The preactional phase of the Process model of L2 motivation

According to Dörnyei (2001), the preactional phase of the Process model aims to explain decision-making. As it is concerned with how a person comes to choose which actions to pursue, it seems highly relevant to include in a study of subject choice.

The preactional phase itself is divided into three separate operations, which can occur quite rapidly one after the other, or with time passing in between. The first of these sub-phases is called the goal setting phase. In this phase a person’s wishes, hopes, desires and opportunities are combined and formulated into a goal. However, humans harbour many hopes and dreams which they never act upon, and as we shall see below, we are influenced by several determinants before settling on the goals we actually pursue. According to Dörnyei and Ottó’s model, goals are not considered to be the direct instigator of action, but rather an indispensable step in “the motivated behaviour sequence” (Dörnyei & Ottó 1998:49). Therefore, the second of the preactional phases is needed in order to bring us closer to realising our aspirations. When an individual is set on a goal, she may move into the intention formation phase, where, as the name states, an intention is brought into being.

Dörnyei and Ottó use intention as something more forceful than a goal in that intentions always involve commitment to perform a particular task. This commitment is crucial, but still not sufficient, for explaining choice in the model. In order to reach the stage where a particular action is initiated, a person must move into the third and final of the preactional phases called the initiation of intention enactment phase.

As mentioned above, Dörnyei and Ottó believe that we must always consider many different influences before we will be able to explain why some goals and intentions are brought into being, while others are not. According to the pair, it is this insistence which is the most important element of their theory (Dörnyei 2001). In the following I will review the

motivational influences included in Dörnyei and Ottó’s model using the example of a student choosing programme subjects in Norwegian upper secondary school.

According to Dörnyei and Ottó’s model there are four main motivational factors underlying the goal setting phase. Let us imagine a student who may or may not choose to elect the programme subject International English in Vg2 of Norwegian upper secondary school. According to the model, this student’s choice will first of all be affected by her subjective values and norms. These values and norms have developed in reaction to previous experiences, and are tied to the person’s self-schema. According to Dörnyei (2001), in a language learning context these beliefs regard basic feelings and attitudes towards the language in question, and towards cross-cultural communication. If our student possesses negative emotions towards studying languages in general, and perhaps dislikes the activity of communicating in a foreign language, then it is not very likely that she will formulate the goal of choosing International English as one of her programme subjects. If, on the other hand, her values and norms are positive or neutral towards language learning, she might still consider doing so.

The second and third factors affecting goal formation are borrowed from expectancy-value theories. Whether or not our wishes, dreams and hopes are formulated into goals will depend on the values associated with, in this case, the activity of taking an in-depth English class, and the expectancy of achieving (or not achieving) this goal. As Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) see it, the expectancies are quite general at this point in time, relating to the physical possibility of reaching said goal, and not to personal attributes needed to be successful in performing goal-specific tasks. Therefore, if International English is taught at our student’s school, and there are no limits as to who is accepted, then the perceived probability of being allowed to study International English is high, should our student wish to pursue that goal.

As in the expectancy-value theory formulated by Eccles et al. (1983), the external environment surrounding a person – such as family, socialisers, and overall cultural milieu – will also play a part in deciding which goals are pursued. Therefore, the fourth and final motivational factor underlying the goal-setting process is the external environment. A straightforward example of how the external environment might affect subject choice could be that a student whose parents value, for example Economics or Science subjects, might not be as at likely to choose International English as a student whose parents focus on the importance of language proficiency.

If a goal passes through the goal setting phase – in our example this means that our student formulates an “I want to”-sentence regarding the study of International English – according to Dörnyei and Ottó there are still no less than eight new motivational impulses which may play a part in determining if the goal is turned into an intention. Again, expectancy of success is important, but this time related to personal qualities and the perceived difficulty of the task in question. In addition, the individual conducts cost-benefit calculations, considering whether the benefits of choosing International English are larger than the costs it brings. Examples of costs can be that by choosing English you forgo the chance to choose another interesting subject, or that your grade point average might become higher if you chose, for example, biology – a subject which awards extra credit.

