reeve, 2013). Learners can be provided with a brief training experience in how to be more agentically engaged. Such a training session has been shown to be effective (Reeve et al., 2021). In this experiment, learners received a brief 10-minute training session in how to be more agentically engaged while interacting with a teacher. Learners were encouraged to take the initiative, speak up, express their preferences, make a plan for what questions to ask and what resources to request and let the teacher know what they needed and were most interested in. Compared to a control group of learners, learners who received the brief ‘be agentic’ training session did recruit greater autonomy support from their teachers and, because of this greater autonomy support, experienced greater autonomy need satisfaction during the learning experience. The data collected from this experiment provide supportive empirical evidence for the model depicted in Figure 2.1. The data further suggest that ‘greater agentic engagement’ can function as a starting point to set in motion the reciprocal processes that result in greater learner–environment synchrony. In looking at the relations depicted in Figure 2.1, the following take-home message can be offered. Agentic engagement makes for an excellent starting point to jumpstart the cycle depicted in Figure 2.1, especially since agentic engagement reflects the spirit of the chapter’s title so well (i.e. ‘Take ownership over one’s own learning’). We suggest agentic engagement as a starting point because such an intervention experience could be designed and implemented (in the spirit of the Reeve et al., 2021 experiment). That said, it is an important point to acknowledge that autonomy-infused agentic engagement is much more fruitful than is autonomy-empty agentic engagement. Somehow, autonomy, autonomy support and agency need to come together in a self-sustaining cycle. How this might be achieved seems like a promising challenge to future research and practice in language learning outside the classroom.

42  Part 1: Theoretical Underpinnings

References Ahn, J.S. and Reeve, J. (2020) Developmental pathways of pre-adolescents’ intrinsic and extrinsic values: The role of need satisfaction. European Journal of Personality 35 (2), 151–167. Bandura, A. (2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1 (2), 164–180. Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R.M., Bosch, J.A. and Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011) Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37 (11), 1459–1473. Benson, P. (2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning (2nd edn). London: Pearson Education. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., Lee, Y., Ntoumanis, N., Gillet, N., Kim, B.R. and Song, Y.-G. (2019) Expanding autonomy psychological need states from two (satisfaction, frustration) to three (dissatisfaction): A classroom-based intervention study. Journal of Educational Psychology 111 (4), 685–702. Dam, L., Eriksson, R., Little, D., Miliander, J. and Trebbi, T. (1990) Towards a definition of autonomy. In T. Trebbi (ed.) Third Nordic Workshop on Developing Autonomous Learning in the FL Classroom, Bergen, August 11-14, 1989: Report (pp. 102–103). Bergen: Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk, Universitet i Bergen. Deci, E.L. (1992) The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi and A. Krapp (eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (pp. 43–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Eriksson, R. (1990) Differentiated English teaching: In-service training for teachers of English. In T. Trebbi (ed.) Third Nordic Workshop on Developing Autonomous Learning in the FL Classroom. Report (pp. 18–29). Bergen: Institutt for praktisk pedagogikk, Universitet i Bergen. Joesaar, H., Hein, V. and Hagger, M.S. (2012) Youth athletes’ perception of autonomy support from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport setting: One-year effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (3), 257–262. Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M. (1993) A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (2), 410–422. Kasser, T. and Ryan, R.M. (1996) Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (3), 280–287. Koestner, R. (2008) Reaching one’s personal goals: A motivational perspective focused on autonomy. Canadian Psychology 49 (1), 60–67. Matos, L., Reeve, J., Herrera, D. and Claux, M. (2018) Students’ agentic engagement predicts longitudinal increases in perceived autonomy-supportive teaching: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Journal of Experimental Education 86 (4), 592–609. Niemiec, C.P., Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2009) The path taken: Consequences of attaining intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post-college life. Journal of Research in Personality 73 (3), 291–306. Ntoumanis, N. and Vazou, S. (2005) Peer motivational climate in youth sport: Measurement development and validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 27, 432–455. Reeve, J. (2013) How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (3), 579–595. Reeve, J. and Tseng, C.-M. (2011) Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology 36 (4), 257–267. Reeve, J. and Lee, W. (2019) A neuroscience perspective on the self-determination theory framework. Journal of Personality 87 (1), 102–114.

What It Means to ‘Take Ownership over One’s Own Learning’  43

Reeve, J. and Cheon, S.H. (2021) Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its benefits, malleability, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist 56 (1), 54–77. Reeve, J., Cheon, S.H. and Jang, H. (2020) How and why students make academic progress: Reconceptualizing the student engagement construct to increase its explanatory power. Contemporary Educational Psychology 62 (1). 101899. Reeve, J., Cheon, S.H. and Yu, T.H. (2020) An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development 44 (4), 325–338. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P. and Omura, M. (2002) Providing a rationale in an autonomysupportive way as a motivational strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion 26 (3), 183–207. Reeve, J., Ryan, R.M., Cheon, S.H., Matos, L. and Kaplan, H. (2022) Supporting Students’ Autonomy: Strategies for Success. New York, NY: Routledge. Reeve, J., Jang, H.-R., Shin, S., Ahn, S., Matos, L. and Gargurevich, R. (2021) When students show some initiative: Two experiments on the benefits of greater agentic engagement. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101564 Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1), 68–78 Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M., Sheldon, K.M., Kasser, T. and Deci, E.L. (1996) All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P.M. Gollwitzer and J.A. Bargh (eds) The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior (pp. 7–26). New York, NY: Guilford. Skinner, E.A., Kindermann, T.A. and Furrer, C. (2009) A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement 69, 493–525. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R.M. and Soenens, B. (2020) Basic psychological need theory: Trends, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion 44 (2), 1–31.

Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

3 Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners’ Out-of-Class Technology Use for Language Learning Ali Dincer and Tuba Işık

Introduction

The latest reports on digital media indicate that we are much more connected than ever before as information and communication technology tools rapidly advance and internet use is more prevalent. The current digital population of 4.54 billion has already surpassed 60% of the global population, with nearly 4 billion people using smartphones in daily life; furthermore, the digital population’s average social media usage has reached more than two hours per day (Clements, 2020; Kemp, 2020). These exponentially growing trends predict that we will spend much more time daily accessing digital media and experience fundamental changes in educational paradigms, as in all aspects of life in this new digital era (Dincer, 2020). Given the abundance of digital tools, we as language teachers and educators should become more inclined to use digital tools for language learning (LL) purposes. Understanding successful language learners’ practices with technology beyond the classroom is important in planning more relevant teaching for our students in the digital era. Despite the potential positive affordances for LL beyond the classroom, less is known about students’ interest-based activities beyond the classroom in today’s digital era, and limited research has ventured into this less charted terrain of language learning and teaching. To this end, this chapter explores English as a foreign language (EFL) 47

48  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

learners’ technology-oriented LL experiences beyond the classroom and investigates how their personal learning contexts help them to fulfil their basic psychological needs (i.e. autonomy, competence and relatedness). The chapter starts with a review of the characteristics of out-of-class language learning (OCLL). It examines the literature in connection with Benson’s (2011a) pedagogic framework (i.e. selfinstructed, self-directed naturalistic and naturalistic) and digital LL beyond the classroom. This brief review is followed by a description of the main tenets of self-determination theory (SDT) and research on OCLL with technology. Drawing on three types of OCLL identified by Benson (2011a), and the ways in which they connect with SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), the chapter continues by presenting an outline of the theoretical basis for the current study. The chapter then presents qualitative evidence on how online OCLL contexts can fulfil language learners’ three basic psychological needs and what drives them to study language with digital tools beyond the classroom. Finally, the chapter discusses the study findings, making reference to the relevant literature. It suggests that understanding the nature of quality out-of-class technology use for LL is the initial step to inform educators about the educational potential of technology and sets guidelines for teachers who are willing to create an autonomysupportive environment within and beyond the classroom. Out-of-Class Technology Use for Language Learning

Out-of-class learning refers to a wide range of activities undertaken beyond the confines of formal learning institutions. Alternative terms such as ‘out-of-school learning’, ‘learning beyond the classroom’ and ‘informal learning’ are also used. The research on OCLL has made a considerable contribution to the field of language learning (Benson, 2011a; Richards, 2015). Success in LL depends on how students engage with the language both within and outside the classroom; moreover, OCLL plays a facilitative role in both autonomy and motivation in LL (Benson, 2011a; Chik, 2018; Richards, 2015; Stockwell, 2013). OCLL is of high importance for optimal LL, and it plays a complementary role to in-class teaching. Due to its complex and difficult to observe nature, OCLL has been underrepresented in applied linguistics research thus far (Reinders & Benson, 2017). To define this somewhat ambiguous field of inquiry, Benson (2011a) proposed a broad framework covering all the aspects of LL beyond the classroom as one of the initial attempts to bring clarity to what is quite a dynamic concept. In his framework, he addressed OCLL with its four distinct dimensions: location, formality, pedagogy and locus of control. According to Benson (2011a): location concerns the area or setting where learning practice occurs (e.g. in-class, after-school or extracurricular);

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   49

formality refers to the extent to which learning practice is connected to formal qualifications (e.g. formal or informal); pedagogy denotes the extent of the learning practice, including teaching and instruction (self-instructed, self-directed naturalistic or naturalistic); and locus of control is the extent to which learners direct their learning experience (e.g. self-directed or teacher-directed). Although this broad framework is somewhat rudimentary and open to interpretation, it nevertheless helps us understand OCLL environments (Benson, 2011a, 2011b; Chik, 2014; Reinders & Benson, 2017). Within this conceptualisation, the pedagogical continuum stretching from self-instruction to naturalistic has become the basis for various studies aiming to investigate the nature of LL experiences beyond the classroom (e.g. Chik, 2014, 2018; Kocatepe, 2017; Lai et al., 2016; Lee, 2019). Within this continuum, specifically designed LL tools can take a teacher’s place in self-instruction, while direct interaction with target language speakers and engaging with authentic materials without an explicit intention to learn the language can play a role at the hypothetical end of naturalistic learning (Benson, 2011a). Many language learners also create naturalistic learning situations for themselves and reflect upon them as language-learning experiences – a process that can be called ‘self-directed naturalistic learning’ (Benson, 2011b: 76). In self-directed naturalistic learning, a learner’s focus of attention might be on communication, enjoyment or learning something but not on the language itself (Benson, 2011a, 2011b). As Benson (2011b) states, these learning types often run concurrently with the learners’ in-class learning, with successful language learners taking advantage of naturalistic learning situations and using a wide range of learning strategies beyond the classroom as well. The internet and information technology offer an infinite number of choices in terms of content and medium of learning in the digital world and are helpful for creating authentic LL contexts (Chik & Ho, 2017; Dincer, 2020; Lai et al., 2018; Reinders & Benson, 2017; Richards, 2015). As expected, student-led language learning initiatives outside the classroom with technology have increasingly become the focus of research (Chik, 2018; Dincer, 2020; Lai et al., 2018; Nguyen & Stracke, 2020; Reinders & White, 2016). Despite this ever-growing interest, less is known about how learners’ engagement with digital practices beyond the classroom contributes to learners’ inner motivational resources to study language over time. To gain a better understanding of this process and the factors that drive these learners to use technology to continue their LL beyond the classroom, we draw on SDT, which, as a general theory of human motivation, can play a complementary role in expanding and reinforcing Benson’s framework of OCLL (Kocatepe, 2017). What is more, enhancing our understanding of the learners’ digital world might also unlock classroom pedagogy for teachers (Chik, 2018).

50  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Self-Determination Theory and Out-of-Class technology engagement for language learning

SDT and its supporting mini-theories are mainly concerned with the idea of how all individuals have an innate proclivity to develop authentic lives providing that their universal psychological needs are satisfied in the social milieu (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2020). The theory has been extensively tested in both the general education domain, with its sub-theories of basic psychological needs and cognitive evaluation, and in the realm of LL. Within SDT, these needs – autonomy (i.e. a sense of volitional agency in actions), competence (i.e. a sense of feeling efficacious in actions and meeting the challenges) and relatedness (i.e. a sense of feeling connected to and cared for by significant others) – provide a basis for understanding how social context supports or thwarts individuals’ needs. The extent of fulfilment of these needs is strongly related to one’s motivational orientations. SDT broadly differentiates the motivational orientations into three forms along a continuum from the least to the most self-determined orientations: amotivation, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (see Figure 3.1). According to the basic distinction in this continuum, amotivation refers to the state of lacking any intention to engage in an activity. Extrinsic motivation is the heterogeneous category of motivation differing in terms of perceived locus of causality. It has less autonomous (i.e. external and introjected) and more autonomous (i.e. identified and integrated) forms of motivation. These pertain to the motive of behaviours for various reasons, such as tangible rewards (i.e. external), personal obligation (i.e. introjected), personal importance (i.e. identified) and self-endorsement of goals (i.e. integrated). Intrinsic motivation refers to the reason for engaging in an activity for inherent interest and joy (Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT also acknowledges that ‘most intentional behaviors are multiply motivated. People can, for example, be simultaneously intrinsically motivated and identified for some actions’ (Ryan & Deci, 2020: 3). When the social context is autonomy supportive (i.e. supportive of autonomy, competence and relatedness), it facilitates an environment in which humans become more autonomous to act and engage in activities; on the contrary, unsatisfied needs reduce intrinsic motivation and disengage people from the activities they may be involved in (for a complete discussion, see Reeve, Chapter 1 of this volume, and Noels et al., 2019). To date, motivation research has focused primarily on how in-class language learning settings, or teacher-directed virtual settings, promote language learners’ motivational orientations by satisfying the learners’ basic needs as understood within the SDT framework; nevertheless, we have little knowledge about what goes on outside the language classroom from the students’ side (e.g. Akbari et al., 2015; Fandiño et al., 2019).

(Reprinted with permission from the Center for Self-Determination Theory © 2019.)

Figure 3.1  The self-determination continuum of motivation

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   51

52  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Encouragingly, however, a few SDT studies have recently explored how out-of-class contexts, including home, self-access language centres and online environments, support students’ autonomous behaviours (Dincer, 2020; Fathali & Okada, 2017; Kocatepe, 2017; Mynard & SheltonStrong, 2020). This fact notwithstanding, the facilitative role of OCLL in promoting autonomous motivation in the LL domain has obtained less scholarly attention thus far (Dincer, 2020). Within the limited literature, Kocatepe (2017) investigated the pedagogic intensity of Arab female EFL learners’ out-of-class practices, criticising the narrow focus on autonomous out-of-class language practices. Her data indicated that self-instructed learners are prone to engage mainly with practices for the improvement of linguistic benefits and enhancement of language proficiency. However, she noted that the actions of self-instructed learners might evolve into more internalised motivation, and those students could potentially later demonstrate a higher degree of self-determination. Although self-directed naturalistic learners engage with OCLL practices with different degrees of external regulation, they mostly have a more internalised motivation for their practices beyond the classroom (Kocatepe, 2017). Naturalistic language learners engage with activities in English not for explicit learning purposes but due to a genuine interest in the activity or real-life outcomes. In other words, they do not have a clear pedagogic agenda in mind. Kocatepe (2017) concluded that natural LL, such as listening to a song, or watching a film because of genuine enjoyment or interest practices, helps naturalistic language learners to satisfy their intrinsic interests and attain pedagogic goals. In other research, Fathali and Okada (2017) investigated Japanese EFL learners’ intention to study language in technology-enhanced OCLL contexts with a structural modelling approach. The researchers confirmed that basic psychological needs are predictors of learners’ intentions to study beyond the classroom with technology and their OCLL achievement. Their findings specifically revealed that while perceived competence was the strongest predictor of the intent to study and achievement beyond the classroom, the need for relatedness did not predict students’ achievement beyond the classroom. With their empirical testing of SDT in OCLL, Fathali and Okada concluded that, for learners studying language with technology, competence is the most highly valued need, followed by autonomy and, finally, by relatedness. In a more recent study, Dincer (2020) adopted a cluster analysis approach to investigate the characteristics of Turkish EFL learners who study the target language beyond the classroom with technology. Corroborating the theoretical assumptions of SDT, Dincer revealed that students who feel more autonomy while learning beyond the classroom are also the ones who are more prone to engage with digital learning tools. As expected, those learners engaging with digital tools attained higher proficiency levels and spent a considerable amount of time on

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   53

digital tool usage on a daily basis. Moreover, the study showed that they also benefited from using a wider range of digital tools compared to those learners who are less autonomously engaged for LL purposes. Theoretical Framework

Although these few studies may have limitations in terms of genderspecific perspectives, or data collection methodology, they contribute significantly to the discussion of the intertwined relationship between language learner autonomy and autonomous motivation in SDT (see Lou et al., 2018; Reeve, Chapter 2 of this volume). The literature offers insights into the understanding of the complex nature of OCLL through the integration of the SDT framework. To this end, we combined Benson’s (2011a) pedagogic continuum and the SDT continuum of motivation to explore language learners’ OCLL practices supported with digital tools and the use of the internet. In our model, we adopted Benson’s three pedagogical dimensions to provide data about students’ learning practices and utilised SDT to allow us to delve deeply into the extent to which online OCLL practices with technology nurture students’ inner motivational resources for volitionally engaging in LL beyond the classroom. The Study

As a part of an ongoing longitudinal project, this study adopted a qualitative approach for exploring autonomous language learners’ OCLL experience with technology in a Turkish EFL context. It aimed to investigate how OCLL with technology fulfils language learners’ basic psychological needs and how it motivates them to study language beyond the classroom. First, we chose study participants who autonomously engaged with technology for LL purposes and communicated their intention to participate in the subsequent data collection steps. We specifically selected this group because they typically take more initiative in learning beyond the classroom and exhibit more connection to online practices in English. Participant selection and data collection steps are presented in Figure 3.2 and are described in detail in Sections 1 and 2. Section 1: Participant Recruitment Survey application

The participants were recruited using a cross-sectional survey design. 110 EFL learners majoring in teaching English in a Turkish university completed a survey form including two 5-point Likert scales ranging

54  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Figure 3.2  Participant recruitment and data collection

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The first scale is a slightly adapted version of an 8-item learner autonomy scale (e.g. I set up my own language learning goals.) developed by Nakata (2011). The second is an 11-item out-of-class technology experience scale (e.g. I use digital tools outside the classroom, mainly to use the language to go after personal interest) developed by Lai et al. (2018). Quantitative data analysis

To recruit language learners who take more responsibility and use technology for their own learning beyond the classroom, we analysed the quantitative survey data by setting criteria for the learners (i.e. criteria: autonomy ≥M = 4.00; out-of-class technology ≥M = 4.00 and indicating a willingness to contribute to the research). We invited the language learners who felt more autonomous in learning, who reported high usage of digital tools for LL beyond the classroom and who expressed an interest in participating in the subsequent parts of the research by providing their contact details in the survey form, to examine their drive to learn a language beyond the classroom. Out of 41 volunteer students who were willing to participate in the study, 17 met the criteria. Interview

We conducted one-on-one interview sessions with the invited volunteer students once to decide whether the participants showed sufficient autonomous learning characteristics and out-of-class technology engagement for learning English. We asked questions to confirm their previously reported responses to the survey items and informed the participants about the following steps of the study and

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   55

the length of the project. At this stage, two students changed their minds about contributing to the research as they thought it might take too much time. Two additional students did not convincingly meet the criteria, as they were not engaged with using digital tools beyond the classroom as much as they had previously reported in the quantitative survey application. At that point, we eliminated the 4 students and decided on 13 study participants. We subsequently created a WhatsApp group to interact with the participants and to organise group and personal meetings. We met with the students several times during the 4-month process, to discuss the study steps, motivate them for the following steps, and collect the data. The students participated in multiple data collection procedures (i.e. autobiography writing, diary-keeping and interview) to delve deeply into how their online OCLL context nurtures their psychological needs and engenders autonomous motivation. Throughout the study, we kept field notes and recorded and documented some of the meetings. The demographic characteristics of the study sample and the data type details are presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1  Demographic characteristics of the qualitative sample and data types Demographics

Data types

Age

Gender

Year of the study

Perceived proficiency

Biography [1]

Diary [2]

Interview [3]

Elif

18

F

Prep. year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Ebru

18

F

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Ali

18

M

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Esra

19

F

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

–

Fatma

19

F

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Ahmet

19

M

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Fatih

19

M

1st year

B2–C1

✓

✓

–

Merve

20

F

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Tuba

21

F

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Mehmet

21

M

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Zeynep

23

F

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

✓

Mustafa

23

M

1st year

B1–B2

✓

✓

–

Yusuf

26

M

1st year

B2–C1

✓

✓

–

Participant

Notes: Pseudonyms have been used to retain the anonymity of the participants. The names were determined based on the most common names with English letters in Turkey. F = Female, M = Male. Prep. year indicates intensive English language education up to 20 hours weekly throughout an academic year; 1st year indicates 8-hour English language courses and up to 13 hours field courses in Turkish weekly throughout an academic year. Perceived English proficiency level is based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001): A2 = Elementary, B1 = Intermediate, B2 = Upper Intermediate, C1 = Advanced.

56  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Section 2: Data Collection Learner autobiography

As the first step of the data collection, we conducted a 15-minute training session on how to write LL autobiographies with all the participants. We consequently provided sample biographies and a guide with eleven prompts for constructing their autobiographies (e.g. Is there anybody/notable event that influenced your decision to learn English? If yes, how or what?). In this training session, we also answered their questions about autobiographical writing. Later, we asked the participants to write their learning autobiographies and return them within one week. The participants freely submitted their LL histories and narrated some critical milestones such as high school years and the university entrance process. After the initial screening of the learner autobiographies, some individual open-ended interview sessions were conducted to inquire further into some critical points from the data. Diary-keeping

We invited all the participants to track their daily LL by keeping an online diary to be completed at least once a week for three months. In the diary-keeping practice, the participants were asked to evaluate their OCLL experience with digital tools and to provide details on whether the experience related to purposive activities (i.e. consciously using English for improving specific language skills, such as watching a YouTube video for language learning) or non-purposive activities (i.e. using English because the activity only requires such use for interacting with English speaking friends on social media for recreation) and which websites they visited. As some of the participants showed little interest in the diary-keeping practice, we introduced a monetary incentive in the sixth week and informed them that the three students who had the most diary entries would be given monetary gift cards (up to 150 Turkish Liras). The participants wrote between 4 and 30 diary entries over the three-month period and reflected upon their diary-keeping practices at the end of the procedure. The students who had produced the most diary entries were rewarded in the group meeting. Semi-structured interview questions

For the final step of the data collection, we met with the participants again and asked learners to answer nine open-ended written interview questions regarding their motivation to study English beyond the classroom and their basic psychological needs. Three of the questions were about their motivation to study language (e.g. Why do you study English beyond the classroom?) and six questions were about basic

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   57

psychological needs (e.g. When you think about your language learning experience beyond the classroom, what can you say about feeling efficacious in learning English?). At this point, nine participants provided the data. Their learning history and diaries helped us to determine their learning types based on Benson’s (2011a) pedagogical framework, which assisted us in examining their OCLL experience with technology. The written interview questions helped us conceptualise the reciprocal relationship between OCLL and motivation. Data Analysis

We analysed the data through a deductive-dominant qualitative content analysis approach (Elo et al., 2014). This approach is welcomed ‘when some views, previous research findings, theories, or conceptual frameworks regarding the phenomenon of interest exist’ in the literature (Armat et al., 2018: 220). In this approach, the researchers analyse the data based on the pre-existing categories of the adopted theory or conceptual framework, and it is also probable to add some new categories inductively if some coded segments of the data do not fit the original categorisation (Armat et al., 2018; Elo et al., 2014). Typical content analysis has three main phases – preparation, organisation and reporting – and researchers should ensure trustworthiness in each phase by asking various questions (Elo et al., 2014). To enhance trustworthiness in the preparation phase, we first grounded the study in earlier OCLL research and modern motivation theory in the literature. We also carefully selected the study sample and collected the data from multiple sources, namely learning autobiographies, diary-keeping practices, and open-ended interview questions. This data triangulation allowed us to corroborate and converge the evidence. To ensure trustworthiness in the organisation phase, we initially determined the code definitions and then worked together and adopted a double-coding process by first independently assigning pre-determined codes to the data and finalising the process with mutual consensus to assess the quality of the main categories (Schreier, 2012). Finally, for trustworthiness in the reporting of the findings, we used an illustration and supported the categorical findings with sample student excerpts. In the content analysis, we first used Benson’s (2011a) pedagogical framework (i.e. self-instructed, self-directed naturalistic and naturalistic) for grouping the participants, to better conceptualise the differences between the learners’ experiences beyond the classroom. Then, we divided the participants into the three types according to their learning experiences beyond the classroom. Identifying learners’ OCLL types was difficult as they engaged extensively in LL in various ways beyond the classroom. They were also moving back and forth between the two

58  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

ends of the continuum, from self-instructed to naturalistic learning, as indicated in their learning histories, diaries and interviews. However, both researchers’ consensus and the multiple data sources helped to assign the learners into three groups (i.e. self-instructed, self-directed naturalistic and naturalistic). Then, the participants’ underlying motivation for OCLL engagement with digital tools was investigated with SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017). We coded all the data with reference to three innate basic psychological needs and motivational orientations. Then, we provided the characteristics of each learning type group in connection with SDT and supported the findings with participant excerpts. To distinguish the participants, we anonymised students with pseudonyms and used numbers to show the data type (1 = Autobiography, 2 = Diary, 3 = Interview). Findings

The findings indicated that students utilise a wide variety of technological tools for studying language outside the classroom. They play online games (i.e. requiring synchronous communication and decision-making) extensively, and surf on social media (e.g. Reddit, YouTube, Instagram). They also use various smartphone applications for LL (e.g. VOA, Duolingo) and visit online dictionaries (e.g. Oxford Learners’ Dictionary, Tureng). Moreover, they interact with foreigners via chat applications (e.g. Cambly, WhatsApp). The analysis revealed that the same tools might be used for various purposes to unlock language competence. Learners’ psychological needs play a significant role as motivational determinants of their intention to study the language and to use particular tools beyond the classroom. The learners differed in OCLL practices with technology and in motivational orientations. In this study, we grouped language learners into three learning types based on the pre-existing categories of Benson’s (2011a) pedagogical framework. There were four self-instructed learners, six self-directed naturalistic learners and three naturalistic learners. The details regarding each group of learners’ characteristics are provided in the following section. Self-instructed learning

Self-instructed learning is the most instruction-oriented type of learning beyond the classroom. Four participants exhibited selfinstructed learning characteristics and used specially designed language materials and LL applications or websites. For example, Merve regularly used an application and perceived that tool to be a tutor. As she stated, ‘Elevate monitors my learning progress and provides me with feedback.

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   59

Hence, I feel like Elevate is my teacher’ [3]. Concerning their digital practices beyond the classroom, these learners watched movies, listened to music, talked to native English friends, or read English books, but their ultimate goal was to sharpen their language skills, not to attain enjoyment or pursue recreation. As Ebru explained, ‘I searched for English series on the internet to improve my English proficiency and started watching series such series “Friends” and “How I met your mother”… . I was imitating the actors, and that [practice] significantly helped me to improve my speaking and pronunciation. Watching those series also helped me to improve my listening skills’ [1]. When we asked the participants about the factors that drove them to study beyond the classroom with technological tools, they explained that they intended to learn and discover more about what they had learnt in the class. To compensate for the drawbacks of in-class education and enhance their competence, the participants sought opportunities for self-improvement. Although these students had varied motivational orientations during their learning journey, less self-determined orientations constituted a significant determinant for their motivation to study. They preferred to improve their language skills to bring financial benefits to their teaching profession in the future and to pursue an academic career in their major, taking praise from their teachers or their parents. Although their origin of focus for activities beyond the classroom was based on more external reasons, the autobiographies of these learners revealed that they learnt from their failures; when they achieved a goal, they became more motivated to study and began to internalise the behaviours. For instance, in Zeynep’s case, she entered university at her second attempt and spent two years in English preparatory classes. She initially studied English in order not to shame her family; later, her main motivation was to pass the preparatory class. When she became more aware of her mistakes and the weaknesses in her language learning, she became more interested in English and became more successful in English classes. She stated, ‘The more I succeeded, the more my motivation increased. In my second year of the prep class, I was literally a true lover of English’ [1]. She further commented in her interview reply, ‘Everything, every topic that I learned beyond the classroom is an extra profit [language development]’. The results also indicated that self-instruction oriented students sought opportunities for competence and autonomy needs, as these requirements were not quite satisfied in the classrooms. Ebru, who had a strong volition to satisfy her competence, explained, ‘Thanks to the small successes I have achieved while learning, my enthusiasm for working has increased. Gaining an understanding of most of the concepts I have encountered in YouTube videos about language learning is another factor that motivates me’ [3]. Emphasising the fulfilment of autonomy needs, Zeynep noted, ‘In class, we always use the materials

60  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

the teacher has chosen for us, and we are together with the same people all the time. What we [students] learn is always dependent on a particular material, a certain application, or the teacher’ [3]. Zeynep later expressed her desire to have more choices in her learning and she underscored the plentiful opportunities provided by technological tools. Complaining about controlling teacher behaviours in the class, Merve said, ‘I have to use the applications my teacher wants me to use; unfortunately, I do not have any other choice’ [3]. She added that outside the classroom, ‘I can choose the learning applications on my own and either keep or quit using them. It is my decision’ [3]. The study participants did not state anything specific regarding the need for relatedness in OCLL settings, as they were content with their in-class learning practices that allowed them to practice the language with their classmates. Self-directed naturalistic learning

Self-directed naturalistic learning refers to a more authentic type of learning beyond the classroom, exhibiting both self-instruction and naturalistic learning behaviours. Six participants demonstrated selfdirected naturalistic learning characteristics. The learners in this group showed a more multifaceted composition than the ones in the other groups. This aspect confirmed the complexity of understanding OCLL. The learning activity was not straightforward: instead, it displayed fluctuation, evolving into a more naturalist type of learning. Although an action starts with an instruction-oriented purpose, it might easily move towards a naturalistic form for enjoyment and vice versa. Some of the learners were more focused on instruction-based activities, whereas the others engaged in more naturalistic learning. By and large, these latter students aimed at creating a naturalistic learning environment with the intention of bridging learning and enjoyment in a single activity beyond the classroom. For instance, being aware of the pedagogical potentials of games, Esra said, ‘I used to play “The Witcher Wild Hunt 3” [a story-driven open-world game] in Turkish. I am crazy about this game, and I decided to start it over in English to improve my language skills while playing’ [2]. Similarly, Ali used games for his language development, stating, ‘I [later] switched to online games. I realised that the games cannot be played without communication [in English], and I started communicating in games and found [the practice] useful. Otherwise, I would not have friends with whom to talk in English in class or elsewhere’ [1]. These students engaged with digital tools for various reasons, and they had a more internalised regulation towards learning English. OCLL with technology was a tool for attaining their goals. The fact that English is a lingua franca today encouraged them to study the language

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   61

harder in order to become a well-equipped English-speaking teacher or for indulging their passions. On this issue, Ali said, ‘I study English as I love it, and I have a passion for studying. Online tools ease my language learning process and [enable me to] access the resources that I want’ [3]. In acknowledging the digital world as a context that provides more room for manoeuvre, Ahmet shared, ‘I want to be a teacher who speaks like a native speaker’ [3]. These students sought more opportunities to satisfy their competence and autonomy needs, which were insufficiently fulfilled in the class. The need for competence was more predominant among those students who were close to a self-instructed learning point, whereas the need for autonomy was more apparent for students who were close to a naturalistic learning end. Emphasising the joy of studying English with the online tools and taking decisions in her learning, Elif said, ‘I decide the applications that will be most useful to myself, and I believe that I use them efficiently. When I realise that a tool is worthless, I quit using it…. I am not restricted to a single resource [teacher], as I can learn new things from various resources’ [3]. Furthermore, relatedness was much more apparent when the learners fully engaged in the activity and reached a particular stage in their language development. They might feel connected to the people and things on the internet, to websites, or to applications that they frequently use. Ahmet, who spent most of his time watching YouTube videos and using apps for speaking to native speakers, commented, ‘The YouTube context is my best friend, as it is always with me; I feel extremely happy there’ [3]. Making an analogy of someone who loses himself while reading a novel and reads as if the characters therein are living, Fatma stated, ‘Being a member of the audience of a news page or an article website is amazing, which makes me feel good’ [3]. These learners considered in-class learning limited in choice or inadequately appealing to their interests, as self-instructed learners do. However, they were aware of the difficulties teachers would face in finding appropriate material or an activity that fits all students’ needs and giving individual feedback to all the students during class hours. Naturalistic learning

Naturalistic learning, as the most self-oriented type of learning, involves engaging in activities simply for enjoyment and not out of a clear intention to study the language. Learning naturally occurs as the learners are actively using the language in their authentic contexts. Three participants fit into this category. When we asked these students to keep learning diaries, they only wrote a few entries and abandoned the diarykeeping task, as they do not use digital tools for LL much. In one of his diary entries Yusuf wrote ‘None’ as a reply to the questions about the purpose activities (i.e. What activities did I use to improve specific

62  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

language skills? What is new I learned today?). They played games for pleasure, read the news to keep up with the recent events or they used social media in English. As Yusuf acknowledged, ‘It is hard for me to track my learning progress because I use the language to socialise. I do not do anything to improve my English in a specific aspect’ [2]. Their autobiographies indicated that technology triggered their interest in learning that particular language because the language they are exposed to on the internet is mostly English. Thus, their learning story emerged from a requirement and genuine enjoyment. For example, Fatih recalled, ‘My exposure to English arose during the time that I started gaming. I have always been curious about games; the fact that 99% of games that I play are in English sparked my interest in learning and understanding the language’ [1]. These participants engaged in OCLL activities for inherent interest and enjoyment. We can characterise them as intrinsically motivated and situated at the most favourable point along the motivation continuum. For example, Mustafa described his feelings towards English learning as follows: ‘With the pleasure of speaking another language, I thoroughly got into this business’ [1]. Fatih also explained how English had become a major part of his life: ‘If I lost my memory, I bet that I would forget Turkish [mother tongue] first. I came to the way I am [in this manner]: first, [my English language learning journey] started with a small spark of curiosity; it later [figuratively] grew into a fire that continues to burn’ [1]. Yusuf replied to the question about the non-purposive activities as, ‘I have watched a travel blog on YouTube named “Rick Steves’ Europe”. I like to watch travel videos and the bloggers. Rick Steves, has a very nice accent and voice to listen’ [2]. Relatedness was evidently a more dominant need in these learners than the other two needs were, as they already felt autonomous in their actions and competent in their virtual contexts. Yusuf primarily spent time on social media with native speaker friends, whereas Fatih and Mustafa had a gamer community with which to interact, and their online communities helped them to fulfil their need for relatedness. Mustafa wrote in his autobiography: ‘I made some English friends [while playing] games and had to use English to communicate with them.… I started to play PUBG [Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds, an online multiplayer survival game] in 2018, and it was totally a team game. I had to be in synchronous contact with my friends in English during the game’. Personal interviews and autobiographies indicated that these students do not tend to complain about their in-class education. The main problem for them was their classmates’ low proficiency in their practice of English. These naturalistic learners felt bored sometimes in the class, as they did not have sufficient opportunity to practice the language with someone else at the same level of language proficiency.

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   63

Figure 3.3  Modelling the online OCLL within the SDT framework

Based on these study findings, we developed a preliminary conceptual model integrating Benson’s (2011a) pedagogical framework and SDT’s motivation continuum. The model is illustrated in Figure 3.3. According to this model, students’ online OCLL practices in general extended over a continuum from the instruction-oriented to self-oriented in parallel to the SDT continuum of motivation from highly controlled to highly autonomous regulation. Although these OCLL types have distinctive characteristics in terms of the origin of behaviours – whether it is external or intrinsic motivation – the layers between the types can often overlap with one another. A learner in one group might display the fundamental characteristics of the next type’s characteristics. For example, a naturalistic learner might engage in online practices for selfinstruction or act in a self-directed naturalistic way to simultaneously attain short-term goals. In conjunction with SDT (see Ryan & Deci, 2020), a naturalistic learner can be both intrinsically motivated and identified, or a self-instructed learner might simultaneously show external and introjected regulation for some learning actions in the model. However, the basic psychological needs collaboratively work to constantly internalise the learners’ motivation for each kind of orientation. Discussion and Conclusions

In this chapter, we investigated the nature of autonomous language learners’ OCLL practices in their personal online learning environments, as well as their inner motivational resources on the basis of the SDT model with a qualitative research focus. Based on multiple sources of data from 13 Turkish EFL learners, we derived conclusions on autonomously engaged learners’ real-life online practices beyond the classroom. Our findings reaffirmed that these learners take more initiative in their learning (compared with learners who are not autonomously engaged learners) through the use of a wide variety of online tools and spend their recreation time by interacting with their

64  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

online target language community. This finding is consistent with various studies that emphasise how skilful today’s digital learners are at creating personal online LL settings (e.g. Chik, 2014, 2018; Dincer, 2020; Haidairi et al., 2019; Kocatepe, 2017; Lai et al., 2018). Through a deductive content analysis approach in this study, we also inferred a preliminary conceptual model of OCLL with technology, based on Benson’s pedagogical continuum and the SDT continuum of motivation. Although the students’ OCLL initiatives with technology were categorised into three separate dimensions, from a strong intention of learning (i.e. self-instructed) to a hypothetical state (i.e. naturalistic), along a pedagogic continuum, their behavioural motivations ranged from external orientations to more internal ones, along the SDT continuum. Our investigation of the practices of each group revealed that the OCLL contexts supported the students’ autonomous motivation and helped them to become more self-determined in their learning. We also deduced that satisfaction of a specific psychological need might seem more important in each group in practising language beyond the classroom within this interactive and intertwined OCLL model. The learners who practised language beyond the classroom for selfinstruction intended to excel at LL and perceived the OCLL online resources as personal tutors providing instant feedback and individual suggestions. In addition, their OCLL practices played a complementary and facilitative role with regard to their in-class learning. This point emphasises the complementary role of online LL practices in compensating for the limitation of in-class practices (Dincer, 2020; Lai et al., 2016; Richards, 2015). These learners associated LL with tangible rewards and perceived the OCLL context with technology as a tool for achieving their goals. Although the learners’ motivational orientations varied from activity to activity, their main motive to study beyond the classroom using digital tools was mostly externally regulated despite their awareness of the long-term benefits of online engagement (Fandiño et al., 2019). This result also partially corroborated the findings of Kocatepe (2017), who focused on activity-based motivation among learning types. Kocatepe argued that some learning activities such as watching TV and movies are intrinsically enjoyable, whereas others such as studying curriculum-oriented materials beyond the classroom are associated with external regulation. The findings of our study also indicated that self-instructed learners tend to have lower proficiency levels and seek online LL opportunities largely to fulfil their competence and autonomy needs beyond the classroom. Most of the study participants fit into a self-directed naturalistic learning group. Their learning types were still under construction, evolving from one with an instruction focus toward a naturalistic orientation. They had somewhat internal reasons for learning a language and a more internalised, autonomous motivation. Consistent with

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   65

previous research (Kocatepe, 2017), these students pursued their interests in online settings to attain a personally relevant goal or obtain learning gains, as they recognised that their engagement would naturally result in language development. Through this evolutionary process, online OCLL contexts enabled the students to fulfil their competence and autonomy needs, thus facilitating more intrinsic regulation and generating positive outcomes. Therefore, their online LL experience within a needsupportive context helped them to promote autonomous behaviours and devote increased efforts to learn a language (Alm, 2006). In contrast to the instruction-oriented students, these students were more aware of the drawbacks of in-class education, and they did not blame their teachers for these issues. They felt joyous in the LL process and might perceive a sense of belonging to a virtual tool or website, even if this interaction was one-directional. The naturalistic learners used language as a tool for interacting and communicating with their online community. Although these learners did not intend to study language for their online OCLL practices, they were aware that these unintentional authentic language practices help them to implicitly learn daily expressions and words, which they were not able to do in an in-class setting. This was found to be true in earlier research also (Kocatepe, 2017). Naturalistic learners have an intrinsic motive to study language, and they are genuine lovers of language itself. Although they do not engage in these practices for language development, they are aware of the pedagogical potential of their online practices and their interaction with their online community (Chik, 2014). Consistent with relevant research (Akbari et al., 2015), naturalistic learning environments supported inner motivational resources to practice language and instilled a connectedness to the language community. This finding emphasises the potential of online social networks to fulfil the relatedness need of learners and to sustain their intrinsic motivation (Akbari et al., 2015; Fathali & Okoda, 2017). As these learners had already reached a certain level of proficiency, their peer groups in the class did not adequately meet their expectations in terms of language practice. Thus, the lack of relatedness fulfilment in the class might direct these learners to join virtual settings and create an online language community to satisfy this need beyond the classroom. Parallel to various SDT studies, the results of this research indicate that the more students take responsibility for their OCLL experiences with technology, the more they perceive themselves as competent, autonomous and connected with others in online OCLL contexts, and are therefore more autonomously motivated to study and learn the language. Based on the study findings and relevant SDT research outlining need-supportive practices (for reviews, see Alm, 2006; Davis & Bowles, 2018; Dincer et al., 2019; Noels et al., 2019), we offer

66  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

the following practical recommendations for language teachers on supporting students’ basic psychological needs: • Open a place in the curricula for students’ interests and provide them with more choices and opportunities to indulge their curiosity in language, both inside and outside the classroom. • Involve students with personally relevant tasks that extend beyond the classroom, matching their language proficiency and learning needs, and provide constructive feedback on those OCLL practices. • Encourage students to create or join a virtual language learning community and guide them to practice authentic language in cooperation with OCLL in a technology context. In brief, as today’s learners have been born in the internet-andtechnology era, we as language teachers and educators need to be more familiar with digital tools and remain up to date to guide learners on the best uses of technology for LL purposes. By adopting more autonomysupportive teacher behaviours (for reviews, see Dincer et al., 2019; Işık & Balçıkanlı, 2020; Reeve, 2016), we might adapt our classrooms and modify our instruction to extend students’ LL beyond the classroom successfully. In addition to well-known autonomy-supportive in-class teaching practices, we should open more space to technology-enhanced language practices, such as flipped learning, and try to undertake optimal digital practices to sustain the learners’ autonomous functioning for optimum learning. Although the study helped us to examine thoroughly how an online OCLL experience supports students’ basic needs beyond the classroom and provided language teachers with recommendations for bridging in-class and OCLL, the study has limitations, like any research study. First, the study is limited in terms of its data collection strategy, especially the interview process. Focus-group interviews and face-to-face semi-structured interviews with the participants might add much for elucidating learners’ inner motivational resources. Second, although the study had a small number of participants and limited data, we have suggested a preliminary conceptual model of OCLL with technology. One should be cautious in generalising the rudimentary OCLL model suggested in this study. This OCLL model needs to be consolidated with further research to better understand the relationships between OCLL contexts and inner motivational resources. References Akbari, E., Pilot, A. and Robert-Jan Simons, P. (2015) Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in foreign language learning through Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 48, 126–134. Alm, A. (2006) CALL for autonomy, competence and relatedness: Motivating language learning environments in Web 2.0. The JALT CALL Journal 2 (3), 29–38.

Understanding the Inner Motivational Resources of Language Learners   67

Armat, M.R., Assarroudi, A., Rad, M., Sharifi, H. and Heydari, A. (2018) Inductive and deductive: Ambiguous labels in qualitative content analysis. The Qualitative Report 23 (1), 219–221. Benson, P. (2011a) Language learning and teaching beyond the classroom: An introduction. In P. Benson and H. Reinders (eds) Language Learning and Teaching Beyond the Classroom: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives (pp. 7–16). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Benson, P. (2011b) Teaching and Researching Autonomy (2nd edn). London: Pearson Chik, A. (2014) Digital gaming and language learning: Autonomy and community. Language Learning & Technology 18 (2), 85–100. Chik, A. (2018) Learner autonomy and digital practices. In A. Chik, N. Aoki and R. Smith (eds) Autonomy in Language Learning and Teaching: New Research Agenda (pp. 73–92). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Chik, A. and Ho, J. (2017) Learn a language for free: Recreational learning among adults. System 69, 162–171. Clements, J. (2020) Daily Time Spent on Social Networking by Internet Users Worldwide from 2012 to 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/433871/daily-social-mediausage-worldwide/. Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, W.S. and Bowles, F. (2018) Empowerment and intrinsic motivation: A selfdetermination theory approach to language teaching. CSCTFL Report 15, 1–19. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dincer, A. (2020) Understanding the characteristics of English language learners’ outof-class language learning through digital practices. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education 8 (2), 47–65. Dincer, A., Yeşilyurt, S., Noels, K.A. and Vargas Lascano, D.I. (2019) Self-determination and classroom engagement of EFL learners: A mixed-methods study of the self-system model of motivational development. SAGE Open 9 (2), 1–15. Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K. and Kyngäs, H. (2014) Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open 4 (1), 1–10. Fandiño, F.G.E., Muñoz, L.D. and Velandia, A.J.S. (2019) Motivation and E-Learning English as a foreign language: A qualitative study. Heliyon 5 (9), 1–7. Fathali, S. and Okada, T. (2017) A self-determination theory approach to technologyenhanced out-of-class language learning intention: A case of Japanese EFL learners. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning 6 (4), 53–64. Haidari, S.M., Yanpar Yelken, T. and Akay, C. (2019) Technology-enhanced self-directed language learning behaviors of EFL student teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology 10 (3), 229–245. Işık, T. and Balçıkanlı, C. (2020) EFL teachers’ autonomy supportive practices for out-of-class language learning. IAFOR Journal of Education: Studies in Education 8 (4), 63–78. Kemp, S. (2020) Digital in 2020. https://wearesocial.com/digital-2020. Kocatepe, M. (2017) Female Arab EFL students learning autonomously beyond the language classroom. English Language Teaching 10 (5), 104–126. Lai, C., Yeung, Y. and Hu, J. (2016) University student and teacher perceptions of teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning with technology outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29 (4), 703–723. Lai, C., Hu, X. and Lyu, B. (2018) Understanding the nature of learners’ out-of-class language learning experience with technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning 31 (1–2), 114–143. Lee, J.S. (2019) Quantity and diversity of informal digital learning of English. Language Learning & Technology 23 (1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10125/44675.

68  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Lou, N.M., Chaffee, K.E., Vargas Lascano, D.I., Dincer, A. and Noels, K.A. (2018) Complementary perspectives on autonomy in self-determination theory (SDT) and language learner autonomy (LLA). TESOL Quarterly 52 (1), 210–220. Mynard, J. and Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Investigating the autonomy-supportive nature of a self-access environment: A self-determination theory approach. In J. Mynard, M. Tamala and W. Peeters (eds) Supporting Learners and Educators in Developing Language Learner Autonomy (pp. 77–117). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. Nakata, Y. (2011) Teachers’ readiness for promoting learner autonomy: A study of Japanese EFL high school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (5), 900–910. Nguyen, V. and Stracke, E. (2020) Learning experiences in and outside class by successful Vietnamese tertiary students studying English as a foreign language. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 15 (4), 321–333. Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Vargas Lascano, D.I., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2019) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Reeve, J. (2016) Autonomy supportive teaching: What is it, how to do it. In W.C. Liu, J.W.C. Keng and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer. Reinders, H. and White, C. (2016) 20 years of autonomy and technology: How far have we come and where to next? Language Learning & Technology 20 (2), 143–154. Reinders, H. and Benson, P. (2017) Research agenda: Language learning beyond the classroom. Language Teaching 50 (4), 561–578. Richards, J.C. (2015) The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal 46 (1), 5–22. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860. Schreier, M. (2012) Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. London: Sage. Stockwell, G. (2013) Technology and motivation in English-language teaching and learning. In E. Ushioda (ed.) International Perspectives on Motivation (pp. 156–175). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

4 Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation Viewed through Self-Determination Theory Xuan Hoang, Alice Chik, Ruth French and Sue Ollerhead

Introduction

Successful foreign language learning involves students’ active engagement both inside and beyond the classroom, as students recognise and capitalise upon learning opportunities presented within different learning contexts (Borrero & Yeh, 2010; Richards, 2015). While our understanding of what and how students learn in formal classrooms has been cumulatively enriched by a plethora of empirical research across contexts, less is known about language learning beyond the classroom walls. Yet, it is essential to investigate out-of-classroom learning if teachers in formal settings are to fully appreciate students’ continuously changing learning natures and thus adapt and accommodate pedagogy in response. Language teaching can only benefit from knowing more about which factors may facilitate or undermine the processes by which students recognise and capitalise upon out-of-classroom learning opportunities. Motivation, as ‘various autonomous and controlled forms of intentional behaviour’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 16), is a key factor for triggering and sustaining students’ recognition and coordination of English learning opportunities. In recent years, a growing number of studies have investigated the complex and contextualised nature of motivation in English language teaching and learning. However, many studies are anchored in contexts of formal instruction; thus, there is a gap in knowledge of students’ motivational construction beyond the 69

70  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

classroom. This study investigates how two Vietnamese upper secondary students were motivated in their out-of-classroom English learning, using the lens of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b, 2020). Self-determination theory (SDT) differentiates motivation in terms of its different types, qualities and the impacts of such motivation types on relevant outcomes, rather than treating motivation as a unitary phenomenon and focusing on its amount (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In addition to the autonomy–control continuum differentiating and characterising motivation types, SDT focuses on internalisation and integration, which facilitates researchers’ endeavours to examine behavioural transformation from being extrinsically motivated to being more self-determined. SDT, therefore, offers a nuanced approach to understanding motivation that was deemed appropriate to the project aims of investigating out-of-classroom English language learning motivation patterns and how motivation shaped the participants’ appropriation of various physical, human and technological affordances for their English language development. The cases reported here are extracted from a larger qualitative project investigating how 16-year-old Vietnamese upper secondary students construct their English learning in and beyond the classroom. This SDT-informed study aims to address two gaps in the literature on English learning and teaching in Vietnam. Firstly, the chapter addresses a paucity in SDT-informed studies detailing motivation types exhibited beyond the classroom. Secondly, by focusing on upper secondary students, the project contributes to our understanding of out-of-classroom English learning motivation among a schooling age group that has been under-represented in SDT-informed language learning research. Firstly, we elaborate on the study’s guiding theoretical framework of SDT and particularly two relevant mini-theories. We then describe the research methodology, including innovative data collection methods, before presenting the study findings and discussion. Self-Determination Theory as a Theoretical Framework

SDT differentiates three types of motivation: amotivation; extrinsic motivation (incorporating external, introjected, identified and integrated forms); and intrinsic motivation, which is defined by the degree of controlled versus autonomous regulation along a continuum (Ryan & Deci, 2020). SDT is comprised of six mini-theories, each of which deals with various aspects of human motivation (see Reeve, Chapter 2 of this volume, for more details). In analysing this study’s data, it was found that two mini-theories, in particular, offered relevant theoretical insights: cognitive evaluation theory (CET) and organismic integration theory (OIT).

