COORDINACIÓN MODULAR.

Research has thus far emphatically demonstrated the inextricable relationship between motivation and possible selves; however, Vignoles et al. (2008, 1168) assert that very little has been done to clarify why people are drawn towards certain identities and why they are pushed away from others. Concerning the Ideal L2 Self as an effective self- guide, it has been argued by Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011, 83) that an individual may nurture many possible selves and that learners who have a vivid Ideal L2 Self tend to be better motivated and thus more likely to be successful language learners. However, not all learners in the same learning context may be attracted toward constructing an Ideal L2 Self. It thus follows that it is possible that those students who have effective Ideal L2 Selves are drawn toward developing this future identity while those who do not are pushed away from such a language learning identity. This issue is a core concern of this study

97

which aims to identify the effect of student identities on language learning motivation. Thus, the identity motives construct as espoused by the identity construction theory has the potential to explain the disparity in motivation and the related language learning achievement of learners in the same learning context based on the effect of these identity drives.

The identity construction theory is based on the principle that identity is both a personal and social concept. It further argues that identity construction is guided by

specific motives or goals adopted by an individual (Vignoles et al. 2006, 309). These goals are what Vignoles and his colleagues (2006, 309) refer to as identity motives which they define as ’’pressures toward certain identity states and away from others, which guide the processes of identity definition and construction”. This implies that people are drawn towards identities that satisfy identity motives and tend to avoid identities that frustrate them.

Vignoles (2011, 412) has identified six identity motives involved in identity construction and maintenance across various cultures. These are the self-esteem, continuity, distinctiveness, meaning, efficacy, and belonging motives. The self-esteem motive involves adopting an identity driven by the desire to see oneself in a positive light. Thus people are more likely to desire identities that have the potential to enhance self- esteem and fear those who involve lower self-esteem. Self-esteem is regarded as a

fundamental component of the language learning situation which is inextricably connected to motivation. MacIntyre (1999, 33) maintains that learning English as a foreign language is more likely to challenge the self-esteem and identity of learners more than any other learning activity. Self-worth interrelates with language learning motivation at two significant

98

levels vis-á-vis the present study. Firstly, a number of theories (social psychological theory (Gardner, 1959), intergroup theory (Giles and Byrne, 1982), international posture

(Yashima, 2002), L2 Motivational Self-System (Dörnyei, 2005, Rayan, 2006)) indirectly implicate self-esteem in L2 motivation based on the learners’ willingness and to accept aspects of another community and culture as part of their identity. Such an acceptance is possible only if the student’s self-worth is maintained in the process. Secondly, self-

esteem features prominently in the learner’s experience of the learning situation especially in terms of the L2 Motivational Self-System (Dörnyei, 2005) in which Learning Experience is one of three fundamental aspects. Learners who find that their self-esteem is challenged by the learning situation are likely to demonstrate unmotivated behaviour. Vignoles et al. (2011) confirmed that the self-esteem motive is equally relevant to societies from Western and non-Western cultures and that people draw self-esteem from those aspects of their identity that are coherent with their cultural values. Based on this, it was found that there is a difference between individualistic and collective societies. Individualistic societies find self-esteem in identity aspects that provide feelings of control over one’s life whereas in collectivistic societies self-esteem is derived from those areas of identity related to fulfilling one’s duty (Vignoles et al., 2011, 413).

