The Role of Vision Ignition in Enhancing Motivated Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior of ADHD Adolescents Involved in Online English Learning
امیر ارسلان شریفی
1
(گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، اصفهان، ایران)
حسین حیدری تبریزی
2
(دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، اصفهان، ایران)
عزیزه چالاک
3
(گروه انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد اصفهان (خوراسگان)، اصفهان، ایران)
الکلمات المفتاحية: vision, online learning, ADHD EFL learners, motivation for language learning,
ملخص المقالة :
Learners with ADHD, even those adapted to online instructional regulations, readily become frustrated with the typical tenor of instruction and, as a result, may stray from the core learning content. The current mixed-method study explored how manipulating these learners into envisaging their ideal L2 selves could avoid motivational pitfalls in their way to L2 learning, affecting their motivated cognition, emotion, and behavior. Based on the motivational paradigm proposed by You and Dörnyei (2014), a multifaceted construct, including the future L2 selves, L2 learning experience, and intended effort, was compared between an experimental and a control group of Iranian EFL learners. The control group only received regular language instruction, whereas the experimental one, along with this instruction, was exposed to a supplementary vision ignition intervention. The comparison of the multifaceted construct, measured by a standard Likert-scale questionnaire, revealed significant between-group differences in the overall motivational construct and the ideal L2 self. Nonetheless, the significant raises in the learners’ overall motivation and cognitive motivation failed to be reflected significantly in their emotional states and motivated behavior. Further analysis of the affective and behavioral components through interview and checklist data revealed that the intervention achieved some success in improving the short-lived learning experiences of the learners and helping them invest more time and effort in language learning. The findings may offer new insights to the broad range of practitioners and specialists eager to help learners with neurodevelopmental disabilities cultivate motivational drives required to meet educational success in today’s remotely-managed globe.
The Role of Vision Ignition in Enhancing Motivated Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior of ADHD Adolescents Involved in Online English Learning
ABSTRACT
Learners with ADHD, even those adapted to online instructional regulations, readily become frustrated with the typical tenor of instruction and, as a result, may stray from the core learning content. The current mixed-methods study explored how manipulating these learners into envisaging their ideal L2 selves could avoid motivational pitfalls in their way to L2 learning, affecting their motivated cognition, emotion, and behavior. Based on the motivational paradigm proposed by You and Dörnyei, a multifaceted construct, including the future L2 selves, L2 learning experience, and intended effort, was compared between an experimental and a control group of Iranian EFL learners. The comparison of the multifaceted construct, measured by a standard Likert-scale questionnaire, revealed significant between-group differences in the overall motivational construct and the ideal L2 self. Nonetheless, the significant raises in the learners’ overall motivation and cognitive motivation failed to be reflected significantly in their emotional states and motivated behavior. Further analysis through interview and checklist data revealed that the intervention realized some success in improving the short-lived learning experiences of the learners. The findings may offer new insights to the broad range of practitioners eager to help learners with neurodevelopmental disabilities in today’s remotely-managed globe.
Keywords: ADHD, EFL learners, motivation, online learning, vision
INTRODUCTION
Coincident with the rapid spread of COVID-19 around the globe, which disrupted most industries thoroughly or partially, online courses turned out to be the salvation of education and a surefire way of learning throughout the pandemic. As for learning a second/foreign language (L2/FL), online classes have become a viable alternative to mainstream face-to-face classrooms, even in the current post-pandemic era. Despite its wide-ranging virtues, such as geographic and scheduling flexibility, online learning could pose severe threats to learners accustomed to the mainstream face-to-face mode of instruction (Çelik& Lancaster, 2021). Without proper planning and foresight to account for interpersonal differences in learning abilities and styles, any shift to an online medium may plunge learners, especially those with specific learning disabilities, into a deep crisis.
Typical beliefs about learning of adolescent learners with learning disabilities, either behaviorally hyperactive or mentally under-stimulated, are that a pre-made and structured environment is a must since otherwise, they get more easily distracted. In the absence of immediate, non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, body language, and eye contact, virtually-delivered verbal materials could hardly grab disabled learners’ attention and, in turn, motivate them to embark on learning the target language. Revealingly, despite the barriers to disabled learners involved in a purely online environment (McFayden et al., 2021), there still exists an increasing rate of enrolment in online courses due to the lavish comforts provided by this learning mode.
Detailed scrutiny of the contemporary literature shows the partial wealth of evidential data showing the associational and cause-and-effect link between vision and motivation (See the Empirical Background). Nevertheless, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no proper regard has been paid to exploiting the link to counter the potential threats to the motivational disposition of online English learners with neurodevelopmental disorders constituting a significant proportion of the language learning community worldwide. The current study was grounded in the hope of helping adolescent ADHD learners involved in the prevailing online English learning courses improve in a multifaceted motivational construct, including motivated cognition, emotion, and behavior. In simpler terms, the study explored whether helping ADHD EFL learners construct and prepare their ideas about their future language development and usage can affect their motivational thoughts, feelings, and behavior. In addition to the target population’s peculiarities, the current study’s novelty lies in its long-hard look at the vision-motivation link. The in-depth analysis of the data gathered through a structured checklist and a semi-structured interview supplemented the quantitative analysis of the self-assessed survey data to address the following research question.
RQ. To what extent does vision ignition help Iranian ADHD EFL learners in online English classes cultivate a multifaceted motivational construct?
LITERATURE REVIEW
L2 Motivation
Though the conceptualization of motivation in the psychological and chronological literature shows significant alterations in scopes and paradigms, all researchers regarded motivation as a determinant of human behavior by shaping it towards a direction (Dörnyei, 1998). As far as L2 learning is concerned, a clear understanding of motivation entails a fundamental review of the theoretical evolutionary changes in the field. The history of L2 motivation commences with the social-psychological period, marking the attempts made by Lambert and Gardner (1972) to improve language proficiency and learner motivation in a bilingual Canadian context. Motivational approaches in this preliminary stage were grounded on the prominence of L2 learners’ feelings about the L2 language and the communities thereof (Dörnyei, 2005). The second period of motivational research, the cognitive situated period, originates from Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) critique of Lambert and Gardner’s socio-psychological approach. During this period, the focus of L2 motivation studies turned back to cognitive constructs and mental operations (MacIntyre, 2002). In the third evolutionary era of motivational research, called the process-oriented period, instead of a passive factor, motivation was considered an active behavioral quality undergoing constant change (Dörnyei, 2005). Finally, the current socio-dynamic period, as its name implies, is grounded on learners’ continual changes while interacting with society. In this contemporary era, dynamic integrated approaches to motivation superseded the previous linear ones anchored in a single motivational construct (i.e., emotion, cognition, and behavior). The L2MSS is one of the leading dynamic approaches proposed throughout this context-based and self-oriented period.
