The notion of identity is a topic of debate in socio-cultural studies. In a general terms, identity is the set of characteristics that an individual conceives of themselves that express individuality or alignment with a social or cultural group. That is, an individual may consider his gender, age, religion, nationality, sport affiliations and profession to be elements of his or her identity.
Roth explained how cultural-historical activity theory considers identity to be interpreted through activity:
“The construct of identity pertains to who someone is. However, we do not know who a person is independent of the actions of that person. Being shown
the middle finger by another car driver, we may think, “he is a rude person;” overhearing someone using the four-letter f-word incessantly, we may think, “she is crude;” and seeing a group of students performing incredible stunts on their skateboards, we may think “they are skateboard experts.” In all of these examples, attributions about who someone is are made based on observable behaviour (actions). Actions that are already means of expressing emotions and motivations also come to express identities.” (Roth, 2007a, p. 56, emphases in original)
This is certainly true to Leont’ev’s description of activity and consciousness. He believed that in order to understand both the subject and the object of the activity, the researcher must analyse the activity. In particular, Leont’ev (1977, p. 5) noted that in order to understand the internal processes of the subject, “it is external activity that unlocks the circle of internal mental processes, that opens it up to the objective world”. Kaptelinin and Nardi added:
“. . . activity theory maintains that no properties of the subject and the object exist before and beyond activities (e.g. Leont’ev 1978). These properties do not just manifest themselves in various circumstances; they truly exist only in activities, when being enacted.” (Kaptelinin & Nardi, 2006, p. 31)
Holland, Skinner, Lachicotte Jr, and Cain described identity as something that is con- structed by individuals that both describe and influence how they act:
“People tell others who they are, but even more important, they tell them- selves and then try to act as though they are who they say they are. These self-understandings, especially those with strong emotional resonance for the teller, are what we refer to as identities.” (Holland et al.,1998b, p. 3)
While individuals construct and develop their own identities, Holland et al. explained that they are subject to influences that might act as constraints. There are social norms and practices, cultural resources and past experiences that must be considered. Consequently, they argued that individuals do not truly act spontaneously: the extent to which their activity is novel is bound by these factors.
Identity is by no means rigid, yet there are limitations to its change. Indeed, an individual may develop multiple identities that are used in different social or cultural situations, and different activities: “one ‘becomes’ what one ‘does’. . . through reflexivity” (Black et al., 2009, p. 56). For example, when undergraduate students start at university, they
may enter multiple social situations to which they may be largely unaccustomed. That student may become a housemate, a reveller, a sportsman, a learner, a society member, and so on. In such cases, the student learns these roles from individuals established in those cultures. Consequently, practices are transferred between individuals doing a similar activity.
There are times when these identities cause contradictions, particularly in relation to dividing time between activities. For example, the author recalls an instance when a student intended to miss an assessment in order to participate in a sports event. In this instance, the student’s identity as a sportsman contradicted the student’s identity as a student engineer; the sportsman was the dominant identity.
Colloquially, one might refer to wearing hats to represent such shifts in identity: an academic that is both a researcher and a lecturer might respond to a situation differently, depending whether she ‘puts her researcher’s hat on’ or ‘puts her lecturer’s hat on’. Likewise, a student that confronts a contradiction between his need to sit a test and his need to participate in a rugby competition may — consciously or unconsciously — choose which hat to wear.
Black et al. (2009) proposed the notion of leading identity to build upon Leont’ev’s (1981) earlier concept of leading activity. Leont’ev described leading activity as those activities that are more significant for an individual’s development. In other words, “activities become leading when new motives are generated so that the original motive of actions is surpassed by a new motive, and hence, a new activity” (Black et al., 2009, p. 57). They also argued that participating in a leading activity leads to a hierarchical structuring of existing identities according to their importance to the leading activity; they define ‘leading identity’ to be the identity that develops and dominates in the course of engaging in leading activity. They give the following example:
“. . . a student may tell of a particular work experience placement (e.g. in a hospital) as being critical in shaping their aspirations (to become a doctor) — this can be classed as a leading activity for the student if (a) the placement was begun with a particular motive (e.g. a week-long break from the toils of school) which then shifted to a new motive (to understand and engage with the occupation in question for its own sake) and (b) this resulted in a new leading motive for the student drive by one’s potential identity within that occupation. Within this framework, the student acquires a new leading identity (e.g. a medic) which is revealed by the new motive. . . ” (Black et al.,
In this instance, the student’s new motive directs how his or her identities are ordered in this hierarchy of identities, prompting a new evaluation of his or her current and future activities — “e.g. what qualifications he or she needs to attain, what subjects are relevant” (Black et al., 2009, p. 58).
In the United Kingdom, most students choose which university courses they are interested in studying while in their final year of school and before they receive their exam results. Their motives could be aimed towards entering a particular profession, or pursuing the topic of their interests further, or to fulfil the wishes of their families, for example. During the course of their university studies, new leading motives may emerge: for example, this may happen as students learn which modules most interest and engage them. For these students, their university studies become leading activities and they acquire a new leading identity.
Some students may have already developed a leading identity during their school educa- tion that continues to have a noticeable effect on their identity formations at university. Those students may have chosen their favourite subjects to study at school to develop their interests in those subjects; however, the desire to score high marks may become the new leading motive, given that they may be perceived to satisfy the need of success. In such cases, the students may develop a new identity that prizes success in excellent performance in assessments and examinations. This identity may transfer into university study.
Leading identity directs the course of leading activity once it emerges. It also has an impact on the goals that the individual pursues: a student whose leading identity is to become an engineer may have different goals from a student who wishes to earn a first class degree, regardless of the course subject.
Thus identity is an important consideration when discussing the effectiveness of an as- sessment. It forms an important part of the activity of university learning and may have an influence on the forming of a leading identity. It creates a double bind of priorities when considering how assessment should cater for the student: should assessment cater for every identity, or should assessment be designed to nurture the development of a particular identity?
In other words, is it the responsibility to design assessment so that it suits the student, or should assessment be designed to train students to develop in a particular way? If assessment should cater for every leading identity, then it must cater for a wide range of possible goals. That is, as well as providing guidance to students wishing to seek a deeper understanding of the material being tested, an assessment should also give feedback that helps students aiming towards less demanding goals.
If assessment should be designed to nurture particular identities, then, as the subsequent discussion of motives and goals argues, there remains a risk that those students that do not develop those identities fail to engage and flourish with the assessment.
Cultural-historical activity theory accepts that individuals within a community have different identities, but in order for the individual to succeed in the community, they must act in accordance with the motives of the activity. Therefore, some identities and actions are valued more than others, and the community encourages individuals to orient their actions towards those of the group. Thus the community has an influence over the goals that individuals pursue when they are engaging in a common activity.
In order to understand how goals relate to the effectiveness of assessment, the following section discusses how goals are formed and what happens when goals are achieved or missed in the course of learning.