Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Learner Identities
and Transitions
Table of Contents
Learner Identities and Transitions.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 3Christina Gkonou, University of Essex
Yoshio Nakai, Doshisha University
Jim Ronald, Hiroshima Shudo University
In the Midst of Emotion and Identity: Investigating Trajectories of Learners’
Self-Esteem From Psychological and Sociocultural Perspectives .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8Ryo Moriya, Waseda University
Ami Ishizuka, LITALICO Inc.
Shifting Identities in a Social Learning Space.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  26
Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw
Kanda University of International Studies
Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  45
Caroline Hutchinson, Nihon University College of Economics“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Communityof Practice for Everyone? .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  61
Takuya Kojima, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Chihiro Thomson, University of New South Wales, Sydney
Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  80
Paula Kalaja and Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in
Narrative Studies.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  97
Masuko Miyahara, International Christian University
Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems,
and Issues.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

111

Andy Barfield, Chuo University
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 20191

Learner Identities and Transitions

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan: L2 Japanese Learners’ Multilingual
Selves Captured by Language Portraits .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 135
Noriko Iwasaki, Nanzan University
Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning
in Narratives.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 152
Kie Yamamoto, Kanda University of International Studies
On the Relationship Between Identities, Beliefs, and Emotions of Language Learners,
Teachers and Researchers .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 170
Ana Maria Ferreira Barcelos, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil

2

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

INTRODUCTION
Learner Identities and Transitions
Christina Gkonou, University of Essex
Yoshio Nakai, Doshisha University
Jim Ronald, Hiroshima Shudo University

W

elcome to the third issue of the Learner Development Journal. Let’s start by looking
at the words of the theme of this issue, Learner Identities and Transitions. First,“learner” may sound like some eternal journeying condition, never reaching the topof the slope, never reaching mastery—a life sentence, unless we give up first! For many of us
language learners that may strike a chord. There is, though, another side to the coin, anotheridentity, in fact: that of being a user of other languages, a social, professional, or academic language user who may be increasingly able to do more through these languages. Whichbrings us to “identities”, the plural form rather than the abstract uncountable or singularform, telling us both that this issue is largely concerned with people rather than concepts,
and also that we may have more than one identity, whether at the same or different times. As
for “transitions”, this reminds us that language learners’ circumstances change, often drastically, and that these changes impact or change our identities.
Pinning down learner identity/identities—in some way that is one common challenge foreach of the papers in this issue. More than that, the second half of title of the issue sets thebar higher; the word transitions reminds us that for many of the studies reported here the goal
is not simply pinning identities down, like dead butterflies on a cork board but, rather, theobservation and recording of the living identities of language learners and users as they andtheir circumstances change.
Reflecting on identities and transitions brings us to our own language learning stories, which
are written below. These stories did not determine how we are as teachers, but they are a partof our current identities and they do continue to inform how we inhabit our roles as teachers,
and how we relate to our learners, each with their identities, emotions, and motivations.

Christina’s Language Learner Identity/Journey
I started learning English at the age of seven, in a private language school located in an extraordinarily beautiful house on the seaside of my hometown in Greece. I feel I owe a lot tomy teachers from that school, for different reasons which I was not able to understand backthen but greatly appreciated in later years and upon reflection. The school was not using anyof the traditional English language teaching textbooks—the only exception being exam-oriented classes—but mainly short stories and comics suitable for each level of proficiency. The
school teachers had compiled what would for many seem a quite unusual grammar book,which comprised important grammar rules without using metalanguage. In fact, I learned themetalanguage at a very much later stage, mainly during my university studies and throughmy own teaching experiences. The vocabulary book included drawings in black and white,which we learners would colour in and write the English word next to them. What was also
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 20193

Learner Identities and Transitions

particularly nice about that school was that students could play in the beautiful garden during
breaks and watch the sea!
I strongly feel that this early experience of learning English shaped my learner identity
and the way I have since been viewing language learning, and further encouraged me to takeFrench and Italian classes at university. Clearly the way French and Italian were taught toadults in my case differed considerably from the stress-free and creative English classes described above, but love for languages had already been cultivated in me prior to learning more
foreign languages. Learning languages was a tough process, which required effort, persistence
and a mindset of believing in oneself and in improving through hard work. Using English
in the UK where I then moved for studies in the first instance was perhaps among the mostvaluable experiences obtained throughout the years of learning foreign languages, because all
linguistic knowledge that was acquired had to be put into practice for the purposes of academic achievement and above all communication—and survival! My attempts to use English
in an English-speaking country put me in a position of re-learning and re-studying aspectsof the language but from a more ‘communicative’ perspective.
My early English language learning experience informed my transition from being a learner
to becoming a teacher and now to convening university modules on language teacher education development. I still feel though that I am often oscillating between two identities, that ofa language learner and that of a language teacher, with each identity informing the other!

Yoshi’s Language Learner Identity/Journey
Looking back on my life of learning language, it seems that I have different meanings in eachof the languages I have learned. The languages are English, German, Korean, and Chinese.
The first experience of learning a language is learning English at a small private English conversation class when I was at elementary school. I don’t remember why I decided to go there,
but surely remember that I was so excited by the English I listened to in front of me. Unfortunately, though, I didn’t continue studying and don’t remember why I quit after a few times,
either. Almost of my memory of it has already gone, but it was still a great time for me.
I started learning English again at junior high school. I had been looking forward to learning
English, and enjoyed learning about the grammatical structure of English and the sound of pronunciation—but it doesn’t mean that I was good at them! English sounded smart and cool to me.
The second experience of learning a language was learning German as a “second foreign
language” at university. I studied German for 2 years, but none of it has remained in me. It
was still interesting, but just a school subject, not attractive in the way that English was. At
the same time, I started getting tired of learning English, because reading was the main partof our English classes.
After graduating from university, the akogare, the appeal or attraction, of English was stillinside me, so I quit my job and, getting prepared to go to Australia for a working holiday. I
went to English conversation classes. In Australia, I was happy to use English and to stay inthis English-speaking environment. I didn’t study hard but I went to language schools there
to improve my English. I felt cool, speaking English and making connections with a newworld I hadn’t belonged to before.
Job hunting after coming back to Japan, I happened to hear about the job of Japanese language
teacher. My life as a language teacher started then. As I worked with young students, mostly
from other Asian countries, who wanted to go to university in Japan, I saw many of the problems in the context of Japanese as Second Language (JSL). To understand it better and to be able
to change the situation, I entered graduate school and conducted research to get close to theselearners’ experiences of living in Japan, to get some insights about how to make JSL better. At

4

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Christina Gkonou, Yoshio Nakai & Jim Ronald

that time, I was trying to support learners in Japan, to help them enter university and to participate in Japanese society. I thought myself not as a teacher but as a supporter close to them.
While teaching Japanese at a language school, I studied Korean and Chinese because I wanted to understand what our students were talking about in front of me. I built up my knowledge of the two languages by asking the students what they were talking about. After a few
years, I became close to a friend from China and we still have a good relationship. I wasn’t
so interested in learning Chinese at that time, but as our families became very close, I started
learning and using Chinese to talk with his family and friends in China. For me, even now,
Chinese has been not an object of learning but a language deeply related to my life. Meanwhile, as I was opening up with them to face up to the reality of their life in Japan throughresearch using narrative approach, I found my own reason to be a language teacher.
Dialogue with learners and moreover with my Chinese friend’s family led me to reflect on
myself and to rethink the language environment in which I have been brought up. I am a
CODA (Child of Deaf Adults) who grew up experiencing the two cultures of the deaf and thehearing and integrated into these two cultures. I realized I had tried to participate in Japanesesociety as an alien from the parallel society of those people who communicate in a strange
way. Unconsciously, I blanketed my experience of life with a mask hiding our family’s language situation. However, finally it was revealed to me that this is the reason why I want
to be involved in languages, and why I have been a language teacher aiming to support foreigners in the same position in Japan. After realizing this, my beliefs regarding language andlanguage teaching have become clear and changed dramatically. Now I describe myself as a
citizen in Japanese society who is translanguaging (learning and using) Japanese, sign language, a bit of Chinese and English to live my own life. My identity as learner and user has
been constructed through interaction with the people around me.

Jim’s Language Learner Identity/Journey
Since the age of about eight or nine, French language proficiency has remained an important part of my identity. Around that time, on a family trip to France, I recall being challenged
by French friends to say the French word for “squirrel”, écureuil, along with an elder brotherand sister—and being the one who could do and sound French. With no shadow of critical age
interpretation to temper my pride in this ability, it confirmed to me that I was naturally goodat French. The youngest member of the French family we were friends with was the mostbeautiful girl I had ever seen and I fell in love with her on the spot—coup de foudre, as it’s
expressed in French. I decided, despite being shy and six months younger than her, that one
day we would be married and living in France. A couple of summers later, when visiting thisfamily again, I saw that she was reading a novel by Maupassant called Bel-Ami, perhaps asa summer assignment. I might have been too shy to talk to her much, but if I could read thesame book as her, it would somehow bring us closer. Back in England, I went to my school
library and found the book, in French, and read all 300 or so pages. I can’t have understood
the whole book, but I did understand enough to get through it, and to realize that I could now
read books in French. And so I kept reading French books.
This near daily contact with French through reading, together with my very personal motivation, meant that at school French was very easy for me, and I was good at it. A holiday
in France with three school friends at seventeen confirmed this. While my friends were also
good at French in class, they were nervous about actually using it and would push me to be
the speaker for our group.
One decade later, coming to Japan, I focused on living in Japan, learning Japanese, andlearning to teach English. France, French, and my childhood French dreams, were far away.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 20195

Learner Identities and Transitions

After two or three years in Japan, on a trip back to England I had a couple of days in France
and found, with a shock, that I couldn’t speak French anymore, that I couldn’t easily find thewords I needed for even a short conversation.
Returning to Japan, I started to try to reclaim the French ability that I had lost. I foundsome French books and reading in French once again became part of my life. I also placed aninvitation in a local English-language magazine for French speakers to meet in a local café
once or twice a month. Each time, about five or six of us, French, north African, and Japanese
speakers of French, would get together and just chat for a couple of hours. These gatherings
continued for about a year and, together with the French reading, restored my ability to communicate easily in French.
Apart from French and Japanese, to me, my language learner identity is largely as someone
who has failed to learn much of the half dozen other languages I have studied, formally or
informally. To my students, however, I am seen as a polyglot, a successful learner of foreign
languages, since I can at least greet them in each of their respective second foreign languages:
French, Chinese, Korean, Spanish, or German.
The learner identity I try to project for my students is perhaps closest to my experience ofFrench: I think of myself not as a learner of the language but as a user, whether reading forpleasure, talking in French for the enjoyment of it, or looking for opportunities to use French.
These are within their reach, too, for English, and possibly for other languages. In this respect, my identity with regard to my students may be as senpai: someone who has alreadygone through what they are facing.
Christina was keen to get involved in co-editing this issue because learner identities are so
closely intertwined with emotions, which is her main area of research specialisation, that itis difficult (if at all possible) to understand one without the other. In addition, Christina herself has gone through multiple transitions of her learner (and teacher) identities; she therefore
viewed this issue as a unique opportunity to read about colleagues’ and their learners’ identity-related experiences. One reason Yoshi was happy to to co-edit this issue of the Learner Development Journal is that to be a journal editor using his English sounded so challenging, as if hewere asked to do so by his PhD adviser (and co-founder of the LD-SIG) Naoko Aoki. The othermeaningful reason is that as he considers why he got involved in teaching Japanese as a second
language, research on L2 identity is core to these ongoing reflections on his own identity. Two
opposing feelings attracted Jim to be involved in this project: growing acceptance that learner
identities are of fundamental importance to language learners and their teachers together withawareness of his ignorance about issues relating to language learner identity/ies.

Overview
This issue starts, following this Introduction, with an investigation by Ryo Moriya and Ami
Ishizuka of how the self-esteem of language learners changes. Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard,
Ross Sampson and Phillip Taw focus on the changing identities of the users of a Japanese
university’s English-using social learning space. Caroline Hutchinson addresses learner
identities of students as they live through their first year of English at university, with expectations and opportunities very different from those in high school. Next, reporting on a
Japanese language course in Australia, Takuya Kojima and Chihiro Thomson tell how a solitary student challenged their beliefs regarding the validity of aiming to create a communityof practice. Paula Kalaja and Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty highlight the value of narratives both tounderstand and to help develop learner identities, while Masuko Miyahara’s focus is on theimpact on both language learners and researchers of reflections on identities. Andy Barfield

6

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Christina Gkonou, Yoshio Nakai & Jim Ronald

uses narratives, poems, and visual representations to investigate culturally or linguistically complex learner identities, a reminder that much of our multifaceted language learner
identities may be in opposition to some kind of oppressive, othering normal: a monolingual,monocultural, standard language speaking norm. Noriko Iwasaki, too, uses language portraits to help learners record changes in national or linguistic identities as they experience thechallenges of studying abroad. Kie Yamamoto focuses on one Japanese learner’s experience ofstudying abroad and the confusing and liberating challenges to her identity brought throughthis experience. Finally, Ana Mari Ferreira Barcelos draws everything together through thelenses of language learner beliefs and emotions.

Editor Bios
Yoshio Nakai is Assistant Professor at Doshisha University and promotes collaborative learning in his teaching in order to help learners of Japanese as a second language to be moreautonomous and more reflective on their learning and themselves. For his PhD research, heanalyzed learners’ motivation using a modified grounded theory approach and illustrated theprocess of construction of motivation schematically. Now he researches autonomy and identity of language learners and users through qualitative narrative approach. Moreover, he tries
to discover issues in a Japanese society through reflective dialogue with linguistic minorities.
E-mail: uminchufunto@gmail.com
Dr Christina Gkonou is Associate Professor of TESOL and MA TESOL Programme Leader inthe Department of Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex, UK. She is also Deputy
Director of Education in the same Department. She convenes postgraduate modules on teacher education and development, and on psychological aspects surrounding the foreign language learning and teaching experience. She is the co-editor of New Directions in Language
Learning Psychology (with Sarah Mercer and Dietmar Tatzl) and New Insights into Language
Anxiety: Theory, Research and Educational Implications (with Jean-Marc Dewaele and Mark
Daubney), and co-author of MYE: Managing Your Emotions Questionnaire (with Rebecca L.
Oxford). Her new book, entitled The Emotional Rollercoaster of Language Teaching (co-editedwith Jean-Marc Dewaele and Jim King) will be out in June 2020. E-mail: gkono@essex.ac.uk
Jim Ronald is one of many professors in the Department of English at Hiroshima Shudo University. He holds a PhD in Vocabulary Acquisition from Swansea University. His goal in his
teaching, at all levels, is to apply awareness of learner development and pragmatics for the
benefit of the language learners in his care. He is currently working on a collection of pragmatics activities for the classroom, Pragmatics Undercover, due out in early 2020, co-editedwith Gerald Talandis, Jr and Donna Fujimoto. E-mail: jmronald@gmail.com

Acknowledgments
First of all, we would like to express our thanks to each of the writers whose papers make up
this issue, and for giving each other feedback at an early stage of their papers: a long journeythat asked a lot of each person. We appreciate you! Our heartfelt thanks, too, to the wonderful
Learner Development Journal Review Network team—Sabine Little, Thomas Bieri, Michelle
Golledge, Ted O’Neill, Akiko Takagi, Katherine Thornton, Fumiko Murase, Hugh Nicoll, Alice
Chik, and Colin Rundle—for going the extra mile in helping the authors, and us, make thisissue better. To the journal’s steering group—Darren Elliott, Alison Stewart, Tim Ashwell,and Dominic Edsall—thank you for your guidance, input, dedication. We needed steering!
And Andy Barfield, this issue is all the better for your input—thank you. Finally, our thanks
to Malcolm Swanson for the skills, care, and patience that you have brought to the layout anddesign of this third issue of the Learner Development Journal.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 20197

RESEARCH PAPER
In the Midst of Emotion and Identity:
Investigating Trajectories of Learners’
Self-Esteem From Psychological andSociocultural Perspectives
Ryo Moriya, Waseda University
Ami Ishizuka, LITALICO Inc.
Among the myriad components of identity, self-esteem, defined as our overall evaluation of ourselves, is indispensable for identity construction. The research reported in this article regards self-esteem as the mid point
between emotions and identities, and features, from both psychological and sociocultural perspectives, students’retrospective changes of self-esteem by investigating multiple data sets. Participants were 43 non-English-major
university students, and the data sets included two types of questionnaires (i.e., close- and open-ended) and, formost students, semi-structured interviews. In the analyses of different data in an exploratory manner, the findings
are summarized as follows: a) students’ gap between their current situation and their purposes of learning English
contributed to their low self-esteem, b) their self-esteem and emotions emerged from ongoing situations mutually
influencing each other, and c) how they make sense of “bad” events influences subsequent processes that leadto an increase or decrease in self-esteem. Grounded on two different perspectives (i.e., psychological and sociocultural), the study sheds light on, both dynamic and complex aspects of self-esteem. In the final section of thepaper, we conclude by discussing the importance of students’ meaning-making strategies relevant to self-esteem
experienced and accumulated from diverse contexts.
言語学習者にとって自分が何者であるかという問い、すなわちアイデンティティーの確立は重要である。アイデンティティーを構成する要素のうち自分自身を評価し、価値ある存在であると認識する自尊感情はとりわけ欠かせない要素である。本研究では自尊感情を感情とアイデ
ンティティーの中間と見なし、心理的・社会文化的観点から複数のデータを用いて学習者の自尊感情が過去からどのように変化してきたのかを調査した。英語を専攻としない大学生43名が参加し2種類のアンケート（選択式および記述式）、また殆どの参加者には半構造化イン
タビューも行った。異なるデータを探索的に分析した結果、ａ）現状と学習目標に於けるギャップが低い自尊感情に繋がること、 ｂ）
自尊感
情と眼前の状況から生じる感情が相互に影響し合っていること、ｃ）「悪い」出来事に対してそれをどう意味づけるかが一連のプロセスとして自尊感情の高低に関わってくることが明らかになった。心理的・社会文化的観点という双方の異なる立場から自尊感情に着目することで、本研究は自尊感情の動的かつ複雑な両側面に光を当てたものとなっている。また、自尊感情に関連して、学習者が積み重ねてきた多様な文脈からの経験をどう意味づけるかというストラテジーの重要性についても最終的には論じている。

Keywords
self-esteem, psychological and sociocultural approaches, mixed methods, meaning-making, emotions and identities

キーワード
自尊感情、心理的・社会文化的アプローチ、混合研究法、意味づけ、感情とアイデンティティー“

I don’t think I can learn English because I’ve tried so many times.” “There’s no point intrying, because I’m not smart.” “Nothing went well, so I’m at a loss about what to do.”
These heartrending voices, many participants’ unburdening their heart during interviews,
make make us (Ryo and Ami) pitiful because they belittled themselves, even though not being
able to learn languages well never means they can do nothing. To make matters worse, suchself-degradation eventually leads to self-denial, or identity crisis. In this connection, “Whoam I?” is one of the most challenging questions that we may ask ourselves. One possible an-

8

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

swer to this question is “I am who I am because I am not you,” (Kumaravadivelu, 2012, p. 10).
What we choose to share with others helps to define our identities. We take the position that
identity consists of multidimensional components and depending on which components are
expressed, we consciously or unconsciously create several identities that coexist kaleidoscopically; the constellation of shapes and colors change, mutually creating different patterns andinterrelationships.
Among the myriad components of identity, self-esteem should be investigated for two
reasons. First, from the learner’s side, self-esteem closely relates to identity formation because it can be understood as “the evaluative aspect of the self-concept, rated on a person’s
own high-low scale” (Oxford, Cohen, & Simmons, 2018, p. 301). In other words, self-esteem
can reflect how we perceive and value ourselves. Second, from the researcher’s side, Pavlenko(2013) partly welcomes the growing interests in investigating affective factors in SLA, a socalled “affective turn,” but states that many studies tend to focus on labeling variables themselves, not how they work. For example, emotion, regarded as one of the important constructs
of identity, has long been ignored partly due to difficulties in defining and measuring it (c.f.
Swain, 2013). In fact, however, emotions are indispensable for identity construction (seeMiyahara, 2015), and through the lens of self-esteem, learners evaluate their own emotions
that emerge from various life events (c.f. Williams, Mercer, & Ryan, 2015). Considering thesevarious mental constructs, self-esteem can be regarded as a mid point between emotions andidentities. In this study, therefore, we focus on the relationship between self-esteem, identity, and emotion. By investigating self-esteem as a midpoint between identities and emotions,
we hope to understand better how L2 (here, English) learners experience certain life events.
From psychological and sociocultural perspectives, we also focus on how they retrospectively
perceived them to describe the development of their trajectories of self-esteem.

Literature Review
Emotion and identity
When reviewing previous research into learner emotion, we were interested in seeing how
other researchers have defined “emotion.” The multidimensionality of emotion makes it difficult to define, but one study that does try to address this is Gregersen, MacIntyre and Meza(2014). They define emotion as “a coordinated reaction typically covering four domains: subjective feelings, biological/physical reactions, purposive (goal-directed) behavior, and a social
component that guides emotional expression and interpretation in situ” (p. 575) by referring
to Reeve (2009). As their comprehensive definition shows, emotion has multifaceted characteristics (see also Prior, 2019). On the other hand, Averill (1980) emphasizes the socially mediated quality of emotions and states “an emotion is a transitory social role (a socially constituted syndrome) that includes an individual’s appraisal of the situation and that is interpreted
as a passion rather than as an action” (p. 312). Based on this definition, emotion is sociallymediated and includes people’s interpretations of ongoing situations from a social constructivist perspective (Oxford, 2015). In other words, emotion is socioculturally constructed (c.f.
Moriya, 2019). For us, this is important because this sociocultural dimension of emotions
potentially reveals the negotiated process of self-esteem as well as identity in learning environments.
Regarding the relationship between emotions and identities, many studies show emotions work as an underlying facilitator of identity formation (e.g., De Costa & Norton, 2017;
Kramsch, 2009; Miyahara, 2015; Song, 2016) because identity indicates how people understand and view their relationship to the world, including socioculturally constructed emotions(Barcelos, 2015; Williams et al., 2015). However, previous studies have long ignored emotion
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 20199

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

due to their emphasis on cognition, the subjectivity of emotion, and the difficulty in defining
and measuring it (Swain, 2013). Therefore, although the importance of emotion to language
learning was always understood instinctively, it is only recently that studies have gradually started to pay more attention to emotion as an influential factor in the field of language
learning psychology (e.g., Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Gkonou, 2017; Imai, 2010).

Self-esteem
Self-esteem is relevant to “our overall affective evaluation of ourselves” (Williams et al.,2015, p. 48). More specifically, self-esteem can be defined as “the evaluative quality of theself-concept” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 185) which reflects how we perceive and value ourselves, and affects L2 learners’ motivation, attitude, and performance (e.g., Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011; Lapkin, Swain, & Psyllakis, 2010; Rubio, 2007). Brown and Marshall (2006) suggest
three categories of self-esteem: global self-esteem, self-worth, and self-evaluation. First,
global self-esteem refers to a “personality variable that represents the way people generally
feel about themselves” (p. 4). Since it hardly changes across time and situations, this global
self-esteem is also called trait self-esteem. People with high global self-esteem love themselves, but this does not necessarily mean that they have high abilities and skills. To keep
this sort of self-esteem high, a feeling of being “good enough” is the key (Rosenberg, 1965;
Tadokoro, 2002). Another component of self-esteem refers to feelings of self-worth. Thisrefers to feelings and emotional reactions to particular events, and some researchers use theterms interchangeably (e.g., Convington, 1992; see Williams et al., 2015). The other indicator is self-evaluation and confidence. If someone thinks they are good at something, thismeans they hold themselves in high esteem. In fact, Bagheri and Faghih (2012) indicate that
self-esteem cannot be measured by how much a person has achieved, but by how much they
are satisfied with the outcomes of their actions. These three different perspectives positively correlate with each other (Brown & Marshall, 2006), meaning that people who have highself-esteem in one area tend to have higher self-esteem in the other areas.
In addition to the types of self-esteem mentioned above, like identity construction (see Miyahara, 2015), self-esteem is also socioculturally co-constructed in relation to other people’s
reactions, and their complex interaction with self-perception and self-evaluation (Gliński,2013; Rubio-Alcalà, 2017). In other words, success and failure in life can enhance or hinder
L2 learning. Rubio (2014) discusses the dynamics of the development of self-esteem, together with self-concept. These studies on self-esteem reveal that although it can be regarded as
psychologically complex and dynamic, and influenced by sociocultural factors, most of thestudies have been conducted to investigate the partial aspects of self-esteem on L2 learning. However, considering the relationship between emotions, self-esteem, and identities,
it would necessitate a holistic approach to expand our understanding of self-esteem. This isbecause it emerges from entangled interactions between the world and perceived experiencesin it (i.e., sociocultural emotions and self-esteem), with outcomes (here, identities) accounting for learners’ behavior (c.f. MacIntyre, Gregersen, & Mercer, 2016). Therefore, this exploratory study addresses this issue by investigating how L2 learners experienced specific life
events and perceived them retrospectively, in addition to how they described their trajectories
of self-esteem.

Methodology
The current study adopted mixed methods multiple case studies (Creswell, 2015; Creswell &Poth, 2017). Multiple data sources were used: a questionnaire asking for participants’ backgrounds as well as the characteristics of their self-esteem, semi-structured interviews with

10

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

audio-recordings, and memos made during the analysis for triangulation. The aim was toqualitatively and quantitatively investigate students’ self-esteem and its development. To enhance trustworthiness, investigator triangulation was conducted (O’Brien, Harris, Beckman,
Reed, & Cook, 2014).

Research Context and Participants
The context in this study was two undergraduate courses at a private university in Tokyo,
where the first author observed all 15 classes. The aim of both courses was to develop the fourbasic skills for low-proficiency students1. Table 1 summarizes basic information on the courses.
Table 1. Basic Information on Two Courses
CoursesType

N of Students (Male/Female)Ss’ YearSs’ Major

Course A

Compulsory

30 (14/16)

SophomoreManagement

Course B*

Compulsory

13 (11/2)

Various

Various

Note: In Course B, the students’ years varied from sophomore to senior, and their majors included thefollowing: management, humanities, sociology, and foreign studies (Japanese linguistics).

As Table 1 summarizes, both courses were regarded as compulsory courses at the university; however, none of the students were English majors, which means the students were
not required to study English after finishing these compulsory courses. Although they did
not necessarily wish to study English, many students actively engaged in the in-class activities because the instructor introduced various types of pair or group activities to facilitatesocial interaction between students. Therefore, from an observer’s perspective, it did notappear that their motivation to participate in English courses was low. Prior to conducting
the non-participant observations, the author obtained permission to collect data from the
instructor of both courses. At first, the author was a complete stranger to the students but
obtained their informed consent by explaining the research aims and objectives.

Data Collection
During this study, the data collection procedure was divided into two phases. The first one
consisted of the questionnaire, which asked the students about their self-esteem using hypothetical situations, emotion management during language learning (Gkonou & Oxford, 2016),
and their background. The second one was semi-structured interviews which focused onsome questions relevant to their answers to the questionnaire.
During the first class, the first author distributed the questionnaire and then explained
it, and the students answered the items in Japanese in around 20 minutes. Appendix A(close-ended) and Appendix B (open-ended) present the questionnaire items.
From the seventh to the fourteenth class, the first author conducted and audio-recorded 20
semi-structured interviews with 34 students. Due to the limited time, the first author could
not interview the 43 students in two courses, so the 34 students among them were the ones
who the first author managed to interview with no deliberate purposes. The total length of
1 In a year of our study, this university divided students into such courses the university offered, according totheir proficiency levels. Judging from their language background and instructor’s evaluation, the students in the
study would be categorized into beginner or elementary levels (i.e., CEFR A1 or A2).
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201911

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

the recordings was about 262.5 minutes (i.e., each interview lasted 13 minutes on average,
and some interviews were in pairs). Beforehand, an interview guide was created to determine
the following: what the students tried to improve, the reason(s) for evaluating self-esteem,
and their original methods for learning English. After the interviews, the students were asked
to record their impressions of the interviews on comment sheets. 20 students submitted thesevoluntary comment sheets.

Data Analysis
To analyze students’ self-esteem from different angles, multiple analyses were required. We
used SPSS to analyze our quantitative data (Appendix A and part of Appendix B), and determine the overall tendencies within the classrooms descriptively. Meanwhile, to analyze
qualitative data (the other parts of Appendix B and interview data), we coded the responses
without a pre-determined framework due to the exploratory nature of the study. The coding
phases were divided into two: the first one comprised a brief open coding of the data, and thesecond one comprised a discussion of any discrepancies between coders’ interpretations. If
such discrepancies remained unsolved, we returned to the raw data again. This iterative process ensured the triangulation of data (i.e., investigator triangulation).
Trajectory Equifinality Approach (TEA) was identified as a suitable approach to examine thecomplex and dynamic aspects of self-esteem, by considering changes in emotions and theircauses. TEA is a recent approach established by some researchers in cultural psychology andconsists of three subcomponents (for further details, see Sato, Mori, & Valsiner, 2016). The
basic tenets of TEA are also the same as Vygotsky’s (1978) triangular model, which demonstrates how the relationship between subjects and objects is mediated by artifacts such as
language. However, the Vygotskian triangle fails to capture dynamic characteristics because
it only assesses interrelatedness, rather than changes (see Sato, Yasuda, Kanzaki, & Valsiner, 2014). Therefore, TEA develops Vygotsky’s triangle to reflect the changes in participants
over time. In this study, from the three subcomponents of TEA, the Trajectory Equifinality
Model (TEM) was adopted because it focuses on expressing “…idiographic life trajectories
using many conceptual tools” (Sato et al., 2014, p. 8). Figure 1 indicates one example of TEM,
and by drawing an irreversible time arrow, the model considers the axis of time. Therefore,
by adopting the concept of irreversible time within TEM, which rests fundamentally upon a
Vygotskian philosophy, this analysis considers the dynamic aspects of emotions as well as thecontextually complex aspects of emotions.

Figure 1. Basic notions of TEM (Sato, Yasuda, Kanzaki, & Valsiner, 2014, p. 97).
The current study addresses the following three research questions.

12

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

RQ1: What characterizes students’ self-esteem?
First and foremost, the study carefully describes the characteristics of students’ self-esteem
and their attitudes to learning English. The questionnaire (Appendix A) and statistical analysis captured the overall tendencies in each course. However, quantitative data was not sufficient to try to understand each student fully, because numerical data itself does not include
details of weighting value. In other words, even when responding with the same number,each student has a different image of it; therefore, it can be assumed that the number 4 in a
Likert scale for student A could be equivalent to the number 6 for student B. Therefore, thesecond research question was formulated to compensate for the shortcomings of statisticalanalysis.

RQ2: What were the psychological and/or sociocultural causes of such characteristics?
The second research question was designed to clarify students’ backgrounds and then help us
understand how they weigh the value for each point on the scale. After summarizing the descriptive results of the questionnaire, we explored both psychological and sociocultural causes, both of which were likely to exert a powerful influence on students’ self-esteem. In thisstudy, for practicality, we used a simplified version of the MYE (managing your emotions forlanguage learning; Gkonou & Oxford, 2016) questionnaire (Appendix B); however, the information from our other data sources allowed us to contextualize three hypothetical situationsin the simplified MYE questionnaire (e.g., What kind of emotions would you experience in thefollowing situation: In your English class, you are now working with your classmate(s).). To triangulate learners’ open-ended responses, another type of data was needed to understand what
experience have influenced on their learning. Finally, the third research question was formulated to determine their coping strategies.

RQ3: What kind of coping strategies do students use when facing such circumstances?
The third research question aims to further deepen our understanding of the students themselves. Based on both types of questionnaire results (Appendix A and B), we made an interview guide and conducted semi-structured interviews to connect their learning backgroundswith their reactions toward hypothetical situations. In addition to that, methodologically, theinterviews provided further information on students’ experiences (e.g., how they have managed or overcome situations causing their high or low self-esteem). More specifically, we
wished to determine students’ coping strategies for managing self-esteem issues as well as
the reasons (RQ3) by holistically considering their characteristics of self-esteem (RQ1) andtheir experiences (RQ2).

Findings and Discussion
This section firstly presents our data and then discusses findings relevant to each researchquestion.

RQ1: What characterizes students’ self-esteem?
Descriptive statistics on Appendix A
Prior to integrating qualitative data, we initially examined the students’ attitudes to learning
English and their self-esteem descriptively using the questionnaire data (Appendix A), andthen investigated some of our foci more in detail to explore what could not be ascertained
from numerical data alone.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201913

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

Table 2 summarizes the results of the descriptive statistics on the questionnaire scales. One
non-negligible finding from this result is that, overall, the mean score of students’ purposes
for learning English is higher than the other scales, which means that they have specific reasons for learning English (to chat with friends, to help others in trouble, to go sightseeing, to
get jobs, and to read novels, for example). On the other hand, the mean score of self-evaluation was the lowest, followed by fulfillment, which indicates that although they are eager tolearn English, they pessimistically evaluate themselves as “not enough,” paradoxically contributing to hesitation in, and hindrances to learning the language.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on the Questionnaire Scales
Scales (Items)

N

M

SD

Self-Regulation (Item 1-5) (α=.82)

40

3.4

1.18

Purposes (Item 6-11) (α = .85)

41

4.29

1.41

Self-Evaluation (Item 12-18) (α = .87)

40

2.68

1.25

Motivation* (Item 19-22, 24) (α = .747)

41

3.6

1.1

Fulfillment (Item 25-32) (α = .82)

41

3.01

1.18

Self-Acceptance (Item 33-37) (α = .769)

40

3.61
1.26
Note: For the motivation scale, originally, Cronbach’s alpha was lower than .70 (α = . 597), regarded asa preferential point when implementing questionnaire surveys (Takeuchi & Mizumoto, 2014). However, the descriptive statistics showed that this alpha level would be higher (i.e., more than .70) if Item
23 was deleted; therefore, we decided to delete it. One of the reasons for this lower alpha level werethe characteristics of reversed scored items. In other words, some of the students may have overlooked
negation ( -nai ending in Japanese). Regardless of the courses, all the six scales ranged from 1 to 6.

As the descriptive statistics show, the questionnaire data enabled us to deepen our understanding of students’ self-esteem. They have clear learning visions and were eager to accept
themselves (self-acceptance); however, they seemed to experience a gap between their current state and what they wanted to be in the near future. This gap led them to evaluate themselves negatively (self-evaluation). Our original definition of self-esteem was “the evaluative
quality of the self-concept” (Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015, p. 185). Therefore, we understood that students’ self-esteem was not so high partly due to the gap between their current situation andtheir high goals for learning English.

