Research Digest
Complexity Theory, Action Research, and the
Study of EFL Learner Motivation
Richard J. Sampson
Gunma National University of Technology
Action research has been widely used in educational settings for many
years. However, recent interest in the application of complexity thinking
to educational research, and conceptualizations of language learnermotivation based on dynamic systems theory, may be argued to have agreat deal in common with action research approaches to educational
YLZLHYJO ;OPZ WHWLY ÄYZ[ WYV]PKLZ H IYPLM V]LY]PL^ VM JVTWSL_P[`thinking as it applies to learning environments. The paper then moves
to express the ways complexity thinking is fundamentally intertwinedwith action research approaches to educational research. The paper
L_HTPULZPUKL[HPSÄ]LWYPVYP[PLZVMJVTWSL_P[`HWWYVHJOLZ[VYLZLHYJOPU
SHUN\HNL SLHYUPUN·MVJ\Z VU JOHUNL MVJ\Z VU H ZWLJPÄJ SL]LS H[[LU[PVU
to initial conditions, seeking out of attractor states, and research asa form of co-adaptation. Through this examination, the paper argues
that action research might be used to provide valuable insights into thecomplex, situated motivational experiences of language learners andthe classroom environments that they both form and are formed by.

࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࣜࢧ࣮ࢳࡣᩘ༑ᖺ๓࠿ࡽᩍ⫱⌧ሙ࡛ᗈࡃ฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࡀࠊ㏆ᖺᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡟ᛂ⏝ࡉࢀࡿࡼ࠺࡟࡞ࡗࡓࢥࣥࣉࣞࢡࢩࢸ
࢕࣭ࢩࣥ࢟ࣥࢢࠊࡑࡋ࡚ຊᏛ⣔⌮ㄽ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ࡓゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢືᶵ࡙ࡅ
ࡢᴫᛕ໬ࡣࠊᩍ⫱◊✲࡟࠾ࡅࡿ࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࡟㏻ࡌࡿⅬࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠼ࡿࠋᮏㄽ࡛ࡣࠊඛࡎࠊᏛ⩦ࡢ⎔ቃ࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࢥࣥࣉࣞࢡ
ࢩࢸ࢕࣭ࢩࣥ࢟ࣥࢢ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ㄝ᫂ࡋࠊࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ◊✲࡛฼⏝ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࣜࢧ࣮ࢳ࡜ࢥࣥࣉࣞࢵࢡࢩࢸ࢕࣭ࢩࣥ࢟
ࣥࢢ࡜ࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞ඹ㏻Ⅼ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᥦ᱌ࡍࡿࠋゝㄒᏛ⩦ࡢ◊✲࡛」㞧

24Complexity Theory..., OnCUE Journal, 5(1), pages 24-36
ᛶ⌮ㄽ㸦FRPSOH[ DSSURDFKHV㸧ࢆᢅ࠺㝿࡟ព㆑ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࠊࡘࡲࡾࠊኚ
໬࡬ࡢ╔┠୍࣭ࡘࡢࣞ࣋ࣝ࡬ࡢ╔┠࣭ึᮇ≧ἣ࡬ࡢὀព࣭࢔ࢱࣛࢡࢱ
࣮≧ែ㸦DWWUDFWRU VWDWH㸧ࡢ᥈⣴࣭ඹ㐺ᛂ㸦FRDGDSWDWLRQ㸧࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢ◊✲ࡢࡘࡢⅬࢆ⪃ᐹࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢ⪃ᐹࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢔ࢡࢩࣙࣥࣜࢧ࣮
ࢳࢆ฼⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡢ」㞧㸦ࢥࣥࣉࣞࢵࢡࢫ㸧ࡔࡀ≧ἣ࡟ᛂࡌࡓືᶵ࡙ࡅయ㦂ࡸゝㄒᏛ⩦⪅ࡀᙧᡂࡋࠊࡲࡓᏛ⩦⪅⮬㌟ࡀᙧᡂ
ࡉࢀࡿᩍᐊ⎔ቃ࡟㛵ࡋ࡚᪂ࡓ࡞Ὕᐹࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࠋ

(STVZ[[LU`LHYZHNV[OLYL^HZHJHSSMVYKP]LYZPÄJH[PVUVMMVYLPNU
language learning motivation research design in Japan, involving morequalitative, longitudinal approaches (Irie, 2003). Furthermore, and inlight of recent developments in L2 motivation research based uponsocio-dynamic conceptions of the interaction between the self and theenvironment (Dörnyei, 2009; Ushioda, 2009), Dörnyei and Ushioda(2011) urged a re-thinking of language learner motivation research
KLZPNU[VWYV]PKLIL[[LYÄ[^P[OJVTWSL_P[`[OPURPUN;OPZWHWLY^PSS
review complexity theory with reference to learning environments,
before looking at action research and what it may offer EFL learnermotivation studies in the Japanese context from a complexity theory
perspective.

