The dynamic nature of flow in theEFL classroom: Learners’
perceptions of inter-cultural taskbased interaction.!

Scott Aubrey
The Chinese University of Hong Kongscaubrey@cuhk.edu.hk

Flow !
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990)!
“The optimal task experience” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011)!
Students feel incontrol andhave interest ina challenging
task.!

Psychologicalstate (focus,interest andenjoyment)!

Improved
performance
producefeelings ofsatisfaction.!

Skill level iselevated to matchtask difficulty. !

Model of Flow in the language
classroom (Egbert, 2003)!Flow, tasks, and WTC!
A flow state occurs when learners are productive —notpassive—resulting in “higher levels ofperformance” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999, p. 74)!
During a communicative task, a readiness to enter into
communication (WTC) is facilitated by the following flowfacilitating conditions:!
A balance of task challenges and learner skills – e.g.
preparation time; appropriate task difficulty. !
Control over the task design/implementation – e.g.
learner-generated content; choice over interlocutor!
Clear task objectives that focuses learners’ attention!
Personal interest in the task topic!

Inter-cultural contact!
Studies in naturalistic settings have linked interculturalcontact to increased self confidence (Clément, Dörnyei,Noels, 1994; Labrie & Clément, 1986; Noels & Clément,1996)!
Computer-mediated inter-cultural tasks in the ESL
classroom generate elevated flow levels (Egbert, 2003)!
Computer-mediated Japanese-Taiwanese interactions
produce heightened curiosity and self confidence(Freiermuth & Huang, 2012)!
Inter-cultural contact can lead to increased anxiety due tolack of familiarity (Spencer-Rodgers & McGovern, 2002)!

Research questions!
1. Does intercultural contact affect flow during
the performance of oral tasks?!
2. Does inter-cultural contact affect language
production during the performance of oraltasks? !
3. What dimensions of flow emerge during theperformance of oral tasks?!

!

4. How do the dimensions of flow change instrength over over five tasks?!

Participants!
Intra-cultural group!
(EFL class)!

21 Japanese learners ofEnglish !

1st year!

TOEFL: 430-470!

Inter-cultural group!
(EFL class)!

International student
volunteers!

21 Japanese learners of 21 international students
English !
(10 nationalities)!

1st year!

Short-term study abroad
students!

TOEFL: 430-470!

13 native-English
speakers & 8 non-native
English speakers!

Research design!
Intra-cultural group,
N=21!

Inter-cultural group,
N=21!
Phase 1!
Task !
performance 1!

Japanese-JapaneseTasks
1 - 5!
Pairs*Tasks 1-5!

(Week 2-6)!
Phase 2!

JapaneseJapaneseJapaneseinternational
Tasks 1 - 5!
Pairs
Pairs
(repeated)!
*Tasks 1-5*Tasks 1-5

Task !
performance 2!
!
(Week 8-12)!

Task implementation!

Data collection!
Flowquestionnaire(Egbert, 2003)!
*Task 1-4!
*Task 1R-4R!

Learner diaries*Task 1R-5R

Audio recordings*Task 1R & 4R

Analysis!
!

(RQ1)!
MANOVA conducted on flow questionnaire scores!
Within-subjects factor = Initial task performance;
Repeated task performance!
Between-group factor = Inter-cultural group; Intracultural group!
Tabulated the number of students “in flow” using a thresholdquestionnaire score of “5” (out of 7)!
(RQ2) !
Independent t tests were conducted to test for a significant
difference in word and turn counts - adjusted threshold forsignificance of .025 (.05/2).!
(RQ3-4) !
Content analysis of learner diaries to determine thecomponents of flow.!

Results!
Questionnaires!

Results!
Learner diaries!

Results!
Language production (words & turns)!

Results: Word Count !
Inter-cultural group!
775!

p = . 05

Mean words!

620!

Intra-cultural group!

p = 0 .14!

465!

310!

155!

0!
Task 1R!

Task 4R!

Results: Turns of Talk!
Inter-cultural group!
140!

Intra-cultural group!

p = .02 !

p < .01 !

Mean Turns!

105!

70!

35!

0!
Task 1R!

Task 4R!

Results: !
Relationship between flow and words/turns!
Inter-cultural group!

Intra-cultural group !

Words!

Words!

r!

p!

Flow! .16 ! .35 !

Turns!

r!

p!

.17 !

.33 !

r!

p!

–.15 ! .39 !

Turns!

r!

p!

.39 !

.03 !

Main findings!
(RQ1) Flow levels:!
• negatively affected by task repetition!
• offset by the positive effect of inter-cultural contact!
•greater in number of “in flow” experiences for the inter-cultural group!

(RQ3) Language production:!
• Inter-cultural contact resulted in significantly more interaction.!
(RQ4) Dimensions of flow:!
• (1) Challenge-skills balance, (2) Sense of accomplishment, (3) Interest,(4) Enjoyment, (5) Attention, (6) Control!
(RQ4) Change in dimensions of flow:!
• Inter-cultural contact - increasing contribution from sense ofaccomplishment (flow enhancing)!
• Inter-cultural contact - decreasing contribution “Challenge-skillsbalance” (flow inhibiting)!

Implications!
•Inter-cultural contact could be one way to promote engagement
and productive language use - other ways: mixed proficiency
pairs, mixed ‘knowledge’ pairs!

•Tasks should be designed to optimize interactivity — learnergenerated content, create a knowledge gap!

•

To facilitate interaction, students may benefit from explicit
instruction on using interactional strategies. !

•Students tend to lose engagement if the tasks (same content &procedures) are repeated - teachers could vary content!

•Cultivate a ‘sense of accomplishment’ through providing post-task
opportunities to evaluate their performance accomplishments!

Selected References!
•Egbert, J. (2003). A study of flow theory in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language
Journal, 87(4), 499-518!

•Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994) Motivation, self-confidence and group cohesion in
the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44(3), 417–48.!

•Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.!

•Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperPerennial!

•Freiermuth, M. R., & Huang, H. (2012). Bringing Japan and Taiwan closer electronically: A look at
an intercultural online synchronic chat task and its effect on motivation. Language Teaching
Research, 16(1), 61–88.!

•Labrie, N. & Clément, R. (1986). Ethnolinguistic vitality, self-confidence and second language
proficiency: an investigation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7(4), 269—82!

•Spencer-Rodgers, J., & McGovern, T. (2002). Attitudes towards the culturally different: the role ofintercultural communication barriers, affective responses, consensual stereotypes and perceived
threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 609-631.
!