L2MSS: A Cognitive-Affective Motivational Paradigm
Having scrutinized different standpoints concerning integrative/instrumental motivation growth, Dörnyei (2009) proposed the L2MSS, which redefined all the previous terms. The model is based on two theories of possible selves (Markus &Nurius, 1986) and self-discrepancy (Higgins, 1987). The theory of possible selves assumes that every individual has two mental self-images: a desirable one people seek to live up to and an undesirable one they desire to lose. These possible selves are influenced by individuals’ self-perceived concerns, such as goals, hopes, plans, potentials, behavioral strategies, and contextual factors (Oyserman et al., 2006). As the other theoretical tenet of the L2MSS, the self-discrepancy theory posits that the disparity in motivated behavior lies in different emotional states caused by people’s distinct internal representations of themselves. Relying upon the underpinnings of the two theories above, Dörnyei (2005, 2009) proposed the L2MSS, which theorizes that L2 learners’ motivation improves when they visualize the person they aspire to become in the future. Self-guides yielded by future self-images lead learners on their road to L2 learning (Dörnyei & Chan, 2013; You et al., 2016).
The L2MSS, which affects L2 learners’ effort and willingness to achieve their L2 learning goals, has three main components: the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self, and the L2 learning experience (Kormos&Csizér, 2014). The ideal L2 self, as the central element of the system, concerns a self-image showing a desirable future in which learners thrive on L2 use. The mismatch between L2 learners’ ideal and actual selves motivates goal-directed learning efforts. On the contrary, the ought-to L2 self deals with the qualities required to live up to others’ expectations. These extrinsically-imposed attributes help L2 learners avoid potential repercussions on their learning route. Unlike the two components pertinent to individuals’ possible selves (i.e., the ideal and ought-to L2 self), which concern imaginary future self-guides, the L2 learning experience (also called attitudes to L2 learning) focuses on the present, real experience learners gain in the actual context of L2 education.
Motivated Behavior: A Function of the L2MSS
Motivated behavior and its relation to L2MSS components have been the central area of focus in recently-conducted research on motivational attributes. Examining this relation, researchers sought to answer the leading question of whether or not motivational thoughts and feelings could be transformed into actual learning efforts (Sato & Lara, 2019). Despite the widely-approved association between the ideal L2 self and the intended effort (e.g., Csizér&Kormos, 2009; Moskovsky et al., 2016; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009), there is some empirical evidence (e.g., Kim & Kim, 2011; Lamb, 2012) showing the model’s faint behavioral bearing. For instance, the link between the ideal L2 self and the intended effort has been called into question by Papi and Abdollahzadeh (2012) in the Saudi Arabian EFL context. Compared to the ideal L2 self, there is more consensus (e.g., Dörnyei & Chan, 2013; Islam et al., 2013; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009) on the non-significant role of the ought-to L2 self in enhancing individuals’ motivated behavior. In an attempt to substantiate the negligible impact of this context-based cognitive construct on learners’ motivated learning behavior, Dörnyei and Chan (2013) pinpoint that “while [ought-to selves] in shaping mindset has a remarkable role for learners’ motivation, the existing lack of energizing force in many language contexts make a difference in motivating learner behaviors” (p. 454). Highlighting the significant impact of the ideal L2 self on L2 learners’ learning experiences, many researchers in the field (e.g., Azarnoosh&Birjandi, 2012; Teimouri, 2017) pinpointed that these emotional states (L2 learning experiences) are strong predictors of learners’ motivated behavior and, in turn, learning success/failure.
Empirical Background to the Study
Over the contemporary socio-dynamic period, research on the usefulness of vision/imagery in constructing the L2 learning motivational disposition has been enriched. For instance, the study by Dörnyei and Chan (2013) showed that the multisensory dimension of future self-guides implicates the necessity of vision and mental imagery in developing future self-identities. This finding confirmed the study by Al-Shehri (2009), which revealed a strong relationship between the ideal L2 self, imagery, and visualization. The link between imagery and motivation has also been addressed by a couple of studies conducted in the Chinese EFL context (e.g., You & Chan, 2015; You et al., 2016). Additionally, the concept of the future L2 self-guides has been a fertile ground for research in recent years (e.g., Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2020; Irie& Brewster, 2013; Kim & Kim, 2012; Papi, 2010; Taguchi et al., 2009). Results drawn from these studies showed that the involvement of imagery, vision, and sensory modalities are vital factors in creating future self-guides, particularly the ideal L2 self. These results proved that the ideal L2 self depicts a higher level of motivated behavior (Al-Shehri, 2009). There is also precedent for research on the impact of vision-based interventions on the attributes constituting the motivational setup of EFL learners (e.g., Mackay, 2015; Magid& Chan, 2011; Safdari, 2019; Sampson, 2012; Sato & Lara, 2019). Common among all these research was the significant impact of vision enhancement interventions on the ideal L2 self and L2 learning experience as two tenets of the L2MSS. In contrast, results related to the intended effort were incompatible, showing both efficacy (e.g., Safdari, 2019) and futility (e.g., Sato & Lara, 2019) in enhancing this behavioral construct.
METHOD
Design of the Study
The study employed a concurrent triangulation mixed-method design to explore the impact of vision ignition on a motivational construct encompassing motivated cognition, emotion, and behavior of Iranian ADHD EFL learners involved in online English classes. Based on this method, the data drawn from a self-report Likert-scale questionnaire were complemented by the attitudinal data from a semi-structured interview and observational data gathered through a structured checklist. The survey data represented the self-report measures depicting the whole multidimensional construct of the study. In contrast, the interview and checklist were targeted at augmenting the quantitative data on emotional and behavioral facets of the motivational construct under investigation.