Complexity Thinking and Learning Environments
Learners and learning environments consist of, and are
LUJVTWHZZLK I` JVTWSL_ Z`Z[LTZ (Z :VTLRO L[ HS  ^YP[L!
“Human experience is characterized by complexity, and social science
researchers need to resist the temptation to impose unwarranted order[OYV\NO[OLHWWSPJH[PVUVMºVULZPaLÄ[ZHSS»[OLVYPLZ¹W0USPUL^P[O
such complexity thinking, Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) assert that inlanguage learning motivation research, rather than “trying to isolate
distinct motives and examine their operation in isolation, a more
fruitful way forward would involve taking a systemic approach” (p. 92;
emphasis in original). Motivation research that draws upon complexity
25Sampson

thinking recognizes that there is no division of the individual andthe context, but that the two are interweaved such that individual
motivation is the result of innumerable contextual and internal systems,
whilst the context is equally the result of the emergent interactions ofindividuals within context (Ushioda, 2009; Volet, 2001).
*VTWSL_P[` [OLVY` OHZ ILLU KLÄULK I` 3HYZLU-YLLTHU HUKCameron (2008a) as dealing with the study of systems that have thefollowing characteristics (adapted from Larsen-Freeman & Cameron,2008a, p. 4)-

complex (having many parts not all of which can be named,-and not all processes can be tracked or described)
dynamic (changing with time)-

non-linear (cause-effect relationships are not simplistic)
self-organisingopen (allowing energy to enter from outside)
adaptive (change in one area effects change throughout)emergent (self-organization may lead to something that is morethan the sum of its parts)
To take an example from education, Figure 1 shows one possible
representation of the numerous systems of which individual students
are part and dynamically affect and are affected by. Spanning outward
from the level of the individual, all of these different systems interact
dynamically such that change at any level affects all of the other levels
in some way—the systems are open and merged with each other.
Although not shown in Figure 1, the individual is also composed ofcomplex systems, such as motivational systems, identity systems,
or neural systems, and any change to these systems affects change
at higher levels, whilst change at higher levels also dynamically acts
upon these (in theory) individual-internal systems. Moreover, this is
I\[VULZPTWSPÄLKYLWYLZLU[H[PVUVM[OL^LIVMZ\JOZ`Z[LTZ·V[OLY
representations might include, for example, student interest, family,
ZPNUPÄJHU[V[OLYZVJPVJ\S[\YHSVYNSVIHSZ`Z[LTZ;OLSPULZIL[^LLU
26

Complexity Theory..., OnCUE Journal, 5(1), pages 24-36

dots in Figure 1 represent communications (interactions) between
systems, and whilst direct communication occurs most commonly
between closer levels, any communication has effect throughout alllevels of the systems, across different time scales (Davis & Sumara,
2006).

Figure 1. Partial abstraction of educational-institution related systems of a Japanesekosen (college of technology) student (adapted from Haggis, 2008, p. 171).

The form of interaction between systems at various levels, andindeed the scope and makeup of systems, is constantly changing andevolving across time, such that the conditions in place in a classroom
on one day are never likely to be the same. This dynamic change might
ILYLWYLZLU[LKHZHZL[VMHSS[OLWVZZPISLJVUÄN\YH[PVUZVM[OLZ`Z[LTat any point in time, known as the state space of a system (Spivey,2007). System interactions may fall into more stable states known incomplexity theory as attractors (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008a),
visualized as basins into which the system, or systems, may settle,
27

Sampsonrepresenting states emergent from the dynamic interactions of thesesystems. Again, it must be noted that even within such attractor basins,
Z`Z[LTZHYLZ[PSSPUJVUZ[HU[Å\_HUKÅ\_PU[LYUHSS`HUKHJYVZZZ`Z[LTZ
may cause movement from one more stable state to a different state(Spivey, 2007).

