Complex Dynamic Systems Theory has redefined second language development as co-adaptation between language users and context, but few studies have proactively manipulated the context to model and optimize such co-adaptation. The applied nature of the field calls for research to move beyond observation toward intentional, Complex Dynamic Systems Theory-informed intervention and the development of corresponding methodological frameworks. This study addresses this gap by theorizing and operationalizing the context as an applied construct to examine the dynamics of agency–context co-adaptation. The context is more than a passive environment for language practice, serving as an actively shaped site that facilitates agency–context co-adaptation. Situated within a semester-long business Chinese course, this study delineated a closed-to-open context which took the form of a rubric co-constructed assessment series where learners proceeded from the recipients, to editors, to creators of the assessment rubrics, engaging reflexively with their evolving roles. Process tracing on qualitative data, including student reflections and rubric construction recording, revealed a progression in collective learner agency from taking control of grades over an opening context to improving performance over a guided context. Individual learner agency exhibited diverse profiles dependent on students’ varying focuses on task completion and language skills, buy-in of the assessment and rubric construction, and acknowledgment of the instructor’s guidance. In response, the closed-to-open context adapted to these variations through an ad hoc intervention addressing emerging needs for guidance.
AhearnL.M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.
2.
BeckerA. (2016). Student-generated scoring rubrics: Examining their formative value for improving ESL students’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 29, 15–24.
3.
BennettA.CheckelJ. (2015). Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BiestaG.TedderM. (2007). Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 39(2), 132–149.
5.
ByrnesH. (2014). Theorizing language development at the intersection of ‘task’ and L2 writing: Reconsidering complexity. In ByrnesH.ManchόnR.M. (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 79–103). John Benjamins.
6.
ChamcharatsriB. (2016). Student-generated rubric assessment: A meaningful literacy practice. Journal of Assessment & Teaching of English Language Learners, 1, 50–60.
7.
CodeJ. (2020). Agency for learning: Intention, motivation, self-efficacy and self-regulation. Frontiers in Genetics, 5(19), 1–15.
8.
de BotK. (2008). Introduction: Second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166–178.
9.
de BotK.LowieW.VerspoorM. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21.
10.
DeygersB.Van GorpK. (2015). Determining the scoring validity of a co-constructed CEFR-based rating scale. Language Testing, 32(4), 521–541.
11.
DörnyeiZ. (2009). Individual differences: Interplay of learner characteristics and learning environment. Language Learning, 59(1), 230–248.
12.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47.
13.
DursunA. (2023). Domain analysis as a multidimensional research framework: Evidence-based alignment for LSP research, assessment, and curricula. Global Business Languages, 23, 1–13.
14.
EvansD.R.Larsen-FreemanD. (2020). Bifurcations and the emergence of L2 syntactic structures in a complex dynamic system. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 574–603.
15.
FraileJ.PanaderoE.PardoR. (2017). Co-creating rubrics: The effects on self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and performance of establishing assessment criteria with students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 69–76.
16.
HaggardP.TsakirisM. (2009). The experience of agency: Feelings, judgments, and responsibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(4), 242–246.
17.
HigginsE.T. (2014). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. Oxford University Press.
18.
HiverP. (2014). Attractor states. In ZoltánD.MacIntyreD.P.AlastairH. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 20–28). Multilingual Matters.
19.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H. (2016). A dynamic ensemble for second language research: Putting complexity theory into practice. The Modern Language Journal, 100(4), 741–756.
20.
HiverP.Al-HoorieA.H.EvansR. (2022). Complex dynamic systems theory in language learning: A scoping review of 25 years of research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(4), 913–941.
21.
KaplanA.CromleyJ.PerezT.DaiT.MaraK.BalsaiM. (2020). The role of context in educational RCT findings: A call to redefine “evidence-based practice.”Educational Researcher, 49(4), 285–288.
22.
KeysarB. (2018, April). Living in a native tongue [Paper presentation]. Center for Human Growth & Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
23.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2016). Complexity and ELF: A matter of nonteleology. In PitzlM.-L.Osimk-TeasdaleR. (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Perspectives and prospects. Contributions in honour of Barbara Seidlhofer (pp. 139–146). de Gruyter Mouton.