RQ2: What are the psychological and/or sociocultural causes of such characteristics?
Simplified Managing Your Emotions for language learning questionnaire (Appendix B)
To obtain findings by interpreting the open-ended responses to the simplified MYE questionnaire (Appendix B), first, we produced descriptive statistics. Although the first question ineach scenario (Question 1, 4, 7) simply addresses whether the students feel positive or negative toward each hypothetical situation, the overall characteristics are summarized in Table 3.
As Table 3 shows, for more than half of the students, scenarios 1 (i.e., In your English class,
you are now working with your classmate(s).) and 3 (i.e., Outside of your English class, you
are now studying English by yourself at your house or university library.) were likely to cause
positive emotions in total, but only scenario 2 (i.e., In your English class, you are now taking
one-to-one tutorials with the teacher.) was likely to cause negative emotions. One possible
explanation for this result may be the relevant power relations involved (Norton, 1995). In
other words, in Japan, teachers are still regarded as authority figures; therefore, the majority

14

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizukaof the students feel negative emotions such as fear, nervousness, and anxiety in relation toteachers (c.f. Kudo, Harada, Eguchi, Moriya, & Suzuki, 2017).
Table 3. Overall Characteristics of Simplified MYE on each Hypothetical Situation
Scenario

Positive or Negative%

Scenario 1 (S-S* interactions, in-class)

23:18

56:44

Scenario 2 (S-T* interactions, in-class)

15:26

37:63

Scenario 3 (Self-study, out-of-class)

23:18

56:44

Note: S-S indicates social interactions between peers while S-T indicates social interactions between
students and teachers.

In contrast to Table 3 above, Table 4 presents detailed information on the emotions expressed by the students, elicited by open-ended questions where participants were asked toname the emotions they would feel in the hypothetical situations (Question 2, 5, 8). This data
was coded by the authors. Overall, joy was the most common positive feeling in both courses. On the other hand, anxiety was the most frequently expressed negative emotion; however, each scenario seemed to elicit different emotions in students. Scenario 1 was more likely
to elicit anxiety, scenario 2 tended to make them nervous, and scenario 3 caused boredom.
Another interesting finding in Table 4 was that the codes “anxiety but excitement” or “anxiety but joy/excitement” appeared in scenarios 1 and 2. These codes did not occur frequently; however, some students expressed their emotions as “thrilling” (zokuzoku-suru) yet in apositive way.
Table 4. The Details of Emotions Expressed toward Each Scenario
Positive

Negative

Scenario 1 (S-S* interactions, in-class)
TOTAL (23): joy (12), anxiety but joy/excitement (4), comfort (4), ambition (1), excitement (1), N/A* (1)TOTAL (18): anxiety (8), nervousness (2),tiredness (2), awkwardness (1), confusion (1),disappointment (1), irritation (1), regret (1),
N/A (1)

Scenario 2 (S-T* interactions, in-class)
TOTAL (15): joy (8), anxiety but joy/excitement (2), comfort (2), ambition (1), N/A (2)TOTAL (26): nervousness (9), anxiety (8),anxiety and nervousness (3), confusion (1),disgust (1), tiredness (1), N/A (3)Scenario 3 (Self-study, out-of-class)
TOTAL (23): joy (9), comfort (6), curiosity(3), excitement (1), joy and excitement (1),
N/A (3)TOTAL (18): boredom (5), tiredness (4), anxiety (3), confusion (1), disgust (1), dullness(1), sadness (1), N/A (2)Note: S-S indicates social interactions between peers while S-T indicates social interactions between
students and teachers. N/A indicates that students responded either positive or negative but did notoffer specific explanations for this. The numbers in the parentheses indicate the code frequency.

Following self-evaluation, fulfillment was the second lowest mean among the other items(Table 2). Through an analysis of the scenario-based questionnaire (Appendix B), the causLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201915

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

es of low-self-esteem were more deeply understood as supplementary information to thenumerical data presented above. According to each hypothetical scenario, anxiety, nervousness, and boredom were frequent emotions experienced by students (Table 4). Anxiety was
aroused when their performance might impact upon their friendships in classrooms. For
example, some students mentioned comparing their work with other classmates. When they
heard classmates speak in English, they felt inferior, or when they felt inferior, they wereafraid that their English might affect the atmosphere negatively. However, other students had
mixed emotions of anxiety and joy/excitement. This supported similar findings by Dewaele
and MacIntyre (2014) that expressed “two faces of Janus,” which explains how the experienceof anxiety can cause different actions. We could not have observed the role of anxiety as a
facilitative factor if we did not have multiple data sources. Students may inevitably experience
nervousness due to their belief in the power and authority of an instructor. Even during thesimilar one-to-one interactional scenarios (scenario 1 and 2), there were few responses aboutanxiety to scenario 1. Therefore, students’ self-esteem fluctuates depending on different sociocultural contexts. Moreover, boredom seemingly emerged from both internal feelings andexternal causes. In other words, students’ low self-esteem would result in them feeling too
bored to study on a psychological level, and vice versa. In addition, it is assumed that self-directed study is experienced as lonely, due to less social interaction with friends or classmatessurrounding them. Therefore, we can say that students’ emotions emerge socioculturally, andtheir emotions and self-esteem mutually influence and are influenced by ongoing situations.

RQ3: What kind of coping strategies do students use when facing such causes?
Interview data
Interview data revealed the past experiences of the students and helped explain some of theresults of the questionnaires. Based on the result of self-evaluation scale (i.e., Item 12-18
from Appendix A) presumably affecting students’ self-esteem, we divided the students into
two groups (i.e., high or low self-evaluation) and then coded the reasons they gave. The
dividing line between the high (H) and low (L) groups was whether the mean score of each
student’s self-evaluation was over or under the mean of 3.5 (i.e., L < 3.5 ≤ H) of the 6-point
Likert scale. According to this criterion, Table 5 summarizes some findings from the interviews. The upper part of Table 5 below refers to the questionnaire while the lower part isabout the interviews. As the table shows, more than half of the students in H group had several experiences of going abroad and/or long stay there while most of the students in L group
have never been overseas. Another interesting finding is that, whether they experienced time
abroad or not, 23 students among 34 mentioned bitter memories in the past. For example,
one male student in H group told the first author that he could not stand the reaction of otherclassmates who were surprised to hear him speaking English just after he came back froma homestay. Since this experience, he has used Japanese-accented English during English
classes intentionally and tries to avoid communicating with other classmates in English, but
outside the classroom, he has studied hard to improve his English with the purpose of communicating with other people from different countries. Meanwhile, one female student in L
group told that when she heard her classmates speak in English, she compared her English
proficiency with other classmates. Even though no one mocked or laughed at her English, shestarted to feel a sense of inferiority gradually.
Based on the information in Table 5, we created Figure 2, utilizing the concept of TEM. This
figure simply summarizes some pathways including bifurcation points of high or low self-esteem. One of the most important factors in the figure is ‘Bad Events’. In fact, most of the students mentioned ‘bad’ experiences relevant to English (e.g., difficulty in communicating, some

16

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

failure, a sense of inferiority), but what is remarkable is how they interpreted and then reacted
to these events afterwards. In other words, if they thought such ‘bad’ events as positive, thesefacilitated students’ English study or moving forward (action-oriented), but others tended to
avoid learning or avert their thoughts if they got overwhelmed with bad experiences. Anotherimportant junction affecting self-esteem is whether they can accumulate good events or successful experiences as a result of studying English. If not, some students started to feel a senseof inferiority by comparing with classmates or those who have a good command of English
because their attention to English tended to direct toward others, not themselves.
Table 5. Overall Characteristics of Each Group from the Questionnaire and Interviews
Appendix A
High Self-Evaluation (7/41)*

Low Self-Evaluation (34/41)*•

Abundant overseas experience (5)•No or few overseas experience (25;8)•

All mean scores of the other scales also
surpass 3.5 or higher (3)•The mean score of self-evaluation is 2 orlower (11)

N of students interviewed (7/34)

N of students interviewed (26/34)•

Using English beyond classroom (6)•Getting low score on English tests (6)•Some ‘bad’ experiences when abroad orafter coming back (4)•Few opportunities to use English within
and beyond classroom (6)•Feeling inferior to others (5)•Difficulty in listening (3)•Hating an English teacher (1)•N/A (5)

Note: Since one student forgot to answer one item, SPSS regarded it as a missing value, so this student
was excluded from Table 5. The numbers in the parentheses indicate the code frequency. N/A indicatesthat students responded as low self-esteem, but did not have any experience for this.

As observed in the responses to the simplified MYE questionnaire and interviews (Table 5
and Figure 2), those students who experienced positive emotions were more likely to be action-oriented while those who felt negative were divided into two patterns: action-oriented
or averting their thoughts. The former pattern was similar to the “two faces of Janus” (Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014), mentioned above; therefore, even if students felt negative emotions, they tried to do their best to manage or adjust to the sociocultural situation. Meanwhile, the latter focused more on psychological management or adjustment strategies becausesuch students try to refresh their minds by shifting to a different situation to mitigate theiremotional disturbances (i.e., emotion regulation; see Gross, 2015). Likewise, giving up on
their tasks was also intended to manage negative emotions. However, this was not planned tofacilitate the completion of students’ tasks; rather they averted them. One reason for the twopatterns (i.e., either action-oriented or averting) derived from how the students had createdmeaning from “negative” events in the past. According to the interviews, even when students
experienced similar “bad” events (e.g., getting low score on English tests, feeling inferior toother classmates, experiencing few opportunities to speak English), we found some students
interpreted such events as valuable lessons while others regarded these memories as unpleasant. Therefore, we could say that different meaning-making patterns result in developing
different strategies to manage emotions and self-esteem, leading to the reconstruction andmaintenance of their identity as a learner.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201917

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

Figure 2. Trajectories of self-esteem. The largest arrow indicates the axis of time from right toleft. The other arrows indicate each route connecting the following experiences.
Grounded on our data and findings, finally, we created Figure 3 to summarize how self-esteem functions in L2 learning as well as the interrelationships between emotions, self-esteem, and identities. As Figure 3 describes, learners appraise a particular situation (withothers) or are evaluated by someone, where emotions are socioculturally co-constructed (Appendix B). Such emotions, regardless of valences, influence on their identities, but how these
emotions are processed or internalized greatly depends on whether their self-esteem highor low (Appendix A and interviews). That is, self-esteem in this case functions as the lens ofprocessing emotions. Therefore, low self-esteem might affect the overall process of identity
formation negatively, so that learners find it difficult to make meanings of their past experiences, struggling with L2 learning (as heartrendingly expressed in the beginning).

Figure 3. A cyclical model of emotions, self-esteem, and identities. Through the lens of self
-esteem, learners evaluate their own emotions co-constructed from situations (including
others), affecting their identities.

18

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

Conclusion
The current study has explored Japanese university students’ emotions with a focus on
self-esteem and investigated the background of their high or low self-esteem evaluations utilizing various forms of data. To capture the overall tendency within the targeted classrooms,
we utilized a Likert-scale questionnaire combined with open-ended questions to observe
students’ diverse reactions. We analyzed their short narratives about learning English frominterviews to connect the different types of data. The findings were that students’ self-esteem was not so high because their extremely ambitious learning goals tended to be beyond
their limits (RQ1), that low self-esteem resulted from the interaction between emotions andsituations (RQ2), and that to cope with such low self-esteem the students adopted one of two
strategies (i.e., either completing or averting tasks) depending on their interpretations of past
events (RQ3). Although we deepened our understanding about the target students within thespecific classrooms observed, the limitations of our study include all single-shot data sets,
each of which only focused on past-to-present shifts and was conducted only once. However, further studies may indicate our questionnaire should be administered several times toobserve ongoing changes (preferably including several interviews of the same students) andthat researchers, if they wish to make a comparison, could select similar classes or courses
to compare their characteristics statistically and/or qualitatively. Finally, our study indicatesthat teachers and classrooms may simply be one of the environments students have encountered. However for students, this will be one of the important constituents of their identity
formation as a learner, whether positive or negative. Therefore, even within classroom contexts, researchers and practitioners need to pay joint attention to what happens beyond classrooms because students have accumulated their meaning-making strategies from diverse
contexts. As a result of this intricately entangled scenario, the dynamic adjustment of one
aspect of the situation, affects all the others, like a kaleidoscope.

References
Averill, J. R. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.),
Emotion: Theory, research, and experience: Theories of emotion (Vol. 1, pp. 3–33). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Bagheri, M. S., & Faghih, M. (2012). The relationship between self-esteem, personality typeand reading comprehension of Iranian EFL students. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,2(8), 1641–1650.
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2015). Unveiling the relationship between language learning beliefs,
emotions, and identities. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 301–325.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2006). The three faces of self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.),
Self-esteem: Issues and answers (pp. 4–9). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Convington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school
reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
De Costa, P. I., & Norton, B. (2017). Introduction: Identity, transdisciplinarity, and the goodlanguage teacher. The Modern Language Journal, 101(Supplement), 3–14.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201919

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The
Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19–47.
Gkonou, C. (2017). Towards an ecological understanding of language anxiety. In C.
Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele. (Eds.) New insights into language anxiety: Theory,
research and educational implications (pp. 135–155). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gkonou, C., & Oxford, R. L. (2016). Questionnaire: Managing your emotions for language learning.
University of Essex, UK.
Gliński, M. (2013). The problem of inhibition among children during culture-based classes. In
D. Gabryś-Barker, & J. Bielska (Eds.), The affective dimension in second language acquisition(pp. 278–290). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Gregersen, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Meza, M. D. (2014). The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic
case studies of learners’ foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2),574–588.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. PsychologicalInquiry, 26(1), 1–26.
Imai, Y. (2010). Emotions in SLA: New insights from collaborative learning for an EFL
classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2), 278–292.
Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kudo, S., Harada, T., Eguchi, M., Moriya, R., & Suzuki, S. (2017). Investigating English
speaking anxiety in English-medium instruction. Essays on English Language and Literature,46, 7–23.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Individual identity, cultural globalization, and teaching English as
an international language: The case for an epistemic break. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, G.
Hu, & W. A. Renandya, Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language(pp. 9–27). New York, NY: Routledge.
Lapkin, S., Swain, M., & Psyllakis, P. (2010). The role of languaging in creating zones ofproximal development (ZPDs): A long-term care resident interacts with a researcher.
Canadian Journal on Aging, 29(4), 477–490.
MacIntyre, P. D., Gregersen, T., & Mercer, S. (Eds.). (2016). Positive psychology in SLA. Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotion in foreign language learning: A
narrative-oriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Moriya, R. (2019). Longitudinal trajectories of emotions in four dimensions through language
advisory sessions. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 10(1), 79–110.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly,
29, 9–31.
O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards forreporting qualitative research. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251.
Oxford, R. L. (2015). Emotion as the amplifier and the primary motive: Some theories of
emotion with relevance to language learning. Studies in Second Language Learning andTeaching, 5(3), 371–393.
Oxford, R. L. (2017). Teaching and researching language learning strategies: Self-regulation incontext (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Oxford, R. L., Cohen, A. D., & Simmons, V. G. (2018). Psychological insights from third-age
teacher educators: A narrative, multiple-case study. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.),
Language teacher psychology, (pp. 291–313). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

20

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

Pavlenko, A. (2013). The affective turn in SLA: From ‘affective factors’ to ‘language desire’and ‘commodification of affect’. In D. Gabryś-Barker & J. Bielska (Eds.), The affective
dimension in second language acquisition (pp. 3–28). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Prior, M. T. (2019). Elephants in the room: An “Affective Turn,” or just feeling our way? The
Modern Language Journal, 103(2), 516–527.
Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion (5th ed.). Toronto, Canada: Wiley.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Rubio, F. D. (Ed.). (2007). Self-esteem and foreign language learning. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Rubio, F. D. (2014). Self-esteem and self-concept in foreign language learning. In S. Mercer& M. Williams (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on the self in SLA (pp. 41–58). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Rubio-Alcalà, F. D. (2017). The links between self-esteem and language anxiety andimplications for the classroom. In C. Gkonou, M. Daubney, & J.-M. Dewaele. (Eds.), Newinsights into language anxiety: Theory, research and educational implications (pp. 198–216).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sato, T., Mori, N., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.) (2016). Making of the future: The Trajectory Equifinality
Approach in cultural psychology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Sato, T., Yasuda, Y., Kanzaki, M., & Valsiner, J. (2014). From describing to reconstructing life
trajectories: How the TEA (Trajectory Equifinality Approach) explicates context-dependent
human phenomena. In B. Wagoner, N. Chaudhary, & P. Hviid (Eds.), Cultural psychology
and its future: Complementarity in a new key (pp. 93–104). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Song, J. (2016). Emotions and language teacher identity: Conflicts, vulnerability, andtransformation. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 631–654.
Swain, M. (2013). The inseparability of cognition and emotion in second language learning.
Language Teaching, 46(2), 195–207.
Tadokoro, M. (2002). Self-esteem and self-evaluation in a foreign language acquisition: Thecase of Japanese students in the United States. Forum of International Development Studies,22, 113–124.
Takeuchi, O., & Mizumoto, A. (2014). The handbook of research in foreign language learning andteaching (Revised version). Tokyo, Japan: Shohakusha.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language learning andteaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Yasuda, T. (2015). To raise self-esteem in Japanese learners of English: Preliminary designof a new rating scale. In K. Shibuya, T. Nomura, & S. Doi (Eds.), Vantage points of English
linguistics, literature and education (pp. 144–156). Tokyo, Japan: DTP Publishing.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2006). Self-regulated learning and performance: An
introduction and an overview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201921

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

Acknowledgements
We are immensely grateful to the participants, who willingly shared their stories during thestudy. Our heartfelt gratitude especially goes to all our supportive editors Christina Gkonou,
Jim Ronald, and Yoshio Nakai, and others who have contributed to this work and have given
us a memorable opportunity.

Review ProcessThis paper was open peer-reviewed by Katherine Thornton, one of the members of the Learner Development Journal Review Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.).

Author Bios
Ryo Moriya is a Ph.D. student at the Graduate School of Education, Waseda University and a
Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. He holds an MA in Educationfrom Waseda University, where he also serves as both Japanese and English learning advisors.
His research interests are in sociocultural approaches including Sociocultural theory, advising in language learning, and perezhivanie (the unity of cognition and emotion). E-mail: ryo.
m6bell.a@gmail.com
Ami Ishizuka is currently working at LITALICO Inc., where she provides employment support
for people with disabilities. She holds a BA in English Literature from Waseda University. Her
research interests are especially in inclusive education aiming for the realization of multicultural society. E-mail: anzu.25@gmail.com

22

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

Appendix A
Likert-Scale QuestionnairePart 1
Please choose one of the six responses at the lower right, circling the appropriate number in
relation to the extent that each of the items below corresponds to your situation in terms of
the way that you take English classes and study English at university.
1.	 In order to understand classes I independently study before and after class.
2.	 There is someone I can ask when there is something I do not understand in class.
3.	 I will try to work things out as much as possible so that I understand things in class.
4.	 I am aware of what I am not good at in class.
5.	 I know the methods for study that are necessary for class.
Part 2
Please choose one of the same six responses, circling the appropriate number in relation to
the extent that each of the items below corresponds to your situation in terms of your goals
in learning English and your own English proficiency.
6.	 I want to acquire the ability to read and understand academic and professional English
sentences.
7.	 I want to acquire the ability to listen to and understand lectures and presentations on
specialized content that are given in English.
8.	 I want to acquire the ability to write logically structured sentences in accurate English.
9.	 I want to acquire the ability to speak with others in English and to clearly express myown opinion.
10.	I have a goal such as taking an external English test (TOEIC, etc.).
11.	 I want to acquire English skills (4 skills) so that I can properly follow classes at overseas
universities.
12.	English was one of my best subjects at high school (my grades were good).
13.	Now that I am at university, I think my English ability is comparable to that of otherstudents.
14.	I think that my English reading skills are good.
15.	I think that English listening skills are good.
16.	I think that I am good at writing sentences in English.
17.	I think that I will be able to give a presentation in English if I prepare.
18.	I am confident in my English pronunciation.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201923

In the Midst of Emotion and Identity

Part 3
Please choose one of the six responses at the lower right, circling the appropriate number in
relation to the extent that each of the items below corresponds to your situation in terms of
how you feel about studying English.
19.	I have a strong desire to try to make my dreams come true in relation to learning English.
20.	I am passionate about learning English.
21.	I feel that learning English is worth my while and I am motivated to do so.
22.	I approach learning English with a positive attitude.
23.	I do not know what I really want to do in relation to learning English.
24.	I have no goals in my English learning.
25.	I feel mentally comfortable when I am learning English.
26.	I have an open mind towards learning English, and I find it exhilarating.
27.	I find learning English to be a lot of fun.
28.	There are no days when I truly feel that learning English is fun.
29.	I do not feel satisfied with learning English.
30.	I feel that I am able to do the things I like in learning English.
31.	I feel a sense of fulfillment in learning English.
32.	I feel that I am at ease learning English.
33.	I am able to honestly accept my personality when I am learning English.
34.	I think it’s okay to have my own style of learning English.
35.	I am able to admit my good and bad points in relation to English learning as they are.
36.	When I am learning English, I value my individuality.
37.	When learning English, I try my hardest to develop the good aspects of myself.
Note: All the items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 indicates “strongly disagree” while 6
indicates “strongly agree”). In Part 1, the items were based on Zimmerman and Schunk (2011) andmeasured self-regulation. In Part 2, the items were partly based on our project funded by the Institutefor Advanced Studies in Education, Waseda University. From Item 6 to 11, these items were created to
ask about students’ goals when learning English. As for Item 12 to 18, they were created to ask students about their self-evaluation of their English proficiency. In Part 3, the items were from Yasuda(2015) and the underlined items (e.g., Item 23, 24, 28, and 29) were reversed scored ones. According to
his paper, the 19 items cover three constructs. In other words, from Item 19 to Item 24, they measured
motivation for learning English. Item 25 to 32 measured fulfillment or positive emotions when learning
English. The remaining five items measured self-acceptance when learning English.

24

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ryo Moriya & Ami Ishizuka

Appendix B
Open-Ended Questionnaire
Read the following scenarios and answer the questions.
Scenario 1: In your English class, you are now working with your classmate(s).
Q1: What kind of emotions would you experience in this situation?
Q1-a: Positive

Q1-b: Negative

Q2: Please name the emotions (one or more) you would feel in this situation.
Q3: What would you do in order to manage these emotions in this situation?
Q3-a: What would you do to increase any posi- Q3-b: What would you to do handle any negative emotions in this situation?
tive emotions in this situation?
Scenario 2: In your English class, you are now taking one-to-one tutorials with the teacher.
Q4: What kind of emotions would you experience in this situation?
Q4-a: Positive

Q4-b: Negative

Q5: Please name the emotions (one or more) you would feel in this situation.
Q6: What would you do in order to manage these emotions in this situation?
Q6-a: What would you do to increase any posi- Q6-b: What would you to do handle any negative emotions in this situation?
tive emotions in this situation?
Scenario 3: Outside of your English class, you are now studying English by yourself at yourhouse or university library.
Q7: What kind of emotions would you experience in this situation?
Q7-a: Positive

Q7-b: Negative

Q8: Please name the emotions (one or more) you would feel in this situation.
Q9: What would you do in order to manage these emotions in this situation?
Q9-a: What would you do to increase any posi- Q9-b: What would you to do handle any negative emotions in this situation?
tive emotions in this situation?
Note: Part 4 and 5 were omitted due to their irrelevance to this study. In Part 6, these questions werebased on Gkonou and Oxford (2016). The first author simplified their original version of MYE (managing emotions for language learning) due to its original length and practicality of the study (for further
details of MYE, see Gkonou & Oxford, 2016; Oxford, 2017). Similar to MYE, each set of questions werebased on three hypothetical situations, and the students answered the questions about each situation.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201925

RESEARCH PAPER
Shifting Identities in a Social Learning Space
Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw
Kanda University of International Studies
In this paper, we explore the impact that a social learning space has on the identity construction of six regularusers. The context is an English conversation lounge which is part of the self-access center in a university in Japan.
The purpose of the lounge is to provide students with an environment in which to practice speaking English, which
is one of the languages which they are learning, in a relaxed and supportive space. Viewed through a poststructuralist lens (Block, 2007; Norton, 2000) that considers social conditions to have a profound influence on identity, wetake a multiple case study approach. We also explore emergent themes, and attempt to shed light on phenomenathat affect identity construction in this context. Findings include evidence in interviews in year 1 and year 2 showing examples of reflexive, projected, and imagined identities (Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, & Brown, 2013) shiftingover time as the participants engaged in participation in the English Lounge. In addition, we found that both positive and negative views of the lounge influenced these shifts in identity.
本稿では、ソーシャルな学習空間がそれを頻繁に使用する６名のアイデンティティ構造に与える影響について分析する。本研究の調査は、日本のある大学に設置された語学学習のためのセルフアクセスセンター内にある英語ラウンジで行った。このラウンジの目的は、学生の学
習言語のひとつである英語を、くつろぎながら安心して練習できる環境を提供することである。本研究では、このラウンジにおける複数の事例を取りあげ、アイデンティティに甚大な影響を及ぼす社会構造と考えられるポスト構造主義 (Block, 2007; Norton, 2000)の視点を通して、アイデンティティ構造に影響を及ぼす現象の解明と新たに浮上する課題について考察する。分析の結果、調査開始後の一年目と二年目に行った研究参加者に対するインタビューの中にreflexive, projected, imaginedアイデンティティ (Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, &Brown, 2013)の例が確認されており、これらのアイデンティティの変化に影響を及ぼす英語ラウンジの正と負の側面が明らかとなった。

Keywords
Social learning spaces, identity, self-access, conversation lounge

キーワード
ソーシャル学習空間, アイデンティティ, 自律学習, 会話ラウンジT

he context of this study is a self-access learning center (“The SALC”) at a small, private
university specializing in languages near Tokyo in Japan. As self-access learning centers
are being reimagined as social learning communities (Murray & Fujishima, 2013, 2015), it
is becoming common to include a space within the center where students can practice using thetarget language. On the surface, a conversation lounge may appear to be relatively straightforward to understand—users come and converse in English. However, when examined further,
aspects of the lounge and its participants reveal what happens there is more than simple conversation. Drawing on multiple sources of data, such as observations and interviews, we explore
some of these dynamics as part of a longitudinal ethnographic study within the SALC. This
paper represents a small part of the overall study by Mynard et al. (forthcoming) which draws
not only on identity as a framework, but also communities of practice, beliefs and other individual difference factors in order to understand the interconnected dynamics of a social learningspace. The case studies that we examine here differ from those in the larger study, which also
included students who were not regular users of the SALC. In the present paper, we describe
one portion of the ethnography and focus specifically on the identity development of six students who we identified as regular users when the study began. We define a regular user to besomeone who uses the lounge at least three times per week, but is not a member of the coreCommunity of Practice (Burke et al., 2018; Mynard et al., forthcoming).

26

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

Our interest in regular users of the English Lounge emerged from many of us having mandatory weekly duties there as English teachers and seeing nervous, reticent learners develop
into more established language users within that space. At the same time, we were also awareof students who for a variety of reasons struggled to engage with other people in the area andchose to stop using the English Lounge. In a way, we viewed the regular users as representing an important bridge between outsiders and the extremely motivated, core members of thecommunity. We wanted to investigate the experiences and multifaceted identities of six regular users of this space in order to better understand the complex factors influencing learners’
participation. By learning from the insights gained from speaking to these learners, we hopedthat we could support the development of the English Lounge into a more accessible andstimulating environment.
The first section of this paper consists of a brief literature review related to social language
learning spaces, and from there we describe the approach we have used to examine identity
construction within that space. This is then followed by an overview of how we conducted theresearch and summarized the findings from the data related to our participants. We take amultiple case study approach, but we also explore emergent themes that explain the phenomena in this particular context. In our last section we will briefly summarize all six cases in relation to some emergent themes relevant to the exploration of identity in the English Lounge.
We started the overarching ethnography in June 2017 with the aim of understanding the social and psychological processes occurring in our learning environment. The project is gradually developing to incorporate several themes and is being analyzed from different perspectives (See Burke et al., 2018 for a summary). For the purposes of this paper, we will only lookat identity construction within the space over a period of, on average, about 18 months fromthe time of the participants’ first engagement with the English Lounge.

Context
The university where the study takes place was established just over 30 years ago and has
4,000 undergraduate students all majoring in languages and international cultures. In orderto support learners’ language study and use outside of the classroom, and to promote the development of language learner autonomy, the institution has a prominently situated self-access learning center called the SALC. Although there have been two previous versions (the firstone was established in 2001), the current SALC opened in April 2017 in a large two-level spacedesigned specifically as a social language learning community. The philosophy of the SALC
draws on social constructivism and promotes interaction with others as a key way of facilitating learning by negotiating meaning and incorporating ideas into existing schemata (Adelman
Reyes & Vallone, 2008; von Glasersfeld, 1989). The mission of the SALC is to foster lifelong language learner autonomy as an international community by empowering learners to engage inreflective practice and to take charge of their language learning (SALC, 2019). Within the large
SALC, there is one area named the English Lounge which operates as an English-only conversation lounge where students can find teachers on duty with whom they can converse or canpractice using English with other students. The English Lounge is also referred to by students
as the “Yellow Sofas” due to the color of some of its furniture. The English Lounge is an example of a social learning space (Murray & Fujishima, 2013, 2016) that provides opportunities forpromoting interactions with others in order to foster learning. Language conversation lounges
not only aim to provide a comfortable space for people to come together and engage in social
activities, but the space may also provide opportunities for users to develop a sense of ownership and to feel part of a community (Bibby, Jolley, & Shiobara, 2016; Kimura, 2014; Thornton,2016). We know from previous research in the area of self-access and social learning spaces
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201927

Learner Identities and Transitions(e.g., Hughes, Krug & Vye, 2011; Murray & Fujishima, 2013, 2016; Murray, Fujishima & Uzuka,2014) that one of the most important components of a self-access facility is the opportunity forusers to make friends. In fact, even if students initially visit because of a learning need, they
become regular attendees mainly for social reasons (Hughes et al., 2011).

Investigating Identity Construction in Our Context
The approach we take to investigating identity is broadly poststructuralist (Block, 2007; Norton,
2000) which allows for a nuanced and multi-levelled framing. This conception of identity is expressed as a collection of “socially constructed, self-conscious, ongoing narratives that individuals perform, interpret and project” (Block, 2007, p. 32). In short, a poststructuralist approachexamines social conditions and the impact they might have on identity (Block, 2007), but also
takes into account the impact of individual constructions. Language learners are members ofcomplex and overlapping social categories which impacts their identity as individuals. Taking
this conception of identity allows us to see the impact of a particular environment, in this case
the English Lounge, on identity construction. We take the view that environmental conditions
can change and our research is likely to influence the context and the individuals within it
either intentionally or unintentionally. For example, by participating in the interviews, participants are likely to reflect on their roles within the space and this is one way in which the interviews might impact the individual English Lounge users. Furthermore, the researchers havebeen made aware of ongoing issues within the Lounge and have disseminated this information
to other stakeholders who may have acted on it. In other words, the nature of this research is
dynamic and bidirectional. In addition, identity is discursively constructed (Miller, 2014; Weedon, 1997) which is particularly relevant to our context and the ways in which we approach theresearch. Gee (1996) writes that identity research needs to incorporate a broader interpretationof not only linguistic but also non-linguistic features such as bodily movement, clothing, gestures, values and so on. He notes that this forms “a sort of identity kit which comes completewith the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk and often write so as to takeon a particular social role that others will recognize” (Gee 1996, p. 127). Identity can also be
investigated from the point of view of a performance (Goffman, 1959) or day-to-day acting(Butler, 1999). It is also important to understand the different facets of identity which is one of
the reasons we decided to draw upon the framework used by Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, andBrown (2013) as six facets are explored which are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Facets of Identity (From Benson et al., 2013, p. 19)
Facet 1

Embodied identity

The self as a mobile point of perception located in a particular body

Facet 2

Reflexive identity

The self’s view of the self, incorporating self-concept andattributes and capabilities

Facet 3

Projected identity

The self as it is semiotically represented to others in interaction

Facet 4

Recognised identity

The self as it is preconceived and recognised by others in
the course of interaction

Facet 5

Imagined identity

The self’s view of its future possibilities

Facet 6

Identity categories
and resources

The self as it is represented (by self or others) using established social categories and semiotic resources

28

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

Benson et al. (2013) utilized this framework to analyze identity shifts in learners as theystudied abroad. We also deemed this framework appropriate in relation to our research asusers of the English Lounge often refer to it as akin to being abroad. This is related to the factthat in Japan there are generally not many places or opportunities for students to interact inEnglish and with people from overseas. The research conducted by Benson et al. (2013) used
a narrative inquiry approach drawing on data collected from interviews before study abroad,regular correspondence through blogs, email, MSN, and Facebook, and interviews after returning from study abroad. The first three facets draw on work by Harré (2001) and relate toconceptions of the “self”. (1) Embodied identity is the self that is located within our physicalbodies. Conceptions of one’s embodied identities draw upon interactive sensory processes andmay contribute to one’s sense of self. (2) Reflexive identity represents the self’s view of oneself
and is constructed through experiences and inner dialogues that affect one’s conceptions ofability to use another language. A context such as the English Lounge provides opportunities to use a language and test out one’s conceptualizations of capacities and often challengethem. (3) Projected identity is a form of conscious and intentional construction of identities
and self-presentation (Goffman, 1990). These constructions often attempt to influence others or create a public identity. Imagined identity draws on possible selves theory (Markus &Nurius, 1986) and incorporates conceptions of our past and possible future representations.
(4) Recognized identity is how others perceive someone and these insights can be investigatedthrough interviews with peers. In order to explore an L2 imagined identity (5), we draw uponwork by Yashima (2009, 2013) who makes a distinction between identifying with a target language group and having a more general international posture. The English Lounge does not
associate itself with any particular target language community but is deliberately intended to
be an international space where people use only English to communicate. Finally, (6) identity
categories and resources is the pool of possible selves after considering the various social categories and experiences that define a person. Categories that could be ascribed in this case forexample are Yellow Sofa group members, Regular Users, and Non-Users. As will be seen in
the results section, we were not able to uncover insights into all of these facets.

Narrative Inquiry
Narrative inquiry as a methodology is often used in identity work in the field of applied linguistics as it can be effective at helping researchers to understand experiences of participants.
Narrative inquiry makes the epistemological assumption that human beings make sense of
random experiences by imposing story structures (Sinclair Bell, 2002). Research is resituatedas a social process and “...narratives are not simply stories of individuals moving through andreflecting on experiences in isolation. Narratives, by their very nature, are social and relationaland gain their meaning from our collective social histories” (Johnson & Golombek, 2002, p. 5).
As researchers, we undertook an analytic examination of our data in order to uncover insights
and assumptions in our context. Conle (2000) notes that “What counts in narrative inquiry is
the meaning that actions and intentions have for the protagonist. This emphasis is in stark
contrast to researchers approaching ‘subjects’ with instruments, such as checklists and scales,
followed by statistical manipulations and comparison” (p. 52). As the purpose of the researchis to understand how our learners construct and reconstruct their identities, and what potential
role the English Lounge played, narrative inquiry was an appropriate methodology.