Participants
The research objectives and the constraint on having learners of different gender and institutional The research objectives and the constraint on having learners of different gender and institutional affiliation in the same class confined the study population (Iranian adolescent EFL learners with ADHD) to Iranian adolescent male EFL learners with ADHD studying in a nationwide language learning institute. This population included 114 learners on the threshold of six different courses. The course with the highest proportion of ADHD learners (N = 43) was decided on as the focus group. Convenience sampling was employed to select the largest possible sample from the 43-member population of Iranian adolescent ADHD learners. All the population members were entitled to a 30% discount on the course fee to promote maximum participation. From the finite population of the study, only 30 learners consented to participate in the experiment. Those who disagreed to join the main study were offered to participate in the pilot phase in exchange for a 10% discount on tuition fees. To ensure that the sample includes EFL learners with ADHD, the researcher used the Persian version of the ADHD diagnostic questionnaire extracted from the child and adolescent symptom inventory-4 (CASI-4). Based on the results, one learner whose score was lower than the ADHD cut-off (nine) was excluded from the research. The participant sample, including 29 male adolescent students with ADHD, was divided into two homogeneous groups based on ADHD levels estimated by CASI-4. The two groups were then randomly labeled as the control (N = 14) and experimental (N = 15) classes. The online instructional format allowed the training of the geographically scattered sample in two virtually-held classrooms. The participants ranged in age from 12 to 14 years and enjoyed the proficiency threshold for A2 level, based on the Common European Framework of References (2001).
Instruments
The instruments used in the current mixed methods design study included the modified version of You et al.’s (2016) vision/imagery capacity and motivation questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and structured observation checklists.
Modified Version of You et al.’s (2016) Vision/Imagery Capacity and Motivation Questionnaire
The modified version of the vision/imagery capacity and motivation questionnaire, developed by You et al. (2016) based on Dörnyei’s (2009) motivational model, was employed to measure a multifaceted construct representing motivated cognition, emotion, and behavior. The original 73-item questionnaire evaluates L2 learners’ motivational setup, probing into the L2MSS, intended effort, and language learning vision. The modified version used in the study included 21 items referring to the intended effort (five items) and the L2MSS components, including the ideal L2 self (five items), ought-to L2 self (six items), and language learning experiences (five items). Given the attentional peculiarities of the participants, the researcher avoided a long-winded surveying process. Accordingly, the subdomains in the original version representing the ideal L2 self (i.e., cultural interest, instrumental promotion, and traveling) and the ought-to L2 self (i.e., instrumental prevention and parental expectations) were excluded from the modified version. Akin to the original version, a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 6 (Strongly Disagree) was employed to rate the questionnaire items. The modified questionnaire, validated through expert appraisal, was translated into Persian under the direct guidance of two TEFL experts. The translated version was administered virtually to 10 male adolescent EFL learners who agreed to participate in the pilot phase. The Cronbach alpha for the whole questionnaire (α = .68), as well as every individual domain (ideal L2 self: α = .69, ought-to L2 self: α = .73, L2 learning experience: .69, and intended effort: α = .61), testified to an acceptable degree of internal consistency within the questionnaire.
Semi-Structured Interview
The qualitative data showing the changes in the participants’ L2 learning experiences after benefiting from the vision ignition intervention was gathered through semi-structured interviews. Every interview involved a broad-domain general question asking the learners to embark on the changes in their attitudes towards L2 learning after receiving vision ignition tasks incorporated into their regular instructional programs. The questions were supposed to provide extended answers in the learners’ mother tongue (Persian) to help them express themselves more easily. At most, the time allocated to the whole interview was 15 minutes. Before the main study, five members of the pilot sample attended the semi-structured interview via Skype, and the video recordings were submitted to the two TEFL experts who collaborated with the project. Based on the expert opinions, the interview question suited the need for triangulation data on the subdomains previously probed by the survey items. The interview’s reliability was ensured by undertaking the four successive steps in Richards’s (2009) protocol, including a) due preparation, b) an auspicious start, c) an effective interaction, and d) a well-organized ending.
Structured Observation Checklist
A structured observation checklist was devised to facilitate a systematic approach to observing the changes in the participants’ motivated behavior resulting from receiving the vision ignition intervention. The checklist was intended to provide additional data on the behavioral motivation subcomponent, focusing on the specific domains probed by the survey items. In accordance with the survey domains, the observation criteria included time investment, effort investment, task concentration, and effort retention. Every observation criterion was gauged by choosing one of the three rating labels (i.e., poor, acceptable, and admirable) attached to the codes depicting particular motivated behavior (See Table 1). The validity of the checklist was ensured by the two professional counselors of the project. Two researchers filled every observation checklist, and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to ensure inter-rater reliability
Table 1
Codes Representing the Rating Labels
Observation Criterion | Rating Label | ||
Poor | Acceptable | Admirable | |
Time Investment | Devoting limited time to task accomplishment | Devoting acceptable time to task accomplishment | Investing sound time in task accomplishment |
Effort Investment | Making a poor effort to learn English | Making a constant effort to learn English | Investing a determined effort to learn English |
Task Concentration | Poor concentration on performing the learning tasks | Acceptable concentration on performing the learning tasks | Intense concentration on performing the learning tasks |
Effort Retention | Taking a passive role after any failure in the learning route | Admitting failure and proceeding as usual | Taking an active role after any failure in the learning route |
Data Collection Procedure
As the first step, the survey instrument was administered to the control and experimental groups before receiving instruction. The rationale behind this preliminary measurement was to counter the impact of pre-existing differences that could hinder the credibility of the analytical outcomes. The researcher used virtually-designed forms to gather the pre and post-intervention survey data. Having been pre-tested in the constructs under investigation, the young adult participants attended an online course targeted at the Race 4 level. The classes were held on a web conferencing software, namely BigBlueButton. The software had both voice-and video-sharing facilities and, in turn, enabled the researcher to share the links of online questionnaires/forms, conduct online interviews, and fill out the checklists. The instruction entailed 20 90-minute teaching sessions that lasted seven weeks. Based on an agreement between the researchers and the teacher, one weekly session was appointed for observation. Utilizing the checklist, the researchers observed the motivated behavior of every individual participant, joining the online class on BigBlueBotton and marking down his motivated behavior on the checklists. The observation sessions were recorded to facilitate any follow-up reference to the observed phenomenon. The two study groups received multi-skill language instruction based on the prescribed package. As for the experimental group, however, an extra five to ten minutes was devoted to incorporating the following vision ignition tasks into the regular syllabus.