The continuity motive derives from the need to feel that one’s identities are stable, continuous and persistent over time despite major life changes (Vignoles et al., 2011, 413). This means that people want to feel that their past, present and future identities are interconnected to form a continuous stable thread. Continuity of identities is not a fixed certainty, but it has to be construed despite continual change. Therefore continuity is not the same as stability as such because it does not imply the nonexistence of change but

99

rather that there is a type of conceptual link connecting the past, present, and future temporal aspects of identity despite change. Adopting possible selves invariably implies that some form of identity change is expected to occur. Thus continuity is a major factor in determining the desirability of particular selves as far as they can promise continuation with the present self. People tend to seek possible future selves promising continuity of the self and show an aversion towards possible futures selves they fear would disrupt their self-continuity (Vignoles et al., 2008).This argument lends support to the idea that

integrativeness, which involves learners relinquishing some or all aspects of their current identity in favour of adopting an identity closer to that of the L2 target group, may be untenable for EFL learners because it frustrates their desire or need for continuity. This is especially clear in the case of Schumann’s (1978) acculturation model. Schumann (1986, 381) argues that for learners to acquire the target language they have to surrender their ‘own lifestyle and values to adopt those of the target language group’ and in so doing they improve their acquisition of the target language.

In the context of the present study, the participants are first-year university students who are in the process of making the difficult transition from high school to university which represents a major life-changing event (Parker et al., 2006, 1330). The magnitude of disparity between high school and university inevitably involves learners having to

assimilate and take on new social and personal identities rapidly. This change causes learners to feel a sense of loss and identity discontinuation (Scanlon, Rowling and Weber, 2007, 228). This situation is further exacerbated by the incongruence between the level of English proficiency these learners possess when entering the university and the standards required by most university courses (McMullen, 2014, 132). The continuity motive can be

100

challenged by the suddenness of the demand to adopt new identities, especially an L2 self when students feel that their continued existence as the individuals they were in the past and are at present is under threat.

The distinctiveness motive stems from the desire to feel distinct from other people. It is based on the drive that moves individuals to consider themselves as different from others which is an essential element of being human. Distinctiveness is explained with regard to three terms, difference, social position, and separateness. Difference refers to distinctiveness in certain characteristics which include abilities, opinions, personality, and appearance while social position is associated with distinctiveness related to a person’s position in social relationships such as kinship ties, friendships, social roles, and social status. Separateness involves distinctiveness which emanates from being apart from others in terms of physical and symbolic boundaries and experiencing feelings of privacy, independence, and isolation. Vignoles (2000, 349) disagrees with the opinion that

distinctiveness is less pertinent to collectivist societies and asserts that all three the mentioned aspects would be evident in most, if not all, cultures. The difference between cultures would be that difference and separateness are more pronounced and valued in individualistic societies while social position is more prominent and highly regarded in collectivist societies.

The need for people to feel that their lives are purposeful and have significance and meaning is the source of the meaning motive. Many psychologists believe that the drive to make one’s life meaningful is a core precept of human nature. It is therefore essential for people to feel that the events in their lives are not random and arbitrary but holds meaning

101

for their existence. It thus follows that people prefer identities that fulfil the meaning motive and avoid those that detract from this motive.

The drive which is at the centre of the efficacy motive is described as the need for people to feel that they are competent and can influence their environment. It represents feelings of competence and being in control of a particular situation. Efficacy is a prevalent concern in possible desired and feared selves in that the competent agentive self is

desirable while incompetence and failure reflect undesirable feared selves (Vignoles et al., 2008, 1169). As with the other motives, efficacy is equally relevant across various cultures and may only differ according to what forms of competence are valued in different

cultures. In this regard, Markus and Kitayama (2003, 6-17) identified two types of agentive behaviour, disjoint and conjoint forms of agency. Disjoint agency relates to individualistic societies and is situated in the individual while the conjoined type is seen as the collective effort of a group of people as in collectivist cultures.

The need to feel part of a group and accepted by other people is central to the belonging motive. Research done by Hoyle and Sherrill (2006, 1688) has shown that social inclusion is a significant part of people’s future possible selves and exclusion is prominent in their feared selves. The need for belonging is a core human drive, and thus it is equally applicable to different cultures. However, there may be some differences. It has been suggested that this motive may be stronger in collectivist cultures. However,

evidence exists to show that it is equally pertinent to individualistic societies (Vignoles, 2011).

102