The Present Research Project
The full research team was comprised of seven educators who have close contact with theEnglish Lounge and the students visiting the lounge. The overall purpose of the research was
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201929

Learner Identities and Transitions

to understand more about the psychological dynamics within the English Lounge in order toensure that students’ needs are being met (Burke et al., 2018; Mynard et al., forthcoming). We
framed this portion of the research project through the following overarching research question:
Does the English conversation lounge play a role in the identity construction of six of
its regular users?
In order to investigate this, the following sub-questions were formulated to shed light on
how identity is constructed and how it shifts:
1.	
How do regular users view the role of the lounge
		1.1.	
in interview 1?
		1.2.	
in interview 2?
2.	
What observations can be made about the participants’ identities:
		2.1.	
in interview 1?
		2.2.	
in interview 2?
3.	
What observations can be made about shifts in participants’ identities?
We included a specific focus on how users viewed the lounge as it allowed for further insights
into participants’ identities as they made sense of the experiences afforded by the English
Lounge. The reflexive identity facet in particular became apparent when participants detailed
their views of the lounge.

Methods
The research project employed the use of observations, initial one-on-one semi-structured
interviews, written language learner histories, and follow-up one-on-one semi-structured
interviews. In order to determine how the English Lounge space was being used, the researchteam conducted an initial set of ten observations (Burke et al. 2018; Lyon, forthcoming).
After the observations, the findings were thematically coded via the qualitative data analysis software, HyperResearch (Version 3.7.5, 2017). Through this analysis, we identified three
distinct sub-groups according to their exhibited behaviors: a core group of highly frequent
users, and “others”, which consisted of both regular users and non-regular users. Based on
the observations alone, it was not possible to distinguish the regular users from the non-regular users. This distinction emerged during our subsequent one-on-one interviews and infact there are three groups of participants involved in the larger study outlined in Burke et al.
(2018):
ʶGroup 1 - Central Group: These students are extremely frequent users and form part of acommunity of practice (Mynard et al., forthcoming).

ʶGroup 2 - Regular users: These students use the lounge several times per week, but are
not members of the Central Group.

ʶGroup 3 - Non-users: These students never use the English Lounge.

30

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

The interview participants were initially recruited via a flyer left on tables in the English
Lounge. Participants applied online via a short application form which allowed us to screen
the applications to ensure that they were actually regular English Lounge users. Each participant was given the option of being interviewed solely in English or in both Japaneseand English by a bilingual researcher. The individual interviews were all conducted in asemi-structured format, and consisted of two interviews of the regular user sub-group. A
semi-structured format allowed us to investigate the important identity facets during theinterviews, but still left opportunities for participants to express their own contributions andideas related to their use of the English Lounge. We conducted the first round of interviews
during the first year of the research project, and the second round of interviews approximately one year later. An inquiry was sent to the six regular users requesting follow-up interviews
to determine whether changes, if any, in their identity and lounge use had occurred. The replies came from students whose circumstances were in flux; some students had changed theirfrequency of using the English Lounge significantly, one student was studying abroad, andone student did not respond to the request. Additionally, prior to the second round of interviews, we contacted participants via email and requested they complete an optional written
language learner history (Murphey & Carpenter, 2008) where they described their past learning experiences and how they had contributed to their current learner beliefs.
The interviews for both the first year of the project and the subsequent follow-up interviews lasted between 20 and 40 minutes. All interviews were recorded with the consent of
the participants. All the interviews were transcribed immediately afterwards together with asummary of any interpretations which could not be captured through the audio recordings,
such as the students’ demeanor, and the themes occurring in any conversation before andafter the recording period.
For the first year, a total of six interviews were conducted consisting of first and second
year students. All of the students were Japanese and were all learning English, but this was
sometimes as an additional language as they were majoring in Chinese or Spanish. A summary of all of the participants is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Participants
Name

Gender Major

Ryunosuke M

RintaroRirikaM

F

Year at theInterviews
university inyear 1

International
Communications (English)

Sophomore

ChineseSophomore

SpanishFreshman

Notes

July 2017 (in person);July 2018 (in person)
July 2017 (in perWas studyingson);abroad in year 2
July 2018 (via Skype)
July 2017 (in person) Did not respond to
the interview request in year 2 soonly the first interview is included in our analysis

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201931

Learner Identities and Transitions

Kaede

F

Mei

F

Yuki

F

SpanishSpanishSpanishFreshman

July 2017 (inperson);Freshman

July 2018 (in person)
July 2017 (inperson);Freshman

July 2018 (in person)
July 2017 (inperson);July 2018 (in person)

Data Analysis
Three members of our team initially analyzed the interview transcripts using typological analysis (Hatch, 2002) in order to uncover participants’ identity facets. We utilized theframework provided by Benson et al. (2013) to guide this process and thematically coded
the data using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) as a team of three.
Throughout the process, we were engaged in analytical discussion. We focused mainly on
three of the six identity facets, (2) reflexive, (3) projected, and (5) imagined, in the interviews
and subsequent analysis. This was decided as a result of our piloting of possible interview
questions where we realized that it was difficult to uncover the facets of (1) embodied, (4)recognized and (6) “self” as represented by others through interviews. This process was completed after each round of interviews. Although we used the identity framework to guide theanalysis, we also allowed for some exploration of other emergent themes through a generalinterpretative analysis.

Findings
After the first round of interviews, we interpreted the interview data and found that there
were several reasons why the students chose to frequent the lounge, which included:ʶEnglish practiceʶ

Improving English

ʶEngaging in self expression

ʶRelaxingʶ

Having funʶMeeting / Making friends

ʶ

Talking to others

However, analyzing the data in more depth, we found that in their first year all six regular-users saw the English Lounge as a place with a functional use where the main purpose
was to interact with “native speakers”. In terms of identity, these users had a variety of perspectives on how they viewed themselves. Table 3 includes a summary of the findings fromeach student-participant regarding their view of the English Lounge and their identity in thefirst interview and then in the following interview a year later. As can be seen, not all facetsof identity given in Benson et al.‘s (2013) framework were evident in the interviews, but thedata collected was very rich. Due to the nature of qualitative research, it is not always possible
to neatly collect data in all categories of a research framework such as the one we chose.

32

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

Table 3. Summary of Views of the English Lounge and Interpretations of Identity Facets for Each Participant
Identity facets: Reflexive:(R), Projected: (P), Imagined: (I)Ryunosuke

Year 1

Year 2

View of the
EnglishLoungeA place to go to...

•A place that he sees much less value in the English Lounge.

•

Attained target TOEFL score so lessdesire to use the English Lounge.

•

Feels like it’s a place with superficial relationships•

Considers it less suitable for him
now due to the perceived superficial nature of it•

improve communication.

•

be motivated by active users.

•

have English conversation•

have a transactional experience•

make friends

Ryunosuke

Year 1

Year 2

Identity

Assumed others were better than him(R). Didn’t feel any particular feelingat the yellow sofas (R). Felt the need
to become a different person in orderto speak English well (P). Desired touse English in his future (I). Wanted
to work in the US or UK (I).

Identity in Japanese and English was
mostly the same (R).

Mei

Year 1

Year 2

View of the
EnglishLoungeA place to go to…

•

She is comfortable in the lounge•

practice English•

It is a familiar place•enjoy herself•

Can go by herself•

improve English communication•

She feels autonomous•

use for practical purposes•

A practical space•

She can enjoy spending time there

Claimed not to be active (R).
Thought he was lazy as he didn’t goabroad or volunteer in his first year
(R). Wanted to use English for a job
overseas possibly in a developing
Asian country (I). Wanted to work ina really big company (I). Wanted toleave Japan and experience other cultures (I).

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201933

Learner Identities and Transitions

Mei

Year 1

Year 2

Identity

Was nervous and shy when she firststarted going to the English Lounge(R). Gradually became more comfortable in the English Lounge (R).

Kaede

Year 1

Year 2

View of the
EnglishLoungeA place to go to…

•

talk with teachers and International students

If teachers there are interesting,
she wants to go•

She likes the “topic cards”•

make friends•

She wants to talk to foreign people•

communicate in English•

It is like studying abroad•use only English••

not feel pressure

She can practice what she haslearnt in textbooks•

express herself in English without
feeling judged•

She feels pressure as a Sophomore•

She feels like she wants to and also
needs to go there

Saw herself as lazy (R). Thought she
was seen as someone who couldn’t
speak English (R). Was able to go to
the English Lounge by herself (R).
Had goals and ideas of future direction Wanted to be seen as friendly to new
freshman students (P). Had a desire
involving English (I). Wanted to beable to communicate well internation- to be a Spanish, English and Arabic
ally (I). Wanted to live in North Amer- speaker (I).
ica (I).

•

Kaede

Year 1

Year 2

Identity

Shy, didn’t speak English well, lacked
confidence (R). Felt happy when she
was understood (R). Claimed to bepassive (R). Someone who was not
comfortable around others (R).

Very shy, wasn’t comfortable in social situations (R). Lacked confidence
especially in English (R). Someone
who was not comfortable around others (R). Felt pressure to speak English well (R). Realized her test scorewasn’t as bad as others (R). Desired
to be someone who could communicate well in English (I). Wanted to beable to speak Spanish (I). Wanted togo overseas for work (I). Thought she
must speak “fluently” as a senpai (senior student) (I).

She wanted to be seen as someone
who could speak English (P). Wanted
to continue using the English Lounge
more than now (I).

34

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

RirikaYear 1

Year 2

View of the
EnglishLoungeA place to go to…

Did not respond to interview invitation.

•practice and improve speaking
English•functionally use English•

meet “native speakers”•

meet friends•

experience something “like anothercountry”

RirikaYear 1

Year 2

Identity

Was confident and motivated (R). Saw
herself as diligent (R). Wanted to be
seen as friendly (P). Had hopes of being a flight attendant in the future (I).

Did not respond to interview invitation.

RintaroYear 1

Year 2

View of the
EnglishLoungeA place to go to…

N/A•

practice and improve English conversation•“use English expressions”•

generate ideas•

not be afraid of making mistakes•

play “Go”

RintaroYear 1

Year 2

Identity

Was shy (R). Said he was not goodat expressing himself in English (R).
Someone who was not afraid of making mistakes (P). Someone who cantalk without worrying (P). A mentor
for other students in his department(P). Desired to work for a trade company and use English (I). Wanted touse English and Chinese and to possibly live in China (I).

Desired to work in Education for a
trade company (I). Wanted to be able
to communicate with people fromdifferent countries (I). Wanted to be
more “aggressive” (i.e., proactive) atusing English (I).

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201935

Learner Identities and Transitions

Yuki

Year 1

Year 2

View of the
EnglishLoungeA place to go to…

•

Talks with friends and teachers
there

•

Feels a little like she is part of acommunity•

Improves her English communication skills in the space•

Learns new words•

Learns about other cultures•

have fun•talk to English teachers•

improve English speaking•

improve conversation and pronunciation•

only use English•

feel as her natural self

Yuki

Year 1

Year 2

Identity

So shy (R). Felt “cool” and “excited”
when using English (R). Felt she could
speak more fluently at the English
Lounge than in class (R). Didn’t havea different personality in Japanesecompared to in English (R).

Embarrassed because her English was
not as good as some Freshmen students (R). Felt like the English Lounge
helped her improve her English andgave her confidence (R). Thought her
speaking had improved a little (R).
Felt her pronunciation and listening
had improved (R).
Imagined speaking English smoothly and with correct grammar like a“native” in the future (I). Wanted totravel to somewhere where English is
spoken (I). Wanted to continue using
the English Lounge (I).

In utilizing the framework from Benson et al. (2013), we discovered that the facets of reflexive, projected, and imagined identities that emerged in our findings show a shift in confidence,social interactions, group identification and roles, as well as a view of the lounge as an international space for some of the participants. As can be observed in Table 3, there are individual
differences between each of the participants, though some similarities can be identified. In
the case of their views of the English Lounge, in the first year many participants viewed it asa place to “improve English communication”, a place to “make/meet friends” and a place to“use English only” for “practical purposes”. In the second year, there was more variation in
responses. However, viewing the English Lounge as “like studying abroad” was a recurring
theme, and this was also observable from one student in the first year who did not participate
in the second interview. Noteworthy positive responses related to participants’ views of the
English Lounge in the second year were that it was seen as a “comfortable/familiar place”,
somewhere you can “go by yourself” to “communicate in English” and possibly “feel part ofa community”. There were also negative changes to some participants’ views of the Lounge.
One participant saw it as somewhere with reduced value as it fostered only “superficial” relationships, and another felt more pressure as a sophomore student to be a competent English
speaker.
Regarding identity facets, some salient themes can be identified. For reflexive identity inthe first year, the participants said they felt “shy”, “nervous” or “not confident” expressing

36

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

themselves in English. Some participants also provided references to their projected identity,
stating that they wished to be viewed as someone who could speak English or felt they needed
to become like a different person in order to speak English well. Imagined identity is observable in responses where participants discussed being “international”, “working overseas”,
and “using English in the future”. In the second year, many participants still held negativereflexive views of themselves although there were noticeably more responses referring totheir imagined identities. In the second year of interviews it seemed that participants had more
specific and clearer ideas of themselves using English in their futures.

Discussion
In answer to the question posed at the start of this paper, our findings suggest that the English Lounge does in fact play a role in identity construction of these six regular users. We
were able to identify changes in their perspectives of the English Lounge and changes in theirperceived identities as English language learners and users. It was crucial to investigate participants’ shifting views of the English Lounge as these views directly relate to identity constructions. This was particularly true with regard to reflexive identity, a facet shaped by ongoing experiences, views of one’s own competence, and the interplay between the projected andreflexive identities. The role that the English Lounge played in constructing these learners’
identities was quite different among each of the student-participants, however we were able
to identify some recurring themes: confidence, practical benefits, social interactions, international posture, and group identification and roles.

Confidence
The theme of confidence appeared as something that had changed over time among our six
participants. We observed a positive shift in confidence, for example, in the way in which Mei
went from being shy and nervous when she first experienced the English Lounge to being able
to go by herself as she explained in the second interview.
“Today I went to the yellow sofa only me” —Mei, Interview 2
Another student-participant who indicated a gain in confidence as a result of using theEnglish lounge was Yuki. Yuki had explained in the first interview that the difference between
the classroom setting and the English Lounge was that there were fewer people at the English
Lounge and that this enabled her to feel more comfortable.
“... in class, seriously, English language, I can’t speak English more than yellow sofa. I’m shy. I
can’t speak in front of lot of people, but if there is two people, so I can speak in front of them.”—Yuki, Interview 1
The English Lounge was perceived to be a casual setting that was less stressful than theclassroom, thus enabling Yuki to feel more comfortable and confident to express herself inEnglish. Conversely, one student participant who appeared to have lost confidence in the
English Lounge was Kaede. For Kaede, the shift in confidence mostly related to her transition
from being a freshman to a sophomore student. She perceived her presence in the English
Lounge as a sophomore student coming with the perceived moniker of “competent English
speaker”. As a freshman student she felt happy when someone understood her at the area andalso looked at her senpai (seniors) with admiration as they seemed to be able to speak “fluently”, something she aspired to achieve. However, a year later, her view of her new status as asenior had contributed to increased anxiety and self-doubt.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201937

Learner Identities and Transitions“I feel less confident. Last year, as a beginner, it was okay that my English wasn’t so good. But
this year, I cannot make excuses that I don’t understand the grammar. I had a full year studyingat (the university).” —Kaede, Interview 2
The fact that Kaede continued to use the English Lounge in her second year seemed positive. However, her confidence level also appeared to be negatively affected by self-imposedpressure from her perceived senpai role.

Practical Benefits
An additional salient theme identified from the interview data was the way in which several
participants valued the English Lounge in terms of the practical benefits they perceived it tohave offered their development. One potential explanation for some students’ perceptions of
the practicality of the English Lounge was a dissatisfaction with the English study methods
they had experienced in high school. Mei and Kaede stated that in their secondary English
education they had primarily focused on developing declarative grammar knowledge or hadstudied only for tests and felt that this had either been ineffective or demotivating.
“Yes. Chugakkou kara roku nenkan kakawarazu yomeru kedo mattaku hanasenai de no ga
chotto yokunai na to omoimashita. (In spite of studying for six years from junior high school, I
could read but I couldn’t speak at all. I thought that was not very good.)” —Mei, Interview 1
In this way, Mei and Kaede saw the English Lounge as an “antidote” to these experiences
as it focused on social interaction and the development of practical English communication
skills. In their second interviews, Kaede stated that she had managed to create a workablebalance between language knowledge and language use whereas Mei added that, in addition
to the “jitsuyousei” (practicality) that she valued in the English Lounge, she valued the autonomy that it afforded her. She stated that the English Lounge provided her control over the focus and pace of her learning rather than the “juudouteki” (passive) learning in class. However,despite exhibiting a level of autonomy by attending the English Lounge, Kaede and Yuki both
explained that the presence of a teacher was still a crucial factor in them using the space.
Ryunosuke also framed the English Lounge in practical terms as he explained that it was aplace he could visit to “steal knowledge” from students from the Central Group he perceived
as “active” or skilled English users. Ryunosuke acquired not only test-taking strategies andlinguistic knowledge from English Lounge users, but also viewed the area as a place he could
visit if he wanted to boost his motivation.
“...the person who stay at the yellow sofa, the people is really active and they’re really have agood skill of, of English, so then I am motivated by them, yeah, so that’s why I went to there. And
I go there.” —Ryunosuke, Interview 1
However, in his second interview, Ryunosuke revealed that, due to having achieved the testscores he needed, the practical value of the English Lounge had decreased for him. This was
exacerbated by the departure of a key role model for Ryunosuke from the English Lounge andhe claimed that for most of the last year, he had ceased attending.
Ryunosuke’s desire to gain motivation from accomplished role models was, in fact, a recurring theme in other participants’ interviews. Kaede stated that she was greatly motivatedby one sophomore student and member of the Central Group who had reached an impressive
level of fluency in English and who tried hard to include Kaede and her friends in conversations in the English Lounge.
“...she go to yellow sofa every day. Ryugaku shita koto ga nai no ni sugoi pera pera kara… (Because even though she’s never studied abroad, she speaks so fluently…)” —Kaede, Interview 1

38

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

This positive example of a Near-Peer Role Model (Murphey, 1998), a successful peer similar
to a learner in some way, such as ethnic group, age, background, etc., may represent a further
valuable role inhabited by some of the Central Group members.

Social Interactions
Social interaction with not only role models, but also regular peers was identified as anothercontributory reason for attending the English Lounge. In his first interview, Ryunosuke highlighted the social aspect as one of the main purposes of attending the English Lounge andthat he enjoyed talking with others rather than it being solely a means of language study.
“...you can make friends, foreign, foreign students, and you also can make Japanese friends”—Ryunosuke, Interview 1
However, in his second interview Ryunosuke claimed he gradually became increasingly
disillusioned with the social side of the English Lounge and grew to see the interactions there
as “superficial”. He stated that he sought deep, long-lasting relationships with people in the
English Lounge and from other countries but over time came to believe that this would not be
possible. After some uncomfortable experiences trying to interact with English Lounge users outside of that setting, he concluded that the relationships he had formed in the English
Lounge were contrived and shallow. As a result, he decided that participation in the English
Lounge was incompatible with his social needs.
Mei also stressed the importance for her of interacting with others but perhaps for morepractical reasons. She stated that she wanted to speak with many different people in the
Lounge as possible as it would move her closer to her imagined identity of someone living
outside of Japan with strong oral English skills. Mei had a clearly-defined reflexive identity ofsomeone who had a strong longing for foreign cultures and who wished to leave Japan. She
claimed Japan was “stressful” and revealed that partly due to the influence of her mother,
who also had a strong affinity for different cultures, she had been drawn to the world outside
Japan ever since she was a kindergarten student.

International Posture
Mei’s imagined internationally-oriented identity highlights the role that the English Lounge
may have played in participants’ identity construction. Many of the student interviews included make references to the English Lounge as a kind of “international space”. This view
further added weight to the practicality of the English Lounge as Kaede described it as somewhere that afforded her opportunities to interact with non-Japanese people and that she
could use in lieu of actually going overseas. She also valued the role of non-Japanese teachers
as cultural resources and stated that the cultural component of exchanges with teachers wasan important motivator for her. For Ryunosuke also, the international nature of the English
Lounge was influential as his imagined identity was tied to a strong international posture(Yashima, 2009, 2013). His uncle was American and was an extremely powerful role model in
his life who influenced his future language and professional goals. He also expressed a desire
to build long-term friendships with international students at the English Lounge that could
continue long after they returned to their home countries just as he had maintained regularcontact with the American members of his family over the years.
“And I wanna have the, like, talking to each other in English, friends, so…
...Yeah. Like, how can I say that, if, uh, the students, like, how can I say that, to go back to his or
her country, like, we can contact each other.” —Ryunosuke, Interview 2
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201939

Learner Identities and Transitions

He stated that he was interested in moving overseas after graduation and that he was interested in gaining a “wider view” by experiencing various lifestyles in different countries.
Finally, Yuki spoke about how she would speak to one of her Spanish-speaking English
teachers at the English Lounge and that he was a motivating influence by providing cultural
information on Mexico, a country that she was interested in.
Yashima’s (2013) definition of international posture is comprised of three concepts: (1) anintergroup approach-avoidance tendency (i.e., the desire to interact with people from other countries/ ethnic groups), (2) an interest in overseas work/activities, and (3) an interestin global affairs. Although we cannot confidently make any claims about the third strand of
Yashima’s model due to a lack of evidence in our data, the participants frequently exhibited
evidence of the first and second concepts, leading us to believe that an international posture
was a salient facet of their learner identities.

Group Identification and Roles
Over time, several of our participants formed or joined communities in the lounge and started to view the space as having a purpose which went beyond just being functional in terms oflanguage learning.
As time went on, some regular users developed confidence in using English and began totake on the identity of being “role models” for younger students. In her first interview, Mei
showed an understanding of a group identity in the English Lounge as well as her trajectory
within that community (Wenger, 1998). When asked what her plan was for the following year
in the English Lounge, she expressed an intention to take on a senior (senpai) role and help
new students in the same way she was in helped her freshman year.
“Toriaezu, senpai ni shite moratta yori, ano welcome na funiki wo tsukutte, tomodachi ni narou
to omoimasu. (To begin with, like my seniors did, create a welcoming atmosphere and try to
make friends.)” —Mei, Interview 1
Mei and other regular users also appear to develop a well-defined projected identity whichis in line with their changed reflexive identity. Specifically, they wanted others to regard themas confident and approachable English language users. As previously discussed, this sometimes had the unfortunate side-effect of creating increased anxiety as in the case of Kaede
who doubted that she was able to provide the same positive projected identity that her senpai
did. The literature on the senpai-kohai dynamic relating to language learning paints a mixed
picture of this social construct both facilitating and constraining social interaction and community building (Ishikawa, 2012; Murray, 2008; Thompson & Mori, 2015). However, when ourparticipants raised their transition from kohai to senpai, it was predominantly framed in terms
of pressure and anxiety.
“Senpai dakara surasura hanasanai to… tte (I’m a senpai, so I’ve got to speak fluently.)” —Kaede, Interview 2
Mei and Yuki also revealed that they lacked confidence in their new senpai status and thatthey felt that the new freshman students may judge their English ability to be lacking.
“There, there are a lot of freshman students, so, and their speaking is very well, so I’m embarrassing.” —Yuki, Interview 2This lack of confidence could stem from these English Lounge users comparing their reflexive identities to the positive identities that they had ascribed to their own senpai -fluent, active,
and friendly core members of the English Lounge community.

40

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

Conclusions
In this paper, we analyzed interview data of six regular user case studies to explore the role
an English conversation lounge plays in identity construction. The participants viewed theEnglish Lounge as a valuable resource and an international space where they can speak to
non-Japanese people to not only practice their speaking skills but to also increase motivation or imagine their future selves in an international context. Through this study, each of us
came to realize the multitude of ways in which students’ past learning experiences, their current participation in the English Lounge, and their conceptions of their future possible selvesinteracted with each other while constantly evolving over time. Our increased awareness ofidentity as a profoundly complex and dynamic construct was, therefore, one of the key benefits for us as researchers and educators. Furthermore, in terms of the running of the English
Lounge, we became cognizant of a far wider scope of learner needs than previously assumed
such as issues of anxiety relating to transitioning to senpai/senior roles and the desire foractive membership into a social international community. This has led us to start considering
ways in which we can develop scaffolding for new users and facilitate enhanced participationin the English Lounge community.
It should be noted that this study has been primarily concerned with the identities andexperiences of a small group of regular users of a social learning space within a university
self-access center. While our study revealed some interesting themes related to the development of learner identity and the perceived value of a social learning space, the specificity ofthe setting and the small sample size means that our findings should not be over-interpreted.
Further research in this area will have to continue to explore the potential role of social learning spaces in the construction of language learner identities.
Notwithstanding its limitations, this study does suggest that the social structure of the
English Lounge encouraged investment in a community which in turn influenced identity
construction. Over the course of their engagement in the English Lounge we see a number ofways in which participants’ negotiated identities are being mediated by their L2 learning experience (Dörnyei, 2014) within that community. Further investigation into this process could
focus on Miyahara’s (2015) concept of a “discursive space”, “the spatial and temporal space
formed as individuals explore their imagined ties with the future” (p. 22). Part of the attractiveness of Miyahara’s model is that it stresses not only the present learning environment
but also the significance of past experiences in the development of learners’ ideal L2 selves.
As Miyahara (2015) argues for further longitudinal research into developing learner identities
and in order to broaden understanding in this area, we plan to continue this study of the English Lounge with further data collection to understand this type of social learning space andhow it can shape learner identity.

References
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Second language narratives in study
abroad. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bibby, S., Jolley, K., & Shiobara, F. (2016). Increasing attendance in a self-access language
lounge. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 7(3), 301-311. Retrieved from https://sisaljournal.org/archives/sep16/bibby_jolley_shiobara/
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London, UK. Continuum.
Burke, M., Hooper, D., Kushida, B., Lyon, P., Mynard, J., Sampson, R., & Taw, P. (2018).
Observing a social learning space: A summary of an ethnographic project in progress. Relay
Journal, 1(1), 209-220. Retrieved from https://kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp/relayjournal/issues/
jan18/burke_et_al/
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201941

Learner Identities and Transitions

Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London, UK: Routledge.
Conle, C. (2000) Narrative inquiry: Research tool and medium for professional development.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 23(1), 49-63. doi:10.1080/713667262
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Harré, R. (2001). Metaphysics and narrative. In J. Brockmeier & D. A. Carbaugh (Eds.),
Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self and culture (pp. 59-73). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hatch, H. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Hughes, L. S., Krug, N. P., & Vye, S. (2011). The growth of an out-of-class learning
community through autonomous socialization at a self-access center. Studies in Self-Access
Learning Journal, 2(4), 281-291. Retrieved from https://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec11/
hughes_krug_vye/
HyperResearch Version 3.7.5 [Computer software]. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.
researchware.com
Ishikawa, Y. (2012). The influence of learning beliefs in peer-advising sessions: Promoting
independent language learning. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 93-107.
Retrieved from https://sisaljournal.org/archives/march12/ishikawa
Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, K. R. (2002). Inquiry into experience: Teachers’ personal andprofessional growth. In K. E. Johnson & K. E. Golombek (Eds.), Teachers’ narrative inquiry as
professional development (pp. 1-14). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lyon, P. (forthcoming). Observation study of a social learning space. Dynamics of a social
language learning community: Beliefs, membership and identity. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-959.
doi:10.1037//0003-066x.41.9.954
Miller, E. R. (2014). The language of adult immigrants: Agency in the making. Bristol, UK.
Multilingual Matters.
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotion in foreign language learning: A
narrative-oriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Murphey, T. (1998). Motivating with near peer role models. In B. Visgatis (Ed.), On JALT ’97:
Trends and transitions (pp. 205-209). Tokyo, Japan: JALT.
Murphey, T., & Carpenter, C. (2008). Seeds of agency in language learning histories. In P.
Kalaja, V. Menezes & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL (pp. 1734). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murray, G. (2008). Communities of practice: Stories of Japanese EFL learners. In P. Kalaja,
V Menezes & A. Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL (pp. 128-140).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murray, G., & Fujishima, N. (Eds.) (2015). Social spaces for language learning: Stories from theL-café. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murray, G., & Fujishima, N. (2013). Social language learning spaces: Affordances in acommunity of learners. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 141-157. doi:10.1515/cjal2013-0009
Mynard, J., Burke, M., Hooper, D., Kushida, B., Lyon, P., Sampson, R., & Taw, P.
(forthcoming). Dynamics of a social language learning community: Beliefs, membership andidentity. Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning. London, UK: Longman.

42

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson, and Phillip Taw

Piller, I., & Takahashi, K. (2006). A Passion for English: desire and the language market. In A.
Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: emotional experience, expression, and representation.= (pp. 5983). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.                                                        Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
SALC. (2019). Mission. Retrieved from https://www.kandagaigo.ac.jp/kuis/salc/aboutthesalc/
mission.html
Sinclair Bell, J. (2002). Narrative inquiry: More than just telling stories. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2),207-213. doi:10.2307/3588331
Thomson, C. K., & Mori, T. (2015). Japanese communities of practice: Creating opportunities
for out-of-class learning. In D. Nunan & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Language learning beyond theclassroom. ESL & applied linguistics professional series (pp. 272-281). New York, NY: Routledge.
Thornton, K. (2016). Promoting engagement with language learning spaces: How to attract
users and create a community of practice. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 7(3), 297300. Retrieved from https://sisaljournal.org/archives/sep16/thornton/
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge.
Yashima, T. (2009). International posture and the ideal L2 self in the Japanese EFL context.
In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.). Motivation, language identity, and the L2 self (pp. 144-163).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Yashima, T. (2013). Imagined L2 selves and motivation for intercultural communication. In M.
T. Apple, D. Da Silva & T. Fellner (Eds.), Language learning motivation in Japan (pp. 35-53).
Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Review ProcessThis paper was blind peer-reviewed by members of the Learner Development Journal Review
Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.)

Author Bios
Daniel Hooper is a lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies. He has taught in Japan for 12 years, predominantly in secondary education andthe English conversation school industry. He has completed his MA degree in TESOL at Kanda
University of International Studies. His research interests include learner and teacher identity,
critical applied linguistics, and the eikaiwa industry. E-mail: hooper-d@kanda.kuis.ac.jp
Dr. Jo Mynard is a Professor, Director of the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC), and Director of the Research Institute for Learner Autonomy Education (RILAE) at Kanda University ofInternational Studies in Japan. She is particularly interested in research related to advising,self-directed language learning, language learning beyond the classroom / self-access language learning, and the social and affective dimensions of language learning. https://kandaeli.academia.edu/JoMynard
Ross Sampson is a lecturer at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. He
has been teaching in the TESOL field for 10 years, in Japan, South Korea and Thailand. He has
an MEd in TESOL from the University of Glasgow, UK. His research interests include learnerautonomy, learner identity, reflective practice and vocabulary. E-mail: sampson-r@kanda.
kuis.ac.jp

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201943

Learner Identities and Transitions

Phillip Taw is a senior lecturer in the English Language Institute at Kanda University of International Studies in Chiba, Japan. He has an MA in TESOL from the California State University East Bay. His research interests include social learning spaces, multiliteracies, andemotion in the classroom. In his free time, he enjoys visiting airports and hotels, hiking, andpracticing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. E-mail: taw-p@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

44

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

RESEARCH PAPER
Classroom-Based Independent Study andLearner Identity
Caroline Hutchinson, Nihon University College of Economics
This paper describes a one-semester project aimed at developing first-year university students’ capacity to study
English autonomously. Students participated in five independent study workshops in which they chose, tried andreflected on learning activities suggested by the teacher. Research aimed to establish what effect the intervention
had on student motivation, agency, and ability to study outside the classroom. Questionnaire data showed littlechange in motivation to learn English, which was consistently high. Measures of student agency rose significantly,
but student confidence in their ability to study without a teacher showed no change. The paper argues that theability to study alone should not be the aim or measure of learner autonomy development, and concludes by suggesting that students with limited experience of making choices in the classroom may benefit from teacher- andpeer-supported in-class experimentation and reflection as a way to build their metacognitive awareness.
本稿は大学１年生の自律的学習能力を向上させるための一学期のプロジェクトについて説明したものである。学生が５つの自己学習ワー
クショップにおいて、先生に推薦されたアクティビティの中から一つを選択し、その活動の省察を行った。本研究は、この教育方法が英語学
習意欲、自主性と学外の学習能力に対してどのような影響を及ぼしたかを目的とする。アンケート調査によれば、学習意欲が一貫して高かったである。自主性の測定が顕著に上昇したが、一方、学外の学習能力に対して変化が見られなかった。学外の学習自体は自律性の発達に対して不適切な目的または尺度と考察する。そして結論として、教育における選択の自由を行使する経験が浅い学生に関して、教師と学生同士を助け合いながら経験的学習と省察がメタ認識能力を高める方法として効果があるとする。

Keywords
learner identity, reflection, autonomy, independent study, agency, motivation

キーワード
学習者のアイデンティティー、省察、自律性、独立した学習、エージェンシー、学習に対する意欲I

f we define identity as “the way we view ourselves in relation to specific contexts andgroups” (Williams, Mercer & Ryan, 2015, p. 49), it seems likely that transitions in thosecontexts and social groups can occasion profound changes in our identity, and a loss,
hopefully temporary, of confidence in our sense of who we are. Entering university is one
such transition, with its new balance of freedom and responsibility. Students are often awarethat a great deal is expected of them, but unsure as to what the expectations are and how best
to fulfil them.
In order that students can hit the ground running, institutions and instructors have a great
deal to gain from easing this transition by making expectations clear and helping learners develop their identities as competent university language students. Part of this involves
cognitive aspects, helping students develop familiarity with the new learning context andstrengthen skills needed to do well in it. Another aspect is social: how can instructors facilitate the develop of social groups which support students in their learning and adaptation totheir new context?
The present study arose due to my participation in a curriculum project group at Kanda
University of International Studies. The group was updating the materials for the initial “Orientation Unit” of the first-year Basic English Proficiency Program (BEPP) curriculum, around
20 class periods. We decided to focus explicitly on the transition from high school to univerLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201945

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

sity, taking it as a topic for discussion and using the unit as a chance for students to experience the kinds of learning activities and processes that they would be expected to carry out
during their degree program.
I revised the Independent Study lessons, aiming to introduce students to a range of English
study activities in class, allowing them to choose activities individually or in groups and thento reflect on their value to them. I hoped that by enabling students to experiment with learning activities in a sheltered context, their confidence, knowledge, and metacognitive awareness of the learning process would grow, and they could create new identities as competent,
agentic, reflective learners while building a supportive group dynamic.
This paper will describe a semester-long project carried out with one class of 19 students, ofwhich I was the classroom teacher. Students followed a cycle of choosing study activities froma range suggested by the teacher, trying them out and reflecting on what they had learned. A
thorough description of the activities suggested is beyond the scope of this paper, but all are
standard practice within communicative language teaching (see the Methods section for further details).
Through a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures, the research aimed to understand what the process meant to students, and what impact it had on their skills, motivation,and self-beliefs. As an instructor, I experienced transitions of my own regarding my beliefs
about the learning process and how it appears to students, and became much more aware of
the importance of the social dimension of learning.