After the study course, the survey instrument was administered once again. As the final step in the data gathering procedure, the teacher asked the learners in the experimental group to attend the semi-structured interview. The interviews were all conducted on BigBlueBotton and transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis Procedure
The researcher utilized the survey data to provide an initial answer to the only research question. A one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was performed to determine the effect of the vision ignition intervention on the subcomponents (i.e., cognition, emotion, and behavior) that underlay the multifaceted motivational construct under investigation after controlling for the pre-existing differences. Post-hoc univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to explore the significant, differentiating subcomponents. Qualitative analysis of the interview data supplemented the quantitative results about the impact of the intervention on the learners’ motivated emotions (L2 learning experiences). The descriptive analysis of the checklist data shed light on the previously-drawn results related to motivated behavior (learning efforts).
RESULTS
Results of the Survey Data Analysis
Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics of the pre and post-intervention measures.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of the L2MSS Components
Group | Variable | Pre/Post | N | Min | Max | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis |
Control | Ideal L2 Self | Pre | 14 | 11 | 29 | 18.14 | 5.53 | .74 | -.06 |
Post | 14 | 10 | 30 | 18.71 | 5.82 | .66 | -.01 | ||
Ought-to L2 Self | Pre | 14 | 12 | 25 | 19.57 | 3.39 | -.37 | -.66 | |
Post | 14 | 12 | 25 | 18.93 | 3.32 | -.35 | .45 | ||
L2 Learning Experience | Pre | 14 | 12 | 26 | 20.29 | 5.28 | -.58 | -1.20 | |
Post | 14 | 12 | 27 | 20.71 | 5.18 | -.73 | -.93 | ||
Intended Effort | Pre | 14 | 11 | 26 | 19.93 | 5.21 | -.440 | -.928 | |
Post | 14 | 12 | 28 | 20.57 | 4.55 | -.183 | -.575 | ||
Experimental | Ideal L2 Self | Pre | 15 | 11 | 29 | 19.00 | 5.30 | .46 | -.49 |
Post | 15 | 14 | 30 | 21.87 | 5.41 | .30 | -1.16 | ||
Ought-to L2 Self | Pre | 15 | 14 | 25 | 19.87 | 3.16 | -.11 | -.35 | |
Post | 15 | 13 | 24 | 18.47 | 3.09 | .08 | -.28 | ||
L2 Learning Experience | Pre | 15 | 13 | 28 | 21.00 | 5.24 | -.19 | -1.47 | |
Post | 15 | 15 | 30 | 22.80 | 5.02 | -.19 | -1.25 | ||
Intended Effort | Pre | 15 | 12 | 27 | 20.53 | 4.55 | -.264 | -.725 | |
Post | 15 | 13 | 28 | 21.40 | 4.64 | -.067 | -.979 |
As seen in Table 2, the pre-intervention values for all four subcomponents were partially higher in the experimental group than in the control one. Nonetheless, the pre-existing differences in the ought-to L2 self (Control: M = 19.57, SD = 3.39; Experimental: M = 19.87, SD = 3.16) were more negligible than those of the other indices. Concerning the post-intervention measures, the experimental group’s mean values for all components except the ought to L2 self exceeded the average values in the control group remarkably. Pairwise comparison of the pre-and post-intervention measures between the two groups showed a remarkable gain in the experimental group regarding the ideal L2 self (Pre-intervention: M = 19.00, SD = 5.30; Post-intervention: M = 21.87, SD = 5.41). Overall, the descriptive analysis of the data revealed remarkable group differences in both pre-and post-intervention measures. Additionally, the skewness and kurtosis values fell within the safe range (i.e., -2 to +2) for normal distribution data (Tabachnick&Fidell, 2007).
A one-way MANCOVA was run to test the effect of vision ignition tasks on a linear combination of the four subcomponents representing the multifaceted motivational construct after detaching the impact of the pre-existing differences (see Table 3). In cases where group size is limited (N < 20), the inclusion of more than three covariates in a MANCOVA may lower the model power (Dattalo, 2013). Accordingly, the pre-intervention measures depicting the ought-to L2 self, which showed the lowest group disparity, were excluded, and the measures representing the other subcomponents were regarded as covariates. Before conducting the MANCOVA, the preliminary assumptions, including multivariate normality, absence of multicollinearity, homogeneity of variances and covariance, linear relationship between the covariate and dependent variables, and homogeneity of the regression slopes, were checked, and no violation was observed.
Table 3
Results of One-Way MANCOVA
Effect | Wilks’ Lambda Value | F | Hypothesis df | Error df | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared |
Intercept | .151 | 29.571 | 4 | 21 | .000 | .849 |
Ideal L2 Self Pre | .060 | 81.733 | 4 | 21 | .000 | .940 |
L2 Learning Experience Pre | .230 | 17.551 | 4 | 21 | .000 | .770 |
Intended Effort Pre | .202 | 20.779 | 4 | 21 | .000 | .798 |
Group | .415 | 7.397 | 4 | 21 | .001 | .585 |
Note. Pre stands for pre-intervention scales.