Action Research
Action research is concerned with concrete issues and takes into
account the complex reality of the human world and action therein.
In education settings, classroom action research begins with therecognition of some problem or issue, at which point a change-action[V^HYKZ HS[LYPUN [OPZ ZP[\H[PVU PZ KL]LSVWLK MVSSV^LK I` YLÅLJ[PVUupon the resulting outcomes. It may follow a cycle, with data fromthe effected change-action being used to create further change in afollowing cycle.
(J[PVU YLZLHYJO PZ Z\IQLJ[P]L SVVRPUN H[ H ZWLJPÄJ ZP[\H[PVU HUKintervening “in a deliberate way … in order to bring about changes”(Burns, 2010, p. 2). Consequently, the results are not intended tobe generalizable, applying only to the particular situation in which
they emerged. However, although action research is fundamentallysubjective, Noffke and Somekh (2005) also argue that the processof deliberate data collection and analysis including triangulation
WYV]PKLZHKLNYLLVMVIQLJ[P]P[`[OH[PZKPMMLYLU[MYVTTLYLYLÅLJ[PVU
As action research is “research conducted with people rather thanon people” (Heron & Reason, 2006, p. 144; emphasis in original),
whilst data collection and analysis may be conducted by certain of theparticipants, often participant-checking of analysis is used as one way
to give a study democratic validity (Herr & Anderson, 2005).

What Does Action Research Offer?
Action research designs mesh neatly with complexity theory
28

Complexity Theory..., OnCUE Journal, 5(1), pages 24-36

perspectives on research. Teacher-researchers attempt not only tocapture the essence of the complexity of the learning environment, butalso to describe its alteration through the perceptions of participants,
whilst concurrently working cooperatively to produce more effective
conditions for all participants. This may be one way to broaden research
into motivation in Japanese EFL learning environments.
Focus on change
Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) urge that motivation research drawing
on complexity theory ought to focus on change. In action research,teacher-researchers use longitudinal designs to “deliberately introduce‘noise’ into the system” and this “investigation of the system’s
response to a perturbation contributes to a deeper understandingof system dynamics” (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008b, p. 207).
Whilst previous research may shed light on tendencies, we cannot
hope to know the individual motivational states of learners due to theincredible array of particular system dynamics that make up learners
and that learners make up at any point in time. However, complexity
theory does offer the suggestion that energy applied at a variety ofsystemic levels may push systems out of stable states towards change(Mason, 2008), even if we cannot know which particular component
LMMLJ[LK[OLJOHUNL/VYUHZZLY[Z[OLMVSSV^PUN!
The study of learning communities as self-organizing systems
offers an opportunity to understand the conditions that are
in place when phase transitions occur. This, of course, does
not allow us to predict the exact timing or consequences ofparticular transformations, but it does give us good clues about
the appropriate parameters for the likelihood of subsequent
phase transitions.
In action research motivation studies, data received from participants
VYMYVTVIZLY]H[PVU^PSSOH]LILLUPUÅ\LUJLKI`[OLT`YPHKKPMMLYLU[systems of which these individuals are part. This information is used29

Sampsonto effect change at the classroom level, and it is at this level that any
further data, whilst potentially collected from individual students,
must be analysed in a complexity sense. Consequently, rather thanbeing able to say generally that students’ motivation changed, from acomplexity viewpoint, what is actually researched and analysed are
the ways in which the classroom environmental change encourages
students to note certain things, to become more aware of change totheir self-views (Haggis, 2008). At the same time, cause and effectrelationships cannot be drawn, as there are just too many different
systems of which human individuals are part to make such simplistic
linear claims. (p. 133)
)RFXVRQDVSHFLÀFOHYHO
As van Geert (2008) writes with reference to the study of complex
systems, “it is strategically wise to conceptually reduce the complex
system to a single dimension or very simple state space, in which thequalitative properties of the system dynamics can be observed” (p. 185).
The majority of educational action research focuses on change at theclassroom level and does not try to generalize beyond the conditionsof the particular environment in which change is introduced. As such,action research into learner motivation might provide a detailed
L_HTPUH[PVU VM [OL T\S[PWSL PUÅ\LUJLZ IL[^LLU LU]PYVUTLU[HS HUKlearner factors, and has the potential to provide insights into both
emerging changes in the learner and the classroom environment
linked to the introduced change (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011). Suchstudy may provide glimpses of the conditions in place in the classroom
LU]PYVUTLU[H[WVPU[ZVMZPNUPÄJHU[JOHUNLHZ^LSSHZKL[HPSPUNOV^change, such as perceived motivational change, occurs gradually overtime in the system. In not attempting to generalize, action research
YLJVNUPaLZ [OH[ ^L JHUUV[ RUV^ HSS VM [OL PUÅ\LUJLZ [OH[ THRL \W
the system(s) under study, as for example with human motivation, butthat we can focus on one particular level and note how an introduced30Complexity Theory..., OnCUE Journal, 5(1), pages 24-36