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   71

Mini-theory 1: Cognitive Evaluation Theory

CET is concerned with intrinsic motivation (IM) and explores how external factors and interpersonal contexts can sustain or undermine it (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Intrinsically motivated behaviours are regulated by the level of interest a person has when doing an activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985). IM is considered the most autonomous form of regulation. Although IM is regarded as ‘a natural propensity of human life’ (Deci & Ryan, 2016: 11), SDT suggests that classroom and home environments can promote or undermine it by either supporting or thwarting human needs for autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Specifically, ‘choice, acknowledgment of feelings, and opportunities for self-direction’ are said to enhance intrinsic motivation, enabling people to have a greater feeling of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000b: 70). Conversely, IM can be undermined by controlling external events, including ‘threat of punishment, deadlines, evaluation, competition, surveillance’ and monetary awards, to which empirical studies from the 1970s and 1980s attest (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010: 108). Mini-theory 2: Organismic Integration Theory

This theory explores various categories of extrinsic motivation (EM) and ‘the contextual factors that either promote or hinder internalization and integration of the regulation for these behaviors’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000b: 72). There are four sub-types of extrinsic motivation: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2020). These four types are represented along the regulation continuum (see Figure 4.1). External regulation is the least autonomous type of extrinsic motivation, referring to actions in response to external pressures, reward contingencies, or punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Introjected regulation is associated with behaviours enacted to feel proud or to avoid feeling guilty. Identified regulation involves understanding and endorsing the underlying value of a behaviour and, as a result, the person is more willing to perform the activity (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, occurring when the worth and values of the activity are not only accepted and identified but also brought into congruence with a person’s own values and needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2019, 2020). Identified regulation and integrated regulation are considered extrinsic forms of autonomous motivation, while external regulation and introjected regulation are controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation and controlled motivation are contrasted with amotivation, which is defined as a state of lacking an intention to act. Amotivation is categorised into three types (Ryan & Deci, 2017): people’s perceptions of their incompetence to conduct or control the required action; people’s

Note: From the Center for Self-Determination Theory (C) 2019. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 4.1  Self-determination theory’s taxonomy of motivation

72  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   73

lack of interest even when they are competent for the activities; and oppositional behaviours as resistance to influences that would thwart the need for autonomy or relatedness. Arguing that a majority of prescribed school learning activities are not inherently enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000a), and thus educators would not always be able to depend on IM to promote learning, SDT suggests fostering the internalisation and integration of values and behavioural regulations (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Internalisation is ‘the process of taking in values, beliefs, or behavioural regulations from external sources and transforming them into one’s own’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 180). Integration is ‘the process by which individuals more fully transform the regulation into their own so that it will emanate from their sense of self’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000a: 60). The two processes help to transform behaviours from being extrinsically motivated to becoming more self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). For the current project, SDT’s theory of motivation and, more specifically, processes of internalisation and integration from CET and OIT, were used to conceptualise and interpret what motivated the students to be engaged in their English out-of-class learning. The theoretical framework furnished a helpful lens for interpreting the data, and the findings speak back to the affordances of the theory. SDT and Second Language Learning

There has been an increasing number of studies adopting SDT to examine learner motivation in language learning. Exploring motivational patterns is one of the noticeable research applications of SDT, alongside others such as the relationship between the three psychological needs proposed in SDT (autonomy, competence and relatedness) and IM (Davis, 2018); longitudinal development of student L2 motivation (Oga-Baldwin et al., 2017); self-access learning centres and learner autonomy support (Mynard, Chapter 12 of this volume; Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2019); and student advising to support language learners’ basic psychological needs (Shelton-Strong, 2020; Shelton-Strong & Tassinari, Chapter 10 of this volume). Previous studies have shown that extrinsic motivation tends to be the most influential form among EFL students. For example, in Korea, an SDT-informed study examined the motivational patterns of 167 middleschool English students (Murray, 2007). The data analysis revealed that a majority of these Korean students were extrinsically motivated at the level of identified regulation. In the context of Vietnam, a quantitative study compared similarities and differences in the motivations to learn English of 422 second-year university students in two groups: English major students and non-English majors (Ngo et al., 2017). The findings revealed that members of both groups were mostly extrinsically

74  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

motivated to learn English, namely, to prepare for their future profession. The findings also emphasised that the students’ interest and English language proficiency helped to sustain their efforts in English learning rather than pragmatic values such as good marks. Similarly, through surveys of 678 Vietnamese university students and subsequent individual interviews of 14 students, Luong’s study (2017) revealed that the students endorsed more extrinsic than intrinsic motivation in their daily study, particularly in being highly motivated to study towards future employment. Shaikholeslami and Khayyer (2006) is one of very few studies that examined Iranian students’ amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation in English learning. The quantitative study measured amotivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation in 230 Iranian university students. The results indicated that because the language instruction in Iranian universities focused on grades (rather than mastery, for example), the students learned English for high marks in preference to goals of exploring ideas or personal knowledge (Shaikholeslami & Khayyer, 2006). Furthermore, the students did not report having identified regulation as motivation for their English learning. The study provided an overview of different types of motivation exhibited by Iranian students, facilitating further studies conducted in other contexts with an expanded investigation of the motivation types and their roles towards the students’ English learning. These studies, therefore, reveal several gaps in the literature. Firstly, most SDT-informed studies have focused on in-class motivation, or at least have not explicitly stated out-of-classroom motivation as their research focus. In the specific context of Vietnam, there has been no published SDT-informed study examining student motivation patterns and internalising processes for English language learning beyond the classroom. A further gap relates to the age of participants. Specifically considering Vietnam – the location for this study – motivational research has historically focused mainly on university student participants. To the best knowledge of the researchers, there has been no previously published research on Vietnamese upper secondary students’ out-ofclassroom motivation for English learning through the lens of SDT. A single study with similar intentions but a different theoretical framework was conducted in 2017, exploring the motivational constructions of two Vietnamese 10th-grade students learning English from a rural area (Pham, 2017). The study adopted the person-in-context relational view (Ushioda, 2009) and Beltman and Volet’s (2007) model of learners’ sustained motivation as the theoretical frameworks. Pham (2017) focused more on how the students’ personal constructions of L2 motivation were shaped across learning settings rather than probing into motivation patterns that students developed in out-of-classroom learning engagement.

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   75

The Present Study

The research gaps suggest a need to address the following questions: (1) What types of motivation are represented in students’ out-ofclassroom learning activities? (2) If the focal students report being autonomously motivated, how does their autonomous motivation promote their out-of-classroom learning? Context and participants

The study was conducted at a public (government) upper secondary school in Danang, a coastal city in central Vietnam. The two participants were 16 years old and studying in the same class at Grade 11 at the time of data collection. Both had been learning English at school from Grade 3. English is mandatory at school, with an allocation of three 45-minute school periods per week. The students were preparing to sit for the high school graduation examination in 2021. English is one of the compulsory subjects for the examination. Research design

This chapter responds to a call in motivational research to adopt a qualitative approach to focus on ‘people and their subjective lived experiences and realities’ (Ushioda, 2020: 202) in order to articulate more deeply the experience of self-determination in language learning (Noels et al., 2020). For the project represented in this chapter, a qualitative case study approach was adopted to allow an in-depth study of the phenomenon (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Yin, 2018). Specifically, the case studies focused on out-of-classroom motivation in its natural contexts and from the perspective of the students themselves (Gall et al., 1996). Narrative inquiry was employed for data analysis and for the presentation of results because it enabled the researchers to capture comprehensive accounts of the students’ motivation growth (Barkhuizen et al., 2014). Research tools

Data sources for the current project included: school-walk interviews, out-of-school photography, journal writing, and photo-elicitation interviews. All interviews were audio-recorded and detailed field notes were made. For the first data collection activity, each student took a one-hour walking interview around the school with the researcher. Walking interviews, also known as ‘walk-alongs’ or ‘go-alongs’, have been adopted in the fields of geography, social sciences and health science

76  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

(Carpiano, 2009; Evans & Jones, 2011; Holton & Riley, 2014; King & Woodroffe, 2017). The activity involved participants leading the researcher on a walk around the school (King & Woodroffe, 2017), talking about what helped them learn English. The relevance of this data collection method to the present chapter is that students’ comments about language learning were not confined to how they learned English in the classroom but, rather, these walks also prompted spontaneous comments about out-of-school learning. Participants were also asked by the researcher to take photos of what helped them learn English at school (a mobile phone was used) (Kinney, 2017). In the next phase of data collection, participants independently took photos of what they perceived as their English learning opportunities in their out-of-school English learning, for which the prior walk-alongs with the researcher at the school provided a model for their self-directed data collection. This situated data-gathering method, conducted in actual settings relevant to participants’ daily English learning, supported the identification of important aspects of their lived experience that might otherwise remain unnoticed in sit-down interviews (King & Woodroffe, 2017). In addition, as the students initiated the walk-along route and took an agentive role in how they represented the information to the researcher by generating their own photos, they became very actively engaged in the process of data collection, thereby reducing the power imbalance between the adult researcher and the younger participants. (The authors note here, apologetically, that images cannot be reproduced in the chapter due to copyright restrictions that would impact their intended future inclusion in a dissertation.) Each student was also given a journal with writing prompts and invited to record their daily English learning activities over a one-week period. The students were asked to write about what they had learned both in and out of the classroom each day from Monday to Sunday, including their thoughts and feelings about the learning activities (see Figure 4.2). The time frame provided participants with the flexibility to write entries and reflect upon their English learning according to their own schedules (Gass & Mackey, 2007), and to do so in the absence of a researcher, thus mitigating the power imbalance which may be encountered when interviewing. Participants had the opportunity to interpret their journal entries in interviews held subsequently. Their journals were collected prior to the interviews and used to identify themes that could be explored in semistructured interviews. Students were interviewed individually, with photos and journal entries being used as prompts for the students’ narration of their perceived in-class and out-of-classroom learning opportunities. Using the photos as interview stimuli was intended to provide participants with a focus, a structure, and a means of reflecting (Fargas-Malet et al., 2010).

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   77

Figure 4.2  Journal prompts

The photo-based interviews provided the participants with a meaningful context for their discussion and also supported interviewees in remembering people, events, or situations that might otherwise have been forgotten (Harper, 2002). The interviews took place at the school campus. Vietnamese was used for the ease of the participants’ communication and reflection. The interview questions focused not only on students’ ‘macro perspectives of long-term future goals and objectives or interim short-term targets’, which is much explored among many motivational studies, but also the ‘micro-level of learners’ ongoing motivational experience’ (Ushioda, 2014: 46) of day-to-day specific English learning tasks. Specifically, the students were asked to describe what was shown in each photo taken in the walking interviews and to explain why they took that image. During the interview, they were also asked about their motives for engaging in specific learning opportunities portrayed in the photos and any related learning problems or other events. Data analysis

The data from the two cases, consisting of photos, journal entries and interview transcripts, were analysed in two phases. Firstly, data were analysed to identify themes. Narrative inquiry was then employed to build up topically- and temporally-organised accounts of the complex internalisation and integration of the students’ motivation types, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of motivation as a dynamic and multifaceted rather than static phenomenon.

78  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

The data were analysed using the thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The interviews were conducted, transcribed and coded in Vietnamese, with the identified themes and relevant quotes later translated into English. This protected coding from errors that could arise from mistranslation. The interview transcripts were read over many times, and the codes were grouped into preliminary themes, including students’ overall English learning trajectories, their out-of-classroom learning activities, the motivation patterns developed along with the learning engagement and their mediating factors. Simultaneously, preliminary themes, codes, quotes and reflective notes were arranged chronologically into a matrix table to capture the relationships among the activities. After the preliminary list of themes was created, interpretation of these themes was guided by the two minitheories to explore the motivation types, their transforming processes and the impacts of autonomous learning on the students’ learning engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2019). Narratives were then constructed to provide coherent accounts of the participants, illuminating their motivation development in relation to out-of-classroom learning activities (Barkhuizen et al., 2014). The themes were employed as the frames of each participant’s story, including background information, values in relation to English learning, motivational types, and impacts of autonomous motivation on the students’ out-of-classroom learning engagement. Participants’ photographs of relevant artefacts or activities were used to substantiate their stories. Finally, cross-case analysis was conducted across the two participants’ chronicled accounts for commonalities and differences (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Students’ biographical backgrounds

The following section presents brief biographical information on the participants to provide some background for the subsequent findings and discussion. Pseudonyms have been used to protect the participants’ identities. Hoa

When she was a child, Hoa used to live in Quang Tri, a northern town approximately 155 km away from Danang (the research city). Her family relocated to the current city when Hoa entered the lower secondary school. She was living with her parents and younger sister in the city’s east when she participated in the research. Her older brother was doing his military service. Hoa emphasised that English played a decisive role in her life. If she developed a good command of English, she might obtain a scholarship to study in the USA, which would significantly expand

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   79

her life opportunities. She had three alternative plans for her future, namely: studying in the USA and having a job there upon graduation; coming back to Vietnam to work for established companies; or running an apartment rental business. Whatever path she might take, she underscored that English had a crucial role. Linh

Linh lived with her parents and a younger sister in a newly built house in the city’s east. Linh’s sister was studying Grade 4 at a neighbouring school. Linh’s grandmother was living in the USA and planned to sponsor her to live there. English learning would enable Linh to be well-prepared for her anticipated future life in an English-speaking country. Findings

The qualitative findings revealed two main themes. Firstly, the students exhibited a range of motivations in their out-of-classroom learning, among which autonomous extrinsic motivation played the dominant role. Secondly, the students’ autonomous motivation was crucial in sustaining their English learning engagement beyond the classroom. A detailed presentation of the students’ motivation patterns now follows. Extrinsic motivation

Hoa and Linh were primarily extrinsically motivated for their out-of-classroom English learning activities. They were motivated to learn English to please their parents, to impress others, to prepare for future professional prospects, study abroad, pass standardised tests of IELTS and SAT and, to a lesser degree, comply with school homework responsibilities. Both students participated in their private English classes because of their mothers’ wishes. Their mothers emphasised the importance of learning English and substantially influenced their perceptions of English and the selection of learning opportunities. Hoa often heard how English changed her mother’s life regarding access to well-paid job opportunities. Linh’s mother arranged the IELTS class for Linh because she believed that having good English proficiency would enable her daughter to be well prepared for her future study and life in an Englishspeaking country. The students’ English learning motivation also arose from their goals of obtaining high IELTS and SAT marks to apply for scholarships to study in the USA. Initially, Hoa looked for classes to improve her general English. Being convinced that IELTS was essential for studying abroad, Hoa had enrolled in the private IELTS class in the preceding year and

80  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

successively registered for SAT lessons. She emphasised that high SAT scores would allow her to obtain a scholarship to study in the USA, which could significantly transform her life. Linh joined the private IELTS class in Grade 10 following the recommendations of her previous tutor. The students were also highly extrinsically motivated by ideal future employment possibilities. As noted in the biography above, Hoa had three alternative plans for her future, and yet, for whatever path she might take, she underscored that English played a crucial role. Linh also shared a similar perception. She reported that her participation in a studying-abroad programme when she was in Grade 10 motivated her immensely to learn English. Specifically, it was a workshop on studying and working in Japan, which advertised that if the students could gain the required IELTS band scores and attend a Japanese course, they could apply to be aged care workers in Japan. The salary was attractive, and she immediately bought an online English course after this event with the hope that it would help to improve her English. Compliance with expectations to undertake compulsory school homework also regulated the students’ motivation for learning English, but only to a small degree. While in-school learning is not the focus here, it is important to acknowledge that out-of-school learning can include homework set by school teachers, which then occupies out-of-school time. The students expressed that they had no real interest in completing the exercises, which were not very challenging for them. Understandably, given their future plans, they invested less effort in preparation for the regular school English exams and homework than they did in their study for internationally recognised English tests. Beyond these factors, Linh was also externally motivated to learn English because of her parents’ pride. They were proud – ‘mát mặt’ – to have a child studying at a good school and being good at English. Linh’s desire to be recognised and complimented when providing accurate answers in exams and quizzes at school or at out-of-school community events also externally regulated her English learning engagement. In SDT terms, the two students’ extrinsic motivations to learn English can be described as: external regulation – dealing with school responsibility (homework); introjected regulation – pleasing their parents and achieving pride in their own competence; and integrated regulation – getting prepared for future professional prospects, studying abroad and passing standardised tests of IELTS and SAT. Although all the extrinsic regulations here involve instrumentalities, they vary considerably regarding their level of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). For example, organismic integration theory (OIT) associates learning English to please parents and to foster their own pride with controlled motivation, since maintaining the activities requires external interventions from significant others, or it involves internal pressure or control. In contrast,

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   81

learning for their ideal future employment possibilities is guided by ‘personal values and self-endorsed commitments’ and thus can be considered autonomous motivation (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010: 116). Interestingly, both participants emphasised that, for the time being, learning English for their IELTS/SAT examinations, studying abroad and future career prospects, motivated them the most even when the activity was not engaging. For example, although Hoa accepted the value and importance of IELTS learning for herself, she admitted that the learning did not bring her joy in the same way as watching English cooking videos did. This example accords with OIT’s postulation that students can have autonomous motivation even when the focal activities are not interesting (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Another key observation is that for both students there was evidence of the transformation of motivation, from initially being externally regulated to becoming more internally regulated. This internalising process is described below but, before that, we explore the students’ intrinsic motivation and also an area of amotivation. Intrinsic motivation

Hoa and Linh were intrinsically motivated to learn English for personal development through pursuing hobbies and broadening their knowledge. These intrinsically motivated activities were associated with inherent enjoyment in learning the language rather than being imposed through ‘external prompts or rewards’ (Ryan & Deci, 2019: 12), as is the case with external regulation. Hoa’s personal interest in cooking was a major source of intrinsic motivation to learn English. She often searched for Western cake recipes in English since only a few videos were available in Vietnamese. She even subscribed to some YouTube channels to get regular notifications about new content. At first, she admitted, she could not understand the recipes very well – mostly because there was unfamiliar vocabulary related to cooking. Over time, and as she watched a number of clips with similar content, she learned to comprehend the instructions without resorting to the English subtitles. She reported that learning English through the clips was entertaining, thus sustaining her interest longer. She contrasted this with IELTS/SAT preparation, which was not interest-based. Linh was prompted to learn English because of her interests in popular culture and the news. She often listened to trendy songs in English, singing along so that she could memorise the lyrics. When she reflected upon the songs, she understood more about them and reported being amazed at how insightfully the language could convey beautiful messages. Furthermore, she liked reading and watching news in English about political events and learning about mysterious or scientific occurrences from Facebook, Instagram and other websites. For example,

82  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

she was interested in news about commercial trade between Vietnam and the USA; in the relationship between North Korea and the USA; in the causes of the disappearance of Flight MH370; and in ‘Momo Challenge’ and ‘Blue Whale Challenge’ – two social network phenomena. She stated that some events may not be covered much in Vietnamese or may not be precisely translated into Vietnamese, so she often searched for articles or YouTube clips in English. Finally, she found watching English language films fascinating as the activity enabled her to explore other aspects of English that were not taught at school. For instance, she felt amused to pick up English slang through films from television and online sources. Linh furthermore mentioned that she enjoyed discovering the diversity and beauty of the target language. She acknowledged that English helped her to avoid the awkwardness of using Vietnamese to express emotions. That is why she sometimes wrote her Facebook captions in both English and Vietnamese, or in English only. For example, on one occasion, when she wanted to congratulate her teachers on Teachers’ Day, she found it easier to express her feelings in English. The participants’ narratives of their IM provide evidence for several postulates of CET. Firstly, the diversity of intrinsically motivated learning activities regarding individual preferences confirms CET’s premise that people are intrinsically motivated for some activities and not others (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In other words, each student was attracted to different activities based on their ‘novelty, challenge, or aesthetic value’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000b: 71). Furthermore, the students’ IM could be observed through the satisfaction of their needs for competence and autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The participants reported that they experienced self-efficacy, examples of which were the accumulating understanding of English cooking videos for Hoa and the feelings of competence from reading diverse sources of English news for Linh. They also conducted the activities with a full sense of willingness (Ryan & Deci, 2000a), reflected through the volitional control over their hobby choices. Amotivation

Both Hoa and Linh expressed a level of amotivation in learning English, specifically in respect of using English in front of other people. Amotivation is described by SDT as reluctance to be engaged in learning because of self-perceptions of incompetence (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Hoa explained that she was from Quang Tri, where people usually have strong local accents when speaking Vietnamese, and she believed that, as a result, she spoke English with a strong accent. This perception deterred her from actively participating in conversation exchanges with her peers at English-speaking clubs or events – that is, her self-perception of a level of incompetence was a reason for her reluctance and resistance to delivering English presentations to an audience.

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   83

Similarly, Linh often did not dare to speak English to others for fear of being laughed at due to her perceived lack of spoken English fluency. Her resistance to English speaking was more visible at school than at private IELTS lessons. For example, sometimes her school English teacher assigned an oral presentation for a team of around 10 students in which only some would be required to deliver the talk. Linh avoided doing the oral presentation by negotiating with a teammate that she would do the teammate’s work of preparing content for the speech and creating PowerPoint slides. Interestingly, Linh was more comfortable using English with her peers in the private IELTS class. She explained that this was because the extra class consisted of different students from various schools whom she did not know well, thus reducing her fear of being judged inferior. An additional reason was that English speaking was compulsory at the private class (unlike the group assignments at school), so she was gradually becoming accustomed to using it with her peers. The two participants, therefore, exhibited a degree of amotivation to use English because they felt they were not able to perform an activity effectively (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and believed they were likely to be evaluated negatively by their peers. Such feelings may be categorised as communication apprehension and fear of negative evaluation, two types of foreign language performance anxieties (Horwitz et al., 1986). Feeling apprehensive about communicating with others through a language in which they were not yet fluent and being concerned about peers’ negative evaluation (Horwitz et al., 1986), they became less willing to be engaged in the English-speaking activities. Internalising and integrating processes

A noticeable finding is the internalisation and integration of motivation for learning English, from being externally regulated to more self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Both students first learned English under the influence of their parents, meaning they were externally regulated to perform the learning activities. In other words, they initially learned English due to their parents’ values and beliefs in the pragmatic benefits associated with the language. Nevertheless, the students recognised and internalised the external regulation, incorporating into their personal beliefs and behaviours values that were initially external. For example, both participants prepared for IELTS due to their mothers’ recommendations, since having a high IELTS score could translate into being awarded scholarships to study abroad. Gradually, the students realised that IELTS preparation could help them achieve their own life goals. The motivation for IELTS preparation thus shifted from following goals imposed by the mothers to internalising them as their own values and needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). In this

84  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

respect, preparing for IELTS became an activity of self-endorsement (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). A similar process of internalising and integrating also happened in respect of Hoa’s SAT learning. SAT was recommended by her teacher as preparation for study in America. Endorsing its value, Hoa was volitionally engaged in the activity even when the tasks were challenging and began giving her headaches. It may be argued that the learning persisted because it was guided by a sense of purpose and personal internalisation of its importance. Such integrated motivation orientations are described by OIT to be autonomous, contrasting with controlled motivation such as completing school homework or gaining acknowledgement from other people (McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019). The Role of Autonomous Motivation Towards the Students’ Out-of-Classroom English Learning

The findings also indicate that autonomous motivation, including integrated and intrinsic motivation, complementarily helped to sustain the students’ language learning. While autonomous extrinsic motivation involved activities mainly aiming to improve the students’ IELTS skills, intrinsic motivation was associated with hobby-based activities. Such differences may account for differentiation in how the two types of autonomous motivation sustained the students’ learning engagement. Specifically, their autonomous extrinsic motivation was described as enabling the students to work with perseverance towards their goals, pro-actively adopting diverse learning strategies. For example, realising that her English speaking and pronunciation were far weaker than her other skills, Hoa built up different learning strategies such as listening to IELTS tasks on YouTube and doing follow-up exercises. Perseverance was observed with her vocabulary learning. Believing that vocabulary played a crucial part in her speaking and listening improvement, she had studiously tried a wide range of techniques, among which drawing was found to be the most productive way to learn. She first drew a picture to illustrate the word, then added its English definition and examples of use in context. The more humorous the picture was, the more quickly she would remember the words depicted. On reviewing the vocabulary, she looked at the drawing to guess the word meaning. This approach worked much more effectively than her previous strategy of writing down the words many times in the notebook, for which she could remember the words no longer than one week. In a similar manner, the students’ intrinsically motivated activities were reported to develop their enjoyment of the language, which in turn sustained their learning engagement. As Hoa elaborated: ‘[following such hobbies] allows me to learn English comfortably and uphold my learning interest’. Likewise, Linh recounted that she felt fascinated to

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   85

discover some untaught-at-school English, for example, the slang terms she learned from watching films. It could be observed that in addition to serving the utilitarian purpose of building up the students’ language competence and sociocultural knowledge (as outlined in the section on IM), the intrinsically motivated activities also generated positive affect for exploring language through self-determined activities. Discussion

The study aimed to explore Vietnamese students’ motivation patterns for learning English beyond the classroom and how autonomous motivation promoted their learning. The two Grade 11 students exhibited strong autonomous extrinsic motivation to learn English to study abroad and to enhance their employability prospects. In addition, their autonomous motivation was crucial in sustaining their English learning engagement beyond the classroom. The findings are consistent with those of other SDT-informed studies in terms of identifying autonomous extrinsic motivation as a dominant influence on students’ learning (Murray, 2007; Ngo et al., 2017). For example, extrinsic motivation was found to be the prime motivation pattern among students in Korea learning English (Murray, 2007). Similarly, the Vietnamese university students in the study by Ngo and colleagues (2017) also reported being mostly extrinsically motivated to learn English for their future profession. In the study, there were similar motivation patterns for students in two differently oriented groups (those choosing to study English as a major and those compulsorily studying English within another programme of study), which may reflect the significant impacts of contemporary sociocultural and economic realities in Vietnam on reasons to learn English. English has asserted its importance in every aspect of life in Vietnam, being not only a compulsory school subject but also ‘a medium for social and practical use’ (Le, 2019: 19). In schools, English ranks third in terms of time allocation, following Vietnamese and mathematics (Hoang, 2020). Certificates of English proficiency such as TOEIC, IELTS or TOEFL, have for many years been either an entry requirement or an advantage in job recruitment for positions across foreign-invested companies, joint ventures, foreign labour markets, and even in Vietnamese-owned enterprises. And in response to these economic realities, to some extent there has been a tendency for middle-class families to seek opportunities for their children to undertake tertiary education in popular English-speaking destinations like the USA, Australia, Canada and Britain (Le, 2019) – for which IELTS certificates of English proficiency are often a prerequisite for visa applications as well as college entrance. Understandably, these widely projected possible roles for English proficiency result in parents associating English language learning with their children’s better futures, leading them to pass on these beliefs to

86  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

their children – as was seen in the present study. In turns, the students in this case study were found to have internalised and integrated the crucial role of the standardised tests into their study and lives, with regulation shifting from being externally regulated to self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). The findings regarding the positive influences of internalising and integrating processes for the case study students suggest a need to consider how teachers might be aware of and promote students’ internalisation of motivation from being controlled to being autonomous. While recognising it is often the case that in-class educational activities are not necessarily ‘inherently enjoyable’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000a: 60), it may be valuable to seek ways to persuade students that their English language learning is of personal importance for them (Noels et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Therefore, the findings lend support to the suggestion that endeavours to promote students’ autonomous extrinsic motivation should be paid more attention at this schooling age. This accords with Ryan and Deci’s view that to foster learning, school education cannot always depend on intrinsic motivation (2000a). Thus, promoting ‘more active and volitional (versus passive and controlling) forms of extrinsic motivation becomes an essential strategy for successful teaching’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000a: 55). SDT recommends creating autonomy-supportive environments leading to autonomous motivation because this is more sustainable for engaged learning than any controlling outcomes through rewards, competition, evaluations, threats and surveillance, which have too often been the focus among policymakers and educators (Deci & Ryan, 2016) The study lends evidence-based support to the SDT postulate that people ‘are not only more or less motivated’ but are simultaneously motivated by intrinsic and various types of extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 16). In other words, learner motivation can come in many types, which are not mutually exclusive but complementary, as indicated in the present study. The findings of the current study showed that the students possessed a range of motivations, ranging from intrinsic motivation to amotivation; including external and introjected regulation as well as more internally identified and integrated regulatory styles. Furthermore, the students emphasised that, for the time being, they endorsed more autonomous extrinsic motivation in terms of preparing for IELTS, future career prospects and studying abroad, than the other reported motivation types. Acknowledging that the students were regulated by a range of both autonomous and controlled motivation patterns, the study outcomes correlate with the observation that learners ‘are rarely categorized accurately as entirely intrinsically or extrinsically (or whatever subtype) oriented’ (Noels, 2013: 19). A number of SDT-informed studies also concluded that ‘learners have a range of motives that can underpin their efforts at learning’ (Oga-Baldwin et al.

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   87

2017: 141). Such consistent findings propose a more fluid understanding of learner motivations, particularly those regulating students’ learning engagement beyond the classroom. The findings also point to the potential for developing positive, selfsustaining motivational orientations in formal schooling by leveraging an appreciation of students’ out-of-class language learning interests. Teachers might invite students to share these interests in the classroom setting and consider how curriculum and pedagogy might build on, and even encourage, out-of-classroom language learning. Such moves could be predicted to support the development of the kinds of motivational patterns that the 16-year-olds in the case study had in many respects constructed for themselves. Conclusion

This chapter has addressed the two-fold objective of examining the motivation continuum of two Vietnamese upper secondary students and exploring the extent to which autonomous motivation promoted their English learning beyond the classroom. Framed within CET and OIT, the study reveals that the students were predominantly autonomously motivated towards their out-of-classroom learning. Autonomous motivation was found to play a substantial role in sustaining the students’ language learning activities at this school age. CET and OIT, by offering an explanatory account of the motivation continuum and processes of internalisation and integration, therefore supported a differentiated understanding of the out-of-classroom motivational patterns of the case study students. Specifically, motivation was examined on a continuum where characteristics and transformation processes of each motivation type could be observed. The study findings thus propose that CET and OIT, in addition to being extensively applied in classroom research, may also represent useful frameworks for studies examining the emergent and dynamic nature of student motivation beyond the classroom. In terms of practical implications, the findings provide schools, teachers and parents with research-based understandings of particular types of out-of-classroom motivation, some processes of transformation, and examples of the extent to which autonomous motivation can promote out-of-classroom learning. Such insights facilitate concerted efforts from relevant agents to catalyse students’ learning environments to promote more autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation, supporting learners to engage volitionally in learning independently for life (Chia et al., 2016). This small-scale, qualitative study was able to examine some primary concerns relevant to out-of-classroom motivation in a particular non-English speaking context. Further research could deal with several other issues raised by CET and OIT, which cannot be addressed within

88  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

this project’s scope. For example, efforts could be made to examine interrelationships between motivational patterns and contextual variables to find out the extent to which out-of-classroom learning environments promote students’ learning through satisfying their basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence. Research might investigate further the impacts of contextual factors on the internalisation and integration of behavioural regulations. Finally, as students’ lived experiences of learning English include both in-class and out-of-classroom learning, future motivational studies should examine more holistically and comparatively what motivates students both in and beyond the classroom for a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. Teachers and students alike stand to benefit from a view of language learning that recognises the importance and interactions of both. References Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P. and Chik, A. (2014) Narrative Inquiry in Language Teaching and Learning Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Beltman, S. and Volet, S. (2007) Exploring the complex and dynamic nature of sustained motivation. European Psychologist 12 (4), 314–323. Borrero, N.E. and Yeh, C.J. (2010) Ecological English language learning among ethnic minority youth. Educational Researcher 39 (8), 571–581. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2), 77–101. Carpiano, R.M. (2009) Come and walk with me: The ‘go-along’ interview as a novel method for studying the implications of place for health and well-being. Health Place 15 (1), 263–272. Chia, L.W., Keng, J.W.C. and Ryan, R.M. (eds) (2016) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory. Singapore: Springer. Davis, W.S. (2018) What makes a learning experience intrinsically motivating for American high school language learners? Journal of Pedagogical Research 2, 167–180. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Springer. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2016) Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In W.C. Liu, J.C.K. Wang and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice using Self-Determination Theory (pp. 9–29). Singapore: Springer. Evans, J. and Jones, P. (2011) The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography 31 (2), 849–58. Fargas-Malet, M., McSherry, D., Larkin, E. and Robinson, C. (2010) Research with children: Methodological issues and innovative techniques. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8 (2), 175–192. Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R. and Gall, J.P. (1996) Educational Research: An Introduction (6th edn). New York, NY: Longman. Gass, S.M. and Mackey, A. (2007) Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Harper, D. (2002) Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies 17 (1), 13–26. Hoang, V.V. (2020) The roles and status of English in present-day Vietnam: A socio-cultural analysis. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies 36 (1), 1–21.

Vietnamese EFL Students’ Out-of-Classroom Motivation   89

Holton, M. and Riley, M. (2014) Talking on the move: Place-based interviewing with undergraduate students. Area 46 (1), 59–65. Horwitz, E.K., Horwitz, M.B. and Cope, J. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal 70 (2), 125–132. King, A.C. and Woodroffe, J. (2017) Walking interviews. In P. Liamputtong (ed.) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (pp. 1269–1291). Singapore: Springer. Kinney, P. (2017) Walking interviews. Social Research Update 67, 1–4. Le, V.C. (2019) English language teaching in Vietnam: Aspirations, realities, and challenges. In V.C. Le, H.T.M. Nguyen and T.T.M. Nguyen (eds) Building Teacher Capacity in English Language Teaching in Vietnam: Research, Policy and Practice (pp. 7–22). London: Routledge. Luong, T.L. (2017) Vietnamese university students’ academic motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Queensland: Griffith University. McEown, M.S. and Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019) Self-determination for all language learners: New applications for formal language education. System 86, 102–124. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Second Edition. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Murray, B. (2007) Classroom motivation of Korean EFL students from the perspective of self-determination theory. English Teaching 62 (4), 391–409. Mynard, J. and Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2019) Evaluating a self-access centre: A selfdetermination theory perspective. In T. Pattison (ed.) IATEFL 2019. Liverpool Conference Selections (pp. 41–42). Liverpool: IATEFL. Ngo, H., Spooner-Lane, R. and Mergler, A. (2017) A comparison of motivation to learn English between English major and non-English major students in a Vietnamese university. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 11 (2), 188–202. Noels, K.A. (2013) Learning Japanese; learning English: Promoting motivation through autonomy, competence and relatedness. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva and T. Fellner (eds) Language Learning Motivation in Japan (pp. 15–34). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clément, R. and Vallerand, R.J. (2003) Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 53 (1), 33–64. Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Lascano, D.I.V., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2020) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., Nakata, Y., Parker, P. and Ryan, R.M. (2017) Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology 49, 140–150. Pham, C.H. (2017) Situated perspectives on the motivational trajectories of high school students learning English in rural Vietnam. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies 4 (2), 249–266. Richards, J.C. (2015) The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal 46 (1), 5–22. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000a) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1), 54–67. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000b) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1), 68–78. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2019) Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In A. J. Elliot (ed.) Advances in Motivation Science. Volume 6 (pp.111–156). Cambridge, MA: Elsevier.

90  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860. Shaikholeslami, R. and Khayyer, M. (2006) Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and learning English as a foreign language. Psychological Reports 99 (3), 813–818. Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1362168820912355. Ushioda, E. (2009) A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 215–228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ushioda, E. (2014) Motivation, autonomy and metacognition: Exploring their interactions. In D. Lasagabaster, A. Doiz and J.M. Sierra (eds) Motivation and Foreign Language Learning: From Theory to Practice (pp. 31–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ushioda, E. (2020) Researching L2 motivation: Re-evaluating the role of qualitative inquiry, or the ‘wine and conversation’ approach. In A.H. Al-Hoorie and P.D. MacIntyre (eds) Contemporary Language Motivation Theory: 60 Years Since Gardner and Lambert (1959) (pp. 194–211). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C.P. and Soenens, B. (2010) The development of the five minitheories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. Advances in Motivation and Achievement 16 (Part A), 105–165. Yin, R.K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sixth Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

5 Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective Yanling Li, Jiaxiu Zhang and Pingying Hu

Introduction

Language learners’ out-of-class engagement in language practice, as well as scheduled in-class commitments, is increasingly recognised as being important to improving language achievement (Dincer & Dariyemez, 2020; Lai, 2017). To compensate for the limits of classroom time, college EFL teachers in China usually encourage their students to do English writing practice outside the classroom. The students, however, often experience frustration when struggling to complete outside-class English writing tasks assigned by their teachers. It is a great challenge for them to write English essays properly and to structure them well. To counter the EFL learners’ passivity and lack of competence in EFL writing, they need to be motivated and supported to improve their EFL writing. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to present a study that investigates how college EFL learners in China are motivated to write willingly and effectively outside the classroom. Specifically, the action research in this chapter intends to investigate whether an autonomy-supportive online EFL writing platform facilitates their motivation for writing beyond the classroom and the improvement of their writing proficiency. Literature Review

Learner autonomy, self-determination theory and educational technology are the three keywords in this chapter. Learner autonomy refers to the ability to assume responsibility for one’s own learning (Holec, 1981). Benson (2001) defined autonomy as the capacity to take control of one’s own learning, which was based on the learners’ desire, 91

92  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

ability and freedom to control this. The above definitions explained what autonomous learners were able to do rather than how they were able to do it. Subsequently, learner training, classroom decision making, and out-of-class learning (Harmer, 2001) and support from teachers and peers (Hu & Zhang, 2017) have been considered important for promoting learner autonomy. In other words, learner autonomy is closely related to self-regulation and active participation in one’s own learning. From the perspective of basic psychological needs theory, one of the six mini-theories of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017), the three basic needs – autonomy (the experience of volition and self-endorsement of one’s behaviour), competence (the experience of effectiveness and mastery in one’s interactions with the environment), and relatedness (the experience of close, warm connections in one’s interpersonal relationships) – are essential psychological nutrients for human motivation, adjustment and wellbeing. Within language education, the satisfaction of these basic needs is considered crucial for self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning (Noels et al., 2019). Hu and Zhang (2017) proposed a ‘learner autonomy continuum’ linking need satisfaction and learner autonomy. Theoretically, the better the learners’ basic needs are satisfied, the higher their self-determined motivation and the more self-regulated their learning behaviour are. Deci and Ryan (2000: 263) found that social contexts supportive of the basic needs maintained or enhanced intrinsic motivation and facilitated the internalisation of extrinsic motivation, resulting in more autonomous motivational or regulatory orientations. Previous studies have also shown that perceived autonomy support is related to higher intrinsic motivation (Reeve & Jang, 2006) and better performance (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). This suggests that the context supportive of the basic needs is interlinked with the autonomy-supportive learning environment and, in turn, this autonomy-supportive climate can promote learner agency, and autonomy in language learning (Reeve, 2009; see Chapter 2 of this volume). In recent decades, emerging technologies have offered a variety of opportunities to foster autonomous language learning (Smith & Craig, 2013) and have provided innovative forms of support to teachers, students and the learning process, which has helped drive better learning outcomes (Canals et al., 2020; Mahdi & El-Naim, 2012; Yanguas, 2010). However, there is limited research on technology-enhanced out-of-class language learning (Dincer, 2020). In the study described in this chapter, advanced educational technologies such as computers, laptops, mobile phones, social media and multimedia are adopted in creating an online autonomy-supportive EFL learning environment for college learners to practise writing beyond the classroom.

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   93

Design of the Study

An action research approach was employed in this study, involving four steps: identifying the problem; planning an intervention; implementing the intervention; and evaluating the outcome. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the study to investigate whether the application of the autonomy-supportive writing platform encourages EFL learners to improve their writing beyond the classroom willingly and effectively. Research questions

According to the purpose of the study, and based on relevant literature, this study aims to answer the following research questions. Q1: What can be done to help satisfy Chinese college EFL learners’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness? Q2: How can the EFL learners’ self-determined motivation for writing be stimulated? Q3: At what point (if at all) will the EFL learners self-regulate their learning behaviour and engage in writing practice beyond the classroom willingly and effectively? Q4: What might lead to better writing performance and achievement? Participants

Eight classes of first-year non-English major college students – 405 freshmen in an engineering college in China – were randomly chosen to participate in the action research. In addition, three EFL teachers (the researchers of this project) were also involved in the action research. Results of the writing pre-test revealed the students’ problems in structuring their English essays logically and in using lexis properly. Most of them lacked competence in writing in English. The results of the pre-questionnaire and pre-interview also indicated that they often felt frustrated when writing English essays beyond the classroom. Following the pre-test of their writing proficiency, the participants were divided into two homogeneous groups, with 202 students in the experimental group and 203 students in the comparison group, respectively. The autonomy-supportive intervention was implemented in the experimental group with an online writing platform, while the comparison group simply did EFL writing homework assigned by their teachers. Instruments

The instruments for this study included questionnaires, interviews, English writing proficiency tests and observation logs. The questionnaires, interviews and English writing proficiency test used for problem diagnosis

94  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

before the action research were named pre-questionnaires, pre-interviews and pre-test. This differentiates them from the instruments that were termed post-questionnaires, post-interviews and post-test when they were used for outcome evaluation after the intervention. Questionnaires

The questionnaire consisted of items that investigated: (1) satisfaction of the three basic needs; and (2) self-regulated motivation. To ensure the validity and reliability of the collected data, two previously validated instruments were used: the ‘basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration scale’ (Chen et al., 2015) and the ‘learning self-regulation questionnaire’ (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). The questionnaires were adapted, piloted and employed in the study to measure the students’ perceived satisfaction of the three psychological needs and to investigate the student participants’ outsideclass EFL writing motivation. The first questionnaire included three subscales: satisfaction of autonomy, satisfaction of competence, and satisfaction of the need for relatedness. Previous research has reported that each subscale measure had Cronbach’s alphas greater than 0.80 (Chen et al., 2015). The second questionnaire consisted of two subscales: controlled regulation (introjected and external regulation) and autonomous regulation (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation). In past studies, the alpha reliabilities have been approximately 0.75 for controlled regulation and 0.80 for autonomous regulation (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996). The students were required to respond to a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true) to indicate the degree to which the statement was true for them. The adapted questionnaire used in this study included five subscales with 36 items. Results of the pre-survey were used to perform a reliability analysis, which produced an alpha reliability of 0.78 for the questionnaire. Most of the subscale measures had Cronbach’s alphas greater than 0.80, except controlled regulation (α = 0.74). Interviews

Ten open-ended questions were set for subsequent semi-structured interviews regarding out-of-class writing motivation, problems in EFL writing, perceived autonomy support from the online writing platform, perceived need satisfaction, and learner autonomy. Twelve of the student participants from the experimental group were randomly selected to be interviewees. Proficiency tests

Two IELTS writing practice tests were used to test the participants’ EFL writing proficiency and to identify their problems. The score of the writing tests was rounded up to 10 for convenience and accurate

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   95

marking. Collected test papers were double or triple marked by three experienced EFL writing teachers. Observation journals

The three researchers of this project kept observation logs concerning the writing performance of the student participants during the intervention. Data collected from the observation journals were used as evidence to verify the effect of the online EFL writing platform on the improvement of the EFL learners’ writing motivation, engagement and performance. Procedure

The action research carried out an autonomy-supportive online EFL writing intervention for one semester. The procedures covered four stages: Identifying problems and needs

The pre-survey and pre-test were conducted, and data were collected to fulfil the following four purposes: (1) to diagnose EFL learners’ problems in English writing; (2) to identify the participants’ perceived satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs, the two types of motivation previously indicated, and learner autonomy support for out-of-class English writing practice; (3) to perform a reliability analysis of the survey; and (4) to do independent-samples t-tests (homogeneity tests) between the experimental group and the comparison group. Planning an autonomy-supportive intervention

An online writing platform was adapted for EFL writing practice beyond the classroom. Abundant, carefully designed writing tasks allowed the experimental group to choose writing tasks freely, and the generic structures attached to writing tasks helped them to scaffold their essays. The stress-free atmosphere allowed them to feel comfortable interacting with their peers and the teachers actively when exchanging views and ideas online. Implementing the intervention

The autonomy-supportive intervention was carried out for one semester by introducing the online EFL writing platform to the experimental group, encouraging them to follow the generic structures provided and to do pair-writing practice online out of class. They could make their own decisions on what/when to write. The online writing platform was equipped with an automatic grading system, which can do a grammatical, lexical and holistic assessment of essays in a few minutes after they are submitted on the web portal. In addition, the teachers and peers would offer positive comments and constructive advice for improvement via the writing platform and in a WeChat group,

96  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

respectively. Meanwhile, the teachers (the researchers of this project) kept observation logs concerning the student participants’ writing performance during the intervention. After the intervention, post-survey and post-test were conducted to collect data for evaluation of the action research. Evaluating the outcomes

The outcomes of the research were evaluated by comparing and analysing the data collected before and after the intervention with the measures mentioned above. The quantitative data collected from questionnaires and proficiency tests were processed and analysed with SPSS 22.0, while qualitative data gathered from interviews and observation journals were coded and listed for comparison and analysis. To answer the research questions, the views collected from interviews were categorised into four types: problems in writing and perceived autonomy support; perceived need satisfaction; writing motivation beyond the classroom; and learner autonomy. These align with the four qualitative categories, which are the focus of this study. The qualitative evidence gathered from the three researchers’ observation journals were coded by summarising repeated and commonly expressed comments. Results

Rich data yielded from this research provided valuable insights into the perceptions and practices concerning the autonomy-supportive EFL writing intervention. The integrated results answered the four research questions of this study. Results of writing tests

To gauge whether the two groups were homogeneous before the intervention, results of the pre-test were submitted to the independentsample t-test. With mean values of 5.946 and 5.934 for the experimental group and the comparison group, respectively, the results showed that the difference was not significant, F = 0.054, t = 0.087, p = 0.931 > 0.05, suggesting that the two groups were homogeneous with similar EFL writing proficiency, generally at the medium or low level. To examine whether the autonomy-supportive intervention was effective, results of the pre-test and the post-test were listed and compared (see Table 5.1). Comparing the mean values of the pre-test and post-test, it was clear that the experimental group made greater progress than the comparison group after the one-semester writing intervention. It is also worth noting that the standard deviation (SD) of the experimental group was

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   97

Table 5.1  Comparison of pre-test and post-test Experimental Group (N = 202) Mean

Comparison Group (N = 203)

SD

Mean

SD

Pre-test

5.946

1.531

5.934

1.537

Post-test

6.405

1.260

6.112

1.360

lower than that of its counterpart, suggesting that the intervention also facilitated a reduction in individual differences. Moreover, the independent-samples t-test for the post-test further confirmed that the difference between the two groups was significant, F = 4.306, t = 2.115, p = 0.035 < 0.05. The results not only suggested that the writing intervention played a positive role in improving learners’ writing proficiency but also answered the third and fourth research questions that the motivated Chinese college EFL learners would selfregulate their learning behaviour and engage in writing practice beyond the classroom willingly and effectively and that active engagement in writing practice led to better writing performance and achievement. Results of the questionnaires

Results of the pre- and the post-questionnaires regarding perceived satisfaction of psychological needs and motivation for out-of-class EFL writing are presented and compared in Tables 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. Preliminary analysis

Table 5.2 provides descriptive statistics of the questionnaires, showing the mean and standard deviation for both groups, which indicate changes in the students’ perceived need satisfaction and learning motivation before and after the implementation of the writing intervention. Prior to the autonomy-supportive writing intervention, the two groups were quite similar. Both reported medium levels of Table 5.2  Descriptive statistics of the questionnaires Mean & SD of experimental group Subscales

Pre-Q

SD

Post-Q

Mean & SD of comparison group SD

Pre-Q

SD

Post-Q

SD

Autonomy satisfaction

4.01

1.04

5.27

0.72

4.02

1.11

3.93

1.15

Competence satisfaction

3.82

1.272

4.85

1.120

3.90

1.258

4.06

1.390

Relatedness satisfaction

4.12

0.99

5.41

0.84

4.15

1.00

4.29

1.33

Autonomous motivation

3.89

1.36

4.93

1.10

3.92

1.33

4.11

1.40

Controlled motivation

4.61

1.19

3.55

1.15

4.59

1.28

4.61

1.35

Pre-Q: pre-questionnaire; Post-Q: post-questionnaire.

98  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

satisfaction of basic psychological needs and were moderately motivated in English writing across all the dimensions. However, quite a large gap between the means of the two groups was detected in the postquestionnaire. The experimental group scored higher on all the three subscales of need satisfaction as well as autonomous motivation, while its controlled motivation distinctively dropped after the intervention. Moreover, the SDs of the experimental group for the post-questionnaires decreased slightly more than those of its counterpart, signifying that the implementation of the autonomy-supportive writing intervention facilitated an overall improvement in learners’ perceived need satisfaction and self-determined motivation in the experimental group. The results answered the first two research questions and suggested that the learner-autonomy-supportive online EFL writing platform facilitated the satisfaction of Chinese college EFL learners’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, and that the EFL learners’ selfperceived need satisfaction stimulated their self-determined motivation. Data in Table 5.2 show detectable differences in mean and SD between pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire of the experimental group and those between the two groups concerning post-questionnaire. Further tests and analyses are needed to make it clear whether there are significant differences between the two groups in the participants’ perceived need satisfaction and learning motivation after the intervention. To analyse and probe the results fully, data collected from both the pre- and the post-questionnaires were submitted for independentsamples tests, between-subject effect tests, and one-way ANOVAs. Homogeneity tests

To confirm the homogeneity of the experimental group and the comparison group, independent-samples tests were conducted for dependent factors in pre-questionnaire, using an alpha level of 0.05 to evaluate homogeneity assumptions. The results of Levene’s test for all the variances were not significant (p > 0.05) (see Table 5.3), indicating that the experimental group and the comparison group Table 5.3  Results of independent-samples tests Levene’s test for equality of variances Dependent factors

t-test

F

Sig.

T

DF

Sig. (2-tailed)

Autonomy satisfaction

0.219

0.640

0.001

403

0.999

Competence satisfaction

0.153

0.696

–0.634

403

0.527

Relatedness satisfaction

0.234

0.629

–0.343

403

0.732

Autonomous motivation

0.001

0.997

–0.188

403

0.851

Controlled motivation

0.810

0.369

0.145

403

0.885

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   99

were homogeneous as regards perceived need satisfaction and learning motivation before the implementation of the writing intervention. Tests of between-subject effects

Given the homogeneity of the two groups, data collected from the post-questionnaire were submitted to two-way ANOVA analysis to examine further how effective the writing intervention was in promoting learners’ perceived need satisfaction and learning motivation, with group (experimental group, comparison group) and need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, relatedness), group (experimental group, comparison group) and learning motivation (controlled motivation, autonomous motivation), respectively, as fixed factors, and their scores as the dependent variable. In terms of basic psychological need satisfaction, results of betweensubject effect tests revealed that the main effect between the two groups was significant: MS = 356.24, F = 284.81, p = 0.000 < 0.05, indicating that the three basic psychological needs of the experimental group were significantly better satisfied than those of the comparison group after the intervention. Moreover, a significant effect of the interaction between the satisfaction of the three basic needs and the two groups was also detected, MS = 8.04, F = 6.43, p = 0.002 < 0.05, suggesting that the two groups’ perceived need fulfilment varied erratically from autonomy to competence or relatedness. To clarify this, contentment of the three basic needs should be further assessed separately. One-way ANOVAs were conducted for autonomy, competence and relatedness, respectively, to examine further the differences in the three subscales of psychological need satisfaction between the two groups. Significant differences were detected for all the variables (see Table 5.4). The results were consistent with the preliminary analysis, which answered the first research question that the autonomy-supportive online EFL writing intervention could facilitate the satisfaction of Chinese college EFL learners’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. As for learning motivation, a significant main effect between the two groups was obtained, MS = 228.33, F = 181.51, p = 0.000 < 0.05, indicating that after the intervention, the experimental group perceived Table 5.4  Comparison of the results of post-questionnaire Dependent factors Autonomy satisfaction

MS

F

Sig.

182.13

197.60

0.00

Competence satisfaction

62.00

38.89

0.00

Relatedness satisfaction

128.18

103.66

0.00

Autonomous motivation

67.64

42.90

0.00

112.99

71.58

0.00

Controlled motivation MS: mean square.

100  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

stronger self-determined motivation than the comparison group. A significant effect of the interaction between the two groups and two types of motivation was also detected, MS = 15.80, F = 12.563, p = 0.000 < 0.05, signifying the differences of autonomous motivation and controlled motivation between the two groups. Thus, it was considered necessary to further evaluate autonomous and controlled motivation separately. Considering the potential conflict and compensation between autonomous and controlled motivation, two additional one-way ANOVAs were conducted for autonomous and controlled motivation to display the difference between the two groups. As expected, significant differences between groups were detected for both variables (see Table 5.4), indicating that the EFL learners in the experimental group were more inclined to internalise extrinsic motivation, leading to more selfdetermined regulation and autonomous motivation for writing outside the classroom. These results, aligning with those of the descriptive statistics analysis, provide evidence to answer the second research question that the EFL learners’ perceived need satisfaction would produce self-determined motivation. Supporting evidence from interviews

To explore the causes of motivational engagement, 12 of the student participants from the experimental group were randomly selected to take part in subsequent semi-structured interviews. The evidence from the interviews in both the pre-survey and the post-survey is summarised in Table 5.5, including commonly (of the order of 10 out of 12) expressed perceptions of problems in writing and perceived autonomy support, perceived need satisfaction, writing motivation beyond the classroom, and learner autonomy. Evidence collected from the interviews (see Table 5.5) was closely aligned with the results of the questionnaires. More than 83% of the participants from the experimental group confirmed that they perceived autonomy support from the online writing platform and that their psychological needs were better satisfied with the implementation of the autonomy-supportive intervention, which motivated them to engage in their writing more actively. They emphasised that the generic structure provided supportive scaffolding, helping them to structure their essays logically and to write effectively and that the automatic assessment provided by the writing platform, and comments from the teacher, benefited them considerably. More than 83% of the participants expressed enjoyment in pair writing, which eased the pressure previously experienced when writing, and made potentially frustrating writing work more productive. On the other hand, the researchers’ observations, and the results of the pre- and post-questionnaires, revealed that the students in the comparison group continued to feel bored and depressed

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   101

Table 5.5  Evidence gathered from the interviews Category

Answers from the pre-interview

Answers from the post-interview

1. Problems in writing and perceived autonomy -support

– 11 out of the 12 interviewees complained that their English teachers always said practice makes writing perfect, but they felt helpless while writing outside the classroom. – The interviewees felt frustrated in what to write and how to structure their essays logically. – The interviewees admitted grammatical mistakes and incorrect wording in writing. – 10 out of the 12 interviewees hoped their teachers could help them to improve their English writing.

– 9 out of the 12 interviewees confessed that pair-work makes writing not as difficult as before but somewhat time-consuming. – 10 out of the 12 interviewees said that the generic structure attached to the writing task gave them confidence to face the challenge of writing and general ideas about how to structure their writing. – The interviewees spoke highly of the online writing system for instant feedback and mistake correction. – 11 out of the 12 interviewees appreciated encouraging comments and constructive advice for the improvement of their essay writing.

2. Perceived need satisfaction

– 11 out of the 12 interviewees were not sure whether self-decision on what to write would raise their interest in writing. – The interviewees said the generic structure might be helpful for them to construct an essay. – 10 out of the 12 interviewees felt incompetent and not confident enough to tackle difficult writing tasks. – 4 of the interviewees liked to write with a partner; 6 felt pair work is time-consuming. – They agreed that comments from the teacher were helpful for the avoidance of making mistakes and the improvement of their writing.

– 10 out of the 12 interviewees said the online writing platform allowed them to choose freely any topic they were interested in, which motivated them to write. – They all agreed that the generic structure helped them to scaffold their essays logically and effectively. – 10 out of the 12 interviewees preferred pair writing to individual work because more ideas came up in discussion, and they could face challenges together. – They all agreed that automatic assessment provided by the platform and comments from the teacher benefited them a lot, but that peers’ advice was not always constructive.