Literature Review
The committee began with a broad definition of what might constitute the identity of a competent learner at our university and beyond. Classes within the English Language Instituteare learner-centred, and successful learning is felt to depend on the “activity, initiative andengagement of the learner” (van Lier, 2008, p. 163). Kanda also has a Self-Access Learning
Centre allowing students to access learning resources and a community of other language
learners. This speaks to a belief in the value of learner autonomy, or students’ “ability to takecharge of [their] own learning” (Holec, 1981, p. 3). Autonomous students may be better able
to learn in the language classroom as they develop the capacity to relate new information totheir existing knowledge and experience (Little, 1991), and in a broader sense are empoweredto think and act as free individuals.
Our learners would also need to believe themselves to be capable of functioning effectively at our university (perceived competence; see Elliot & Dweck, 2007), developing confidence
in their ability to tackle learning actively, to plan and direct their own learning. Part of thismight involve their metacognitive awareness of the process of learning: their ability to understand and reflect on language systems and skills, and their knowledge of strategies, defined by Cohen as “thoughts and actions consciously chosen and operationalized by language
learners, to assist them in carrying out a multiplicity of tasks from the very onset of learning
to the most advanced levels of target-language performance” (2012, p. 136). It would also involve understanding how to succeed within their new context.
In order to thrive within Kanda’s communicative English-only classrooms, students are
expected to develop and express their identities in the target language (Ushioda, 2011). This
includes not only their classroom-based identities, but also what Richards (2006, p. 60) calls
their “transportable identities”, as rounded individuals with interests beyond the classroom.
Engaging these identities seems to have a motivating effect, and to contribute to a positive group dynamic. Kanda students are also expected, and explicitly trained, to work well ingroups and support the efforts of others to contribute.

46

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

While many of these behavioural competencies are considered fairly standard goals of higher education, our research group felt that few of our learners come to the classroom fully
equipped to learn autonomously; more commonly, we encounter “learners who are not yet
autonomous but are involved in the process of acquiring the ability to assume responsibility for their learning” (Holec, 1981, pp. 25-26). As Brophy (2009) argues, socializers, suchas teachers and other students, play an important role in steering students towards adaptive
identities and demonstrating the affordances given by a particular context or activity.
We also felt that it was important for students to experience actively making autonomous
decisions in the classroom. Ushioda (2011, p. 223) argues that there are two main senses inwhich the word “autonomy” has been used:ʶ

Autonomy in the sense of taking responsibility for, managing and regulating one’s
learning.

ʶAutonomy in the sense of a psychological need to experience behaviour as self-determined.

Ushioda argues that the former sense of autonomy is indeed dependent on a learner’s level of motivation, because learners are unlikely to exercise meta-cognition without the willingness to do so. On the other hand, classroom experience and research such as that of Dam(1995) suggests that promoting autonomy in the latter sense—empowering students to makedecisions in the classroom—can be a powerful motivating factor.
Further, Ushioda suggests that encouraging students to make autonomous decisions in theclassroom can help them to take ownership of their learning, and to engage more fully withthe demands of the learning context, promoting their “willingness to take responsibility for
regulating their motivation and learning behaviour in line with inevitable constraints anddemands” (2011, p. 224). Perhaps this experience of autonomy is a necessary precursor to themotivation required to become a capable autonomous learner?
Also important to understanding student decision-making and identity formation isthe context in which it takes place. Students are not “autonomous actors processing language-related information and skills”, but rather “social beings that have... a dynamic, reflexive and constantly changing relationship with the social context of learning” (Gao, 2010,
p. 18). Social relationships can either help or hinder the development of collective agency,
the sense that individuals are empowered and willing to work together to achieve collective
goals (Bandura, 2000). Through engaging in a shared learning process, learners and teachers
can create shared ways of communicating and learning, known as “communities of practice”(Wenger, 1998), and a shared identity which has a powerful impact on each individual in thegroup.

The Curriculum Context
This paper describes research into a semester-long independent study project undertakenwith low-tier first-year university English major students (CEFR A1 or A2). It was undertaken
at Kanda University of International Studies, a medium-sized specialist languages university
in Japan known for its self-access learning centre.
Acting as a member of the Basic English Proficiency Program curriculum research group,a group of six teachers responsible for maintaining and updating materials for the first-year“Freshman English” course, I had expanded the “Independent Study” section of our introductory “Orientation Unit” from a one-off series of lessons to a course component that ran
throughout the academic year. This component required students to set goals, identify relevant learning activities (with the help of teachers and learning advisors), try the activities andLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201947

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

write a reflection on them (Hutchinson, 2014). The aim of the course component was to foster
the skills needed for more autonomous learning, by giving students experience of selecting,trying out and reflecting on a range of study activities, and also to give students a greater
sense of ownership over their learning.
The research described here is a follow-up study; feedback on the previous year had foundthat many students were struggling to identify relevant activities, especially at lower levelsof English proficiency. Teachers had also identified the workload associated with supporting
each student individually as an issue. The curriculum group decided that before setting goals,
many students needed experience in choosing and trying out learning activities. As a result,a “sheltered” model was introduced, in which teachers pre-selected activities for students
to choose and try in class, before completing a reflection (Hutchinson, 2014). This also encouraged students to try a range of activities, where previously some had made conservative
choices which precluded them from comparing the advantages and disadvantages of multiple
activities.
Throughout the semester under consideration here, five independent study workshops were
held, in which students chose activities from a range suggested by the teacher and worked on
those activities individually or in groups depending on the activity type and their own preferences. Activities included group discussions, grammar and vocabulary games, shadowing,
dictation, and pronunciation software, and were based on activities recommended by the university’s self-access centre, and ones that previous students had felt to be beneficial.
Once students had chosen an activity and negotiated groups, they worked together to understand how to do the activity using instructions in English, their L2. The teacher was on
hand as a consultant where needed, but otherwise students worked without teacher supervision. Learners then reflected on what they felt to be each activity’s benefits and drawbacks
and identified a goal for the next session.
The committee believed reflection to be an essential part of the learning process for students. For one, it provided teachers with a way of understanding what students had done, andwhat meaning they had drawn from their study. More importantly, however, reflection wasseen as a way of students developing their metacognitive awareness of what they were doing
and why, “a bridge between practical experience and theoretical conceptualisation” (Kohonen,
2007, p. 1).
Reflection questions aimed to provoke thought on the following aspects of the decision-making process, and were drawn from Nunan’s (1997) framework proposing levels of
encouraging learner autonomy through classroom materials:
ʶAwareness: were students aware of the skills they practised in the activity they selected?

ʶInvolvement: were students aware of the positive and negative aspects of the activity,with relation to their own goals?

ʶIntervention: were students able to modify their choice of activities, or the details of
those activities?

Students were given teacher feedback on their written reflections, which formed the basisof discussion at two individual consultations held during the semester.

Research Methods
While the materials described above were made available to teachers of the entire first-year
cohort, the present research was conducted in one class, taught by the author. There were 19
students in the class, of whom three were male. Unfortunately, it has not thus far been possi-

48

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

ble to repeat the study on a larger scale, but I hope that the qualitative data collected provides
insights into how the process appeared to students, how they made their decisions, and at
what points they encountered challenges in the selection, study and reflection process.

Research Questions Were as Follows:
RQ1: Does experience of choosing and conducting language learning activities in class, andreflecting on those activities, affect student motivation?
RQ2: Does experience of choosing and conducting language learning activities in class, andreflecting on those activities, affect student awareness of metacognitive aspects oflearning?
RQ3: Does experience of choosing and conducting language learning activities in class, andreflecting on those activities, make students more able to study outside the classroom?
A questionnaire on attitude and agency (based on Williams, Burden & Lanvers, 2002) was
administered before and after the project. The questionnaire, included in Appendix 1, was entitled “English Language Learning Questionnaire”, and consisted of 32 questions drawn fromthe 16 areas identified by Williams, Burden and Lanvers (2002) in their research into student
perceptions about learning foreign languages. All items and instructions were provided bilingually. This questionnaire was chosen to capture a wide range of possible factors affecting
student motivations and beliefs, in particular:ʶStudents’ attitudes toward English

ʶStudents’ perceptions of their own ability in English

ʶStudents’ perceived control over the learning process (sense of agency)ʶStudents’ perceptions of the role of external influences on their learning

Williams, Burden and Lanvers (2002) further subdivide these categories into subcategories,
as set out below.
Table 1. Questionnaire Items and Focus Categories
Category

FactorSample questionnaire item

Aspects ofAttitude

Liking, enjoyment,interest

I enjoy English lessons

DesireI want to learn to speak English wellNeed, importance

It will be important for me to know English in the
future.

Integrative orientation

I’d like to meet English-speaking people

Intrinsic motivation

I’d want to learn English even if I didn’t have to

Perceived success,Competence

I am confident I can achieve my English learning
goals

Perceived ability

I think I’m good at English

Aspects of
Identity

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201949

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

Category

FactorSample questionnaire item

Feelings ofAgencyEffortI work hard at English

Result of effort,
Learned helplessness

I believe that anything can be achieved, if I work
hard enoughInternal locus (responsibility)

Doing well in English is up to me

Awareness of strategies I know which things I need to study to improve myEnglishExternalfactors

Metacognitive awareness

When I get good marks in English I usually know
why

Metacognitive strategies

I try to set myself goals when I study English

Teacher

My teacher is helpful to me in learning English

Parents

My parents encourage me to study English

The group

The students in our English class work together as agroup

Students were asked to rate their agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale, with
“5” signifying that the statement was “very true for me”, and “1” signifying “not at all true
for me”
At the end of the project, selected students were invited for recorded interviews about theindependent study project as a whole, focussing on the process of selecting activities, understanding how to do them, reflecting, and their perceived ability to study without a teacher.
There were limitations with the research methods used, beginning with the small numberof participants. Questionnaires were administered only twice, and therefore could not capture the daily fluctuations that can accompany student motivation. The numbers derived fromthe questionnaires are self-reported, and each student may have a different understanding of
how the concepts relate to them. Further, and perhaps most crucially for a qualitative study,
student interviews were reliant on students’ ability to express themselves in their L2, although this was not part of the research design.
I am a proficient speaker of Japanese as L2, and provided all items relating to researchbilingually. I also explained the project in Japanese in class, and encouraged students to use
Japanese where they were unable to express themselves in English. Nevertheless, students’
recourse to their L1, Japanese, was vanishingly rare, and usually concerned individual words.
On the one occasion where a student made a sustained utterance in Japanese during the project, it did suggest a level of metacognition beyond what the student could express in English.
Having worked in other contexts where Japanese students are more willing to communicate
in their L1 than in English, I can only speculate that this stemmed from the university’s strict“English-only policy”, which I regularly reminded students of during class time. Students
clearly saw the independent study project as part of the ethos of “learning English by usingit” rather than as a time to consider the process of learning from a metacognitive perspective, using L1 as one tool to do so. When questioned about this in interviews, students defended their use of English, citing as reasons that English use provoked thought, engendered
teamwork, improved their skills, and that it was the target language of our classroom and, in
regular classroom interactions, verbally encouraged by the teacher.

50

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

This is one way in which my dual role as teacher and researcher may have impacted theresearch process. I am also aware that as the students’ class teacher, there were times where I
became frustrated with students whose conceptions—of effective study habits, desired behaviours and interpretations of skills studied—did not always match my own. On the positiveside, however, this dual role forced me to reflect on my own beliefs about effective language
learning, and in many cases to revise them.

Results
Questionnaire
A mean score was calculated for all students for each item (5 indicates strong agreement, 1
indicates strong disagreement). Items were combined into the four motivational strands discussed earlier, and negatively coded items converted into positive items, giving the following
results:
Table 2. Four Motivational Strands at the Beginning and End of the Semester
Beginning of semester

End of semester

Attitude

4.63

4.65

Identity

2.87

2.79

Agency2.93

3.43

External

3.86

3.97

Student attitude towards English was consistently positive with little change on any item,
perhaps to be expected of students selecting English as their major at a foreign languages
university. Nonetheless, this was an interesting finding, as students did not always appear tobe especially motivated. The slight rise in score can mostly be accounted for by a rise in item
17, “I enjoy English lessons”, and in item 6, “It will be important for me to know English in
the future”. Returning to our research questions, the intervention appears to have had no discernible effect on student motivation (RQ1).
Student identity, or belief in their own competence or ability, was substantially lower, andagain showed little change. In terms of perceived competence, students had greater belief intheir ability to succeed in class (item 28: a score of 3.8 once positively coded) than confidence
that they could succeed in their learning goals, and their belief in their ability to achieve thosegoals actually fell over the course of the study (item 3: from 3.1 to 2.8). In terms of perceived
ability, the lowest scores were due to strong agreement with item 15, “My English is not as
good as I want it to be”. As this item also contains a future desire to be better at English, it
may be this aspect that students are responding to.
All items targeting the role of external factors rose, whether positively or negatively scored,
resulting in a slightly increased overall total. This may indicate that student beliefs regarding
the role of others in their learning became more strongly held.
The most significant change in student beliefs was in their sense of agency, where the following results were observed. These are the mean scores, with negative items unadjusted;a high score indicates agreement with the statement. Positively coded items are marked +,negatively coded items are marked “-”.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201951

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

Table 3. Items Relating to Agency

Sub-sections relating to agency

Pre-semester

Post-semester

Agency: Effort
7+

I work hard at English

3.94

3.89

29-

I could study harder if I wanted to

4.5

4.67

Agency: Result of Effort
8+

I believe that anything can be achieved, if
I work hard enough

4.17

4.28

14-

However hard I try, I’ll never do well in
English

1.72

1.39

Agency: Responsibility
2+

Doing well in English is up to me

4.72

4.67

20-

I cannot study effectively on my own

3.5

3.5

Agency: Awareness of Strategies
30+

I know which things I need to study to improve my English

2.72

3.06

25+

If I do badly at English, I usually know how to
do better next time

2.72

3.28

Agency: Metacognitive awareness
12+

When I get good marks in English I usually know why

2.83

3.06

10-

I don’t know which ways to study English
work best for me

3.83

3.72

Agency: Metacognitive strategies
18+

I try to set myself goals when I study English

4.06

3.83

23-

I don’t often measure my English study
progress

1.61

1.5

The largest changes can be seen in student awareness of learning strategies and the learning process, suggesting that the intervention may have had a positive effect on student
awareness of metacognitive aspects of learning, our second research question (RQ2). However, it is worth revisiting Cohen’s definition of learning strategies as “thoughts and actions
consciously chosen and operationalized by language learners, to assist them in carrying out amultiplicity of tasks...” (2012, p. 136), as students gave little self-reported evidence that they
were consciously using strategies, either in their reflections or their interviews.
This may be a function of the difficulty of self-reporting in students’ second language, or
it may suggest that, rather than becoming aware of strategies, students had become morefamiliar with the nature and expectations of their new learning context. The questionnaire
items could perhaps be better worded to precisely target strategy use, although this would be
hard to do unless students were familiar with relevant metalanguage. A greater confidence

52

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

in how to do well is reflected in the rise in item 12, and the fall in item 14, but as discussed
above, items relating to students’ identity as competent learners did not rise.
The third research question focussed on whether students would be more able to study
outside the classroom as a result of the intervention (RQ3). In spite of the overall rise inmeasures of agency, item 20 (“I cannot study effectively on my own”) showed no change,
remaining relatively high with a 3.5 agreement rate. Another item that was expected to rise
was 18, “I set myself goals when I study English”, but this in fact fell from 4.06 to 3.83. Before conducting interviews, I had speculated the intervention might have made students more
attuned to the wide range of possibilities, and hence potential difficulties, involved in setting
goals. However, interviews offered a different perspective, namely that students valued thefreedom to choose without the narrow focus of a goal.

Student Interviews
Five students were interviewed, for 20 to 30 minutes each. Interviewees were chosen at random from those who had completed the majority of independent study sessions and reflections and had sufficient communicative ability to carry out the interviews in their L2, English,
since students had proved unwilling to use Japanese in consultations.
The aim of the interviews was to shed light on how students experienced the process of
selecting, trying and reflecting on activities, with a view to understanding the value of the
independent study course component and revising the materials for future implementation.
I also hoped to shed further light on the rise in student agency (RQ2), and students’ feelings
about their ability to study independently (RQ3).

Awareness: Selecting Activities
Question 1: How did you feel about choosing the activities? Why did you choose each activity?
Four of the five students interviewed said that choosing activities was difficult (the fifth
failed to understand the question). This difficulty was borne out by teacher observation: students frequently took upwards of 20 minutes to choose an activity, and initially needed encouragement to actually make a choice, rather than simply starting work on the first activity
listed. All four students explained this by saying that they wanted to try a number of activities, with the sense that choosing one meant missing out on others. Student B went further
and saidFirst I want to do… all kinds of activity so I don’t think which activity is important for me… I don’tknow what activity is doing, maybe all of these is very important but I want to brush up my skill,all, so I’m difficult to choose…
Three students of the five identified specific skills they had wanted to improve, and activities that they had chosen to practice these skills. Students sometimes demonstrated a different understanding of skills practiced to that of the teacher (student E: “I choosed shadowing
because I want to improve listening skills”). Although I initially interpreted this as a failurein student capacity to effectively manage their own learning, over time I came to see that students were actively engaged in making sense of the affordances available to them.
Three students chose activities because they were “fun”, while student A identified the following criteria:
Which is easy to me. And many other students want to do activity.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201953

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

This bears out classroom observation that students tended to negotiate choices with their
existing friendship groups, rather than gathering a group of students who wanted to choose agiven activity.

Awareness: Understanding and Describing Study Activities
Question 2: Was it easy to understand the instructions? Was it easy to explain what you did in your reflection?
Of five students interviewed, two said that understanding instructions was difficult, andtwo that the difficulty depended on the activity. The fifth student did not directly answer thequestion. Student C stated that group members had helped her to understand the activity.
Once the instructions had been understood, however, four of five students felt that it waseasy to explain. Student A stated that it was “easy. I wrote only verbs that I did.”Indeed, many students essentially copied down the instructions in their reflections, whichperhaps could be rectified by introducing activities in a different form, such as whole classdemonstration. However, one student stated that explaining was difficult, because “any activity had very detail 1234, so I… it’s difficult to write in detail” (Student D).
These findings suggest that students find approaching learning activities through L2 instructions alone to be quite challenging, and benefit from the presence of a teacher or peers
who can explain the activity to them. This clearly has implications for our third researchquestion, suggesting that many students would struggle to understand and carry out new
study activities unsupported outside the classroom, but that they may benefit from teacher
and peer support when trying out activities for the first time.

Intervention: Modifying Activities
Question 3: Did you change any of the activities at all? If yes, how? If no, did you want to change them?
This question proved extremely difficult for students to answer, which was expected basedon student reflections. Initially, four students misunderstood the question to mean “Did you
try different activities from week to week?”, rather than “Did you modify the instructions of
the activities themselves?” Once clarified, all five students asserted that they had not changed
the activities that they did in any way. In fact, they seemed upset that their teacher would
ask them such a question, perhaps suggesting that they saw activities as fixed entities between which they could choose, or that they did not want to change something suggested byan authority figure, their teacher. This came despite repeated assurances, in both spoken andwritten feedback, that modification was both appropriate and desirable.
When pushed, all five were able to identify some negative points with the activities thatthey did—primarily that they were boring, too long, or too short. Student D ventured...when I did Word Map, I’m confused choose word so if there are box, in the box, for example tenwords, we can choose from this box
Rather than modifying the activity, she was suggesting a way in which the teacher could
improve the activity by providing suggested words. In fact, she was suggesting that theteacher reduce an element of learner autonomy in the classroom by providing more scaffolding.
Student C gave one interesting criticism:
Taboo... it is too fun to study in English. We say only word... only word. We couldn’t say sentence.

54

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

In fact, “too fun” had been a theme in student reflections, with other students using phrases like “we enjoyed too much” to think about grammar, and also “it’s too fun to look aroundus”, which turned out to mean that students in the group had been too noisy while playing
and had not realized that they were disturbing others.
Before writing reflections, students were encouraged to share their feelings about activities with their group. In this process, certain interpretations of what constituted positive andnegative study behaviour seemed to become fixed, creating a kind of informal class code of
conduct. While I initially found such comments to be contrary to the spirit of communicative
learning activities, it became clear that students wanted to use the time given to communicate
deeply and accurately, while respecting the learning of others.
Question 4: How did you feel about reflecting?
This was intended as a more general question to elicit student comment on the process ofreflecting on what they had studied. In terms of the usefulness of reflections, one student feltthat they constituted a useful record of what he had studied:
if we didn’t reflecting, I also forgot activities, what activities I decide or I doing. (B)Three students said that they had found reflection difficult, focussing especially on the difficulty of identifying negative points of the activities that they tried, and on identifying what
they wanted to study next time. Teacher observation bore out the fact that answers to the final two reflection questions, on negative aspects of the activities and what to study next time,
were harder for students to complete, and answers were often short or vague. If students hadenjoyed an activity, they frequently answered that it had no downsides.
The curriculum committee had hoped that reflections would have a future-oriented effect,with students using the positive and negative points of the activities to identify their next
focus for study. In reality, however, most students answered the final question either with “Iwant to do this activity again” or “I want to do something different”, depending on how positive their assessment of the activity had been. One student did mention that “By writing thisportfolio I could... next I want to do. Is good point.” (C)However, this assessment seemed to have little impact on what students actually chose to
do in subsequent sessions, including student C. This may have been partly because students
tended to choose from the new activities introduced each session, or to choose what theirfriends were choosing. There were instances, especially towards the end of the semester,where students chose to revisit an activity from a previous session, but it was less common
for students to identify a different skill that they wanted to study. There was no evidence thatstudents used the perceived negative aspects of an activity to decide their next study target.
Since these two questions target things that students have not yet actually done, they are
somewhat more abstract than the foregoing questions. If reflection is “a bridge between
practical experience and theoretical conceptualisation” (Kohonen, 2007, p. 1), we can speculate that most students in this project had yet to conceptualise of language study as a systemof possibilities and needs beyond the activity they were reflecting on. They were aware ofwhat they had done and what they had learned but were less able or willing to relate this to adefined target or goal.
One student articulated a degree of resistance to any goal-setting structure being imposedon the task, which was particularly interesting as the previous year’s project had explicitly
involved setting goals and identifying activities which would target the chosen skill. When
discussing the connection between the final reflection question and the subsequent choice ofactivity, student B stated that . . .
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201955

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

Reflecting, I want to choose same, but next time I change my mind. I think we have… if I have acorrectly goal I have to choose the activity to lead to the goal but if I haven’t goal I choose everything I think.
When I asked “is having a goal important for you?” student B clarified his position:
I don’t. I think we are doing a lot of activities and find own goal is better.
This position, taken in combination with students’ desires to experience all possible activities articulated in response to question 1, may go some way to explaining the decreasein students reporting that they set themselves goals in the post-study questionnaire (item
18—see Table 3). This was somewhat of an outlier within items measuring agency, and was
initially interpreted as disappointing given that the course materials arose with the aim ofsupporting students to set study goals. However, for students who may have little experienceof decision-making in their learning, it is valid to want to build experience before developing
metacognitive strategies such as goal-setting and self-evaluation, which are the only metacognitive strategies considered in the questionnaire.
Question 5: Do you feel able to study effectively without a teacher (for example over the summer vacation)?
This question was initially conceived as a measure of the success of the project, and a direct
response to the third research question. If students said yes, it was felt, the project had succeeded in creating independent learners. Seen in this light, the results are less than positive.
Three of five students felt that it was difficult to study at home, citing reasons such as thelack of a teacher to motivate them, and the fact that they do not speak English at home.
Having teacher we should study I think, we have to study, but without teacher if I doing otherthing there is no teacher so I can do anything (B)
No! In summer vacation I... maybe I don’t speak English in home. Family home. (C)Other students felt that the different context afforded different types of study:
Case by case. I can’t study same things in class, but I can study easy things, for example listening
to music, Western music, and I can learn grammar” (D)One student was confident that she could study without a teacher, although that did include
completing homework assigned by a teacher:
I will do Next Stage textbook homework and I’m able to learn grammar and vocabulary alone,
so I feel able to study effectively without a teacher (A)Interestingly, while student B felt that there were things he was able to do without a teacher, these did not really qualify as “study”:
B: I think… I want to study but real is I think I go to SALC [Self Access Learning Centre] andwatching movie or reading books or comics, and don’t study English.
Teacher: Isn’t that study?
B: Read books in English… if I know the book’s or tale’s story, I think I don’t have to read all
through the difficult words, so it is not study. I would just read, not check words. I want to enjoy.
As with the issue of “too much fun”, this was a conception of “study” that differed frommy own as a teacher, and my instinct was to challenge it. Nevertheless, students were correct

56

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

in identifying that their home environment did not offer the same affordances as the classroom, especially considering the social nature of the independent study workshops.

Conclusions
Considered in terms of the three research questions, the results of the study were mixed.
Student motivation did not change, although this may have been due to the fact that it began
relatively high. Measures of student agency rose, suggesting that students felt more empowered to take control of their learning, but both questionnaire data and students’ interviewssuggest that this did not translate directly into student confidence in their ability to study
alone. Perhaps, however, this reflects a misconception that learner autonomy necessarily
entails articulating goals and following solo study plans, and that it can be measured by theextent to which students engage in such behaviours.
In terms of socialising students to the skills and expectations accompanying study at Kanda
University, I believe that the intervention was effective. Students’ belief in their own agency—especially in terms of their awareness of how to learn, and the learning process—hadrisen significantly, and this was mirrored by the increasing depth of student reflections.
While it is impossible to isolate the five cycles of the project from the other things happeningaround students in their first semester at university, most students had developed significantly in their ability to select, negotiate, carry out and reflect on learning activities in English. These abilities continued to develop in the second semester of the year, when activities
expanded to include those available to students outside the classroom, which were usuallycompleted in pairs or groups.
By bringing study activities into the classroom and allowing students to choose activities
without first specifying goals, the “independent study” sessions became more social than in
the previous year’s goal-focussed project, which most students completed individually due tothe difficulty of finding time to study together outside class. Not all activities on offer weregroup ones, but group activities were much more popular, and individual activities were overwhelmingly completed collaboratively. Students tended to choose activities with class friends,
but would also share information about activities and negotiate participation in them. Over
time a set of rules emerged that defined effective participation and could be termed a nascent“community of practice” (Wenger, 1998).
Removing the strict focus of setting goals allowed students to experiment more widely.
First-year university students in Japan have typically had little exposure to independent or
self-directed learning activities, and little opportunity to make their own meaning of those
activities. Student interviews supported classroom observation that selecting and understanding how to do the activities on offer represented a significant challenge to students. Likewise,
students were better able to express what they had done and what they had learned—concrete
aspects arising from experience—than abstract aspects such as what they had not done, how
they could improve an activity, and what, ideally, they would like to do in the future.
Working from example activity through reflection to understanding is likely to be moreaccessible to these students than travelling the other way. Exercising the autonomy to makechoices in learning may, as Ushioda (2011) suggests, be an important first step in increasing motivation, engagement and responsibility, and therefore in developing the capacity for
self-directed learning. This may assist students in developing an identity as competent university students who are responsible for their own learning, forming the basis of their further
development as learners, and in time enabling them to set meaningful future targets on thebasis of experience and reflection.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201957

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

References
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Brophy, J. (2009). Connecting with the big picture. Educational Psychologist 44(2), 147-157.
Cohen, A. D. (2012). Strategies: The interface of styles, strategies, and motivation on tasks. In
S. Mercer, S. Ryan, & M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language learning: Research, theory,and pedagogy (pp. 136-150). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dam, L. (1995). Learner autonomy 3: From theory to classroom practice. Dublin, Ireland: Authentik.
Elliot, E. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Competence and motivation: Competence as the core ofachievement motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence andmotivation (pp. 3-14). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gao, X. (2010). Strategic language learning: The roles of agency and context. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Hutchinson, C. (2014). Redesigning an independent learning course component: Recognizing
the role of instructor as guide. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(4), 389-393.
Kohonen, V. (2007). Learning to learn through reflection: An experiential learningperspective. Retrieved from http://archive.ecml.at/mtp2/Elp_tt/Results/DM_
layout/00_10/05/Supplementary%20text%20E.pdf.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin, Ireland: Authentic.
Nunan, D. (1997). Designing and adapting materials to encourage learner autonomy. In P.
Benson & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 192-203).
London, UK: Longman.
Richards, K. (2006). Being the teacher: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied
Linguistics, 27(1), 51-77, DOI: 10.1093/applin/ami041
Ushioda, E. (2011). Why autonomy? Insights from motivation theory and research, Innovationin Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 221-232, DOI: 10.1080/17501229.2011.577536
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, M., Burden, R., & Lanvers, U. (2002). “French Is the Language of Love and Stuff’”:Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign language. British
Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 503-528.
Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S. (2015). Exploring psychology in language teaching andlearning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.),
Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163-186). London, UK: Equinox.

Review ProcessThis paper was blind peer-reviewed by members of the Learner Development Journal Review
Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.)

Author Bio
Caroline Hutchinson is an assistant professor at Nihon University College of Economics, Japan. She
has also taught in Hungary, Vietnam, and at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan,
where the present research was conducted. Her research interests include motivation and learnerautonomy, CLIL and Japanese history. She can be contacted at hutchinson.caroline@nihon-u.ac.jp.

58

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Caroline Hutchinson

Appendix
English Learning Motivation Questionnaire
英語学習に対するモチベーションについてのアンケート
The following questions ask about your motivation for and attitudes about learning English.
Remember there are no right or wrong answers, so please just answer as accurately as possible.
これはあなたの英語学習に対する姿勢やモチベーションを問うアンケートです。これには正解も不正解もありません。あなたの率直な気持ちを答えてください。

Use the scale below to answer the questions. If you think the statement is very true of you,circle 5; if a statement is not at all true of you, circle 1. If the statement is more or less true ofyou, find the number between 1 and 5 that best describes you.
各質問事項に5段階で回答してください。各問があなたに当てはまっていれば「５」に丸を、全く当てはまらなければ「１」に丸をつけてください。どちらでもなければ、
「１」
から
「５」
の中で1番自分に当てはまる数字を選んでください。

1. Most language learning can be done without a teacher

Not at all true

Very true

語学学習に教師は不要だ。

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

14

2. Doing well in English is up to me
自分次第で英語は上達する。

3. I don’t usually do well in English lessons
英語の授業は苦手だ。

4. I think I’m good at English
英語は得意だと思う。

5. I prefer to study English on my own, rather than in groups
グループワークより自分一人で英語を学ぶ方が好きだ。

6. It will be important for me to know English in the future
英語の知識は将来自分にとって重要になる。

7. I work hard at English
真面目に英語学習に取り組んでいる。

8. I believe that anything can be achieved, if I work hardenough2

3

5

一生懸命頑張ればどんなことでも達成できる。

9. I don’t mind if I’m not a fluent English speaker at the endof my degree

Not at all true

Very true

1

4

2

3

5

卒業時までに英語を流暢に話せるようにならなくても別に気にならない。

10. I don’t know which ways to study English work best forme

Not at all true

Very true

1

4

2

3

5

どの英語学習法が自分に一番合っているかわからない。

11. I don’t learn English for my own enjoyment

Not at all true

Very true

楽しんで英語を学んでいない。

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

13. I want to learn to speak English well

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

英語をうまく話せるように学びたい。

1

4

12. When I get good marks in English I usually know why
英語の成績がいいと、おおよそなぜだか理由がわかる。

2

3

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019559

Classroom-Based Independent Study and Learner Identity

14. However hard I try, I’ll never do well in English

Not at all true

Very true

どんなに頑張っても英語をうまく話せるようにはならない。

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1

4

15. My English is not as good as I want it to be
自分が望むほど英語は上手くない。

16. I’d want to learn English even if I didn’t have to
必須科目でなくても英語は学びたい。

17. I enjoy English lessons
英語の授業は楽しい。

18. I try to set myself goals when I study English
目的意識を持って英語を学習している。

19. I’d like to meet English-speaking people
英語を話す人と知り合いたい。

20. I cannot study effectively on my own
独学では効率よく勉強できない。

21. My parents encourage me to study English
両親が英語学習を勧める。

22. English will not be an important factor in getting a job
就職に英語は重要項目ではない。

23. I don’t often measure my English study progress
自分の英語レベルの上達の有無にはあまりこだわらない。

24. English lessons are not interesting for me
英語の授業には興味がない。

25. If I do badly at English, I usually know how to do better
next time2

3

5

英語の成績が悪い時、次はどうすればよくなるかわかる。

26. My family are not interested in my English study

Not at all true

Very true

家族は私の英語学習に無関心だ。

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1

4

27. I have no interest in getting to know English native
speakers

2

3

5

ネイティブスピーカーと知り合うことに興味がない。

28. I am confident I can achieve my English learning goals

Not at all true

Very true

英語学習における自己目標を達成する自信がある。

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1
2
3
Not at all true

4
5
Very true

1

4

29. I could study harder if I wanted to
やる気さえあれば、一生懸命勉強できる。

30. I know which things I need to study to improve my English
何を勉強すれば自分の英語を上達させることができるのか知っている。

31. My teacher is helpful to me in learning English
教員は私の英語学習に協力的だ。

32. The students in our English class work together as agroup
このクラスの生徒はグループワークにおいて協調性がある。

60

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

2

3

5

RESEARCH PAPER“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning
thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community ofPractice for Everyone?
Takuya Kojima, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
Chihiro Thomson, University of New South Wales, Sydney
This study, informed by Communities of Practice (CoP), Situated Learning (SL) and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP), explored the case of a resistant student at the margin of an introductory Japanese classroom where
an interactive and engaging mode of learning was implemented. Recent studies have noted that some students
participate at the margin of classroom communities. Questions concerning such students’ participation, identity
and learning at the margin have not received adequate attention. This qualitative case study employed a classroom ethnographic approach to gather data over a 13-week academic semester. It identified how one student’s
disengaged participation, coming largely from the disjunction between the mode of learning in the course and herlearning beliefs, turned her into having a rebellious identity at the very fringe of the class. This cautions us that
CoP, SL, and LPP put into educational practices may not be for everyone.
本研究は実践コミュニティ、状況的学習論、正統的周辺参加の考え方を基に、インターアクティブな活動が中心となる初級日本語クラスでクラスの活動に反発を感じていた学生の周縁での参加やアイデンティティについて調査した。近年、教室コミュニティでの学生の周辺的な参加へ注意が向けられるようになった一方、そのような学生に関する研究の数はまだ少なく、新たな疑問も生まれている。そこで、質的なケーススタディである本研究はクラスルームエスノグラフィーを用い、13週のクラスで調査対象の一学生のデータを集めた。分析から、その学生の学習ビリーフとクラスの教育アプローチの齟齬が学生の教室実践への関与の希薄さや消極的な参加を生み、さらに教室最周縁での反抗的なアイデンティティを生み出したことがわかった。このことから、実践コミュニテイ、状況的学習論、正統的周辺参加論といった理論を教育実践に応用する際には、細心の注意を払う必要性があることを示唆している。

Keywords
Communities of Practice, Situated Learning, Legitimate Peripheral Participation, marginalisation in a language
classroom, negotiation of participation and identity

キーワード
実践コミュニティ、状況的学習、正統的周辺参加、言語教室での周辺化、参加とアイデンティティの交渉“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing” (first interview)
This is a case study of a comprehensive metropolitan Australian university student, Joanna(pseudonym), enrolled in an introductory Japanese course designed by one of the authors as aplace for social participatory learning by applying social learning theories. As a part of a larger study, the other author observed lessons in Joanna’s classes, conducted semi-structured
interviews, and asked her to keep a journal, which all informed us about Joanna.
We, authors, believe that language learning is a social practice. The social turn in second
language acquisition that Block (2003) identified has seen the field of language education
expand its focus from learning as acquisition of linguistic codes to learning as participation
in social practices. Drawing upon the view, one of us, who also taught a part of the course
along with a colleague designed the Japanese language course at our university to be highlyinteractive and socially engaging. The sustained much higher satisfaction rate of the course
compared to the average at the university, accompanied by positive comments in students’
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201961

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

course evaluation year after year, indicates the success of the course. However, through datacollection, another of us met Joanna, who was one of the students in the Japanese course. She
covertly resisted participation as seen in the above quote, and we had to ask ourselves a question: Is social participatory learning for everyone?
In this paper, we attempt to understand the experience of Joanna, a student who appears tohave resisted social participatory learning in our Japanese course, which is based upon social
learning theory; Communities of Practice (CoP; Wenger, 1998) and its associated concepts;
Situated Learning (SL) and Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
These theories conceptualise learning as participation in social practices where the participants develop identities and negotiate varying relationships with other members in the community, i.e., in the CoP. As their participation changes from being in the periphery to thecore of the CoP, they develop their identities from newcomers to competent, responsible, andcontributing members, at least that is how we envisioned our practices would work out. However, as Joanna reminded us, a classroom as a place for social participatory learning is not freeof challenges.
The theoretical understanding of learning as changing participation from the periphery to
the core of a community tends to establish a uniform image of successful learners in CoP uncritically. Lamb (2012) states that learners who fail to follow the linear developmental processof participation, fail in learning. Theoretical discussions on CoP and LLP give little attention
to such “failed” learners remaining at the margin, as they are assumed to be unsuccessful,
indifferent to the community, and eventually leave the community taking an outbound trajectory (Wenger, 1998). It is perhaps because CoP was originally conceptualised as a self-formed
and self-organised group of people where membership make up is relatively fluid (Lave &Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). This assumption may not be relevant in the case of a classroom
community, from which learners cannot easily depart.
Some learners miss classes or assessment tasks, participate in classroom activities withminimal preparation, or do not engage in pair/group activities, and end up being at the margin of the classroom community. Classroom learners at the margin in institutional settings
are often trapped in their classrooms for a variety of reasons and thus need more carefulattention. For some learners, leaving may not be a viable option in formal institutions, e.g.,schools or universities (Lantolf & Genung, 2002), given that primary and secondary school
education is mostly compulsory, and university education comes with hefty fees. A few studies focusing on such students at the margin have reported on what factors prevented the developmental processes of their participation (Morita, 2004, 2009; Toohey, 1998, 2000) and on
how they responded to this lack of participation (Jang, 2017; Lantolf & Genung, 2002; Morita,2004). These studies raised a number of issues that necessitates further investigation into
marginalised learners (Duff, 2007; Morita, 2012; Norton & Toohey, 2011). The issues include
how these students perceive their own learning, which is shaped through negotiating participation and identity at the margin, and how attempts to validate their own learning at themargin impact the classroom community.
In this case study of the covertly resisting student, Joanna, we describe her lived experience and identity negotiation at the margin of a classroom where highly interactive activities were successively implemented. The data come from class observation notes, interviews
and student journal entries. Drawing on the description, we explore the relationship between
her negotiation of positionality, identity and the perception of learning at the margin of theclassroom community, and discuss its implications for classroom language education using
CoP, SL, and LPP.