Other elements affecting the intention formation phase include a person’s need for achievement or fear of failure. A students who is guided by fear of failure might choose English because she believes that it is her strongest subject, while a person who is guided by a need for achievement might choose the same subject because she feels that she has not had sufficient success with English in the past and wish to keep struggling in the hopes of one day excelling. A person’s degree of self-determination (borrowed from Deci and Ryan) may affect the intention formation phase, as may various goal properties. These goal properties cover areas such as goal specificity (how clear is the outcome of participation in a certain activity?), goal proximity (will participation be beneficial sooner rather than later?), goal harmony/conflict (is the goal in question compatible with my other goals?) and level of aspiration (do I need to participate in this activity, or will I be content not to?). If a student is not able to see what new knowledge International English might provide her with, or if she believes that this is knowledge she will not need for years to come, it is quite uncertain if she will become a student of International English. If, on the other hand, her most important goal in life is to study Economics in London, and she believes that she has not yet reached a satisfactorily level of English proficiency, it is quite possible, according to Dörnyei and Ottó, that she will choose International English.

Yet another important factor, which is highly relevant in school settings, is the availability of task opportunities and options. As seen, according to Eccles et al. (1983), value is one of the more accurate determiners of both intentional and actual course election, and students will often choose the subject they value the most. If our student attends a school which offers numerous programme subjects then the competition may be fierce as to which subjects are the most valued. If she attends a school with a limited number of subjects on

offer, this competition may not be as strong. Urgency also affects intention formation. At first glance urgency might seem less than relevant in the context of our student considering whether or not to choose International English. However, it could be that a perceived lack of urgency should be considered an influence which might lead students to not choose English programme subjects, which is also interesting.

If, after the above-mentioned motivational influences have been processed, our student is still intent on furthering her English proficiency, then the goal of doing so will turn into an intention. However, we can still not be sure that she will act upon this intention while still in school. Perhaps she perceives a summer course at an English-speaking university as both tempting and sufficient, or perhaps she believes she will be able to reach a satisfactory level on her own. In order for her intentions to be realised through the choice of International English, a final instigator is needed to spark the enactment process. According to Dörnyei and Ottó, four such instigators exist, two of which are not particularly relevant in the context of subject choice. They will therefore not be discussed further here. Of the two relevant instigators, the first covers distracting influences and obstacles which stand in the way of action implementation, particularly if powerful competing actions are available. As I understand Dörnyei and Ottó these obstacles resemble what was called external influences in the goal-setting phase, the only difference being that in the goal setting phase these influences can be so strong that they prevent an individual from even considering a particular goal. In the initiation phase, however, the intention to pursue a particular course of action is present, but due to external influences and perceived obstacles, the intention might still not be implemented.

The second relevant influence affecting action initiation is called perceived consequences for not acting. In some situations there might not be any such consequences, while in others there are several. For example, students are often aware that there are quite a few higher education programs they can not apply to without in-depth courses in Mathematics, while not choosing English might not be perceived to have any such consequences. When studying the reasons students have for choosing, or not choosing, English, it may become apparent that the perceive consequences for not acting (that is to say not choosing English) are small, and that this is part of the reason why other subjects were not chosen instead.

If a goal is converted into an intention, which consequently evolves into intention enactment, then the individual will, according to Dörnyei and Ottó (1998), cross the

“Rubicon” of action, and the activity in question should be initiated. Their model is useful in that it demonstrates how aspects from several different theories can be synthesised in a fashion which has greater explanatory power. In a way, as motivation is such a complex notion, created to explain something even more complex – human behaviour – it is only natural that we need more than a single theory for a satisfactory explanation. Therefore, when accounting for my findings below, the discussion will not be limited to one theory only.

3.7 Summing up

This chapter has provided an overview of important motivation theories, with specific focus on elements which can be related to subject choice. Motivation is a wide area, which can appear fairly muddled at the best of times. A project such as mine cannot be expected to draw upon only one of these theories, seeing that, as Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) call attention to, it is difficult to address all relevant aspects of motivation through the use of one theory only. Therefore, in this study, I have used several theories and angles in an attempt to construct a sound discussion of motivation for subject choice. The motivation theory reviewed in the present chapter has primarily informed two important parts of my work: the questionnaire which I used for collecting data, and the discussion of this data which is to be found in Ch.7 Discussion. The theories which I have drawn primarily upon are Expectancy-Value theory and The Process Model of L2 Motivation.

4. Method