The issue of identity in language learning

 Identity in language learning


Since the 1990s identity has come in to focus to “describe processes of language learning and to account for language learning and academic outcomes” (Cummins, Markus & Montero, 2015, p. 555). Eagleton (2000, in Hinkel, 2011, p. 817), commented on culture in relation to identity that “within this single term, questions of freedom and determinism, agency and endurance, change and identity, the given and the created, come dimly into focus." He describes identity that is opposed to change which as Morgan and Clarke (in Hinkel, 2011, p. 817) propose that Eagleton “suggests that identity is about psychic, social and semiotic work necessary to sustain a sense of unity and sameness across time and space."

As Morgan and Clarke (2011, in Hinkel, 2011, p. 829) state, identity “has become a major conceptual lens for understanding theory and pedagogy in SLE."


 The theories of identity


The sociocultural theories of learning are based on Vygotsky's (1978, 187, in Norton & Toohey, 2011)  view of learning as a social process. Vygotsky sees identity as in relation to being a participant in a social role and social activity. Teachers who use this method ensure that learners are given diverse activities incorporating cultural resources. Learning occurs through interaction with others. These theories will be viewed later in the blog.

The poststructuralist approaches see identity "as an effect of discourse or power" (Mansfield, 2000, in Hinkel, 2011, p. 817). This approach has become popular in the language learning area and will be examined further.


The Poststructuralist Approach 

Poststructuralist theories of language originated from Swiss linguist Ferdindand de Saussure (1966, in Norton & Toohey, 2011). Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986, in Norton & Toohey, 2011, p. 416), saw language learning “as a process of struggling to use language in order to participate in specific speech communities." For Bourdieu ” using language was a social and political practice in which an utterance’s value and meaning was determined in part by the value and meaning ascribed to the person who speaks” (Norton  & Toohey, 2011, p. 416).

Poststructuralist theorists view identity as fluid, changing over time and dependent on the context and the culture (Norton & Toohey, 2011).

In 1995 Norton began researching identity, investment and imagined communities (Darvin & Norton, 2015). Norton and Toohey (2011, p. 422) noted that when the individual sees themselves in imagined communities there is a “focus on the future when learners imagine who they might be and who their communities might be when they learn a language." Norton defines identity as “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is structured across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future” (Norton, 2013, in Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 36). Norton follows the poststructuralist’s belief that “language constructs our sense of self, and that identity is multiple, changing, and a site of struggle” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 36). Norton proposed a model of investment which “occurs at the intersection of identity, ideology and capital” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 36). 

Norton’s study of immigrant women in Canada (2000, in Norton & Toohey, 2011, p. 420), showed that high levels of motivation did not always lead to successful language learning. She therefore developed the construct of investment to "complement constructs of motivation" (Norton & Toohey, 2011, p. 420). This term of investment is based on Bourdieu and Passeron’s (1977, in Norton & Toohey, 2011) term of cultural capital which means the knowledge and types of thought that different classes have. Norton proposed (Norton & Toohey, 2011, p. 420) that “learners ‘invest’ in a target language at particular times and in particular settings” and that “investment and identity together signal the socially and historically constructed relationship of learners to the target language."

As Darvin and Norton (2015, p. 51) note, where the modern world is “characterised by mobility, fluidity and diversity, operating within the paradox of flow and control, identity has been impacted by more complex issues of structure and agency." The complexities of the digital age has meant that learners need to navigate diverse and complex learning spaces with varying forms of capital. The model of investment that Darvin and Norton (2015)  proposed views the “microstructures of power in communicative events” and “the patterns of control” that happen in events involving communication, in a complex, digital world. They also recognise the learner's right to speak and that they have agency. The learner can invest in learning to gain power, social position and resources, which are needed to function in the digital, complex age that we now live in.

Darvin and Norton (2015) believe that the language learning process involves power as, according to the learner’s gender, race, social class and sexual orientation, the learner is given the power to acquire the target language. According to Kramsch (2013, in Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 37), “Norton’s notion of investment.. accentuates the role of human agency and identity in engaging with the task at hand, in accumulating economic and symbolic capital, in having stakes in the endeavour and in persevering in that endeavour." Norton argued that by investing in a language the learner increases “the value of their cultural capital and social power” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 37). 

Investment proposes that the learner is a social being and has a complex identity which changes over time and space (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 37). 


Applying this to the scenario chosen, if a classroom does not consider the student’s race, gender and the student's individual needs, then even if a student is motivated, they will not be invested in the learning and therefore less like to learn efficiently. Furthermore, “how learners are able to invest in a target language is contingent on the dynamic negotiation of power in different fields” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 37). This will be discussed further, after viewing Darvin and Norton's (2015) model of investment.

In fact, Cummins, Markus & Montero (2015, p. 556) argue, that in educational settings, issues of identity negotiation and investment can create underachievement in learners, if their culture is devalued. They instead propose that teachers of students from marginalised communities should use pedagogies that affirm the student's identity and the importance of choosing identity texts (Cummins et al., 2015). 



References


Cummins, J., Hu, S., Markus, P., & Montero, M.K. (2015). Identity texts and academic achievement: Connecting the dots in multilingual school contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 555-581.

Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual review of applied linguistics, 35, 36-56.

Hinkel, E. (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2). New York:Routledge.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412-446.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Identity Texts

Norton's Model of Investment

Critical Literacy