Table 3 indicated a significant main effect for all three study covariates (p < .001). This result implied that the preexisting differences intervened in the cause-and-effect relationship between vision ignition tasks and the motivational construct under investigation. Additionally, the two groups differed significantly on a linear combination of the four subscales after receiving the instruction (Wilk’s Λ = .415, F (4, 21) = 7.40, p < .01, η² = .585). Given the effect size value, 58.5% of the overall between-group variances could be attributed to the group differences in terms of a linear combination of the four motivational subscales. Univariate between-group tests were performed on the four subscales to determine the subscale(s) contributing to the significant multivariate between-group differences. The results are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4
Results of Between-Subjects Effects Tests
Subcomponent | Type III Sum of Squares | df | Error df | Mean Square | F | Sig. | Partial Eta Squared |
Ideal L2 Self | 37.675 | 1 | 24 | 37.67 | 21.074 | .000 | .789 |
Ought-to L2 Self | .295 | 1 | 24 | .295 | .035 | .853 | .001 |
L2 Learning Experience | 13.758 | 1 | 24 | 13.758 | 4.922 | .036 | .170 |
Intended Effort | .515 | 1 | 24 | .515 | .244 | .626 | .010 |
Since multiple cases of ANCOVA were run, the Bonferroni correction method was calculated to account for the Type І error, dividing the significance value (.05) by the number of the dependent variables (4). According to Table 4, the between-group differences in motivation could be mainly attributed to the significant differences in the ideal L2 self (F(1, 24) = 21.074, p< .0125). Although the L2 learning experience caused 17% of the between-group differences, it could hardly be presumed to be a significant differentiating factor since its significance value (.036) exceeded the adjusted alpha for four univariate mean-comparison tests (.0125).
Results of the Interview Data Analysis
Following the quantitative data analysis, the analytical stage proceeded with a detailed analysis of the interview data. This analytical phase explored the motivated emotion of the participants who benefited from the vision ignition intervention on a qualitative level. After scrutinizing and annotating the transcripts, the researchers labeled every informative fragment with a defining code. All the emerging codes were then rechecked, and those referring to the same or complementary concepts were eliminated and merged, respectively. Reading, summarizing, and coding the transcripts helped to identify three major themes within the whole data, entitled the acceptability, utility, and intelligibility of the L2 learning experiences. The final codes were then categorized under three major thematic domains. The comparison of code proportions revealed the primary sources of the positive and negative changes in learners’ attitudes toward language learning.
Remarks on the L2 learning experience acceptability revealed that the intervention appealed to the vast majority (86.7%) of the learners and accordingly yielded positive attitudes toward language learning. Agreed by 16.67% of the fully or partially satisfied interviewees, the capability of the course to add variety to the mundane routine language learning tasks was the chief reason for such a broadly-accepted satisfaction. Novelty (14.58%), authenticity (12.50%), and the interactional nature of the learning experience (10.42%) were the other primary sources of learner acceptance. In addition, the fascinating nature of the tasks (8.33%) and their interrelatedness (8.33) were the other appealing attributes of the intervention. On the other hand, the minority of the learners (13.3%) who expressed partial dissatisfaction with the intervention complained about the reparative nature of the interventional tasks (33.33%) and the mismatch between them and their English proficiency level (22.22%). The following excerpt represents the dissatisfaction of a learner with both of the features enumerated above.
It seems that the tasks were the same, asking us to think about a situation we are performing skillfully in English, speak about it, and describe what prevents us from living up to our image. The infrequent innovative tasks that entail writing questions for an imaginary discussion or participating in role-play activities needed more command of English.
As the qualitative data revealed, most learners (73.33%) labeled the whole intervention as a thoroughly or partially worthwhile experience that profited them in various ways. The substantial advantages of the intervention, from these learners’ vantage point, included raising learner awareness of the widespread use of English (21.62%), adequate exposure to the authentic use of English (16.22%), and accelerating interaction inside and outside the formal learning context (13.51%). Along with the merits enumerated above, the utility of the intervention was attributed to its significance in enhancing learners’ contribution to their own learning process (8.11%), friendly relationships in the learning environment (8.11%), class participation (8.11%), and familiarity with potential obstacles to gaining English mastery (8.11%). In addition, infinitesimal proportions of the learners referred to the potential of the intervention to expose them to native-like language use (5.41%), provide fruitful language learning experiences (5.41%), make the learning process fun (2.70), and facilitate oral skills (2.70).
As far as the utility of the intervention was concerned, the dissenting voices, which formed a considerable proportion of the interviewees (26.67%), regarded the limited time devoted to the intervention as the chief reason inhibiting them from exploiting the full potential of the vision ignition tasks. Half of these dissatisfied learners also added the lack of careful supervision on the teacher’s part as another flaw in the intervention, which affected their attitudes toward the intervention and the whole course. Based on their remarks, this defective supervision was an inevitable consequence of the limited instructional length. The following excerpts depict how the lack of adequate time undermined the utility of the intervention and, in turn, the learners’ satisfaction with the course.
The teacher usually announced and administered the tasks at the concluding minutes of the class; therefore, we performed the tasks in a rush. The limited time did not provide room for active participation on the learners’ part. This paucity of time did not let the teacher check the attainments of a considerable number of learners. For example, my close friend and I had no chance to participate in various interactional activities.
As for the last thematic domain, the results showed the partial ascendency of those whose attitudes were affected positively owing to the well-defined nature of the intervention (60%) over those who expressed that some constituents of the intervention needed clarification for arousing their interest in language learning (40%). The supplementary use of the mother tongue (22.86%) and teacher guides (22.86%) in cases of comprehension or communication interruption was the chief reason behind the learners’ satisfaction with the intelligibility of the intervention. The other underlying causes of the positive comprehension-based remarks included the use of typical instructional templates (i.e., role play, question & answer, free discussion) (14.29%), bimodal (audio-visual) stimuli (11.43%), visual imagery (8.57%), detailed announcement descriptions (5.71%), peer scaffolding (5.71%), and topics of general interest (5.71%). A noteworthy finding, however, was the remarkable proportion of the learners who complained about the mismatch between the language used in the audio-visual stimuli and the learners’ proficiency level (31.25%). Additionally, a remarkable proportion of the dissenting voices (18.75%) believed that the native-like accent of the performer was detrimental to their comprehension. The teachers’ blurred descriptions (18.75%) and the variety of the task-accomplishment templates (12.50%) were the other factors that made the intervention unintelligible to a minority of the learners.