62

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

Learning as Social PracticeThis study is informed by CoP, which allows us to view language classrooms as platforms wherestudents learn to participate in social practices and to negotiate identity as members of thecommunity. CoP is defined as “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or apassion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting
on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder., 2002, p. 4). CoP is sustained throughthree fundamental elements: Domain, Community and Practice. Domain entails shared interestor concern that brings potential members together. The members decide what they collectively
pursue based on the domain. Community is a social platform where members interact with eachother regularly and form interpersonal relationships. Practice signifies a set of shared ways of
doing those things that the members are concerned about. When the three elements develop and function altogether, the group of people is viewed as a CoP in which members with ashared concern participate in practices on a regular basis. The members of a CoP participate inpractices in that they address issues, create products, complete tasks, and the like, which are of
their mutual concern. In CoP, learning is not the goal but an integral part of the participation inpractice in which members jointly accomplish their goal. A group of people comes to function
as a CoP, when its members actively participate in and contribute to the practices.
CoP offers a place for SL, since it is a theory which views knowledge and skills as embedded in a social context (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Thus, learning is an integral part of participation in the context where one continuously constructs one’s relationship with knowledge andskills as well as with others and resources. This learning process is theorised as Legitimate
Peripheral Participation (LPP). LPP holds that learning occurs in the process of changing
ways of participation from peripheral to full participation in the CoP. When newcomers entera CoP, they participate legitimately at the periphery. Such participation is a less demanding
but sufficiently contributing way of participation, which functions as a breathing space forthe newcomers to subsequently move toward fuller participation. Active participation moves
the newcomers from the periphery to the core of the community. When they have reachedfull participation at the core of the CoP, they have also developed necessary skills and knowledge to responsively and competently participate in various practices of the community. This
process of LPP is tied with the newcomers’ evolving forms of identity as members in a CoP.
Newcomers who enter a CoP participate in a variety of practices while they jointly work withother more experienced members called old-timers. The newcomers shape relationships with
old-timers, artefacts, and practices. The identity as a member is negotiated through how they
view themselves, their relationship with practices and how old-timers view them (Lamb,2012). The move toward fuller participation allows them to recognise themselves and be recognised by others as competent, contributing and responsible members.
Theoretically, if a group of people functions as a CoP, the LPP process functions successfully. When more and more members become responsible, competent and contributing, the CoP
develops as a supportive community which ensures and empowers its members’ active participation. Thus, designing and developing a group of people into a CoP has the potential to be aneffective way to support social participatory learning. This brings us to consider a classroom
designed as a CoP.
We acknowledge that applying CoP in its original form to classroom research is controversial (Haneda, 2006; Lamb, 2012; Canagarajah, 2016). That is, we are aware of the issues
surrounding whether a classroom can function as a genuine CoP. We have already seen one
restriction of a classroom which does not allow its learners to depart from the community
easily, which would not be a serious issue according to the original conception of CoP. Another concern can be that a classroom does not have old-timers whereas CoP expects to havesenior members with whom newcomers would become socialised (Norton & McKinney, 2011).
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201963

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

This paper leaves the full discussion of the controversy to another occasion (Kojima & Thomson in preparation), and treats the classroom as a special case of CoP, which is tentatively
defined as “a classroom where classmates share learning goals and collectively deepen theirskills, knowledge and expertise in the relevant area by interacting with each other regularly
for a sustained duration”. Although a classroom CoP may not have all the features of CoP in
its original form, it still strongly reflects the nature of learning as social practice.

Marginalised Participation
Whereas legitimate peripherality is expected to function as a breathing space towards fuller
participation, stagnation at the periphery sometimes occurs, which CoP considers to be marginalisation. For CoP, marginalisation is a form of non-participation impeding negotiation of
positionality and identity toward fuller participation, potentially resulting in non-membership (Wenger, 1998). Past classroom research informed us that such negotiation of participation and identity at the margin of classrooms becomes a site of struggle (Block, 2007; Norton,
2006; Norton & Toohey, 2011). Exploring how individuals with various “needs, desires, andaspirations resist” marginalised positioning is becoming one of primary focuses in the field ofclassroom participation and identity research (Morita, 2012, p. 31).
Past classroom studies unpacking how students negotiate their participation at the margin has identified some reasons why not all learners move toward fuller participation in theirclassroom communities. For example, the classroom physical setting, for example, the seating
arrangement can isolate a particular student from other students (Toohey, 1998). In Toohey’s
study, the class teacher organised the seating in a way that the student gained little access toother students who had the same first language (L1) so as to promote the use of the student’s
English as a second language (L2). Consequently, the student failed to interact with a widegroup of classmates compared to other students. In a study conducted at a Canadian University, Morita (2004) identified that the stereotype held by local students, namely, that students
from Asian countries are likely to remain passive, imposed a marginal position and identity
onto students from Japan during in-class discussions. Lantolf and Genung (2002) reported
that a postgraduate student in an intensive Chinese language course at a university was seen
as incompetent and thus marginalised when she faced a conflict with the learning belief that
her teacher enacted. Overall, these studies indicate that the social structure, dominant discourse, and/or beliefs of those with power, i.e., “the capacity (and privilege) to project andimpose one’s perspective on others without taking account of others’ perspective” (Lantolf &Genung, 2002, p. 178) created direct or indirect causes of marginalisation of these students.
Whereas students’ participation at the margin and its causes have been identified, how learners perceive their marginalised participation is still inconclusive. Toohey (1998, 2000) reported that the student who was isolated by the seating arrangement was prevented from becoming a fuller participant of the classroom. He appeared to feel excluded from a group of otherstudents and struggled with the positionality. In the end, he did not show developmental useof L2 English as other students did. In contrast, Morita’s Canadian study (2004) reported thatthe seemingly marginalised Japanese student did not necessarily perceive herself as unsuccessful. The student saw her own learning as meaningful whereas she seldom actively participated in and contributed to the classroom discussion. These studies suggest that students do
not necessarily perceive their participation at the margin in the same way but hold their own
unique perceptions. This cautions us in interpreting studies that offer the more simplistic
view of marginalized participation as failure of participation, and as failure of learning.
Regardless how they perceive their own experiences, marginalised students in most studies
were considered as having little agency to assert their identity and thus unwillingly became

64

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

marginalised (Morita, 2004, 2009; Norton, 2000, 2001) or they strategically switched theiridentity to fit the dominant discourse (Lantolf & Genung, 2002). For example, Norton (2001)
describes two migrants to Canada who resisted their teachers’ decision to refuse their participation in an upper level English class. However, their teachers did not change their decision.
The classroom kept its social structure, and eventually, the marginalised students had to leave
the school midway. These studies created the impression that the social structure of classrooms is prescribed and static once established by the one with more power (Jang, 2017).
Pedagogical discussion in the above studies was, therefore, mostly on how educators should
facilitate more active participation of the marginalised into the dominant discourse. However, each CoP is expected to change or become invigorated by its members’ participation andcontribution (Wenger, 1998). Thus, all participating members, including those at the margin,
should have their own unique influence on the social structure given that the classroom isviewed as CoP. Pennycook (2000) argues that classrooms are not “isolated space” (p. 90) in
which only teaching and learning are going on, but are “social spaces” (p. 91) in which “social relations” i.e., negotiations of power “are played out” (p. 94). This suggests to us that
it is important to examine closely how a student’s participation at the margin informs thedesign of classroom community from a CoP perspective, especially if the student is not unwillingly marginalised. We attempt to address this by conducting a qualitative inquiry using
a classroom ethnographic approach (Bloome, 2012) in order to “convey a holistic understanding of the case” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 233). As a part of a larger study, this study has
obtained ethics approval at UNSW Sydney.
In the following section, we will discuss Joanna’s case using data from interviews andjournal entries. All quotes from the interviews and journal entries are italicised. Wordings are
original. Fillers are removed to ease readers’ understanding.

Joanna’s Case
Joanna’s Background
Joanna, a Korean-Australian born in Australia, was a fifth-year student majoring in Media and Journalism at the time she participated in this study. Being a fifth-year student, she
was a little older than many of her classmates. She did most of her study part time due to anumber of commitments outside the university, such as her part-time job. This resulted inher spending less time on campus than most students. The courses she had taken prior tothis study employed relatively new approaches to learning, e.g., flipped classroom in which
students engage with content before classes and focus on discussions/activities during classtime. Thus, she was “familiar with” flexible ways of learning and in-class discussions (firstinterview). As she had grown up in Australia where teacher-student relationships are less hierarchical than is the case of many Asian countries, such as Korea or Japan, she often had had
casual rather than professional relationships with the teaching staff members.
She undertook French in her high school and went on an exchange to France as her mother wanted her to do so. She studied French mostly by sitting down and memorising grammar
in class and practiced using what she had learned when she went outside her class. Now, shegoes to France every year for her family business and manages conversation at both daily andbusiness level in French. She often experiences that speaking French “breaks a lot of barriers”
between her and French speakers (first interview). This made her believe that learning languages is important. In the same way that her family received a few exchange students from
France for Joanna to be eligible to go on the exchange to France, they also received exchange
students from Japan for her siblings to be eligible to go on an exchange to Japanese highschools. Therefore, she stated that she was familiar with Japanese people and culture.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201965

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

For her free-elective subject, Joanna wanted to take a language course. She chose Japanese
because Japanese seemed easier than other languages. She felt this was so as she knew thesimilarity between Korean, one of her L1s, and Japanese and she was familiar with Japaneseculture drawing on her experience with exchange students from Japan. Thus, she seemingly
expected herself to do well in the course. Her goal of Japanese study was to be fluent enoughto manage a basic conversation after completing the Japanese course in Semester 1. She
planned to continue up to Semester 2 to further develop Japanese for travel to Japan. She also
wished to use Japanese with Japanese customers and an Australian-born Japanese colleague at
her work.

The Course and Classroom
Joanna was enrolled in a 13-week introductory Japanese course with a student enrolmentof nearly 400 at one of the top eight Australian universities. The course had a vastly diverse
membership as it was composed of both students majoring in Japanese Studies and thoseundertaking it as a non-major free-elective subject. Students in the course had different cultural and academic backgrounds, were motivated by a variety of interests and goals, and had
diverse prior exposure to Japanese. This also meant that the students ranged from first-year
university students to more experienced near graduation students. This created particular social dynamics in the course.
The course emphasised social participatory learning where students were encouraged to engage in various types of interactional activities and receive help from others to move from thelearning stage of “I can do this with scaffolding” to that of “I can do this alone”. This aimed
to offer purposes and social settings for students to use Japanese with members in the course.
We facilitated these opportunities in the course as students of Japanese as a foreign language
rarely found the purposes and situations to use Japanese outside the course.
Students attended a large group class (about 200 students, called Lecture) for two hours, asmall group class for one hour (Tutorial) and another small group class for two hours (Seminar) of about 25 students each week. Lectures tended to be where students encountered newcontent and engaged in initial use of the content, and Tutorials and Seminars tended to bewhere students engaged in highly interactive modes of learning to put their knowledge andskills into use. However, students were expected to prepare beforehand for active engagement
in interactive activities for all types of classes. In this study, we will focus on Joanna’s experience in Seminars.
Seminars had four features that attempt to promote social participatory learning so thatthe classroom would develop into a CoP. One feature was to facilitate the students’ identity development as members of the Seminar through “naming” the Seminar. The course had
15 Seminar classes for the particular semester of the year. Most of them were scheduled inparallel with other Seminars. Each Seminar was designated as the students’ homeroom, andthe students through discussion gave it a name, such as Samurai-gumi or the Team Samurai.
Then, the students were encouraged to identify themselves as a part of the Team Samurai.
Joanna’s Seminar, which was taught by one of the part-time tutors, chose Sakura-gumi (pseudo name) as its Seminar name. While aiming at forming group identity, this naming was alsoa practical device for the teaching team of seven teachers (four were full-time and three werepart-time teaching staff) to manage a course of nearly 400 students. Seminar teachers, as
homeroom teachers became a point of contact for each student, and the group names madeit easier to distinguish students of the same or similar names. Another feature was the use of
paper name plates students made. At the beginning of each class, a few students took turns indelivering the name plates to relevant classmates by calling out their names. During the class,66

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

students placed them on their tables to display their names to others. This helped not only
students get to know each other but also the teachers in charge of multiple Seminars, to learn
the names of a large number of students. Thirdly, the classroom was arranged with tables andchairs to make a group of four to six students facing each other, for easier student-student
interactions. Fourthly, Senpais, or senior students from more advanced level Japanese courses
were regularly present as supporters in Seminars. Senpais were expected to add more variety to typical classroom interactions, i.e., teacher-student and student-student interactions(Thomson, 1998). They also became role-models for introductory students (Thomson & Mori,
2014), as well as acting as experts i.e., old-timers in the community, and often mediatedteacher-student relationships. In Joanna’s Seminar, one of the authors was an observer andacted somewhat as a Senpai while a Senpai in the sense as described above was not present. In
summary, these four features aimed to raise students’ awareness toward developing a membership identity, active participation and interaction, and learning enhanced by others’ scaffolding. Using these features, the Seminar teacher promoted social participatory learning.
The Seminar served as a summative class of students’ learning of the week. The teacher continuously provided highly interactive pair or group activities where students applied
what they learnt during the week in combination with what they had learnt up to that week.
Further, when students engaged in short dialogues or interview activities, the emphasis wason developing the short dialogues and interview activities into more realistic interactions
with appropriate discourse stages starting from a conversation starter, and ending with aleave-taking remark, with ample attentive feedback in between. The discourse stages were
expected to be effective scaffoldings for the students to express their own ideas when theycame to rely less on such scaffoldings. At the end of each Seminar, students engaged in arole-play where they listened to a model dialogue performed by a Senpai and the Seminarteacher, read the dialogue in pairs, developed their own scenario using their own informationand the discourse strategies, rehearsed several times with gestures, and presented the performance in front of another pair for peer-evaluation. In Week 9, the students undertook an
Interaction Test in pairs where they performed their own original scenario of 5-7 minutes inJapanese in front of all Seminar members. The Interaction Test, an extension of the weeklyrole-play, was officially assessed by the teacher and peer-evaluated by classmates. This typeof intensity of interaction and constant engagement with classmates together with the new
language can only be sustained by active participation as the core value, which was expected
to be shared by all members.

Joanna’s Learning Experiences
How it Began
Thrown into the intensely interactive class, Joanna encountered an unfamiliar approach tolanguage learning from the very beginning of the semester. Unlike Media and Journalism
courses where she experienced in-class discussions frequently, her expectation of language
courses which she gained through her previous study of French was beginning with memorising letters e.g., Hiragana, in the case of Japanese and moving to learning vocabulary andexpressions to form sentences. She expected to learn the linguistic rules in class and to develop them outside class. However, the Japanese course was “the other way around” (first interview). The course expected students to familiarise themselves with linguistic rules outside theclass and use them in class to express themselves. Toward this approach, Joanna said that,“personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing” (first interview). The pressure of interaction, though she expected it to some extent, went beyond her expectation. Thus, she felt thatthe course was “moving very fast on a direction that I wasn’t expecting” (first interview).
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201967

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

Joanna felt that the social participatory learning was forced upon her when the course
quickly established the dominant discourse of highly valuing regular attendance, active interactions, and participation of students. The feeling of being “forced” was multiplied by teachers and a few Senpais who “micromanage[d]” students, for example, taking attendance evenfor Lectures with over 200 students and regularly checking each student’s performance in
Lectures, Tutorials, and Seminars (second interview). The particular way of learning in which
she had to partake in interactive activities and the way of interacting in which teachers emphasised the use of discourse stages under the “surveillance” of the teaching team made her
feel that the course had “no flexibility” and was “very static” (second interview). Not only did
the way the course was run differ from her expectations of what a language course should be
but it was also contrary to her expectations of what a university course should be, i.e., relaxed
relationships between teacher and student, laidback attitude towards attendance and casualand free atmosphere.
Further, Joanna felt that the social participatory learning in the Japanese course essentially included forging and developing relationships with classmates, which did not agree withher view of relationships with university classmates. She was already “tired of having Facebook
friends that I haven’t seen in three years [after] I had one class with them” (first interview). She nolonger wanted to bother making new friends with those whom she would not see after one
semester. Her view of the university relationship was strengthened due to being a part-timestudent who did “not spend time” on campus (first interview). She came to the university towork on her studies as the university was what she “want[ed] to get done and over with” (firstinterview). However, developing relationships with classmates was inseparable from Japaneselearning in the context in which she was thrown.
The imposition of the dominant classroom discourse resulted in her disengagement in
the Seminar. It was because she wanted to avoid constantly feeling “watched”, “forced” and“judged” in the class where, in her opinion, a “rigid” way of doing things were repeatedly emphasised (first, third interview). However, on the surface, she appeared to participate
in activities as other students did. What she did was to pretend to engage in given activities
when her teacher or Senpai, one of the authors, came close by. Further, she did participate
at least minimally as underlying motivation for her participation was to avoid unnecessarily undermining her classmates’ learning. She noted that the fact that “I’m disengaged doesn’tmean I should be disengaging other students with my bad attitude” (first interview). She sustained
her disengaged identity, it appears, at the margin, which diverged from others, rather than
unwillingly keeping an identity as an active student which was valued in the Seminar. This
identity as disengaged student beneath the surface was not something forced upon her but
something she negotiated and chose.
Having chosen to disengage herself and remain at the margin, Joanna frequently questioned, complained and dismissed messages behind the educational practices and devices in
the Seminar. She described the naming activity of her Seminar as “childish” and remained“indifferent” about the name although she understood its “concept” which aimed to provide an
identifying feature and “more of a group identity” (first interview). To Joanna as a disengaged
student, the Seminar was “another class I have to go to” rather than her “homeroom” where
she would have developed her sense of membership (first interview). In Seminars, the social
participatory learning promoted awareness towards not only active speaking but also paralinguistics skills such as body language (bows, nods), and discourse strategies. Joanna felt these
aspects were “overly emphasised” and “forced” regularly to “stereotype a lot” (first interview).
Joanna said that “I totally get that [idea], but … I don’t think it’s quite necessary at this [introductory] stage” and “I refuse to believe that’s the thing” to use the paralinguistic skills and discourse
strategies in real life settings (first interview). These remarks indicate that she dismissed

68

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

what the course expected her to absorb in the Seminars and the course. On the surface, sheremained an ordinary student but underneath, she was developing what might be termed aresistant student identity.

A Sign of Change
Several weeks into the semester, despite her covert resistance to the discourse of the course,
Joanna started to develop relationships with her Seminar classmates. She met “old acquaintances” from her Korean community and gradually became “very close to them” by weekly
attending the same Lecture, Tutorial and Seminar (first journal). She started having lunch,which is “the only extra time I spend on campus” (second interview). She also exchanged messages in an online chat group with them to discuss their Japanese studies. Even though she
was still sceptical that the relationship would be maintained after the semester, the oldfriendships were “reinforced” (first journal) and facilitated her engagement in the study ofJapanese both in and outside the Seminar. However, such positive experience was interrupted
due to two symbolic incidents highlighting her marginality in her Seminar.

The Incidents
Joanna and her Seminar teacher had developed mistrust between them, especially concerning
her learning attitude e.g., punctuality, as Joanna had been late for the class a few times by
the middle of the semester. The course regulation states that the students must arrive in theclassroom within the first 15 minutes of each lesson, otherwise the late students’ attendance
will not be recorded. If a student is more than 15 minutes late, the class teacher is required to
notify the student verbally on the spot and via email on the day as a record.
In Week 10, when Joanna was late for her Seminar by more than 15 minutes, she was approached by the teacher and was told that her attendance would not be recorded. However,
Joanna decided to stay regardless of being recorded as absent. Then, she was told about theattendance by the teacher twice more during the class. The teacher did so possibly because
Joanna remaining in the Seminar made her unsure if Joanna had understood the message. In
the evening, Joanna received the teacher’s email reconfirming her absence on the day and referring to the rule written on the course outline. The teacher was simply following the institutional rule in doing so. However, Joanna who understood the message after the first notice,and did not know about the requirement of notification could not avoid expressing her anger
by saying “this actually got me really angry” (second interview). She thought it was abnormalthat the teacher told her the same thing three times in the class and even emailed her, andthat the teacher “didn’t even ask me why I was late” (second interview). This teacher’s approach
was very different from what she had experienced with other teachers in her school life. She
no longer wanted to talk to the Seminar teacher. To make the matter worse, when Joanna
walked in late, she realised that the class did not have one extra chair for her. This was due tothe fact that a few students had temporarily joined the class from other Seminars. She complained that “my seat was taken” as she was not able to sit with her friends (second interview).
These events made her feel unneeded in the Seminar and ask herself “why am I even there?”(second interview). She began considering changing her Seminar class.
After the incidents, she described herself as a “rebellious” student: “do what I want” and“fight against the rules” (second interview). She reported that, during a whole class interview
activity in Week 10, she was reluctant to approach unfamiliar classmates. She recalled that,“the girls I spoke to” were those “I’ve previously been in touch with before” (second interview).
Besides, whereas she successfully completed the Interaction Test in Week 9 with her partner
who forged a good friendship with Joanna throughout the process, she reflected upon the test
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201969

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

as “unnatural and forced” and thus neither “necessary” nor “enjoyable” (second journal). She
also dismissed the implementation of peer-assessment as she “didn’t want to be the judge ofanyone’s hard work” (second journal). Joanna felt that her position even at the margin in the
Seminar was threatened and thus attempted to secure and validate her presence by positioning and identifying herself as “rebellious” (second interview).
As a result of feeling displaced in her Seminar, Joanna seemed to lose her initial motivation
to learn Japanese in order to manage basic conversation when visiting Japan or at her work.
She became “a little bit less ambitious” compared to the beginning of her studies (second interview). She even said that “I’d rather just fail the course rather than… do something that [I] don’t
want to do and feel miserable about it” because she no longer “care[d] about marks” (second interview). However, she was aware that she still had to complete the course considering the institutional regulations. She stated, “well, the census date has passed. … So, [discontinuation] is kindof not an option”, given that after the census date, students dropping the course receive academic and financial penalty, and thus, her motivation to continue the course became to “finish
what you started” (second interview). The conflicting positionality and identity at the margin,i.e., wanting to discontinue but having to continue, required Joanna to seek a way to persist
and finish the course in the remaining two weeks in the semester.
Towards the end of the semester, Joanna increasingly accessed Japanese learning opportunities outside the Seminar. For example, she attempted to catch up with the contents byreviewing vocabulary and grammar outside the class, which was different to her original viewof learning; learn basics in class and practice outside. She still exchanged messages to grasp
what was going on in the course, had lunch together, and did homework in the library withher friends with whom she had reconnected. At her workplace, she had an Australian-born
Japanese friend who studied Japanese at another university. He always asked Joanna, “How’s
Japanese going?” (second interview). She frequently consulted the friend and received answers to her questions and a third opinion, which was critical toward what she was taught in
the Seminar. He also gave supportive comments on what Joanna experienced in her Japanese
course, which made her feel relieved from time to time. These allowed her to remain in the
Seminar even at the very fringe and assert her covertly rebellious identity.
In Week 12, however, she made her decision to move from her original to another Seminarwith a different teacher and different classmates. Whereas she stated that “the relationship”
she “had in the course made it easier to attend and study Japanese [in the original Seminar] because
we could rely on each other” (third journal), she confessed that “I’m too scared to even talk to her[the teacher in her original Seminar]” (second interview) and “I was quite nervous that I would
unintentionally offend her” (third interview). For this reason, she freed herself from the unnecessary “stress and tension” with her teacher (third interview). This may have been one of a few
doable coping strategies to avoid conflict with the teacher and academic and financial penalty,
but simultaneously to stay on track towards graduation, which was her ultimate goal.

Her Perception of Learning
In the last interview, Joanna reported that what she learned in the course was “another six
units of credit” toward her graduation and she was “still far off from” what she “was hoping to”
initially achieve (third interview). However, the six units of credit included various things. At
some point, she mentioned some learning which was expected to happen through the social
participatory learning such as adopting “certain mannerisms that are Japanese when you speak
Japanese” (second interview). She added that she learnt “contextual use” of Japanese while
experiencing “the flow of the language” (third interview). She reminded us, however, that she
did not learn it but was taught or, in other words, forced. As she put it, “we are kind of taught,

70

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

everyone starts sounding the same… and that’s what they want, which is kind of scary” (second interview). It was against her view because she believed that “language reflects character and individuality” (second interview). These remarks illustrate that she was not learning what she wanted, that is to express herself and her individuality through Japanese, but learning a certain
uniform way of contextualised usages of Japanese, which she dismissed as “another six unitsof credit”. This is ironical as the course designers’ intention was for the students as beginnerlearners to become able to express themselves using some set discourse strategies as scaffoldings. Without such scaffoldings, they would have little clue about how to express themselves
freely. Joanna missed this intention. At the same time, the teaching team failed to make theintention clear.
Joanna remained as a rebellious student, albeit covertly, because her fundamental identity as a “leisure learner” was explicitly threatened. As the semester progressed, her interview
revealed an expectation of the course as a place for “leisurely learning” as a free-elective subject i.e., “fun thing to do” focusing not on “academic” but “practical side” “for a tourist” since
she heard that this is how the course would be (third interview). Nevertheless, in the middleof the semester, she had to admit that “it’s harder than I thought” (second interview). Joanna
had studied French in high school and could have expected a similar pace of learning in theuniversity Japanese course, while in fact university language courses move twice as fast as
high school language courses. It gradually became difficult to accept the requirements of thecourse, which was “fast-paced and content heavy” to her, as she wanted to sit back, listen, andenjoy “leisurely learning” Japanese (third interview, journal). She said that, “everyone is superserious. Everyone needs to relax” to highlight such a gap between her as leisure and other classmates as non-leisure learners (second interview). In the end, she survived the semester andpassed the course using learning opportunities outside the Seminar. However, she changed
her original plan and decided not to undertake the Semester 2 Japanese course as she hardly
imagined a place for herself as a “leisure learner” in the imagined Japanese course community. Joanna concluded that, “the course aims and what the students aims are, it doesn’t really matchup” (third interview). A series of interviews and journal entries revealed to us that Joanna
underwent a range of emotions where her history, ongoing experiences, and expectations for
future dynamically interplayed with each other to determine her ongoing positioning, participation and identity.

“Why Am I Even There?”
Joanna, who initially positioned herself at the margin in a somewhat deliberate way by intentionally disengaging herself, had to change the way to negotiate her marginal positionality andidentity when the conflicting views between her, her teacher, the majority of her classmates,
and the course became apparent. The dominant “right” discourse of valuing participatory
learning was reinforced through repeated emphasis and practice by more and more members
moving toward the core of the community. Joanna must have felt that the other 400 students,
seven teachers, and a number of Senpais formed a force against her. In classrooms, this type of
dominant discourse and power are not easily negotiable, and thus not easily changeable especially by those with less power (Jang, 2017; Lantolf & Genung, 2002). Joanna had no way toovertly negotiate and express her desire to be a leisure learner who could sit back and relax
during the class. Thus, she covertly disengaged herself and developed her covertly resistantidentity beneath her apparently “right” participation at the margin where she felt being outside the “surveillance”. This resistance notwithstanding, the participatory practices were forced
upon Joanna, and she became immovable towards anywhere other than remaining at the very
fringe. In a CoP in its original from, stagnation at the margin may result in non-membership(Wenger, 1998), however, as expected, leaving the course and accepting academic and financial
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201971

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

penalty was never a choice for her since her ultimate goal was to finish the university degree as
quickly as possible. In this context, Joanna coped by establishing a rebellious identity to secureand validate her presence even at the fringe of the community. Marginalised students in previous studies were depicted as those with little agency to assert their marginal identities (Morita
2004, 2009; Norton, 2000, 2001), which was not the case of Joanna, who asserted her rebellious
identity and willingly stayed at the fringe. However, the incidents in Week 10 strikingly symbolised the loss of her legitimacy even at the margin in the Seminar for Joanna, and that waswhen she chose to move to another Seminar instead of staying.
Throughout the semester, Joanna was consistently resistant to social participatory learning,which we believe is essential in the success of the Japanese course. It is normal that students
come to this course with their own expectations about how a foreign language course should
be managed. Joanna’s expectation was to sit down and memorise grammar in class and practice using it when she went outside her class, due to her past successful experiences withlearning French. This approach may have allowed her to express her individuality in Frenchoutside of the classroom, using the basics she learned in the classroom. Unfortunately, theJapanese course approached language learning in an entirely different way. She was expected
to sit down and memorise the basics at home, and practice using Japanese in class. It seemed
to be one of the causes of her resistance toward the course which aligns with a case of a student in a Chinese course whose learning belief clashed with her teacher’s teaching belief,
reported in Lantolf and Genung (2002). This student of Chinese ended up changing herself toadopt her teacher’s approach to survive the course. However, Joanna remained covertly resistant; she positioned herself at the margin by disengaging herself from and being indifferent
to the practices to which she did not assent.
The gap between the approach in the curriculum and individual students’ preferred learning styles is nothing new. For example, similar observations could be made in the era ofCommunicative Language Teaching which benefited students who willingly interacted withothers, while possibly undermining the learning of students who preferred a solitary modeof learning. In contrast, Lantolf and Genung (2002) reported that the student who stressed
the importance of communication resisted a teaching approach that was based on recitationand memorisation. No matter which method the teacher adopts, the disjunction and conflict
would remain between different learning beliefs. We assert that any students who are notused to the social participatory learning, not just Joanna, would naturally feel a certain degreeof anxiety and frustration. Thus, it may be incorrect to attribute her resistance solely to the
disjunction between her learning belief and the course’s approach.
Interviews with Joanna gradually revealed her identity as a “leisure learner”, and this may
explain her persistent resistance toward the dominant discourse of social participatory learning, which demanded consistent preparation outside class and active participation in class.
It is hard to imagine that her successful learning experience of high school French did not
demand any degree of consistent preparation and active participation. Whereas we note thata university language course proceeds twice as fast as a typical high school language course,
Joanna’s overconfidence as a successful language learner-speaker of English, Korean andFrench, who was familiar with Japanese culture, and as a seasoned university senior student,
compounded by the course’s reputation as a “leisurely learning” course seemed to undermine
her judgement on how much work would be required. In this sense, her claim of being a “leisure learner” sounds like an afterthought. Joanna’s characterisation of a “leisure learner” isa little different from Stebbins’ (2007) and Kubota’s (2011) characterisation of leisure learners
as those who do not pursue language learning for practical benefit or professional development but who consume “short-lived pleasurable core activity, requiring little or no special
training” (Stebbins, 2007, p. 38). Before having come to the course, Joanna indeed wanted to72

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

gain some practical benefit, i.e., linguistic skills and credit for graduation. Nevertheless, she
mistakenly thought that she could do so while enjoying the course as entertainment without putting any significant amount of effort into the class. Paradoxically, the Seminar was
where being serious and active was the key to enjoying the entertainment aspect of learning.
We assume that remaining at the margin i.e., being disengaged from and indifferent to what
she experienced, was possibly Joanna’s way to justify her presence as a “leisure learner”, andby claiming this identity, she must have further justified her legitimacy to herself. Under thecircumstances, it was most likely the only way that she could cope.
Unfortunately, social participatory learning constantly required Joanna to expose her ability
or inability in public, i.e., in her Seminar, unlike a solitary mode of learning. She emphasised
a feeling of discomfort at being “watched, “forced”, and “judged” that she felt was characteristic of the Seminar. The Seminar as CoP, if we may view it as such, determined the “right”
practice, i.e., a set of discourse strategies, the domain, i.e., valuing active participation ininteractions, and the community, i.e., a place for befriending classmates. Joanna’s rebellious
identity may have been an unconscious or perhaps conscious strategy to avoid facing up thefact that she was falling behind by the measure of the “right” standards. Considering the“right” standards that she neither shared or valued, she had no other choice than to disengage herself, to pretend to participate as others did, and to remain at the margin until the two
incidents pushed her to move to another Seminar, and discontinue her Japanese studies at theuniversity. It is now understandable that she exclaimed “why am I even there?”. For Joanna,
instead of continuing to struggle at the margin, leaving the Japanese course community wasperhaps the right choice. If this was a more standard CoP, Joanna, as its member, could havechosen to contribute to practices to negotiate the domain and move to the core of the community, or to exit the community. However, as stated above, the special nature of the “classroom” CoP kept her stuck at the margin.
No matter how we view Joanna’s experiences, it is true that she underwent a range of emotions dynamically. Joanna anticipated a course where she could engage in “leisurely learning”,
so was surprised at the new learning approach. She was uneasy with her younger classmates,
feeling a short-lived comfort with her “friends”. Becoming upset and angry at her teacher,she remained covertly defiant at the margin. When learners experience an emotionally loaded experience, they may resort to reticence and withdrawal as a form of emotional defence(King, 2013). Such an emotionally loaded experience may have frequently occurred for Joanna
in the Seminar where she was forced to participate in interaction on a regular basis. We needto acknowledge that language classrooms can be the cause of “emotional turmoil” and sitesof “emotionally highly loaded experience” (Dörnyei & Murphy, 2010, p. 22). For Joanna, theSeminar is best described as a cause of emotional turmoil and the site of an emotionally highly loaded experience.