change affects this level of the system.
Attention to initial conditions
In complexity theory, the way the system is set up at the point at whichstudy commences is of great importance (De Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor,HZ[OPZJVTWVZLZ[OLPUP[PHSZ`Z[LTPJSHUKZJHWLHUKPUÅ\LUJLZ
the trajectory of change in the system. This is in direct parallel withaction research, in which a detailed study of the initial problematicconditions leads to the introduction of some change-action attempting
to address this feature, to collection of information about the change[HRPUNWSHJLHUK[VYLÅLJ[PVU\WVU[OPZPUMVYTH[PVU^P[O[OLWV[LU[PHS
for a further, revised change-action. This focus on exploring change
based upon initial conditions might provide a valuable expansion
to the current research into demotivating classroom elements forJapanese EFL learners (Agawa et al., 2011; Falout, Elwood & Hood,2009; Kikuchi & Sakai, 2009).
Seeking out of attractor states
In the action research process, change is introduced to the systemwith the intention of producing better outcomes or environmentsfor participants (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). Action research aligns withcomplexity thinking in that it concerns “more the creation of conditions
for change through self-organization rather than providing the exact
IS\LWYPU[ VY ZWLJPÄJ KL[HPSLK JVU[LU[Z VM [OL JOHUNL¹ 4VYYPZVU
2006, p. 4; emphasis in original). In this way, action research focusing
on motivation might deliberately seek attractor states that parties
L_WLYPLUJLHZILULÄJPHS-\Y[OLYTVYLHZ^LHYLKLHSPUN^P[OO\THUZ
action research describes the subjective process of change to perceptionof motivation and the conditions in place for emergence of patterns ofstability in the classroom environment being studied.
Research as a form of co-­adaptation
Flood (2006) illustrates connections between action research and31

Sampsoncomplexity thinking in the form of a continuous process of uniquemethodological design taking into consideration the complexity andwholeness of that studied. From a complex systems perspective, theaction research process itself might be seen as co-adaptation, as thevarious systems involved adapt dynamically with each other over thecourse of the project.
If we are interested in the complexity of which learners are part,
qualitative methods, in providing a more detailed account of the learner’s
experiences and conceptualizations in the learner’s own words, might
give greater insights into the internal-external dynamic interaction thattakes place in the language classroom. However, as action research
involves an intentional change-action, various approaches to datacollection may emerge over the course of the project in synthesis with
the necessities of the environment. Mixed methods may be employed,
MVY L_HTWSL PU [OL LMÄJPLU[ KLZPNU VM WHY[PJPWHU[ JOLJRPUN VM KH[H
analysis (Sampson, in press). In such a way, the processes of researchco-adapt with participants involved in the particular context of study.
Action research is also conscious of itself as research. Most action
research studies in educational settings involve a teacher-researcher
diary (Burns, 2010) which is included as part of the analysed data. This
meshes nicely with complexity thinking, as it recognizes that what ishappening through the research changes systems at various levels—[OLYLJHUILUVVIQLJ[P]P[`PUHW\YLS`ZJPLU[PÄJZLUZLILJH\ZLO\THU
systems are too complex and co-adapt to each other (Davis & Sumara,
2006; Horn, 2008). In classroom action research looking at motivation,
the teacher-researcher is part of the system under study and will affectdifferent class members and processes in different ways across a study.
Rather than ignoring or trying to minimize the impact of this, action
research deliberately recognizes this co-adaptation.

32

Complexity Theory..., OnCUE Journal, 5(1), pages 24-36

Conclusion
Through this exploration of the ways in which language learnermotivation research might be informed by action research andcomplexity theory, both I, the writer, and you, the reader, havechanged and will continue to change as the systems of which we arepart interact with thinking brought about by this article (for better or^VYZL;OLKPZJ\ZZPVUYLÅLJ[Z[OLJVTWSL_P[`VM[OL^VYSKVM^OPJO
we are part, in turn giving rise to a complex range of different waysof understanding. The potential of action research for expanding
the study of foreign language learner motivation in Japan to include
complexity thinking was explored. The experience of this undertaking
has, naturally, altered my ways of thinking and my own conceptions[V[OPZWVPU[I\[OHZHSZVPUÅ\LUJLKT`UV[PVUZVMM\[\YLWVZZPIPSP[`;OLZLUV[PVUZVMM\[\YLWVZZPIPSP[`^PSSPU[\YUPUÅ\LUJLT`J\YYLU[behavior, such that there is a dynamic interplay temporally, across the
person/researcher I was, am, and may be.