Results of the Observation Data Analysis
Based on the checklist data, the changes in the participants’ motivated behavior throughout the seven-week interventional period of the study were explored, calculating the proportion of poor, acceptable, and admirable motivated behavior on a weekly basis. To this end, the number of students with each behavior type was divided by the total number of students who attended the observation session. The results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Summary of the Checklist Data
Observation Criteria | Rating Label | Week | ||||||||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||||||
Time Investment | Poor (%) | 26.67 | 13.33 | 7.69 | 20 | 20 | 26.67 | 21.42 | ||||
Acceptable (%) | 53.33 | 66.67 | 69.23 | 60 | 53.33 | 53.33 | 57.14 | |||||
Admirable (%) | 20 | 20 | 23.08 | 20 | 26.67 | 20 | 21.42 | |||||
Effort Investment | Poor (%) | 26.67 | 20 | 15.39 | 26.67 | 13.33 | 26.67 | 28.57 | ||||
Acceptable (%) | 46.67 | 53.33 | 61.54 | 46.67 | 46.67 | 53.33 | 50 | |||||
Admirable (%) | 26.67 | 26.67 | 23.07 | 26.67 | 33.33 | 20 | 21.43 | |||||
Task Concentration | Poor (%) | 40 | 46.67 | 53.85 | 53.33 | 53.33 | 53.33 | 50 | ||||
Acceptable (%) | 46.67 | 40 | 38.46 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 35.71 | |||||
Admirable (%) | 13.33 | 13.33 | 7.69 | 6.67 | 13.33 | 13.33 | 14.28 | |||||
Effort Retention | Poor (%) | 40 | 46.67 | 46.15 | 46.67 | 53.33 | 46.67 | 50 | ||||
Acceptable (%) | 46.67 | 40 | 38.46 | 40 | 46.67 | 40 | 35.71 | |||||
Admirable (%) | 13.13 | 13.13 | 15.38 | 13.13 | 13.13 | 13.13 | 14.28 | |||||
According to the results in Table 5, the motivated behavior of the experimental group’s participants increased faintly in terms of time and effort investment during the first three interventional weeks since the percentage of those with poor motivated behavior decreased; however, the proportion of those with acceptable motivated behavior increased. This faint improvement, however, was found to be fragile, reducing after week 3. In the ending weeks, the distribution of the learners in the three rating classes bore a remarkable similarity to that of the initial weeks. As for task concentration and effort retention, although the admirable motivated behavior was partially constant throughout the intervention, the proportion of poor and acceptable motivated behavior initially increased and then decreased throughout the instructional process. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the results displayed above.
Figure 1
Line Charts Representing Motivated Behavior Changes Throughout the Intervention
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION
Based on You and Dörnyei’s (2014) model, a comprehensive-scope motivational construct includes the L2MSS components and intended learning efforts. The current study explored how a vision ignition intervention could influence this motivational construct. Featuring several subcomponents that refer to the motivated cognition (future L2 self-images), emotion (the L2 learning experience), and behavior (the intended effort) of L2 learners, the multivariate construct was influential in reaching an elaborate conceptualization of the general term L2 learning motivation. After controlling the preexisting differences, the multivariate comparison of the construct between the two study groups revealed the ascendency of the experimental group over the control one in terms of a linear combination of the components underlying the motivational construct. Such a significant between-group difference confirmed the efficacy of the vision ignition intervention in improving the learners’ overall motivation.
In the absence of research on the multifaceted motivational construct of the current study, the meaningfulness of this finding could be established owing to the available empirical evidence drawn from various intervention studies showing EFL learners’ motivational attainments by visualizing future self-identities (e.g., Dörnyei & Chan, 2013; Mackay, 2015; Magid& Chan, 2011; Safdari, 2019; Sampson, 2012; Sato & Lara, 2019). The motivational enhancement in these studies has been mainly attributed to using visualization techniques to create images of a desired L2 performance in the near and distant future and make them tangible while operating in simulated situations. The sweet taste of accomplishment experienced by visualization may account for motivational attainments in L2 learning. As postulated by Safdari (2019), benefiting from sensory and imagery stimuli, vision ignition interventions help learners to turn their ambitious goals for L2 learning into clear visions of their future L2 selves, which act as a driving ambition to fulfill these goals.
As revealed by the results of the post-hoc univariate tests, the ideal L2 self was the chief source of the intergroup variations in the motivational construct under investigation. The significant impact of the ideal L2 self in differentiating between the experimental and control groups revealed the prominence of this cognitive element as the core content of the L2 learners’ motivation. This finding is well in harmony with the bulk of the previous studies on the L2MSS (e.g., Csizér& Dörnyei, 2005; Csizér&Kormos, 2009; Dörnyei, 2009; Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Papi, 2010; Šafranj et al., 2021), showing the ideal L2 self as the basic tenet of the model that its manipulation could affect the overall motivational disposition of L2/FL learners. Despite the broad range of methodological and conceptual variations among the studies that explored the contribution of vision ignition interventions to motivational constructs, there is a great deal of common ground between them on the ideal L2 self as a tenet of the L2MSS heavily influenced by visualization techniques (Mackay, 2015; Magid& Chan, 2011; Safdari, 2019; Sato & Lara, 2019).
The ought-to L2 self, as the extrinsic motivational component of the L2MSS, was hardly found to be a function of the vision ignition intervention. This finding was congruent with a vast body of evidential data showing that the ought-to L2 self, as the only external element in the L2MSS, is resistant to vision-based manipulations (Kormos et al., 2019; Mackay, 2015; Safdari, 2019; Sato & Lara, 2019). Owing to the extrinsic nature of the ought-to L2 self, only learners possessing a high imagery capacity are capable of visualizing it (Safdari, 2019). Furthermore, the promotion of L2 self-guides favored by others, along with powerful vision capacity, seems in dire need of vision enhancement activities centering around the rights and wrongs of L2 learning from an external standpoint (Mackay, 2015). It seems, therefore, plausible that the vision ignition intervention focusing on the ideal L2 self, which paid scant regard for vision capacity expansion among the particular participants of the current study, had no significant bearing on the ought-to L2 self. It is worth mentioning that after the intervention, a remarkable drop, albeit non-significant, was found in the ought-to L2 self scales. The asymmetrical pattern whereby the intervention enhanced the ideal L2 self but weakened the ought-to L2 one supported the empirically-validated seesaw relationship between the two facets of future L2 selves (Sato & Lara, 2019; Kormos et al., 2011).