3. Writing motivation beyond the classroom

– The interviewees put it frankly that essay writing was a part of EFL exams, and they practised writing to pass the exam. – 9 out of the 12 interviewees confessed that they would not write if their EFL teacher did not assign writing homework.

– 10 out of the 12 interviewees realised that EFL writing was one of their academic needs, so they decided to improve it. – All interviewees felt it was not easy to write English essays well. They intended to practice writing online twice a month.

4. Learner autonomy

– 8 of the 12 interviewees would like the teacher to correct their essays face-to-face. – 10 of the 12 interviewees never made a plan for writing practice because writing was too difficult for them.

– All the interviewees preferred writing online, as the writing platform could correct grammatical and lexical mistakes in their essays promptly. – 8 out of the 12 interviewees had made a plan to improve writing.

Note: Views recorded in Table 5.5 were on average the comments made by 10 out of 12 of those interviewed from the experimental group.

when writing beyond the classroom. A point worth noting is that quite a few students from both groups admitted that EFL writing was both an academic need and somewhat a burden for them and that they did it as a means to an end.

102  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Evidence from observation logs

The three researchers’ observation logs recorded the participants’ writing performance on the online writing platform and the interaction climate in the WeChat group. The observation logs showed that, in the first few weeks, there was not much difference between the two groups. Gradually, however, the experimental group became more active and enthusiastic in pair writing, interacting with the teacher and peers, while the comparison group remained somewhat passive. These observations recorded by the researchers confirm the potential for positive reinforcement within peer collaboration previously noted among college students in China (see Ha, 2016; Lu, 2014). Some typical and common comments about the experimental group are quoted here. Week 2: Some students don’t know how to make use of the generic structure attached to the writing tasks effectively. During the online interaction, the teacher should show them how to scaffold their essays by following the generic structure. — Aileen. Week 4: It seems that the students are more proactive in choosing writing topics they like and doing pair writing efficiently by following the generic structures. Seemingly, their existing knowledge on genre is activated, and their potential is brought into full play. — Peggy. Week 7: It is amazing to observe the online interaction among the teacher and the students. They comment on the essays and discuss how to improve the writing. Most of them are fascinated and interact enthusiastically. Special and innovative ideas often arouse laughter. The climate is warm and encouraging. It seems that positive interaction motivates students to challenge writing tasks and do better jobs. — Jessy. Week 10: This week, the experimental group gave me a big surprise. Many students revised their writing several times according to the feedback from the online writing platform, teacher and peers. Their essays are well-structured and logical, and the number of lexical and grammatical mistakes decreased sharply. — Aileen

The evidence gathered from both the interviews and the observation logs helped answer the third and the fourth questions, indicating that after their self-determined motivation had been stimulated, and that the

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   103

learners engaged in their writing practice willingly and effectively, which led to better writing performance. Discussion

Both the quantitative and qualitative data collected from the action research support each other in accounting for the ascending process of motivating the EFL learners to write beyond class willingly and effectively in an autonomy-supportive environment (on an online autonomy-supportive writing platform). The results of between-subject effect tests concerning postquestionnaires revealed that the main effect between the two groups was significant (see Table 5.4), indicating that the autonomy-supportive intervention facilitated an overall growth in satisfaction of the experimental group members’ basic needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness and that the participants’ self-perceived need satisfaction accelerated the generation of their self-determined motivation. These results, aligning with those of the descriptive statistics analysis, showed that the stronger the self-determined motivation the participants gained, the better they were stimulated to self-regulate and engage actively in out-of-class EFL writing (see Table 5.5). Moreover, significant differences between the two groups were found by comparing the results of the writing tests (see Table 5.1), justifying that the degree of the EFL learners’ perceived need satisfaction and self-determination was positively correlated with the level of EFL writing proficiency. These findings provided answers to the four research questions. Autonomy support in the intervention provided environmental conditions to promote the satisfaction of the learners’ basic psychological needs. Ryan and Deci (2017) proposed that autonomy support involved provisions of choice and encouragement of selfregulation, affordances of structure and positive informational feedback, and the caring involvement of others. In this study, technology-enhanced autonomy support was provided through the online writing platform. The provision of abundant EFL writing tasks online made it possible for the learners to choose freely what they were interested in, while the generic structures inserted in the writing tasks on the platform provided scaffolding, which eased frustration and helped to make them feel competent while challenging themselves in the writing tasks. Pair writing, instant feedback from the platform (the online EFL writing system), constructive advice and positive comments from the instructors and support from peers, helped them to feel accepted and encouraged. The findings from the surveys (see Tables 5.2 and 5.4) confirmed that the application of the online writing platform beyond class facilitated the fulfilment of the participants’ basic psychological needs.

104  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Perceived need satisfaction in the autonomy-supportive environment predicts EFL learners’ motivation, engagement and performance (Oga-Baldwin et al., 2017; Reeve et al., 2020). Outcomes of the intervention revealed that the students in the experimental group were better motivated (see Tables 5.2, 5.4 and 5.5) and achieved better writing performance (see Table 5.1), which was consistent with the change in the students’ perceived need satisfaction. Following the transformation of controlled motivation into autonomous motivation, the students could vitalise their inner motivational resources to engage in writing practice actively, emotionally and cognitively, which, in turn, led to improved writing performance. Generally, the results of this study were compatible with the findings of other relevant research (Noels et al., 2016; Reeve, 2012), namely that the more autonomy support learners receive to meet their fundamental needs, the more actively they will engage in their learning activities, which allows them to learn more and to attain better academic achievement. The results of this study intersected with Hu and Zhang’s (2017) findings that the satisfaction of learners’ basic needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness facilitated movement along the ‘learner autonomy continuum’ from dependence to autonomy; and that the students’ English proficiency improved with the progress in learner autonomy. Mechanism of the Autonomy-Supportive Intervention

Both quantitative and qualitative data illustrated the dynamic mechanism of improving EFL writing performance beyond the classroom. The mechanism consists of five stages: autonomy support, need satisfaction, self-determined motivation, active engagement and improved writing (see Figure 5.1). Figure 5.1 represents the 5-step process of the autonomy-supportive intervention in this study, showing how need satisfaction facilitated by the autonomy-supportive online writing motivated students to self-regulate their writing behaviours outside the classroom and ultimately improved

Figure 5.1  The mechanism of improving EFL writing (adapted from Zheng et al., 2020)

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   105

writing performance. In summary, the online autonomy-supportive writing platform facilitates the fulfilment of the students’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness in EFL writing. When the EFL learners perceived that their needs were being satisfied, they were inclined to internalise extrinsic motivation and engage in autonomous writing practice beyond the classroom, which led to improved writing performance. The 5-stage mechanism of improving EFL writing corresponds closely to the self-system model of motivational development (SSMMD). The basic psychological needs are affected by the social context and, in turn, affect the learners’ engagement and the outcomes (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner et al., 2008). The mechanism is also consistent with the process described in the language learning motivational model of Dincer et al. (2019), which assesses engagement as a 4-dimensional construct (including behavioural, emotional, cognitive and agentic engagement), mediating autonomy support and relevant outcomes. In this study, the qualitative evidence accounted for the relationship between autonomy support and learning outcomes. The participants interviewed reported that the online autonomy-supportive writing context and outside-class pair writing helped to reduce their EFL writing anxiety, with encouraging comments from teachers and peers producing positive feelings. In addition, constructive advice stimulated them to actively engage in writing practice once a week to improve their essay writing. Conclusion and Implications

This chapter explores the potential effects of an online autonomysupportive writing intervention in motivating Chinese college students to improve EFL writing beyond the classroom by facilitating the fulfilment of their basic psychological needs. The results of the study corroborate that the intervention not only motivated students to engage in out-ofclass writing with increasing willingness and agency but also led to an improvement in their writing proficiency. The findings of the study not only validate the positive role of the intervention but also have several practical implications for EFL teachers. The findings offer insights for future studies in the field of language learning grounded in SDT as well. The findings presented highlight the impact of the autonomysupportive writing intervention on the psychological, cognitive and behavioural involvement of the participants in writing practice beyond the classroom and support the premise that when EFL learners receive out-of-class autonomy support or are denied this (as in the case of the control group), their learning motivation and behaviours change with the satisfaction or frustration of their psychological needs accordingly. Importantly, this autonomy support was shown to enhance the learners’ self-determined motivation, leading to active engagement beyond the classroom within the autonomy-supportive writing intervention and

106  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

ultimately to improvement in their EFL learning outcomes. What emerges clearly from the study is that the EFL learners’ basic need satisfaction arising from the autonomy-supportive learning environment beyond the classroom is a powerful force in fostering autonomous learning motivation. Obviously, there are some limitations to this study. First and foremost, a single semester intervention was too short to examine precisely the relationship between the affordances of an autonomysupportive environment and the satisfaction of the students’ basic psychological needs and the effect on their motivation. Given more time, the action research would be carried out a few more times to obtain further evidence. Secondly, the sample in this study was limited in range. Repetition of the research with other groups of language learners, such as more advanced levels of EFL, L1 and L2, is strongly recommended in order to increase the generalisability of the findings of this study and to promote the application of digital technology in language education. Lastly, data gathered from the interviews and the observation logs were somewhat subjective. If the students’ behaviours can be rated or scored, the findings of the research could be methodologically stronger and more convincing. This study does, however, provide several practical implications for college EFL education practitioners. Firstly, college EFL teachers should become fully aware of the importance of autonomy support. Secondly, and more importantly, college EFL teachers should try to create autonomy-supportive environments both inside and outside the classroom to motivate their students to be autonomous EFL learners and achieve optimal learning outcomes. Thirdly, EFL teachers should be competent in information technology and make full use of modern educational technology to achieve better teaching efficiency. Lastly, guidance in the use of meta-cognitive strategies and digital technology is suggested as being motivating and effective in fostering the development of EFL writing proficiency in an out-of-class learning environment. Acknowledgements

This study is supported by the Young Teachers’ Scientific Research Program funded by the Education Department of Fujian Province (Grant No. FZ190083) and the College EFL Education Reform Project funded by Fujian University of Technology (Grant No. SZJG-202005). References Benson, P. (2001) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman. Black, A.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000) The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education 84, 740–756.

Autonomy-Supportive Online EFL Writing: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective   107

Canals, L., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. and Malicka, A. (2020) Second language learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of delayed immediate corrective feedback in an asynchronous online setting: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal 37 (2), 181–209. Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E.L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R.M., Sheldon, K.M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S. and Verstuyf, J. (2015) Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion 39 (2), 216–236. Connell, J.P. and Wellborn, J.G. (1991) Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M.R. Gunnar and L.A. Sroufe (eds) Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. (Volume 23, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11 (4), 227–268. Dincer, A. (2020) Understanding the characteristics of English language learners’ outof-class language learning through digital practices. IAFOR Journal of Education: Technology in Education 8 (2), 47–65. Dincer, A. and Dariyemez, T. (2020) Proficient speakers of English as a foreign language: A focus-group study. IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education 8 (1), 83–99. Dincer, A., Yesilyurt, S., Noels, K.A. and Vargas-Lascano, D.I. (2019) Self-determination and classroom engagement of EFL learners: A mixed-methods study of the self-system model of motivational development. Sage Open 9 (2), 1–15. Ha, W. (2016) Quasi-experimental evidence of academic peer effects at an Elite University in People’s Republic of China. Asia Pacific Education Review 17 (4), 703–718. Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd edn). London: Pearson Education. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Hu, P. and Zhang, J. (2017) A pathway to learner autonomy: A self-determination theory perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review 18 (1), 147–157. Lai, C. (2017) Autonomous Language Learning with Technology: Beyond the Classroom. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Lu, F. (2014) Testing peer effects among college students: Evidence from an unusual admission policy change in China. Asia Pacific Education Review 15 (2), 257–270. Mahdi, H.S. and El-Naim, M. (2012) The effects of informal use of computer-mediated communication on EFL learner interaction. Studies in Literature and Language 5 (3), 75–81. Noels, K.A., Chaffee, K.E., Lou, N.M. and Dincer, A. (2016) Self-determination, engagement, and identity in learning German: Some directions in the psychology of language learning motivation. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 45 (2), 12–29. Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Vargas Lascano, D.I., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2019) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). Cham: Springer. Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., Nakata, Y., Parker, P.D. and Ryan, R.M. (2017) Motivating young language learners: A longitudinal model of self-determined motivation in elementary school foreign language classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology 49, 140–150. Reeve, J. (2009) Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist 44 (3), 159–175. Reeve, J. (2012) A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly and C. Wylie (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 149–170). New York, NY: Springer.

108  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Reeve, J. and Jang, H. (2006) What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (1), 209–218. Reeve. J., Cheon, S.H. and Yu, T.H. (2020) An autonomy-supportive intervention to develop students’ resilience by boosting agentic engagement. International Journal of Behavioral Development 95 (1), 148–162. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Skinner, E.A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G. and Kindermann, T. (2008) Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology 100 (4), 765–781. Smith, K. and Craig, H. (2013) Enhancing the autonomous use of CALL: A new curriculum model in EFL. CALICO Journal 30 (2), 252–278. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M. and Deci, E.L. (2004) Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (2), 246–260. Williams, G.C. and Deci, E.L. (1996) Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (4), 767–779. Yanguas, Í. (2010) Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: It’s about time! Language, Learning and Technology 14 (3), 72–93. Retrieved from llt.msu.edu/ issues/october2010/yanguas.pdf. Zheng, F., Hu, P., Lian, Z., Wang, Y-L., Wu, S. and Li, H. (2020) Contributing factors to the improvement of international students’ health literacy in China: A self-determination theory perspective. Frontiers in Public Health 8, Article 390.

6 Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom: How Interest-based Learning Communities Support Learners’ Basic Psychological Needs Satoko Watkins

Introduction

As a learning advisor working in a self-access learning centre (SALC) at a Japanese university, my main roles are to help learners maximise their opportunities for self-access language learning (SALL) and to promote learner autonomy. In SALL, learners identify and pursue their individual language learning goals (Gardner & Miller, 1999) while developing an understanding of themselves as learners through reflecting on their learning process (see Mynard, Chapter 12 in this volume, for more details about SALL). Learner reflection can be deepened by working with learning advisors and engaging in purposeful dialogue. Several studies at our institution have indicated that our learners developed the essential skills needed to take responsibility for their own learning through SALL practice (e.g. Curry et al., 2017; Watkins, 2019), but many learners have difficulty maintaining their motivation for language learning. One of the reasons for the difficulty in sustaining motivation is that they tend to ‘study’ English individually and do not use English to connect with others in a real-life environment. However, placing emphasis on social interaction and using the target language may act as a catalyst for motivation in SALL in ways that prioritising ‘study’ does not 109

110  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

(Gillies, 2010; Hughes et al., 2012; Watkins, 2015). This phenomenon may be best understood by exploring theories of motivation, namely self-determination theory (SDT) and its associated theory of basic psychological needs. Ryan and Deci (2017) postulate in SDT that there are universal psychological needs that must be supported for people to experience effective functioning and well-being, and that satisfaction of the three identified needs (relatedness, autonomy and competence) enhances volitional and high-quality motivation. The theory is widely used in the field of education as educators are able to predict the positive effects on learners’ motivation, behaviours and well-being from providing need support (e.g. Cheon et al., 2020; Davis, 2018; Deci & Ryan, 2000). As previously mentioned, some of our self-access learners tend to work alone, and their relatedness needs are possibly unsupported. Moreover, it seemed these learners lack the opportunities to feel a sense of competence from using what they studied through meaningful communication. Bearing this in mind, I set out to create a support system for learners (including faculty members) to build and organise their own interest-based learning communities (LCs) in the SALC to facilitate opportunities for greater social interaction in the target language. In an interest-based LC, learners share an interest or a goal (e.g. pop culture, social issues, improving English conversation skills) and meet regularly to learn collaboratively as a community while using English as a communication/learning tool. After two years of implementation, nine LC leaders now voluntarily organise and hold meetings each week. The idea of the LC seemed a unique integration of self-access, student leadership, personal interest and goals, and social language learning, which should promote the learners’ need satisfaction. After observing the participants’ volitional learning and enthusiasm towards learning in the LCs, I decided to investigate systematically the extent to which participation in such LCs fulfils learners’ psychological needs and how (if at all) the leaders enhanced that fulfilment. Narrative analysis was chosen for this study in order to uncover the participants’ emotions and experiences. Literature Review Social-oriented perspectives in SLA, learner autonomy and SALL

Over the last few decades, researchers in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) have improved our understanding of the ways that cognition and social processes are interrelated. While, prior to this, many studies had been primarily centred on the cognitive factors associated with language acquisition, Firth and Wagner (2007) first argued that social orientation to the language and studies of effective

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  111

communication between learners in real-life settings deserved more attention. The idea was further conceptualised by Block (2003) as the Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition, in which he raised the importance of a ‘broader, socially informed and more sociolinguistically oriented SLA’ without dismissing cognitive understanding and methods (Block, 2003: 4). He explained that if the term language included communicative competence, then language use should be incorporated in the study of second language acquisition. The social perspective was also initially ignored in studies of learner autonomy and SALL. Reflecting on the development of the field of learner autonomy, Little (2007: 14) explained that the concept ‘seemed to be a matter of learners doing things on their own’ in the early 1980s; however, the learner-centred approach brought an essential shift of ideas so that now learner autonomy ‘[seems] to be a matter of learners doing things not necessary on their own but for themselves’ (2007: 14). Hadwin et al. (2017: 1) suggested that models of self-regulation had developed over time and now support a ‘highly interactive and dynamic learning situation where shared knowledge construction and collaboration emerge’. Another perspective that has become increasingly incorporated into the field of SLA and SALL is the role that psychological need satisfaction can play in successful and meaningful language learning (Mynard, Chapter 12 of this volume; Noels et al., 2019). In SDT, Deci and Ryan (2000) define relatedness as the need to feel warm relationships and acceptance and explained the importance of supporting it along with the other two psychological needs of autonomy and competence. As the editors explain in the introduction to this book, autonomy in SDT and learner autonomy in language education have different backgrounds and focuses: the former is closely intertwined with motivation and is a psychological need (Ryan & Deci, 2017), while the latter is often conceptualised as a capacity, enabled by a readiness and a willingness to take action and decisions related to learning (Dam et al., 1990). Language learner autonomy is thought to be fostered, in part, through intrinsic motivation (Sinclair, 2008) and reflection (Cotterall, 2017; Everhard, 2015), leading learners to take action related to achieving a sense of competence in language learning. In this way, elements of these two concepts of autonomy coincide when we understand that language learners may indeed require inner endorsement (autonomy) to take charge of their own learning (language learner autonomy) (see Reeve, Chapter 2 in this volume, for an in-depth discussion). Given the closely intertwined nature of these two concepts of autonomy, Mynard (2019, and Chapter 12 in this volume) suggests, when looking at the evolution of self-access centres, that the current phase incorporates the understanding of psychological needs and conditions that help learners to thrive.

112  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Interest

Motivation studies commonly view interest as emotional engagement, which brings many advantages when it is incorporated into learning (Krapp, 2002; Renninger & Hidi, 2016). Hidi et al. (2004) suggest that interest-based motivation, which is generated by a situational interest or individual interest, positively influences learners’ strategy use and quantity and quality of learning. They define situational interest as a state of emotional engagement and an affective reaction triggered by environmental stimuli, which is considered to have short-term value. On the other hand, individual interest is ‘a relatively enduring predisposition to attend to objects and events and to reengage in certain activities over time’ (Hidi et al., 2004: 94). Wlodkowski (2008) suggests that by stimulating the learners’ situational interest, educators can encourage individual interest; therefore, there is a strong case for supporting both situational and individual interest in education. Researchers have found that interest does not only generate motivation: it also enables learners to maintain it, which makes it particularly relevant to self-directed learners who need to control their motivation outside the classroom, often by themselves (McLoughlin, 2020). McLoughlin suggests that language learners should be encouraged to develop and follow their interests and engage with the content through the target language, which adds more value to their language learning. Additionally, Thoman et al. (2011: 592) describe interest as ‘central to self-regulation and sustained motivation’, especially when learning becomes challenging. In their study, Thoman et al. found that research participants who were given interest-associated tasks were more persistent and more able to continue the tasks than learners whose tasks were perceived to be neutral, even though the interest-associated tasks required more effort. Moreover, among participants who felt depleted after the tasks, those who experienced interest-associated tasks demonstrated greater persistence in the subsequent tasks than those who had neutral tasks – which Thoman et al. called the replenishment function of interest. Reeve et al. (2015) asserted that inducing interest and meeting learners’ psychological needs are the only two types of motivation support that have this replenishment function. Hence, by providing opportunities for interest development, learners can remain motivated and persist in learning, and such high-quality engagement predicts positive outcomes for learning. Interest and social learning

Relatedness is not only a psychological need: studies also suggest that it is a factor that increases interest in learning. Isaac et al. (1999) reported that some individuals’ situational interest increased when they were working with others. Additionally, in a study by Sansone

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  113

and Thoman (2005), most of the research participants indicated that working with others made activities more interesting than working alone. Benefits of interest and motivation through social learning have also been reported in studies of tandem learning, where learners develop mutually supportive relationships with partners who are fluent in their target languages. For example, in a study by Watkins (2019), Japanese self-access learners who practised language and cultural exchange with partners in the USA often became more interested in learning about their partners, their lives and cultural differences even more than in improving English itself, which positively influenced their amount of English use and motivation for learning. The influence on learners’ mindsets through social learning experiences with peers was also explained using the idea of the near-peer role model (Murphey, 1998). Murphey suggests that peers who are close in a social or professional capacity, and/or age range, and use English successfully, can ‘change students’ beliefs about risk-taking, making mistakes, and the importance of enjoying what they are studying’ (Murphey, 1998: 201). Additionally, McLoughlin (2020) acknowledges the significance of student-run communities and activities, which encourage learner interest and enhance learning through working with others. Community-based learning Student learning communities

Student learning communities (SLCs) in higher education were originally formed to promote student-centred learning, bring coherence to the curriculum and connect disciplines (Cox & Richlin, 2004). Lenning et al. (2013) identified four types of SLCs, as follows: (1) curricular groups (e.g. linked to courses): (2) student type SLCs (e.g. linked by a common interest); (3) external SLCs (e.g. internship groups); and (4) course as SLCs (e.g. small groups of students within a class). These SLCs are ‘intentionally organized for student-student, student-faculty and student-curriculum interactions that will enhance student learning’ (Lenning et al., 2013: 7). Cox and Richlin (2004) suggest that SLCs have resulted in student retention, deeper learning, respect for different ideas and cultures and greater civic contribution. Therefore, SLCs are considered an approach in education and often more institutionalised than other community-based learning practices. Communities of practice

When community members share a common purpose, passions about a topic, and/or concerns, and work together to deepen knowledge and solve problems, these communities can be called communities of practice (CoP). The concept has been widely utilised in education, organisations

114  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

and business as an effective knowledge management system. It values individual workers/learners and their knowledge and discovery, and it promotes their participation and contribution (Wenger et al., 2002). Wenger (1998) suggests that active participation in CoP allows people to construct their identities in relation to the communities and to develop a sense of belonging in the organisation. In addition, Roth and Lee (2006) explain the difference between communities and CoP, communities being ‘characterized by specific motives’ while CoPs are ‘characterized by common ways of doing things’ (Roth & Lee, 2006: 7). For example, learners in SLCs learn the same subject but they may not be considered a CoP ‘unless the students realize the collectively defined motive and have some control in the matters’ (Roth & Lee, 2006: 11). In another example, Murphy (2014: 123) explained: ‘class members need to exercise autonomy and collaborative control before they can be described as a community of practice’. Language learning communities

In EFL settings where there are limited opportunities to use English in a social environment, the idea of community-based learning has been utilised by learners themselves or by teachers inside or outside classrooms as an effort to overcome contextual constraints. For instance, Gao (2007) studied learners’ experiences in an exceptionally popular English learners’ online community, which was based in a virtual cafe in mainland China. Through the participants’ narratives, Gao illustrated that learners in this community established profound social relationships with each other in the medium of English without the boundaries of English proficiency levels, age and gender. Moreover, some learners recognised the true value and pleasure of learning languages by learning with and from other people. They contrasted this social learning experience to their past language learning experiences where there were constant external pressures for studying, such as exams. Similar results were found with learners who regularly participated in interestbased activities/communities at a self-access centre in Brazil. Magno e Silva (2019) explained that members of these communities gained new beliefs about learning, specifically that learning could take place outside the classroom and even without conscious effort (e.g. while enjoying participating in a choir community). Furthermore, learners in the communities helped each other to learn without judgement. In addition, the members developed a greater awareness of their purpose for learning English – which was to communicate with people from other countries. As these examples indicate, the benefits of community-based learning often surpass those related to a singular focus on the mastery of the language. By way of illustration, in many cases the experience improves the learners’ need satisfaction and their quality of learning and beliefs, which go beyond their school life.

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  115

The role of leaders in learning communities

Language learners’ ability to organise their own LCs and enhance their learning was revealed in studies by Gao (2007) and Magno e Silva (2019). Gao suggested that in LCs, which are based on extremely fluid membership, central figures in the communities (regardless of whether they emerged naturally or were appointed by others) play a critical role. Successful LC leaders reduce barriers to social relationships among learners and maintain the momentum needed to enhance learning experiences. The nature of fluid membership was also mentioned by Wenger et al. (2002) in their description of CoP. They illustrated the degree of community participation within four groups: core, active, peripheral and outsider. They suggested that, unlike a traditional team or class, where half-hearted involvement was discouraged, the leaders need to design communities that allow for movement between core and outsider groups at different stages. For example, this movement can be facilitated by invitations to community events, having one-on-one conversations and offering shared leadership. These leadership roles appear to actively support an individual’s need for relatedness (e.g. reducing barriers to social relationships), autonomy (offering leadership opportunities) and competence (enhancing learning). Thus, LC leaders taking need-supportive roles indicates a positive impact on members’ learning and community growth. The Study Purpose of the study

This study explored learners’ experiences in interest-based LCs, using the established framework of basic psychological needs theory. The theory was utilised in this study because the goals of the interestbased LCs (i.e. increasing opportunities for social interactions in the target language; incorporating personal interests and goals in learning) suit the need-supportive environment described in the theory. Therefore, I investigate the following two questions in this study: (1) To what extent does participation in the LCs provide learners with fulfilment of the basic psychological needs of relatedness, autonomy and competence? (2) How (if at all) did the LC leaders facilitate need satisfaction? By answering these questions, I hope to show that an interest-based LC is one possible approach to language education which considers the psychological needs of learners. Moreover, this study should fill some gaps in our knowledge of autonomy-supportive environments, which is largely lacking from the literature on outside-classroom contexts.

116  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Context

This study was conducted at the SALC of a Japanese university specialising in foreign languages and cultures. The facility includes various types of English learning materials and purposeful learning spaces, as well as various language learning support services. The SALC’s focus has shifted more towards creating a social learning environment rather than simply providing learning materials, as internet/ mobile technology now allows easy access to ample learning resources online. Thus, connecting learners who have similar interests and goals and helping them organise LCs has become one of my key tasks. In my role as an advisor, I assist this process in an autonomy-supportive way. Through dialogue, I show the learners possibilities and I expand their vision while fostering ownership of their community by encouraging them to take responsibility for the development of all aspects of the LC. To clarify what I refer to as an autonomy-supportive approach, Cheon et al. (2020: 1–2) detail acts of autonomy-supportive teaching, which I summarise as follows: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

take the students’ perspectives and provide choices, support students’ interests, allow students to work in their own way and at their own pace, communicate a tone of understanding, provide explanatory rationales, and acknowledge negative feelings and use invitational language.

(See also Mynard, Chapter 12 in this volume, for a description of autonomy-supportive SALCs, as well as Shelton-Strong & Tassinari, Chapter 10 in this volume, for a description of autonomy-supportive advising environments and dialogue.) Methodology Participants

There were two types of participants in this study. The first type comprised the 31 learners who answered the questionnaire having attended LCs. There were nine LC leaders in all, and they contacted their members and asked them to participate in the questionnaire. Due to the fluid nature of community membership, it is not certain how many were contacted initially, and responding to the questionnaire was a voluntary choice. The second type of participant comprised the four leaders and two LC members who indicated their willingness to participate in an interview in the questionnaire (see Table 6.1 for more interviewee and their community information). Before the interview, the four leaders and

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  117

Table 6.1  Interviewee and community information Pseudonyms

Interviewee

Community(ies)

Haru

4th-year student, the leader

Casual English conversation LC. About 10 core members + 30 active and peripheral members.

Tei

4th-year student, the leader

French conversation LC. About 4 core members + 4 active and peripheral members.

Charlie

English teacher, the leader

Social movement LC. About 8 core members + 10 active and peripheral members.

Natsu

3rd-year student, the leader

Event planning LC. About 2 core members + 3 peripheral members.

Miyu

1st-year student, a member

Belongs to Haru’s and Tei’s LC as well as another LC that focused on exam study.

Yuki

1st-year student, a member

Pop-culture LC. About 5 core members.

I had an established relationship, as I am the LC coordinator, but it was the first time I talked one-on-one with the two members. Data collection

I collected data using a questionnaire and interviews. The questionnaire allowed me to see the bigger picture of the shared experiences in LCs; in addition, I was able to deepen my understanding of learners’ experiences that emerged from the questionnaire from the interviews. The questionnaire consisted of one multiple-choice item and five open-ended questions to explore the purpose, difficulties and need satisfaction experienced by the LC members’ while participating in an LC (see Appendix 6.1 at the end of this chapter for the questions). Prior to the data collection, I obtained ethics approval from the university, and the questionnaire was piloted with an LC member. As mentioned previously, I requested that LC leaders complete the questionnaire and distribute it to their members. Since the purpose of the questionnaire was to see the big picture, my aim was to receive as many responses as possible without sampling for specific cases. However, I only collected the data from those who participated in an LC more than twice, as a one-off experience would not be reliable. All participants responded to the questionnaire anonymously online, and they could respond either in Japanese or English. At the end of the questionnaire, I gave participants the option to consent to participate in a follow-up interview. From those who agreed, I chose four leaders and two members in order to hear the stories from both sides. I interviewed more leaders so that I could at least hear stories from four different LCs. I intentionally requested an interview with Haru as he organised a popular community, and with Natsu, as she appeared to be having a difficult time with her community. Moreover,

118  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

from the respondents to the questionnaire, I intentionally chose Miyu as she indicated that she was a member of three LCs. Other interviewees were randomly chosen. All participants were given a description of the research and signed a research consent form before the interviews. The individual interviews were open-ended and semi-structured and lasted about 30 minutes. The key concepts addressed in the interviews were the same as the questionnaire, but I explored the participants’ stories to understand the themes that emerged from the questionnaire as well as to enable interviewees to develop their ideas and express themselves naturally during the interview. Data analysis

In order to analyse the questionnaire data, I re-read all the openended answers multiple times, then summarised and categorised the ideas into emergent themes. Also, in the case of question 2, I sorted the summarised answers into categories of relatedness, autonomy and competence. A single response to open-ended questions sometimes contained more than one idea; therefore, the total number of responses was greater than the number of participants. As mentioned previously, the questionnaire was utilised not for the purpose of collecting quantitative data but rather for illustrating the characteristics of the group, mainly from the learner narratives shared in the open-ended responses (see Appendix 6.1 for a summary of the questionnaire results). For the interview analysis, I first transcribed all of the recordings and sorted the data into the categories of relatedness, autonomy and competence. I then wrote summaries to share with each interviewee to confirm that my translations and interpretations were correct. At the second level of analysis, I compared different interview data in the same category to identify the interrelationships and further emergent themes. Lastly, I summarised the ideas to answer the research questions while simultaneously consulting the literature in order to remain sensitive to the participants’ stories and deepen my understanding of their experiences. Interview excerpts that appear in this study have been edited to meet the length requirements for a book chapter (false starts and repetitions have been deleted, for example). I chose a narrative analysis for this study because narratives provide rare insights into participants’ experiences and emotions (Pavlenko, 2002), and such authentic data are difficult to collect through other means (Ma & Oxford, 2014). Since narrative studies are ‘products of unique interpretation of unique sets of data’ (Barkhuizen et al., 2014: 88), the intention of this study is not to look for generalisable findings but, rather, to illustrate the learners’ experiences in this specific context.

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  119

Findings and Discussion

In the following section, I first illustrate the learners’ experiences of participating in LCs and their need fulfilment for relatedness, autonomy and competence. Next, I highlight the interconnections of the psychological needs that I identified through the learner narratives. Lastly, I describe how the LC leaders facilitated the need satisfaction of their members. Relatedness: Sense of community built upon shared interest and goals

Data from both the questionnaire and the interviews revealed that relatedness satisfaction was a highly valued reason for learners to participate in an LC. Moreover, in the questionnaire, more than half the answers for ‘What makes the LC unique or innovative?’ were connected to relatedness (see Appendix 6.1). The responses suggested that the participants were able to make friends of various ages, majors and English levels with whom they would not be connected otherwise. Natsu, Miyu and Yuki compared their relationships in their LCs to other social learning situations. Natsu explained how a senpai-kohai (grade seniority) relationship was common in Japanese schools and described her previous club experiences thus: ‘senpai (elder students) had their own groups [...] there was a wall between us’. Additionally, there seemed to be fewer competitive or judgmental attitudes in the LCs than in other social learning situations. As an example, Miyu gave a comparison to the English Lounge (free conversation area) in the SALC: Some students, including me, are scared of going to the English Lounge because I heard that some proficient speakers look irritated when a lower-level English speaker talks […] but senpai in my community say ‘Don’t worry’ and help me articulate what I want to say. Everybody is kind to others. That’s why I want to go there every week.

Moreover, Yuki said: ‘classmates recognise each other as rivals’, and she sometimes felt ‘inadequate’ in class. However, she did not have to compare herself with anyone in her LC because ‘they were different – different ages, majors and English proficiency’. She admitted that this was partly because there was no assessment in the LC, often putting learners in a situation where they compare themselves with others. Another reason for Yuki to feel less competitive was shared interests and/or goals. Because of the shared interest in an aspect of pop culture, Yuki could talk to her community colleagues easily even though she was shy and usually has a difficult time making friends in her classes. Tei also said that her members became friends ‘because we all love French and we want to speak French’. Shared interest was especially important to Charlie’s community, where the members learn about a specific social

120  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

movement.1 The community provided a safe space to talk about this topic and to learn from each other regardless of prior knowledge or experience. It appears that the shared interest and goals influenced the learners to feel a sense of community and feel responsible for others’ learning. All interviewees besides Natsu explained that they were both learners and teachers in their communities. For example, Miyu explained: In my community, I don’t only look up things that I cannot say but also things that others can’t say. We solve problems together as a group. I don’t feel that I ‘have to’ speak in English. I want to speak English because everybody in the community is doing their best.

This sense of learner reciprocity was probably the reason for older students being patient with Miyu’s limited English-speaking ability, as she mentioned earlier. Learners were not just coming to the community for themselves, to improve their English, but also for others. Similarly, Yuki said: ‘by teaching each other, we inspire each other. I need to work harder for others [...] I feel sorry for others if I don’t attend because we are learning together.’ In another example, I identified that sharing of interests and goals did not automatically develop a sense of community among a group. Natsu had difficulties with members’ engagement in her event planning LC. This difficulty was possibly due to the fact that Natsu’s community used to be a club and had an age seniority relationship. Natsu reflected on her first-year experience saying: ‘I was worried whether I could be useful and was nervous about what senpai would think about my ideas’, which revealed a lack of not only relatedness but also autonomy and competence. She said that she joined the club because she was interested in the activity (event planning) and not because of attachment to people, and she assumed others might have felt the same based on their previous conversations. Although Natsu tried to create a friendly atmosphere as a new leader, she was indeed trained by a rather top-down approach by her senpai; also, the change of group dynamics may have taken some time. While Natsu’s interview illustrated that low satisfaction for relatedness possibly caused members’ limited engagement in the LC, it is important to clarify that psychological needs are interrelated and do not exist in isolation. As Natsu’s quote suggests, her issue was not solely based on a lack of relatedness but also likely influenced by (and had an influential role in) the other two needs. This interrelation of psychological needs is described further in later sections of this chapter. Autonomy: Exercising agency and self-initiated control over their learning

More than half the responses to the question ‘What makes the LC unique or innovative?’ in the questionnaire were related to autonomy. The primary reason for the feeling of autonomy was because participants were

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  121

able to learn what they were interested in. Yuki described her experience as ‘learning English with topics of my interest increased my motivation and improved my skills effectively [...] it’s a new way and fun’. Magno e Silva (2019) explained that learners become more autonomous through experiencing a variety of learning activities that reflect their choices and interests. Also, from an SDT perspective, ‘autonomy concerns acting from interest and integrated values’ (Deci & Ryan, 2002: 8). The responses affirmed that the LCs offered such opportunities to exercise agency. Besides choosing the learning content, some learners felt a sense of autonomy through having the freedom to decide when to attend the meetings. Possibly because of this autonomous participation, only a few learners described finding time for participating in their LCs as a challenge. Miyu specifically mentioned that she was surprised to find how welcoming people were when she went back to her LC after not attending for a month and a half. This confirms that Miyu’s community welcomed the different levels of participation and allowed for movement between the levels described by Wenger et al. (2002). This voluntary participation allowed the learners to be intrinsically motivated and engage in their communities. Thus, in the questionnaire one-third of the learners responded that they participate in an LC to maintain their motivation for learning. Some interviewees also explained that they are becoming more autonomous through participating in LCs. For example, Tei suggested that she experienced a sense of autonomy by proactively inviting new members so that she could increase her language use. Moreover, Miyu began going to the English Lounge in the SALC to use English words and phrases she had learned in her LC. She said: ‘I am not smart, I don’t speak English well, I don’t have a good score on TOEFL, but I want to say to new first-year students that even I can utilise the SALC and participate in the LCs.’ It appeared that learners were gaining confidence and feeling a sense of competence by exercising autonomy and self-initiated control over their learning. Competence: Gaining skills and knowledge and making contributions to the community

The majority of LC participants indicated in the questionnaire that improving English skills was an important reason for participating in an LC (question 1), and around one-third felt a sense of competence by using English (question 6). Another main reason for the feeling of competence was due to taking an active role in the LC. As described in the relatedness section, learners were also teachers in the communities. They felt they were contributing to others’ learning and to the community’s growth by sharing their ideas and skills. This feeling of making a contribution to their LC was enhanced through the community’s projects. For example, Charlie’s community

122  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

collaboratively made an information leaflet about the social movement. She explained: ‘There was a lot more at stake than a classroom where only the teacher and classmates would see their work [...] they felt strongly about it knowing that it was information that people don’t have access to and they are contributing to it.’ Other communities planned some events and workshops in the SALC, and they also found these opportunities empowering, which resulted in a feeling of competence. The fulfilment of competence, however, was noticeably lower than the other two needs, and about one-fifth said that they did not feel competent from participating in their community. I explored the reasons for this during the interviews. First, competence seemed a difficult concept for the learners to grasp. They also often described the idea without recognising that it was a sense of competence. Second, it seemed that they felt arrogant talking about their accomplishments and competency, and they were hesitant to appear such. This may be due to Japanese cultural values, which were described as self-discipline by Heine et al. (1999). They explained that the Japanese practise these cultural concepts from a young age, and society often requires modest presentation of self. Thus, Heine et al. suggested caution when interpreting such self-report measures in studies. Additionally, a feeling of competence seemed the most difficult for learners to achieve because it was often a consequence of satisfaction of the other two needs. Interconnections between relatedness, autonomy and competence

As previously mentioned, learners’ need fulfilments with regard to relatedness, autonomy and competence were interrelated in this study. A feeling of relatedness and autonomy in LCs created a low-anxiety learning environment and promoted enjoyment in learning, which increased learners’ intrinsic motivation. Due to this optimal condition, learners tended to continue trying, took risks in learning and contributed to the community. Hence, after some time, they realised they had improved their language skills and knowledge, felt more confident and competent, and became even more motivated and autonomous. This result can be aligned with the replenishment function of motivation due to need satisfaction posited by Reeve et al. (2015). Moreover, interest – another source of motivation that has a replenishment function – had an important role in the LC motivation as it was a power source for relatedness and autonomy. On the other hand, a top–down approach that initially appeared in Natsu’s community seemed to interfere not only with relatedness but with autonomy and competence as well. The positive interrelationship of learners’ need satisfaction in LCs and its influence on intrinsic motivation is illustrated in Figure 6.1.

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  123

Figure 6.1  Interest-based learning community’s need satisfaction and motivation system

Leaders’ enhancement of relatedness, autonomy and competence in LCs

In the previous sections, I suggested that community members’ need satisfaction did not occur automatically. How, then, did the leaders of these groups play a role in promoting need satisfaction? Haru organised the largest LC in the SALC, which regularly had between 10 and 30 members who practised English in casual conversation. The reason for its popularity appeared to be the relatedness factor, which Haru placed his priority on. For example, he made sure that new members felt comfortable by responding to their questions or worries and helping them build relationships with others. He also encouraged experienced members to help new members in order to create a welcoming atmosphere in the community as a whole. Moreover, he provided members with opportunities to share their personal stories to get to know each other during and after the meetings. This idea of providing some open time and space for learners to mingle is aligned with the CoP design, which invites interaction and builds relationships (Wenger et al., 2002). Haru’s efforts in community building and facilitating the needs of members were recognised by Miyu, who was a member of the

124  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

community. She said: ‘the community exists because of Haru [...] he doesn’t show that he is older and I can talk to him easily. He always pays attention to each member [...] he makes sure that everybody enjoys the conversation.’ It appeared that not only Haru’s leadership skills and approaches to community building corresponded with the role of community leaders described in the literature (e.g. Gao, 2007; Wenger et al., 2002) but also that Miyu’s description of him matched the illustration of the near-peer role model (Murphey, 1998). In addition to enhancing relatedness in the LC, the leaders created an autonomy-supportive atmosphere, which contrasts with the more common, controlling learning environment in Japan. All leaders I interviewed believed that it was important to involve all members in the decision-making process as much as possible. For example, Charlie’s community voted for which movies to watch and which topics to discuss. Tei said that she had no agenda for the community: members bring what they want to learn and/or share. Haru’s community had a similar freeconversation style in the beginning; however, as the number of members grew, he needed to make it more structured to enable everybody to speak. Still, he always took an autonomy-supportive approach to organising the community, such as finding out the members’ needs and gaining their perspectives by observing them and asking for feedback after every meeting. Finding a good balance between autonomy and structure was a challenge described by Charlie and Natsu as leaders. Charlie was concerned that without any structure, ‘members may feel too casual or might not feel listened to when they had something important to say’. Natsu wanted to push members to come to the meetings. However, when I asked her some questions to help her critically analyse the situation, she started to think about an alternative approach rather than putting pressure on members. As Natsu’s case shows, I regularly had advisory sessions with the leaders to promote their deeper reflections. These sessions appeared to guide the leaders to take more autonomysupportive approaches rather than a controlling leadership style. Additionally, Haru, who revealed autonomy-supportive leadership skills, was also a peer advisor (PA), who was trained in advising skills in order to support other students’ learning. He mentioned in the interview that the training influenced him significantly (see Curry & Watkins, 2016 for the details of PA training). He suggested that ‘after becoming a PA, I began to make a constant effort not to say my opinion [...] I listen and accept what others need to say first – it makes a huge difference.’ Knight and Mynard (2018) conducted a study on PA conceptions of leadership at my institution. The four PAs who participated in the study indicated being supportive, passionate and accepting as important qualities for a student leader. These qualities also appeared important for LC leaders to create need-supportive environments.

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  125

In comparison with the other two psychological needs, leaders were less aware of the members’ need for competence. However, the questionnaire revealed that the leaders often gave positive feedback to the members, which increased the members’ feeling of competence. In addition, such examples as Haru asking experienced members to support new members and Charlie’s encouragement to create a community’s leaflet appeared effective ways to help the members to contribute to the community and feel a sense of competence. Conclusion

This study offers a number of insights for language educators seeking to promote autonomous and social learning opportunities beyond the classroom. It has revealed that interest-based LCs allow learners to feel relatedness with other learners due to their shared interests and goals and to develop learner reciprocity. Moreover, learners experienced a sense of autonomy through having self-initiated control over their learning. In such a low-stress and enjoyable learning environment, the learners continued making efforts in their learning and felt competence through making improvements and contributions to the community. As a result of need satisfaction and incorporation of interest, the members’ intrinsic motivation was replenished, and they continued on their learning journey. The leaders played an important role in need satisfaction. Specifically, removing boundaries between members was essential for improving relatedness, involving learners in the decision-making process and offering choices were crucial for experiencing autonomy, and giving positive feedback and allowing others to contribute to the community enhanced the sense of competence of the community members. Moreover, leaders’ roles described in community studies (e.g. welcoming the different levels of participation) were found in the actions of Haru, a leader of a popular community, who appeared to be a near-peer role model (Murphey, 1998) for others. He also reported the positive impact of advisor training on his autonomy-supportive leadership skills. This study thus highlights several implications for practice for those educators aiming to create student-led social learning opportunities. Specifically, the findings appear to be valuable for (1) creating a space where learners can use the target language with other learners without feeling anxious; (2) increasing learners’ intrinsic and more sustainable motivation through incorporating personal interest and considering their psychological needs; and (3) promoting student leadership. The main limitation of this study was the scale and length of the study. Although I attempted to gain an idea of the bigger picture from

126  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

the questionnaire, the main source of data was provided by the interview narratives from six students. Moreover, all data were collected in one semester, which only allowed me to observe one stage of the learners’ experiences. Additionally, all learner narratives utilised were from those who continued participating in the communities. The intention was not to share one-sided stories but to understand the extent to which the learners experienced need satisfaction after participating in an LC for a certain length of time (not from a one-off experience). Nonetheless, from this small-scale study I was able to illustrate learners’ experiences in interest-based LCs and their potential as a social and holistic approach in language education. Moreover, the learners’ experiences of autonomy while interacting with peers provided opportunities to challenge their beliefs about how English is learned and empowered them as language learners to manage their own learning, which could be a powerful foundation for life-long learning. Appendix 6.1 Questionnaire result (N = 31) Question 1: Multiple-choice Questions 2–6: Open-ended questions 1. Please choose or specify the reason(s) why you participate in the LC regularly or organize it. To improve my English skills To make friends to learn with To get connected with more people To learn what I am interested in To keep my motivation for learning To provide other students with opportunities to learn and make friends Because my friend(s) is doing it Because I have time Because it is fun

N

%

23 19 19 16 11 9 5 4 1

74.19 61.29 61.29 51.61 35.48 22.58 16.13 12.90 3.22

17 16 7

54.83 51.61 22.58

12 10 4 3 2 1 1

39.00 32.25 12.90 9.67 6.45 3.22 3.22

2. What makes the LC unique or innovative compared to other ways of learning (e.g., class or studying by yourself)? Autonomy related response Relatedness related response Competence related response 3. What kind of challenges do you have in participating in or organizing the LC? None Lack of members Being busy Pre-existing groups in the community Advertising the community Incorporating everybody’s ideas in the large community Inconsistent attendance of members

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  127

4. Do you feel connected with others, respected by others, and/or responsible for participating and contributing to your LC? Can you give me one example? Being respectful to each other/valuing everyone’s opinions Being motivated or inspired by others Sharing interests or have similar values Teaching each other Feeling comfortable sharing ideas, asking questions, and learning together Wishing to contribute more to the community and others’ learning No Hanging out even outside the community Yes (no explanations) I don’t know

6 6 5 5

19.35 19.35 16.12 16.12

5 4 4 3 2 1

16.12 12.90 12.90 9.67 6.45 3.25

11 6 8 4 3 2

35.48 19.35 25.80 12.90 9.76 6.45

9 6 5 4 3 2 2 1

29.03 19.35 16.12 12.90 9.67 6.45 6.45 3.22

5. Do you feel that you can make choices about your learning in your LC? Can you give me one example? Choosing own content and topics to learn Deciding when to attend Making plans and decisions for the community No Yes (no explanations) n/a 6. Do you feel that you are achieving something or feeling competent at something in your LC? Can you give me one example? When I am using English No When I’m working on an event or project When others praise my ideas or skills When I’m communicating with others effectively When I’m gaining new knowledge and ideas n/a I don’t know

Note (1) The specific details for this community have been omitted for reasons of anonymity.

References Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P. and Chik, A. (2014) Narrative Inquiry in Language Teaching and Learning Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Block, D. (2003) The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Cheon, S., Reeve, J. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2020) When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teaching and Teacher Education 90, 1–12. Cotterall, S. (2017) The pedagogy of learner autonomy: Lessons from the classroom. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 8 (2), 102–115. Cox, M. and Richlin, L. (2004) Building Faculty Learning Communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

128  Part 2: Autonomy Support in Learning Environments and Open Spaces

Curry, N. and Watkins, S. (2016) Considerations in developing a peer mentoring programme for a self-access centre. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 7 (1), 16–29. Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J. and Watkins, S. (2017) Evaluating a self-directed language learning course in a Japanese university. International Journal of SelfDirected Learning 14 (1), 37–57. Dam L., Eriksson R., Little D., Miliander, J. and Trebbi, T. (1990) Towards a definition of autonomy. In T. Trebbi (ed.) Third Nordic Workshop on Developing Autonomous Learning in the FL Classroom (pp. 101–102). Bergen: University of Bergen. Davis, W.S. (2018) What makes a learning experience intrinsically motivating for American high school language learners? Journal of Pedagogical Research 2 (3), 167–180. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11 (4), 269–318. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2002) Handbook of Self-determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Everhard, C.J. (2015) The assessment-autonomy relationship. In C.J. Everhard and L. Murphy (eds) Assessment and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 8–34). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Firth, A. and Wagner, J. (2007) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal 91, 757–772. Gao, X. (2007) A tale of Blue Rain Café: A study on the online narrative construction about a community of English learners on the Chinese mainland. System 35 (2), 259–270. Gardner, D. and Miller, L. (1999) Establishing Self-access: From Theory to Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gillies, H. (2010) Listening to the learner: A qualitative investigation of motivation for embracing or avoiding the use of self-access centres. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 1 (3), 189–211. Hadwin, A., Järvelä, S. and Miller, M. (2017) Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In D.H. Schunk and J.A. Greene (eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (2nd edn, pp. 83–106). New York, NY: Routledge. Heine, S., Lehman, D., Markus, H. and Kitayama, S. (1999) Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review 106 (4), 766–794. Hidi, S., Renninger, K.A. and Krapp, A. (2004) Interest, a motivational variable that combines affective and cognitive functioning. In D.Y. Dai and R.J. Sternberg (eds) Motivation, Emotion and Cognition: Integrative Perspectives on Intellectual Functioning and Development (pp. 89–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hughes, L., Krug, N. and Vye, S. (2012) Advising practices: A survey of self-access learner motivations and preferences. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 3 (2), 163–181. Isaac, J., Sansone, C. and Smith, J.L. (1999) Other people as a source of interest in an activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35, 239–265. Knight, K. and Mynard, J. (2018) Language learner autonomy and student leadership within and beyond the classroom: How do SALC student leaders conceptualize leadership? Language Education and Research 29, 19–48. Krapp, A. (2002) An educational-psychological theory of interest and its relation to SDT. In E. Deci and R. Ryan (eds) Handbook of Self-determination Research (pp. 405–427). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Lenning, O., Hill, D., Saunders, K., Solan, A. and Stokes, A. (2013) Powerful Learning Communities: A Guide to Developing Student, Faculty and Professional Learning Communities to Improve Student Success and Organizational Effectiveness. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Little, D. (2007) Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations revisited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1 (1), 14–29.