“Six Units of Credit”
Joanna described her learning outcome in this course as the “six units of credit” toward her
graduation. Despite her initial motivation to be able to manage basic conversations in Japanese, she concluded that she had not achieved that goal. Then, she decided to discontinue
Japanese study after completing Semester 1 though she had originally planned to continue until the end of Semester 2. Past studies have mostly classified marginalised students as
unsuccessful when they failed to move toward the core of a community (Morita, 2004, 2009;
Norton, 2000; Toohey, 1998; 2000; Wenger, 1998). However, Joanna did at least complete thecourse and acknowledged some progress in the contextual use of Japanese and Japanese behaviours, which were intended outcomes of the course. Nevertheless, she remained critical
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201973

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

toward the course and its approach. Once a dominant view is established and regularly imposed, it becomes hard to be self-reflective especially at the core of the community, but Joanna at the margin did remain so. On one hand, she may have been unsuccessful in moving
towards the core of the classroom community, on the other hand, she gained the six units ofcredit toward her graduation and acknowledged her own learning outcomes. In other words,
she survived in the CoP. Instead of classifying her as unsuccessful, we might want to conclude
that Joanna was after all a successful student even at the margin, and that she exited thecommunity with the unique outcome she gained, especially because of her positioning at themargin and covert resistance or rebellious identity. Her experience gave us an opportunity toreflect upon and question the uncritical view of full participants as successful and marginalised participants as unsuccessful.
Joanna made us question what it means to “participate”. In the course, the teachers andSenpais came around the tables to “watch” the students to “judge” whether they were “participating”. In Joanna’s opinion, the students were under “surveillance”. Social participatory
learning views more contributing, responsible and thus valued participation to be overt engagement with a person and a practice in a situation. The teachers perhaps wanted to see thestudents to be genuinely engaged in oral practices with their classmates. We assume that the
Seminar teacher readily assessed Joanna’s engagement as genuine participation. Actually, oneof the authors as an observer who knew her covert resistant identity through interviews andjournals, did not see much difference between her and other students’ participation. In fact,
what the Seminar teacher saw as Joanna’s seemingly genuine engagement when she approached Joanna was pretend-participation. We know so now only because Joanna disclosedthat she pretended to be engaged when the teacher and one of the authors as a Senpai camecloser, while she was actually disengaged beneath the surface. Joanna reminded us that thesaying “seeing is believing” does not apply in this context.
Especially in language classroom where social participatory learning is employed, we, theteachers, are easily inclined to regard ideal classroom students as extroverts, with overtly active participants collaborating in the classroom activities orchestrated by us. This viewis prevalent not only in teachers but also in students, as well as the general public and this
discourse must have pressured Joanna to act in the way she did. However, what Joanna
demonstrated was that overt participation can be a mask covering disengagement or pretend-engagement. In turn, a seeming lack of overt participation may not necessarily signify
disengagement but could mean deep mental engagement. In fact, Morita (2004) reported thata student who remained quiet at the margin during in-class discussions was actually satisfied
with her learning experience. Given that we acknowledge the diversity of the student population and in the way that students participate, either overtly or covertly, or being engaged ordisengaged, we also need to promote diverse models of ideal classroom students rather than
impose a uniform model informed by the concept of “full participant” onto students.

Classroom CoP?
Joanna’s experience led us to rethink the validity of “imposing” the social participatory
learning on all students, and to reflect upon other students who might actually be resistant
without being noticed by us, in other words, to reconsider what it means to implement CoP,
SL, and LPP for classroom CoP. We now know that Joanna’s emotionally loaded negative experience in the course not only forced her out of the Seminar community but also took away
her appetite for studying Japanese any further, at least at the university. What this suggests
to us is that a strong insistence on social participatory learning may result in the unintentional effect of forcing some members out of the community.

74

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

We believed that the application of the concept of social participatory learning in a form of
CoP functions well when “all” members are on board, that is, by valuing active participationand contribution to practice. This might work well in the original CoP in which the membership makeup is fluid. However, this study showed that in classroom CoP where the membership was basically static, expecting all to be on board without question would not work. In
the course overall, there were indeed many students who came to enjoy and exploit the social
participatory learning where they not only learned but also practised Japanese. However, large
courses such as this introductory Japanese for hundreds of students are very likely to include
students who may not be ready to be fully on board for a number of complex reasons, as Joanna exemplified. We need to reconsider if “all” have to be on board to the same degree andin the same way.
The course we have discussed is difficult to manage as not only is the number of people involved large, but also the participants are diverse, and thus, they come with their own culturally
and historically loaded expectations. Taking Joanna for an example, her heritage is Korean, but
her upbringing is Australian. Her interviews partially revealed that she had a strong motherfigure who decided that Joanna would study French and go on an exchange to France and host
French exchange students. This home experience may have been different from her other experiences of the Australian education system in which she could form casual relationships with
her teachers. Joanna appears to cope with the two value systems but got lost when she stepped
into the Japanese classroom within the Australian education system. In the Japanese classroom,
the teacher, or the mother figure, chose what she was to do, which perplexed her. The glimpseof her life lets us envisage the complexity that each student has and brings to the classroom
community. In reality, students like Joanna may be more common than we can detect.
We also need to be aware that teachers have different statuses, experiences, and teaching philosophies and thus different expectations for student participation. Joanna’s Seminarteacher was a part-time teacher on a semester-by-semester contract, who was in a vulnerable position and so may have felt obligated to strictly follow the institutional rules, such as
the university’s attendance policy, and implement the teaching approach that the full-time
continuing teachers decided on, no matter what teaching philosophy she might have personally held beneath the surface. This does not mean that there was little communication
between full-time and part-time teachers at the university. They had rather frequent communication to manage the large course as a team. However, we do not know to what extent
individual teachers understand the theories to implement in her or his classrooms. It is possible that the teachers at the university were implementing the participatory approach without
fully appreciating the theory and philosophy behind it. Another possible explanation about Joanna’s Seminar teacher could come from Japanese discourse strategies. In communicating inJapanese, people tend not to give reasons for being late, but simply apologise. Giving reasons
is seen as giving excuses to justify wrong-doing, and not taken as graceful. Although it does
not excuse the teacher for not acknowledging why Joanna was late, we could surmise that it
was most important for the teacher on the day to enforce the attendance rule. Mistrust between Joanna and her teacher may have been built upon not only individual but also complex
layers of social, historical and organisational relationships brought in by the various members, of which, we, the teaching team, might not be aware. Just as Pennycook (2000) argues
that classrooms are not isolated but situated in a larger social space in which social relations
are played out, a classroom CoP is, just as an original CoP would be, connected to the diverseand complex realities and histories through its members, and meanwhile regulated by thenature of the classroom. In the case of our Seminar, the social relations between Joanna andher teacher were indeed influenced by the diverse and complex realities and histories as wellas the nature of the classroom.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201975

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

In fact, theoretically, CoP, SL, and LPP do allow members to locate themselves in the periphery of the community even as leisure participants as long as they wish to be part of thecommunity. As a student who undertook the Japanese course as a free-elective subject, Joanna’s identification as a “leisure learner” at the margin should have been justified or at least
recognized as valid. The course overall may have allowed her to remain at the margin as she
passed the course, but it is questionable whether Joanna’s Seminar allowed her to situateherself in this manner at the margin of the community. Ideally, a classroom CoP should not
rigidly determine a single domain, community and practice to give those at the margin, like
Joanna, opportunities to express their desired identity and to contribute to the practices of
the classroom in their own ways. In such a classroom, teachers may well be able to orchestrate different ways of students’ participation in and contribution to practices, and divergent
students can assert their own positionality and identity as meaningful. However, classrooms
including ours are embedded in the broader social context e.g., the university system witha number of regulations such as the attendance policy, and grading the students for unitsof credit. Whether leisurely learning expecting a little workload is a viable option especiallywithin a highly competitive university such as ours is debatable. This cautions us to communicate more thoroughly with students about different ways to participate in the classroom,
the broader context in which the classroom is situated and possible outcomes resulting fromtheir participation in the classroom.

Concluding Remarks
The course Joanna was enrolled in finished successfully with an overall highly positive student evaluation. We are thankful to Joanna who made us turn our attention from this overall
evaluation to the individual lived experience at the margin, which is often overlooked. Before
closing this discussion, we address how marginalisation might be dealt with given that it
must be more common than we assume.
Most crucially, if we acknowledge the diverse culturally and historically loaded expectationsof students and thus different positioning in classrooms, “it is important for educators to
explore with students which identity positions offer the greatest opportunity for social engagement and interaction” (Norton & Toohey, 2011, p. 429). Further, given that we expect acertain way of learning, we may need to explain why we employ the particular approach (Satoet al., 2015), especially if it is relatively new such as social participatory learning. We feel that
we have to become more resourceful in communicating crucial information to our students,
as we find that stating the information in official university course outlines or syllabuses, andverbally conveying it again in lectures would not be enough. These tailored supports have thepotential to avoid immediately imposing a teacher’s view of learning on students (Rogoff etal., 2001), and students with contrasting views need not feel marginalised but should be able
to remain at the periphery until they find the means to contribute to the classroom community in their unique way.
We suggest that resisting is not necessarily an unhealthy practice but is actually a part ofa process of constructing new practices, which should be received positively. However, when
all students are required to become full participants who are integral to the core part of thecommunity, resistance to the core value may not be valued or allowed. Instead, the dominantview which the core participants hold may be forced upon the students, and thus they will
only learn what the community wants them to learn in a way which the community sees as
the “right” practice. This may result in merely reproducing the same practice and negating
individual uniqueness because it fails to conform the “right” practice (Freire, 1970) or students
pretending to participate in the “right” way and dismissing their learning experiences as un-

76

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

meaningful as this study revealed. Thus, those who have more power in the community i.e.,teachers and course coordinators, need to legitimate other views and to turn various views,
including resisting views, into valued resources for community development. We would liketo learn from Joanna’s experiences and develop our Classroom CoP, into one in which resistance is not outlawed.
This study focused on Joanna’s learning experience at the margin. One case study cannot
reveal enough to understand the experiences of all students who for one reason or anotherfind themselves at the margin. Furthermore, this case study is about a particular course at auniversity in Australia, which may not be relevant to other courses. As students like Joanna
must not be rare, we hope to hear more voices of students who experience participation at themargin to incorporate their views into designing better language classrooms.

References
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London, UK: Continuum.
Bloome, D. (2012). Classroom ethnography. In M. Grenfell, D. Bloome, C. Hardy, K. Pahl, J.
Rowsell, & B. Street (Eds.), Language, ethnography, and education: Bridging new literacy studies
and Bourdieu (pp. 7-26). New York, NY: Routledge.
Canagarajah, S. (2016). TESOL as a professional community: A half-century of pedagogy,
research, and theory. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 7-41.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphy, S. R. (2010). Where does psychology and second language acquisition
research connect? An interview with Zoltán Dörnyei. The Language Teacher, 34(2), 19-23.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and issues.
Language Teaching, 40(4), 309-319.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL Quarterly,
40(4), 807-817.
Jang, E. (2017). “We got rid of her sentences for revenge”: Re-viewing second-language
learner strategies considering multiple tensions in the ESL classroom. Mind, Culture, andActivity, 24(1), 32-46.
King, J. (2013). Silence in the second language classroom. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire,and the business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
14(4), 473-488.
Lamb, M. (2012). The struggle to belong: Individual language learners in situated learningtheory. In P. Benson, & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural
approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp. 32-45). Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.
Lantolf, J. P., & Genung, P. B. (2002). “I’d rather switch than fight”: An activity-theoretic
study of power, success, and failure in a foreign language classroom. In C. Kramsch (Ed.),
Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 175-196). London,
UK: Continuum.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201977

“Personally, I don’t like the whole interactioning thing”: Is a Classroom as a Community of Practice for Everyone?

Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603.
Morita, N. (2009). Language, culture, gender, and academic socialization. Language and
Education, 23(5), 443-460.
Morita, N. (2012). Identity: The situated construction of identity and positionality inmultilingual classrooms. In S. Mercer, S. Ryan, M. Williams (Eds.), Psychology for language
learning: Insight from research, theory and practice (pp. 26-41). London, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Norton, B., & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D.
Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 73-94). London, UK:
Routledge.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.
London, UK: Longman.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In
M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159171). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (2006). Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. In K.
Cadman & K. O’Regan (Eds.), TESOL in Context [Special Issue]. 22-33.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language
Teaching, 44(4), 412-446.
Pennycook, A. (2000). The social politics and the cultural politics of language classrooms. In J.
K. Hall & W. G. Eggington (Eds.), The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. 89-103).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Rogoff, B., Goodman-Turkanis, C., & Bartlett, L. (2001). Learning together: Children and adults ina school community. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sato, S., Matsui, K. R., & Kumagai, Y. (2015). Letter project for an introductory Japanese. In
S. Sato, T. Takami, U. Kamiyoshi, & Y. Kumagai (Eds.), Language education for social future:
Critical content-based instruction (pp. 125-150). Tokyo, Japan: Koko Publishing.
Stebbins, R. A. (2007). Serious leisure: A perspective of our time. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Thomson, C. K. (1998). Junior teacher internship: Promoting cooperative interaction andlearner autonomy in foreign language classrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 569-583.
Thomson, C. K., & Mori, T. (2014). Japanese communities of practice: Creating opportunities
for out-of-class learning. In D. Nunan & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Language learning beyond theclassroom (pp. 272-281). New York, NY: Routledge.
Toohey, K. (1998). Breaking them up, taking them away. ESL students in grade 1. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(1), 61-84.
Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social relations and classroom practice.
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to
managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

78

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Takuya Kojima & Chihiro Thomson

Review ProcessThis paper was blind peer-reviewed by members of the Learner Development Journal Review
Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.)

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Barbara Northwood, Dr. Emi Otsuji and Ms. Nagisa Fukui
for their constructive comments. This paper uses a part of Kojima’s PhD study supported by
the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at UNSW Sydney. The authors also acknowledge theeditors of the journal and blind reviewers who helped shape this paper.

Author Bios
Takuya Kojima is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Department of Asian and North African Studies of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy. He has a graduate diploma in researchand PhD from UNSW Sydney, Australia. His research interests include social learning theories,
identity and language practice, and language pedagogy (learning environmental design). He
currently researches into critical and transformative pedagogies for foreign language education at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
Chihiro Thomson is Professor of Japanese Studies at UNSW Sydney, Australia. She writes
widely on Japanese language education. Her most recent book is Foreign Language Learning
Communities of Practice: Mechanisms for Participatory Learning (Thomson, Ed. 2017, Coco Publishing, Tokyo). She is a winner of multiple awards, including the Japanese Foreign Minister’sCommendation (2016), and an Australian Award for University Teaching (2012).

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201979

RESEARCH PAPER
Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development
Paula Kalaja and Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty, University of Jyväskylä, FinlandThis article focuses on second or foreign language (L2) learner identity and its development as discursively constructed, and we will summarize four studies conducted on this topic. The studies were conducted in the context
of L2 teacher education in Finland, and the participants were student teachers (pre-service teachers) or recently
qualified teachers of English or other L2s. As data we made use of narratives in different modes (oral, written,
visual). The summarizing of the studies will be followed by a joint critical discussion of the theoretical and methodological lessons learned and possible applications.
本稿は第二言語学習者や外国語学習者（L2)のアイデンティティと言説の中で構築されることで起こるアイデンティティの発展について、4つの調査を行い分析を行った。調査はフィンランドのL2教師教育の文脈で行っており、研究参加者は教師志望の学生（教育実習生）、ある
いは教師となって間もない英語や他の言語教師である。研究参加者から得られた、オーラル、筆記、ビジュアルという異なるモードのナラテ
ィブの分析を通して、理論や方法論に関する見解を示すとともにそれらの実践への応用可能性について批判的な議論を行う。

Keywords
L2 learner identity, identity development, narrative, discursive construction

キーワード
L2学習者アイデンティティ、アイデンティティ発達、ナラティブ、言説的構築主義

T

his article investigates second or foreign language (L2) learner identity and its development as constructed in narratives. Over the past few years we have been exploring thepossibilities of narratives in researching and fostering L2 learner identities. Our starting
point is that narratives can be viewed as constructions of identities (and beliefs), which areshared in time and space (Kalaja, Barcelos, Aro & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2016). The narratives collected in our studies were produced in a variety of modes: written, oral and visual—and weresometimes complemented with other types of data. In this article, we explore how different
types of narrative tasks assigned to student teachers (or pre-service teachers) or recently
qualified teachers of English or other L2s in different stages of their studies with us helped
them to: 1) make explicit their beliefs about aspects of L2 learning or teaching, 2) envision
their future L2 classes, and 3) consider the meaning(s) of other people’s narratives in relation
to their own identity.
We start by defining one of the key terms, that is, identity. Recently, Barkhuizen (2017, p.
4) offered a new definition based on a review of over 40 studies of (L2) teacher identity. We
suggest Barkhuizen’s definition be broadened to apply also to L2 learners (basically by replacing L2 teacher identities with L2 learner identities):
L2 learner identities are cognitive, social, emotional, ideological and historical—they are both
inside the learner and outside in the social, material and technological world. L2 learner identities are being and doing, feeling and imagining, and storying. They are struggle and harmony:
they are contested and resisted, by self and others, and they are also accepted, acknowledged
and valued, by self and others. They are core and peripheral, personal and professional, they
are dynamic, multiple, and hybrid, and they are foregrounded and backgrounded. And learner
identities change, short-term, and over time—discursively in social interaction with teachers,
learners, teacher educators, administrators and the wider community, and in material inter-

80

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

action with spaces, places and objects in the classroom, institutions and online (adapted from
Barkhuizen, 2017, p. 4).
No single study can address all of the facets of L2 learner identity mentioned in this very
comprehensive definition. In the following, we will focus on the phenomenon as discursively
constructed on specific occasions of narrating by a specific group of L2 learners on their way
to becoming qualified L2 teachers. By focusing on the discursive construction of identities wewish to illustrate the possibilities of this approach for research and teacher education.
This article begins with a short introduction to narrative research on L2 learner identities and our understanding of identity development. This is followed by the main body of thepaper comprising a dialogue between the two co-authoring researchers: first, we summarize
four studies carried out in three different projects, then we discuss the lessons learned fromthe studies and the meanings of the narratives that became evident in the process. We close
the article by considering possible practical applications of our findings.

Background to the Studies: Narrative Inquiry and Narrative Identity
Construction
Over the past few decades, narrative inquiry has become an established form of research in Applied Language Studies (Barkhuizen 2013; Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2014; Benson, 2014). It
has been widely used to study learners’ and teachers’ experiences in multiple contexts, such as
studying abroad, held beliefs, and envisioning the future (Benson, 2014; Golombek & Johnson,
2004; Kubanyiova, 2012; Norton, 2013). Essential to narrative inquiry is the phenomenologicalidea of the unique construction of human experience: individuals do not experience life as isolated events; rather, they are active in creating cohesion and connections between the events tocreate a meaningful life story (Barkhuizen, 2011; Polkinghorne, 1988). Life narratives are used
to tell oneself and others who we are, where we come from and what our values are. Narratives
thus provide essential insights into individuals’ ways of conceptualizing the world and a meansof examining beliefs, attitudes, agency and emotions. In the context of this article, we understand narration as an activity in which beliefs, experiences and attitudes can be made meaningful and justified (Kalaja et al., 2016). We do not claim that narratives equal identities, but rather
they are evidence of an active process of identity development.
Our view of identity development as storytelling has its roots in narrative and discursive
theories of identity (Barkhuizen, 2013, 2017). Accordingly, identity is not understood as something that is stable, fixed or determined, but as something that is constructed within a givensocio-historical context (Block, 2007). This makes identities situational and social in nature(Norton, 2013). For us, identities are thus social processes rather than fixed products (Duff,
2012, p. 14). To provide a more complete idea of this process we rely on one important feature of the identity development process: that of human agency. Although social, identities
are not determined by the social environment, but rather actively moulded and negotiated byindividual learners in relation to their environment (Kalaja et al., 2016). It is through personal narratives that life is made meaningful and understood and thus identities are constructed(Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2013). In L2 learner identity development, identities are not only expressed
through storytelling, but also through learning and teaching activities (Trent, 2011; Varghese,
Morgan, Johnston, & Johnson, 2005) but, as such, narratives provide an important means ofunderstanding the processes of identity development. In narratives, identities are in a constant state of being and becoming. In narration, individuals express their beliefs, attitudes
and values. They justify them by using a storyline that further constructs their identities. This
process of identity construction in time and space (Norton, 2013) also provides further possibilities for continuous identity development. Although narratives are often backward looking,Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201981

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development

they also contain a future-oriented component (Block, 2017). In identity narratives individuals attempt to make sense of “who they are and who they desire or fear to be” (Barkhuizen,
2017, p. 4). For us, this concept of identity is tightly linked to the concept of beliefs, sinceidentity is expressed in the form of beliefs that define who we are (Kalaja et al., 2016). For theidentity of an L2 learner, beliefs about language, learning and self are central. However, any
belief can be used to construct L2 learner identity.
Typical of narrative inquiry in general is involvement by the researchers in the data construction processes. Narrative data collection is often a result of a collaborative activity andthus becomes a meeting point of different needs and expectations. As Barkhuizen (2011)
points out in reference to narrative data collection: “These practices come with complex ethical, ideological, and emotional responsibilities” (p. 393). In educational settings, research
activities are very often connected with pedagogical motivation. Narratives provide a teacher-researcher with the possibility of combining both goals, i.e., supporting their students’reflection processes and learning activities and collecting data to better understand his or her
own teaching and learning. Different kinds of narrative tasks are widely used in educational
contexts, especially in teacher education, to foster student teacher development (Barkhuizen,
2017; Golombek & Doran, 2014). Also for us as researchers, narrative research has been bothpart of our practice as language teacher educators and a way of collecting data for our studies. Narratives have enabled our students to reflect on their lives, hopes and future goals andconstruct their L2 learner identities. In our research projects we have regarded these stories
as constructions of identities (and beliefs), shared in time and space. In this article, we aim toshare our current understanding of this process of storying and its significance for L2 learner
identity development.

Four Closely Related Studies Summarized
Both of the co-authoring researchers are experienced L2 teacher educators at the University of
Jyväskylä, Finland. For more than a decade, we have been involved in a number of narrative research projects in which we have collected data from our students in the form of course assignments and other types of tasks. All of the projects made use of narrative data and were mainly
longitudinal in design. In this section we summarize four studies carried out in three of theseprojects. We follow this with a joint critical discussion of the lessons learned (Section 4).
Although all three research projects focus on L2 teacher identity and its formation, they also
provide insights into L2 learner identity as the participants are university students or newly qualified teachers who have been studying English or other languages as major or minor
subjects and as second or foreign languages. Especially in the early phase of teacher development, learner identities serve as a foundation for reflection on teaching in the future. In thisarticle we focus on the facets of the narrative tasks used that can be used to trace the development of L2 learner identity.

Study 1 Summarized by Paula: What was Studied, How, and What was Found?
Study 1 was carried out as part of the research project “From Novice to Expert” (see, e.g., Kalaja, 2016a) as a discursive study with a longitudinal research design. It traces developmentsin the beliefs held by university students regarding English, a language they were studying,and Finnish, their L1.
We (meaning a research team consisting of myself and two colleagues of mine, Riikka Alanen and Hannele Dufva) asked a group of English majors and minors on an MA programme
at our university, irrespective of their line of specialization, to fill in a questionnaire. The

82

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

questionnaire contained, for example, a section with half a dozen sentence completion tasks
aimed at comparing English with Finnish, e.g., “In my opinion, English is/sounds …”, “Ifyou ask me, compared with Finnish, English is …” and closing with the more open-ended
question, “What does English mean to you these days?” The students completed the tasks
twice—in the first and final year of their studies (approx. four to five years apart), the firsttime with pencil and paper (n = 118) while attending a course on “learning to learn foreign
languages”, and the second time online (n = 37).
Table 1. Interpretative Repertoires Identified in Comparing an L2 (English) with an L1 (Finnish) (FL =foreign language) (adapted from Kalaja, 2016a, p. 112)
Repertoires

Issues/Dilemmas

Subject positions/identities

1) Affection repertoire

Close vs. distantUser of Finnish as L1/mother tongue;
user of English as FL/L2

2) Aesthetics repertoire

Beautiful vs. ugly

User of Finnish as L1/mother tongue;
user of English as FL/L2

3) Vitality repertoire

Global vs. local

User of English as lingua franca/
world language vs. user of Finnish
as L1 (in Finland)

4) Challenge repertoire

Easy vs. difficult to acquire or learn

Learner of English as FL (including
Finns); acquirer of Finnish as L1 andlearner of Finnish as FL (excluding
Finns)The sentence completions varied in length from one or two words or sentences to half apage of text. We read and re-read the pool of written data looking for patterns in content orform and identified a total of four interpretative repertoires (e.g., Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p.
149), or recurring or shared ways of describing the two languages. Within the repertoires thestudents seemed to adopt different subject positions or identities when comparing the two
languages, not only from one moment to another, but also over time (Table 1).
The students discursively constructed the languages as being either emotionally close toor distant from them (Affection Repertoire), beautiful or ugly (Aesthetics Repertoire), global or local (Vitality Repertoire), and/or easy or difficult to learn (Challenge Repertoire). Of
the repertoires, Repertoire 4 was the most dilemmatic, i.e., the students had mixed opinions
or beliefs about the two languages, and Repertoire 3 the least dilemmatic, i.e., the students
agreed that English was a widely-spread or global language, and Finnish, in contrast, a smallor minority language. The students continued to draw on the four repertoires over the period of four to five years. The dilemmas, or opposite views, seemed to remain for the mostpart unresolved but some diminution was observed over time. For example, within the Challenge Repertoire, there were fewer and fewer comments on English being a difficult language
to learn (in comparison to Finnish or other foreign languages). By the end of the project theparticipants had already studied the language for some 15 years, so this issue may have lost
relevance.
In addition, and importantly considering the focus of this article, we managed to trace somefurther developments longitudinally, especially regarding the students’ identities.
Firstly, English was gradually realized to have gained the status of a second language. Thus,
the students’ identities tended to shift from learners of a foreign language, the status asLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201983

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development

signed to English in the official national core syllabi of the time, to users of a global language
or lingua franca, as illustrated by Example 1 (translated from Finnish):
Example 1
It [English] is a language that opens the whole world. Part of my everyday life. Useful both in spare timeand at work.
Knowing English made it possible for the students to communicate in international contexts with both native speakers and other non-native speakers of the language; to pursue
hobbies and spare time activities; to travel or live abroad; to find employment; to pursue a
career; or to do well in their job, including teaching the language.
Secondly, the students started to talk about themselves as bi- or multilingual, albeit stillwith a fairly traditional understanding of the concept, as illustrated by Example 2 (translated
from Finnish):
Example 2
Even though I feel like I am multilingual, Finnish is still clearly my only mother tongue and is my emotional language. My English could only gain that kind of status if I lived in an English-speaking country
for years. In my opinion, my knowledge of English does not have to be comparable to my competence
in my mother tongue; my knowledge of English is after all pretty good, with its own weaknesses andstrengths.
Thirdly, English was becoming an aspect of the students’ professional identity. Consider
Example 3 from a student teacher qualifying as a teacher of English after completing her pedagogical studies (translated from Finnish):
Example 3[English is] a tool. It is a tool quite literally, as I will graduate as a teacher of English, and English iswhat I will be teaching, teaching about, and using as the medium of instruction. It is also a tool for communication. I often realize that I am thinking in English, and in everyday conversations I often end up
using an English word when the Finnish equivalent doesn’t come to mind or isn’t quite “to the point” inthat situation.
In summary, Study 1 with its longitudinal research design provides evidence that the identity of English majors and minors can evolve during their university studies as they becomeaware of the changing status of English—from learner of English as a foreign language toqualified professional of English as a lingua franca in the Finnish educational system (andbeyond in the case of non-teacher trainees).

Study 2 Summarized by Paula: What was Studied, How, and What was Found?
Study 2 is a follow-up study to Study 1 (see, e.g., Kalaja, 2016b) carried out as part of the
project “From Novice to Expert”. Some of our students took part in both studies. In Study 1
we asked them to recollect their past experiences of learning English. This time, we asked thestudents to envision their teaching in the years to come, as envisioning is related to motivation and identity (see, e.g., Dörnyei & Kubanyiova, 2014). We made use of drawings, or visual
narratives (for a definition, see, e.g., Squire, 2012, pp. 2-4), for this purpose.
We asked another group of student teachers (n = 58), majoring not only in English but also
in other foreign languages and being in the final stages of their MA studies at our university,
to envision an instance of teaching a foreign language in the not-so-distant future. We in-84

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

structed them as follows: “Draw a picture of ‘My Language X class a year after graduation’”.
In addition, on the reverse side of the task sheet, we asked the participants to give a brief
written account of what their class would be like: “Explain what is going on in your class”.
The task was carried out as the final in-class assignment on the very last session of theirpedagogical studies. We subjected the drawings and their commentaries to theory-guided
content analysis (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2009, pp. 99-124). Study 2 drew on sociocultural theory(e.g., Lantolf & Thorne, 2006); thus, in our analysis we focused on the environments, artefacts, and interaction in the class and coded the drawings accordingly.
The environments in which foreign language teaching would take place ranged from traditional classrooms (furnished with desks and a board), modern classrooms (with carpets,
sofas, armchairs, plants, posters, etc.) and virtual classrooms (via Skype) to out-of-classroom
contexts, such as the school kitchen and the school yard. The teacher was depicted as either
standing in front of the classroom, in the middle of the classroom, or engaged in joint activity
with the pupils; and offering thus different possibilities for interaction within the classroom.
However, for the most part, the teaching of foreign languages was depicted by the student
teachers as taking place in a traditional classroom, furnished with desks and a board of one
type or another, and some modern technical equipment. Interestingly, books, of any kind,
would not play as important a role in class as in the students’ own past experience (see, e.g.,
Kalaja, Alanen, & Dufva, 2008): the student teachers would rather use authentic materials,
based on the needs or interests of their students.

Figure 1. A drawing by a student teacher “My English class a year after graduation” (originallyin blue-and-white).
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201985

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development

Furthermore, the future teachers, working mostly on their own, would emphasize in theirlanguage teaching the practising of oral skills and use of the language for authentic purposes and for addressing cultural issues. Interestingly, the teacher would take on the identity ofa guide, ensuring interaction among his or her students, irrespective of the classroom arrangements. In other words, it was believed that the teaching of English and other foreign
languages would be social in nature once the students entered the teaching profession. Theirown past experiences of learning English had been very different (see, e.g., Kalaja et al.,2008).
Overall, we managed to identify two competing discourses in this study (supported also by
previous studies conducted in the “From Novice to Expert” project): “The teaching of foreign languages in the past”, based on the student teachers’ own school experiences, and “Theteaching of foreign languages in the future”. To illustrate this, let us consider one English
major and the multimodal data we collected from her: a drawing (Figure 1) and its commentary in writing.
The student comments on her drawing as follows (translated from Finnish):In the class the students are sitting in a semicircle facing the teacher—the teacher is close to thestudents, but the activity is teacher led. The classroom is full of electronic equipment … but there
is also some traditional equipment (a blackboard and a pointer) … the students are expected totake an active role even though the class is teacher led. The students are talking among themselves … The atmosphere is open and encourages discussion.
The student seems to be aware of both discourses but admits (unlike the majority of her
fellow students) that she still has some reservations about the applicability of student-centred principles and practices in her future English classes. In the drawing, the pointer she
holds can be interpreted as a symbol of the power she envisions to have as a teacher in her
traditional classroom setting.
In summary, Study 2 shows how the language majors and minors, as student teachers,
envision their future professional identities as qualified teachers of English and other foreign
languages—visually, verbally or multimodally—at a specific point in time (i.e., just before
graduating from our MA programme).