Concerning L2 learning experiences, the quantitative analysis of the survey data showed no significant group difference in the post-intervention measures after countering the effect of the preexisting between-group differences. This non-significant difference testified that the intervention could hardly affect the only emotional construct of the L2MSS. At first glance, this finding seemed curious since the results drawn from the interview data implied the success of the intervention in capturing the participants’ attention and affecting their experiences of L2 learning owing to its widely-accepted appealing, fruitful, and intelligible nature. Nonetheless, an accurate reflection of the thematic reasons behind the overall satisfaction of the learners shed light on the discrepancy. The unique attributes of the intervention, such as adding variety to the mundane instructional routines, accentuating the prominence of English learning in realizing a thriving life, and having foresight for cognitive and affective scaffolding strategies, yielded remarkable self-perceived improvements in the learners’ short-lived emotional states. The intervention seems to need more consistency and salience to profoundly impact the learners’ long-lasting motivational emotions, which were probed by the survey instrument. The overall satisfaction with the intervention seemed to echo a couple of the earlier studies (e.g., Al-Murtadha, 2018; Sato & Lara, 2019), showing that EFL learners mainly welcome vision-enhancement interventional programs. Nonetheless, the negligible impact of the intervention on the learners’ overall L2 learning experiences was at variance with the available empirical data showing the significant effect of vision enhancement interventions on learner attitudes toward L2 learning (e.g., Sato & Lara, 2019; Safdari, 2019). The supplementary nature of the intervention and the neurodevelopmental disorder of the participants should not be neglected while explaining the disparity.
According to the quantitative results, the intervention also failed to raise the participants’ conscious (intended) effort significantly, given the non-significance of the post-intervention between-group difference. Additionally, excluding a fragile increase in the time and effort investment of the learners, the descriptive analysis of the checklist data showed no conspicuous change in the motivated behavior patterns of the experimental group during the three initial intervention weeks. Based on the contention made by the two observers, although creating and substantiating future L2 self-images throughout the first three interventional weeks tempted the learners to invest good time and effort in task accomplishment, the temptation was not so overwhelming that it is required to make steady progress. Additionally, the unique and sophisticated nature of the tasks not only caused no enhancement in the learners’ concentration and effort retention attempts but also resulted in a faint drop during the initial intervention weeks. No remarkable difference was found in the motivational behavior distribution at the outset and conclusion of the intervention, notwithstanding all ups and downs.
The findings from the qualitative and quantitative data analyses disclosed that the statistically significant changes in the ideal L2 self were not as powerful as needed for improving the learners’ motivated behavior. The conflicting evidence on the contribution of vision enhancement interventions to the learners’ motivated behavior makes it challenging to establish the meaningfulness of the finding. The inefficacy of the intervention in enhancing the learners’ intended effort seems in direct contradiction with the finding of several previously-conducted studies (e.g., Al-Shehri, 2009; Moskovsky et al., 2016; Safdari, 2019), which revealed a significant role of vision-based motivational programs in improving L2 learners’ motivated behavior. On the contrary, the finding corroborated that of Sato and Lara (2019), indicating the independence of the learners’ intentional effort (motivated behavior) from an interactional vision intervention targeted at motivational enhancement. The ineffectiveness of the intervention in improving the learners’ intended effort could also be backed up based on the predicting and substantiating role of L2 learning experiences in enhancing learners’ motivated behavior (Azarnoosh&Birjandi, 2012; Papi, 2010; Teimouri, 2017). Based on this prediction model, the non-significant impact of the intervention on the overall L2 learning experiences could account for the fixed intended effort levels. The finding supported the contention that impressive behavioral accomplishments not only entail cultivating desired L2 self-images but also require long-term motivational initiatives (MacIntyre& Doucette, 2010; Martinović, 2018).
Instead of negating the effectiveness of the core constituting elements of the intervention (i.e., mental imagery use and the ideal L2 self), the non-significance nature of the changes in the learners’ motivated behavior may be attributed to the short length (ten weeks) of the intervention, as well as the neurodevelopmental disorder of the participants. Taking the attentional peculiarities of ADHD EFL learners as the target population of the current study, a limited-time supplementary intervention was unlikely to yield a drastic change in inner, stable resources such as task concentration and effort retention. This justification could be endorsed due to the frequent adaptability difficulties ADHD learners face while experiencing behavioral regulation (see Burns & Martin, 2014). Owing to their executive functioning impairments yielded by such adaptability hindrances, young adult EFL learners with ADHD may need more time to transform their motivational cognition and emotion into motivated actions.
Conclusion
The broad range of findings revealed that the incorporation of some specifically-designed vision ignition tasks, whereby clear visions of the ideal L2 self are established and internalized, into an online English teaching course could affect the motivated cognition of ADHD adolescent learners, bridging the mental gap between their actual and ideal L2 selves. Although effective in reinforcing immediate motivational emotions (i.e., satisfaction with the immediate learning experiences), a vision ignition intervention requires continual administration and evolutionary refinements to yield significant gains in motivational feelings of L2 learners about the whole L2 learning process. Additionally, the reinforced motivational thoughts evoked by vision-based self-guides will not suffice to influence the motivated behavior of ADHD EFL learners owing to their attentional and executive functioning peculiarities. The contribution of vision ignition to motivated behaviors seems to hinge upon a foresight for more compensatory training elements. These elements are supposed to alleviate neurodevelopmental impairments hindering the potency of a vision ignition intervention among ADHD learners, such as lack of adaptability, deficits in executive functioning, and behavioral inhibition.
The broad range of findings discussed comprehensively in this study may have several theoretical and pedagogical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the significant contribution of the intervention to motivational disposition, especially the ideal L2 self, provides additional backup to Dörnyei’s (2009) L2MSS and the theories that underpin it (the possible selves and self-discrepancy theory). Given the specific population of the study (Iranian adolescent EFL learners with ADHD), the influence of L2 possible selves on future self-guides, as the core content of the LMSS theory, could be extended to EFL learners with a neurodevelopmental disorder. Pedagogically, the findings may provide new insights into the practical ways of tackling the motivational barriers to ADHD EFL learners prone to improper functioning in online learning environments (Giannopoulou, 2019). Relying upon the findings, EFL teachers may be tempted to step up their efforts to enhance learner motivation in their online classes. Given that real-setting English classes feature both normally-developed learners and those with mild neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, syllabus designers and material developers interested in developing level-appropriate interventional vision ignition tasks are recommended to launch content development enterprises in collaboration with educational neurologists. Finally, the current study’s chief beneficiaries may be Iranian ADHD EFL learners whose specific motivational needs have remarkably been neglected.