24.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2019). On language learner agency: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 61–79.
25.
Larsen-FreemanD.FreemanD. (2008). Language moves: The place of “foreign” languages in classroom teaching and learning. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 147–186.
26.
LearD. (2019). Integrating career preparation into language courses. Georgetown University Press.
27.
LiJ.LindseyP. (2015). Understanding variations between student and teacher application of rubrics. Assessing Writing, 26, 67–79.
28.
LiS.HiverP.PapiM. (Eds.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences. Routledge.
29.
McLoughlinD. (2016). Review of theorizing and analyzing agency in second language learning: Interdisciplinary approaches, by DetersP.GaoX. (A.)MillerE. R.VitanovaG. (Eds). Applied linguistics, 37, 442–445.
30.
MercerS. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 39(4), 427–436.
31.
MillerE.R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Multilingual Matters.
32.
MurakamiA. (2014). Individual variation and the role of L1 in the L2 development of English grammatical morphemes: Insights from learner corpora [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Cambridge, UK.
33.
NittaR.BabaK. (2023). A multilayered approach to researching learner agency as complex dynamic system: Cases of Japanese students learning English at University. International Journal of Complexity in Education, 4(1), 37–59.
34.
NorrisJ.M.EastM. (2021). Task-based language assessment. In AhmadianM.LongM. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of task-based language teaching (pp. 505–528). Cambridge University Press.
35.
OsbergD.BiestaG. (2010). The end/s of school: Complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 593–607.
36.
PapiM.HiverP. (2020). Language learning motivation as a complex dynamic system: A global perspective of truth, control, and value. The Modern Language Journal, 104(1), 209–232.
37.
PeirceB.N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31.
38.
PinielK.AlbertÁ. (2024). Changes in language learners’ affect: A complex dynamic systems theory perspective. Language Learning, 75(3), 863–897.
39.
QiG.Y.WangY. (2022). Challenges and responses: A complex dynamic systems approach to exploring language teacher agency in a blended classroom. JALT CALL Journal, 18(1), 54–82.
40.
ReeveJ.VansteenkisteM.AssorA.AhmadI.CheonS.H.JangH.KaplanH.MossJ.D.OlaussenB.S.WangC.K.J. (2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 93–110.
41.
Sánchez-LopezL.LongM.LaffordB. (2017). New directions in LSP research in US higher education. In LongM. (Ed.), Languages for specific purposes: Trends in curriculum development (pp.13–36). Georgetown University Press.
42.
SmitN.de BotC.vandeGriftW. (2016, April9–12). Using state space grids to analyze the dynamics of teacher-student interactions in foreign language classrooms [Conference session]. American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL)2016 Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, United States.
43.
ThomasN.HultgrenA.K.ZuaroB.YukselD.WingroveP.NaoM.BeachD. (2024). Process tracing for applied linguistics. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3(2), 100–118.
44.
ThompsonA.S. (2017a). Language learning motivation in the United States: An examination of language choice and multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 483–500.
45.
ThompsonA.S. (2017b). Don’t tell me what to do! The anti-ought-to self and language learning motivation. System, 67, 38–49.
46.
UshiodaE. (2015). Context and complex dynamic systems theory. In DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP. D.HenryA. (Eds.), Motivational dynamics in language learning (pp. 47–54). Multilingual Matters.
47.
van GeertP.VerspoorM. (2015). Dynamic systems and language development. In MacWhinneyB.O’GradyW. (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence (pp. 537–556). Wiley.
48.
WaningeF.DörnyeiZ.De BotK. (2014). Motivational dynamics in language learning: Change, stability, and context. The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 704–723.
49.
YuQ. (2019). Designing a task-based and community-engaged business Chinese course. In ChenH.TaoH. (Eds.), Chinese for specific and professional purposes: Theory, pedagogical applications, and practices (pp. 167–186). Springer.
50.
YuQ. (2025). Co-constructed rubrics for LSP assessment: Enhancing student engagement. Global Business Languages, 25, 1–18.
51.
YuQ.VincentA.S.Merfeld-LangstonA.Pérez-MuñozC. (2020). Collaborating across organizational lines in language for specific purposes. Global Business Languages, 20, 2–17.