Creating Social Learning Opportunities Outside the Classroom  129

Ma, R. and Oxford, R. (2014) A diary study focusing on listening and speaking: The evolving interaction of learning styles and learning strategies in a motivated advanced ESL learner. System 43, 101–113. Magno e Silva, W. (2019) Autonomous learning supportive base: Enhancing autonomy in a TEFL undergraduate program. In G. Murray and T. Lamb (eds) Space, Place and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 219–232). London: Routledge. McLoughlin, D. (2020) Interest development and self-regulation of motivation. In J. Mynard, M. Tamala and W. Peeters (eds) Supporting Learners and Educators in Developing Language Learner Autonomy (pp. 63–76). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. Murphey, T. (1998) Motivating with near peer role models. In B. Visgatis (ed.) JALT 1997 Conference Proceedings (pp. 201–206). Tokyo: JALT. Murphy, L. (2014) Autonomy, social interaction, and community: A distant language learning perspective. In G. Murray (ed.) Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 119–134). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Mynard, J. (2019) Emotional dimensions of language learning: A new era of self-access. Paper presented at Encuentro de Centros de Autoacceso de la Universidad, 22 October 2019. Veracruzana, Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico. Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Lascano, D.I.V., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2019) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). Cham: Palgrave. Pavlenko, A. (2002) Narrative study: Whose story is it, anyway? TESOL Quarterly 36 (2), 213–218. Reeve, J., Lee, W. and Won, S. (2015) Interest as emotion, as affect, and as schema. In K.A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt and S. Hidi (eds) Interest in Mathematics and Science Learning (pp. 79–92). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Renninger, K.A. and Hidi, S. (2016) The Power of Interest for Motivation and Engagement. New York, NY: Routledge. Roth, W. and Lee, Y. (2006) Contradictions in theorizing and implementing communities in education. Educational Research Review 1 (1), 27–40. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Sansone, C. and Thoman, D.B. (2005) Interest as the missing motivator in self-regulation. European Psychologist 10 (3), 175–186. Sinclair, B. (2008) Multiple voices: Negotiating pathways towards teacher and learner autonomy. In T.E. Lamb and H. Reinders (eds) Learner and Teacher Autonomy: Concepts, Realities and Responses (pp. 237–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thoman, D., Smith, J. and Silvia, P. (2011) The resource replenishment function of interest. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2 (6), 592–599. Watkins, S. (2015) Enhanced awareness and its translation into action: A case study of one learner’s self-directed language learning experience. Language Learning in Higher Education 5 (2), 441–464. Watkins, S. (2019) Learners’ perceptions of benefits in a self-directed teletandem course: An approach to encourage EFL learners to use English outside the classroom. The Asia EFL Journal Quarterly 20 (2), 3–28. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A. and Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wlodkowski, R.J. (2008) Enhancing Adult Motivation to Learn: A Comprehensive Guide for Teaching All Adults (3rd edn). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

7 Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom: Interpersonal, Intergroup and Intercultural Processes Mustafa Firat, Kimberly A. Noels and Nigel Mantou Lou

Introduction

First language (L1) acquisition is an impressive feature of the human species. It is a seemingly spontaneously developing skill, argued to be an innate capacity, whether of a specific or general nature (Chomsky, 1965; Tomasello, 2010). No less remarkable is the ability to learn a new language after childhood. What makes additional or second language learning (LL) unique from L1 acquisition is that the former can be facilitated through intentional instruction, often in a formal educational setting. Nonetheless, LL is nested in a larger social, political and cultural system beyond the educational context. It entails, for example, interactions with family members and the target language (TL) community in addition to other learners and teachers. As such, LL can be an exciting and enriching adventure that enables learners to explore new worlds and form new social networks. However, it can also be a stressful and tedious task that requires persistence to achieve the desired goal. Out of these dramatically different experiences arises the question: Although many language learners live through both these states, why do some learners tend to experience more joy and satisfaction while others tend to experience more stress and boredom in the LL process? Scholars have long been interested in answering this question from various perspectives (e.g. psychological, sociological, educational). 133

134  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

One line of research has adopted the social-psychological lens of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017) to elucidate the motivational aspects of individual differences in LL. While expanding our knowledge of the topic, this literature has paid insufficient attention to how learners’ motivation is affected by out-of-the-classroom factors, especially those factors that facilitate or undermine learners’ perceived autonomy support. In this chapter, we argue that motivational dynamics are no less relevant beyond the classroom. Hence, we suggest that researchers and teachers should consider what happens to learners’ motivation in a broader relational, societal and cultural context. In doing so, we focus on non-linguistic antecedents and consequences of LL motivation (e.g. social identity, intergroup contact) because they are relatively understudied, which limits the applicability of SDT to the linguistic domain of LL. Our first purpose in this chapter is to provide a broader theoretical perspective on the out-of-the-classroom factors that can facilitate or undermine language learners’ autonomous motivation. With a focus on interpersonal and sociocultural processes as out-of-the-classroom factors, our second purpose is to present future research directions to guide scholars in how to fill the literature gaps in our understanding of LL motivation beyond the classroom. In the following sections, we first provide a brief overview of the basic tenets of SDT by outlining Noels et al.’s (2020) model of motivational processes in LL (see Figure 7.1, p. 136). This section also includes a summary of Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) work on second LL, as it is a relevant theoretical account that stresses the broader social context beyond the classroom for understanding LL motivation. Next, we review research that examines how interpersonal processes involving TL speakers and other significant people (e.g. family members, friends) support or undermine learners’ self-determination (Noels, Adrian-Taylor et al., 2019) and, ultimately, their willingness to communicate and engage in communication behaviour in second LL (MacIntyre et al., 1998). Following the interpersonal processes, we discuss how learners’ motivation influences and is influenced by sociocultural processes, including social (e.g. status), political (e.g. ideology) and cultural (e.g. self-construal) dynamics. As part of the sociocultural dynamics, we highlight how the motivational processes involved in LL are also integral to the process of acculturation (psychological and sociocultural adaptation). Finally, we consider the limitations of the present literature, along with future research directions for LL. Theoretical Overview

Several theoretical perspectives have been developed to provide a comprehensive understanding of why people learn a new language and to explain the factors that affect language learners’ autonomous

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  135

motivation beyond the classroom. One early perspective that emphasised the importance of the broader social context for understanding LL motivation is Gardner’s (1988) socio-educational model, which was built on earlier work by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972). Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) proposed that people have two main reasons for second LL, which they termed ‘orientations’. The first – instrumental orientation – refers to material benefits that one can gain through knowledge of a new language, such as social recognition and economic advantage. The second – integrative orientation – concerns an intention to connect and identify with speakers of the TL to adapt to a new culture. Research has shown that both orientations predict engagement in learning, with both linguistic (e.g. grammatical competence) and non-linguistic (e.g. contact with the members of the language) outcomes (Gardner, 2010). However, research has also noted two main concerns about Gardner and Lambert’s theorising. First, the two orientations are not consistent in predicting learner engagement, such that some studies found instrumental orientation to be a better predictor, whereas others found integrative orientation to be a better predictor (Au, 1988). Second, motivations are not limited to two orientations, as there are additional reasons for LL, such as intellectual stimulation (Oxford & Shearin, 1994) and international travel (Clément & Kruidenier, 1983), among others. To address these concerns, Noels (2001) proposed a model that integrates Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) theorising with Deci and Ryan’s (1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017) SDT. The model suggests that the themes of social identity (a sense of belonging to a social group and its members) and intergroup contact in Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) theorising can be considered as an internalisation process through which learners integrate the TL and its community as parts of the self (Noels, 2009). The self is an organising process that accounts for our cognitions, emotions and actions. SDT puts emphasis on the self and assumes that ideal outcomes (e.g. a meaningful life) emerge when people are authentic to their self-concept as active agents of their behaviours (or when behaviours are self-determined). As such, Noels (2001) argues that SDT can provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding the development of different LL orientations and motivation processes in LL. Corroborating Noels’ (2001) idea of using SDT to understand learners’ orientations and motivation processes in LL, prior work has established evidence supporting the utility of SDT for LL, mainly concerning linguistic outcomes in classroom environments (e.g. Sugita McEown et al., 2014). Nevertheless, research has left it unclear how LL motivation influences and is influenced by non-linguistic factors beyond the classroom. To unpack the black box of (de)motivators beyond the LL classroom, researchers have recently suggested integrative models that complement SDT. For example, consistent with the processes

136  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Figure 7.1  A schematic illustration of sociocultural contexts, interpersonal relations, self-dynamics, actions and capitals in language learning motivation (adapted from Noels et al., 2016)

described in the Self-system Model of Motivational Development (Skinner et al., 2008) and the Socio-educational Model of Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (Gardner, 2010), Noels et al. (2020; see also Noels et al., 2016) proposed a model that recognises the socioecological nature of self-determination and motivation in LL. As depicted in Figure 7.1, the model contextualises psychological needs and motivational orientations in LL in an interconnected system of sociostructural and sociocultural dynamics in addition to personal and interpersonal dynamics, with a focus on both linguistic and non-linguistic outcomes. Below, we review research that illustrates the premises of this model, with an interest in interpersonal, intergroup and intercultural processes that relate to non-linguistic capital, such as social identity, intergroup contact and cross-cultural integration. The Role of Significant Others in LL Motivation

Noels et al.’s (2020) model conceptualises significant others as an antecedent of self-determination and motivation. A significant other refers to ‘someone who is highly important in one’s life and on whom one depends, in part, for desired outcomes’ (Andersen et al., 1998: 846). For language learners, significant others include teachers, friends,

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  137

family members and members of the TL community (Palfreyman, 2011). The model posits that perceived support (or lack thereof) from significant others enhances (or undermines) need satisfaction and LL motivation, which ultimately promotes (or hinders) language development and other non-linguistic outcomes. As will be reviewed later, the accumulated research provides support for this position. However, studies have primarily investigated the influence of teachers as significant others (e.g. Lou & Noels, 2020a; Mercer & Kostoulas, 2018), rendering it difficult to establish the influence of the out-ofclassroom actors. Hence, in our review, we present evidence from studies that focus on how friends, family and the TL community affect language learners. Before presenting the evidence, it is necessary to differentiate between heritage language learners (HLLs) and non-heritage language learners (non-HLLs), as they differ from each other in, for example, identification and contact with the TL and the TL community. As Noels (2005, 2013a) highlights, HLLs tend to identify more strongly with the TL community than do non-HLLs. Identification is further nuanced across situations. Non-HLLs report higher identification with the TL community when in school and among friends than when in the community and among family. HLLs, however, report the strongest TL identification when among family. This discrepancy is suggestive of differences between HLLs’ and non-HLLs’ opportunities for intergroup contact. Because of their cultural background, HLLs are more likely to have greater contact with the TL community than non-HLLs (Clément, 1980; Noels & Clément, 1989). Given that greater contact with the TL community predicts higher motivational intensity (Clément, 1980, 1986), it is conceivable that significant others have distinct implications for HLLs and non-HLLs. Emerging research supports this reasoning. Studies with a single group of language learners (e.g. only non-HLLs) indicate that friends and family members (e.g. parents, siblings) help learners meet their psychological needs and maintain their motivation (Tanaka, 2017; Vatankhah & Tanbakooei, 2014). Yet, studies with multiple groups of learners suggest that the characteristics of the help that friends and family provide may differ for HLLs and non-HLLs. In an SDT-informed study using the focused essay technique (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991) among groups of heritage language, modern language and English as a second language learners, Noels, Adrian-Taylor et al. (2019) showed that although friends provided educational (e.g. informative feedback) support for all groups, HLLs had a weaker tendency to report such support. Further, while family members provided psychological (e.g. learning encouragement), material (e.g. financial help) and physical (e.g. facilitating an appropriate learning environment) support for all groups, HLLs had a stronger tendency to report such forms of support.

138  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

One suggested reason for differences in the perceived support is that the contact opportunities of HLLs and non-HLLs entail different interpersonal and intergroup dynamics (Noels, Adrian-Taylor et al., 2019). For example, HLLs are more likely to contact HL speakers in more intimate or informal social situations (e.g. at home with family) and to have ancestral relations with the HL community (Noels, 2005). However, non-HLLs are more likely to contact the TL community in more non-intimate and formal social situations (e.g. at school with teachers) before they engage in more intimate or informal social situations later in the process (Noels et al., 2004). The role of the TL community in LL motivation is as important as that of friends and family. Given that one function of LL is to foster intercultural communication, a case can be made that interactions with the TL community matter more. The importance of such interactions pertains particularly to non-linguistic outcomes, such as identification and integration into the community. Yet, there is a dearth of research addressing how the TL community influences learners’ motivation (Noels, 2001). In the context of learning German, for example, Noels et al. (2007; Noels, 2013a) have shown that members of the TL community assist learners in satisfying their psychological needs. They promote learners’ motivation with a sense of competence by providing linguistic feedback and a sense of relatedness with social connection. They also foster learners’ autonomy in the learning process. As in the case of friends and family, however, there are differences between HLLs and non-HLLs, such that the support of the TL community is more salient and pertinent to HLLs. Similar findings have been obtained in more diverse LL contexts, such as learning heritage, modern and English languages (Noels, Adrian-Taylor et al., 2019). As shown in Figure 7.1, the influence of significant others on language learners does not remain at the motivational level and has further consequences. Of special interest are intergroup processes, including identity and contact. Noels (2009) argues that significant others play a critical role in the internalisation of LL, which, in turn, facilitates identification and contact with the TL community. Empirical studies support this argument, showing that more internalised orientations predict higher ethnolinguistic identity (Comanaru & Noels, 2009) and greater intercultural contact (Goldberg & Noels, 2006). These effects pertain especially to HLLs (Comanaru & Noels, 2009), likely because the TL community is more readily available and identifiable in their contexts. Overall, it can be concluded that learners who feel that their psychological needs are satisfied through the help of significant others display more self-determined motivation and, consequently, exhibit more socioculturally adaptive behaviours. However, as depicted in Figure 7.1, it is also reasonable to posit that a reciprocal rather than a unidirectional

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  139

relationship exists in the intersection of significant others, learning motivation and sociocultural outcomes. It is likely that significant others contribute to one’s self-determined motivation, which, in turn, leads to psychological need satisfaction, rather than the other way around. This reasoning aligns with the premises of Gardner’s (2010) Socio-educational Model of Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. According to this model, the language learner’s relationships with significant others (e.g. teachers, family, friends, etc.) predict psychological dynamics, such as attitudes towards the TL community, which then determine learning motivation, which ultimately affects linguistic (e.g. test scores) and non-linguistic (e.g. contact with the TL community) outcomes. However, given that the extant literature on the topic relies primarily on cross-sectional evidence, we cannot emphasise enough the need for longitudinal and experimental research to establish the nature of the aforementioned effects. The Role of Sociocultural Context in LL Motivation

Beyond significant others in the interpersonal contexts, the broader sociocultural context also influences LL motivation and relevant outcomes. The sociocultural context is the societal setting in which LL takes place. As described in Noels et al.’s (2020) model (see Figure 7.1), this level of analysis includes social (e.g. status, ethnicity, class), political (e.g. governments, regulations, ideologies) and cultural (e.g. selfconstruals, values, beliefs) dynamics. Despite the inevitable implications of such dynamics for learners, little research has recognised motivation as a process located at the meso- and macro-level in addition to the micro-level of learning (cf. Douglas Fir Group, 2016). The micro-level of learning focuses on small systems (e.g. individuals, families), whereas the meso- and macro-levels refer to detailed examinations of learning that consider medium systems (e.g. ethnic groups, communities) and large systems (e.g. nations, laws), respectively. An interest in the sociocultural context began in the early days of LL motivation research. Scholars, such as Clément (1980) and Giles and Byrne (1982), emphasised the importance of ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) for learners. EV is the sociostructural status of groups in a society. It indicates the economic, political and demographic representation of groups, along with the degree of power to receive institutional support. When Giles et al. (1977) first introduced the term, they contended that groups with low EV (minorities) are doomed to lose their distinctiveness, whereas groups with high EV (majorities) are likely to maintain their distinctiveness in intergroup contexts. Extrapolating this contention, Landry et al. (2007, 2009, 2013) showed among Francophones (majorities in Quebec; minorities outside Quebec) and Anglophones (minorities in Quebec; majorities outside

140  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Quebec) in Canada that EV has critical implications for language learners, with differential effects on the members of low and high EV groups. Specifically, when low EV group members (e.g. Francophones outside Quebec) learn the high EV group language (English), they tend to lose their L1 (French), an effect known as subtractive bilingualism. However, when high EV group members (e.g. Anglophones outside Quebec) learn the low EV group language (French), they do not lose their L1 (English). And they gain advantages (e.g. integration into another culture), an effect known as additive bilingualism. The differential effects of EV are not limited to the linguistic domain. They extend further to non-linguistic outcomes. For example, while EV predicts ethnolinguistic identity (the sense of belonging to an ethnolinguistic group) among both minority and majority group members, the results differ across groups (Landry & Allard, 1992; Landry et al., 2007). Members of high EV groups maintain their identity in addition to their language. In contrast, members of low EV groups lose their identity along with their language, though the loss of identity seems to be not so easy and quick as the loss of language. Yet, there is individual and situational variance in identity, such that some low EV group members manage to maintain a strong ethnolinguistic identity, particularly in more private social situations, such as when at home or with friends. Similar to sociostructural differences, cultural differences are also relevant for LL motivation. Culture, which can be defined as ‘dynamic systems of meanings (e.g., beliefs, attitudes and other such representations) that are shared within a community in the sense that they are co-constructed between individuals and they become the conventions and mores distributed within a social group’ (Noels, 2013b: 217), is essential in understanding learning motivation (Guay, 2016). Yet, there is a lacuna of research on how cultural differences affect LL motivation (but see Noels et al., 2014). As a western theory, SDT has been tested in different cultural contexts in relation to LL motivation. Nonetheless, it has been mostly tested in a single cultural context (see Taguchi et al., 2009, for a study comparing learners of English in Japan, China and Iran), which can undermine the generalisability and applicability of its premises. To provide a larger scope of the SDT perspective on LL motivation, more cross-cultural comparison research is needed. Past research gives us clues as to how cultural dynamics might relate to LL motivation. Cross-cultural psychologists distinguish cultural groups from one another based on differences in self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991) and value dimensions (Hofstede, 2001). People from the Western (e.g. North American) cultural groups are considered to have independent selves and individualistic values. In contrast, people from the Eastern (e.g. Eastern Asian) cultural groups are considered to have interdependent selves and collectivistic values. Although the

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  141

cultural models of selfhood and values are more diverse and complex than previously considered (see Vignoles et al., 2016), such differences can still have implications for intergroup communication (Noels, 2013b). Given that SDT attributes a primary role to the self (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and offers a framework to understand values (Kasser, 2002), these differences can also have implications for LL. For example, independent and interdependent selves can affect the role of self-determination in learner engagement, and individualistic and collectivistic values can influence which motivation strategy learners endorse (Noels et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2006). Moreover, because foreign language learning can be stereotyped as a feminine domain and people are motivated to act in line with their gender beliefs (Chaffee, Lou & Noels, 2020; Chaffee, Lou, Noels & Katz, 2020), learners’ identity and motivation may differ depending on the societies’ gender norms. The Implications of LL Motivation for Acculturation

One prominent function of LL is to facilitate the acculturation process, especially for migrants or those who intend to migrate (e.g. immigrants, refugees, international students). Surprisingly, however, there is a paucity of research on how LL motivation is related to one’s acculturation orientations. Given that autonomy-supportive environments facilitate the internalisation of cultural orientations and promote the psychological well-being of acculturating individuals (Chirkov et al., 2003), it is important to examine the motivation–acculturation relationship to uncover how to sustain autonomy support beyond the language classroom. Acculturation is the process of psychological, social and cultural changes (e.g. language, identity, values) in individuals due to continuous contact with a new cultural group (Berry, 1997). Obviously, not all individuals acculturate in the same way. Berry’s (1997) bidimensional model proposes four acculturation strategies: assimilation, separation, integration and marginalisation. Assimilation refers to a weak affinity for the heritage culture but a strong affinity for the host culture. On the contrary, separation refers to a strong inclination for the heritage culture but a weak inclination for the host culture. Argued to be the optimal strategy for healthy acculturation, integration indicates a strong tendency to value both the heritage and the host culture. Marginalisation, on the other hand, indicates a weak tendency to value either culture, which is the less desired strategy. Cross-cultural psychologists use various domains to assess acculturation. These domains include, but are not limited to, identity and language (Doucerain, 2019; Yağmur & van de Vijver, 2012). Given that identity and language proficiency are strongly tied to LL motivation (Noels, 2009, 2013a), it is conceivable that motivational dynamics involved in the LL process relate to acculturation strategies.

142  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

This reasoning aligns with Landry et al.’s (2007) proposition that motivational orientations can affect the desire for integration, such that people with an intrinsic LL motivation are more inclined to adapt to the TL community. Thus, considering the SDT premise that intrinsic motivation predicts positive outcomes, it can be contended that learners with an intrinsic motivation to learn the TL internalise both their own culture and the TL culture, which then results in better acculturation into the TL community (Landry et al., 2007; Rubenfeld et al., 2007). SDT-informed research supports this contention. Studies among FL learners show that students tend to internalise both the original and the target culture (Chen et al., 2008; Ng & Lai, 2011), suggesting an integrative acculturation strategy. But a recent study (Lou & Noels, 2018) presents more nuanced evidence: learners who internalise the target culture to a greater extent are more self-determined in learning and feel more confident in using the TL; however, learners who internalise the target culture to a lesser extent also feel motivated and confident enough in using the TL if they internalise their own culture. Echoing Berry’s (1997) acculturation strategies, these findings underline the assertion that internalising the TL culture is not the only way for language learners: learners can instead internalise their own culture and maintain their LL motivation through the sense of meaning and belonging that they get from their cultural group. Studies among international students provide further evidence that motivation is integral to acculturation. For example, Chirkov et al. (2007) found among Chinese students in Belgium and Canada that a self-determined motivation to study abroad predicts better sociocultural adaptation. This effect has been further confirmed among a more culturally diverse sample in a longitudinal study (Chirkov et al., 2008). Corroborating these findings, Yang et al. (2018) indicated that international students’ self-determined motivation to study abroad was associated with lower culture shock and higher subjective wellbeing, which are indicators of a healthier adaptation. Moreover, these associations were mediated by psychological needs: self-determined motivation predicted the satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness, which then predicted better adaptation. Given the relationship between learners’ attitudes and behaviours in the target culture and their linguistic skills in the second LL process (see IsabelliGarcía, 2006), motivation to study abroad might have implications for LL motivation and acculturation. SDT recognises a link between the internalisation of cultures and the satisfaction of psychological needs, suggesting that cultural norms that are consistent with the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness will be autonomously internalised (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Applying this perspective to the context of immigrants in Canada, Downie et al. (2004) showed that immigrants from more egalitarian heritage cultures (e.g.

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  143

Italy vs. less egalitarian cultures, such as Thailand) displayed greater autonomous internalisation of their heritage and host cultures. This autonomous cultural internalisation further predicted greater (heritage and host) cultural competence and psychological well-being. In other words, immigrants reported higher levels of autonomy and competence in their relevant cultures when their heritage culture was relatively egalitarian, which refers to the impact of socioecological factors on the relationship between SDT constructs and acculturation. Despite such evidence linking SDT to cultural internalisation and acculturation, there remains a lack of research on the relationship between SDT in LL and acculturation. Still, in light of the present corpus of knowledge, it can be concluded that self-determined LL motivation relates to desired acculturative outcomes because it helps learners to meet their basic psychological needs. Provided the finding that LL motivation contributes to the development of intercultural competence (Heying & Kennedy, 2016), which accounts for acculturation orientations (Torres & Rollock, 2007), it can further be concluded that self-determined motivation promotes positive acculturation through a sense of increased intercultural competence. These conclusions, however, warrant further exploration. Limitations and Future Directions

The research presented in this chapter is limited. Most studies rely on self-report and cross-sectional data from students learning English as a foreign or second language in face-to-face environments at schools. At the same time, they focus on person-based rather than context-based factors in single-country or single-culture contexts. Such limitations point to the need for methodological and contextual diversity in LL research, with special interest in cross-cultural and acculturation-related examinations. Considering the developmental nature of learning motivation and the support of significant others (Noels, Vargas Lascano et al., 2019), longitudinal studies are needed to explore how LL motivation and interpersonal processes change over time to determine the relevant outcomes (e.g. identification, acculturation). Relatedly, researchers may observe intercultural interactions (cf. Lou & Noels, 2020b) to complement self-report measures and better understand how SDT is linked to communication processes in specific contexts. Moreover, given that interpersonal processes are integral to LL motivation, research could benefit from dyadic data analysis, such as conversation and discourse analyses (cf. Goodboy & Kashy, 2017). As student samples may not always represent their communities, researchers could utilise community samples to see if their findings apply to the general population. Additionally, they could recruit samples from different backgrounds (e.g. ethnic minorities, immigrants, refugees) to

144  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

explore how the same factors influence the motivation of learners with distinct social, political and cultural experiences. The examination of target languages other than English is also important for exploring variations across contexts. Likewise, the study of virtual (e.g. computerassisted LL, LL apps) along with real-world settings could also offer insights into LL motivation (see Richards, 2015). Conclusion

In this chapter, we aimed to present a review of a comprehensive theoretical perspective on the out-of-the-classroom factors that influence language learners’ autonomous motivation. Toward this aim, we underscored that LL is not only a socioeducational phenomenon but is also a sociopolitical and sociocultural phenomenon. Accordingly, we outlined how interpersonal and socioecological dynamics could affect learners’ social identification and cultural adaptation by supporting or undermining their learning motivation and perceived autonomy support. Our review suggests that more research is needed to understand better the role of perceived autonomy support and motivational processes in LL beyond the classroom. Although SDT provides a broad framework to explore the LL process, our review calls for a socioecological approach, such that micro-, meso- and macro-level factors are studied as an integrative force for motivation. We also highlight the need for context-based, cross-cultural and acculturation-related research to advance our knowledge of LL motivation. It is hoped that such comprehensive examinations will expand researchers’ and teachers’ perspectives on effective language teaching. References Andersen, S.M., Glassman, N.S. and Gold, D.A. (1998) Mental representations of the self, significant others and nonsignificant others: Structure and processing of private and public aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (4), 845–861. Au, S.Y. (1988) A critical appraisal of Gardner’s social-psychological theory of second language (L2) learning. Language Learning 38 (1), 75–99. Berry, J.W. (1997) Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology 46 (1), 5–34. Chaffee, K.E., Lou, N.M. and Noels, K.A. (2020) Does stereotype threat affect men in language domains? Frontiers in Psychology 11, Article 1302. Chaffee, K.E., Lou, N.M., Noels, K.A. and Katz, J.W. (2020) Why don’t ‘real men’ learn languages? Masculinity threat and gender ideology suppress men’s language learning motivation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 23 (2), 301–318. Chen, S.X., Benet-Martínez, V. and Bond, M.H. (2008) Bicultural identity, bilingualism and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: Immigration-based and globalisation-based acculturation. Journal of Personality 76 (4), 803–837. Chirkov, V.I, Ryan, R.M., Kim, Y. and Kaplan, U. (2003) Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientation, gender and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (1), 97–110.

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  145

Chirkov, V.I., Vansteenkiste, M., Tao, R. and Lynch, M. (2007) The role of self-determined motivation and goals for study abroad in the adaptation of international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31 (2), 199–222. Chirkov, V.I., Safdar, S., de Guzman, D.J. and Playford, K. (2008) Further examining the role motivation to study abroad plays in the adaptation of international students in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32 (5), 427–440. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Clément, R. (1980) Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H.M. Giles, W.P. Robinson and P.M. Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp. 147–154). Oxford: Pergamon. Clément, R. (1986) Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation of the effects of language status and individual characteristics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 5 (4), 271–290. Clément, R. and Kruidenier, B.G. (1983) Orientations in second language acquisition: I. The effects of ethnicity, milieu and target language on their emergence. Language Learning 33 (3), 273–291. Comanaru, R. and Noels, K.A. (2009) Self-determination, motivation and the learning of Chinese as a heritage language. Canadian Modern Language Review 66 (1), 131–158. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry 11 (4), 227–268. Doucerain, M.M. (2019) L2 experience mediates the relation between mainstream acculturation orientation and self-assessed L2 competence among migrants. Applied Linguistics 40 (2), 355–378. Douglas Fir Group (2016) A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal 100 (S1), 19–47. Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S. and Cree, K. (2004) The impact of cultural internalisation and integration on well-being among tricultural individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (3), 305–314. Gardner, R.C. (1988) The socio-educational model of second-language learning: Assumptions, findings and issues. Language Learning 38 (1), 101–126. Gardner, R.C. (2010) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition: The Socio-educational Model. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13 (4), 266–272. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Giles, H. and Byrne, J.L. (1982) An intergroup approach to second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 3 (1), 17–40. Giles, H., Bourhis, R.Y. and Taylor, D.M. (1977) Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In H. Giles (ed.) Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations (pp. 307–348). London: Academic Press. Goldberg, E. and Noels, K.A. (2006) Motivation, ethnic identity and post-secondary education language choices of graduates of intensive French language programs. Canadian Modern Language Review 62 (3), 423–447. Goodboy, A.K. and Kashy, D.A. (2017) Interpersonal communication research in instructional contexts: A dyadic approach. Communication Education 66 (1), 113–115. Guay, F. (2016) The virtue of culture in understanding motivation at school: Commentary on the special issue on culture and motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 86 (1), 154–160. Heying, A. and Kennedy, F. (2016) Chinese and Irish students: An investigation of their intercultural competence and second language learning motivation in the process of integration. Irish Journal for Culture, Arts, Literature and Language 1 (1), Article 7.

146  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Hofstede, G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organisations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Isabelli-García, C. (2006) Study abroad social networks, motivation and attitudes: Implications for second language acquisition. In E. Churchill and M. DuFon (eds) Language Learners in Study Abroad Contexts (pp. 231–258). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Kasser, T. (2002) Sketches for a self-determination theory of values. In E.L. Deci and R.M. Ryan (eds) Handbook of Self-determination Research (pp. 123–140). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Landry, R. and Allard, R. (1992) Ethnolinguistic vitality and the bilingual development of minority and majority group students. In W. Fase, K. Jaspaert and S. Kroon (eds) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages (pp. 222–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Landry, R., Allard, R. and Deveau, K. (2007) A macroscopic intergroup approach to the study of ethnolinguistic development. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 185, 225–253. Landry, R., Allard, R. and Deveau, K. (2009) Self-determination and bilingualism. Theory and Research in Education 7 (2), 203–213. Landry, R., Allard, R. and Deveau, K. (2013) Bilinguisme et métissage identitaire: Vers un modèle conceptual [Bilingualism and identity mixing: Towards a conceptual model]. Minorités Linguistiques et Société 3, 56–79. Lou, N.M. and Noels, K.A. (2018) Western and heritage cultural internalisations predict EFL students’ language motivation and confidence. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 24 (5), 636–650. Lou, N.M. and Noels, K.A. (2020a) ‘Does my teacher believe I can improve?’ The role of meta-lay theories in ESL learners’ mindsets and need satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology 11, Article 1417. Lou, N.M. and Noels, K.A. (2020b) Breaking the vicious cycle of language anxiety: Growth language mindsets improve lower-competence ESL students’ intercultural interactions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, Article 101847. MacIntyre, P.D. and Gardner, R.C. (1991) Investigating language class anxiety using the focused essay technique. The Modern Language Journal 75 (3), 296–304. MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z. and Noels, K.A. (1998) Conceptualising willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82 (4), 545–562. Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review 98 (2), 224–253. Mercer, S. and Kostoulas, A. (eds) (2018) Language Teacher Psychology. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ng, S. and Lai, J.C.L. (2011) Bicultural self, multiple social identities and dual patriotisms among ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42 (1), 89–103. Noels, K.A. (2001) New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic and integrative orientations and motivation. In Z. Dörnyei and R. Schmidt (eds) Motivation and Second Language Learning (pp. 43–68). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Noels, K.A. (2005) Orientations to learning German: Heritage background and motivational processes. Canadian Modern Language Review 62 (2), 285–312. Noels, K.A. (2009) The internalisation of language learning into the self and social identity. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda (eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 295–313). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Noels, K.A. (2013a) Self, identity and motivation in the development and maintenance of German as a heritage language. In K. Arnett and C. Mady (eds) Minority Populations in Canadian Second Language Education (pp. 71–86). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Self-Determined Motivation in Language Learning Beyond the Classroom  147

Noels, K.A. (2013b) Culture and intergroup communication. In M. Yuki and M. Brewer (eds) Culture and Group Processes (pp. 217–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Noels, K.A. and Clément, R. (1989) Orientations to learning German: The effects of language heritage on second-language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review 45 (2), 245–257. Noels, K.A., Clément, R. and Gaudet, S. (2004) Language and the situated nature of ethnic identity. In S.H. Ng, C.N. Candlin and C.Y. Chiu (eds) Language Matters: Culture, Identity and Communication (pp. 245–266). Kowloon, Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. Noels, K.A., Stephan, S. and Saumure, K.D. (2007) Supporting the motivation of heritage and non-heritage learners of German. In C. Lorey, J.L. Plews and C.L. Rieger (eds) Intercultural Literacies and German in the Classroom (pp. 29–48). Tubingen: Gunter Narr. Noels, K.A., Vargas Lascano, D.I. and Saumure, K. (2019) The development of selfdetermination across the language course: Trajectories of motivational change and the dynamic interplay of psychological needs, orientations and engagement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41 (4), 821–851. Noels, K.A., Chaffee, K.E., Michalyk, M. and Sugita McEown, M. (2014) Culture, autonomy and the self in language learning. In K. Csizér and M. Magid (eds) The Impact of Self-Concept on Language Learning (pp. 131–154). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Noels, K.A., Chaffee, K.E., Lou, N.M. and Dincer, A. (2016) Self-determination, engagement and identity in learning German: Some directions in the psychology of language learning motivation. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 45 (2), 12–29. Noels, K.A., Adrian-Taylor, S.M., Saumure, K.D. and Katz, J.W. (2019) Motivation and the support of significant others across language learning contexts. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning 1 (1), 106–114. Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Vargas Lascano, D.I., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2020) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In M. Lamb, K. Csizér, A., Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Oxford, R. and Shearin, J. (1994) Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal 78 (1), 12–28. Palfreyman, D.M. (2011) Family, friends and learning beyond the classroom: Social networks and social capital in language learning. In P. Benson and H. Reinders (eds) Beyond the Language Classroom (pp. 17–34). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Richards, J.C. (2015) The changing face of language learning: Learning beyond the classroom. RELC Journal 46 (1), 5–22. Rubenfeld, S., Sinclair, L. and Clément, R. (2007) Second language learning and acculturation: The role of motivation and goal content congruence. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (3), 309–323. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Skinner, E.A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G. and Kindermann, T. (2008) Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology 100 (4), 765–781. Sugita McEown, M., Noels, K.A. and Chaffee, K.E. (2014) At the interface of the socioeducational model, self-determination theory and the L2 motivational self-system models. In K. Csizér and M. Magid (eds) The Impact of Self-Concept on Language Learning (pp. 19–50). 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.

148  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Tanaka, M. (2017) Examining EFL vocabulary learning motivation in a demotivating learning environment. System 65, 130–138. Tomasello, M. (2010) Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Torres, L. and Rollock, D. (2007) Acculturation and depression among Hispanics: The moderating effect of intercultural competence. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 13 (1), 10–17. Vatankhah, M. and Tanbakooei, N. (2014) The role of social support on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 98 (May), 1912–1918. Vignoles, V.L., Owe, E., Becker, M., Smith, P.B., Easterbrook, M.J., Brown, R., González, R., Didier, N., Carrasco, D., Cadena, M.P., Lay, S., Schwartz, S.J., Des Rosiers, S.E., Villamar, J.A., Gavreliuc, A., Zinkeng, M., Kreuzbauer, R., Baguma, P., Martin, M. ... and Bond, M.H. (2016) Beyond the ‘east–west’ dichotomy: Global variation in cultural models of selfhood. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145 (8), 966–1000. Yağmur, K. and van de Vijver, F.J. (2012) Acculturation and language orientations of Turkish immigrants in Australia, France, Germany and the Netherlands. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43 (7), 1110–1130. Yang, R.P.J., Noels, K.A. and Saumure, K.D. (2006) Multiple routes to cross-cultural adaptation for international students: Mapping the paths between self-construals, English language confidence and adjustment. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (4), 487–506. Yang, Y., Zhang, Y. and Sheldon, K.M. (2018) Self-determined motivation for studying abroad predicts lower culture shock and greater well-being among international students: The mediating role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 63, 95–104.

8 The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory in Independent Language Learning W.L. Quint Oga-Baldwin

Introduction: It’s All About Connections

Fundamentally, languages are about communication. By developing communication skills, language learners hope to be able to connect with others, whether that connection lasts only as long as a required transaction, as with a shopping purchase or answering a test question, or for an entire lifetime, as might be seen in a cross-cultural marriage. When learners engage with a new language outside a classroom setting, they may do so for numerous reasons but, ultimately, these reasons will reflect some level of interpersonal connection to the community of language speakers.1 In most situations, learners must develop relationships with other language speakers to succeed. According to self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), the reasons we engage with a community can have a profound effect on our well-being and success. The six mini-theories of self-determination theory, many covered elsewhere in this volume, propose answers to the what, where, when, why and how of motivation. Previous work has addressed the other mini-theories of SDT for formal language learning (McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019) but it has left out discussions of independent language learning beyond the classroom. This chapter addresses relationships motivation theory (RMT), which broadly answers the who of motivation and focuses on the interpersonal aspects of motivation, interpersonal relationships and well-being. For language learners, RMT is concerned with the basic need for relatedness, how individuals seek secure and meaningful attachments to a language 149

150  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

community, find authentic interactions and develop emotional reliance and trust through the use of the new language. While the needs for relatedness, competence and autonomy are theoretically and functionally distinct (Ryan & Deci, 2017), they are correlated and interact in important ways. Other chapters in this book have addressed these basic needs in depth and detail, so I will refrain from a redundant discussion here. Instead, I will emphasize that although the focus of this chapter is primarily on the need for relatedness, it is always assumed to work in parity with the other two basic needs. While it is possible for language learners to feel authentic connection to the community of language users without developing a sense of ability to use the language, this connection is likely to be fleeting. Likewise, attachments to the language community that do not match the learner’s sense of volition and involvement may come from controlling or even perverse situations. Optimal relationships for foreign language learning will mirror the optimal relationships seen in parenting, teaching, romance and other spheres. Evidence for the connected nature of the basic needs in interpersonal functioning comes from a number of general psychology studies on relationship quality and well-being. In cross-cultural research on needsupportive relationships, Lynch and colleagues (2009) illustrated how interpersonal bonds correlate with individuals’ self-perceptions. In a multinational sample from China, Russia and the United States, the participants rated their ideal personality traits from the Big Five personality assessments (i.e. openness, extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness; McCrae & Costa, 2003). The participants also rated how they expressed these same five traits when with their parents, friends, romantic partners, teachers and roommates, and then rated each of these relationships in terms of satisfaction with the relationship, vitality and well-being within that relationship, and the degree to which the other person provided the desired level of autonomy support. Finally, participants reported their cultural orientation toward an independent or interdependent self. The researchers then calculated the discrepancy between the ratings of the ideal and actual trait expression and looked at the correlations between each of the variables. The results indicated that people are more likely to express their ideal traits when their autonomy is supported by the significant others in their lives and are more likely to feel a greater discrepancy between the actual and ideal traits when their relationships are less supportive. Participants also felt more vital and satisfied in the strength of their relationships when their parents, teachers, partners, friends and roommates supported the need for autonomy. Importantly, the results were consistent across the three cultures, refuting the hypothesis made by intercultural theorists (Markus & Kitayama, 2003) that greater autonomy support does not matter to individuals with an interdependent self-construal. Thus, interpersonal

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  151

support for one basic need (autonomy) can bolster the strength of another (relatedness) and bring individuals toward improved well-being within that relationship. Patrick and colleagues (2007) illustrated how all three basic needs predicted better well-being, commitment to the relationship, and effective resolution of relationship disputes. In a series of studies on university students in romantic relationships, the researchers collected data on individuals’ need satisfaction, self-esteem, positive/negative affect, and vitality, relationship vitality and conflict management. As would be expected, relatedness satisfaction had the strongest predictive effect on positive outcomes and effective conflict resolution, but competence and autonomy simultaneously played a key role. In a follow-up study, the researchers indicated that when partners satisfy the other person’s needs, there appears to be a reciprocal effect on their own need satisfaction. Here again, satisfaction of all three needs supports important outcomes for positive interpersonal relations, but with a further caveat: beneficence toward another in the form of need support can create a virtuous circle that builds positive relationships. Another set of studies by La Guardia and colleagues (2000) showed how significant others (mothers, fathers, friends and romantic partners) contributed to college students’ sense of secure attachment through their basic needs. Importantly, all three need satisfactions contributed significantly to students’ sense of secure attachment in each relationship, with relatedness, autonomy and competence showing a descending strength of predictive effect. Again, though relatedness need satisfaction was the best predictor of positive relationships, all three needs are crucial to well-being in interpersonal connections. Having established the importance of basic needs for relationships, and the usefulness of basic need satisfaction for explaining language learning motivation, it is important to demonstrate the potential effects of positive and supportive relationships for learning and wellbeing. As an entry point, Cornelius-White’s (2007) meta-analysis provides clear evidence for the importance of positive teacher–student relationships generally, showing how across 119 studies over more than fifty years teacher qualities such as empathy, warmth and genuineness are all associated with better student learning. Although these results are primarily a function of classroom dynamics rather than learning beyond the classroom, they demonstrate the importance of good relationships for learning generally. More specific to language education, Noels et al. (1999) showed that teachers’ communication styles influenced students’ sense of need satisfaction. This study investigated teachers’ controlling and informative styles of communication, indicating that more informative teachers were more intrinsically motivating and increased students’ likelihood of continuing to study. Later work (McEown, Noels &

152  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Saumure, 2014) has shown how basic needs could underpin intrinsic motives and further promote the desire to continue studying the foreign language. Thus basic need support and satisfaction, especially relatedness support and satisfaction, are important for learning and well-being when engaged with a target community. More recently, Oga-Baldwin (2020) illustrated how the relationship to the teacher in mandatory university EFL classes could promote attendance and learning. Sampling from several different universities, this study asked students to rate their interest in learning English, their negative affect for learning the language, their teachers’ autonomysupportive behaviors, and their teachers’ autonomy-thwarting behaviors. The researcher then received attendance and course grades from each of the participating teachers. Using longitudinal structural equation modeling, the results showed that positive and negative affect for learning English had no relationship to attendance or course grade, but that teachers’ autonomy support predicted students’ attendance and achievement, while perceptions of teachers as autonomy thwarting negatively predicted attendance and grades. Recognizing the importance of autonomy support for developing positive relationships, this study (Oga-Baldwin, 2020) illustrates how the relationships that teachers develop with their students early in class can help to predict whether students will persist in coming to class, thus achieving higher grades. Davis (2020) likewise found important connections between teacher behaviors and American university students’ decision to continue studying foreign languages. Competence and relatedness need satisfaction had an especially important correlation with intrinsic motivation and the decision to continue learning the language. Communication with others and connection to other cultures were explicit reasons behind this willingness to continue learning a foreign language. Despite the importance of relationships to both personal well-being, motivation and learning achievement, relationships motivation theory has not yet been explicitly applied to the field of language acquisition. In part, this may be due to the implicit treatment of relationships in prior theory. In order to find theoretical bridges with other areas of language education and psychology, some connections must be drawn between relationships motivation and the historically dominant paradigms in language motivation. Broad Connections: Other Parts of the Field

Relationships underlie many of the major theories found in the L2 learning literature. Given that language learning outside a formal school setting is fundamentally about the individual’s relationship with the language, relationships motivation theory can have a powerful explanatory effect on the how and why of individuals’ interaction with

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  153

a language community. The prevailing language motivation theories – the socio-educational model (Gardner, 1989) and L2 motivational selfsystem (Dörnyei, 2005) – as well as socially-oriented learning theories such as communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), are in many ways fundamentally about the quality of relationships that an individual has with the larger community of language users. Robert Gardner’s socio-educational model (Gardner & Lambert, 1959) describes numerous interpersonal reasons for learning a language. Integrative orientation, the idea of wishing to join the target community out of interest and a desire for interpersonal interaction, has been associated with more positive learning outcomes, including greater language ability. Items measuring this construct from Gardner’s Attitude and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB; Gardner, 1985) represent integrative orientation through wordings such as ‘Studying [a language]2 is important because I will be able to interact more easily with speakers of [that language]’, ‘Studying [a language] is important because it will allow me to meet and converse with more and varied people.’ Likewise, instrumental orientations can indicate a desire to learn a language to gain social standing, represented by wordings such as ‘Studying [a language] is important because other people will respect me more if I know [that language].’ Additionally, parental influences are hypothesized as important and can be seen in items such as ‘My parents feel that it is very important for me to learn [a language].’ Finally, a positive attitude toward the language community is explicitly treated in the theory with items like ‘I wish I could have many native [language] speaking friends.’ As demonstrated, the attitudes and orientations used in Gardner’s (1985, 1989) AMTB implicitly measure the reasons for the level of desire the individual has to develop a relationship with the specific language community, based on the strength of influence of significant others such as parents and friends. At the same time, the theory does not provide a mechanism for how the relationships are supported and developed, nor does it express what feeds a desire to integrate with the community and have many friends who speak a certain language. Relationships motivation theory can help address these theoretical holes through the adoption of need support to describe the quality of relationships that feed these orientations and attitudes. Related to Gardner’s (1985) work, Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2005; Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015) overlaps significantly with many of these ideas, though simplifies them in an apparent attempt to create a more parsimonious model of the latent psychological factors. The L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) has adopted the ideas of the ideal and ought-to selves to describe motives for language learning. Building on work by Markus and Nurius (1986), this theory works from the concept of possible selves, an idea based on individuals’ hopes, fears, dreams, and perceived threats for the future. Like the socio-educational

154  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

model, other situational variables such as family influence and attitudes to the new language community are measured, but the theoretical spotlight of the theory focuses on the ideal and ought-to selves. Relationships are inherent to the motivational variables at work here as well. Motivation in this theory is provided through recognizing discrepancies in the current self-concept and future ideal, socially expected (ought-to), or feared self-concept, and acting accordingly in order to either enable or prevent these states from becoming a reality. In the realm of language learning, the ideal L2-self applies to a desired future outcome of attaining language ability. The instrumentation presents the ideal L2-self as an image of language use with a target community. While not the only representations of the construct, items often used on surveys include wordings such as ‘I can imagine myself living abroad and using [a language] effectively for communicating with the locals’; ‘I can imagine myself speaking [a language] with international friends or colleagues’; and ‘I can imagine a situation where I am speaking [a language] with foreigners’ (Taguchi et al., 2009). These ideal self-schema are in many ways analogous to the integrative orientation and positive attitude toward the language community described in the socio-educational model. The other major motive in the L2MSS, the ought-to L2-self represents the idea of how a language learner ‘should’ act in order to achieve future outcomes. In many cases, these future self-concepts relate to expectations generated by schools, parents, peers and teachers. Some theoreticians (Markus & Kitayama, 1991, 2003) posit that these reasons may also be perceived positively, especially in East Asian and collectivist societies, though studies have shown problems with that hypothesis (cf. Lynch et al., 2009, discussed earlier). Several representative items further indicate the importance of interpersonal relationships here as well: ‘I study [a language] because close friends of mine think it is important’, ‘Studying [a language] is important to me because other people will respect me more if I have a knowledge of [a language].’ Again, these items share significant overlap with some of the instrumental and family influence aspects of Gardner’s (1989) socio-educational model. Much like Gardner’s (1989) socio-educational model, L2MSS lacks mechanisms for explaining how these possible selves function and are nurtured. Though the theory provides some environmental predictors (e.g. positive attitudes toward the language community, parental attitudes, visionary capacity), these predictors may not provide the motive power to explain achievement (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2019). At the same time, need-supportive relationships may help to provide additional understanding for the mixed nature of results, where ideal and ought-to selves can have inconsistent predictive results (Al-Hoorie, 2018). Recognizing the degree to which feelings of discrepancy toward the different selves are endorsed by the individual, reflect individuals’ need

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  155

to feel capable and effective, and provide better and more secure close personal relations, may help to explain these inconsistencies. In short, an ideal or ought-to L2 self-discrepancy that helps the individual meet their basic needs might help them toward better language learning. As an inroad into testing the relations between these theories, McEown and her colleagues (McEown, Noels & Chaffee, 2014) looked at SDT, the L2 motivational self-system, and the socio-educational model of language learning. This correlational study found evidence for strong connections between integrative orientation, the ideal L2 self, and intrinsic motivation, and then separate connections between the ought-to L2 self and introjected regulation (a sense of acting out of external or internalized social pressure). The strength of the correlations was sufficient to demonstrate them as distinct constructs but also close enough to hypothesize similar functioning in relation to external variables. These connections illustrate the theoretical overlap between SDT and the socio-educational model, and show the potential for need satisfaction in language learning relationships to help explain the interpersonal aspects of integrative and instrumental orientations and ideal and ought-to selves. Finally, the ideas of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) can offer a means for understanding how learners build competence as speakers of the language. A community of practice is a group of learners with a set of shared goals, values, ideals and identities focused around learning related to a particular field or endeavor. Within this community, learners co-construct knowledge, skills and socially accepted roles through collaboration with the other members of the group. Socially oriented learning theories (Bruner, 1983; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986) rely on the notion of use through interaction as central to the acquisition of knowledge. In this conception, learning originates in the social sphere, connecting prior knowledge to new knowledge through bi-directional (or multi-directional) interaction between members of the community. Intuitively, this makes sense: without the connection to the community of speakers, learners are unlikely to receive the exposure to the language necessary to become proficient. However, a community of practice is more than simply a group of people who provide input: it is the setting where learners co-construct identities and new understandings as users of the language. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated view of cognition places activities, functions and knowledge as part of a system of relations that define their meanings. The social network of language speakers is a constantly shifting group, and membership in the network is not simply transferring the individual from one community to another. As the learners interact and co-participate in the community, their increasing membership is what grants them expertise. Thus, the social engagements, both in quality and quantity, define the ways that learners become increasingly reciprocal members of the group of language users.

156  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

The concept of a community of practice has already been applied to professional development and autonomous learning in language education. Language advising (Mynard, 2012, 2019) has offered one route toward helping students develop both independent and interdependent identities as language learners, where learners and their advisors help each other co-construct roles and relationships as speakers of the language; both advisors and learners are then situated within the community of language speakers in adaptive ways. Studies have used the communities of practice framework as a tool for understanding language development among adult learners (Haneda, 1997). As a primarily ethnographic, qualitative framework for research into personal and professional identities (Haneda, 2011), communities of practice afford opportunities for integrating the idea of need-supportive relationships as a mechanism for greater integration and identity formation with the community of speakers. With the current focus on situational dynamics in language education (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016; Papi & Hiver, 2020), understanding the complex interplay of self/identity, situational context, social interactions and learning outcomes can provide a framework for independent language learning. Self-determination theory has been successfully integrated with research also using communities of practice applied to digital learning and online communities (Buckley et al., 2018; Palmisano, 2009), indicating that the two theoretical frameworks can likewise be used harmoniously. Deep Connections: Building Theoretical Foundations

As shown, relationships form a fundamental part of language learning motivation, though not every theory explicitly states this. The reasons learners engage with a community of practice may be integrative or instrumental, may come from an ideal or an ought-to self, but, according to self-determination theory, the fundamentals of these relationships all center around basic needs. Thus, relationships motivation theory specifically, and self-determination theory more generally, provide us with an optimal framework for understanding out-of-class language learning. Building an integrated theoretical model of relationships motivation can provide additional explanatory power to existing models and show the underlying mechanisms that motivate learners. At base, the integrative, instrumental, ideal and ought-to motives for language learning are relational. From a self-determination theory perspective, the degree to which these connections satisfy the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness determines their likelihood to provide sustained motivational power. As self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) clearly posits, it is not the quantity of motivation (i.e. more connections to others, stronger incentives, greater ability) that nourishes and sustains learners

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  157

but, rather, the quality of motivation (i.e. the depth of connection, the agreement with the incentives, the personally valued skills) that pushes people to strive and learn. Knowing that learning a language both inside and outside classrooms is an endeavor that requires sustained effort, an explanation for high-quality sustained relationships with a language community will ultimately provide a parsimonious and practical foundation for studying independent (i.e. out of class) language learning. Starting with the instrumental and integrative orientations, Gardner’s work illustrates that the desire to be a part of a specific community of practice will lead to more positive learning outcomes (Al-Hoorie & MacIntyre, 2020). The initial desire to integrate into that community comes back to an interest in the people and agreement with the values and practices of that community; without autonomy need satisfaction, the learner will not be drawn to that group. Likewise, if the burden of actually communicating with the members of the community is too heavy, the language learner is likely to avoid that community in favor of a language community where they can be understood; without competence need satisfaction, the learner will feel that interaction is a struggle. The most adaptive and feasible long-term form of integrative motivation is thus a desire to integrate with a need supportive community that will provide learners with authentic interactions (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Following the ideas of the L2MSS, ideal L2 selves are seen as the stronger motivational antecedents to engagement (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015). These ideal selves form imagined attachments to the community through a desire to interact with the speakers of the language. Previous research (Oga-Baldwin, 2020) has also shown how positive and negative affect for language tasks themselves have little effect on engagement and learning, while the relationships with the significant others can help learners achieve better and more sustained learning. Thus, the ideals that learners have of interacting with the target language community and building relationships can improve learners’ ultimate language achievement. The identities formed by language learners as they interact and build relationships with the target community will help to define the directions that learners take. Rarely are people generally drawn to a language community for its own sake: more often they are drawn to specific groups with a specific set of values and interests. Thus, outside rare cases, it is unlikely that an individual learner will be drawn to the general community of language speakers for a major language: language groups with millions of speakers will be far too diverse and abstract to provide either an ideal or a useful community of practice. More importantly, a community of practice with similar interests, such as a specific sport, type of music, or other activity, will become the larger draw for learners studying a foreign language.