References
Al-Murtadha, M. (2018). Enhancing EFL learners’ willingness to communicate with visualization and goal-setting activities. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 133-157. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.474
Al-Shehri, A. S. (2009). Motivation and vision: The relation between the ideal L2 self, imagination, and visual style. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity, and the L2 self (pp. 164-171). Multilingual Matters
Azarnoosh, M., &Birjandi, P. (2012). Junior high school students’ L2 motivational self-system: Any gender differences? World Applied Sciences Journal, 20(4), 577–584. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.20. 04.2732.
Burns, E., & Martin, A. J. (2014). ADHD and adaptability: The roles of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional regulation. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(2), 227- 242. https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2014.17
Çelik, Ö., & Lancaster, T. (2021). Violations of and threats to academic integrity in online English language teaching. The Literacy Trek, 7(1), 34-54. https://doi.org/10.47216/literacytrek.932316
Crookes, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1991.tb00690.x
Csizér, K. & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. Modern Language Journal, 89(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2005.00263.x
Csizér, K., &Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models for Hungarian secondary and university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 98-119). Multilingual Matters.
Dattalo, P. (2013). Analysis of multiple dependent variables. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199773596.001.0001
Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 31, 117-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026144480001315X
Dörnyei Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Motivation in second language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D. M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed.) (pp.518-531). National Geographic Learning/Cengage Learning.
Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self-images, sensory style, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning, 63(3), 437–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12005
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2013). Teaching and Researching Motivation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351006743
Giannopoulou, M. (2019). Academic self-regulation on students with attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity: Parents’ and educators’ point of view. Open Journal of Social Science, 7(8), 97-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.78008.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Reexamining the role of vision in second language motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of You, Dörnyei, and Csizér (2016). Language Learning, 70(1), 48–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371
Irie, K., & Brewster, D. R. (2013). One curriculum, three stories: Ideal L2 self and L2- self discrepancy profiles. In M. T. Apple, D. Da Silva, & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 110-128). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090518-009
Islam, M., Lamb, M. & Chambers, G. (2013). The L2 motivational self system and national interest: A Pakistani perspective. System, 41, 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.025
Kim, T. Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2011). The effect of Korean secondary school students’ perceptual learning styles and ideal L2 self on motivated L2 behavior and English proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 21-42. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.11.1.201103.21
Kim, T. Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2012). Korean secondary school students' L2 learning motivation: Comparing L2 motivational self system with socio-educational model. English Language & Literature Teaching, 18(1), 115-132.
Kormos, J., &Csizer, K. (2014). The interaction of motivation, self-regulatory strategies, and autonomous learning behavior in different learner groups. TESOL Quarterly, 48(2), 275- 299. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.129
Kormos, J., Babuder, M. B., &Pižorn, K. (2019). The role of low-level first language skills in second language reading, reading-while-listening and listening performance: A study of young dyslexic and non-dyslexic language learners. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 834-858. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy028
Lacey, P., & Scull, J. (2015). Inclusive education for learners with severe, profound and multiple learning difficulties in England. International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, 5, 241- 268. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-363620140000005017
Lamb, M. (2012). A self system perspective on young adolescents’ motivation to learn English in urban and rural settings. Language learning, 62(4), 997-1023. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00719.x
Lambert, W. E., & Gardner, R. C. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Newbury House Publisher.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2002). Motivation, anxiety and emotion in second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 45-68). John Benjamins.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Doucette, J. (2010). Willingness to communicate and action control. System, 38(2), 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.013
Mackay, J. (2015). An ideal L2 self investigation: Implication for self-concept, motivation and engagement with target language (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Barcelona.
Magid, M., & Chan, L. (2011). Motivating English learners by helping them visualize their Ideal L2 Self: Lessons from two motivational programmes. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 113-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.614693
Markus, H., &Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist,41, 954-969.
Martinović, A. (2018). The L2 motivational self-system: Differences among learners. Jezikoslovlje, 19(1), 133-157.
McFayden, T. C., Breaux, R., Bertollo, J. R., Cummings, K., &Ollendick, T. H. (2021). COVID- 19 remote learning experiences of youth with neurodevelopmental disorders in rural Appalachia. Journal of Rural Mental Health, 45(2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/rmh0000171
Moskovsky, C., Assulaimani, T., Racheva, S., & Harkins, J. (2016). The L2 motivational self system and L2 achievement: A study of Saudi EFL learners. The ModernLanguage Journal, 100(3), 641-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12340
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Kathy, T. (2006). Possible selves and academic outcomes: how and when possible, selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 188-204.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188
Papi, M. (2010). The L2 Motivational Self System, L2 Anxiety, and Motivated Behavior: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. System, 38(3), 467-479.
Papi, M., &Abdollahzadeh, E. (2012). Teacher motivational practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Language Learning, 62(2), 571-594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00632.x
Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42, 147-180.
Safdari, S. (2019). Operationalizing L2 motivational self system: Improving EFL learners’ motivation through a vision enhancement program. Language Teaching Research, 19, 1- 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819846597
Šafranj, J., Gojkov-Rajić, A., &Bogdanović, V. (2021). The ideal L2 self as a Factor of self- motivation in willingness to communicate. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 9(2), 189-202. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2021-9-2-189-202
Sampson, R. (2012). The language-learning self, self-enhancement activities, and self perceptual change. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 317-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436898
Sato, M., & Lara, P. (2019). Interaction vision intervention to increase second language motivation: A classroom study. In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy: A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 287-313). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351190558-13
Tabachnick, B. G., &Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Teimouri, Y. (2017). L2 selves, emotions, and motivated behaviors. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 691–709.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Dörnyei, Z. and Ushoda, E. (eds), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215-228). Multilingual Matters.https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691293-012
You, C. J., & Chan, L. (2015). The dynamics of L2 imagery in future motivational self-guides. In Z. Dörnyei, P. D. MacIntyre& A. Henry (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 397-418). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092574-024
You, C. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Language learning motivation in China: Results of a large-scale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 1-26. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu046
You, C. J., Dornyei, Z., &Csizér, K. (2016). Motivation, vision, and gender: A survey of ´ learners of English in China. Language Learning, 66, 94–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12140