Study 3 Summarized by Maria: What was Studied, How, and What was Found?
Study 3 was conducted as part of the JULIET (Jyväskylä University Language Innovation and
Educational Theory) programme and was longitudinal in its research design (Moate & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2018). It explores the development of L2 learner identities of six student teachers
studying in a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) education programme andspecializing in teaching English in grades 1 to 6 (age 7–13). A further key aspect of the study
was to investigate the role of emotions in L2 learner identity development.
As the study was conducted as part of an action research project, the data collection was
integrated with other project activities. As part of their course work, we asked six students asvoluntary participants to write three autobiographical essays at different stages of their studies. In the first essay, “English and me”, written during the first semester of their studies,
we asked the student teachers to reflect on the key events that had shaped their relationshipwith the language. The second essay “English, JULIET and me” followed at the end of thefirst year. In this essay, the students were asked to consider how the first year of the programme had continued to mould their relationship with the language. Finally, the third essay“Me and English as a global language” was written at the end of the second or, if the student
had spent the second year on exchange, third year. In this final essay, we asked the students

86

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

once more to consider how they understood their relationship with the language at this pointof their studies. The three essays form a longitudinal set of data on how the students perceive
the language and themselves as L2 learners at different points in their learning career. In
the narrative analysis of the essays, two different emotional pathways of L2 learner identity
development were detected. We also identified four distinct themes that were addressed in all
narratives.
The two emotional pathways were named “Bilingualism as a gift” and “Bilingualism as a
struggle”. Although they share some similar identity development themes, the two pathways
construct the identity differently in relation to L2 learning. Typical of the “gift” story was
the construction of L2 learning as a natural process that was easy and rewarding. In contrast,
the “struggle” story constructed L2 learning as hard work with respect to both successes andfailures. The results are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Themes Identified in the Student Teachers’ Identity Stories
Theme

Bilingualism as a gift

Bilingualism as a struggle

Desire to belong

Desire to access different perDesire to become accepted bysonally meaningful communities the native speaker community
through language

Doubt and confidence

Confidence and sense of mastery Moments of confidence, persisting doubt about own proficiency

Going beyond

Gaining access to different
communities through language
strengthens the relationshipwith the language

Awareness andacceptance of self

Understanding the complexity of Empowerment as a result of
L2 learning
growing awareness of language,
questioning the idea of native
speaker likeness

Gaining access to different
communities through language
requires effort

Three of the six students narrated their identity in terms of the gift story. They expressed
an easy emotional pathway in relation to the English language. In their stories, the relationship with the language was developed through frequent contact with the language in their
free time and was characterized by a sense of confidence and mastery. As one of the students,
Niklas, commented:
I was a three-year-old kid and excited as any kid would have been opening the presents…I founda Playstation one…it was love at first sight. So as I went to school and started to study English
at the third grade, I was already quite a talent, thanks to our Playstation… (All quotes are thestudents’ original wordings.)
For these students, English was a pathway to membership of various other global communities that were not necessarily linked with the idea of English as a native language. Typicalof these students was also a positive idea of the language enabling participation and opening
doors. We also detected a change during the studies in that by the end of the second or thirdyear these students had developed a narrative of the language, suggesting a more considered
perspective regarding the position of English in peoples’ lives, as illustrated by the following
comment by Elisabeth:
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201987

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development

This made me think that perhaps as a Finn I have been too privileged to grow up seeing English
only as a resource rather than as a threat [to] my own culture or identity.
In contrast to the mainly positive storylines of the former group, the other three students
narrated their relationship with the English language in terms of the struggle story. For them,
becoming bilingual was characterized by hard work, investment and others’ opinions. English
represented a way of accessing a new identity and becoming part of the English-speaking
community. Their stories were characterized by both successes and failures.
The persistent feeling was self-doubt. To quote Marie:
It is difficult to explain why I feel like this, but I guess it is mostly because of my self-reflections: I
am the one who is setting the goals, who is feeling awkward because I do not dare to participate[in] lessons and who tells me my English is super simple.
For these three students, the studies were an opportunity to conceptualize their relationshipwith the language again in light of their new experiences at university. The development of
their identities was visible in their ways of narrating their identity. In the last essay, they expressed their identities in terms of empowerment and ownership, which drastically contrasted with their original stories of hesitance and inferiority. In her final essay, Marie considers
her non-nativeness an asset when thinking about her future as an English teacher:
Being [a] non-native speaker gives me asset [(the ability)] to look [at] English [from a] different point of view: what are the basic difficulties for children,…Being a multilingual is importantbecause I have experience of learning English and empathy with my students’ struggles.
In summary, Study 3 identified two different emotional pathways in the development of L2
learner identity as well as changes in identity narratives during the course of the students’studies.

Study 4 Summarized by Maria: What was Studied, How, and What was Found?
Study 4 is part of a larger project on in-service L2 teacher development that started when theparticipants were still pre-service teachers at the University of Jyväskylä (Ruohotie-Lyhty,
2016). After entering full-time teaching, the teachers were interviewed three to five times
during their initial nine to 10 years in the profession. In addition, they also regularly wrote
autobiographical essays during the first four years. Study 4 reports the findings regarding theL2 teachers’ identity development during the research period. Although the participants were
L2 teachers, the study also provides insights into the ways in which L2 learner identity can be
developed and constructed in narratives.
Narrative interviews were conducted in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 9th or 10th years at work,and combined with the autobiographical essays the aim was to create rich possibilities for theteachers to share their experiences. In the essays and interviews the participants were asked
about their past and present experiences, future aspirations and relationships with colleagues
and pupils. The repeated research interventions in different modes were designed to create
a positive reflective circle where the researchers and the participants could return to themes
and reinterpret experiences in the light of new events and relationships. The participants
were also specifically asked to reflect on the ways in which they felt they had changed during
their years at work. In this specific sub-study, the interviews were treated as a single pool ofdata and a storyline was created using the main themes emerging from them. As a result, twodifferent ways of constructing identity in narratives were identified, that of identity change
and that of continuity.

88

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

The stories of the teachers that narrated a change in their identity focused on experiencesthat had been significant in shaping their teacher reality. These teachers identified critical
moments in their story that had changed their ways of perceiving themselves and their work.
Often these moments consisted of encountering other people’s stories that became influential
in their own change. One of the teachers, Anu, reported:
But then one boy’s words stuck in my mind. It was Monday, and he was really tired, he came inlate and his clothes were dirty and then he took out his books and he hadn’t done any homework. Again. And I said “AGAIN! You haven’t done your homework AGAIN, after the weekend,
and you’ve had the whole weekend to do it in”. Yes, he was in year 7, a small kid, and he looked
at me: (sigh) “You’d understand if you knew that I’ve been awake all night every night because
my parents drink”. That was for me a revelation. (…) The boy’s words were like a slap in the face,
like WELL, he hasn’t got a good family. And I should have seen that because he had dirty clothes
on and he was tired and everything. But still. Well. I’ve become more relaxed. In this sense. Moreunderstanding, let’s put it that way.
Significant encounters such as this challenged the teachers’ previous perception of work
practices, emotions and relationships and offered them significant ways of developing theirapproach to teaching languages.
In contrast, stories of continuity revealed some teachers’ strategies for maintaining a balance between their personal and professional identities. To avoid being personally affected by
the demands for identity change, these teachers drew a clear distinction in their stories between their personal and work lives and prioritized their commitments outside work. In theirnarratives, their pupils’ stories did not have a central role and the teacher-pupil relationshipwas restricted to their official role as teachers. In response to the question posed by an interviewer “What are you to your pupils?”, Tuuli responded:
Hopefully the teacher. And it’s been like that all the time until now, although I’m maybe a little
less formal than others, though they aren’t looking for a friend or anything like that. I’m quite
happy about that; I am, at least.
This positioning enabled the teachers to maintain their original subject teacher identity atwork and also to avoid the vulnerability that being open to their pupils’ life experiences mightentail.
In summary, Study 4 shows the ways in which individuals are active in constructing theiridentity through the process of storytelling. To construct their identity they select a variety ofnarratives (both their own and those of others) that then become part of their own storyline.

Discussion: Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development
In the following, we evaluate the potential of the narrative tasks used in the four studies
summarized above in tracing the development of L2 learner identities.
This section consists of questions that we, the co-authoring researchers, pose to ourselves
regarding the role of narrative tasks in research on L2 learner identity development. We startby justifying the use of narratives in our studies and continue by critically discussing thetypes of tasks used, evaluating their pros and cons, and considering possible further applications in L2 teacher education, or more generally, in L2 education within our school system.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201989

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development

Why Have You Collected Narrative Data in Your Research?
Maria: My professional identity is that of a teacher-researcher. I have always been primarily
interested in teacher and learner experiences, and narratives have provided an important tool
for their exploration. In my dual role as a teacher-researcher, I also find that narratives provide an opportunity for combining both of these roles. In addition to producing research data,
autobiographical writing has been a powerful pedagogical tool that helps me to get a feel forthe questions and struggles my students go through and to support their identity development. For example, in Study 3, the tasks were designed to bring about the beliefs and emotions the students had had in relation to the English language. Setting these tasks on a regular basis also provides my students with the opportunity to track their own development.
In Study 4 with the newly qualified teachers, we also aimed at providing rich possibilities
for self-reflection that could support newly qualified teacher development. This was done
by providing both written tasks and conducting narrative interviews where themes could be
deepened. In this project, running now for over 10 years, we have aimed at creating a reflective circle where the understanding of the teachers and researchers is constructed as an active
process.
Paula: Unlike Maria, who has a background in teacher education, I consider myself primarilya researcher in applied language studies and only secondarily a teacher educator. Based at the
Department of Language and Communication Studies, I teach advanced courses on aspects oflearning and teaching English, where the main focus is on teaching content (courses) and,
only to a lesser extent, language skills. I use narrative tasks with our student teachers (futureteachers of English) mainly to trace developments in their professional thinking or beliefs,
i.e., what sense they make of the issues addressed in our courses, considering that the fieldof L2 learning and teaching is full of controversies and inconclusive research findings. As a
by-product, my colleagues and I have learned about our students’ evolving L2 identities, particularly in studies with a pre- and posttest or longitudinal research design (as was the casein Study 1, data being collected over a longer period of time).

What Kinds of Data Can You Obtain From Narratives?
Paula: Narrative data allows one to either look back in time by asking participants to recollectpast experiences or to look forward in time to envision events to come and to trace developments in, for example, identities and beliefs. It should be stressed that narratives in the different modes used so far by us (i.e., verbal, visual, multimodal) do offer different possibilities
when used for these purposes, but each mode has its limitations. Depending on the research
design, it is possible to obtain either cross-sectional or longitudinal data if a task is repeatedover a period of time to compare different types of participants or to trace developments overtime in one respect or another (e.g., identities, beliefs, emotions), as was the case in Study 1
summarized above.
In my view, we have not yet exhausted the modes of narratives available, consider, for example, moving pictures (YouTube video clips) as opposed to still pictures, drawings (as was
the case in Study 2) or snap-shots, or three-dimensional visualizations (e.g., identity boxes,
see Frimberger, White, & Ma, 2018) as opposed to the two-dimensional material used so far.
These are all ways of broadening the array of visual narratives. In addition, social media (withdifferent kinds of forums) can offer identity narratives, being authentic/naturalistic (as opposed to contrived) data.
Maria: In addition to what Paula mentioned, I would like to stress the value of narratives aspart of longitudinal studies for tracking L2 learner development. Through repeated narrative
tasks, possibly accompanied with narrative interviews, it can be possible to grasp changes in90

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

identity. Repeated activities make it possible to return to themes that have been raised before.
In Study 4, the interviews were used to return to experiences that had been brought up in
essays and vice-versa. This kind of flexible data collection method offered both the researcher and the participants possibilities for correcting, reconsidering and asking questions. In my
opinion, this kind of data is especially valuable in understanding identity development longitudinally.

What Kind of Tasks Have You Used and How Do These Differ in Quality?
Paula: Over the years we have been exploring the possibilities of narratives mainly in twomodes: verbal and visual. Initially, we worked with written data, and asked our students towrite their life stories or autobiographies to recollect their past experiences of learning English, starting from their first contact with the language. Since then, we have also used othertypes of tasks (including sentence-completion tasks, for details, see Study 1) and explored thepossibilities offered by drawings or self-portraits (see, e.g., Kalaja, Alanen, & Dufva, 2013).
Most recently, we have asked our students to produce drawings, either by hand or generated
by a computer, to envision their teaching of English, or other L2s, in the years to come andto comment on these in writing (for details, see Study 2). The commentaries have been either
open-form (as was the case in Study 2) or structured (see, e.g., Kalaja & Mäntylä, 2018) and,in my view, these have been of great help in interpreting the pools of visual data.
Maria: The most important narrative methods I have used are narrative interviews (study 4)
and biographical writing (studies 3 and 4). Narrative interviews provide data on the ongoing
identity construction process, which is affected by the context of the interview and the interaction between the interviewer and the participant. The strength of this method is the possibility for co-construction as the situation enables asking questions, returning to themes andasking for clarification. In comparison, biographical writing provides access to more coherent
narratives that offer richer data on the individual reflective process. For a researcher, it istherefore important to consider what the most important research questions to be answeredare. For the participants themselves, I believe both kinds of tasks, narrative interviews andbiographical writing, create important moments for identity work. Tasks that enable reflection provide possibilities for summarizing and reinterpreting life experiences. On the other
hand, tasks including interaction with other people create possibilities for seeing one’s own
experiences from a new perspective and being challenged to reconsider identities. To me,
a combination of different tasks is the best way to foster L2 learner identity development.
Especially in the early stages, discussing the tasks with pupils is also highly significant for
enabling the students to benefit from the tasks.

In What Ways are Narrative Tasks Significant in L2 Identity Work?
Maria: Narratives are essential for constructing and reconstructing identities. Narrative activity
occurs naturally, even without outside support. It is, however, a process that does not automatically lead to positive development of learner identity. As Polkinghorne (1996) points out, it
is possible for individuals to resort to negative self-narratives that are harmful to their future
development and prevent purposeful activity in a community. Language learners can resort tostorytelling that labels them as poor language learners, leading, for example, to disengagementand disenchantment with the L2 learning process (Moate & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2018).
For this reason, the choice of narrative tasks is quite essential when we want to use themfor pedagogical purposes. I see using well-chosen narrative tasks as having three functions in
supporting identity work in educational settings. Firstly, narratives provide essential understanding to teachers and learners of the ways in which the learners see the learning process
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201991

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development(Moate & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2018). Secondly, they provide the possibility of reconsidering thepast in the light of present life experiences. Thirdly, and most importantly, narrative tasks
can be used to positively guide narrative processes. Tasks that ask learners, for example, todescribe a success related to L2 learning can positively strengthen their sense of self and provide clues for how to succeed in the future. Narrative processes such as this are important infostering the development of L2 learner identity.
Paula: Narrative data enables us to reflect on past experiences, but also to envisage the future;
this makes it possible to compare the past and future with the present, both generally andprofessionally, to figure out how our present situation compares with certain past and futurestates of affairs, such as identities and professional knowledge or beliefs, as is evident fromall the four studies summarized in Section 3.

What Functions Have You Seen Narratives Play in L2 Learner Identity Development?
Paula: By looking back in time and using longitudinal narrative data, it is possible to trace
developments in identity from L2 learner to L2 user or multilingual subject (as was reported in Study 1), and students’ realization of the global spread of English that has been taking
place in Finland (and elsewhere) in the past few years. English is used widely in the country
in different domains, including education, business and spare-time activities. As a result, weshould reconsider the norms for correct use of the language and its assessment practices inschools, and this reconsideration should be reflected in the aims set for teaching the language
and the identity development of those involved, be they L2 learners or teachers.
In contrast, by using narratives to look forward in time (as was the case in Study 2), we canencourage our students to imagine what might lie ahead of them. This supports the development of their professional identities as L2 teachers by making it possible for them to evaluate their current strengths and weaknesses and to identify where they need to invest in theirstudies before entering the profession as officially qualified L2 teachers (not that identity
development stops there, as is evident from Studies 3 and 4 by Maria).
Maria: In my studies the narratives have been more backward looking than in the studies
of Paula and her colleagues. In Study 3, the tasks gave the student teachers an opportunity
to reinterpret past experiences and ask themselves questions about their development. That
study indicated that the identified development in the students’ ways of conceptualizing their
L2 identities was supported by the biographical writing process. The essays provided the students with a means of becoming aware of their dispositions and questioning the meaning of
those dispositions for themselves. Therefore, I see that narratives, when provided at the rightmoment, have the potential to genuinely advance language learners’ development.
In Study 4, I also found that not only personal narratives but also those of others can beimportant for learner development. In that study, the participants shared how their experiences with their pupils influenced their teacher identity. Their stories show the importancefor individual development of listening to other people’s stories. As a consequence, I think we
as teachers should be open to our students’ stories and encourage peer sharing.

In What Ways are Emotions Related to Narrative Identity Work?
Maria: I believe this is connected to the previous question about the function of narratives.
Narratives help to bring the emotions to the fore in identity development. People’s stories arefull of emotions. Through stories, these emotions can be reflected on in a new way. I understand this process as having two layers. In a storytelling process, people interpret their expe-

92

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

riences first implicitly to give them a shape in written or oral form. Going back to this implicit original interpretation then creates a possibility for reinterpretation, either on one’s own orwith the help of others. Because of the emotions that they contain, narratives can also shapelearner development. As Golombek and Doran (2014) argue, cognitive dissonance is often too
weak to bring about real change in practices. In contrast, emotional dissonance, as expressedin the story by the newly qualified teacher quoted above (in Study 4), has the power to change
who we are and how we are. Listening to other people’s stories can also make us sensitive to
our own needs and development.
Paula: As I noted earlier, narratives come in different modes, and there might be personal
preferences: some people simply love writing, others speaking, yet others visualizing eventsin their lives (e.g., by producing drawings, taking pictures, or constructing three-dimensional identity boxes). Formal L2 learning and teaching are full of ups and downs, often depending on the teachers, being either loved or hated, or depending on evaluation practices
with successful or not so successful outcomes, and so positive and negative emotions areoften at stake. In cases like these, L2 learners might prefer visualization over other modesof narrating. In addition, the events people have experienced may have been very dramatic, possibly involving very negative emotions. Consider, for instance, those who suffer frompost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as might be the case with refugees (see, e.g., Kalaja &Pitkänen-Huhta, 2018). In these challenging cases, L2 learners or users might not have muchchoice but to visualize their experiences to be able to share them.
On a more critical note, so far we have not given the participants in our studies much choice
regarding how, or in what mode, they should share their stories. This should be reconsideredin future studies.
More recently, we have allowed our participants greater freedom in producing narratives
in the visual mode (see, e.g., Kalaja & Mäntylä, 2018): in addition to producing drawings byhand, we offer the option of using computer software or making collages from magazine ornewspaper cuttings (see Section 4.2 for more ideas). On the other hand, use of more than one
mode (e.g., partly visual and partly oral narratives) may make the data analysis more challenging.

How Can Narratives be Used in L2 Teacher Education or in L2 Education in General?
Paula: For years I have been collecting (with my colleagues) narratives irrespective of theirmode from our students for two purposes: firstly, to carry out research, and secondly, to haveour students share with their fellow students and with us their past experiences of learning (and teaching) English, their current understandings of key issues in our field, and theirvisions of teaching in the future. Through this verbalizing and/or visualizing, and comparing
and contrasting, we argue that it is possible to increase our students’ awareness of the key
issues at hand and to deepen their reflection.
Regarding L2 education in general, the national core curricula (for grades 1 to 12, age 7–18)
have recently been revised. As a result, the status of English as a lingua franca is finally acknowledged and learning-to-learn skills are advocated as one of the three main aims of L2teaching and learning. I can envision plenty of uses for narratives in a variety of modes andfor a number of purposes with L2 learners of any age—from small children to the elderly, thelatter being a growing proportion of the Finnish population that is eager to invest in learning
L2s.
Maria: If we understand foreign L2 learning as a process of identity development, as Norton(2013) suggests, it is essential that we support this process in the same way that we support
other kinds of learning. Therefore, I think narrative tasks in different forms should be part
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201993

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Developmentof all language teaching. Firstly, this is because they provide our students an opportunity tothink about their development, and secondly, because they offer us as teachers the opportunity to understand our students and their experiences. However, it is not the meaning of
narrative tasks in themselves that I want to emphasize, but rather the processes that they canbring about. The choice of narrative tasks is an important question to consider. I also thinkthat discussion and guidance in interpreting and using narratives in learner development is
an important part of the process. Using narratives also necessitates an ethical orientationfrom the teacher as well as dedication to commit the time needed to work through them.

Conclusion
In this article we have illustrated the use of different types of narrative tasks and a narrative
approach to supporting and examining L2 learner (and eventually teacher) identity development. In our opinion, narrative tasks provide possibilities to summarize the past, envision
the future, and bring emotions and beliefs into conscious consideration, and possibly reconsideration. By letting our students tell their stories and by being ready to listen to them we
can help them to construct better L2 learner identities for themselves, that is, identities that
can help them to embrace differences and persevere in challenging situations. By sharing ourstories and listening to those of others we can also learn to be better L2 teachers.
Although we recognize narratives as a central tool in L2 learning and understanding L2
learners, we also recognize their limitations. Narratives are always highly context-dependent,
constructed in specific instances of talking, writing or producing visual images of one type oranother and used for specific purposes. They are, however, valuable as artefacts that can mediate L2 learner (or teacher) identity development.

References
Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391–414.
Barkhuizen, G. (Ed.) (2013). Narratives in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Barkhuizen, G. (2017). Language teacher identity research: An introduction. In G. Barkhuizen(Ed.), Reflections on language teacher identity research (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Routledge.
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Benson, P. (2014). Narrative inquiry in applied linguistics research. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 34, 154–170.
Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post Firth and Wagner (1997). The
Modern Language Journal, 91 (s1), 863–876.
Dörnyei, Z., & Kubanyiova, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building visions in
the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (2012). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition, 14, 410–441.
Frimberger, K., White, R., & Ma, L. (2018). “If I didn’t know you what would you want me
to see?”: Poetic mappings in neo-materialist research with young asylum seekers andrefugees. Applied Linguistics Review, 9(2–3), 391–419.
Golombek, P., & Doran, M. (2014). Unifying cognition, emotion, and activity in language
teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 102–111.

94

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Paula Kalaja & Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty

Golombek, P., & Johnson K. E. (2004). Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: Examining
emotional and cognitive dissonance in second language teachers’ development. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 307–327.
Kalaja, P. (2016a). Student teachers’ beliefs about L2 and L2 discursively constructed: Alongitudinal study of interpretative repertoires. In P. Kalaja, A. M. F. Barcelos, M. Aro, &M. Ruohotie-Lyhty (Eds.), Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching(pp. 97–123). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalaja, P. (2016b). “Dreaming is believing”: The teaching of foreign languages as envisioned
by student teachers. In P. Kalaja, A. M. F. Barcelos, M. Aro, & M. Ruohotie-Lyhty(Eds.), Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 124–146).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalaja, P., & Mäntylä, K. (2018). “The English class of my dreams”: Envisioning teaching aforeign language. In S. Mercer & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 34–
70). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kalaja, P., & Pitkänen-Huhta, A. (Eds.) (2018). A double special issue of Applied Linguistics
Review, 9 (2–3).
Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., & Dufva, H. (2008). Self-portraits of EFL learners: Finnish students
draw and tell. In P. Kalaja, V. Menezes, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning andteaching EFL (pp. 186–198). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalaja, P., Alanen, R., & Dufva, H. (2013). Experimenting with visual narratives. In G.
Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narratives in applied linguistics (pp. 105–131). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A. M. F., Aro, M., & Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2016). Key issues relevant tothe studies to be reported: Beliefs, agency and identity. In P. Kalaja, A. M. F. Barcelos, M.
Aro, & M. Ruohotie-Lyhty (Eds.), Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning andteaching (pp. 8–24). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kubanyiova, M. (2012). Teacher development in action: Understanding language teachers’ conceptualchange. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Moate, J., & Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2018). The emotional journey of being and becoming
bilingual. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–14.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1996). Transformative narratives: From victim to agentic life plots. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(4), 299–305.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour.
London, UK: Sage.
Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2011). Opettajuuden alkutaival: vastavalmistuneen vieraan kielen opettajan
toimijuus ja ammatillinen kehittyminen [First steps on the path of teacherhood. Newly
qualified foreign language teachers’ agency and professional development]. Jyväskylä,
Finland: Jyväskylän yliopisto. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social
Research, 410.
Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2013). Struggling for a professional identity: Two newly qualified
language teachers’ identity narratives during the first years at work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 30, 120–129.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201995

Narratives in L2 Learner Identity Development

Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2016). Stories of change and continuity: Understanding the developmentof the identities of foreign language teachers. In P. Kalaja, A. M. F. Barcelos, M. Aro, & M.
Ruohotie-Lyhty (Eds.), Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching(pp. 172–201). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Squire, C. (2012). What is narrative? NCRM Working Paper. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3065/1/
What_is_Narrative_by_Corinne_Squire_working_paper.pdf.
Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2009). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällöllinen analyysi [Qualitative
research and content analysis] (5th revised ed.). Helsinki, Finland: Tammi.
Trent, J. (2011). “Four years on, I’m ready to teach”: Teacher education and the constructionof teacher identities. Teachers and Teaching, 17(5), 529–543.
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher
identity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1),
21–44.

Review ProcessThis paper was blind peer-reviewed by members of the Learner Development Journal Review
Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.) In addition, we received feedback
from the editors of this special issue of LDJ. All comments were appreciated.

Author Bios
Paula Kalaja is Professor Emerita (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) with a PhD degree (fromGeorgetown University, Washington, DC) and a former teacher educator. Her research interests include language learning and teaching, or multilingualism. She has recently been exploring the possibilities of visual methodologies in Applied Language Studies with the publication of Visualising Multilingual Lives: More than Words (2019). Email: paula.kalaja@jyu.fi
Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty is Senior Lecturer in Applied Linguistics (University of Jyväskylä,
Finland) and responsible for the Foreign Language Teacher Education Programme at the Department of Language and Communication Studies. Her research interests include language
learners’ and teachers’ identities, agency and emotions, and she has published widely ininternational journals both in Applied Linguistics and Education.  Email: maria.ruohotie-lyhty@jyu.fi  

96

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

RESEARCH PAPER
The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of
Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative
Studies
Masuko Miyahara, International Christian University     This article discusses some of the methodological issues surrounding research on identity in language learning
research. The aim of this paper is to develop a basic understanding and awareness of the challenges and issues
involved in conducting research in identity studies by bringing the notion of researcher reflexivity to the forefront.
Attention to researcher reflexivity in any empirical research is nothing new, but how it is actually incorporated andmanifested in the research process has not received much attention. The purpose of this paper is thus to discuss
the intricate interplay in which learner identity and researcher identity are negotiated, constructed, and presented in the research process, where identities are constructed through the social practices and discourses that areembedded in the research context. It concludes by suggesting further investigation of the collaborative nature ofreflexivity as one possible way forward.
言語教育におけるアイデンティティ研究において、質的研究手法が多く用いられる傾向にあることはいうまでもないが、その反面、それと並行して様々な課題も増えていることは事実である。本稿では学習者のL2 アイデンテイテイ構成を探った研究データを使用し，reflexivity（再帰性）
を柱に研究者のアイデンティティのみならず、それが参加者のアイデンティティといかに複雑に交差しているプロセスであることを検証したものである。本研究は研究者のreflexivity（再帰性）
を追求するにあたり「協同的対話」(collaborative dialogue)の重要性を示唆している。

Keywords
identity, narratives, reflexivity, researcher – participant relationshipキーワード
アイデンティティ、ナラティブ、再帰性、研究者と研究協力者の関係

Over the last two decades, we have seen a surge in research on identity and its relationship with language learning (Preece, 2016). During these years, innovations and developments in technology coupled with people’s increasing transnational connections
have brought about new understandings of ourselves in the global world. This phenomenon
has resulted in the emergence of transnational identities that were not imaginable two decades ago (De Costa & Norton, 2017). This rapid expansion of the field has been accompanied
by various conceptual changes in our understandings of the notion of identity. From a theoretical point of view, early studies originated from an essentialist view of identity, whereas
recent studies (e.g., Block, 2007) are founded on poststructuralist viewpoints where identity
is multiple, non-unitary, and ever evolving. Such theoretical developments have inevitably
led to a call for methodological diversity and methodological innovations to ensure continued
development and advancement in identity studies in language learning research. 
One of the research aims I have pursued in investigating identity in language and education
over the past few years has also been mainly methodological. In my own research I have usednarrative inquiry quite extensively. By focusing on questions of researcher identity in narrative studies, the most widely used research approach employed in current identity research(Miyahara, 2010; Rezaei, 2017), in this study, I aim to address certain methodological issues
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201997

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

and challenges that emerge in the narrative research process by focusing on the often citedand underexplored area of the relationship between the researcher and the researched. It isquite apparent that, in participatory research, our multiple identities, for instance, our ethnic identities, our linguistic profiles, our educational or personal background or experiences
as well as our identities as researchers greatly impact how our participants respond or react
to the research inquiries. We should take into consideration and examine the impact of theresearcher’s identity throughout all stages of the research, that is even at the initial stages
where we form our research questions, structure the research design, conduct fieldwork (datacollection) as well as at the stage of the research where narrative data is analyzed, interpreted
and presented. Drawing on one of my previous research projects (Miyahara, 2015) that offers
unique insights into the understanding of the process of L2 identity construction and development, the main research question in this paper is to discuss the intricate interplay in whichlearner identity and researcher identity are negotiated, constructed, and presented in the
research process. 
I believe that by focusing on the concept of researchers’ reflexivity (Edge, 2011; Mann, 2011),
and by highlighting the importance for researchers of developing and establishing a space for
critical and reflective thinking, I can probe the issues at stake. Considerations of reflexivity, especially how it operates in the qualitative paradigm, may not be new; but how reflexivity is incorporated and managed in the various stages of the research process still warrant
much discussion. In this paper, I attempt to explore this subject by focusing on how reflexive
thinking was incorporated at the analytical stage of the research I conducted in 2015. In otherwords, here I explore the stories of my participants were analyzed, interpreted and presented. In the process of doing so, I find that the reflexive approach did not only help shape myscholarship, but myself as well: it provided me with a valuable opportunity to know the various aspects of myself more intimately. In the next section, I provide an overview of related
theoretical framework of the study. It will then be followed by a short description of the study
used for this paper. I conclude by suggesting a critical collaborative approach as a possible
direction narrative and identity studies could pursue.  

Situating the Study
The Concept of Identity
Norton’s (2000, 2013) often-cited and seminal work on identity revolutionized the notion ofidentity from a non-essentialist point of view (one based on the poststructuralist and constructivist theoretical viewpoints), where one’s identity is understood as “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed acrosstime and space” (2013, p. 45). Here, identities are multiple, fluid, and socially constructed(Block 2007). However, the social nature of identity does not always allow people to “choose”
the identities they would like to represent. As Preece (2016) succinctly summarizes, among
other things, their identities may be limited by their access to the social spaces where theiridentities are constructed, negotiated, and/or performed; their identities may be ascribed
regardless of their preference, and could often position, or limit their rights to participationin the community they desire to operate in. A university student on a summer study-abroad
program might, for example, see their “self” diminished if they find themselves unable toparticipate freely in the discussion sessions with others, and such an experience could lead
students to be ascribed “unwanted” identities. 
  98Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

Narrative Studies
In this paper, following Bruner (1990) and Clandinin and Connelly (2000), narratives areunderstood as fundamentally stories of “experiences”. People, both individually and socially,lead storied lives. Life is “storied” in the way that people make sense of how they are (andothers are) by interpreting their past in terms of their present lives and selves as well as their
future lives and selves. Narratives are not only about people describing their past experiences,
but also about how individuals understand those experiences, and how they ascribe meanings
to those experiences (Clandinin, 2007). Mishler (1984) was the first to introduce to researchers the co-constructed nature of narratives: that is “narrative produced in interview conversations is the outcome of social interactions between speaker and listener” (p. 87). It thus
follows that the meaning-making process is also a collaborative work. 
The research questions in the study that I draw on in this paper required me to examine theexperiences of my participants and to listen to their “voices” to understand the complexities
involved in forging their identities, and how the affective dimension might be implicated in
the process. This called for a methodology that would allow me to be sensitive to the learners’
accounts of their experiences, and thus, a narrative approach where I could emphasize myrole in co-producing the narratives appeared to be the best way to probe the inner complexities of my research participants. 

My Interest in Reflexivity
More than we would like to admit, researchers are inevitably a much a part of a study as theparticipants. How we take into account the effect of our presence on our research is a critical issue. Although discussions of incorporating researcher reflexivity in the research process
have increasingly been recognized as an important strategy (e.g., Finlay, 2012; Mann & Walsh,
2017; Miyahara, 2015; Prior, 2014; Riessman, 2012; Roulston, 2010a), there appears to be nocommon understanding about the notion of reflexivity, and the concept is often confusedwith reflection. In fact, one of the reasons for my interest in the notion of reflection emerged
from this very question: what is the difference between reflection and reflexivity? In this paper, following Finlay (2012), I take reflection to mean “thinking about” something after the
event, and reflexivity, in contrast, to involve an on-going self-awareness. That is, reflexivity
could be understood as more than reflection in the sense that reflection is to take one stepback from the phenomena under examination, but reflexivity is reflection on the reflection(Jenkins, 1992). That is, the former, reflection, is more of a descriptive process, whereas, thelatter, reflexivity, refers to how you position yourself in the research context, and contemplate how your own self could influence the actions you take (self-awareness). In short, it is aconstant “mirroring of the self” (Foley, 2002, p. 45).
My interest in researcher reflexivity originated when I ventured out in publishing my book
based on my doctoral work, Emerging Self-Identities and Emotion in Foreign Language Learning:
A Narrative-Oriented Approach, in 2015. As many scholars have done in the past, I, too, foundmyself turning the mirror on myself. Looking back at one’s own work is nothing new: autoethnography employed in anthropology or sociology is one example. Some scholars havecriticized self-reflexivity because of its self-indulgent nature, but as Doyle posits, researchers’ backgrounds and their emotions “must be thought about and analyzed, and the analysis
used purposefully in the research process” (2013, p. 253). In my view, the important point
is to always consider how the researcher’s personal disclosure influences narrative analysis,
and how it contributes in understanding the phenomena at hand. Furthermore, self-reflexivity should not be just about the self, so to speak. Researchers should not merely discuss how
their personal identities shaped their narrative projects, they should also consider how these
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 201999

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

identities intersect with the institutional, cultural, and socio-political context (Nagar & Geiger, 2007). Extending one’s reflexive gaze also helps to reinforce and further one’s awarenessof the self. Lastly, the process of turning the mirror on my previous works revealed the situatedness (the academic, theoretical, political, social, etc.) of my interpretations. It is often
assumed that it is easier to identify one’s assumptions and the “blind spots” after some time
has passed as this allows for stronger reflexivity. For this very reason, many scholars haveframed reflexivity in terms of its cyclic nature (Edge, 2011). Reflexivity illuminates a social
phenomenon from many perspectives. Researcher reflexivity is like a kaleidoscope: the same
event can be approached differently, yielding different findings based on how you turn the
kaleidoscope. 
There are different ways of working with reflexivity. Some are connected to the co-construction of data, while others are concerned with how the researcher and the participants are
positioned and their ever-changing relationship, and so forth. There also appear to be several
dimensions to reflexivity (for details Finlay’s Five Lens of Reflexivity, 2012), and for this paper,
I focus on what Finlay (2012) would call contextual discursive and relational reflexivity. I aim toconsider how the researcher’s and the participants’ multiple and ever-changing identities
interact at the analysis and representation stage. I will now provide a brief sketch of myself
before going on to offer contextual information of the research that I use as a sample to illustrate my point. 

The Researcher
My research interest in identity and language learning is largely rooted in my educational
experiences in and out of Japan. I was born in Tokyo, Japan, but spent most of my formative years overseas, namely, in the United Kingdom and the United States After graduatingfrom high school in New York City, I returned to Japan and transferred to a college in Tokyo,
which happens to be the research site of this study. My educational experience as such iswhat some academics like Kanno (2003) would call the “returnee” experience. One apt phrasethat would characterize my language learning experiences over the years would be a “roller
coaster ride”: riding on a virtual roller coaster of ups and downs in language learning experiences and, henceforth, undergoing identity shifts and periods of mixed emotions towards
myself as a language learner, and later as a practitioner and researcher. As for my professional life, my career as a teacher, practitioner, and researcher started at the tertiary level after
having obtained my master’s and my doctoral degrees in London. The rewarding experiencesthat shaped my thinking, and the intense exposure to the academic world, as well as my experiences as a practitioner and researcher at the institution where I now work, form the basisof what I am today. 