158  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

For individuals immersed in a community as a second language learner, although the opportunities for language use are greater, both communities of practice and self-determination theories posit that the strength of the connection to the larger language community will be crucial for forming an identity as a speaker and internalising the language as a competent user. Through shared experiences with autonomy-supportive members of the larger language community facilitated by common interests and shared activities, the learners of the second language are likely to find ways to meet their needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence in order to develop authentic identities that match their idealised personality traits (Lynch et al., 2009). In both second and foreign language settings, the relationships with the language community and the satisfaction of basic needs that facilitate integrative orientations and ideal L2-selves form a powerful mechanism for out-of-class language learning. As a theoretical vignette, an individual born in a Western country may develop an interest in Korean pop (K-pop) music. Though they have no historical or family ties to Korea, their friends at school are all interested in the styles, dances and songs streamed on social media platforms. Wanting to deepen these friendships, the young person watches videos on their own. They cannot yet comprehend the language but the music, dance and style are the initial draw, and they can follow these capably while spending time with their friends and feeling a sense of fulfillment and enjoyment. As their interest progresses, they begin to interact over social media with others interested in K-pop culture and thus begin studying the Hangul writing system on their own. Though they do this ostensibly to improve their standing within the community of fans, they feel a sense of identification with this group as well and they internally endorse the idea; they do not feel pressured internally or externally. As the time to choose universities comes, they select a school that has a Korean language program and study abroad program that will allow them to continue developing their ability and identity as a speaker of the language. They seek to integrate themselves into the community of K-pop fans within Korea, imagining situations in which they speak the language fluently and share meaningful interactions with Korean speakers, sharing a love of the music. Perhaps, during this time, they will also have a romantic partner who is a native speaker of Korean. Though they may struggle at times with the language, the relationships with their community of friends and romantic partners help them to overcome these obstacles. They care for and give to the community of speakers, and reciprocally receive the same support. The young person’s identity as a fan of K-pop music and now as a speaker of the language has been formed by their interaction with their community of language practice, stemming from an idealized desire to integrate with that community, all the while bolstered by support for their autonomy, relatedness and competence.

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  159

Although this vignette is a somewhat fanciful summary of a young language learner’s journey chosen to highlight the relational aspects, it also reflects personal experiences of students and acquaintances who have successfully achieved a high degree of language proficiency. More concrete, empirical examples of potential research can help provide direction for future empirical study. Further Connections: Research Opportunities

Applying relationships motivation theory to language education reveals a number of potential avenues for exploration, both qualitative and quantitative. While the proposed research ideas here are not exhaustive, they offer opportunities for researchers seeking a framework to understand the relational aspects of foreign language learning. With the growth and potential of self-access centers and language advising (Mynard, 2019, 2020; Mynard & Carson, 2012), sources of need satisfaction between advisors and advisees can be identified. Following the principles of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991), both self-access and advising create opportunities to scaffold advisees into the community while allowing the advisor to construct and develop their own identity as an expert advisor (Mynard et al., 2018). Through this process, both are brought closer to the larger target community of speakers of the language. Within this community of practice, learners use the language and develop an identity as a speaker while also developing strategies to overcome the eventual pitfalls and difficulties of learning a language. Inroads have been made in this vein, indicating how the advising process can support need satisfaction (Shelton-Strong, 2020), especially relatedness satisfaction, offering insight into how learners form attachments to the language community. Young learners offer a unique and important perspective, both for language and general development. Since young learners (i.e. learners between 5 and 12 years of age) are still in the process of forming secure attachments to significant others (i.e. parents, teachers and friends; Ainsworth et al., 1978), the process of how young language learners, bilingual and otherwise, develop a sense of relatedness with a language community can help illustrate how motivation to learn a language may grow over time. Looking at learners with and without clear communities of practice can also show the extent to which RMT can be applied for language learning. Learners who have a specific, interest-based community of practice for the language can be compared with those learning the language without a community of shared interests. Testing the differences between individuals’ autonomy, relatedness and competence could provide a clear quantitative value for the communities of practice literature while simultaneously providing insight into integrative

160  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

orientation/ideal L2 selves of learners with and without a clear and concrete target community to join. Finally, though the focus of this chapter (and the volume as a whole) is on autonomy support in independent learning, a classroom-based application may also provide directions for exploration. Teachers are often the first contact a learner has with the new language community of practice and, in some situations, may be the only contact. How students perceive specific relatedness support from teachers has a significant effect on students’ engagement (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Thus, measuring teachers’ relatedness support in class may predict how students relate to the language community more generally. Investigating these attitudes among learners in a primarily monolingual setting may offer an understanding of how students learn to relate to the greater community of speakers of a language. These research directions offer a glimpse into the potential for how the relationships motivation mini-theory can be used in new explorations. Further directions for new research comparing RMT with a different interplay of the language acquisition/applied linguistics theories exist, and these avenues are also worth exploration. The list of ideas presented here is neither comprehensive nor complete but it provides an indication as to the potential of relationships motivation theory for language learning, as well as the potential for self-determination theory more broadly to provide more complete explanations of language learning psychology. Final Connections: Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented relationships motivation theory for language learning outside language classrooms. Self-determination theory expresses a full range of specific propositions, claims and hypotheses for this mini-theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), each of which shows ways in which relationships motivation theory can influence personal and interpersonal well-being. The relational aspects of extant language motivation theories can interface well with the potential explanatory functions provided by these propositions, claims and hypotheses of RMT to bolster and improve the general interaction of language learning psychology with the broader fields of education and psychology. Better interface with the learning sciences will ultimately lead to improved understandings of language learning phenomena (Al-Hoorie et al., 2021; Oga-Baldwin et al., 2019), and so it is important as well to avoid jingle-jangle fallacies (Oga-Baldwin, 2019), where different terms and phenomena are named interchangeably and used inconsistently. Relationships motivation theory offers an opportunity for this type of integration and parsimonious clarity. With better models for how relations between individuals and communities influence language learning, cleaner and more parsimonious

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  161

models will also become possible. The communities of practice literature (Haneda, 2011) is ripe for application in the new framework of complex dynamic systems approaches to language learning psychology (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016), and, as demonstrated here, self-determination theory can provide a clear lens for interpreting language-related motivation and well-being. With a more effective understanding of how language learners are motivated outside classrooms, language teachers can better recognize resources that motivate students within classes. The basically interpersonal nature of learning a new language puts relationships at the core of all actions that fuel individuals’ engagement. By bringing these relationships to the forefront, relationships motivation theory illustrates how language learning can promote adaptive functioning and well-being both inside and outside formal education. Notes (1) While a rare and somewhat unique group of language learners may be able to develop some degree of proficiency without interaction with the target language community, these special cases are notable specifically because they are exceptional. Effective language study and learning happen through social connections, and thus notions of independence from, or interdependence with, the new language community are taken as moot for this discussion. As such, in this chapter, independent language learning is used to mean any language study occurring outside a classroom setting, while formal language learning addresses classroom-based efforts toward the language. (2) Gardner’s (1989) AMTB presents the language in question as English but I have generalized this in the interest of equal representation.

References Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. and Wall, S.N. (1978) Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2018) The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 8 (4), 721–754. Al-Hoorie, A.H. and MacIntyre, P.D. (2020) Contemporary Language Motivation Theory: 60 Years Since Gardner and Lambert (1959). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Al-Hoorie, A.H., Hiver, P., Kim, T.-Y. and De Costa, P. (2021) The identity crisis in language motivation research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 40 (1), 136–153. Bruner, J. (1983) Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buckley, J., DeWille, T., Exton, C., Exton, G. and Murray, L. (2018) A gamification– motivation design framework for educational software developers. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 47 (1), 101–127. Cornelius-White, J. (2007) Learner-centered teacher–student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 77 (1), 113–143. Davis, W.S. (2020) Encouraging continued university foreign language study: A selfdetermination theory perspective on programme growth. The Language Learning Journal 1–16. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dörnyei, Z. and Ryan, S. (2015) The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. New York, NY: Routledge.

162  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Furrer, C.J. and Skinner, E.A. (2003) Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (1), 148–162. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (1989) Attitudes and motivation. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 9 (1), 135–148. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13 (4), 266–272. Haneda, M. (1997) Second language learning in a ‘community of practice’: A case study of adult Japanese learners. Canadian Modern Language Review 54 (1), 11–27. Haneda, M. (2011) Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly 40 (4), 807–817. Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2016) A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal 100 (4), 741–756. Hiver, P. and Al-Hoorie, A.H. (2019) Reexamining the role of vision in second language motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of You, Dörnyei, and Csizér (2016). Language Learning 7 (1) 48–102. La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (3), 367–384. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lynch, M.F., La Guardia, J.G. and Ryan, R.M. (2009) On being yourself in different cultures: Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States. Journal of Positive Psychology 4 (4), 290–304. Markus, H.R. and Nurius, P.S. (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41 (9), 954–969. Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98 (2), 224–253. Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (2003) Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman and J.J. Berman (eds) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 18–74). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-factor Theory Perspective. New York, NY: Guilford. McEown, M.S. and Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019) Self-determination for all language learners: New applications for formal language education. System 86, 102–124. McEown, M.S., Noels, K.A. and Chaffee, K.E. (2014) At the interface of the socioeducational model, self-determination theory and the L2 motivational self system. In K. Csizér and M. Magid (eds) The Impact of Self-Concept on Language Learning (pp. 19–50). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. McEown, M.S., Noels, K.A. and Saumure, K.D. (2014) Self-determined and integrative orientations and teachers. System 45 (C), 227–241. Mynard, J. (2012) A suggested model for advising in language learning. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 26–40). New York, NY: Routledge. Mynard, J. (2019) Self-access learning and advising: Promoting language learner autonomy beyond the classroom. In H. Reinders, S. Ryan and S. Nakamura (eds) Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching: The Case of Japan (pp. 185–209). Basingstoke: Macmillan Palgrave. Mynard, J. (2020) Advising for language learner autonomy: Theory, practice, and future directions. In M. Jiménez Raya and F. Vieira (eds) Autonomy in Language Education: Present and Future Avenues (pp. 46–62). New York, NY: Routledge. Mynard, J. and Carson, L. (2012) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context. New York, NY: Routledge.

The Quality of Our Connections Matters: Relationships Motivation Theory  163

Mynard, J., Kato, S. and Yamamoto, K. (2018) Reflective practice in advising: Introduction to the column. Relay Journal 1 (1), 55–64. Noels, K.A., Clement, R. and Pelletier, L.G. (1999) Perceptions of teachers’ communicative style and students intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Modern Language Journal 83 (1), 23–43. Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2019) Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System 86, 102–128. Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. (2020) Show them how, but don’t intrude: Autonomy support promotes EFL classroom attendance and achievement, teacher control hinders it. The Language Teacher 44 (3), 3–10. Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q., Fryer, L.K. and Larson-Hall, J. (2019) The critical role of the individual in language education: New directions from the learning sciences. System 86, 102–118. Palmisano, J. (2009) Motivating knowledge contribution in virtual communities of practice: A self-determination theory perspective. AMCIS 2009 Doctoral Consortium 23, 1–9. Papi, M. and Hiver, P. (2020) Language learning motivation as a complex dynamic system: A global perspective of truth, control, and value. The Modern Language Journal 104 (1), 209–232. Patrick, H., Knee, C.R., Canevello, A. and Lonsbary, C. (2007) The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (3), 434–457. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912355. 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. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9 Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme: Relationships Motivation Theory Satoko Kato

Introduction

This chapter draws on relationships motivation theory (RMT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), which proposes that mutuality of autonomy and autonomy support are vital aspects of high-quality relationships. The chapter provides both a theoretical and practical account of a proposed mentoring programme designed for learning advisors who, in turn, are responsible for supporting the autonomy and well-being of language learners. Drawing on RMT, the approach to mentoring adopted in this chapter emphasises that the basic psychological need for relatedness underlies peoples’ intrinsic pursuit of high-quality relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Ryan and Deci (2017) state that only relationships in which both partners experience autonomy, and provide autonomy support to the other, satisfy this need for relatedness, and ‘being autonomously motivated for the relationship is essential for high-quality, securely attached relationships’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 316). When all three basic psychological needs are fulfilled within these relationships, this, in turn, contributes to well-being both within and between persons (Deci & Ryan, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Within RMT, support within such relationships includes trust, acceptance, unconditional regard and perspective-taking. Moreover, providing such support to others also helps to satisfy the support giver’s basic psychological needs and enhances the support giver’s wellbeing beyond the benefits to others receiving the support (Ryan & Deci, 2014). The mentoring programme described in this chapter also draws 164

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  165

on reflective dialogue (Kato & Mynard, 2016) and mutual learning in relational mentoring, where both participants influence one another (Ragins, 2012). After providing a theoretical overview, this chapter draws on previous research on mentoring and includes a re-analysis of existing data in order to theoretically underpin a practical guide for setting up a one-year mentoring programme. The programme incorporates key elements that contribute to establishing high-quality relationships where promoting mutuality and well-being is valued. Mutuality in Relationships Motivation Theory

All human beings have a fundamental need to feel accepted and significant to others. We have the desire to have an intimate connection with others. Furthermore, we feel more satisfied and fulfilled when we provide such support to others (Ryan & Deci, 2017). RMT directs attention to the qualities of close relationships, focuses on the need for belonging in relationships. SDT claims that all individuals require satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy (i.e. to feel free and self-directed), competence (i.e. to feel effective) and relatedness (i.e. to be closely connected with others) to flourish and grow (see Reeve, Chapter 1 of this volume for a more detailed description). RMT explains that the basic psychological need for relatedness drives the initial desire to seek and maintain close and meaningful relationships and is closely interconnected with autonomy. Thus, satisfaction of the need for relatedness alone is not enough. Optimal high-quality relationships are ones in which each party supports the other’s needs for autonomy and competence, as well as the need for relatedness of the ‘other’. As such, RMT is a theory appropriate for exploring the nature of close, highquality and deeply satisfying relationships that are characterised by both the giving and receiving of autonomy support. In SDT, autonomy is not defined by the presence or absence of external influences but rather by one’s consent or assent to such influences. Autonomy entails the endorsement of one’s actions at the highest order of reflection (Ryan & Deci, 2004), and autonomy support refers to the ‘interpersonal sentiment and behavior one person provides to identify, nurture, and develop the other’s inner motivational resources – such as the need for autonomy, intrinsic motivation, personal interests, intrinsic goals, and self-endorsed values’ (Reeve, 2009: 159). The establishment of high-quality relationships through autonomy support cannot be achieved without ‘mutuality’ between persons. Mutuality of autonomy support implies that each partner in a relationship willingly acts in caring and responsive ways that are respectful of the other (Deci & Ryan, 2014). Deci et al. (2006) examined the benefits of mutuality in autonomy support within close peer

166  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

friendships, and emphasised that receiving, as well as giving autonomy support has a beneficial impact on facilitating basic psychological need satisfaction. However, RMT also emphasises that not all relationships are satisfying ones. Although some relationships bring about genuine satisfaction and wellness, others can lead to feelings of dissatisfaction, frustration, insecurity and unhappiness. RMT suggests that receiving autonomy support from a relational partner facilitates the receiver’s need satisfaction. RMT provides an evidence-based theory which, as human beings, we intuitively know to be true when considering close friends, romantic partners and family members. However, how can we promote high-quality relationships with others in professional development? For example, how can we intentionally promote mutuality and well-being if we want to build a close and satisfying relationship in a mentoring programme? Promoting High-Quality Relationships through Dialogue

This section draws on reflective dialogue (Kato & Mynard, 2016) in advising and relational mentoring (Ragins, 2012) to understand the elements necessary for establishing high-quality relationships in professional development, where the mutuality of giving and receiving autonomy support occurs. Based on these practices, this chapter will suggest a one-year mentoring programme that incorporates three interventions: (1) a life-story interview, (2) collaborative reflection and (3) reverse mentoring. Examining this programme from an RMT perspective, the authentic willingness and autonomy support provided within relationships (between advisor and learner, mentor and mentee, and listener and storyteller) facilitates high-quality relationships and wellness among the participants. The basic theory and practice of reflective dialogue, relational mentoring and the three interventions introduced in the mentoring programme proposed in this chapter are discussed in the following sections. Advising in language learning

As with RMT, advising in language learning (henceforth, advising) emphasises strong connections between autonomy and relatedness. Advising is a growing field in language education, which focuses on supporting language learners to become more autonomous in their learning through one-to-one dialogue (Benson, 2011; MozzonMcPherson, 2012; Mozzon-McPherson & Vismans, 2001; Mynard & Carson, 2012). Advising is intentionally-structured one-to-one dialogue designed to promote learner autonomy. Learner autonomy is defined as ‘the ability to take charge of one’s own learning’ (Holec, 1981: 3), which encompasses the responsibility for the following aspects in learning:

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  167

determining the objectives, deciding the content and course of study, selecting the methods and techniques to be used, monitoring the learning process and evaluating language acquisition. In order to take charge of one’s learning, it is necessary to engage in ongoing reflection. Dialogue that aims to promote reflection is known as reflective dialogue, where the quality of the dialogue is different from an ordinary conversation (Brockbank & McGill, 2006; Kato & Mynard, 2016). Although learners can always self-reflect by themselves without an advisor, observing oneself critically during self-reflection is not easy. Dialogue with other people, in contrast, offers possibilities to restructure one’s established assumptions and beliefs, which can lead one to develop further (Brockbank & McGill, 2006). Self-reflection, especially when facilitated by reflective dialogue, is at the centre of advising. From an SDT perspective, engaging in self-reflection deepens the sense of autonomy, as it is the process of evaluating and identifying one’s particular wants, desires, goals and opinions (Friedman, 2003 in Ryan & Deci, 2017). Reflective dialogue between a learner and an advisor may result in transformation in language learning, where ‘an advisor supports a learner in going beyond improving language proficiency. The learner’s existing beliefs are challenged to raise awareness of learning, translate the learner’s awareness into action, and finally, make a fundamental change in the nature of learning’ (Kato & Mynard, 2016: 9). As with autonomy support in SDT, autonomy support in advising is a process of collaboration between an advisor and a learner, including providing psychological support (i.e. accepting, acknowledging, encouraging) to deepen the learner’s reflection (see Chapters 10 and 11 of this volume). It aims to create a fulfilling experience that establishes a mindset for sustainable personal development that enhances the well-being of both the learner and the advisor (Davies et al., 2020). Relational mentoring

Mentoring is based on intensive one-on-one interaction between a mentor and mentee and is commonly incorporated into professional development and staff training in a variety of fields. In general, mentoring has been defined as a relationship between a more experienced mentor and a less experienced mentee to develop the mentee’s career (Kram, 1985). Mentoring has two main functions, which are career support and psychosocial support. Career support involves knowledge and skills transfer to mentees to help them fit into their organisations (Ragins & Kram, 2007); psychosocial support focuses on counselling, modelling, and enhancing a sense of competence to develop personal growth, identity and self-efficacy (Brockbank & McGill, 2006). Janssen (2015) explains that career support in mentoring involves knowledge and skills transfer and enhances the ‘mastery’ of professional

168  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

expertise. In contrast, psychosocial support focuses on developing personal growth, identity and self-efficacy. Successful mentoring can lead to a deepened sense of self and professional identity. Trends in modern mentoring have shifted the focus from a one-directional, hierarchical structure towards a more relational perspective (Ragins & Verbos, 2007). Compared with traditional perspectives on mentoring, relational perspectives ‘widen the lens to include interdependent and mutual processes that result in a full range of relational outcomes’ for both mentors and mentees (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007: 374). In that sense, modern mentoring provides not only career support but also psychosocial support to mentees. Indeed, in previous studies, SDT has been used as a framework to examine how the mentoring process and the relationships within it can facilitate the fulfilment of basic psychological needs (Janssen, 2015). In addition, developments in the wider field of positive psychology (e.g. Seligman, 2011), where high-quality relationships are considered a primary source of positive influence, have inspired researchers to examine the mentoring process from the relational perspective (Karcher et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2016). Relationships in relational mentoring are based on trust, commitment and mutual respect and go beyond the basic career and psychosocial support defined by Kram (1985) in earlier work. Relational mentoring is characterised by mutual learning, where both participants influence one another. Rather than the hierarchical position that traditional mentoring relationships follow, these relationships pursue the mutuality and reciprocity inherent in growth-producing relationships. Being authentic, adaptive, empathetic, interdependent and vulnerable in the relationship are considered the prerequisites for establishing such high-quality relationships (Fletcher & Ragins, 2007). Ragins (2012) developed a relational mentoring index (RMI) that can be used to examine the functions and processes of high-quality mentoring relationships. The RMI includes the following six dimensions in establishing relational mentoring relationships: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)

Personal learning and growth. Inspiration. Affirmation of ideal, best and authentic selves. Reliance on communal norms. Shared influence and mutual respect. Relational trust and commitment.

Ragins (2012) stresses that the reach of relational mentoring may extend beyond the workplace and may influence an individual’s ability to cope with challenges that cross multiple life domains and promote wellness among both parties. The suggested one-year mentoring programme in this chapter adapts the concept of relational mentoring

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  169

and pursues the establishment of close, high-quality and deeply satisfying relationships characterised by both the giving and receiving of autonomy support as detailed RMT. Key Components of a Mentoring Programme

The following sections introduce three key components (a life-story interview using a picture of life, collaborative reflection, and reversementoring) to promote high-quality relationships in the proposed mentoring programme. The three key components were chosen based on the project findings by Kato (2019), which focused on promoting mutual learning between a mentor and a mentee by establishing a high-quality relationship. Previous research showed that a life-story interview promoted trust and rapport between the mentor and mentee and encouraged the mentee’s self-disclosure (Kato, 2017). Collaborative reflection, where a mentor and a mentee reflect on the previous sessions by sharing their written reflective journals, facilitates mutual understanding. Reverse-mentoring, where the mentor and mentee switch roles, provides the mentor and mentee with new perspectives and confidence by understanding each other’s role (Kato, 2018). These studies indicate that the three key components in the mentoring programme can promote mutuality and a high-quality relationship between the mentor and the mentee. In this section, an example of a one-year mentoring model, which includes the three key components, will be presented. A step-by-step procedure is provided for each session, based on the author’s previous studies. Life story/life narratives

Without establishing a mutually trusting relationship, it is difficult to bring about successful mentoring. Listening to a life story is a process of collaboration where a storyteller and a listener co-construct a dialogue (Atkinson, 1998), and it plays a vital role in establishing a high-quality relationship in mentoring. The approach to life story/ narratives, referred to in this chapter, involves sharing one’s own life experiences and values to help establish a strong relationship between storyteller and listener. Telling a life story as a narrative has a long history. Human beings are characterised as natural-born storytellers, and Bruner (1990) emphasises that ‘personal meaning’ is constructed while telling one’s life story. Murray (1938) was the first known researcher to study individual lives using life narratives to investigate personal development. Since then, researchers from various academic fields such as anthropology, sociology, history and education have drawn on life stories in their work.

170  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Telling a life story is a process by which one answers the question, ‘Who am I?’ When life stories are told, the process tends to create a new shared meaning between the storyteller and the listener. Moreover, the process of sharing a life story is highly personal and subjective, which has much to do with the quality of the interaction between the storyteller and the listener. Researchers investigating life-story interviews have suggested that the storyteller and the listener are collaborators who compose and construct the story together. Therefore, when a life story is told, it is no longer only the storyteller’s story but becomes a co-constructed story of the storyteller and the listener (Atkinson, 1998; Yamada, 2002). However, the benefits of telling life stories are not guaranteed in every case. Some people can feel intimidated, embarrassed or feel uncomfortable with telling their life stories to other people. However, when the interviewer (listener) listens well, the storyteller feels that he/ she is important and makes a deeper connection, as ‘listening well produces a safe place built on the twin pillars of trust and acceptance’ (Atkinson, 1998: 35). Using a visual aid in a life-story interview

The use of visual aids is relatively common in advising, life narratives and clinical psychology. In clinical psychology, the draw-a-man test; the house, tree, person test; and the Baum test are notable drawing approaches used to explore the storyteller’s unconscious mental states (Yamada, 2002). Yamada (2002), who specialises in investigating models of developmental life psychology, focused on life-story drawings to examine how people from different cultural backgrounds visually represent their lives by drawing their ‘image map of life’. Inspired by Yamada’s research, Kato (2017, 2019) introduced ‘the picture of life (PL)’, which uses symbols and images to express a mentee’s past, present and future lives in a mentoring programme. In Kato’s research, it was found that drawing a PL provided participants with more freedom in expressing themselves than did describing themselves. In a written format, more logical thinking is required as more verbal explanation and description are needed. Visual images that are related to life stories offer an alternative way of conveying a message. Moreover, PLs were effective tools for helping the participants to prepare a rough storyline while leaving some open space for them to expand or deviate when telling their stories to a mentor. In other words, a PL itself is not a life story yet; a PL becomes a life story when the story of the picture is told. One of the unique points of the suggested mentoring programme in this chapter involves not only conducting a life-story interview in the first session but also asking the participants to draw a PL when sharing their life stories. Participants in Kato’s (2017, 2019) research explained

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  171

that, although drawing a PL and having a life-story interview in the first session was a challenge, the PLs helped them to reflect upon themselves from a different perspective. Telling a life story by using a PL also had a positive influence on the establishment of a trusting relationship with their mentor. Collaborative reflection

Reflection can be either an individual process or a collaborative process. Bruner (1990) points out that we justify and construct ourselves and our identities when we discuss our own experiences, which means that we not only learn from other people but also learn from ourselves by interacting with other people. Collaborative reflection is becoming more widespread in teacher education as teachers are able to identify ways to grow further than when limited to engaging in individual reflection (Freeman, 1989; Seamon et al., 1997). Van Gyn (1996) argues that collaborative reflection enhances professional growth and increases the probability of success in one’s professional life more effectively than when reflecting alone. Collaboration with colleagues not only helps teachers to become successfully reflective but can also enhance confidence in their professional development (Chase et al., 2001; Day, 1993). Through collaborative reflection, teachers are more likely to examine their teaching practices, learn more about themselves, gain knowledge that might not have been available to them if they did not have the opportunity to reflect with their colleagues, and thus be able to reconfirm or sometimes transform their existing values (Glazer et al., 2004; Mede, 2010). In general, collaborative reflection occurs in a variety of formats. It can be conducted through dialogue (discussions and interviews) and written reflection (journals, observation notes, autobiographies, etc.), in a one-on-one interview, in small group meetings, or online (emails, video chat, online forums, etc.). Previous studies by the author (Kato, 2017, 2019) have emphasised that although the process of collaborative reflection is time-consuming and requires a great deal of commitment for it to be conducted successfully, the results are positive. Teachers are usually put in the position of addressing complicated issues on their own, and collaborative reflection serves as an opportunity for teachers to discover more about their own teaching or the teaching of other people and to improve their practice by reflecting together (Akyel, 2000; Glazer et al., 2004; Mede, 2010). To practice meaningful collaborative reflection, the establishment of a trusting environment is essential, and notions of open-mindedness, responsibility and authenticity are necessary. Consistent with Dewey (1933), researchers of collaborative reflection agree that a non-threatening, non-confrontational, non-judgmental environment is

172  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

necessary for conducting a collaborative reflection successfully (Glazer et al., 2004; Murray, 2015). In other words, the quality of the relationship and the reciprocity of autonomy support is the key to success in collaborative reflection. Reverse mentoring

Reverse mentoring was first introduced in the fields of information technology and business in the USA in the late 1990s. Reverse mentoring uses a unique approach where a less-experienced younger employee shares the latest skills and knowledge in technology with a senior worker with more experience. In return, the younger mentor learns how to establish relationships, improve leadership competencies and understand the organisational culture (Murphy, 2012). Greengard (2002) examined the revolution that reverse mentoring initiated in the corporate sector and found that reverse mentoring provides substantial benefits as it is able to spread technical experience through executives relying on younger staff members to help them. The traditional mentoring approach is based on transmitting knowledge and skills from experts to novices and, thus, the process is often directive and hierarchical, with an expectation of observing improvement in mentees’ performance (Ragins & Kram, 2007). The structure of reverse mentoring is the inverse of the traditional mentoring relationship, where a mentor is usually a more experienced specialist who extends career support and psychosocial support to a less-experienced mentee (Kram, 1985). Drawing on these principles, Kato (2018) conducted a mentoring programme for learning advisors by introducing reverse mentoring and suggested that the ‘combination of traditional and reverse-mentoring could serve as a model for a professional development program where career-support, psychosocialsupport, and mentor education result from mentor(s) and mentees establishing a complementary relationship by fully engaging in reflective dialogue’ (Kato, 2018: 78). Murphy (2012) warns, however, that the reverse-mentoring relationship may become adverse if there is a lack of commitment and understanding and that training in reverse mentoring is therefore necessary. Furthermore, Fletcher (2012) argues that a distinction needs to be made between mentoring in education and mentoring in other contexts because teaching is not merely providing knowledge in one-way learning, i.e. teachers teach students, but involves mutual learning where teachers learn from students. Therefore, reverse mentoring in education needs to have more diversity, where the ‘younger to older’ scheme is not precisely oriented (Dickinson et al., 2009). Most studies on mentoring focus on mentoring for preservice and novice teachers, and there is a lack of research on reverse mentoring for

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  173

the professional development of experienced educators. Kato (2018) investigated reverse mentoring with experienced learning advisors and found that both mentors and mentees benefited from the positive effects of being a mentor through reverse-mentoring relationships. Both parties could revisit and refine their professional skills by engaging in dialogue that enhanced their reflective capabilities while simultaneously helping others to do the same. In the traditional mentoring relationship, mentors are more experienced, skilled professionals who play the role of a listener, facilitator and guide to mentees. This means, mentors usually do not get many opportunities to be listened to by others in training as they themselves are usually the trainers. In reverse mentoring, mentors have an opportunity to play the role of a mentee where they will be actively listened to by someone about their own concerns and issues. Thus, mentors are likely to value opportunities to be listened to by an active listener, demonstrating that at times a mentor also needs a mentor and that reverse mentoring is a practical approach through which to achieve ‘mutual learning’. From an SDT perspective, we can say that individuals who are autonomously motivated to enter into reverse mentoring do so as they feel a high degree of trust and autonomy support. As Ryan and Deci write: ‘individuals who experience autonomy support from their partners within a close relationship will be more willing to emotionally rely on those partners and to turn to the partners for support’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 306); and this feature appears stronger in close adult relationships, which enhances the sense of wellness. Reverse mentoring can play a vital role in enhancing both mentors’ and mentees’ needs for growth and in promoting a sense of well-being through providing support to each other. Well-being in Professional Development

In the field of positive psychology, researchers have noted that wellbeing is not only the absence of distress and dysfunction. Well-being is considered more than simply experiencing happiness: well-being means developing as a person, being fulfilled and contributing to the community (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Well-being is a multidimensional construct that includes self-acceptance, positive relationships, autonomy, environmental mastery, purpose in life and personal growth (Seligman, 2011). SDT is based on the assumption that the social context, or environment, within which people interact plays a crucial role in support of a person’s need for autonomy, competence and relatedness, ultimately facilitating greater well-being and vitality when supportive. However, when the environmental conditions are controlling or need-thwarting, ill-being and other costs are manifested (Ryan & Deci, 2017). RMT’s central position is that even though the satisfaction of the need for relatedness predicts people’s experience of relationship satisfaction or

174  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

relational well-being, relatedness need satisfaction alone is not enough to ensure high-quality relationships. RMT posits that being autonomously motivated to take part within and for a relationship ‘contributes to high satisfaction and greater psychological wellness in both parties’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 298), and that when all three of these basic needs are satisfied within this relationship, this promotes optimal wellness and relational well-being within and among those involved (Deci & Ryan, 2014, 2017). In recent years, well-being has become a focus of language teaching approaches (Dörnyei, 2010; Gkonou et al., 2016; Ryan & Mercer, 2015). Recently, more attention has been paid to teachers’ psychology and well-being. Mercer et al. (2016) suggest that successful language learning largely depends on teachers, which means that caring for their professional well-being is a priority. Therefore, teacher education programmes need to pay more attention to supporting teachers by addressing their stress, emotions, motivation and professional wellbeing rather than primarily focusing on instructional strategies and pedagogical skills. In response, this chapter conceptualises mentoring as a high-priority area of professional development for teachers and other educators, where mentors and mentees realise high-quality relationships and support one another’s need to experience relatedness, competence and autonomy by showing care and acceptance (Ryan & Deci, 2017), sharing knowledge and deepening reflection. A Mentoring Program to Promote High-Quality Relationships

The previous sections suggest that establishing close, high-quality and deeply satisfying relationships that are characterised by both the giving and receiving of autonomy support leads to enhanced well-being and facilitates satisfaction for all three basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2017). In order to intentionally establish high-quality relationships, the following is a suggested mentoring model that incorporates the theory and practice of relational mentoring. The proposed mentoring programme is based on a number of studies that have been conducted by the author (Kato, 2017, 2018, 2019), where she conducted effective relational mentoring programmes for experienced advisors to promote mutual learning. This research focused on evaluating mutual learning between a mentor and mentee and, although the data indicated some evidence of an increased sense of wellbeing, an in-depth data analysis on determining the influential factors of well-being was not carried out at that time. To ensure that the mentoring programme suggested in this chapter takes the characteristics of relational mentoring into account, where mutuality is pursued in a growth-producing relationship, the data

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  175

Table 9.1  Coding related to the Relational Mentoring Index Codes

Frequency

Personal learning and growth

38

Relational trust and commitment

29

Shared influence and respect

21

Inspiration

15

Self-affirmation

15

Communal norms

9

collected from previous studies (written journals and questionnaires) (Kato, 2017, 2018, 2019) were re-examined. The re-examination was based on the six dimensions of the relational mentoring index (RMI). In other words, the RMI was used to examine the functions and processes of high-quality mentoring relationships (Ragins, 2012). The written data collected in the studies were input into Nvivo, a software program designed for qualitative research. The researcher attached labels based on the six dimensions of the RMI, and the frequency of the codes was counted. Table 9.1 shows the results of the data analysis of the journals and questionnaires used in the mentoring of five learning advisors over a one-and-a-half-year period based on the RMI. The frequency with which the codes were found in the data is shown in the table. The dimension most frequently identified in the RMI coding was ‘Personal learning and growth’. which was when a mentor helped a mentee learn and grow as a person by learning more about himself/ herself. The following examples are extracts from the data collected from the written post-program questionnaire conducted in Kato (2019). The underlined text in the examples was added by the researcher to highlight particular components. Example:

It [the mentoring program] was enriching because I could finally see how my life experiences have led me to the position that I am at now. It also helped me reaffirm my capability and enforced my belief that I can be the best helper I can be and that what I do matters!

The dimension with the second-highest frequency of occurrence was ‘Relational trust and commitment’. Example:

I was deeply moved by the interaction I had with my mentor. I trusted her [the mentor] from the beginning. I actually got to know more about myself and about her through the mentor program.

176  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

The dimension with the third-highest frequency was ‘Shared influence and respect’, which implies that the mentor and mentee respected and influenced each other and valued what each person said. Example:

I think the first session where we shared stories of our lives really helped build our relationship; however, what was crucial was the fact that I respected my mentor professionally as an LA [learning advisor] from the beginning. After I learned more about my mentor, I respected (and was attracted to) her even more as a person, and that also resulted in a better relationship.

The findings from the re-examination of the data indicate that the mentoring programme positively enhances mutuality and a sense of well-being between the mentor and mentees. Building on the previous studies, the original mentoring programme has been revised in order to incorporate the perspectives of RMT by focusing primarily on the need for belonging in mentoring relationships and its interrelations with autonomy and competence. The suggested programme could serve as an effective intervention approach to intentionally establish a high-quality relationship in a formal professional development programme. The structure of a suggested one-year mentoring programme

The one-year mentoring programme suggested below (see Table 9.2), which is based on Kato (2019), is designed to promote mutuality and wellbeing of both the mentor and the mentee by establishing high-quality relationships. The model incorporates approaches from relational mentoring (Ragins & Verbos, 2007), a life-story interview (Atkinson, 1998, 2002; Bruner, 1990), collaborative reflection (Freeman, 1989; Seamon et al., 1997; Table 9.2  Structure of a one-year mentoring programme Sessions 1st Life-story interview by using a PL

2nd

3rd

Mentoring sessions (mentee brings their own issues as an agenda)

4th

5th

6th

7th

1st collaborative reflection by sharing journals

Mentoring session (mentee brings their own issues as an agenda)

Reversementoring session

2nd collaborative reflection by sharing journals

Reflect on the first three sessions

Reflect on the entire programme

Task after the session Both the mentor and mentee keep journals after the sessions by using the provided form.

Post-programme questionnaire

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  177

Van Gyn, 1996) and reverse mentoring (Murphy, 2012; Porras et al., 2018) and has been adapted to promote mutuality and wellness from the perspective of RMT. Although the proposed mentoring programme focuses primarily on establishing high-quality relationships, it also retains general mentoring functions, such as career support and psychological support (Kram, 1985). There are seven mentoring sessions in total within the one-year programme. Three different interventions are included: (1) a life-story interview; (2) collaborative reflection; and (3) reverse mentoring. Each session is usually from 60 to 90 minutes. The sessions can be either in-person or online. The agenda for the mentoring sessions is decided by the mentee (except for the reverse mentoring session). The mentor and mentee keep a written reflective journal after each session. An established format for the written journal is preferable as it will make the collaborative reflection easier to carry out. All the sessions are recorded so that both the mentor and mentee can reflect on the sessions later. Pre-session meeting: Getting ready for a life-story interview by drawing a picture of life

Prior to the first session, a mentor and mentee will be informed about the aim of the mentoring programme and that the first session will be a life-story interview. Sharing a life story in the first session is a risk-taking event. Therefore, both the mentor and mentee should reach a consensus in the pre-session meeting. Both the mentor and mentee will be asked to draw a picture of life (PL) prior to the first session and to share their life stories in the first session. There are no precise guidelines for drawing a PL; however, it is helpful to provide some examples of PLs so that participants feel more comfortable drawing their own PLs. It should be noted that the participants are not asked to share anything they feel uncomfortable with. Figure 9.1 provides examples of PLs sketched by mentees in Kato’s (2017) project.

Figure 9.1  Examples of pictures of life (PL)

178  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Session 1: Life-story interview by sharing PLs

Both the mentor and mentee will bring their PLs to the session. Some mentees feel vulnerable when showing their PLs to others. If the mentee feels uncertain about showing their PL, it is preferable that the mentor shares their PL first. Both mentor and mentee will listen to their life stories attentively by accepting and acknowledging without criticism or judgement. The reflective dialogue in the first session can be very dynamic and memorable and can serve as the foundation of a high-quality relationship. In many cases, the participants become emotional when sharing their life stories. Therefore, it is recommended that this kind of mentoring be conducted among experienced listeners who are psychologically ready to perform such a dialogue. If not, the basics of attentive listening strategies could be provided to mentors prior to participating in the mentoring programme. Some practical strategies used in advising can be adapted for this purpose (see Kato & Mynard, 2016) It should also be noted that the PLs used in the first session may serve as a point-to-return-to in many cases (Kato, 2017). Usually, reflecting on previous sessions in a dialogue can be time consuming. However, the PLs can help the mentees return to the moment within a few seconds. Revisiting the PLs in the following sessions usually brings about a moment where the mentees’ minds instantly return to the first session without much effort. Therefore, it is recommended that the mentor keep a copy of the mentee’s PL. Session 2, session 3 and session 5: Regular mentoring

Regular mentoring sessions will be conducted in session 2, session 3 and session 5, where a more experienced mentor provides a mentoring session to a less experienced mentee. The mentee brings their own issues as an agenda. It could be a specific issue (i.e. about a particular student) or a broader issue (i.e. anxiety towards the future). The mentor’s role is to listen and accept the mentee, to help them to become more aware of their situation and feelings. Session 4 and session 7: Collaborative reflection

There will be two collaborative reflection sessions, namely the first collaborative reflection (session 4) and the second collaborative reflection (session 7). Prior to each collaborative session, the mentor and mentee will share their written journal, which they have kept after each session. The programme values ‘mutuality’, and thus it is not only the mentee but also the mentor who will write journals, as it is considered one of the important elements to ensure equality in the relationship. By jointly reflecting, the mentor and mentee develop further awareness that might not have been available to them if they had not reflected together.

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  179

In addition, the focus of the first collaborative reflection could be the process of mentoring itself, and, in this way, set a future direction for the rest of the programme. The second collaborative reflection (session 7) will be conducted as the last session of the mentoring programme, where both the mentor and mentee reflect on the entire programme together. Prior to session 7, the mentor and mentee share their journals, as was done in the first collaborative reflection (session 4). However, in the second collaborative reflection, it is recommended that a post-programme questionnaire be administered before the session in order to receive feedback from the mentee. Then, the mentor can follow up orally on the questions in the questionnaire in the collaborative reflection session in order to provide an opportunity for the mentee to make further comments. It is expected that helping the mentee undergo an overall reflection also provides the mentor with an opportunity to reflect on themselves more deeply. Session 6: Reverse mentoring

In session 6, the mentor and the mentee switch roles and conduct a reverse-mentoring session where the mentor becomes a mentee (senior mentee), and the mentee becomes a mentor (junior mentor). The procedure of the reverse-mentoring session is explained at the end of session 4 (in the first collaborative reflection). Prior to the reverse-mentoring session, the junior mentor is encouraged to listen to the recordings of the previous five sessions and read through their journals to prepare for the session. It is expected that both the junior mentor and the senior mentee will be able to further develop their professional skills and knowledge and deepen their reflective process while helping each other to achieve their goals. The junior mentor may feel a degree of pressure when conducting reverse mentoring. Therefore, as has been detailed here, it is recommended to start with a programme of regular mentoring where junior mentors and senior mentees can establish a strong, trusting relationship. At this point, the mentor and mentee have probably established a highquality relationship. Therefore, although the role-switching session may be a challenge for the junior mentor, the trusting relationship and atmosphere of goodwill and openness will allow them to face this challenge. Expected outcomes of the mentoring programme

The expected outcomes of the suggested mentoring programme can be linked with our need for relatedness, especially with respect to RMT. RMT highlights the importance of not just relatedness but of high-quality relatedness. Ryan and Deci (2017) emphasise that what is central to RMT is when we are autonomously motivated and seeking out belonging with others by attempting to develop intimate relationships. Such interaction promotes personal and relational well-being where people experience not

180  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

only relatedness satisfaction but also autonomy support and autonomy satisfaction within the relationships. The three interventions embedded in the programme (a life-story interview, collaborative reflection, reverse mentoring) are expected to support the experience of mutuality and well-being. The mentoring programme introduced in this chapter may also provide motivational support, including trust, acceptance and unconditional regard, to mentees. Moreover, providing such support to the mentee also satisfies the mentor’s basic psychological needs, which will enhance the well-being of the support giver (mentor). Conclusions: Benefits for Language Learner Support

Successful language learning largely depends on educators, and caring for educators’ professional well-being is a priority in their professional development. Therefore, we need to pay more attention to providing autonomy support to educators by addressing their stress, emotions, motivation and professional well-being rather than focusing only on instructional strategies and pedagogical skills. Researchers have revealed that educators’ well-being is significantly related to their motivation and has positive effects on both themselves and their students (Mercer et al., 2016; Pennington, 1992). Thus, the mentoring programme suggested in this chapter is designed to provide autonomy support and to enhance high-quality relationships for educators and will also have benefits for the learners they are supporting. Although the suggested mentoring programme was originally designed for experienced learning advisors promoting learner autonomy outside the classroom, it can be adapted widely to different professionals and for shorter or longer periods of time. It is hoped that this chapter will provide some ideas for intentionally establishing high-quality relationships in professional development programmes where mutuality between persons and well-being are promoted. References Akyel, A. (2000) Collaboration to explore teaching: A case study. TESL Canada Journal 18 (1), 58–74. Atkinson, R. (1998) The Life Story Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Atkinson, R. (2002) The life story interview. In J.F. Gubrium and J.A. Holstein (eds) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method (pp. 121–140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Benson, P. (2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy. Second Edition. Harlow: Longman Pearson. Brockbank, A. and McGill, I. (2006) Facilitating Reflective Learning through Mentoring and Coaching. London: Kogan Page. Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chase, B., Germundsen, R.A., Brownstein, J.C. and Distad, L.S. (2001) Making the connection between increased student learning and reflective practice. Educational Horizons 48 (3), 143–147.

Establishing High-Quality Relationships through a Mentoring Programme  181

Day, C. (1993) Reflection: A necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal 19 (1), 83–94. Davies, H., Wongsarnpigoon, I., Watkins, S., Vola Ambinintsoa, D., Terao, R., Stevenson, R., Imamura, Y., Edlin, C. and Bennett, P.A. (2020) A self-access center’s response to COVID-19: Maintaining stability, connectivity, well-being, and development during a time of great change. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 11 (3), 135–147. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2014) Autonomy and need satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships motivation theory. In N. Weinstein (ed.) Human Motivation and Interpersonal Relationships: Theory, Research and Applications (pp. 53–73). Dordrecht: Springer. Deci, E.L., La Guardia, J.G., Moller, A.C., Scheiner, M.J. and Ryan, R.M. (2006) On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32 (3), 313–327. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. New York, NY & Boston, MA: D.C. Heath. Dickinson, K., Jankot, T. and Gracon, H. (2009) Technical Report – Sun Mentoring: 1996– 2009. Mountain View, CA: Sun Microsystems. Dörnyei, Z. (2010) The relationship between language aptitude and language learning motivation: Individual differences from a dynamic systems perspective. In E. Macaro (ed.) Continuum Companion to Second Language Acquisition (pp. 247–267). London: Continuum. Fletcher, J.K. and Ragins, B.R. (2007) Stone Center relational cultural theory: A window on relational mentoring. In B.R. Ragins and K.E. Kram (eds) The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 373–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fletcher, S. (2012) Editorial of the inaugural issue of the International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education 1 (1), 4–11. Freeman, D. (1989) Teacher training, development, and decision making: A model and related strategies for language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly 23 (1), 27–45. Friedman, M. (2003) Autonomy, Gender, Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gkonou, C., Tatzl, D. and Mercer, S. (2016) Conclusion. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer (eds) New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (pp. 249–255). Cham: Springer. Glazer, C., Abbott, L. and Harris, J. (2004) A teacher-developed process for collaborative professional reflection. Reflective Practice 5 (1), 33–46. Greengard, S. (2002) Moving forward with reverse mentoring. Workforce 81 (3), 15. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Janssen, S. (2015) A Self-determination Theory Perspective on Mentoring Relationships at Work. Enschede: Universiteit Twente. Karcher, M.J., Davidson A.J., Rhodes, J.E. and Herrera, C. (2010) Pygmalion in the program: The role of teenage peer mentors’ attitudes in shaping their mentees’ outcomes. Applied Developmental Science 14 (4), 212–227. Kato, S. (2017) Effects of drawing and sharing a ‘picture of life’ in the first session of a mentoring program for experienced learning advisors. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 8 (3), 274–290. Kato, S. (2018) Promoting mutual learning in reverse-mentoring: Professional development for experienced educators. OnCue Journal 11 (1), 68–80. Kato, S. (2019) A relational mentoring program for language learning advisors: The effects of life story interviews, collaborative reflection, and reverse-mentoring. Doctoral dissertation, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Kram, K.E. (1985) Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organizational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co. Mede, E. (2010) The effects of collaborative learning on EFL teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences 2 (2), 3888–3891.

182  Part 3: Autonomy Support in Communities and Relationships

Mercer, S., Oberdorfer, P. and Saleem, M. (2016) Helping language teachers to thrive: Using positive psychology to promote teachers’ professional well-being. In D. Gabryś-Barker and D. Gałajda (eds) Positive Psychology Perspectives on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 213–229). Cham: Springer. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2012) The skills of counselling in advising: Language as a pedagogic tool. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 43–64). Harlow: Pearson Education. Mozzon-McPherson, M. and Vismans, R. (2001) (eds) Beyond Language Teaching towards Language Advising. London: CILT Publications. Murray, E. (2015) Improving learning through collaborative reflective teaching cycles. Investigations in Mathematics Learning 7 (3), 23–29. Murray, H.A. (1938) Explorations in Personality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mynard, J. and Carson, L. (eds) (2012) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context. Harlow: Pearson Education. Murphy, W.M. (2012) Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational learning and developing millennial leaders. Human Resource Management 51 (4), 549–573. Pennington, M.C. (1992) Motivating English language teachers through job enrichment. Language, Culture and Curriculum 5 (3), 199–217. Porras, I., Díaz, L. and Nieves, M. (2018) Reverse mentoring and peer coaching as professional development strategies. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal 20 (2), 169–183. Ragins, B.R. (2012) Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. In K.S. Cameron and G.M. Spreitzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 519–536). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K.E. (2007) The roots and meaning of mentoring. In B.R. Ragins and K.E Kram (eds) The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 3–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ragins, B.R. and Verbos, A.K. (2007) Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. In J. Dutton and B.R. Ragins (eds) Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reeve, J. (2009) Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist 44 (3), 159–175. Ryan, C.T., Kramer, J.M. and Cohn, E.S. (2016) Exploring the self-disclosure process in peer mentoring relationships for transition-age youth with developmental disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 54 (4), 245–259. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1), 68–78. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2004) Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S.L. Koole and T. Pyszcynski (eds) Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology (pp. 449–479). New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, S. and Mercer, S. (2015) Editorial. Psychology and language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching (Special Issue) 5 (2), 199–203. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation Development and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Seamon, A., Sweeny, B., Meadows, P. and Sweeny, M. (1997) Collaboration, reflection and professional growth: A mentoring program for adult ESL teachers. TESOL Journal 4 (1), 31–34. Seligman M.E.P. (2011) Flourish. New York, NY: Free Press. Van Gyn, G.H. (1996) Reflective practice: The needs of professions and the promise of cooperative education. The Journal of Cooperative Education 31 (Winter/Spring), 103–131. Yamada, Y. (2002) Models of life-span developmental psychology: A construction of the generative life cycle model including the concept of ‘death’. Kyoto University Research Studies in Education 48, 39–62.

Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

10 Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate: Advising in Language Learning and Basic Psychological Needs Scott J. Shelton-Strong and Maria Giovanna Tassinari

Introduction

Advising in Language Learning (advising) is a vibrant and rapidly developing discipline, providing interpersonal support for language learners beyond the classroom environment, often as an optional service for learners within university self-access centres (Mozzon-McPherson, 2019; Mynard, 2019). The primary aim of advising is to facilitate selfawareness in language learning and an experience of autonomy while learning both within the classroom and beyond the classroom, in various learning environments and/or in real-life contexts (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Shelton-Strong, 2020). This self-awareness is sought through promoting a transformation from within, where the focus lies on nurturing a change in how a learner approaches and understands the nature of learning. This process raises awareness of the learners’ active (and central) role in making personal decisions related to learning and achievement (MozzonMcPherson, 2019). For the purpose of this chapter, advising refers to a ‘process of dialogical interventions’ (Mozzon-McPherson, 2019: 96) in which dialogue is used as a tool to ‘promote deeper-level reflective thought processes in order to promote an awareness and control of learning’ (Mynard, 2020: 46). The advisor facilitates this reflection as learners gain a deeper understanding of themselves as language learners and of the central role they play within the learning process. In practice, advising has 185

186  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

the overarching aims of facilitating a climate supportive of autonomous learning and motivated engagement, providing support for learning beyond the aim of improved language proficiency, fostering sustainable development and, ultimately, stimulating the inner motivational resources of the learner in a way that enhances flourishing. Advising, as we define it here, takes a holistic approach to achieving these aims, which includes consideration for the learner as a whole person, their affective states and well-being. In a holistic approach, we highlight the uniqueness of each individual and their completeness, considering all aspects of their cognitive, emotional and social well-being (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mozzon-McPherson, 2012, 2019; Mozzon-McPherson & Tassinari, 2020; Tassinari, 2016). In this chapter, we will examine the role of advising and will provide an outline of its strategies and aims, inner-workings and overarching motives, based on our experiences as advisors and on the literature. While we lay out these processes and sketch the broad strokes of this outline, we aim to position these within the explanatory power of self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), with particular emphasis on its central mini-theory of basic psychological needs (BPNT). We do this with the aim of exploring advising and its practice of nurturing the whole person within the language learner to identify it as an autonomy-supportive endeavour which, from an SDT perspective, provides support for the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. From this discussion, we will draw up a classification of practice-based approaches/ behaviours used within advising. It is our hope that this classification will contribute to the conceptualisation and practice of advising as a discipline of transformation, which, as another of the helping professions, taps into the psychology of language learning to bolster development, growth, learning and well-being. Premise: Defining autonomy

The notion of autonomy has been defined slightly differently in the literature on language learning and in the literature on SDT (see Reeve, Chapter 2 of this volume). In order to avoid confusion, we will use ‘autonomy in language learning’ when we refer to the notion as discussed/defined in the literature on second language acquisition, including advising in language learning. In the framework of SDT, we will simply use ‘autonomy’.  Literature Review/Theoretical Background Advising in language learning

Since its very beginnings in the early 1970s at CRAPEL (Centre de Recherches et d’Applications Pédagogiques en Langues, Centre of Research and Pedagogical Practice in Languages) (Cembalo & Holec, 1973), advising in language learning aims at supporting learners to become

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  187

(more) self-directed and autonomous in their language learning process. The core principle of advising is the intentional reflective dialogue between advisor and advisee, which focuses on raising a learner’s awareness of, and enhancing their reflection on, their learning needs, motivation, habits and beliefs in order to support their capacity to make informed decisions about their learning and to promote transformation. Advising principles draw on an eclectic theoretical framework, including sociocultural theory, learning psychology, humanistic psychology, client-centred therapy and counselling/coaching. According to sociocultural theory, development processes take place mediated through interaction with cultural activities and artefacts in different social and institutional settings (Lantolf et al., 2015). In other words, learning and personal development take place and are enhanced through social interaction by participating in and co-constructing cultural and linguistic exchanges. The reflective dialogue that takes place in advising sessions is an example of how awareness, reflection and personal development are the results of a co-construction by advisor and advisee (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mozzon-McPherson, 2012). Learning advisors are truly interested in the learners they work with and they encounter them with respect, considering them as experts for their own life and learning, in an approach similar to counselling in humanistic psychology and client-centred therapy. Starting from the idea that awareness and reflection on one’s experience enhances insights, decision-making and problem solving (cf. Mozzon-McPherson, 2012; Rogers, 1995), advisors use dialogue as a tool to support the reflection process and to encourage self-informed decision-making. In advising sessions, ideas and techniques from various counselling approaches may be used, such as from cognitive behavioural therapy, or coaching, according to the context, the situation, and the advisor’s experience and/or educational background (Mynard & Carson, 2012). The advising dialogue is meant to be non-directive. However, the degree of directiveness may vary (Mynard, 2018) according to institutional and contextual constraints and/or individual needs (e.g. if advising is compulsory or optional, is part of a language module/course, or should the degree of awareness on the part of the learner warrant it). In the advising dialogue, the advisor helps the advisee to express their needs, define their goals, become aware and reflect on their motivation, beliefs and learning experience, and to identify strategies for pursuing their language learning projects and self-identified learning pathway. Within this dialogue, aspects related to autonomy in language learning, such as ‘learning to learn’ and the self-awareness, personal and social skills needed to develop this, are elicited and nurtured through the professional and personal relationship established between advisor and advisee. In the course of almost four decades since its first establishment, advising theoretical underpinnings and the focus of advising sessions in different institutions and settings have been evolving, in accord with the development of research in the field of language learner autonomy,

188  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

second language acquisition (for example, Atkinson, 2011), learning psychology (Mercer et al., 2012), as well as other related disciplines. Thus, whereas in its beginnings advising was mainly focused on cognitive and metacognitive aspects, providing support for learners in defining appropriate goals, choosing materials and reflecting on learning strategies and management (Gremmo, 1995), in recent years, drawing on research on motivation, beliefs, and individual biographies of language learners (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009; Kalaja et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2011), affective and individual aspects have been integrated into the advising dialogue, encouraging reflection on, and supporting, learners’ emotions and emotion regulation, motivation and well-being (Moriya, 2019; Tassinari, 2016; Tassinari & Ciekanski, 2013; Yamashita & Mynard, 2015). In addition, increasing attention has been paid to mindfulness and to its potential for enhancing the advising and learning process (Beseghi, Chapter 11 of this volume; Mozzon-McPherson, 2017, 2019). Along with advising practice, research related to advising continues to develop, addressing questions from a range of theoretical perspectives: the role of advising in enhancing learner autonomy, self-directed learning, and self-access language learning (Cavosi & Cont, 2019; Reinders, 2012); the theoretical underpinnings of advising (MozzonMcPherson, 2012); the principles and structure of the advising discourse (Ciekanski, 2007; Gremmo, 1995); the tools for advising (Kidd & von Boehm, 2012); and approaches to professional development for advisors (Bradley et al., 2016; Kato & Mynard, 2016; McCarthy, 2012). After having set foundations for advising, research has started to focus on advisees’ emotions and feelings, both in order to support a learner’s development and to investigate the subtle interrelationship between advisor and advisee in the advising dialogue (Carette et al., 2013). Research has also integrated various theoretical frameworks such as sociocultural theory (Mynard, 2020) and complexity theory (Magno e Silva & Borges, 2016), just to mention some, and methodological approaches such as discourse analysis (Ciekanski, 2007), ethnographic methods, mixed methods, and narrative inquiry (Karlsson, 2017). Looking at advising through the lens of SDT is one of the new perspectives that can be used to further develop and expand our understanding of the potential scope of this stimulating field. In what follows, we highlight key components of SDT and examine ways in which these can interface with advising practice, its aims and desired outcomes. Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Autonomy-Supportive Role of Basic Psychological Needs (BPNs)

At the core of SDT is the belief that autonomy, competence and relatedness are basic psychological needs inherent across cultures, ages and gender, regardless of race, position or power. These needs are defined

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  189

as the source of energy which drives and sustains action and which, when satisfied, provides the psychological nourishment required to facilitate self-motivation, effectual behaviour, integration and psychological wellbeing (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Conversely, when these needs are frustrated, there are costs, which are manifested in diminished motivation, lack of engagement, and ill-being (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Autonomy within SDT is understood to be an expression of self-endorsed and volitional action, as opposed to actions that involve elements of control or external (and also inner) pressure (Roth et al., 2019). Competence refers to the feeling that one’s actions are effective in bringing about the results and outcomes that one pursues, leading to feelings of self-confidence, mastery and effectiveness. Relatedness is defined as the experience of feeling socially connected and personally significant within reciprocally close and caring relationships (see Reeve, Chapter 1 of this volume; Ryan et al., 2011). Autonomy has a special status in SDT, as it is through the expression of willingness and non-coerced behaviour that satisfaction of the other basic needs is enhanced. When competence is experienced within a voluntary and unforced act, the sense of effectiveness is integrated, and need-satisfaction is augmented. Similarly, when being in an open, caring, reciprocal relationship is connected to free will and volitional motives, relatedness is more fully satisfied, leading to greater well-being, openness and heightened positive affect (Ryan & Deci, 2017). While each need is identified as conceptually distinct, it is important to draw attention to the interdependence among them. SDT views the three needs as complementary, mutually supportive and dynamically interconnected, whereby the needs can (and do) converge simultaneously. This can lead to the pro-active reshaping of environments, as individuals craft needsupportive activities and relationships in which they can experience a sense of volition, mastery and close connections (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). Central to facilitating an autonomy-supportive learning climate is the crucial role played by those involved as socialising agents and/or significant others (i.e. advisors in this case) in supporting these needs. This role is centred on facilitating and sustaining the socio-environmental and contextual conditions that support a person’s need to experience feelings of efficacy and success, the psychological freedom to pursue their own interests and values, and the feeling of a reciprocal connection and sense of significance to others. This climate is fostered and sustained specifically through the behaviours, actions and attitudes communicated by advisors, teachers, coaches or other professionals, as well as through affordances to be found within the social-learning or transformational settings (Aelterman et al., 2019; Delrue et al., 2019; Reeve, 2016). From an SDT perspective, positive change and transformation are tightly interwoven with motivation. Thus, autonomy support – the process by which key figures take the learner’s perspective, encourage choice, and reduce control and pressure, among other behaviours (see Reeve, Chapter 2

190  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

of this volume) – has been found to enhance autonomous motivation (both intrinsic and internalised extrinsic motivation), among other positive outcomes. These latter include, strengthened need-satisfaction, enhanced engagement, deeper learning experiences, as well as adaptability to change, and greater psychological well-being, both in the immediate and long term (e.g. Reeve, 2016; Roth et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). Research exploring the validity, strength and reach of the minitheories underpinning SDT, and in particular BPNT, has been extensive (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020), with much of this applied in practice across a wide range of the essential and social spheres of life, including the fields of education (Reeve, 2016) and language learning environments, specifically (Noels et al., 2019). This research across life domains has enabled the identification and development of specific types of motivational supports, techniques or interventions, which lead to high-quality engagement and aid in creating the need-supportive environments where people can flourish at work, at school, in counselling, coaching, athletics, and in other areas of life. The principles underpinning BPNT play an important explanatory role when examining and understanding how social-contextual environments function to support or undermine the well-being, vitality, healthy psychological development and adjustment of those within these environments (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). At the same time, BPNT serves as a practical guide to inform practitioners; and, by extension, it is instrumental in explaining how, why, and in what ways certain practices can be understood to function as need-supportive or need-frustrating. SDT is inherently critical, enabling it to identify and distinguish within environments those elements that can hinder need support and undermine an individual’s innate capacity to flourish and thrive. This has important implications for those within the helping professions (advising, coaching, counselling, teaching, etc.) and underscores the need to examine key practices that can provide and promote need-satisfaction through specific strategies and intentional focused interaction with others. Advising as a Holistic Approach to Learners’ Transformation and Well-being

Autonomy support entails, by definition, respecting and attempting to appreciate the perspective of, and unique challenges faced by, each learner. (Ryan & Deci, 2020: 5) We support the view that, for development and growth to remain sustainable, change must be initiated and continue to be encouraged

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  191

from within (Ryan & Deci, 2019; Ryan et al., 2010). In practice, this implies a facilitative role for the advisor, providing support, encouragement and guidance to foster the internal processes of learning, growth and development, and to nurture the processes of reflection, transformation and change, primarily through non-directive forms of questioning and encouragement (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mozzon-McPherson, 2017). This contrasts with attempts to initiate change explicitly from without, implying a more specific focus on training, conditioning or other ways of shaping a desired or externally pre-conceived outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2019).  The basis of autonomy support, and the core of advising practice, is the advisor’s readiness/capacity to take the learner’s frame of reference: in other words, to accept their view of the world and their place in it. This is accomplished by providing sufficient space, interest, empathy and patience so that the learner’s ‘needs, wants, goals, priorities, preferences, and emotionality’ (Reeve, 2016: 137) are taken into account, recognised and respected. Ways in which learning advisors (also coaches, teachers, etc.) can achieve this include prompting initiative, responsiveness and openness to incorporating learners’ ideas, offering meaningful choice and relevant rationales when explicit suggestions or requests are made, and observing (and eliciting) the extent to which there is a reciprocal attunement between the learners’ position and that of the advisor (Reeve, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2020). As discussed earlier, advisors use a range of strategies and tools (primarily dialogue) to facilitate transformation and growth, enabling learners – through opportunities for reflection – to become more acutely aware of the learning activities, emotions, beliefs and specific learning-related goals that they value most, and why. As a vehicle for autonomy support, the advising dialogue is used to explore and reflect on these thoughts and actions and the reasons for the beliefs or the rationale that lies behind them, while accepting the learner on his or her terms and encouraging an open exchange of ideas, experiences, feelings, hope and expectations. In the following section, we will discuss specific autonomy-supportive practices relative to advising, drawing on the work of Aelterman et al. (2019), Deci and Ryan (2016), Delrue et al. (2019), Reeve (Chapter 2 of this volume; 2016), Ryan and Deci (2019), Teixeira et al. (2020) and Vansteenkiste et al. (2019), within the fields of teacher education, counselling, coaching, health and behaviour change. We make connections from these practices to focus on the behaviours and approaches of the advisor, and the practice of effective person-centred advising, to bear out our view that advising (and by extension, the learning advisor) is uniquely positioned to support learners’ basic psychological needs and to facilitate an autonomy-supportive learning environment beyond the classroom.

192  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Climate through Advising

At the core of SDT’s approach to creating a facilitating environment for growth is the practice of autonomy support. (Ryan & Deci, 2019: 236)

Listening to the learner

Advising is based on developing a dialogue with the learner and requires careful and focused listening (Kato & Mynard, 2016). An attentive advisor listens with interest and is mindfully observant (Mozzon-McPherson, 2017). This includes being conscious of how a learner relates experiences, dreams, anxieties and plans, by noticing body language, voice tone and inflection, silences and other possibly sub-conscious expressions. Listening empathetically and without judgement helps to create a climate within which a learner feels empowered and sufficiently comfortable to relate personal experience and thoughts (both positive and negative), to reflect on these, and to connect them to desires or goals for the future. Experiencing the feeling of being listened to allows a learner to experience authenticity, and thus to investigate and express their own true motivation, to feel considered and to establish a personal relation to the advisor.  Key advising strategies used alongside empathetic listening to enhance the dialogue are those of repeating, mirroring, restating, empathising and summarising (Kelly, 1996; Mozzon-McPherson, 2012), as well as others such as asking powerful questions, using metaphors, intuiting, sharing, challenging, and prompting accountability, used more effectively once rapport and trust have been established (see Kato & Mynard, 2016).  By showing interest and understanding through mindful listening, the advisor validates the learner indirectly and can galvanise interest and perceptions into reasons for change (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Demonstrating respect for the learner’s views, and attuning to the learner’s current pace of development, enables the advisor to focus the dialogue on the underlying meaning and motives expressed by the learner, which can be highlighted and reflected on using the range of advising strategies discussed earlier (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Kelly, 1996; Mozzon-McPherson & Tassinari, 2020). Mozzon-McPherson (2017) examines this process in detail through the discourse analysis of learneradvisor dialogue, demonstrating how the intentional use of language (e.g. the mirroring strategy) and mindful listening within an advising encounter can promote reflection and guide the learner to reach a deeper understanding of their own actions and beliefs and to notice growth, achievement and a sense of competence.

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  193

Using non-pressuring language

Using informational and non-evaluative language intentionally within the advising dialogue is fundamental to supporting autonomy and can be especially effective when a learner shares affective issues with an advisor. Using non-pressuring language entails using various linguistic means to attenuate statements, making suggestions instead of giving instructions, asking learners for their opinion and letting them make the decision regarding their learning. In addition, displaying patience by making use of pauses and silence to acknowledge the learner’s perspective, to allow them time to reflect on particular issues, and/or to give space and honour emergent emotions and feelings if learners appear to be overruled by emotions and/or not able to manage their situation, can be crucial to successful advising. This also entails the advisor adapting their sociolinguistic register and use of metalanguage to the learner, if necessary (Spänkuch, 2014). Linguistic means to attenuate statements are modifiers such as ‘quite’, ‘a bit’, ‘a little bit’, and ‘somehow’ (‘a bit hard’, ‘quite happy’, ‘not so happy’... ), and different forms of modalisation, such as ‘might’ or ‘may’ when making hypotheses or suggestions (‘you might even put a little question mark’). (Examples taken from Gremmo, 2009: 153; Mozzon-McPherson, 2017: 166–167, 172.)  While the concept of ‘advising’ can bring to mind language used to pressure, demand or restrict behaviour and action (e.g. must(n’t), should(n’t), have to and so on), the learning advisor instead takes a neutral position, accepting or enquiring reflectively, often taking a non-directive approach. In this way, by intentionally refraining from controlling or pressuring language, but instead using specific languagebased strategies as mentioned above, the integrity of the learner’s choice and freedom is ensured while simultaneously encouraging and inciting deep reflection, thus activating the learner’s inner dialogue.  Taking an interest in the learner and exercising unconditional regard

As noted earlier, another key principle of advising is remaining open to the learner’s perspective and experience. By taking the learner’s internal frame of reference (Ryan & Deci, 2019), the advisor aligns with the learner’s inner world and is presented with opportunities to re-confirm and consolidate his or her interest in the learner through accepting the ideas, feelings, anxieties and values expressed using compassion, empathy and interest. This perspective-taking is accomplished through non-judgmental listening but is also enhanced through reflective questioning so that the learner becomes further aware of the reasons underlying the views or

194  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

experiences being shared. Specifically, this can lead to ‘Aha!’ moments (Kato & Mynard, 2016: 156), where a shift in thinking or processing occurs, leading to new insight and understanding, often accompanied by heightened awareness of patterns within the student’s own learning processes and an increasing self-awareness of the learner’s own actions and beliefs (Mozzon-McPherson, 2012).  Encouraging reflection and decision-making

To integrate awareness more fully, the advisor uses further reflective questions and the dialogue as a tool to prompt decisions and actions that the learner can take, using invitational, non-pressuring language to do so. The aim of the advisor is to help the learner to face and begin to make sense of any issues which arise. By ensuring that decisions are self-endorsed by the learner, and that guidance from the advisor is accompanied by a meaningful rationale, it is likely that these experiences, and any learning associated with these, will be autonomously motivated and more fully integrated into the learner’s sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Reflective questions are one of the keys to supporting and/or enhancing the learners’ autonomy, providing the learner with authentic opportunities to reflect on their actions, beliefs or attitudes towards their language learning project. Asking open, powerful questions (who, when, where, what, how and why questions) has the potential to elicit precious information from the learner, setting them free to answer with sincerity, and to engage progressively in their own reflection and in an open dialogue. Furthermore, open questions raise awareness and activate metacognition, on which autonomous decisions and behaviour rely. This capacity for reflection and the development of self-awareness play a central role in well-balanced self-regulation, and it is suggested that this is best developed within a community of ‘warm and autonomy-supportive relationships’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 71), such as those fostered by (repeated) high-quality and meaningful contact with advisors. Providing meaningful options and effective choice

As language (learning) professionals, advisors have specific expertise and knowledge about options/opportunities for language learning in terms of materials, tasks and/or strategies. Introducing learners to meaningful options for carrying out their learning project is, therefore, one of the tasks of an advisor. While choice can be linked with intrinsic interests, SDT associates choice with the awareness needed so that decision-making is truly volitional and congruent with one’s values, interests and self. This suggests that, rather than simply a provision of options to select from, ‘facilitating choice means providing the support

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  195

that allows [learners] to home in on what they value and choose actions congruent with that awareness’ (Ryan & Deci, 2019: 237–238). Raising awareness across a range of areas – i.e. awareness of self as a learner, of optimal approaches and strategies for learning, of available resources and facilities for learning, to give a few general examples – is a key component in advising for language learning and one of the main aims pursued within the advising dialogue through opportunities for exploration and reflection. Providing a rationale for suggestions and requests

As noted above, raising awareness of options and choice and accepting the learner’s perspective are key to supporting autonomy and autonomous decision-making. In discussions relating to learning, experimentation and change, providing a rationale for suggestions for action – including when these are framed as an open choice or possible directions to take – can be supportive of autonomous motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020). This is also true when eliciting a course of action from the learner. By asking questions which prompt reflection, the rationale can be elicited, influencing how the learner views the origin of the reasoning. Rationales that are congruent with the values, beliefs and interests of the learner can be motives for engagement, even in the face of difficulties where change or experimentation is seen as potentially face-threatening (Reeve, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2019). Thus, it is important that the learner feels free to ask questions and to explain their views, which are heard, respected and confirmed both by the advisor and the learner. Facilitating reflection on past and present limitations and success

Effective advising is centred on prompting reflection across a range of areas within the multifaceted experience of learning a new language. Facilitating reflection on past and present limitations and successes is vital in raising the metacognitive awareness needed to make informed choices and to set new goals that are self-endorsed. As we have alluded to earlier, in many examples this reflection is supportive of competence, as realisations from within the inner dialogue often lead to moments of clarity in regards to what has been done or is still to be accomplished; furthermore, when guided by reflective questioning, the learner can gain an awareness of the reasons for success or an appreciation of what may have been holding them back. Positive feedback and supportive praise, which is focused on the process, effort and mastery of the achievement, can help to nourish the need for competence, and there are many opportunities for this within the advising context.

196  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Authenticity and transparency

When advisors express themselves in naturally and authentically transparent ways, the learner may be encouraged to act similarly. This transparency fosters an atmosphere in which trust is shared, and the truth is valued. When the sharing and reflection that advisors themselves engage in hold potential meaning, import or inspiration for the learner, these are conditioned to the needs of the learner. As in all healthy relationships, responsibility is reciprocal, and advisors also need to be conscious of their own feelings and behaviours and need to be careful not to lay blame on the learner for these but instead to remain fully aware of the responsibility to accept their own experiences (Ryan & Deci, 2019), as they might expect of the learners. Being honest and transparent when showing concern and interest in a student will be accepted as authentic (and relatedness-supportive) when all parties remain open, showing empathy and respect for one another. Affirming learner capacity for self-direction

The main aim of advising is supporting autonomy and transformation in learning. To this end, the advisor’s task is also to support the learner to unfold their competence for self-directed learning. This means, according to Holec’s (1981: 4) seminal definition, the capacity of (i) setting (realistic) goals; (ii) choosing resources (materials), learning tasks, methods and strategies according to the goals; (iii) monitoring one’s learning; and (iv) evaluating the learning process and progress. Thus, while eliciting the learner’s experiences, beliefs and attitudes toward language learning, advisors encourage the learner’s reflection and decision-making by scaffolding the various steps of self-directed learning. This encouragement and scaffolding of goal-setting happens mainly through the intentional reflective dialogue and may/can be supported by ad hoc tools, such as tools for goal-setting (e.g. the goalsetting pyramid, Kato & Mynard, 2016: 40), or the formulation of a personal learning plan with the advisor. It is through reflection that affirmation for the capacity for self-direction can be confirmed and that the learner can be made aware of their successes and achievements. Alongside this competence-building, the advisor encourages the learner to reflect on their motivations and interests, guiding them, using non-pressuring language, to take initiative and engage with the learning tasks. Thus the advisor aims to raise the learner’s awareness, as discussed earlier, to support choice and self-endorsed action. Importantly, Holec also recognised that ‘the autonomous learner is himself capable of making all these decisions [above] concerning the learning with which he is or wishes to be involved’ (Holec, 1981: 3, our italics).

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  197

Encouraging self-directed learning and self-monitoring

Thus, on the one hand, learner support entails scaffolding for the technical/methodological aspects of self-directed language learning, helping the learner not only to set goals or identify areas for work, resources or strategies, but also to review their representations of language learning, and of themselves, as language learners. On the other hand, the scaffolding aims to support learners to find their own voice and to authentically endorse their learning, making their own choices, engaging with tasks and resources, and building continuity in the learning process. If the advising relationship lasts over a certain period of time, the advisor helps the learner to develop their capacity for selfmonitoring their learning process and learning progress. In other words, one of the aims of advising is to help learners to feel competent, able to make self-endorsed choices and to engage in learning activities within their own reach which can help them to further progress towards their long-term goals. Advising and Basic Psychological Needs: A Classification for Implementation

The literature on advising already provides various classifications of advisors’ competencies, skills and actions (see, among others, Aoki, 2012; Carette & Castillo, 2004; Gremmo, 1995; Kelly, 1996; MozzonMcPherson & Tassinari, 2020). However, drawing on the considerations made in the previous section, we would like to suggest a classification mapping advising techniques/behaviours as autonomy-supportive underpinnings of BPNT and SDT. The baseline of advising is openness, authentic interest in the learner, empathy, authenticity, and transparency to build a safe relationship based on reciprocal trust. This supports relatedness. Based on this, the advising techniques aim at supporting/enhancing the learner’s feeling of autonomy and their capacity for exercising autonomy while progressively developing competence. In other words, the aim of advising is to enable and empower the learner’s feeling of being able to master the various steps of their language learning progress, and to identify internal and external resources, as relates to their own development as language learners, while acting within and beyond an institutional context. A Classification of Advising Behaviours Supportive of Basic Psychological Needs

As illustrated in the previous sections, many of the techniques/ behaviours used in advising can be viewed as supportive of basic psychological needs. In our classification of these, we focus attention

198  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

on specific autonomy-supportive behaviours that are central to established advising practice. The classification includes a description for each of these behaviours, an explanation of the purpose, and an indication of the basic psychological need(s) most directly aligned with each behaviour (see Teixeira et al., 2020). However, it is exceedingly important here to note that fulfilment of the needs for autonomy, relatedness and competence rarely occurs in isolation. On the contrary, the needs are intricately interwoven, with support for and satisfaction of one, closely interrelated to the satisfaction of the others (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thus, while the needs can be isolated from a theoretical standpoint, it is their interconnectedness and integration which underscores the importance of basic need satisfaction, as ‘failure to satisfy any of these needs, will be manifested in diminished growth, integrity, and wellness’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 242). Similarly, it follows that the behaviours or techniques outlined in our classification are naturally used together and are not intended to be seen as separate from one another but, rather, as collective and mutually supportive. The full classification is illustrated in Figure 10.1. Summary and Identified Questions for Future Exploration

The aim of advising is to help learners to develop their competence and to unfold their sense of autonomy, thus strengthening their capacity and autonomous motivation to self-direct and transform their learning. This is accomplished by establishing a relationship of trust and acceptance between advisor and learner and by purposefully fostering the learner’s capacity for self-reflection, providing the necessary support towards experiencing greater autonomy. Ultimately, examining the practice and aims of advising from an SDT perspective has enabled us to explore ways in which it can be identified as an autonomy-supportive endeavour. The principles of SDT and BPNT allow us to validate advising as a tailor-made approach to support learners in a holistic way towards transformation and enhanced well-being. Moreover, this aids understanding of some of the ways that research into SDT and research on learner autonomy in foreign language learning converge, corroborating shared underpinnings regarding the important role that autonomy plays in learning. While illustrating these points of convergence, we also aim to raise awareness among professionals in the field of education of advising and its potential as an autonomy-supportive, holistic and humanistic support for learners. This contribution reaches beyond language learning, involving individuals’ well-being, aiding and encouraging them to find their voice and promoting satisfaction of their basic psychological needs.

Explore and understand the learner’s views, expectations and emotions in the absence of pressure; facilitate an open and respectful learning climate. Initiate inner dialogue to help the learner explore congruence between values, beliefs, goals and behaviour. Facilitate reflection, self-endorsed action, choice and accountability. Raise awareness of, and offer ideas, resources, and strategies when a desire or need is expressed; enable personal control over behaviour. Encourage use of interests to support learning. Foster initiative and a sense of psychological freedom to act from interest and choice; avoid constraining or pressuring thoughts and action: more effectively support autonomy and enhance a sense of well-being.  Reinforce the process of internalisation by providing/ eliciting meaningful and supportive information related to actions/choices as a source to prompt autonomous motivation. Build trust, respect and understanding to facilitate open, collaborative dialogue. Allow time to reflect, collect thoughts and honour emergent emotions. Develop in the learner a sense of freedom to be authentic and valued; create an atmosphere promoting shared understanding, allowing bonds and trust to be established; foster a sense of significance and caring to establish a warm social learning climate.

Attuning to and accepting the learner’s viewpoint, preferences, pace of learning and affective experiences. Looking at events from the learner’s position.

Encouraging reflection through dialogue; restructuring of established assumptions to prompt change; activating metacognition, promoting action, and accountability.

Sharing expertise in a non-controlling way; opening and expanding awareness of possibilities for self-authored initiative. Enquiring about and identifying personal interests and linking these to learning needs and goals.

Using non-evaluative language and suggestions/ invitations rather than instructions or demands; using modality to encourage possibility and choice rather than pressure or control.

Promoting reflection on reasons for actions/choices and helping the learner to identify reasons/motives for these. Encouraging deep connections in accordance with the learner’s own feelings of what is important.

Listening with full attention, empathy and interest; withholding judgement. Using silence, pauses and body language to attune to the learner’s pace and register.

Conveying interest, curiosity and appreciation through questions and comments regarding the learner’s life experience, aspirations and perceptions. Demonstrating full support, concern and respect (regardless of success or failure). 

Taking/eliciting the learner’s perspective

Asking open and powerful questions to encourage reflection and prompt decisionmaking 

Providing (meaningful) options and (effective) choices while supporting initiatives and interests 

Using informational, non-pressuring language

Providing/eliciting a meaningful rationale when suggesting/ requesting action

Empathetic and mindful listening; displaying patience

Taking an interest in the learner and exercising unconditional regard

Figure 10.1  A classification of advising behaviours supportive of basic psychological needs

Purpose

Description

Advising Behaviours

(Continued)

Relatedness

Relatedness

Autonomy

Autonomy

Autonomy

Autonomy

Autonomy/ Relatedness

Primary BPN Support

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  199

Encourage the learner to explore ideas/opportunities for overcoming obstacles and making new decisions; provide a safe environment for the learner, to encourage them to take initiative. Validate learner’s interpretation of events and feelings; facilitate mutual understanding; allow non-confrontational exploration of sources of pressure or non-autonomous motivation. Foster an atmosphere of trust, encourage sincerity; establish a truthful and authentic relationship between learner and advisor. Encourage interest and initiative in choosing learning tasks; enhance reflection on what may enhance or hinder engagement and motivation, and support decision-making.

Raise metacognitive awareness and reflection regarding what has been reached or what has still to be accomplished; raise awareness of possible reasons for success or limitation. Enhance the learner’s feeling of competence and satisfaction for accomplishments and understanding of reasons for limitation. Raise awareness of possible obstacles and of one’s emotional response. Encourage self-exploration; offer means of non-evaluative interpretation/understanding of one’s behaviour.

Helping learners to focus on internal and external resources for overcoming challenges/obstacles; encouraging learners with positive, non-judgmental feedback.

Remaining open and non-judgmental; expressing empathy, sharing experience and accepting the learner’s position.

Sharing personal experiences or experiences of other learners; opening up to learners, showing empathy.

Helping the learner to identify appropriate and motivating materials and learning tasks and to find ways of maintaining motivation throughout the learning process.

Asking open, reflective questions on present and past experience to identify successes or limitations.

Acknowledging learner’s efforts, engagement, regardless of whether these lead to success or not; focusing on the process, not only the results.

Listening to the learner’s report of their experience and paying attention to emotional aspects and/or subtext; gently asking the learner to reflect on what may inhibit them from changing their behaviour; summarising and/or reformulating the learner’s report; using metaphors.

Providing support when learners face challenges/obstacles

Acknowledging and accepting negative affect (and resistance) 

Being authentic and transparent

Providing scaffolding and guidance towards engagement with learning tasks and resources 

Facilitating reflection on past and present limitations and success 

Offering positive, non-evaluative (informational) feedback 

Identifying/addressing obstacles for change

Figure 10.1  Continued

Purpose

Description

Advising Behaviours

(Continued)

Competence

Competence

Competence

Competence/ Autonomy

Relatedness

Relatedness

Relatedness

Primary BPN Support

200  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Help the learner to define self-endorsed, relevant and realistic goals for their learning project, taking into account possible difficulties and considering ways of overcoming these with the help of internal or external resources.

Translate the learner’s needs/vision/wishes into achievable goals, learning steps.

Help the learner plan/shape/design steps for their learning project, identify ways and tools for self-monitoring of the learning process and related learning progress. Raise awareness of accomplishments and of the learner’s capacity to manage their learning process; enhance the learner’s feeling of competence and self-efficacy.

Supporting the learner to identify linguistic, methodological or personal challenges in goal-setting and providing appropriate support; for example, helping the learner realise how a goal can be formulated, what linguistic aspects a goal may imply/entail, what personal or affective resistance may need to be overcome.

Helping the learner to define realistic goals related both to their future vision and to their present situation; asking questions about present constraints and space for learning; providing information on how to break down linguistic goals.

Asking for and/or suggesting ideas for designing the learner’s learning project/managing the learning process; asking for and/or suggesting tools/strategies to monitor the learning process and progress.

Providing support and encouragement; acknowledging and honouring the learner’s personal process.

Assisting with optimal challenges in goalsetting  

Encouraging and scaffolding (of) goalsetting  

Encouraging selfdirected learning and self-monitoring  

Affirming learner capacity for selfdirection 

Figure 10.1  Continued

Purpose

Description

Advising Behaviours

Competence

Competence

Competence

Competence

Primary BPN Support

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  201

202  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Although research on advising has addressed a variety of questions, looking at advising practices through the lens of SDT may open the way to new questions for further exploration, such as the following: (1) How do learners perceive the impact of advising? In particular, how are their needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness being met by advising? (2) What are advisors’ needs for professional development/support regarding (i) providing autonomy support for learners; (ii) establishing/nurturing relatedness; and (iii) unfolding their own (advisors’) competence? (3) How are advisors’ and learners’ needs met for autonomy, competence and relatedness in online advising sessions? (4) How can the use of mindfulness techniques benefit advising practice and advisor training and in what ways might this enhance support for basic psychological needs? (5) What would we see by applying a circumplex model (Aelterman et al., 2019; Delrue et al., 2019) to advising practice, and how could this approach be used to enhance advisor training and our understanding of how advising can support learners’ basic psychological needs? Acknowledgement

We are grateful to William S. Davis for his comments on an earlier draft of this chapter. References Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., Haerens, L. and Reeve, J. (2019) Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 111 (3), 497–521. Aoki, N. (2012) Can-do statements for advisors. In C. Ludwig and J. Mynard (eds) Autonomy in Language Learning: Advising in Action (pp. 154–163). Published as an ebook. Canterbury: IATEFL. Atkinson, D. (ed.) (2011) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. Bradley, F., Karlsson, L., Amendolara, J.S., von Boehm, S., Kidd, K., Kjisik, F., Koskinen, L., Moncrief, R. and Toepfer, T. (2016) Generating visions, generating knowledge: ALMS counsellors write. In T. Lehtonen, and J. Vaattovaara (eds) Näkökulmia kielenoppimisen ohjaukseen: On Advising and Counselling in Language Learning (pp. 91–118). Helsinki: University of Helsinki Language Centre. Carette E. and Castillo, D.E. (2004) Devenir conseiller: Quels changements pour l’enseignant? Mélanges CRAPEL 27, 71–97. Carette, E., Meléndez Quero, C. and Thiébaut, E. (2013) Expressions vocales et traces verbales de l’émotion dans l’entretien de conseil en apprentissage des langues. Lidil, Revue de Linguistique et de Didactique des Langues 48, 171–187. Cavosi, R. and Cont, L. (2019) Sprachlernberatung an öffentlichen Sprachlernzentren am Beispiel des Multisprachzentrums (msz) Bozen und der Sprachenmediathek (mm) Meran. Mélanges CRAPEL 40 (1), 63–86.

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  203

Cembalo, S.M. and Holec, H. (1973) Les langues aux adultes: Pour une pédagogie de l’autonomie. Mélanges Pédagogiques 1973, 1–10. Ciekanski, M. (2007) Fostering learner autonomy: Power and reciprocity in the relationship between language learner and language learning adviser. Cambridge Journal of Education 37 (1), 111–127. Deci, E.L and Ryan, R.M. (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry 11 (4), 227–268. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2016) Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In J. Wang, C.W. Liu and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory (pp. 9–29). Singapore: Springer. Delrue, J., Reynders, B., Vande Broek, G., Aelterman, N., De Backer, M., Decroos, S., De Muynck, G.J., Fontaine, J., Fransen, K., van Puyenbroeck, S., Haerens, L. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2019) Adopting a helicopter-perspective towards motivating and demotivating coaching: A circumplex approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 40, 110–126. Dörnyei, Z. and Ushioda, E. (eds) (2009) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Gremmo, M.-J. (1995) Conseiller n’est pas enseigner: Le rôle du conseiller dans l’entretien de conseil. Mélanges CRAPEL 22, 33–62. Gremmo, M.-J. (2009) Advising for language learning: Interactive characteristics and negotiation procedures. In F. Kjisik, P. Voller, N. Aoki and Y. Nakata (eds) Mapping the Terrain of Learner Autonomy (pp. 145–167). Tampere: Tampere University Press. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy in Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F., Aro, M. and Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2016) Beliefs, Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Karlsson, L. (2017) ‘It’s all in the writing’- Learning diaries and secret diaries in a pedagogy for autonomy. In C. Nicolaides and W. Magno e Silva (eds) Innovations and Challenges in Applied Linguistics and Learner Autonomy (pp. 231–256). Campinas: Pontes Editores. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Kelly, R. (1996) Language counselling for learner autonomy: The skilled helper in selfaccess language learning. In R. Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or and H.D. Pierson (eds) Taking Control: Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 93–113). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kidd, K. and von Boehm, S. (2012) Kaleidoscope, an online tool for reflection on language learning. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 129–150). Harlow: Pearson. Lantolf, J., Thorne, S.L. and Poehner, M. (2015) Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (eds) Theories in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge. Magno e Silva, W. and Borges, E. (eds) (2016) Complexidade em ambientes de ensino e aprendizagem de línguas adicionais. Curitiba: Editora CRV. McCarthy, T. (2012) Advising-in-action: Exploring the inner dialogue of the learning advisor. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 105–126). Harlow: Pearson. Mercer, S., Ryan, S. and Williams, M. (eds) (2012) Psychology for Language Learning: Insights from Research, Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Moriya, R. (2019) Longitudinal trajectories of emotions in four dimensions through language advisory sessions. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 10 (1), 79–110.

204  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2012) The skills of counselling in advising: Language as a pedagogic tool. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 43–64). Harlow: Pearson. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2017) Considerations on using mindful listening in advising for language learning: A micro study. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 2 (28), 159–179. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2019) Mindfulness and advising in language learning: An alternative theoretical perspective. Mélanges CRAPEL 40 (1), 88–113. Mozzon-McPherson, M. and Tassinari M.G. (2020) From teachers to advisors. A journey map. Philologia Hispalensis 34 (1), 121–139. Murray, G., Gao, X. and Lamb, T. (eds) (2011) Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mynard, J. (2018) ‘Still sounds quite a lot to me, but try it and see’: Reflecting on my nondirective advising stance. Relay Journal 1 (1), 98–107. Mynard, J. (2019) Self-access learning and advising: Promoting language learner autonomy beyond the classroom. In H. Reinders, S. Ryan and S. Nakamura (eds) Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching: The Case of Japan (pp. 185–209). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mynard, J. (2020) Advising for language learner autonomy: Theory, practice, and future directions. In M. Jiménez Raya and F. Vieira (eds) Autonomy in Language Education: Present and Future Avenues (pp. 46–62). New York, NY: Routledge. Mynard, J. and Carson, L. (2012) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context. Harlow: Pearson. Noels, K.A., Lou, N.M., Lascano, D.I.V., Chaffee, K.E., Dincer, A., Zhang, Y.S.D. and Zhang, X. (2019) Self-determination and motivated engagement in language learning. In T. Lamb, K. Csizér, A. Henry and S. Ryan (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Motivation for Language Learning (pp. 95–115). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reeve, J. (2016) Autonomy supportive teaching: What is it, how to do it. In J. Wang, C.W. Liu and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer. Reinders, H. (2012) Language advising in context: Towards pedagogical and institutional integration. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 170–184). Harlow: Pearson. Rogers, C.R. (1995) What understanding and acceptance means to me. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 35 (4), 7–22. Roth, G., Vansteenkiste, M. and Ryan, R.M. (2019) Integrative emotion regulation: Process and development from a self-determination theory perspective. Development and Psychopathology 31 (3), 945–956. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2019) Supporting autonomy, competence, and relatednesss: The coaching process from a self-determination theory perspective. In P. Brownell, S. English and J. Sabatine (eds) Professional Coaching: Principles and Practice (pp. 231–246). New York, NY: Springer. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a selfdetermination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cedpsych.2020.101860. Ryan, R.M., Bernstein, J.H. and Brown, K.W. (2010) Weekends, work, and well-being: Psychological need satisfactions and day of the week effects on mood, vitality, and physical symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 29 (1), 95–122. Ryan, R.M., Lynch, M.F. Vansteenkiste, M. and Deci, E.L. (2011) Motivation and autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and behavior change: A look at theory and practice. The Counseling Psychologist 39 (2), 193–260.

Facilitating an Autonomy-Supportive Learning Climate  205

Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912355. Spänkuch, E. (2014) Systemisch-konstruktivistisches Sprachlern-Coaching. In A. Berndt and R.U. Deutschmann (eds) Sprachlernberatung – Sprachlerncoaching (pp. 51–81). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Tassinari, M.G. (2016) Emotions and feelings in language advising discourse. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer (eds) New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (pp. 71–96). Basel: Springer. Tassinari, M.G. and Ciekanski, M. (2013) Accessing the self in self-access learning: Emotions and feelings in language advising. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 4 (4), 262–280. Teixeira, P.J., Marques, M.M., Silva, M.N., Brunet, J., Duda, J.L., Haerens, L., La Guardia, J., Lindwall, M., Lonsdale, C., Markland, D., Michie, S., Moller, A.C., Ntoumanis, N., Patrick, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R.M., Sebire, S.J., Standage, M., Vansteenkiste, M., . . . Hagger, M.S. (2020) A classification of motivation and behavior change techniques used in self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts. Motivation Science 6 (4), 438–455. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R.M. and Soenens, B. (2020) Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion 44 (1), 1–33. Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L. and Soenens, B. (2019) Seeking stability in stormy educational times: A need-based perspective on (de)motivating teaching grounded in self-determination theory. In E.N. Gonida and M.S. Lemos (eds) Motivation in Education at a Time of Global Change: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice (pp. 53–80). Bingley: Emerald. Yamashita, H. and Mynard, J. (2015) Dialogue and advising in self-access learning [introduction to a special issue on dialogue and advising in self-access learning]. Studies in Self-Access Language Learning 6 (1), 1–12.

11 Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective Micòl Beseghi

What’s the use of learning if that learning doesn’t bring you happiness? Thich Nhat Hanh (2014)

Introduction

It is widely acknowledged that mindfulness, the state of being attentive to and aware of what is taking place at the current moment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), promotes well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Creswell, 2017; Shapiro et al., 2008). Nowadays, there is a considerable amount of research showing the positive effects that mindfulness practices exert on the quality of life, among these being improved focus and decreased stress. Mindfulness has become a buzzword in almost every field and sector, including, most recently, education. Indeed, in recent years increased levels of stress and anxiety in educational contexts have led to a growing interest in mindfulness as a constructive approach to addressing these issues, with a number of studies investigating mindfulness as a potential strategy to enhance students’ well-being and to improve academic performance (Mozzon-McPherson, 2019). Experimental studies reveal that the benefits of mindfulness are vast and profound: mindfulness can bring an increase in competence, memory, creativity and positive affect, a decrease in stress and an increase in health and longevity (Langer, 2000). Research has also shown that mindfulness in education can make students and teachers happier, more focused and emotionally regulated (Zenner et al., 2014). Moreover, mindfulness has been shown to improve students’ learning and reduce 206

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  207

teachers’ stress (Roeser et al., 2013). Based on this literature, the main goal of the present chapter is to explore the benefits of mindfulness in the context of advising in language learning (henceforth advising). Advising consists of ‘the skilled dialogic work inherent in assisting students in the process of learning an additional language’ (MozzonMcPherson, 2017: 161). This dialogue stimulates the advisee’s reflection and encourages the development of self-managed language learning (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mozzon-McPherson, 2013). Working from the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT) and, more specifically, drawing on basic psychological needs theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), the practical ways in which mindfulness can be integrated into advising will be examined. Despite the increasing number of studies that have focused on the relationship between mindfulness, well-being and education, to date, there has been little research investigating the role of mindfulness in the context of advising. Bearing in mind that language learning advisors (also referred to as ‘advisors’ in this chapter) also work within the psychological realm when supporting learners emotionally (Beseghi, 2018), this chapter sets out to investigate how mindfulness supports students’ basic psychological needs, hence contributing to their wellbeing and improving their learning. Thus, a small case study was carried out at the University of Parma, in which mindful awareness was cultivated in both individual and group advising sessions. Mindfulness: A Definition

According to Jon Kabat-Zinn, founder of the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR)1 programme at the Stress Reduction Clinic, University of Massachusetts Medical School (established in 1979), mindfulness involves learning to direct our attention to our experience as it is unfolding, moment by moment, with open-minded curiosity and acceptance: ‘Mindfulness means paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally’ (Kabat-Zinn, 1994: 4). Mindfulness is ‘the skill of being present’ (Kabat-Zinn, 2017: 15), and the very goal of practising mindfulness is to be situated in the present: ‘being mindful means that we are showing up fully for each moment, paying attention with an open heart’ (Rechtschaffen, 2014: 3). Thus, mindfulness is a natural state of mind, a way of being, which ‘helps us build up the percentage of moments in which we are present rather than lost in thought’ (Rechtschaffen, 2014: 4). When we are mindful, rather than worrying about what has happened in the past or might happen in the future, we live in the present, with ‘an enhanced attention to and awareness of current experience or present reality’ (Brown & Ryan, 2003: 822). From a psychological perspective, Shapiro et al. (2006) provide a theoretical model for mindfulness which breaks down the mindfulness

208  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

process into three main components or pillars: intention, attention and attitude. These three core aspects are not sequential stages but work simultaneously: mindfulness reconnects us to our intention, focuses our attention on the present moment, and helps us see what is happening with an attitude of curiosity instead of judgement (Shapiro, 2020). Mindfulness can be cultivated with a variety of practices, including quiet reflection, meditation and physical movement such as yoga (Wallace & Shapiro, 2006). Awareness of breathing is one of the most common ways to develop mindfulness but there is no one ‘right’ practice. Other practices might focus one’s attention on sensations in the body, or sounds, or even an open awareness of whatever is happening. Although mindfulness is simple, it is not easy because other experiences, such as thoughts, feelings or pain, naturally arise and can distract our attention. However, our skill can increase with practice, and we can learn to pay attention to the present moment and bring our focus back when the mind wanders (Zenner et al., 2014). Therefore, mindfulness is not something that can be taught or given as such, but is rather an attribute that can be nurtured: ‘it’s a natural capacity that we all have that may arise when we are deeply absorbed in something, or in a situation that demands our full attention’ (Hawkins, 2017: 15). Mindfulness and Education

In recent years there has been a growing interest in mindful learning, which can be seen in a proliferation of scientific studies, practical applications and conferences. As confirmed by a number of scholars, mindfulness has a positive impact on cognitive performance and enhances emotional regulation and self-regulation, attention and memory, independence, empathy and collaboration (Gilbert, 2017; Hassed & Chambers, 2014; Hawkins, 2017; Rechtschaffen, 2014; Schoeberlein, 2009; Shapiro et al., 2008; Tang et al., 2015; Zenner et al., 2014). Clearly, mindfulness can play an important role in both teaching and learning: it can help teachers understand their own emotions better, manage students’ emotions and difficult situations, and to be calmer and more positive (Schoeberlein, 2009). For students, mindfulness fosters ‘deep learning’, which is learning ‘mostly driven by interest, engagement and enjoyment rather than stress’ (Hassed & Chambers, 2014: 36). Hanh and Weare (2017), authors of Happy Teachers Change the World, a guide for cultivating mindfulness in education, underline that mindfulness should be viewed as a path, rather than a means to an end or a tool to obtain better outcomes such as greater happiness or improved grades. According to Hassed and Chambers (2014: 40), combining mindfulness and the learning experience can lead to two major effects: ‘attention is drawn less to anxieties, fears, rumination and

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  209

concerns, there is a reduction in stress and a feeling of inner calmness. Second, focus on task means we are alert and responsive to what is in front of us’. Ellen Langer (1997, 2016), who uses her theory of mindfulness to enhance the way people learn, challenges the idea that intelligence is the best possible outcome of learning and presents a series of pervasive myths or mindsets about it. Langer argues that familiar notions such as the need to learn the basics, delayed gratification, rote memorisation and the clear-cut distinction between right and wrong answers, are all myths that undermine the process of learning (Langer, 2016). She replaces them with her concept of mindful learning, which takes place with an awareness of context and an acceptance of uncertainty. Without this awareness, as her study shows, learners rely on distinctions made in the past rather than the present and see things from a single perspective, thus failing to consider the context. Houston and Paaige (2007) suggest that the myths of learning described by Langer closely parallel (mis) conceptions about second language acquisition. In the same way as Langer exposes the myth of intelligence as ‘knowing what is out there’ (Langer, 2016: 98), Houston and Paaige (2007) believe that language teaching should be mindfulness-based rather than intelligence-based: ‘when teachers make mindfulness the goal of education, their behaviour in the classroom shifts to create an environment that promotes language acquisition’, increased self-determination and self-regulation (Houston & Paaige, 2007: 91). Mindfulness and Autonomy: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Evidence from empirical research emphasises the importance of mindfulness and awareness in supporting autonomy and self-regulation (Brown & Ryan, 2003). By no means coincidentally, SDT has long viewed awareness as a critical component of self-regulation and wellbeing (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985; Ryan et al., 2008; Schultz & Ryan, 2015). Within SDT, awareness is, in fact, considered vital in facilitating behaviours that are consistent with one’s own values and basic needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 268). Ryan and Deci (2017: 268) define mindfulness as ‘the open and receptive awareness of what is occurring both within people and within their context’, a particularly important intrapersonal resource that ‘facilitates greater autonomy and integrated self-regulation, as well as greater basic psychological need satisfaction, which contributes to greater well-being’. In this sense, mindfulness is expected to enhance autonomy and to help satisfy the basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy. They also emphasise the role of mindfulness in promoting self-endorsed behaviour, acting as

210  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

‘a protective factor against automatic behaviour and a facilitator of more integrated, autonomous self-regulation’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 269). In other words, with greater mindfulness, individuals become less prone to automatic responses because they are freed from internal controlling forces as well as from external conditions and are therefore more likely to engage in self-endorsed actions. Empirical support for the relationship between mindfulness and well-being is provided by Chang et al. (2015). The results of their study revealed that mindfulness, basic psychological needs satisfaction and well-being are correlated with each other, and the positive relationships between mindfulness and well-being can be mediated via basic psychological needs fulfilment. Another essential principle of SDT is that human motivation varies according to the different reasons or goals that give rise to an action, and different types of motivation vary systematically in their relative autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017). In light of this, in a study on mindfulness and its association with different types of motivation, Donald et al. (2020) investigated the links between mindfulness and the different forms of motivation specified in SDT. Their data suggest that mindfulness plays an important role in supporting more autonomous forms of motivation (i.e. identified, integrated and intrinsic regulation), while it may have negative associations with controlled motivation. Given that mindfulness involves awareness of and curiosity about present experiences, mindful individuals are more likely to engage in activities out of intrinsic motivation, which is the most autonomous form of motivation. Indeed, intrinsic motivation is the driving force behind engagement in activities that are inherently enjoyable (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Mindfulness also appears to relate positively to identified regulation, which is considered a relatively autonomous form of motivation because activities are self-endorsed and consciously valued (Ryan & Deci, 2017). On the other hand, mindfulness has shown more negative associations with introjected motivation, which in STD is a form of controlled motivation reflected in behaviours that are governed by an internalised sense of compulsion or internal pressure. Donald et al. (2020) also show how mindfulness has negative relationships with the most controlled form of motivation – external motivation – and with amotivation, a state in which there is a lack of intention to act. In contrast, mindfulness involves an attitude of open interest and curiosity in the present experience, even in activities that are not inherently interesting or enjoyable. According to their findings, mindful individuals are less likely to be motivated by controlled motives or subtle forms of coercion. The practical implication is that the ‘motivational environment’ in which mindfulness interventions are implemented is crucial and needs to be evaluated when planning such interventions. This is of particular relevance in the context of advising, whose main aim is precisely to encourage more autonomous

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  211

forms of motivation. Furthermore, while there is abundant research into mindfulness, the role of mindfulness in advising remains still little explored, especially from an SDT perspective. Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning

Advising consists of dialogic interventions intended to create positive conditions for language learning, taking into account the learner’s needs (Ciekanski, 2007; Mozzon-McPherson, 2012). It follows that advising sessions are ‘co-constructed learning conversations’ aimed at helping learners become enthusiastic and autonomous language learners (Mozzon-McPherson, 2017: 161) who are able to deal with challenging situations. The language learning advisor may be a distinct figure from the teacher, or the teacher may acquire new skills and functions for promoting, encouraging and supporting learner autonomy (MozzonMcPherson, 2007). The role of a language learning advisor is to help students become more responsible for the decisions regarding their learning, from determining their goals to evaluating their own learning process and outcomes, while offering guidance in the processing of emotions2 and in understanding the affective aspects of learning (Beseghi, 2018; Tassinari, 2016; Tassinari & Ciekanski, 2013). In point of fact, language anxiety is an intense and frequent emotion experienced in second language acquisition, having both internal and social dimensions (MacIntyre, 2017). Indeed, negative emotions such as anxiety and frustration interfere with language learning when students become discouraged to the point of feeling helpless or when their minds are cluttered with pessimistic thoughts and fall victim to rumination (Beseghi, 2018). Thus, advisors can help learners understand that emotions cannot be eliminated but rather managed and regulated (Roth et al., 2019). Since mindfulness allows people ‘greater access to the information about both outer events and inner reactions and feelings that is required for healthy coping and self-regulation’ (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 271), it seems reasonable to implement mindful awareness in advising. Mindfulness can allow learners to enhance their ‘emotional literacy’, track their stress levels and emotional states, and help them to build impulse control and emotional regulation (Rechtschaffen, 2014: 6). By being open and aware of the full spectrum of emotions, they can avoid suppressing anger or anxiety and, at the same time, cultivate healthy emotions such as empathy and gratitude. Another important aspect of advising connected with learners’ emotional sphere and the social context is the development of intrinsic motivation – that is, ‘the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to

212  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

learn’ (Ryan & Deci, 2000: 70). According to SDT, intrinsic motivation can be enhanced in the presence of three conditions: competence, relatedness and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985): learners need to feel competent, to care and be cared about by others, and to understand that they can determine what they do because they have real choices. Evidently, mindfulness and advising share common perspectives, practices and values. To date, however, there has been very little research into the role of mindfulness in the context of advising. In her 2017 study, Mozzon-McPherson focused on mindful listening – ‘the practice of bringing full, moment-to-moment awareness to an advisee’s message’ – as a distinctive self-reflective technique for advisors when they engage in language learning conversations with advisees (MozzonMcPherson, 2017: 161). Mindful listening entails suspension of judgement and includes techniques such as mirroring, echoing, pausing and noticing, which are meant to create a relationship of mutual trust and understanding within language learning advising sessions. More recently, Mozzon-McPherson outlined a series of synergies that relate mindfulness to advising practices. These synergies include a person-centred approach, an emphasis on intentionality, attention to emotions, an explicit focus on awareness, the use of active listening techniques and suspension of judgement (Mozzon-McPherson, 2019). All these practices have a strong heuristic and holistic approach, placing value on making choices, self-awareness and the ability to bring about change: both advising and mindfulness practices involve forms of inquiry which emphasise synergies between intention, attention, attitude and emotions. They both claim to help individuals cope with distractions and blocks, and develop better, more insightful, confident and emotionally intelligent attitudes. (Mozzon-McPherson, 2019: 104)

Considering the common ground between mindfulness and advising, the following section explores the ways in which the two practices can work together and enrich one another. Integrating Mindfulness into Advising: A Small Case Study

The main objective of this study is to investigate the role of mindfulness in supporting learners and in contributing to the fulfilment of basic psychological needs in the context of advising. A small case study was carried out at the Language Centre of the University of Parma. The intervention consisted of encouraging mindful awareness in the context of advising through a variety of activities in which mindful awareness was cultivated, in both individual and group advising sessions. The chapter discusses how students reacted to this intervention by

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  213

investigating their opinions and thoughts about language learning, mindfulness and advising through a questionnaire. Context

Language learning advisors at the Language Centre are involved in supporting university language learners, and, very often, they come into contact with students who have experienced negative feelings toward language learning (Beseghi, 2018). Since mindfulness seems to help students manage their emotions, reduce stress and anxiety levels and improve empathy, a series of mindfulness practices was introduced in advising sessions. Advising at the Language Centre is offered as individual as well as group sessions. The first session is usually individual: once the students express their interest in advising, they take part in a preliminary learner awareness session, in which they are encouraged to reflect on and describe their previous and current experience of language learning, focusing on core aspects such as language competence, learning strategies and needs. The aim of the first meeting is to make learners feel at ease and to build a relationship based on mutual trust. Subsequently, students can ask for further one-to-one meetings with the advisors in order to discuss their progress. Additionally, students attend group sessions, held on a weekly basis, which are aimed at promoting the social dimension of learning through peer interaction and collaboration. In group sessions, the advisors aim to build ‘a community of interbeing’: learners cannot be by themselves but they have to ‘inter-be’ with everyone and everything else (Hanh, 2017: 24). Participants and method

Two language learning advisors3 and a group of 25 students (15 females and 10 males) participated in the study over the first semester of the academic year 2018–19. The 25 participants consented to take part in the ‘mindful’ advising sessions and to complete a final questionnaire at the end of the semester. The participants were studying a variety of first-level degrees in different university departments (humanities, law, engineering, food science) and were also learning English as a foreign language. The age range of the participants was between 20 and 25 years, with an average age of 23.16. All participants had Italian as their first language (L1) and had been studying English for an average of 9.2 years. The participants expressed their wish to join advising sessions in order not only to prepare for their English exam4 and improve their competence in the English language, but also to become more confident language learners and to learn strategies for studying English. Participants kept an online learning diary, where they initially explained their main reason(s) for joining

214  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

advising sessions and then commented on their learning experience over the first semester of the academic year 2018–19. This study draws on qualitative data that were collected from the particiants’ responses to a final questionnaire, which was specifically designed to investigate the possible effects of integrating mindfulness practices into advising. The questionnaire data were analysed drawing on SDT and, more specifically, from the perspective of basic psychological needs, through a thematic analysis aimed at examining particiants’ thoughts and feelings about the language learning process, with an emphasis on the role of mindfulness and its potential impact on supporting autonomy, relatedness and competence. Through the qualitative analysis of the participants’ answers, an attempt will be made to answer the following questions: • Can mindfulness in the context of advising help students to become more aware of their needs as language learners? • How does mindfulness support students’ basic psychological needs? Mindful advising sessions

This section illustrates how mindful practices were introduced in advising sessions in order to encourage mindful awareness and mindful learning. During the first individual advising session, the advisors at the Language Centre tried to establish deep communication based on mindful listening, the main goal of which is to remove any barriers between advisor and student (Mozzon-McPherson, 2017). Mindful or deep listening was practised by sitting down together, breathing and listening to each other with empathy, suspending all forms of judgement. Indeed, the role of a language learning advisor is not only to help students solve problems but also to be a good listener since sometimes learners simply need to be heard. The practice of mindful listening, as mentioned above, helps to build a relationship of trust, which is at the very basis of advising. As mindfulness may be a new experience for many students, the advisors guided each student individually through the practice, demonstrating how mindful breathing can be the first step toward awareness. During subsequent group meetings, the advisors gradually introduced mindful awareness through a variety of practices that were not imposed on students but simply suggested. Students were thus given the opportunity to become familiar with mindfulness practices, and they could start to explore them autonomously, both within and outside the university context. In order to raise students’ awareness of mindfulness and capture their interest during group meetings, the advisors showed them explanatory videos (e.g. short animated films that explain mindfulness) and then engaged them in a discussion about mindfulness.