References
Agawa, T., Abe, E., Ishizuka, M., Ueda, M., Okuda, S., CarreiraMatsuzaki, J., Sano, F., & Shimizu, S. (2011). Preliminary study ofdemotivating factors in Japanese university English learning. The
Language Teacher, 35(1), 11-16.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching.
5L^@VYR!9V\[SLKNL
Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2006). Complexity and education: Inquiries
into learning, teaching, and research4HO^HO!3H^YLUJL
Erlbaum Associates.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems
theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism.
Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7-21.
33

Sampson

Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei &E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 selfWW )YPZ[VS!4\S[PSPUN\HS4H[[LYZ
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching
motivationUKLK/HYSV^!7LHYZVU,K\JH[PVU3PTP[LK-HSV\[1,S^VVK1 /VVK4 +LTV[P]H[PVU!(MMLJ[P]Lstates and learning outcomes. System, 37(3), 403-417.
Flood, R. L. (2006). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ to action
research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The handbook ofaction research*VUJPZLWHWLYIHJRLKWW3VUKVU!
Sage Publications.
/HNNPZ;º2UV^SLKNLT\Z[ILJVU[L_[\HS»!:VTLWVZZPISL
implications of complexity and dynamic systems theories foreducational research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1),158-176.
/LYVU1 9LHZVU7;OLWYHJ[PJLVMJVVWLYH[P]LPUX\PY`!
Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason & H.
Bradbury (Eds.), The handbook of action research (Concise
7HWLYIHJRLKWW3VUKVU!:HNL7\ISPJH[PVUZ
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation.
;OV\ZHUK6HRZ!:HNL7\ISPJH[PVUZ
Horn, J. (2008). Human research and complexity theory. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 130-143.
Irie, K. (2003). What do we know about the language learning
motivation of university students in Japan? Some patterns insurvey studies. JALT Journal, 25(1), 86-100.
Kikuchi, K., & Sakai, H. (2009). Japanese learners’ demotivation toZ[\K`,UNSPZO!(Z\Y]L`Z[\K`JALT Journal, 31(2), 183-204.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008a). Complex systems andapplied linguistics6_MVYK!6_MVYK<UP]LYZP[`7YLZZLarsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008b). Research methodology
on language development from a complex systems perspective.
34

Complexity Theory..., OnCUE Journal, 5(1), pages 24-36

The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 200-213.
Mason, M. (2008). What is complexity theory and what are its
implications for educational change? Educational Philosophy andTheory, 40(1), 35-49.
Morrison, K. (2006). Complexity theory and education. PaperWYLZLU[LKH[[OL(ZPH7HJPÄJ,K\JH[PVUHS9LZLHYJO(ZZVJPH[PVUInternational Conference, Hong Kong.
Noffke, S., & Somekh, B. (2005). Action research. In B. Somekh & C.
Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 89-96).
3VUKVU!:HNL7\ISPJH[PVUZ
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language
classroom research: A comprehensive guide)VZ[VU!/LPUSLSampson, R. (in press). The language-learning self, self-enhancement
activities, and self perceptual change. Language Teaching
Research.
Somekh, B., Burman, E., Delamont, S., Meyer, J., Payne, M., &Thorpe, R. (2005). Research communities in the social sciences.
In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social
sciences WW3VUKVU!:HNL7\ISPJH[PVUZ
Spivey, M. (2007). The continuity of mind6_MVYK!6_MVYK<UP]LYZP[`
Press.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent
motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215-228).
)YPZ[VS!4\S[PSPUN\HS4H[[LYZ
van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of3HUK3HJX\PZP[PVU!(UPU[YVK\J[PVUThe Modern Language
Journal, 92(2), 179-199.
Volet, S. (2001). Emerging trends in recent research on motivationin learning contexts. In S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds.), Motivationin learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodologicalimplications WW 6_MVYK!7LYNHTVU
35

Sampson***Richard Sampson is a Lecturer at Gunma National College ofTechnology, Japan. He holds a Master of Applied Linguistics from the
University of Southern Queensland and is a doctoral candidate at
the same university. His research interests include learner motivation,
possible-self theory, and complex systems theory applied to language
learning. sampson@gen.gunma-ct.ac.jp36