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  215

Another kind of activity repeatedly used by the advisors in group meetings was based on simple practices followed by a discussion on the value of the experience. Such practices, which can take a few minutes or more, consisted of breathing awareness exercises and short meditation sessions held at the beginning or the end of each advising session. During mindful breathing, the advisors guided students stepby-step, occasionally using a gentle sound to lead them into and out of the practice and finally reassuring them if their minds had wandered during the practice. The discussion following the activity usually started with questions such as, ‘Where did your mind go?’ and ‘Which thoughts interfered with the breathing practice?’ An alternative practice often used by the advisors in group meetings was that of ‘circle sharing’ (Hanh & Weare, 2017: 186), in which learners were invited to open up about their thoughts and feelings about language learning. In this way, the students were encouraged to connect with their emotions and relate to difficult feelings such as anxiety and frustration. Indeed, in circle sharing, the advisors’ role was to underline the importance of accepting strong emotions or negative feelings. Following the principles of mindfulness, the advisors guided the students through the five steps of emotional regulation (Hanh & Weare, 2017: 134–135): (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

to acknowledge the presence of an emotion; to accept that the emotion exists; to embrace the emotion mindfully, without fighting or suppressing it; to look deeply into the emotion; to gain the awareness that every emotion is temporary and that change is possible.

By sharing their feelings, the students had the opportunity not only to monitor themselves but also to build a sense of communion and connection with others. Questionnaire

In order to investigate the role of mindfulness in supporting learners’ basic psychological needs in the context of advising, a final questionnaire was administered to the students who had volunteered to participate in the study. The questionnaire was specifically designed to explore the possible effects of integrating mindfulness practices into advising in terms of supporting the basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy. The questionnaire consisted of five open-ended questions (see Table 11.1) so that participants could directly express their opinions in their own words.5 The 25 students who took part in the mindful advising sessions completed the questionnaire anonymously.

216  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Table 11.1  Survey questions 1.  Describe your needs and feelings before coming to advising sessions. 2.  Have you used mindfulness techniques? On which occasions? 3.  Have you noticed any change in your stress levels since you started advising sessions? 4.  Have you noticed any change in your learning since you started advising sessions? 5.  Have you noticed any change in your academic performance since you started advising sessions?

Results

The first question asked the participants to describe their needs and feelings before attending advising sessions. All 25 participants expressed the general need to improve their competence in the English language and to become better language learners, while in terms of feelings, the vast majority (88%, 22 students) mentioned negative emotions such as anxiety, frustration, fear of failure, shame and worry. In many cases, negative emotions emerged when they talked about their difficult relationship with the English language, often as a consequence of negative learning experiences in the past or when worrying about future events (e.g. exams). The second question aimed at learning whether participants used mindfulness techniques inside and/or outside the university context, thus investigating whether mindfulness supported autonomy. While all participants practised some mindfulness during advising sessions, 18 participants (72%) affirmed that they used some techniques (e.g. mindful breathing) on other occasions as well (e.g. at university during exams, at home while studying, at the beginning or end of the day), thus showing a certain degree of autonomous motivation to take part in mindfulness practice as can be seen in the following responses from four different participants: Before the exam, I closed my eyes and focused on my body and my breathing. Being aware of my body and my breathing helped me find more attention and concentration. When I was at home, before starting studying I concentrated on my breathing and this helped me to be calmer and more focused. While I’m studying by myself, I take some breaks and I breathe, trying to find concentration and new energy. I am doing the breathing exercises every day when I wake up and sometimes before going to bed.

Two participants also added that they were already familiar with mindfulness techniques such as breathing and meditation, and they continued to practise them after the advising sessions. One student even

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  217

claimed that she shared some mindfulness practices with a friend who was not attending advising sessions while they were preparing for their English exam. Interestingly, more than half the participants (14 students, 56%) expressed an explicit interest in finding out more about mindfulness practices as well as an intention to pursue the path of mindful learning: I wished I had learnt these techniques earlier, even in high school! They are very useful because sometimes we are so stressed that we don’t live well. I really would like to continue using mindful techniques, not only when I learn English, but also in everyday life.

It can be seen that, in the majority of cases, the participants engaged in self-endorsed actions, which can lead to more autonomous selfregulation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). The third question concerned students’ perceptions of their stress levels since they started attending mindful advising sessions. While 5 participants (20%) did not notice any change, 80% of the participants (20 students) claimed that they felt calmer and even less anxious, thus showing healthy coping and self-regulation, as illustrated in the following two responses: I now feel less stressed, more calm and more relaxed. I am more aware of my progress, so I feel less anxious now.

72% of the participants (18 students) specifically referred to the usefulness of mindfulness techniques, which helped them to be more focused. It is interesting to note that some participants explicitly linked self-awareness with an increased ability to self-regulate. 14 participants (56%) also stated that they were more motivated to learn, and they enjoyed learning for its own sake rather than thinking exclusively about their future exams, thus evidencing a shift in perspective and the development of intrinsic motivation. The following responses clearly illustrate this point: I am happy and calm because when I concentrate on what I do, I don’t think just about the exam. I am not afraid of the English language anymore. After so many years of feeling anxious about learning English, I finally feel positive and I enjoy learning without worrying too much.

In question 4, participants were asked whether they noticed any change in their learning since they started advising sessions. All participants

218  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

reported positive comments which show mindfulness practice providing support in terms of satisfaction of both competence and relatedness: 80% of participants (20 students) expressed an increased awareness of learning strategies and a feeling of empowerment in their learning process. For instance, one student wrote: I think my English has improved. I thought it was impossible, but in fact, I made a lot of progress and I am ready to keep learning.

Relatedness satisfaction was evident as they also emphasised the value of collaboration during group sessions and the effectiveness of obtaining feedback from both advisors and peers. 12 participants (48%) commented that they felt cared for by the advisors, which gave them more motivation to learn. They also valued the experience of sharing thoughts and feelings with other language learners, which contributed to making them feel part of a community and helped them in their emotional regulation, as can be seen in the following comments: I was able to become a better learner of English thanks to the support given by the advisors. Their support was not only linguistic but also motivational and emotional. I think I have better learning strategies now. Sharing my learning experience with other students made me feel better and more motivated.

Furthermore, 16 participants (64%) claimed that they were able to first observe and then accept their emotions without feeling uneasy or worried. Some of their comments highlight that their initial difficult emotions turned into more positive ones, and this made them realise that change is actually possible: I have seen my attitude towards the English language change. The advising sessions, especially group meetings, allowed me to be less afraid of making mistakes and to learn with a positive attitude. This change makes me happy. I feel more confident, I believe more in myself. Learning English can be a pleasure.

Finally, question 5 concerned participants’ perceptions of their academic performance and whether, in their opinion, it had improved after attending the mindful advising sessions. All participants were convinced that they had somehow improved their academic performance, thus satisfying their initial need for competence. Eighty percent of participants (20 students) felt they had improved their language competence, and almost half of them (10 students, 40%) wrote that they used mindfulness techniques right before taking their English exam,

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  219

which helped them stay focused without worrying about the outcome. For example, one student wrote: I realised that by concentrating on the present I can obtain better results. I was calm during the exam and I am satisfied of my performance.

From the analysis of the participants’ responses to the questionnaire, it seems that the integration of mindfulness practices into advising contributed positively to the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy. First, the vast majority of students who participated in the study claimed that they perceived increased language competence, which contributed to satisfying their declared initial need. Additionally, as evidenced by their responses, many participants explored mindfulness techniques inside and outside the university context, which made them feel empowered and more in control of their learning. It is also interesting to note that many participants emphasised the importance of two aspects in particular that helped them gain more self-confidence and feel more competent: namely, peer collaboration and a stress-free learning environment in which they could express their feelings without being judged. These aspects are clearly linked to relatedness, a need that initially had not been explicitly acknowledged by the participants but played a vital role during advising sessions, as many participants commented on the importance of being connected to others. What emerged from the participants’ responses to the questionnaire was that they were more motivated to learn and more engaged in a relaxed and supportive atmosphere, thanks to the assistance of advisors and peers. Conclusion

While there is abundant research into the relationship between mindfulness, well-being and education, the role of mindfulness in the context of advising in language learning has rarely been explored, especially from an SDT perspective. This study aimed at making a start at filling this gap, describing a practical intervention in advising sessions and investigating the participants’ reactions in terms of basic psychological needs satisfaction, thus highlighting the potential benefits of bringing mindful awareness and mindfulness practices into advising. In the context of advising, exercising mindfulness represents a new approach that connects advisors and learners on an emotional level and promotes a relaxed and supportive learning environment. From an SDT perspective, this chapter has illustrated that students who make an effort to be more mindful and aware can become not only more confident and autonomous learners (i.e. competence and autonomy) but also more

220  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

open to sharing their learning experiences and feelings with others (i.e. relatedness). The practice of mindfulness in the context of advising also enabled the participants to become more aware of their needs. While at the beginning of the advising programme the participants were mainly driven by the need to improve their English language competence, their answers to the questionnaire revealed an increased awareness of their need to connect with others (relatedness) and greater ownership over managing not only their language learning but also their emotions. In the light of an increasing body of work that has explored the relationship between mindfulness, well-being and education, mindfulness might appear akin to a magic pill. Mindfulness can indeed help students cope with the stress they experience in higher education and could make them more invested in the language learning process. However, as discussed in this chapter, the only way to truly appreciate and benefit from mindfulness is to actually experience and practise it. For this reason, mindfulness needs to be integrated into the life of the advisor before they can effectively bring it into the educational environment in the service of their students’ well-being and to enhance the pleasure of learning. The advisor thus needs, first of all, to be mindful, and behave mindfully in order to be equipped to advise from a mindful perspective and to be more attuned to their students’ needs. Although evidence suggests that mindfulness practices help to enhance attention span, emotional resilience and general well-being, which are all fundamental aspects of learning, mindfulness interventions should be carefully considered before being integrated into a learning context such as advising, keeping in mind the possible drawbacks. As pointed out in this chapter, mindfulness is not something that can be taught or imposed: neither advisors nor students should view it as a magic tool or – worse – as an obligation. The risk in implementing mindfulness interventions in education without fully understanding or embracing its core values might be a de-contextualisation of mindfulness from its ethical foundations, which could lead to forms of ‘reductionist instrumentalism’ and ‘commodification’ or the so-called ‘McMindfulness’ (Hyland, 2016: 97). The small-scale nature of this study leaves several questions unanswered in what is still ‘uncharted territory’ (Mozzon-McPherson, 2017: 178). For example, further research could explore the kind of training that advisors might need in order to implement mindfulness practices in advising in a more systematic way. Moreover, future investigations could take a quantitative approach and involve greater numbers of participants and larger corpora of advising sessions. Finally, since language learners’ needs are likely to vary to some extent across cultures, it may be worth exploring whether different kinds of mindfulness intervention might be more suitable according to the different cultural contexts in which advising is used.

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  221

Notes (1) The MBSR programme (Kabat-Zinn, 1982, 1994, 2003) is nowadays applied in various settings, such as schools, hospitals, health organisations, businesses and prisons. (2) As noted by Yasuda (2018), advisors are not necessarily trained psychological counsellors; therefore they have to be careful about how they use psychological expertise. (3) Advisors at the Language Centre have different profiles: some work exclusively as language learning advisors while others are also university language teachers. (4) All students enrolled at the University of Parma take an English exam (CEFR level B1 for bachelor’s degrees and B2 for master’s degrees). (5) Participants were given the option to write their answers in English or Italian.

References Beseghi, M. (2018) Emotions and autonomy in foreign language learning at university. EL.LE. Educazione Linguistica. Language Education 7 (2), 231–250. Brown, K.W. and Ryan, R.M. (2003) The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (4), 822–848. Chang, J.-H., Huang, C.-L. and Lin, Y.-C. (2015) Mindfulness, basic psychological needs fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 16 (5), 1149–1162. Ciekanski, M. (2007) Fostering learner autonomy: Power and reciprocity in the relationship between language learner and language learning adviser. Cambridge Journal of Education 37 (1), 111–127. Creswell, J.D. (2017) Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review of Psychology 68, 491–516. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1980) Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. Journal of Mind and Behavior 1 (1), 33–44. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Donald, J.N., Bradshaw, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Basarkod, G., Ciarrochi, J., Duineveld, J.J., Guo, J. and Sahdra, B.K. (2020) Mindfulness and its association with varied types of motivation: A systematic review and meta-analysis using self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46 (7), 1121–1138.  Gilbert, F. (2017) The Mindful English Teacher: A Toolkit for Learning and Well-being. London: FGI Publishing. Hanh, T.N. (2014) Dharma Talk, 15 June 2014, at a 21-day retreat in Plum Village, near Bordeaux, France. Hanh, T.N. (2017) Letter to a young teacher. In T.N. Hahn and K. Weare (eds) Happy Teachers Change the World: A Guide for Cultivating Mindfulness in Education (pp. 17–25). Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. Hanh, T.N. and Weare, K. (2017) Happy Teachers Change the World: A Guide for Cultivating Mindfulness in Education. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. Hassed, C. and Chambers, R. (2014) Mindful Learning: Reduce Stress and Improve Brain Performance for Effective Learning. East Gosford: Exisle Publishing. Hawkins, K. (2017) Mindful Teacher, Mindful School: Improving Wellbeing in Teaching and Learning. London: Sage. Houston, T. and Paaige, K. (2007) Mindful learning and second language acquisition. Academic Exchange Quarterly 11 (1), 87–92. Hyland, T. (2016) The limits of mindfulness: Emerging issues for education. British Journal of Educational Studies 64 (1), 97–117. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982) An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry 4 (1), 33–47.

222  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994) Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Hyperion. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003) Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice 10 (2), 144–156. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2017) Foreword. In T.N. Hahn and K. Weare (eds) Happy Teachers Change the World: A Guide for Cultivating Mindfulness in Education (pp. 13–16). Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Langer, E.J. (1997) The Power of Mindful Learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Langer, E.J. (2000) Mindful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9 (6), 220–223. Langer, E.J. (2016) The Power of Mindful Learning. Boston, MA: Da Capo Lifelong Books. MacIntyre, P.D. (2017) An overview of language anxiety research and trends in its development. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney and J.-M. Dewaele (eds) New Insights into Language Anxiety: Theory, Research and Educational Implications (pp. 11–30). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2007) Supporting independent learning environments: An analysis of structures and roles of language learning advisors. System 35 (1), 66–92. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2012) The skills of counselling: Language as a pedagogic tool. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 43–64). Harlow: Pearson Education. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2013) Defining the field: The use of discourse analysis as a reflective tool in the professional development of language learning advisers as practitioners and researchers. Language Learning Journal 41 (2), 219–230. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2017) Considerations on using mindful listening in advising for language learning: A micro study. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung 28 (2), 159–179. Mozzon-McPherson, M. (2019) Mindfulness and advising in language learning: An alternative theoretical perspective. Mélanges CRAPEL 40 (1), 87–113. Rechtschaffen, D. (2014) The Way of Mindful Education: Cultivating Well-being in Teachers and Students. London: Norton. Roeser, R.W., Schonert-Reichl, K.A., Jha, A., Cullen, M., Wallace, L., Wilensky, R., Oberle, E., Thomson, K., Taylor, C. and Harrison, J. (2013) Mindfulness training and reductions in teacher stress and burnout: Results from two randomized, waitlistcontrol field trials. Journal of Educational Psychology 105 (3), 787–804. Roth, G., Vansteenkiste, M. and Ryan, R. (2019) Integrative emotion regulation: Process and development from a self-determination theory perspective. Development and Psychopathology 31 (3), 945–956. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1), 54–67. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M., Patrick, H., Deci, E.L. and Williams, G.C. (2008) Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on Self-determination theory. European Health Psychologist 10 (1), 2–5. Schoeberlein, D. (2009) Mindful Teaching and Teaching Mindfulness: A Guide for Anyone Who Teaches Anything. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications. Schultz, P. and Ryan, R.M. (2015) The ‘Why,’ ‘What,’ and ‘How’ of healthy self-regulation: Mindfulness and well-being from a self-determination theory perspective. In B.D. Ostafin, M.D. Robinson and B.P. Meier (eds) Handbook of Mindfulness and Selfregulation (pp. 81–94). New York, NY: Springer. Shapiro S.L. (2020) Good Morning, I Love You: Mindfulness and Self-compassion Practices to Rewire Your Brain for Calm, Clarity, and Joy. New York, NY: Sounds True Inc.

Mindfulness and Advising in Language Learning  223

Shapiro, S.L., Carlson, L.E., Astin, J.A. and Freedman, B. (2006) Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62 (3), 373–386. Shapiro S.L., Oman D., Thoresen, C.E., Plante, T.G. and Flinders, T. (2008) Cultivating mindfulness: Effects on well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology 64 (7), 840–862. Tang, Y., Hölzel, B. and Posner, M. (2015) The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16 (4), 213–225. Tassinari, M.G. (2016) Emotions and feelings in language advising discourse. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl and S. Mercer (eds) New Directions in Language Learning Psychology (pp. 71–96). Cham: Springer. Tassinari, M.G. and Ciekanski, M. (2013) Accessing the self in self-access learning: Emotions and feelings in language advising. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 4 (4), 262–280. Wallace, B.A. and Shapiro, S.L. (2006) Mental balance and well-being: Building bridges between Buddhism and western psychology. American Psychologist 61 (7), 690–701. Yasuda, T. (2018) Psychological expertise required for advising in language learning: Theories and practical skills for Japanese EFL learners’ trait anxiety and perfectionism. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 9 (1), 11–32. Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S. and Walach, H. (2014) Mindfulness-based interventions in schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 5, 603.

12 Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive Jo Mynard

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to explore ways in which we might reimagine the self-access learning centre (SALC) from a selfdetermination theory (SDT) perspective. Traditionally, a SALC is conceptualised as a physical space that supports language learning and the development of language learner autonomy (Mynard, 2019b). A SALC is a room or purpose-built facility containing different kinds of language learning resources and areas in which to study and practise languages. Ideally, a SALC will also have support systems for language learners including, for example, a professional advising service; access to communities, events and opportunities to use the target language; language support from teachers or peer tutors; and a curriculum for developing self-directed learning skills (Mynard, 2019b). The guiding philosophy for the field of self-access has so far mainly been informed by sociocultural approaches to learning and, in particular, the field of language learner autonomy (Benson, 2011). Selfaccess has spanned a 50-year period and, during that time, the field has transitioned as we have developed a deeper understanding of how languages are learned and how to support language learners in the process. With each decade, we have refined previous focus areas and incorporated them into the increasingly complex learning ecosystem of modern SALCs (Mynard, 2019a). In the early years (the 1970s), the focus of self-access support was on individualised learning, but later it incorporated communicative learning, task-based learning, projectbased learning, computer-assisted learning and social and mobile learning (Mynard, 2019a). Recent interpretations of self-access have emphasised the social side of language learning (Murray, 2011, 2013;

224

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   225

Mynard et al., 2020). The current self-access phase increasingly focuses on understanding the emotional side of learning (Hobbs & Dofs, 2018) and on learners’ psychological needs (Hobbs & Dofs, 2018; Mynard, 2019b; Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2020). A modern SALC may now be conceptualised as a learner-defined space (Murray et al., 2014, 2018) that supports individual language needs as well as social, affective and psychological needs. Drawing on SDT, we might further expand the role of a SALC and perceive it as an autonomy-supportive space that not only nurtures learners and language learning beyond the classroom but also contributes to learner well-being. This chapter begins by referring to other kinds of learning spaces and this is done for two reasons. The first is that examining selfaccess through an SDT lens has, until now, been limited, so it is useful to learn from research in other learning spaces. The second reason is that generating motivation through perceived autonomy support in one setting (i.e. the language classroom) can predict autonomous motivation in another setting (i.e. the SALC). This idea has been explored by Barkoukis and Hagger (2013), who developed the transcontextual model of motivation (TCM). The study was related to physical education and autonomous motivation in leisure time, but the same principles could apply to language learning. For these two reasons, the literature review in this chapter begins by looking at autonomy-supportive classroom learning. This includes examining teacher motivational styles, approaches to enhancing autonomous motivation, and the role of a learner’s perceived locus of control. A review of the features of a physical environment that contribute to supporting or thwarting learners’ basic psychological needs follows. The case examined in this chapter is a laboratory setting but the findings have applications for self-access. After exploring the literature in these related fields, the chapter then turns its focus more specifically to how the field of self-access can draw on SDT principles and research in order to maximally support learners and create conditions that enable them to go beyond simply learning languages and to thrive and grow as human beings. Autonomy support is particularly important for a SALC, and there are two critical issues to consider: (1) whether students voluntarily (and eagerly) use a SALC and whether they return voluntarily for future visits after that initial visit; and (2) if they do choose to visit a SALC, to what extent do they use it to its full capacity and actually make progress in language learning and feel a sense of fulfilment when doing so? Suppose learners come to a SALC and have a deeply needsatisfying experience. In that case, they will be more likely to return voluntarily, use the opportunities fully, and experience success in language learning.

226  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Learning Spaces and SDT Classroom environments

As SDT is a meta-theory of motivation and wellness, it is no surprise that it has been widely applied to the field of education. However, much of this work has been based in classroom settings. From an SDT perspective, an ideal classroom is one where learners’ basic psychological needs are met, and students are able to experience optimal learning in personally meaningful ways within a caring and supportive environment. Two key components of an autonomy-supportive classroom environment are the teacher’s motivational style and the approaches taken to promote autonomy. In addition, the key component of learning that will transfer to outside-class learning, such as self-access learning, is intrinsic motivation and, in particular, the perceived locus of causality. These three components will be discussed in the coming paragraphs. Motivational style of the teacher

The teacher has an important role in creating an autonomysupportive learning environment, and the teacher’s motivational style could be described as either controlling or autonomy-supporting. These motivational styles exist along a bipolar continuum with a ‘highly controlling style’ at one end and a ‘highly autonomy-supportive style’ at the other end, with degrees in between (Reeve, 2016). In practice, what teachers with controlling styles say or do in a classroom is quite different from what autonomy-supportive teachers say or do. Autonomy-supportive teachers help to vitalise the learner’s inner motivation, whereas controlling teachers ‘neglect or even thwart students’ inner motivations’ (Reeve, 2016: 130). A teacher with a controlling motivational style uses pressure to influence what students should think, feel and do. The teacher–student interactions tend to be one-way and non-negotiable (Reeve, 2009). The controlling behaviour demonstrated by teachers might be behavioural or psychological (Reeve, Chapter 2 of this volume). Behavioural control might include shouting at students, using coercive or authoritarian language, manipulating social practices or offering rewards. Psychological control might include offering or withholding attention in order to reward compliance or to punish non-compliance. Controlling teachers might also use guilt and shaming to control learners’ behaviours (Roth et al., 2009; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2010). An autonomy-supportive style is clearly preferable, and meta-analyses of large numbers of research studies show that it is more likely to lead to active engagement by the learners and to enhance their well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2020). Compared with control groups of students who are not receiving autonomy-supportive teaching, students receiving autonomy support demonstrate higher motivation, higher levels of classroom functioning, higher need satisfaction, higher well-being, and higher

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   227

academic achievement, among other benefits (e.g. Cheon & Reeve, 2014). However, it is important to recognise the role of the two sides of dualprocess theory research (Bartholomew et al., 2011): the ‘dark side’, in this case a controlling teaching style that is characterised by needs frustration, maladaptive functioning and ill-being and which needs to be minimised, and the ‘bright side’, which is an autonomy-supporting teaching style characterised by supporting basic psychological needs, leading to positive learning outcomes and experiences. When researching how controlling or how autonomy-supportive a teacher is, we need to acknowledge that both controlling and supportive teaching may be happening in the same environment (Reeve, Chapter 1 of this volume), so two separate measures are necessary (Reeve, 2016). Ways of promoting autonomy in a classroom

There may be several ways to promote autonomy in a classroom and Reeve (2009) cites two goals of such an approach. The first is to provide learning opportunities, a positive classroom environment, and teacher support in ways that support learners’ autonomous motivations. The second is to be in sync with one’s students in terms of creating a cooperative relationship and accommodating both teacher and learner input. Reeve (2016) gives a detailed account of how instructional behaviours might be managed in a classroom context. Later in this chapter, key principles will be incorporated into a model for self-access learning. As learning mostly takes place without the presence of a teacher, one particularly important instructional behaviour for selfaccess learning is ‘vitalising inner motivational resources’. This entails drawing on six inner resources proposed by Reeve (2016): autonomy, competence, relatedness, curiosity, intrinsic goals, and interest. These will be discussed in more detail, with reference to self-access learning, later in the chapter. Another approach for promoting autonomy in a classroom context is to provide the optimal amount of structure (Cheon et al., 2019; Cheon et al., 2020; How & Wang, 2016; Meng & Wang, 2016). How and Wang (2016) suggest that some structure is needed so that teachers can manage student behaviour and develop systems for holding students accountable for their work. An optimal structure may also make class expectations clear yet enhance learners’ sense of control. Cheon et al. (2020) provide useful guidelines for teachers to achieve the two goals of autonomy support and optimal structure synergistically as the two ideas might at first glance seem at odds with each other. Perceived locus of causality

Ideally, classroom-based activities will be intrinsically motivating ones that originate from within the learners themselves rather than from an external source. This internal causation is an example of the

228  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

perceived locus of causality (PLOC; Deci & Ryan, 1985). The PLOC is a student’s understanding of the causal origin of their behaviour, such as internal causalities (inner motivational resources) or external causalities (rewards, social expectations, social controls) and is understood to be the most reliable cause of a person’s behavioural initiative and persistence. Some language learners find the process inherently motivating and have an internal PLOC, whereas others feel pressure or external control or other emotions, which results in an external PLOC (Davis & Bowles, 2018). Depending on how a learner feels about language learning, the experience of learning can vary greatly. The classroom environment and teaching style can have a tremendous effect on the students’ learning experience, and this also has implications for outside-class learning. Learners with an internal PLOC who are intrinsically motivated by language learning will be more likely to seek out opportunities to use a SALC for intrinsic motives. This will be a more rewarding experience than it will be for learners with an external PLOC who use a SALC for externally controlled purposes. For this reason, promoting autonomy in a classroom environment is crucial for effective and intrinsically rewarding SALC use. Mirroring the focus on intrinsic motivation and positive language outcomes both inside and outside the classroom is necessary. Ways in which a SALC can do this in practical terms will be discussed later in the chapter. Outside-class learning spaces

Research on physical spaces shows that someone’s previous assumptions about the nature of an environment can affect conceptions of learning in that space (Beard & Price, 2010). Although limited, a few studies have examined outside-class learning spaces through an SDT lens but these studies have tended to focus on laboratories (e.g. Sjöblom et al., 2016) or are related to physical education (e.g. Meng & Wang, 2016). Some previous studies have indicated that the physical learning environment plays a role in either supporting or thwarting learners’ psychological needs (Sjöblom et al., 2016). The role that the physical environment has on learners’ basic psychological needs and on their overall learning process was investigated in a university chemistry laboratory setting by Sjöblom et al. (2016). The data were analysed according to the three basic psychological needs, and the main findings that could be relevant for self-access learning environments are presented below. Autonomy

Outside-classroom learning environments should contain interesting and/or personally valued activities that relate to learners’ personal goals. In terms of the physical environment in the study by Sjöblom et al. (2016), signage was seen as an affordance for autonomy, helping

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   229

users to overcome gaps in their knowledge. The signage would also ideally need to include explanatory rationales rather than just instructions. However, the design and placement of the furniture itself sometimes made the intended purpose clear, so signs were not always necessary. The environment contained elements that supported learning and also elements that may have thwarted autonomous learning, such as the absence of instructions for some tasks. Sjöblom et al. (2016: 25) explain why this is problematic from an SDT perspective: ‘...if a student is not capable of navigating independently in the space without constantly asking for information on the most basic level, this can be harmful not only for the process of learning but also for the sense of autonomy experienced by the student’. The researchers noted that it might be more appropriate to provide the tools for easily locating the required information – for example, from digital sources that can be accessed easily from smartphones. Finally, the participants felt that the activities they undertook in the laboratory connected them with their future goals and the professional community. Competence

Competence support in outside-classroom learning settings should be provided through opportunities for guidance and feedback, indicating a sense of progress related to personal goals. As expected, the researchers identified both competence-supportive and competence-thwarting elements in the laboratory from the research data. The participants gave examples of spaces that were inadequate for the tasks they needed to perform; on the other hand, there were also tools, equipment and spaces that enhanced the ways in which they could perform certain tasks. In some instances, the equipment enabled the participants to feel a sense of mastery and progress in learning. However, there were instances where participants felt that the lab work was above their current knowledge or competence or that they lacked the theoretical background in order to perform a task. Relatedness

Experiences of relatedness were less prevalent in the study by Sjöblom et al. (2016). Although participants did have preferred spaces they returned to in order to carry out their work with a sense of belonging or ownership, these were informal spaces such as the tables in hallways or the student’s union rather than the laboratory. Rather, the laboratory was seen as a formal place for ‘serious study’, which was often perceived to be completed alone or with a teacher. Group work and informal discussions with others tended to take place outside the laboratory, again in places such as hallways or the cafeteria. The participants did not perceive the laboratory itself to be a space that belonged to them. In fact, they felt more like ‘visitors’ in a space that

230  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

was mainly occupied by teachers or more advanced students. Clearly, relatedness support is an area for development in this laboratory setting, and achieving the aim of having students feel a sense of belonging rather than feeling like visitors should be prioritised. Self-Access and SDT: Existing Research

A SALC has the potential to provide autonomy support to learners, which builds on and develops their autonomous motivation for language learning. Applying an SDT lens to self-access learning is still relatively unknown. However, one study, conducted at a SALC at a university in Japan, explored elements of the SALC environment that supported or thwarted basic psychological needs as a place to use the target language, which was English (Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2020). The research questions for this study were: (1) To what extent does the SALC satisfy the basic psychological needs of the student population? (2) What aspects of the SALC require more attention in order to better support students’ basic psychological needs? (3) What actions could be taken in order to better support students’ BPNs? The researchers were interested in understanding the students’ perceptions and experiences, via a survey and interviews, and in examining the affordances of key learning spaces within the SALC. The data collection was undertaken by a team of researchers and research assistants that included students, teachers and learning advisors (Asta & Mynard, 2018). Data comprised 108 structured interviews with SALC users, 280 online survey responses from the general student population (227 of those reporting to be at least occasional users), and structured evaluations of key SALC areas undertaken independently by 11 learning advisors working in the SALC with a follow-up focus group discussion. The interviews focused on what students actually did in the SALC, who they talked to in English, what they liked most about the SALC, what they found challenging, and the reasons for all of these things. The survey contained both multiple-choice and open-ended questions on various aspects of the SALC, but the responses used for the purpose of this study were concerned with how students used English in the SALC, with whom, whether they were satisfied with the amount of English they used, the reasons for this level of satisfaction, and any challenges or difficulties they felt. The researchers analysed the data for elements of the SALC environment and services that supported learners’ basic psychological needs and for elements that warranted further attention or support. These findings are explored in some detail in the following sections.

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   231

Findings Autonomy

The researchers found the SALC in their study to be largely autonomysupportive. The décor and layout were perceived to be welcoming and provided spaces and materials suitable for different kinds of learners and for their interests, preferences and language learning needs and goals. Orientations helped to ensure that the learners understood how to use the SALC, but further awareness-raising of how the SALC could support their individual learning goals was needed. Many learners still needed support in overcoming barriers that prevented them from exercising agency and accessing the space. Often these barriers were psychological – for example, lacking confidence or agency for accessing the space. Competence

The SALC in this context provides a course that provides an appropriate level of structure and helps learners to understand themselves and how they learn so that they might optimally use the SALC and other spaces for effective learning (Curry et al., 2017). However, as the course is optional and places on it are limited, less than half the student body takes this course. Despite the abundance of suitable facilities and support services for learning, students in this study still reported feeling a lack of competence in their English abilities and judged their abilities to be insufficient for speaking English with people in the SALC, particularly native-speaker exchange students. The reasons for this were reported to be various and complex and were a result of factors such as previous learning experiences, learner beliefs, language anxiety, and personality traits such as introversion and perfectionism (Asta & Mynard, 2018; Mynard et al., 2020). The participants tended to focus on ‘form’ over ‘meaning’ when communicating with others, which hindered their perceived ability to communicate effectively in the TL. Mynard and Shelton-Strong (2020) identified competence as the need that would be particularly important to focus on for further support. As Ryan and Deci (2017) highlight, three important aspects of competence support include the provision of structure, a clear and meaningful rationale, and positive feedback. These areas were those that were noticed to be in need of attention and reinforcement. Learners in this context – not just those taking a SALC course – could benefit from competence support in the form of modelling, scaffolding, encouragement, strategies, and goal setting, which could have a big effect on the sense of competence satisfaction they feel. Relatedness

The data indicated the importance of the SALC as a social space. In fact, meeting other people and feeling a sense of belonging was extremely important in supporting the other two basic psychological

232  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

needs. In many cases, learners felt this sense of belonging and warmth, but other users felt like outsiders and perceived certain areas such as the conversation lounge to be the domain of more proficient speakers of English according to data from a separate study in the same context (Mynard et al., 2020). Creating a prosocial community, one where learners take responsibility for learning together and helping others to learn, could be one way in which this SALC could develop in the future (see Watkins, Chapter 6 of this volume). One of the roles of staff working in a SALC is to encourage students to use the space optimally in order for them to experience the benefits for their learning. Visiting a SALC for the first time can be challenging for some learners, who may face psychological barriers. The most effective way to encourage both initial and ongoing SALC use is through support for autonomy, competence and relatedness and through the development of a supportive community. This process is also supported by offering SALC orientations, providing ongoing promotion and advertising, and holding regular events. If the goal is to promote autonomous motivation, SALC use should always be voluntary and not incentivised, scheduled or forced in any way. As with other learning spaces, a SALC could be broadly seen to fall along a bipolar continuum where there is a supportive environment at one end and a controlling environment at the other. As we saw previously in this chapter, the instrument used to evaluate the autonomysupportive nature of a classroom space looked at the dark side and the bright side separately. In the case of self-access, the dark side might include features that appear to be controlling or non-supportive. The bright side could be features that are perceived to be ones that support basic psychological needs and inner motivational resources, leading to positive learning outcomes and experiences. Understanding these two facets could be achieved through observing and analysing the following, using two separate instruments: (1) the physical features of the space: the general physical conditions and also the layout, signage and presence of support features; and (2) the activities occurring within the space and how students are performing, thriving or withdrawing, and how they are engaging with the support systems in place. As yet, such instruments do not exist, but Figure 12.1 could provide a starting point for designing two Likert scale rating sheets that an observer could employ that would simplify the process and instruments presented in the study by Mynard and Shelton-Strong (2020). Creating an Autonomy-Supportive SALC

The autonomy-supportive styles introduced earlier in the chapter in the context of classroom learning can be adapted for self-access learning. In classroom-based teaching, this would begin with empathising with the

Figure 12.1  Features of an autonomy-supportive self-access learning centre (drawing on Davis & Bowles, 2018 and Reeve, 2016)

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   233

234  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

learners, attempting to understand their wants, needs, goals, motivations, styles and other individual characteristics. In a SALC, a teacher might not be present at all, so the learners will need to understand themselves well and make learning choices based on their self-knowledge. The following sections and Figure 12.1 will describe the features of an autonomysupportive SALC that could serve as a guideline for people working in the field. However, supporting learners in self-access requires more than just providing a physical space, so some of the guidelines refer to support that can be offered in class or in advising sessions in order to prepare students adequately for self-access learning. Take the student’s perspective

Taking the student’s perspective means imagining yourself in their place and empathising with what they feel, think or want. To do this, it is important to spend time listening to students in order to understand their needs and inner motivations to ensure that the SALC meets their needs. In order for a SALC to address the needs of the learners, the learners themselves should have the opportunity not only to provide input but also to have ownership and a leadership role. Many SALCs employ student staff members (e.g. see Murray & Fujishima, 2013), are run by student volunteers, or place a heavy emphasis on student-run groups and interest-based learning communities within the SALC, where members of these student-led communities create a mutually supportive environment for fellow members (Hooper, 2020; Watkins, Chapter 6 of this volume). It is also good practice to conduct annual surveys and focus-group interviews in order to gather ongoing perspectives from users. Vitalise inner motivational resources

Even with the absence of a teacher, there are many ways that a SALC can vitalise learners’ inner motivational resources. Indeed, unlike a classroom context where a teacher needs to cater to a large number of students, learners in a SALC have a wide choice of the kinds of activities they can engage in. Given this choice, it is highly likely that learners will be able to find materials and activities that are need-satisfying, meaningful, goal-relevant and align with their inner motivations. The challenge, however, is in ensuring students can actually find a suitable resource or activity in the SALC. In practical terms, learning opportunities can be presented in engaging and curiosityinducing ways through posters, social media and display techniques. Teachers and learning advisors also have a role to play in helping learners to identify activities that align with their inner motivations. In order for teachers and learning advisors to support individual learners

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   235

while they engage in self-access learning, they can draw on the six inner resources proposed by Reeve (2016). These resources are autonomy, competence and relatedness (see Reeve, Chapter 1 of this volume for a detailed explanation of these three), curiosity, intrinsic goals, and interest. Autonomy

A SALC offers learners opportunities for control and self-direction over personally meaningful activities in line with their ideals and values. However, the learner needs to be able to make all the decisions related to attending the SALC, i.e. deciding (1) if to go at all; (2) when to go; (3) what to do there; and (4) with whom to go. However, a teacher or learning advisor can help learners to make these decisions and should provide orientations and easy access to the SALC in order for the learner to make an informed decision about how the SALC might support their inner motivations. Perhaps it also goes without saying that a SALC should be a non-threatening and attractive space so that learners feel inclined to enter (Dofs & Hobbs, 2011). In order to be sensitive to the individual differences of all students who might use a SALC, there needs to be a range of options and activities available for different kinds of language learning needs and learning preferences. In addition, it needs to be communicated to the learners that there is no one ‘correct’ way to learn, and they should be encouraged to experiment and find resources and activities that are engaging and useful for them. Competence

Essential elements for supporting the psychological need for competence would include guidance, modelling and scaffolding. This might begin with helping learners to understand, manage and organise their learning processes, which might start with recognising goals or interests related to language learning. Teachers or learning advisors can help students to evaluate their needs, consider previous learning experiences, and other factors in order to provide optimal guidance for them to create their own specific and achievable plans and select appropriate activities and resources. Depending on the degree of metacognitive awareness of the learner, this might mean providing step-by-step guidance or simply being a sounding board (Kato & Mynard, 2016). For communicative activities, the learners should also be encouraged to focus on meaning rather than form, and this could be communicated through signage and the presence of resources that are not originally intended for language learning purposes. The activities and resources should ideally provide an optimal level of challenge, i.e. ‘challenges just slightly above students’ present competency level, since a challenge that is too easy is boring, while too much difficulty causes frustration and anxiety’ (Kirk, 2010: 49). In order to achieve an optimal

236  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

level of challenge, learning activities and resources in a SALC should clearly indicate the learning objectives and level so that learners can make appropriate choices. Scaffolding, modelling and general guidance needs to be provided during this process and might be supported by tools such as conversation prompts, vocabulary cards or sentence patterns. Providing feedback is another feature of competence support and can be provided in the form of answer keys for text resources. Finally, providing opportunities for learners to experience success when using the language with peers and teachers is another form of competence support. Relatedness

Efforts need to be made to support relationship building within a SALC through interaction opportunities and expectations. In addition, the goal of prosocial behaviour needs to be reinforced, and the expectation that the SALC is a place where members help each other and learn together needs to be communicated (Johnmarshall Reeve, personal communication). This can be partially achieved through furniture and layout. Although some individual study areas will be needed, it is particularly important to also create spaces that naturally promote discussion and group work and provide places for students to socialise and eat as well as study. Awareness-raising, for example, via brochures, videos, posters, websites and classroom activities, can highlight the community aspects of learning so that users do not perceive the space to be a formal study space such as a library (even though it may share some features). There should also be opportunities for students to meet other people in an inviting, comfortable and non-threatening way – for example, in study groups, student-led learning communities (Watkins, Chapter 6 of this volume), and through autonomy-supportive interactions with learning advisors and teachers (Shelton-Strong & Tassinari, Chapter 10 of this volume). Curiosity

Curiosity is a ‘cognitively generated emotion that occurs whenever students become aware of an unexpected gap in their knowledge that they wish to close’ (Reeve, 2016: 140). Self-access learning is ideally suited for closing gaps in one’s knowledge because of the range of activities and options available. However, the key to helping learners to experience this emotion in a SALC is to help them to see the gap and to feel motivated to close it. This may be done through opportunities for observing and interacting with near-peer role models (Murphey, 1998) in the target language or through feeling inspired to access other opportunities for using the target language, such as enjoying events, movies, books and other activities and resources. In addition, this could be done by raising curiosity for language that learners might need in certain situations – for example, posters with examples of scenarios that

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   237

students might find themselves in: ‘You want to introduce yourself to a new classmate from overseas, what do you say?’ Intrinsic goals

Intrinsic goals are ones that represent opportunities for personally meaningful growth for learners, whether it is the development of knowledge or a skill, building a relationship with others, or contributing in some way to a community (Reeve, 2016), and a SALC can offer many opportunities for learners to focus on their intrinsic goals. Students are likely to need support in articulating these intrinsic goals, and engaging in an advising dialogue can help in exploring what is meaningful for their lives and how they might pursue it in self-access. The availability of (psychological) tools (Kato & Mynard, 2016; Mynard, 2012) in SALCs and advising sessions might greatly facilitate this process. The tools could include reflective activities that help the learner to connect their language learning to their intrinsic goals – for example, their future plans and dreams. Interest

Interest can be defined as a ‘knowledge’ emotion (Silvia, 2008), and, from an SDT perspective, ‘…one experiences interest when one encounters novel, challenging, or aesthetically pleasing activities or objects in a context that allows satisfaction of the basic psychological needs and thus promotes development’ (Deci, 1992: 49). The interrelationship of the three basic psychological needs also plays a role: for example, perceived competence is correlated with interest and intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1992). Additionally, as Davis and Bowles (2018: 2) note, when working on an intrinsically interesting task in a classroom environment, ‘students seem to lose themselves in tasks they enjoy and in which they feel no pressure… this motivation to learn comes from within’. Two kinds of interest might be considered important in self-access learning: situational interest and individual interest. Situational interest, which is a psychological state ‘generated by specific environmental stimuli’ (Ainley et al., 2002: 546), might be triggered by novelty, and a SALC can promote different kinds of experiences in a constantly changing environment in order to continue to offer opportunities for interest to be triggered in this way. Although this kind of interest might be temporary (Schunk et al., 2008), it could lead to longer-term, more sustained individual interest (Renninger et al., 2019). Individual interest is a more enduring predisposition that can re-emerge over a lifetime – especially with continued exposure (Hidi & Ainley, 2009), which can be a feature of a SALC. Some studies have shown that learners in self-access contexts intentionally use interest (as well as goals) to regulate and sustain their motivation over time (McLoughlin, 2020; McLoughlin & Mynard, 2015, 2018; Mynard & McLoughlin, 2016).

238  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Provide explanatory rationales

Some SALC activities or resources will be inherently interesting or useful and will require no explanatory rationales as students will naturally choose them. However, rationales may be needed for lesserknown activities and for tasks that might be interesting or useful for them. These rationales could take the form of notes, recommendations, manuals, posters, videos or workshops and will help learners to find and use resources that are appropriate for them. In addition, support, rationale and modelling in class and during advising sessions can prepare learners for a SALC activity. Acknowledge and respect expressions of negative affect

Learning advisors are trained to accept and respect how learners feel and to do so without judgement. One-to-one advising sessions can be very effective at helping learners understand their own emotions as they relate to language learning (Yamashita, 2015). Outside the advising sessions, documenting outside-class tasks is one way that learners can notice affective factors in learning. This can be done through tools such as learning logs, learning journals and learning plans. In addition, learners can document how they feel about the task on the same document in order for them to reflect on and evaluate the task for subsequent learning. Classroom tasks and interventions can also be an effective way for learners to discuss affective factors with their peers in order to realise that they are not alone in feeling negative sometimes. Conclusions

This chapter has reconceptualised a SALC from an SDT perspective by drawing on research not only in the field of self-access but also in classroom contexts and in outside-class learning spaces. Although some of the features of an autonomy-supportive SALC within an SDT framework will already be familiar to practitioners and researchers working in the field of self-access, this chapter has attempted to provide an important step in the process of enhancing our understanding of selfaccess learning. The ideas presented in this chapter aim essentially to shift the role of a SALC as a space that primarily provides resources for language learning to one where a SALC actively aims to satisfy learners’ basic psychological needs and engage their inner motivational resources while supporting language learning. A SALC is conceptualised as a space that supports autonomy, competence and relatedness while tapping into learners’ curiosity, intrinsic goals and interest, the aim of which is to go beyond language learning and to promote well-being and help individuals to flourish and thrive.

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   239

In many ways, a SALC is more ideally situated than a classroom setting for supporting autonomous motivation for language learning as it does not have the constraints that a classroom environment does. These classroom-based constraints include, for example, a top-down curriculum, grading requirements, large numbers of students with usually only one teacher, and timetable constraints. Self-access learning, on the other hand, shifts all the opportunities and responsibility for learning onto the student: when to learn, what to learn, how to learn and with whom. With sufficient support, such as the ways outlined in this chapter, a SALC has the potential to be the most significant context for autonomous language learning development. Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Johnmarshall Reeve and Scott Shelton-Strong for their comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. References Ainley, M., Hidi, S. and Berndorff, D. (2002) Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (3), 545–561. Asta, E. and Mynard, J. (2018) Exploring basic psychological needs in a language learning center. Part 1: Conducting student interviews. Relay Journal 1 (2), 382–404. Barkoukis, V. and Hagger, M.S. (2013) The trans-contextual model: Perceived learning and performance motivational climates as analogues of perceived autonomy support. European Journal of Psychology of Education 28, 353–372. Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R.M., Bosch, J.A. and Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011) Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 37 (11), 1459–1473. Beard, C. and Price, I. (2010) Space, conversations and place: Lessons and questions from organisational development. International Journal of Facility Management 1 (2), 1–14. Benson, P. (2011) Teaching and Researching: Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow: Longman. Cheon, S.H. and Reeve, J. (2014) A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease student amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology 40, 99–111. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Song, Y.-G. (2019) Recommending goals and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students’ psychological needs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 41, 107–118. Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2020) Expanding a traditional autonomysupportive intervention into a multiple motivating styles intervention for PE teachers: Benefits to students, benefits to teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 90, 1–12. Curry, N., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J. and Watkins, S. (2017) Evaluating a self-directed language learning course in a Japanese university. International Journal of SelfDirected Learning 14 (1), 37–57. Davis, W.S. and Bowles, F. (2018) Empowerment and intrinsic motivation: A self-determination theory approach to language teaching. In J.A. Foss (ed.) The Power of Language, The Power of People: Celebrating 50 Years (pp. 1–32). Ashland, VA: Robert M. Terry.

240  Part 4: Autonomy Support in Advising and Self-Access for Language Learning

Deci, E.L. (1992) The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination theory perspective. In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi and A. Krapp (eds) The Role of Interest in Learning and Development (pp. 43–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Dofs, K. and Hobbs, M. (2011) Guidelines for Maximising Student Use of Independent Learning Centres: Support for ESOL Learners. Christchurch: Ako Aotearoa. Hidi, S. and Ainley, M. (2009) Interest and self-regulation: Relationships between two variables that influence learning. In D.H. Schunk and B.J. Zimmerman (eds) Motivation and Self-regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications (pp. 77–109). New York, NY: Routledge. Hobbs, M. and Dofs, M. (2018) Spaced out or zoned in? An exploratory study of spaces enabling autonomous learning in two New Zealand tertiary learning institutions. In G. Murray and T. Lamb (eds) Space, Place and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 201–218). London: Routledge. Hooper, D. (2020) Modes of identification within a language-learner led community of practice. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 11 (4), 301–327. How, Y.M. and Wang, J.C.K. (2016) Creating an autonomy-supportive physical education (PE) learning environment. In W.C. Liu, J.C.K. Wang and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Selfdetermination Theory (pp. 207–225). Singapore: Springer. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Kirk, S. (2010) Self-determination theory and education: An overview. Language and Culture. The Journal of the Institute for Language and Culture 14, 35–58. McLoughlin, D. (2020) Interest development and self-regulation of motivation. In J. Mynard, M. Tamala and W. Peeters (eds) Supporting Learners and Educators in Developing Language Learner Autonomy (pp. 63–76). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. McLoughlin, D. and Mynard, J. (2015) How do independent language learners keep going? The role of interest in sustaining motivation. rEFLections 19 (Special Issue: Innovation in ELT), 38–57. McLoughlin, D. and Mynard, J. (2018) How do self-directed learners keep going? The role of interest in sustained learning. 2017 PanSIG Journal, 74–81. Meng, H.Y. and Wang, J.W.C. (2016) The effectiveness of an autonomy-supportive teaching structure in physical education. RICYDE: Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte 43 (12), 5–28. Murphey, T. (1998) Motivating with near-peer role models. On JALT97: Trends & Transitions, 201–205. Murray, G. (2011) Older language learners, social learning spaces, and community. In P. Benson and H Reinders (eds) Beyond the Language Classroom. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Murray, G. (2013) Pedagogy of the possible: Imagination, autonomy, and space. Studies in Second Language Teaching 3 (3), 377–396. Murray, G. and Fujishima, N. (2013) Social language learning spaces: Affordances in a community of learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 36 (1), 141–157. Murray, G., Fujishima, N. and Uzuka, M. (2014) The semiotics of place: Autonomy and space. In G. Murray (ed.) Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 81–99). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Murray, G., Fujishima, N. and Uzuka, M. (2018) Social learning spaces and the invisible fence. In G. Murray and T. Lamb (eds) Space, Place and Autonomy in Language Learning (pp. 233–246). London: Routledge. Mynard, J. (2012) A suggested model for advising in language learning. In J. Mynard and L. Carson (eds) Advising in Language Learning: Dialogue, Tools and Context (pp. 26–41). Harlow: Pearson.

Reimagining the Self-Access Centre as a Place to Thrive   241

Mynard, J. (2019a) Emotional dimensions of language learning: A new era of self-access. Paper presented at Encuentro de Centros de Autoacceso de la Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Mexico, October 2019. Mynard, J. (2019b) Self-access learning and advising: Promoting language learner autonomy beyond the classroom. In H. Reinders, S. Ryan and S. Nakamura (eds) Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching: The Case of Japan (pp. 185–220). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Mynard, J. and McLoughlin, D. (2016) Sustaining motivation: Self-directed learners’ stories. Proceedings of the 7th CLaSIC Conference, Singapore (217–228). Singapore: National University of Singapore Centre for Language Studies. Mynard, J. and Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Investigating the autonomy-supportive nature of a self-access environment: A self-determination theory approach. In J. Mynard, M. Tamala and W. Peeters (eds) Supporting Learners and Educators in Developing Language Learner Autonomy (pp. 77–117). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. Mynard, J., Burke, M., Hooper, D., Kushida, B., Lyon, P., Sampson, R. and Taw, P. (2020) Dynamics of a Social Language Learning Community: Beliefs, Membership and Identity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Reeve, J. (2009) Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist 44 (3), 159–175. Reeve, J. (2016) Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In W.C. Liu, J.C. Keng Wang and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer. Renninger, K.A., Bachrach, E.B. and Hidi, S.E. (2019) Triggering and maintaining interest in early phases of interest development. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 23, Article 100260. Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C.P., Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2009) The emotional and academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices. Developmental Psychology 45 (4), 1119–1142. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860. Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R. and Meece, J.L. (2008) Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (3rd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Silvia, P.J. (2008) Interest – The curious emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17 (1), 57–60. Sjöblom, K., Mälkki, K., Sandström, N. and Lonka, K. (2016) Does physical environment contribute to basic psychological needs? A self-determination theory perspective on learning in the chemistry laboratory. Frontline Learning Research 4 (1), 17–39. Soenens, B. and Vansteenkiste, M. (2010) A theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory. Developmental Review 30 (1), 74–99. Yamashita, H. (2015) Affect and the development of learner autonomy through advising. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal 6 (1), 62–85.

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here? Scott J. Shelton-Strong

Where to Go from Here?

The aim of this final chapter is to reflect on our motives for putting together this volume, the reasons behind our belief in the necessity of bringing this book out into the world, and to re-examine the main currents that run through the different sections to provide a summary of what we can learn from the preceding chapters and to consider where this might lead us. This concluding chapter will be written using the plural ‘we’ throughout, which is done purposefully to include both the co-editor and myself. This is representative of our close collaboration throughout this project, and telegraphs the extent to which we are very much literally and figuratively ‘on the same page’ as regards our shared belief of the many ways that SDT, and by extension this volume, can contribute to our understanding of how to support language learners beyond the formal classroom environment in a range of autonomy-supportive ways.

Our Motives for this Volume

As editors, our motivation in bringing together the chapters for this volume was driven essentially by our interest in an area in which we both currently do much of our work and research (within a university self-access centre – outside the classroom). It was also driven by a desire to explore in greater depth what others are doing in terms of research and practice. Ultimately, we wanted to bring a sense of discovery to the field by exploring what we might see and learn by researching what ‘autonomy support beyond the language learning classroom’ from a psychological perspective might bring into view, rather than taking a pedagogical or didactic viewpoint, as one might expect from a book on researching language learning. This decision was due in part to our own research agenda of using SDT to better understand self-access learning environments (Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2020) but also due to a desire to explore within a greater range of contexts internationally, 242

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  243

how learning beyond the classroom is affected by what happens when basic psychological needs are taken into account. We felt it was time to examine how autonomy-supportive interventions and environmental conditions beyond the classroom are connected to learning outcomes and how these affect a learner’s self-confidence, self-esteem and mental well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2020). From our review of the SDT literature, we concluded that taking a psychological perspective to explore this somewhat under-researched area of second language learning would be the most appropriate and informative pathway. We must also say that it has certainly been enjoyable, providing the unique and wonderful experience of working closely together with our fellow contributors, from whom we have learned so much. As educators, researchers, teachers, learning advisors and editors, we shared an ongoing sense of delight in reading, writing and helping to give shape to this volume. It is our conviction that the combined effort of all those involved in bringing this book together, through their interest, commitment and insightful research into autonomy-supportive practice, marks a turning point in how language learning beyond the classroom is conceptualised. It is our hope that this work will serve to deepen our understanding of how language learners can be supported and encouraged as they pursue their language learning goals beyond the classroom in ways that are psychologically healthy, internally motivating and have an immediate and lasting positive impact on learner well-being. However, before we examine key points from the various chapters more closely, we would like to reflect on how we came to arrive precisely ‘here’. In the early stages, when we first began to imagine putting together a book exploring how SDT could be applied to research and practice in support of both language learners and their corresponding learning environments beyond the classroom, it quickly became apparent that we were darting off into an area that was largely unexplored and somewhat hidden from view. We had envisioned this book as a platform to share the work of like-minded educators and academics internationally, exploring the diversity of out-of-class language learning contexts that would be investigated from an SDT perspective. However, the remarkable ways these studies and their approaches would come together to overlap and interconnect with one another to help us shape this exciting body of work was a welcome surprise. Another underlying motive was to promote and highlight a growing interest in SDT as a framework for research and application to language learning environments around the world and to give voice to those who might accept the invitation to join us on this journey of exploration and discovery beyond the classroom environment. This interest and acceptance are evidenced in all the chapters here. We wondered how taking this perspective might enhance our understanding of the support that language learners need as they engage with, and endeavour to

244  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

flourish within, the boundless language learning possibilities around them. We would, in this way, we imagined, position ourselves as metaphorical first responders to what we believe is an urgent necessity to explore and begin to map and understand the unique ways in which language learning occurs outside the classroom environment and how it can be supported in psychologically healthy ways. Autonomy, SDT and Language Learning Beyond the Classroom

To continue with our analogy of the journey, the chapters here represent what might be seen as some of the first deliberate strides taken towards a fuller reckoning of the importance of autonomy support in (collaborative) out-of-class learning environments and self-initiated contexts. Certainly, language learning outside the classroom has been occurring for as long as human beings have existed. However, in a very modern sense, these ‘first strides’ taken together represent a particularly relevant position-of-perspective and deliver a strong, clear message: that language learning outside the classroom is not an isolated or disparate phenomenon but is, instead, a reality for most (if not all, at some point in our lives) who are engaged in learning a second or additional language; and it does not necessarily occur in isolation either. As educators, we must recognise this and, in addition, we must recognise that we have a duty to support this learning in the ways we are able, with a focus on fostering need-supportive experiences and environments beyond the classroom so that we can promote deep and personally enriching lifelong learning and bring this awareness to the fore of our research and practice in collaboration with our learners. By taking an SDT perspective and applying the concept of autonomy support (see Reeve, Chapter 2), we can better appreciate and more clearly understand the consequences, or effects, of what occurs in these environments, how learning happens, and the ways in which it can be enhanced (beyond the classroom walls) in need-supportive ways. As mentioned earlier, this perspective also puts us in a position where we can learn to recognise the signs of need-neglect or need-frustration, and thus reset or re-orientate the learning/environment dynamic in an autonomy-supportive direction. To do this, it is necessary first to identify and raise our awareness of where these learning environments exist, to scaffold these as needed, and to take part and collaborate with our learners within them where appropriate. One way to make these sometimes-hidden spaces more easily accessible is to begin to identify the larger areas within which this learning might occur. The four parts of this volume can be seen as a natural attempt to place these markers on the map as we begin to chart this somewhat under-discovered territory for purposes of both research and practical intervention in autonomysupportive learning environments outside the classroom.

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  245

Autonomy, autonomy support and learner autonomy are terms or concepts that have been used extensively (though not surprisingly) throughout the different chapters. Although the focus of the book largely concerns language learning beyond the classroom environment, it also encompasses SDT as its central lens of analysis of these environments, and as a vehicle to understand the essential role they, and the people who populate them, play in providing autonomy support and, generally, the need-supportive conditions necessary to foster the adaptive, agentic, prosocial behaviours and well-being that make effective language learning possible, meaningful and enjoyable. In our introduction, we make initial reference to this terminology and briefly discuss it. However, these concepts are newly examined and, in some ways, expanded on in the chapters themselves. For example, and in particular, in Chapter 2 Reeve proposes a self-determination theory perspective to identify and conceptualise what has long been envisaged as learner autonomy in language education. In the following sections, we review and highlight some of the key points and implications from the preceding chapters, which we believe are particularly salient for further discussion. This will take part in three sections, which are centred on: (1) the theoretical; (2) the researchto-practice dynamic; and (3) the implications for practice and research identified across the various chapters. In these sections, we highlight what we have learned in this volume and what some implications/further directions might be as regards both research and practice in support of language learning beyond the classroom from a self-determination theory perspective. The Implications of Taking an SDT Perspective to Language Learning Beyond the Classroom Theoretical underpinnings

In the first section, the full picture and the key underpinnings of SDT are reviewed and considered within the overall theme of the book (Reeve, Chapter 1). It is here that the foundation for the book is laid and where SDT’s mini-theories are explored to facilitate not only a fuller awareness of SDT but also insight into how autonomy support can be understood within language learning environments (both within and outside class). This exploration enables the reader to position the chapters that follow within the wider framework of SDT and is essential to gaining a working perspective of its broader aim(s) and theoretical underpinnings. In turn, this working perspective acts as a blueprint to enable an understanding of how autonomy support might function within out-ofclass learning environments and the ways this can benefit our learners and enhance our perspectives as researchers and educators. As is made clear, from an SDT perspective it is the learners’ (need for) autonomy

246  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

and the autonomy support provided within the learning environment that mesh together to bring about the conditions wherein learners can flourish and thrive and experience increased well-being. This perspective is later brought to life within the chapters that follow. One of the most notable contributions of this volume and to the field of language learning and language learner autonomy, in our view, comes in this early section (Chapter 2). Here, Reeve makes a poignant and far-reaching analysis of how ‘learner autonomy’, from a uniquely SDT perspective, might be readdressed. This perspective is based on an understanding of how environmental autonomy support serves as a reciprocal motivational force, driving the engagement of the language learner with her or his environment. It is through the learner’s agentic engagement that the environment is rendered more motivationally supportive. In turn, this satisfies the learner’s need for autonomy and fuels further agentic action, creating, as Reeve explains, a learnerenvironment synchronicity that facilitates a powerful and, ultimately, productive and meaningful learning trajectory. While this motivated engagement has long been understood, or referred to as ‘autonomy’ within the field of language learning, this analysis re-focuses or re-examines how we might approach both practice and research as regards learner autonomy from an SDT perspective by looking anew at what it means to take ‘control over one’s learning’ (Holec, 1981: 3). This repositioning thus provides a pathway to an equitable synthesis – or at minimum a clarity of terminology – concerning the concept of autonomy as a psychological need and that of the agentic action of the learner as a practical explanation for what is meant when learner autonomy, or the actions of the autonomous language learner, are being referred to. In addition, it provides a fuller understanding of what understanding autonomy as a psychological need, expressed through self-congruent and volitional action, can imply for the field of language learning. This analysis helps us take a further useful and important step towards a deeper appreciation of what it means to ‘take ownership over one’s own learning’ (see Reeve, Chapter 2). While, technically, autonomy in SDT, and currently in the field of language learning differ, there is a discernible overlap as evidenced when the latter is understood from an SDT perspective as ‘the autonomous learner in action’ (p. 34). Reeve substantiates this in the following way: As recognised by Benson (2011), autonomy cannot be taught, learned or acquired; instead, autonomy needs to be appreciated and supported. What this means in terms of both theory-building and practical application is that the existing understanding of ‘learner autonomy’ needs to be expanded from one overarching concept to three interrelated but differentiated concepts: namely, autonomy, environmental autonomy support and agentic engagement. (Reeve, Chapter 2, p. 34)

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  247

This theoretical analysis and repositioning mark a clear point on our map going forward, enabling what we can envision as a multi-layered and increasingly dynamic approach to language learner autonomy research. At the same time, it brings new insight into practical ways in which language learning environments (both within and outside the classroom) can be enhanced through the purposeful enactment and provision of autonomy-supportive behaviours, relationships and resources and the facilitation of a motivating, responsive and supportive learning climate, such as those examined in this volume. This translates into a recognition of the necessity of facilitating places, spaces and dimensions where support is provided to meet the need for the psychological freedom to act and to choose according to one’s interests and values, to experience competence through engaging successfully and volitionally with the learning environment, and experience the sensation of being in a responsive, mutually caring relationship where a sense of significance and warmth is apparent. Using SDT as our theoretical lens can help us to (re)imagine, design and plot how these spaces, places or dimensions can be supported in ways that draw the learner into engagement and set the autonomy-supportive cycle into motion, with previous empirical research and the studies in this volume indicating various avenues for informed interventions. Inevitably, the different chapters bring in theories or concepts from areas outside SDT to help conceptualise how autonomy support can be enacted within language learning environments beyond the classroom and how support for basic psychological needs can be envisioned and provided. Due to the extraordinary diversity in language learning environments, not only culturally but also due to circumstance and the individual differences of those involved, diverse ways to approach how we conceptualise research into autonomy-supportive learning environments are invariably needed. In the following section, we will briefly revisit examples of this to highlight some of the ways this was addressed across the different studies and theoretical chapters. In Part 2, for example, in researching learning environments and open spaces, Dincer and Işık (Chapter 3) draw on Benson’s (2011) pedagogical model for out-of-class language learning as a framework to use in an SDT analysis based on basic psychological need satisfaction, where they examine language learners’ engagement with digital resources, and what this means for language learners’ sense of self and motivation for learning with online resources. Using this existing framework for examining language learning beyond the classroom, the authors were able to conceptualise the language learner ‘hidden from view’ in concrete ways and to map these onto SDT’s motivational continuum. This is a good example of the field of language learner autonomy and SDT being used to inform each other, the study and the researchers’ aims.

248  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

Drawing on SDT’s cognitive evaluation theory and organismic integration theory, Hoang, Chik, French and Ollerhead (Chapter 4) explore a unique and under-represented context concerning the out-ofclass language learning motivation of two upper secondary school age learners in Vietnam. As a qualitative case study, the approach taken (more on this in the following section) involves a range of data collection tools and takes a narrative approach to the analysis and presentation of the data. This chapter is unique in many ways and draws our attention to the rich tapestries that can unfold by looking at the lived experiences of younger learners. In Chapter 5, Li, Zhang and Hu employ a theoretical model that draws on the self-system model of motivational development (Skinner et al., 2008) and STD’s basic psychological needs theory to examine EFL learners’ engagement with an autonomy-supportive online writing platform. They provide a 5-step mechanism to illustrate how this intervention was successful in facilitating the support needed to motivate out-of-class essay writing, which also led to a reduction in writing-related anxiety, an increase in confidence and improved writing performance. This is another instance where the concepts of learner autonomy (as agentic action) and basic psychological need support were brought into the research design to inform one another within the aims of the study and add depth to the findings and discussion. In Part 3, which looks into autonomy support in communities and relationships, Firat, Noels and Lou (Chapter 7) review and examine in depth, major factors that influence language learners’ autonomous motivation for learning beyond the classroom. Drawing on the work of Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972), Gardner’s socio-educational model (1988, 2010) and Skinner et al.’s (2008) self-system model of motivational development, they present a model that looks at the socio-ecological characteristics of motivation in language learning. This model positions SDT’s psychological needs and motivational orientations within a system whereby socio-structural and socio-cultural forces come together and join with personal and interpersonal dynamics to produce both languagebased, and non-linguistic end results. This review leads to a call for further research from a socio-ecological perspective to focus on these multi-level (micro-, meso- and macro) factors as a centralising and multifaceted force for motivation, with the aim of furthering our awareness and understanding of what motivates language learning. This chapter provides a broad perspective of the factors and forces involved, and the intricacies inherent within the interpersonal, intergroup and intercultural processes in motivated learning beyond the classroom. This wide-angle lens perspective enhances our understanding of motivational processes, antecedents and outcomes in language learning beyond the classroom. Further in Part 3, both Watkins (Chapter 6) and Oga-Baldwin (Chapter 8) make reference to communities of practice (Wenger et al.,

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  249

2002) to bear on how these can be instrumental in providing autonomy support and, in particular, support for relatedness. Watkins looks into learner-led communities, which provide a unique environment for peersupport and intrinsic interest development. The function and framework of communities of practice help to identify learners’ interactions within the group as well as to understand how these may be related to basic psychological need satisfaction. While Oga-Baldwin focuses primarily on SDT’s relationships motivation theory (RMT) in his chapter, he draws on a range of theoretical models to bear on how the connections we make have implications for the language learner and, in particular, as regards contexts beyond the formal language classroom. These include Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model, Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 motivational self-system, and, as mentioned earlier, Wenger’s (1998) communities of practice. These are used alongside RMT to further the depth of discussion of how the quality of the relationships we experience can influence and impact a language learner’s motivation and, ultimately, success in language learning. In connection with the previous chapters, Kato (Chapter 9) again focuses on the concepts underpinning RMT as she takes a practical look at a mentoring programme for professional learning advisors. Here she draws on relational mentoring (Ragins, 2012), advising in language learning and its use of reflective dialogue (Kato & Mynard, 2016) and the importance of life-story narratives (Atkinson, 1998) to illustrate how the relationships formed in such a programme can be linked to facilitating autonomy support within the context of professional relationships and lead to enhancing the well-being of those involved. In Part 4, where there is a focus on autonomy support in advising and self-access, Shelton-Strong and Tassinari (Chapter 10) examine advising in language learning through the lens of basic psychological need theory to make a case for advising as an autonomy-supportive endeavour, drawing up a practical classification of behaviours and techniques used to demonstrate how the advisor–advisee dialectic and the purposeful use of dialogue can foster this support. In addition, within the same context of advising, Beseghi (Chapter 11) examines the effect of mindfulness practice in language advising sessions and ways in which this practice can help language learners to raise awareness of self-regulation and emotion regulation as relates to their language learning. Bringing mindfulness to bear on self-regulation and well-being in language learning has important implications for learning advisors, as it has been associated with ‘more integrated functioning and a greater focus on intrinsic goal contents’ within a number of relevant studies (Ryan & Deci, 2017: 290). Beseghi makes a strong case for future research and exploration into the relationship linking mindfulness and advising. To bring us full circle, Mynard (Chapter 12) examines university self-access learning centres (SALCs), drawing on research in self-access

250  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

(Mynard, 2019), autonomy-supportive classrooms (Reeve, 2016) and out-of-class environments (Mynard & Shelton-Strong, 2020; Sjöblom et al., 2016) as she reimagines the SALC as a place for learners to thrive as language learners who are naturally inclined to want to engage with their interests, develop a sense of empowerment and confidence, and enjoy the benefits of making close connections with fellow students, teachers and advisors. Specifically, she draws on Davis and Bowles (2018) and Reeve’s model for autonomy-supportive teaching (2016; Chapter 2 of this volume) to synthesise a model which outlines the features of an autonomy-supportive SALC and how this functions to support learners’ basic psychological needs and activate their inner motivational resources. These examples of the diverse models and theoretical underpinnings used to research autonomy-supportive learning environments were extrapolated from the various chapters to illustrate the range of approaches that can be taken to understand and also enhance the language learning environment outside the classroom. There are many implications for research and practice inherent within the chapters themselves. From Research to Practice

To date, much of the research into language learning environments from an SDT perspective has been conducted using quantitative research methods (with some exceptions). These have played an important role in corroborating the universality claims of SDT and its theory of basic psychological needs. These have also helped to affirm the importance of fostering need-supportive learning environments by taking an autonomysupportive approach (Deci & Ryan, 2016) within the envisioned wider aims of SDT for education: that of providing optimal learning opportunities within an open, appropriately challenging and relationally supportive setting. In this volume, the majority of the studies, apart from those that are principally theoretical in nature, focus on what might be described as somewhat more intimate learning environments, which are perhaps more naturally explored from a qualitative research methodology focus. This qualitative focus can allow for a closer, more exploratory, in-depth look at these environments and the lived experiences of those involved in them as language learners and as participants within these studies. What this intimacy, or nearness, provides is an opportunity to ‘get inside’ the behaviours, actions, reactions and emotions of the language learners and allow for a more discriminatory examination of the autonomysupportive factors, facilities and affordances that make up the diverse range of learning environments beyond the classroom which are explored throughout this book.

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  251

Approaches including interviews, narratives and diary studies, for example, allow these rich, personalised experiences to inform our understanding, at a deep and very human level, of how autonomysupportive environments and the agency of the learner interact with one another to drive high-quality engagement in language learning, enhance autonomous motivation, and provide support for well-being. At the same time, these close-at-hand experiences can provide a more critical view of the factors that might be identified as controlling or non-supportive within the out-of-class learning environment. Or, to put it another way, the richness of the qualitative data can help to identify those factors that may need to be revitalised or re-orientated to allow for a reset of the autonomy-supportive dynamic and its potential to motivate and promote flourishing, leading to greater need-satisfaction and learner well-being (see Reeve, Chapter 2). Concretely, within a number of chapters in this book, data of a qualitative nature and related avenues of research provide us with a practitioner’s first-hand insight into how learners engage (and understand their engagement) in the learning process and the ways in which educators (teachers, advisors, etc.) and self-access centres can enhance this engagement in a number of autonomy-supportive ways. Just as the chapter authors brought together a diversity of complementary theoretical models to support their studies, so several research models and designs were used across the different chapters. As such, there may appear to be some overlap with the previous section. However, the aim here is to briefly highlight the research avenues taken and to comment on the implications of these. As noted, there is a strong qualitative representation in these studies. The main research methods used within the studies and across the chapters include: learner autobiographies, diary studies and open-ended interviews (Dincer & Işık, Chapter 3; Watkins, Chapter 6; Kato, Chapter 9), school-walk interviews, out-of-school photography, journal writing, and photo-elicitation interviews (Hoang, Chik, French & Ollerhead, Chapter 4), questionnaires (Beseghi, Chapter 11) and a mixed-method design including interviews, observation, open-ended questionnaires, as well as quantitative evaluation (Li et al., Chapter 5). These allowed for rich and informative data to be collected and, in many cases, combined to triangulate findings and to make deeper connections. For example, in Part 2, which focused on autonomy support situated within learning environments and open spaces, Dincer and Işık (Chapter 3) use qualitative methodology to investigate how language learners in Turkey develop and demonstrate behaviours associated with self-instructed, self-directed naturalistic and naturalistic learning when choosing and engaging with online resources in out-of-class learning. This approach provided insight into the choices the students made and the reasons for them and how these helped to identify their

252  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

motivation orientations using SDT’s motivation continuum. In another example, Hoang, Chik, French and Ollerhead (Chapter 4), investigate the motivational orientation of younger learners in Vietnam while engaging with language learning activities beyond the classroom, making use of a range of qualitative methodology in the data collection phase, together with a narrative inquiry approach in the data analysis and reporting. Combining these and interpreting their findings from an SDT perspective, drawing on cognitive evaluation theory and organismic integration theory, allowed for detailed insight into the transformation of the learners’ motivation development based on their involvement in the out-of-class learning activities they chose. In an example of a mixed-methods design (interviews, observation, open-ended questionnaires, as well as quantitative evaluation) Li, Zhang and Hu (Chapter 5) draw on these and use SDT instruments (questionnaires) to investigate the effectiveness of an out-of-class online writing platform for EFL students in China to provide autonomy support, and its impact on autonomous motivation, well-being, deeper learning and increased confidence. Using a mixed-methods approach here allowed for a convincing and in-depth assessment of the real potential of this online writing platform as an autonomy-supportive out-of-class tool. In Japan, Watkins (Chapter 6) uses open-ended interviews to focus on how basic psychological needs satisfaction can be linked to student participation and leadership in learning communities of practice. These communities serve as open spaces where language learners take responsibility for managing their own interest-based, student-led groups. Through this qualitative approach, Watkins is able to uncover learner perceptions and self-reported experiences through the lens of BPNT. Exploring communities and relationships in Part 3, Oga-Baldwin (Chapter 8) and Kato (Chapter 9) bring RMT into focus to look carefully at the impact that significant others, friendships and mentors can play in motivating language learning outside the formal learning classroom environment, and in enhancing well-being in relational mentoring in a professional context. Oga-Baldwin draws on a number of important studies in a far-reaching discussion centred on the essential nature of connections in language learning and the role of these in enhancing need support, and in particular, support for relatedness. This focus is used to forge a deeper understanding of what close relationships can imply for personal and interpersonal development within language learning endeavours across the spectrum, and a case is made for recognising the centrality of relationships in language learning both within and outside the classroom. Kato examines a relational mentoring programme in Japan used to enhance professional development and relationships between learning advisors where she discusses the potential of life-story interviews, collaborative reflective dialogue, and reverse mentoring to support the needs for relatedness and autonomy. Through the use of these

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  253

as qualitative data collection tools, and taking RMT as the lens through which these activities are evaluated, a model mentoring programme is outlined that would serve as a vehicle for autonomy support to enhance professional well-being through high-quality relationships. As one of the theoretical chapters with a practical aim to it, SheltonStrong and Tassinari (Chapter 10) draw on BPNT, previous research in advising, and personal experiences in the field to explore the practice of advising in language learning. Using these to build up a picture of how advisors are uniquely positioned to support learners’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, they draw up a classification of autonomy-supportive behaviours and techniques that is intended to be used in advising practice. This theoretical and practice-based chapter explores the advisor’s role in engaging in and developing the interpersonal, dialogic approach used in specific advising strategies when in sessions with language learners. The classification aims to further develop an understanding of what advisors do, in meaningful detail, and to highlight the potential of the advisor as an autonomysupportive significant other. Beseghi (Chapter 11) also writes from within the context of language advising and focuses on how mindfulness techniques can be integrated with advising approaches. She looks specifically at how language learners report their experience with mindfulness training and exploration in language advising sessions and at ways in which this focus interfaces with basic psychological need support. Participants in the study kept an online learning diary over one semester, and qualitative data obtained through a questionnaire are used to evaluate and understand the impact mindful awareness and practice had on students’ perceptions of their ability to manage emotions and stress within their learning processes. Its impact as autonomy-support to enhance well-being, self-confidence and learning achievement was an encouraging finding. Bringing mindfulness training and awareness to the advising context is inherently practical and can be explored with learners together, as in this study. Another theoretical chapter with a practical aim is Chapter 12, where Mynard undertakes an exploration of self-access learning centres from an autonomy-supportive perspective. She draws on key literature underpinning SDT to re-envision these as places in which students are not only equipped and supported to find ways to learn and progress in language learning, but are also provided with an inviting and welcoming autonomy-supportive environment in which they can thrive and grow as human beings. The argument is made that when care is taken to explicitly incorporate and enhance autonomy support in the design and functioning of these centres, basic psychological needs are supported, and the inner motivational resources of the learners are activated. This proposition draws on Reeve’s view (2016; Chapter 2, this volume) of the interconnected relationships between environmental autonomy

254  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

support, the agentic engagement of the learner, and learner autonomy satisfaction. In summary, the qualitative focus present in many of the chapters in this volume opens a window through which we gain insight and a deepening understanding of what can be useful and culturally appropriate ways to support the autonomy of language learners and the out-of-class learning environments in which they find themselves, or those they pursue. The purpose of enhancing this understanding and support is to facilitate not only effective language learning but also – and this is a crucial point – a climate in which autonomy, competence and relatedness are valued, promoted and supported, and, in this way, foster the well-being of each person so that they can reach their fullest potential, flourish and thrive. Implications

Reading through the chapters will in many cases provide an immediate response to the question of what the practical implications of these theoretical and research orientations could be, as there are numerous examples to be found, as well as ideas for further research. Such detail in the chapters risks redundancy here. To avoid this, an attempt will instead be made to draw out from the various chapters examples of what we consider to be important implications with the aim of providing autonomy support beyond the language learning classroom. (1) When engaging in autonomy-supportive actions, whether to support learners on a personal, affective and reflective level as a learning advisor (Chapters 10 and 11) or to provide a range of tools for learners to make informed choices when setting up an online or faceto-face space to foster peer-support and interaction (Chapters 5 and 6), or when providing resources to engage with to pursue personal interests and learning goals (Chapters 3, 4 and 12), it is paramount that the learner’s perspective is valued, taken, respected and used as a reference for all decisions and actions (Chapters 1, 2 and 12). (2) Other important (essential) actions (Ryan & Deci, 2019, 2020) that need to be applied consistently if the goal is to provide an autonomysupportive environment either within or beyond the classroom include the following: • • • • • • •

Listen to your learners. Reflect – acknowledge challenges and difficulties. Provide effective choices and meaningful options. Provide a meaningful rationale for instructions, advice and examples. Support initiatives and (intrinsic) interests. Use non-controlling communications. Refrain from being judgmental.

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  255

(3) There is a need to provide language learners with space and support to create a digital/online dimension in which they are allowed and encouraged to make choices based on intrinsic interests and deeply held values (Chapters 3, 4 and 5). This can open novel learning pathways that can support interest, curiosity, intrinsic goals and basic psychological needs. (4) Connections for language learners matter. These can be realised in online environments (Chapters 3, 4 and 5) and in learner-created and learner-led communities of practice based on common interests and goals (Chapter 6). Learning advisors (Chapters 10 and 11) in autonomy-supportive self-access learning centres (Chapter 12) can provide basic need support (Chapter 10; Shelton-Strong, 2020) and when mentoring others in a professional capacity (Chapter 9), can develop close, supportive, reciprocal relationships as relatedness satisfaction. These connections, including those with significant others in society, at home, school or at work, when supported in thoughtful ways, can satisfy basic psychological needs and revitalise inner motivational resources (Chapters 7 and 8). In terms of research implications, it is our hope that readers will feel inspired to explore the many potential avenues for research that have been suggested in the various chapters of this book. Ideas for a research agenda to take us further along this path may begin in Chapter 2 with Reeve’s SDT analysis of what it means to ‘take ownership over one’s own learning’. If we look at the range of research methodologies used across the 12 chapters, the success and limitations of these, and the continued need for rigour and longitudinal studies, we can begin to sketch the outline of this agenda and take the next steps. Several chapters present models (Chapters 3, 10 and 12), tools (Chapter 5), or approaches (Chapters 6, 9 and 11) that need to be applied in other contexts and researched. In addition, many of the studies can either be replicated or the research methods adapted and employed in research studies in other contexts. Existing data can also be re-examined from an SDT perspective, as we saw in Chapter 9 by Kato. Whatever the approach, there is certainly a need to continue to engage in research, particularly context-specific studies that continue to shed light on effective ways of supporting autonomy beyond the classroom. A few ideas of specific avenues for future research in this field might include: (1) Expanding the use of SDT’s mini-theories to focus on specific areas of learning outside the classroom. For example, using Goal Contents Theory to explore in greater depth, and at a more granular level, the kinds of goals learners set for themselves and how intrinsic or extrinsic motivations affect the outcomes. This could include taking an action

256  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

research approach involving the learners themselves and using the process and outcomes to inform their knowledge and understanding of the importance of goal content. This might be particularly effective in self-access and self-directed learning contexts. (2) Another example could include further work into examining and understanding the process of internalisation (Organismic Integration Theory) in out-of-class learning contexts to investigate the process that language learners go through as they re-orientate themselves towards acceptance and internalisation of externally sanctioned values or behaviours and transform these into self-endorsed behaviours congruent with their own values and beliefs. This could be carried out as a diary study whereby learners first identify the former types of values and recommendations and their origins. Then, volunteers who agree to carry out an initially externally endorsed recommendation keep a formal diary to note the process of coming to terms with these to reveal the depth to which they decide to internalise or integrate them. This could be interspersed with interviews to aid in reflecting on the process and outcomes. A qualitative approach may be most appropriate here to capture the nuances of the process and the affective factors involved. (3) To develop further understanding of how intrinsic interests impact learning beyond the classroom – including the use of online and digital resources, as well as engagement with the learner’s physical environment – awareness-raising, or brief learner training sessions based on the Reeve et al. (2021) experiment, could be used to focus on how to be more agentically engaged outside the classroom. This could then be followed up by surveys or questionnaires focused on how these interests and learners’ attempts at agentic engagement with the environment beyond the classroom impacted basic psychological need satisfaction, self-confidence, self-esteem and subjective wellbeing. Volunteers who enjoyed the process could be recruited to be involved in subsequent training/awareness-raising. This could create a bridge between the classroom and learning beyond it or be focused on self-access learning centres. Conclusion

Looking back over the 12 chapters and considering what we set out to accomplish with this edited volume, I believe that the aims discussed in our introduction, and reviewed once again in this final section, have to a large degree been met. Together with all the contributing authors, we have broken new ground in our collective search for ways to better understand, conceptualise and scaffold language learning beyond the formal classroom environment in ways that support the learners’ need to experience autonomy, competence and relatedness.

Conclusion: Where to Go from Here?  257

References Atkinson, R. (1998) The Life Story Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Benson, P. (2011) Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Davis, W.S. and Bowles, F. (2018) Empowerment and intrinsic motivation: A self-determination theory approach to language teaching. In J.A. Foss (ed.) The Power of Language, The Power of People: Celebrating 50 Years (pp. 1–32). Ashland, VA: Robert M. Terry. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2016) Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In J.C.K. Wang, W.C. Liu and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory (pp. 9–29). New York, NY: Springer. Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (1988) The socio-educational model of second-language learning: Assumptions, findings and issues. Language Learning 38 (1), 101–126. Gardner, R.C. (2010) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition: The Socio-Educational Model. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1959) Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13 (4), 266–272. Gardner, R.C. and Lambert, W.E. (1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Holec, H. (1981) Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. Kato, S. and Mynard, J. (2016) Reflective Dialogue: Advising in Language Learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Mynard, J. (2019) Self-access learning and advising: Promoting language learner autonomy beyond the classroom. In H. Reinders, S. Ryan and S. Nakamura (eds) Innovations in Language Learning and Teaching: The Case of Japan (pp. 185–220). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Mynard, J. and Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Investigating the autonomy-supportive nature of a self-access environment: A self-determination theory approach. In J. Mynard, M. Tamala and W. Peeters (eds) Supporting Learners and Educators in Developing Language Learner Autonomy (pp. 77–117). Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard. Ragins, B.R. (2012) Relational mentoring: A positive approach to mentoring at work. In K.S. Cameron and G.M. Spreitzer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 519–536). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reeve, J. (2016) Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In W.C. Liu, J.C. Keng Wang and R.M. Ryan (eds) Building Autonomous Learners: Perspectives from Research and Practice Using Self-determination Theory (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer. Reeve, J., Jang, H.-R., Shin, S., Ahn, S., Matos, L. and Gargurevich, R. (2021) When students show some initiative: Two experiments on the benefits of greater agentic engagement. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101564. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2019) Supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness: The coaching process from a self-determination theory perspective. In P. Brownell, S. English and J. Sabatine (eds) Professional Coaching: Principles and Practice (pp. 231–246). New York, NY: Springer. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a selfdetermination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61, 1–11.

258  Autonomy Support Beyond the Language Learning Classroom

Shelton-Strong, S.J. (2020) Advising in language learning and the support of learners’ basic psychological needs: A self-determination theory perspective. Language Teaching Research 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820912355. Sjöblom, K., Mälkki, K., Sandström, N. and Lonka, K. (2016) Does physical environment contribute to basic psychological needs? A self-determination theory perspective on learning in the chemistry laboratory. Frontline Learning Research 4 (1), 17–39. Skinner, E.A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G. and Kindermann, T. (2008) Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology 100 (4), 765–781. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A. and Snyder, W. (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Index

Note: References in italics are to figures, those in bold to tables; ‘n’ refers to chapter notes. agency 2, 34 agentic engagement 34, 37–39, 40, 40–41, 246 Ainley, M. et al. 237 amotivation 20, 50, 51, 70, 82–83 Andersen, S.M. et al. 136 Armat, M.R. et al. 57 Atkinson, R. 170 Attitude and Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) 153, 161n2 autonomy defined 2, 33–34, 91–92, 186, 246 mindfulness and autonomy 209–211 outside-class learning spaces 120–121, 228–229 in self-access centres 231, 232–238, 233 and self-awareness 185, 235 and self-determination theory 2, 16, 32–34, 92, 111, 244–245 ways of promoting in classroom 227 see also language learner autonomy autonomy support 6, 23–27, 24, 36, 92, 189–191, 192, 244–245 see also environmental autonomy support autonomy-supportive online EFL writing 6–7, 91, 248 evidence from observation logs 102–103 literature review 91–92 mechanism of autonomy-supportive intervention 104, 104–105 participants 93 research questions 93 results of questionnaires 97, 97–100, 98, 99 results of writing tests 96–97, 97 study design 93–96 supporting evidence from interviews 100–101, 101 discussion 103–104 conclusion and implications 105–106 awareness 185, 209

acculturation: implications of language learning motivation 141–143 activity 14 activity-based autonomy support 36 additive bilingualism 140 Adrian-Taylor, S.M. et al. 137 advising in language learning 7–8, 166–167, 185–186, 249 advising, defined 185–186, 207 autonomy, defined 186 basic psychological needs (BPNs) 186, 188–190, 197–198, 199–201 dialogue for high-quality relationships 166–167 holistic approach 190–191 literature review/theoretical background 186–188 self-awareness and autonomy 185 self-determination theory (SDT) 186, 188–190 see also mindfulness and advising advising in language learning: facilitating autonomy-supportive climate 192 affirming learner capacity for selfdirection 196 authenticity and transparency 196 and emotions 212 encouraging reflection/decisionmaking 194 encouraging self-directed learning/ self-monitoring 197 facilitating reflection on past/present limitations/success 195 listening to the learner 192 and mindfulness 212 providing meaningful options/ effective choice 194–195 providing rationale for suggestions and requests 195 summary and identified questions 198, 202 taking an interest/exercising unconditional regard 193–194 using non-pressuring language 193 259

260 Index

Barkhuizen, G. et al. 118 Barkoukis, V. 225 basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) 15, 16, 17, 92, 110, 149–152, 165 and advising 186, 188–190, 197–198, 199–201 behavioral engagement 38 Beltman, S. 74 Benson, P. 34, 53, 57, 58, 63, 91, 246n Berry, J.W. 141, 142 ‘beyond the classroom’, defined 4–5 bilingualism 140 Black, A.E. 94 Block, D. 111 Bowles, F. 237 BPNT see basic psychological needs theory Braun, V. 78 Brown, K.W. 207 Bruner, J. 169, 171 Byrne, J.L. 139

community-based learning communities of practice 113–114, 155–158, 248–249 language learning communities 114 role of leaders in learning communities 115 student learning communities (SLCs) 113 competence 235–236 defined 16, 92, 189 outside-class learning spaces 121–122, 229 in self-access centres 231 conditional regard 23 connections 149–152, 161n1 CoP see communities of practice Cornelius-White, J. 151 COT see causality orientations theory Cox, M. 113 culture 140 curiosity 236–237

career support 167–168 causality orientations theory (COT) 15, 18–20, 19 Cembalo, S.M. 186 CET see cognitive evaluation theory Chambers, R. 208–209 Chang, J.-H. et al. 210 Chen, B. et al. 94 Cheon, S. et al. 116 Cheon, S.H. et al. 25, 227 China see autonomy-supportive online EFL writing Chirkov, V.I. et al. 142 Clarke, V. 4 classroom environments in SALCs 226 motivational style of teacher 226–227 perceived locus of causality 227–228 ways of promoting autonomy 227 Clément, R. 139 cognitive evaluation theory (CET) 15, 17–18, 18, 70, 71, 82 collaborative reflection 169, 171–172 communities, defined 114 communities and relationships 7 mentoring programme and RMT 22–23, 164–180 relationships motivation theory (RMT) 149–161 self-determined motivation in language learning 133–144, 248 communities of practice (CoP) 113–114, 155–158, 248–249

Dam, L. et al. 33 Davis, W.S. 152, 228, 237 Deci, E.L. et al. 13, 71, 73, 81, 82, 86, 92, 94, 103, 110, 111, 121, 135, 164, 165–166, 173, 174, 179, 190, 192, 198, 209–210, 211–212, 231, 237 decision-making 194 Dewey, J. 171–172 dialogue for high-quality relationships 166–167 Dincer, A. et al. 52–53, 105 Donald, J.N. et al. 210 Dörnyei, Z. 153 Downie, M. et al. 142–143 emotional engagement 112 environmental autonomy support 15, 34–35 activity-based autonomy support 36 intrinsic goal pursuit 35–36 peer-provided autonomy support 35, 113 resource-based autonomy support 36–37 Eriksson, R. 31 ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) 139–140 explanatory rationales 238 extrinsic motivation (EM) 20, 50, 51, 70, 72, 73–74, 79–81 Fathali, S. 52 Firth, A. 110–111 Fletcher, J.K. 168 Fletcher, S. 172

Index 261

Gao, X. 114, 115 Gardner, R.C. 134, 139, 153, 154, 157, 161n2 Giles, H. et al. 139 goal contents theory (GCT) 16, 20, 21, 21–22 goals 33, 35–36, 237 Greengard, S. 172 Gremmo, M.-J. 193 Hadwin, A. et al. 111 Hagger, M.S. 225 Hanh, T.N. 206, 208, 213 Hassed, C. 208–209 Hawkins, K. 208 Heine, S. et al. 122 heritage language learners (HLLs) 137–138 Hidi, S. et al. 112 Holec, H. 165, 186, 196, 246 Houston, T. 209 How, Y.M. 227 Hu, P. 92, 104 Hyland, T. 220 information and communication technology (ICT) 47 see also out-of-class language learning (OCLL) inner motivational resources 47–48, 234–235 autonomy 235 competence 235–236 curiosity 236–237 explanatory rationales 238 interest 237 intrinsic goals 237 negative affect 238 out-of-class technology use for language learning 48–49, 92 relatedness 236 conclusions 238–239 see also self-determination theory (SDT) and OCLL technology engagement instruments 93–96 integrating mindfulness in advising: small case study 212–213 context 213 mindful advising sessions 214–215 participants and method 213–214 questionnaire 215, 216 results 216–219 conclusion 219–220 integration, defined 20, 73 integrative orientation 153

interest and social learning 112–113, 237 internalisation, defined 20, 36, 73 interpersonal control 25, 26 intrinsic activity 14 intrinsic goals 33, 35–36, 237 intrinsic motivation 20, 21, 33, 50, 51, 71, 81–82, 111, 211–212 Isaac, J. et al. 112 Jang, H.-R. 22 Janssen, S. 167–168 Kabat-Zinn, J. 207 Kasser, T. 33 Kato, S. 167, 169, 170–171, 172, 173, 175, 176 Khayyer, M. 74 Kirk, S. 235 Knight, K. 124 Kocatepe, M. 52, 64 Kram, K.E. 168 L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) 153–155, 157 La Guardia, J.G. et al. 151 Lambert, W.E. 134, 135, 153 Landry, R. et al. 139–140, 142 Langer, E. 209 language advising 156 language anxiety 211 language learner autonomy 2, 3, 110–115, 224 language learning communities 114 Lave, J. 155 learner autonomy 91, 111, 166–167, 246–247 learner autonomy continuum 92 learning communities (LC) 110, 115 learning environments and open spaces 6–7 autonomy-supportive online EFL writing 91–106 out-of-class language learning 48–66, 247 social learning opportunities outside the classroom 109–127 Vietnamese EFL students’ out-ofclassroom motivation 69–88, 248 learning spaces and SDT 226 classroom environments 226–228 outside-class learning spaces 120–121, 228–230 Lee, Y. 114 Lenning, O. et al. 113 life story/life narratives 169–170

262 Index

Little, D. 111 Luong, T.L. 74 Lynch, M.F. et al. 150 McEown, M.S. et al. 155 McLoughlin, D. 112, 113 Magno e Silva, W. 114, 115, 121 Markus, H.R. 153 MBSR see Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programme mentoring, defined 167 mentoring program to promote highquality relationships 174–175, 249 expected outcomes 179–180 one-year programme 176, 176–177 pre-session meeting: pictures of life (PLs) 170–171, 177, 177 relational mentoring index (RMI) 168, 175, 175–176 session 1: life-story interview sharing PLs 178 sessions 2, 3, 5: regular mentoring 178 sessions 4, 7: collaborative reflection 178–179 session 6: reverse mentoring 179 conclusions: benefits for language learner support 180 mentoring programme and RMT 7, 22–23, 164–165 high-quality relationships through dialogue 166–169 key components of programme 169–173 mutuality 165–166 well-being in professional development 173–174 conclusions: benefits for language learner support 180 Mercer, S. et al. 174 mindful listening 212 mindfulness and advising 8, 206–207, 249 in language learning 211–212 mindfulness, defined 207–208, 209 mindfulness and autonomy 209–211 mindfulness and education 208–209 see also integrating mindfulness in advising: small case study Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programme 207, 221n1 motivation 2, 13, 15, 50–52, 51, 72, 149 amotivation 20, 50, 51, 70, 82–83 extrinsic motivation 20, 50, 51, 70, 72, 73–74, 79–81 interest-based 112

intrinsic motivation 20, 21, 33, 50, 51, 70, 71, 81–82, 111, 211–212 motivational style of teacher 226–227 see also organismic integration theory; self-determined motivation in language learning; Vietnamese EFL students’ out-of-classroom motivation motives for this volume 242–244 Mozzon-McPherson, M. 185, 192, 193, 207, 211, 212, 220 Murphey, T. 113 Murphy, L. 114 Murphy, W.M. 172 Murray, H.A. 169 Mynard, J. 111, 124, 167, 185, 230–232 naturalistic language learners 52, 63 naturalistic learning 61–63 self-directed naturalistic learning 49, 52, 60–61, 63, 196, 197 negative affect 238 Ngo, H. et al. 85 Noels, K.A. et al. 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 151 non-heritage language learners (nonHLLs) 137–138 Nurius, P.S. 153 OCLL see out-of-class language learning Oga-Baldwin, W.L.Q. et al. 86–87, 152 Okada, T. 52 online writing see autonomy-supportive online EFL writing organismic integration theory (OIT) 15, 20, 21, 70, 71, 73, 80 out-of-class language learning (OCLL) agentic engagement 39 autonomy support 35 formality 49 location 48 locus of control 49 pedagogy 49 technology use 48–49, 92 see also self-determination theory (SDT) and OCLL technology engagement ‘outside class’, defined 4–5 outside-class learning spaces 120–121, 228 autonomy 228–229 competence 121–122, 229 relatedness 229–230

Index 263

ownership over one’s own learning 6, 31 agentic engagement 34, 37–39, 246 autonomy 32–34 environmental autonomy support 34–37 integrating autonomy, autonomy support and agentic engagement 40, 40–41 Paaige, K. 209 Patrick, H. et al. 151 peer advisors (PA) 124 peer-provided autonomy support 35, 113 personal endorsement 32 personality traits 150 person–environment dialectic 14, 15 Pham, C.H. 74 pictures of life (PL) 170–171, 177, 177 psychological needs, defined 17, 32 psychosocial support 168 purpose of this volume 3–4 Ragins, B.R. 168–169 Rechtschaffen, D. 207 Reeve, J. et al. 2, 22, 25, 34, 112, 122, 165, 191, 226, 227, 236 reflection 111, 169, 171–172, 194, 195 reflective dialogue 167 relatedness 16, 92, 111, 119–120, 189, 231–232, 236 relational mentoring 167–169 relational mentoring index (RMI) 168, 175, 175–176 relationships motivation theory (RMT) 22, 149–150, 249 broad connections: other parts of the field 152–156 connections 149–152, 161n1 deep connections: theoretical foundations 156–159 further connections: research opportunities 159–160 final connections: conclusion 160–161 see also mentoring programme and RMT research to practice 250–254 resource-based autonomy support 36–37 reverse-mentoring 169, 172–173 Richlin, L. 113 RMI see relational mentoring index RMT see relationships motivation theory Roth, W. 114

Ryan, R.M. 71, 73, 81, 82, 86, 94, 103, 110, 111, 121, 135, 164, 173, 174, 179, 190, 192, 198, 207, 209–210, 211–212, 231 Ryan, R.M. et al. 1, 33, 35 SALCs see self-access learning centres SALL (self-access language learning) 109–111 Sansone, C. 112–113 SDT see self-determination theory second language acquisition (SLA) and self-determination theory 73–74, 134 social-oriented perspectives 110–111 self-access and SDT: existing research findings 231–232 self-access language learning (SALL) 109–111 self-access learning centres (SALCs) 109, 110, 224–225, 249–250 classroom environments 226–228 creating an autonomy-supportive SALC 231, 232–238, 233 inner motivational resources 234–235 learning communities 110 learning spaces and SDT: existing research 226–232 outside learning spaces 228–230 student’s perpective 234 conclusions 238–239 self-determination theory (SDT) 1, 6, 13–27 and acculturation 142 and advising in language learning 186, 188–190 and autonomy 2, 16, 32–34, 92, 111, 244–245 and autonomy support 189–191, 244–245 awareness 209 competence 189 dual-process model 23, 24 growth 14 and learning spaces 226–230 motivation 50–52, 51, 72, 149 relatedness 16, 92, 111, 189 in research and practice 3–5 and second language learning 73–74, 134, 156 six mini-theories 15–23 theoretical assumptions 14–15, 155 as theoretical framework 70–73 see also basic psychological needs theory (BPNT); causality orientations theory (COT);

264 Index

cognitive evaluation theory (CET); goal contents theory (GCT); mindfulness and advising; organismic integration theory (OIT); relationships motivation theory (RMT); selfaccess learning centres (SALC); Vietnamese EFL students’ outof-classroom motivation self-determination theory (SDT) and OCLL technology engagement 50–53 data analysis 57–58 data collection 56–57 naturalistic learning 61–63 participant recruitment 53–55, 54, 55 self-directed naturalistic learning 60–61 self-instructed learning 58–60 the study 53 theoretical framework 53 findings 58–63, 63 discussion and conclusions 63–66, 247 self-determined motivation in language learning 133–134, 248 implications of motivation for acculturation 141–143 role of significant others 136–139 role of sociocultural context 139–141 theoretical overview 134–136 limitations and future directions 143–144 conclusion 144 self-directed naturalistic learning 49, 52, 60–61, 63, 196, 197 self-endorsed values 33 self-instructed naturalistic learners 52 self-reflection 167, 194 self-system model of motivational development (SSMMD) 105, 136 Shaikholeslami, R. 74 Shapiro, S.L. et al. 207–208 Shelton-Strong, S.J. 230–232 significant others 136–139 Silvia, P.J. 237 Sjöblom, K. et al. 228–229 SLA see second language acquisition SLCs (student learning communities) 113 social learning opportunities outside the classroom 7, 109–110 context 116 purpose of study 115 social learning opportunities outside the classroom: findings and discussion 11 autonomy 120–121 competence 121–122

interconnections 122, 123 leaders’ enhancement 123–125 relatedness 119–120 conclusion 125–126 social learning opportunities outside the classroom: literature review community-based learning 113–115, 248–249 interest 112–113 social-oriented perspectives 110–111 social learning opportunities outside the classroom: methodology data analysis 118, 126–127 data collection 117–118, 126–127 participants 116–117, 117 Socio-educational Model of Motivation and Second Language Acquisition 136, 136, 139, 155 SSMMD see self-system model of motivational development student focus 34 student learning communities (SLCs) 113 subtractive bilingualism 140 Taguchi, T. et al. 154 tandem learning 113 theoretical underpinnings 6, 63, 245–246 ownership over one’s own learning 31–41, 246 self-determination theory 13–27 Thoman, D.B. et al. 112–113 trans-contextual model of motivation (TCM) 225 understanding tone 34 Ushioda, E. 74, 75, 77 Van Gyn, G.H. 171 Vansteenkiste, M. et al. 81 Vietnamese EFL students’ out-ofclassroom motivation 6, 69–70, 75, 248 amotivation 82–83 context and participants 75 data analysis 77–78 extrinsic motivation 79–81 internalising and integrating processes 83–84 intrinsic motivation 81–82 research design 75 research tools 75–77, 77 role of autonomous motivation 84–85 SDT and second language learning 73–74

Index 265

SDT as theoretical framework 70–73, 72 students’ biographical backgrounds 78–79 findings 79–84 discussion 85–87 conclusion 87–88 visual aids in life-story interview 170–171 Volet, S. 74 volition 32 Wagner, J. 110–111 Wang, J.C.K. 227 Watkins, S. 113 Weare, K. 208 well-being and mindfulness 210 in professional development 173–174

Wenger, E. et al. 114, 115, 121, 155 where to go from here? 242 autonomy, SDT and language learning beyond the classroom 244–245 implications 254–256 implications of SDT perspective 245–250 motives for this volume 242–244 from research to practice 250–254 conclusion 256 Wlodkowski, R.J. 112 Yamada. Y. 170 Yang, Y. et al. 142 Yasuda, T. 221n2 Zhang, J. 92