Sample Study and Analytical Procedure
Overview of the Study
The narrative data for this article is drawn from a study that aimed to shed light on the understanding of the process of L2-related identity construction and development among Japanese English learners at the tertiary level (Miyahara, 2015). Unlike previous language learning
research on identity grounded in poststructuralist theory, the particular feature of this study
was its attempt to integrate socially and psychologically oriented perspectives on L2 identity
formation. Contrary to the poststructuralist theory of identity in language learning research(e.g., Block, 2003, 2009; Norton, 2013), the study problematizes the current dominant emphasis on the social dimension of identity in the poststructuralist framework and calls for a100

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

more balanced approach. It emphasizes that the psychological and social aspects of identity
formation need to be attended to more equally. The research contributed to highlighting the
instrumental agency of individuals in responding to and acting upon the social environment,
and in developing, maintaining and/or reconstructing their desired identities as L2 users. It
offered insights into the role of experience, emotions, social and environmental affordances, and individuals’ responses to these, in shaping their personal orientations to English andself-perceptions as English learner-users. The original study revealed the past, present, andfuture dimensions of individuals’ L2-related experiences and trajectories, and showed how
these dimensions are intertwined through the process of narrative construction as participants relate their thoughts, and the researcher represents and interprets their stories.

Participants
The research site, a private university located in the suburbs of Tokyo, aims to build a global
community where a diversity of people from various ethnic and religious backgrounds gathers
together. This institution is also famous for its bilingual identity, and, in Japan, the graduates
and alumni are regarded by the general public as being fluent and well-versed in English andthe English-speaking culture. English is used on a daily basis as a means of communication
not only in classes, but also in the daily lives of the students and faculty alike. The university has several college-wide courses that are required components for all students, and theEnglish Language Program (ELP) is one of them (in 2011, the program was renamed English
for Liberal Arts, ELA). Students for whom English is a second language must study English
intensively for the first two years. The main focus of the program is the study of English foracademic purposes with a focus on critical thinking. The curriculum is further complemented
by a study abroad program referred to as the Study English Abroad (SEA) Program. The firstand second-year students are able to take part in the six-week program during the summer
break at various universities located in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New
Zealand and Australia.
Six students, all volunteers, going through their first year of their two-year English language curriculum, participated in the study (see Table 1). 
Table 1. Participants’ profiles (names are pseudonyms)
Name

Gender Past English Language
Learning Experiences

Experiences Abroad Episodes Before
College

SayakaF

From Pre-K

Yes (two-week study abroad program)

Maki

F

From Pre-K

Yes (international school in Bangladesh
for three years)

MegumiF

From Pre-K

No

Yui

F

From elementary school

No

HinakoF

From junior high school

No

Takehiro

M

From junior high schoolYes (two-week study abroad program)Analytical Process
The method employed in this study was what is generally characterized as autobiographicalnarratives. I used a narrative interview strategy based on a series of semi-structured questions to generate data in that I did not have a list of questions but rather a range of topics to
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019101

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

be covered (Block, 2008). The language in which talks were conducted is related to the jointly
constructed nature of the interview process in narrative studies, and, thus, the participants
were given choices, but none opted for English, and thus, the language used in all interviews
was Japanese. Five sets of interviews over a period of one year were conducted, each kept
within an hour and a half, mainly for practical reasons. The narrative data was supplemented
by other sources such as weekly journals, audio recordings or group discussions, and weekly self-reports during the six-week study abroad programs for those who participated in the
SEA Program. The talks were audio-taped and transcribed in their entirety using a simplified
transcription style (see Excerpt 5.17 Sayaka as an example). In terms of practicality, translations from Japanese to English were prepared for selected sections during the analysis. The
transcripts were translated by the researcher and were reviewed and cross-checked by a bilingual colleague.
Excerpt 5.17: Sayaka
When there is someone really fluent in my group I am not able to express myself. I feel
intimidated in front of them. I lose confidence in myself. This was the first time I had
felt this way about myself. It was like showing a part of me that I never thought existed. (Miyahara, 2015, p. 92)
As the researcher, I also kept a journal composed of written entries that recorded my reflections, ideas, commentaries and memos throughout the research process in the attempt tomake explicit my assumptions and values, and how they came about, and also to evaluate how
they shaped the research process. A dialogue between myself and journal entries reinforced
my belief that with any reflexive activity there is no escape from the “self” (Roulston, 2010b).
As Roulston posits: “It [reflexivity] means turning the researcher lens back onto oneself torecognize and take responsibility for one’s own situatedness, within the research and theeffect that it may have on the setting and people being studied, questions being asked, data
being collected and its interpretation” (2010b, p. 220). In order to gain a better understandingof the role of self in the construction of knowledge, as noted earlier, it is significant to take
into account the impact that the researcher’s assumptions, beliefs, and identities could haveon their research. In practice, this is no easy task. Thus, to give myself some practical guidelines to address the concerns above, the four typologies outlined by Blaxter, Hughes and Tight(2001) were used as a strategy to assist entries in my journal (below):
Observational notes (describes events such as observation and interviews)
Methodological notes (focus on the researcher/ participant’s action and role)
Theoretical notes (focus on articulating initial explanations from the data)
Analytical memos (bring together inferences through review of other notes and literature
and work towards patterns and themes).		
Based on the above, I made comments about what occurred during the interview interactions with participants as well as thoughts, hunches, and questions that arose during the
research process. I believe guidelines and models are not prescriptive rules for others to follow, but rather mediational tools for us to mindfully consider our actions and interactions
with others. I also believe that guidelines help us to consciously sensitize ourselves to matters that we would normally not be able to discern or observe. The accounts of my reflections
were thus used to analyze the talks. The aim was, as Hertz (1997) suggests “presenting theauthor’s self, whilst simultaneously writing the respondents’ accounts and representing theirselves” (p. 23). Examples will be presented in the next section to illustrate how this was carried out in practice.

102

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

Narrative Analysis and Researcher Reflexivity
The Analytical Model: Incorporating Researcher Reflexivity
The analytical approach taken in this study was situated in its philosophical approach toits analysis within the constructivist perspective on narratives (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002),
where the focus is more on the how questions as opposed to the what questions. The whatquestions include “What happened?” and “What were the experiences people had?”, while thehow questions include “How do the participants position themselves while telling the stories?” and “How does the interpersonal and/or social relationship shape the making of thestories?” (Frost, 2011). Obviously, any analytical model will oversimplify the empirical practices of narrative analysis. I do not intend to prescribe or endorse a certain model, but the Six
Step Analysis Model (refer to Miyahara, 2015 for a detailed account of the model) represents
my attempt to take into account the content (what) and form (how), as well as the context,
ranging from the micro-local to the macro-global. The purpose in providing the analyticalframework is to offer a guide to how the analysis was carried out, and also, to give transparency to the process of attempting to offer some insightful order to the multiple accounts ofhuman experiences that my participants brought to the research site. The precise frameworkused will naturally depend on the enquiry, but in any narrative analysis, the reflexive involvement of the researcher at various stages of the analysis and representation of the data isinherent, and akin to what Mann (2011) refers to as the researcher’s “sensitivity”.

Researcher Reflexivity in Action
As noted earlier, in line with Riessman (2008) and many leading scholars, narrative analysis
is an iterative process: there is no specific moment when data analysis begins or ends. For
instance, researchers usually find that in the process of transcribing the oral data, they are
already beginning to analyze the data (for that matter, analysis might even begin while conducting the interviews). Indeed, my own processing did not always occur in a linear fashion
as the Six Step Model (Miyahara 2015) mentioned earlier might suggest, as the steps overlapped and quite often, I found myself moving back and forth in a cyclical manner. 
Overall, the cyclic nature of the analytical process, however, enabled me to see how and inwhat ways researcher reflexivity could be manifested in the analytical process. Writing yourself into your narrative study is easier said than done. As mentioned earlier, the process could
simply mean to reveal your personal identities and thinking; on the other hand, it could also
refer to how your identities intersect with the wider context of the institutional, material,and of the sociopolitical sphere. Sociologists such as Presser (2005) make a distinction between strong and weak forms of reflexivity. “Strong” reflexivity questions the institutional
and political structure that contextualizes the research, whereas the “weak” version focuses
more on the researcher’s background, their thinking and emotions. In this paper, I seemed tohave combined aspects of reflexivity from the weak version with some of the socio-culturaldimensions of the strong version. 
  The next point is how we incorporate reflexive acts in our research practices and how wemanage our reflexivity in our research practices, which is also the main purpose of this paper.
To illustrate this point, I now present parts from my previous research as mentioned earlier.
I particularly focus on certain mediational tools to manage researcher reflexivity. These tools
can be largely grouped from theoretical, cognitive or practical perspectives (Maynard 2005).
Theoretical tools refer to theories and frameworks that researchers can draw on to examine the “process, context and outcomes of the research and interrogate the construction ofknowledge” (Finlay, 2012, p. 317). Finlay’s five critical lenses, mentioned earlier, could be
one example. Cognitive tools are items such as journals, subjective statements, notes used to
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019103

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

stimulate cognitive and metacognitive process of the researcher reflexivity. Practical tools include practices that facilitate the managing of the researcher reflexivity; storing one’s reflexive comments using Moodle platforms could be one example. My reflections that consisted ofmy thoughts recorded in my journal writings were revisited with data that emerged from theanalytical model adding another dialogic dimension in relation to other data sets that were
demonstrated in the form of “reflexive vignettes” (RV). This extra step was not only effective
in locating my subjectivity, but also enabled me to consider different aspects of myself (e.g.,
identities, positions, and roles as well as my beliefs and assumptions), and evaluate the impact they could potentially have on the entire research. Such a reflexive space also gave me
the opportunity to carefully monitor how and in which ways our beliefs and biases are crucial to the understanding of the self in the creation of knowledge. The following are from mynotes: two examples from my research journal and reflexive notes in verbatim.

Example A:
From my research journal #5 : April LL, 20XX
I made arrangements to distribute the flyers to recruit prospective participants sometimeat the end of April (April is the first month of the academic year in Japan). This should be agood time since the students should have gotten over the beginning-of-the-term craziness.
In the flyer, I kind of mentioned that I was an alumnus of this university. Hope this helped
to create some kind of rapport, and also help to send out the message, “I can understandwhat you are going/or going to go through”. Naturally, did not distribute the flyers to myown students but, I was surprised to find out that almost 40 participants (a total of 100 flyers had been distributed) showed interest in my research. 
From my corresponding RV for the above journal entry:
I made use of my position as an alumnus and senpai (senior member of a community). My
aim was to create a rapport in order to recruit as many participants as possible; but, could I
have been using my power as their senpai? In the Japanese culture, the notion of senpai canbe sometimes quite powerful. Some of the participants noted in their journals that they decided to take part in the research because they were interested in 1) the concept of identity
and their own identity, 2) welcomed the opportunity to talk to me who was a senpai as well
as a teacher in this intensive language program. This was interesting: the participants themselves were intentionally taking advantage of my role and position. 
Looking back at these extracts now, there are several key notions that I would briefly like tocomment on, that is, the researcher-participant relationship, positionality (both claimed andassigned), insider-outsider role, and identity. Since, for the large part, most of our identities
overlap and are linked together, instead of focusing on each item one by one, my discussion
here will be holistic in the sense that they will be considered as a group of interrelated factors. 
My reflexive vignettes in Example A helped me to pin down and grasp my position as a
researcher. In this research context, my positionality was multiple and complicated. For
example, I am a researcher, practitioner, alumnus, and senpai in this study. Turning on myreflexive gaze, so to speak, it was clear from the outset that I was positioned in the role of the“insider”, and, as such, this offered certain benefits at various stages of the research process.
For example, my position at this university, as well as my identity as a teacher in this language program (although I had avoided interviewing students in my classes), undoubtedly ac-

104

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

corded me certain advantages. In addition, my knowledge of the immediate research context
enabled me to recruit, set up and manage the interviews with the participants with ease andsensitivity. My background (and identity) as an alumnus of this university appeared to havefacilitated a rapport with my prospective participants and allowed me some degree of accessand connection to my participants lived experience. 
With regards to data collection, my familiarity with the research context enabled me toaddress the appropriate questions. However, because of my insider position, it was also veryclear that I had to be keenly aware of how my presence could shape the discursive natureof our talk. Researcher positionality clearly has the potential to shape data collection. Also,
what was most interesting to me, and something I did not foresee, was the way the participants would re-position me and assign identities as exemplified in my reflexive notes. Thishighlights the ways in which research identities and the positionalities that are both claimed
or assigned by the researcher and the participants influence the research process, and eventually, the final outcomes of the research. The interesting point that can be drawn from thisexample is that, in terms of issues surrounding researcher-participant dynamics, research is
not “on or for” the participants, but rather “with” the participants. This, I believe, is a moreproactive and empowerment-oriented approach for all those involved in the research, and onethat allows the researcher and the participants to be placed on a more equal footing. Beingreflexive could thus mean empowerment for the participants as well, since they are positioned
as equal contributors in the research process.
However, having said that I do not intend to claim that a reflexive approach to qualitative
research solves all issues and challenges of the so-called “backyard research” (Glesne & Peshkin, 1991, p. 21) such as this particular study, but in this current postmodern age, listening
to and understanding multiple voices, multiple subjectivities, and recognizing the particularities of each research context is crucial in generating new knowledge. What is paramount is toattempt to have a significant level of objectivity through being transparent about the research
process and about one’s own beliefs and attitudes. 
The next example highlights the reflexive process more at the analysis stage, while Example A focused on the pre-data collection phase.  

Example B:
From my research journal # 9, May MM, 20XX
Maki seemed particularly interested in my experiences as a “returnee”. She appeared
to have an akogare (desire) towards returnees. I spoke to her about the negativity, so to
speak, associated with the term, a topic that is not openly discussed. She was definitely
very intrigued by it. This helps to facilitate our discussions about her images of an ideal
English speaker, and how she has (and also is) striving towards it. She clearly makes thedistinction between herself as an English-learner and English-user. 
As most of my participants have expressed at one time or another, they differentiate between their identity as a learner and user (although they do not use these terms). Studying for term-end exams or college entrance exams mean they see themselves as English-learners; contrastively, picturing themselves as English-users means that they areable to see themselves as using English with their peers, teachers, returnees, overseas students on campus, etc. Such a desire or, if you want, imagination, to become English-users
prompted me to think about their idealized selves, especially, Dornyei’s notion of Ideal L2
self. 

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

105

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

From my corresponding RV for the above journal entry:
Had I taken advantage of my experiences as a returnee? It was interesting talking to her
about the returnees. I could picture exactly what they were feeling and thinking. Maki said
she would sometimes listen to American teen music; although she herself preferred J-pop.
I remember some of my friends took similar actions when they wanted to establish friendship with me. Although Maki did not explain her actions, I could guess……but in this case,should I have asked Maki her reasons? Am I assuming things here?
Maki’s case above is interesting. At the age of two, her family moved to Bangladesh, where
she received her pre-school education at an international school. Coming back to Japan a couple of years later when she was four years old, Maki does not consider herself as a returnee as
can be observed below from her interview, where she claims her memories of her pre-school
are vague but “fun and full of excitement”. 
Excerpt (from the original interview transcript)
I don’t remember much since I was only two years old, but it was a time of fun and fullof excitement. Although I have no experience of going to schools overseas other thanthis, I have always envied people who can live abroad and attend schools there. As far
as I am concerned, living only for two or three years when I was little does not makeme a returnee.  
We can observe Maki’s struggle from this excerpt. There appears to be a discrepancy in how
Maki regards herself as a returnee and how she is positioned by others. She regards herself tobe on the periphery in terms of the community of returnees; but to the general public, Maki isa returnee. I can keenly resonate with Maki since I have noticed similar frustration that somereturnees experience upon their return to Japan. There is a division among the returnees
themselves as to who the “legitimate” returnees are. Maki, who had spent only two years at a
pre-school in Bangladesh, may not be considered as a returnee compared to those of her peers
who had lived overseas for an extended period of time. The point is that I could identify theissue at stake here for Maki coming from a returnee background. That is, I could “see” myidentity as a returnee through Maki’s stories, and perhaps, Maki was telling me her stories
out of her desire to become like a returnee.      What figures prominently from Example B is, firstly, the co-construction of knowledge, or
what Barkhuizen terms as “narrative knowledge” (2011), that occurs in the conversations (interview process). The discussion of returnees which enabled Maki to consciously distinguishbetween language learner and language user was a notion that was co-constructed between
the researcher and the participant. Secondly, with respect to the researcher/participant experiences and identities, in the process of analyzing the data, my experience as a returnee
at this institute allowed me to bring to the surface, and offer explanations for, phenomenathat could have otherwise been difficult. Maki’s akogare (longing/desire) (Piller & Takahashi,2006) towards the returnees and her desire to become a part of the returnees’ community
serve as a good example. This shared experience (Berger, 2015) provided me with the insights
to sensitize myself to certain dimensions of the phenomena under study that probably an
outsider would have overlooked. However, here again, the insider position required me to be
extremely watchful to maintain the distance (or rather my position) between myself as theresearcher and the student who was my participant. Furthermore, my familiarity with higher
education in Japan contributed towards appreciating my participants’ stories from a different
perspective. My position enabled me to obtain deeper insights into the narratives of my participants because I could operate in both worlds. However, again, because of this, it was more

106

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko Miyahara

important for me to maintain an awareness of the effects that my position might have hadthroughout the analysis (as well as the entire research process). There exists always the tension between “involvement” and “detachment”. Reflexive engagement could be a vehicle tobalance out such tension. Reflexivity is the deciding factor in a narrative research context, andit can serve as a strategy to monitor the quality of the research. As Roulston (2010b) states “it[reflexivity] can be conceptualized as a means for quality control” (p. 228).

Summary and Thoughts for Further Discussion
If narrative studies, the dominant methodology used in identity studies, are fundamentally interpretative and subjective, the role of the researcher and the participants as well as therelationship between the two parties becomes even more relevant. In this relationship, an
examination of the ways in which the researcher’s involvement influences and informs theresearch at all stages of the research process is an important methodological consideration,and it requires a careful reflexivity on the part of the researcher. The issue of researcher reflexivity or the understanding that researchers’ involvement could change the object of
the study dates back even to the age of Labov (1972), but the main question is how and inwhat ways? In this paper, I have attempted to present a possible way to address this issue by
bringing reflexivity to the center stage. The reflexive component should be an inherent partof narrative studies and any reflexive engagement should be considered as a way to secure therigour of the research study. 
In this chapter, I have focused on matters related to the researcher’s identities, positionality, insider-outsider roles, and researcher-participant relation in line with the main theme ofthis third issue of the LD Journal. My research has a strong biographical element to it. Whilst
I recognize the value of attempting to acknowledge my own identities, bias, and ideas, I must
admit, it was, and still is to a certain extent, a struggle. On reflection, one of my main struggles to write myself (researcher’s voice) into the study is related to my often-overlapping
roles and identities as a practitioner/researcher, which are combined with the experiences I
shared with my participants that made it difficult for me to reflect critically at certain stagesof the research process. 
Another was the ever-evolving nature of my identities as a researcher and the transformative nature of reflexivity. Going back to my original data and dwelling on my reflexive notes
to write up this paper, I noticed that sometimes my interpretations of a certain excerpt of thetranscript had undergone some changes. Although this paper has focused on the influence
the researcher has on the research, there is also another dimension to reflexivity: that is, theinfluence of the research on the researcher (Edge, 2011). Many reasons could be attributed tothis phenomenon. But this would make sense if we consider reflexivity as comprised of two
facets that move in a “hermeneutic cycle of mutually shaping change as the researcher constructs the research, works to see how his/her subjectivity influences it, pursues researchgoals, and works to see how s/he is (being) influenced, in turn, by these processes and outcomes” (Edge, 2011, p. 37). Reflexivity can thus be both developmental and transformative,
but we still need to explore how and in what ways these two dimensions intertwine with eachother. Hopefully, this study would serve as a starting point for further inquiries in this area. 
So, where do we go from here? One possibility could be to investigate the collaborative nature of reflexivity to advance our understanding of the notion of researcher reflexivity. Drawing on reflexivity as comprising of a social as well as an individual dimension, although themediational tools suggested in this paper are based on the researcher’s inner dialogue withthemselves that are situated in a certain context, sharing these internal dialogues in collaboration with other researchers could contribute to fostering and developing researcher reflexLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019107

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

ivity. Such attempts would lead to a broadening as well as a deepening of our understandingof the interactive, dynamic multidimensionality of reflexivity in narrative studies, and, concomitantly, qualitative research in general.  
[Some parts of this article are based on Miyahara, M. (2019). Methodological diversity inemotions research: Reflexivity and identities. Journal for Psychology of Language Learning (1),83-105.]

References
Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 391-414.
Barkhuizen, G. (2013). Introduction: Narrative research in applied linguistics. In G.
Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp.1-16). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning
research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Benson, P. (2017). Ways of seeing: The individual and the social in applied linguistics researchmethodologies. Language Teaching, 52(1), 60-70.
Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative
research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219-234.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2001). How to research (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes, UK: Open
University Press.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press.
Block, D. (2010). Researching language and identity. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.),
Continuum companion to second language research methods (pp. 337-350). London, UK:
Continuum.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clandinin, D. J.
(Ed.) (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clandinin, D. J. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
De Costa, P., & Norton, B. (2017). Identity, transdisciplinarity, and the good language teacher.
Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 3-14.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Edge, J. (2011). The reflexive teacher educator in TESOL: Roots and wings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Finlay, L. (2012). Five lenses for the reflexive interviewer. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A.
Marvasti & K. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of thecraft (pp. 317-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Foley, D. (2002). Critical ethnography: The reflexive turn. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 15(4), 469-490.
Frost, N. (2011). Qualitative research methods in psychology. London, UK: Open University Press.
Glesne, C., & Pershkin, A. (1991). Becoming qualitative researchers. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context andmethod. London: Sage.
Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two
worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jenkins, R. (1992). Pierre Bourdieu. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

108

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Masuko MiyaharaMann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interview in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 32(1), 6-24.
Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflexive practice and reflexivity in research processes.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mann, S., & Walsh, S. (2017). Reflective practice in English language teaching. London, UK:
Routledge.
Mishler, E. (2006). Narrative and identity. In A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.),
Discourse and identity (pp. 30-47). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mishler, E. (2008). Narrative methods for human sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotions in foreign language learning: A
narrative-oriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Miyahara, M. (2017).
Emotions, experience and identities in L2 narrative research. In A. Shahriar & G. K. Syed
(Eds.), Student culture and identity in higher education (pp. 214-233). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.) Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Page, R. (2010). New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. London, UK: Routledge.
Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher,29(9), 5-9.
Piller, I., & Takahashi, K. (2006). A passion for English: Desire and the language market. In A.
Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: Emotional experience, expression, and representation (pp. 5983). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journalof Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 8-25.
Preece, S. (Ed.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of language and identity. London, UK:
Routledge.
Rapley, T. (2012). The (extra)ordinary practices of qualitative interviewing. In J. Gubrium, J.
Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The
complexity of the craft (pp. 541-554). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. (2008). Narrative methods for human sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Riessman, C. (2012). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti,& K. McKinney (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp.
367-380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roulston, K. (2010a). Reflective researcher: Learning to interview in the social sciences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roulston, K. (2010b). Considering quality in qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research, 10,
199-228.
Roulston, K. (2014). Interactional problems in research interviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3),277-293.
Talmy, S. (2010). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instruments tosocial practice. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128-148.
Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, andideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25-42.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019109

The Hall of Mirrors: Examining the Interplay of Researcher and Learner Identities in Narrative Studies

Author Bio
Masuko Miyahara is a tenured lecturer at International Christian University, Tokyo. She
holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from UCL-Institute of Education, London. Her current
topics of interest are identity studies in SLA, issues related to English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI), and research methodology and methods in language learning research,
particularly in the area of narratives. Her publications include: Emerging Self-identities andEmotion in Foreign Language Learning: A Narrative-oriented Approach (2015), Narratives in language learning research: Developing a reflexive framework (2017) and, most recently, Sampling:
Problematizing the Issue (2019).

110

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

RESEARCH PAPER
Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’
Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories,
Poems, and Issues
Andy Barfield, Chuo University
In this paper I share critical perspectives on identity conflicts that emerged in interviews with three undergraduate
students about how they understand their linguistic repertoires (Blommaert, 2008, 2010; Busch, 2014) and why
they frame their understandings in particular ways to do with identity conflict. The exploratory process includes
students’ reflections about the language portraits (Busch, 2012, 2018; Chik, 2014, 2017; Chik, Markose, & Alperstein,
2018; Wolf, 2014) that they drew of themselves as language users. It also makes use of various “I-poems” (Gilligan &Eddy, 2017) that are directly composed from what the students said in the interviews. Providing striking crystallisations of significant incidents and episodes in the students’ languaged experiences, the I-poems not only illuminate
their active agency in dealing with identity conflicts, but also point to wider issues of discrimination, inclusion, andpower that each experienced. I relate these issues to language ideologies that are commonly reproduced in society and that can be seen to have significant impacts on learners’ identities and their linguistic repertoires.
本稿は、言語レパートリー（Blommaert, 2008, 2010; Busch, 2014）
に対する３名の大学生の理解および その理解がアイデンティティの葛藤と関連付けられる理由を、インタビューから浮かび上がるアイデンティティの葛藤を批判的に考察することで明らかにする。この解明プ
ロセスには言語使用者としての自身の言語ポートレイト（Busch, 2012, 2018; Chik, 2014, 2017; Chik, Markose, & Alperstein, 2018;
Wolf, 2014）を用いた省察に加え、インタビューにおける学生の発言をもとに作られたさまざまな”I-poems”(Gilligan & Eddy, 2017)を用いた。I-Poemsは、アイデンティティコンフリクトにおける学生の主体性だけではなく、それぞれが経験した差別、多様性の受け入れ、権威など様々な問題を呈している。本稿では、これらの問題と、社会に広く蔓延り、学習者のアイデンティティや言語レパートリーに影響を及ぼしうる言語イデオロギーとの関連性について探る。

Keywords
linguistic repertoire, language portrait, I-poems, identity conflict, language ideologies

キーワード
言語レパートリー、言語ポートレイト、I-Poems、アイデンティティの葛藤、言語イデオロギー

when I’m a childwhen I’m a child
I just think I am different from others sowhen I go to the junior high schoolit’s not bullying but
it’s like “gaikokujin”1— Tomoko

I decided to stop talking in Tagalog at home
I entered high schoolin the first year of high school I thought that my accent is very different than Japanese
it was my complex
I decided to stop talking in Tagalog at home
I said to my mother that I will not use Tagalog any more
1

= foreigner
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019111

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues
I didn’t use it for 5 years
even I know what she’s saying
I will ask her to repeat it in Japanese
I also shadowed the dramas— Haruka

I started to stop using dialect
when I came to Tokyo I had strong bias like the people from other areas can’t use their own languages dialects
I felt a little bit nervous to use that word
then when I came to not just Tokyo also like big cities
I started to stop using dialect
sometimes I use Nagano’s dialect without any special reason
that’s why I put this in my center
I didn’t know that’s dialect then I just speaking that way
そんなことしなんでいいよ しなんでいいよ2

it’s not correct
it’s not 標準語3
I don’t know why I feel negative feeling to use local language
just not cool
— Midori

Figure 1. Example I-poems extracted from student interviews.
Each of the above “I-poems” illuminates a particular experience with language in three
students’ lives that was significant for the individual at the time. Haruka grew up in thePhilippines using Tagalog and English. Coming to Japan in her teens to complete her secondary education, she felt that her way of speaking was different from her peers, so she took theradical decision to give up speaking Tagalog with her mother and become fluent in Japanese.
Midori’s poem reveals her sense of conflict about using her own local dialect after movingfrom Nagano to Tokyo for her university studies. Her local way of speaking felt out of placein relation to the standard Japanese that she now encountered in her new urban university
life. Tomoko’s poem concerns the time in junior high school that she was out-grouped by her
peers and ascribed an outsider identity as “gaikokujin” [= foreigner] although she grew up in
Fukushima prefecture bilingually, fluent in Japanese and Vietnamese.
These fragmentary sketches provide some initial insights into everyday situations of identity conflict that individuals face around the use of their linguistic repertoires. Specifically,
linguistic repertoires involve a range of linguistic, communicative, and semiotic resources,
including “concrete accents, language varieties, registers, genres, modalities such as writing”(Blommaert, 2010, p. 102) and “ways of using language in particular communicative settingsand spheres of life, including the ideas that people have about such ways of using, their language ideologies” Blommaert, 2010, p. 102). Linguistic repertoires are highly individualised,variable, dynamic, and mobile. They function as part of “the peculiar biographical trajectory of the speaker” (Blommaert, 2008, p. 16) and take us beyond “now” in looking at the
linguistic practices that learners deploy, so that we explore “… backwards to past language
experiences and forwards to expectations and desires linked to the future” (Busch, 2014, p.
35). Inquiring into learners’ linguistic repertoires enables us to explore identity issues intheir language experiences within and across languages. Thus, an individual learner’s sense of2
3“son’na koto shinande ī yo shinande ī yo” = I don’t like that really don’t“hyojungo” = standard language (standard Japanese)112

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield

dislocation about using their local dialect at university in Tokyo is as much part of a linguistic
repertoire view of identity conflict as is another student’s enforced separation of their use ofJapanese and Vietnamese in different spaces and at different times in their life.
Conflicts of identity are grounded in tensions between identities that an individual alreadyhas or imagines themselves as attaining—what a person wants to become or have for themselves (Darvin & Norton, 2015)—and their ingrained dispositions and practices, or “habitus”(Bourdieu, 1980/1990), as well as their capacity to exercise agency in relation to perceived andactual affordances and constraints impacting courses of action within particular social fields.
These include family, school, membership groups, university, and work contexts, among others (Lin, 2012). As an individual’s capacity to act is “socioculturally mediated” (Ahearn, 2001,
p. 112), an important dimension to identity conflict concerns how individuals are positioned
by others (and how they position others), and how (and why) such positioning aligns withor contradicts the individual’s present or imagined identities (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Lantolf& Thorne, 2006; Norton, 2000). Where there is alignment, an individual will in some way berecognised as a legitimate member of a particular field—as knowing how to participate inthat field (Lin, 2012). Conversely, without such recognition or legitimation in a given field, an
individual will experience a mismatch because they are not recognised as legitimate and/or do
not know how to take part in that field (Lin, 2012). What kind of identity conflicts arise, then,for learners in their “lived experience of language and the linguistic repertoire” (Busch, 2017,p. 53) across different social spaces and times in relation to others in their lives? How do theynavigate such conflicts? Why?
Significant moments in these autobiographical journeys need, according to Busch (2012),
to be interpreted in relation to the “the language ideologies and metalinguistic interpretations” (p. 510) that speakers make of their linguistic repertoires. Here I am taking a view of
linguistic repertoire that is somewhat different from that of mainstream language education
discourses—particularly the work of the Council of Europe on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in drawing a distinction between plurilingualism as
the speaker’s competence (Council of Europe, 2001) and multilingualism as “the co-existenceof different languages in a given society” (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4) or “the presence ofseveral languages within a given area” (Council of Europe, 2018). The CEFR view of multilingualism prioritises individuals’ proficiency in separate languages rather than considering theinterplay of particular semiotic resources in individuals’ lives. The more situated, user-centred focus put forward in this paper is particularly relevant for constructing a critical learner development perspective on learners’ languaged lives. It privileges respect for a learner’s
own perspectives and reflections about their multilingual experiences, practices, and desires,without which we cannot arrive at better understanding of how an individual may see identity
conflicts around language that they have been through. It also invites us to consider human,material and ideological affordances and constraints that affect individual decision making,development and action within particular fields, thereby helping us to understand how widersocial conditions, norms, practices, and discourses impact conflicts of identity.
My growing interest in learners’ linguistic repertoires comes from visiting Myanmar in
the last several years to do teacher education workshops, as well as fieldwork with students
about social justice and development issues. Attending a conference workshop by Alice Chik(2015) on Visualizing language learning in which she shared free-form examples of students
drawing themselves as language learners, I was fascinated by the different images that learners had created and what these revealed about their language histories and practices. A few
months later in Myanmar, I tried a similar visualization activity during a week of teacher
education workshops with trainers working in non-state education for education and development NGOs and monastic schools. My workshop co-facilitator, Jenny Morgan, and I invited
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019113

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

the trainers to draw themselves as multilingual language users. Their drawings revealed anastonishing range of communicative resources that they used on a regular basis, as well as
pointed to important experiences in their development that were directly impacted by language (Barfield & Morgan, 2016). Fieldwork in Myanmar with students has further helped merealise how powerful ideologies about language (such as the policy of Burmanisation) haveprofound effects on groups, communities, and individuals, eventually leading me to explorewith the students in the project reported here how they see their languaged lives and to probewith them questions of identity conflict in relation to wider issues in Japanese society.
In January 2018 I started this research with four second-year undergraduate students (Haruka, Keiko, Midori, and Tomoko—all noms de plume) from a yearlong course that they had
been taking with me in 2017. I already knew the students well enough to know they had
different language profiles, but from the viewpoint of understanding how they saw their own
languaged lives, my understanding was quite limited. In two rounds of interviews with them
I inquired into these guideline questions:(1)

How do learners see their linguistic repertoires?

(2)

What kind of experiences and incidents to do with identity conflict do learners highlight in their linguistic repertoires?

(3)

What connections do learners make between wider ideological issues in society to dowith language and questions of identity conflict in their own linguistic repertoires?
Why?

In this paper I focus on reconstructing different identity conflicts that emerged from theinterviews with three4 of the 4 students about how they understand their linguistic repertoires, and about why they perceive their language experiences and frame their understandings in particular ways to do with identity conflict. This reconstructive process includes thelanguage portraits (Busch, 2012, 2015, 2018; Chik, 2014, 2015, 2017; Chik, Markose, & Alperstein, 2018; Wolf, 2014) that the students drew of themselves as language users, as well as
various “I-poems” (Gilligan & Eddy, 2017) that I assembled by using the students’ own words
from the interviews. These are key areas that I wish to focus on here. As a researcher, I findit tempting to reach towards grounded theorization of learners’ identity conflicts through theprism of capital, field, and habitus that their lives embody as Lin (2012) and Darvin & Norton(2015), for example, have argued for. Wary, though, of applying an overarching theoreticalframework that may distance us from appreciating in the first place the students’ own voiced
accounts, in a different identity as an exploratory practitioner, I will focus for the main partof this paper on trying to understand their stories in their words and sharing my long-puzzled reflections with you.
I continue by explaining the interview process and presenting starting conversations fromthe interviews about each student’s language portrait so that we can get a deeper sense of thestudents’ multilingual lives. After that, I will introduce the particular method that I used foranalysing the interviews—the Voice-Centred Relational Approach—and discuss the whys andwherefores in reconstructing “I-poems” from interview transcripts. I will then present andcomment on a selection of I-poems from the interviews with each student. This will point
us towards emergent themes to do with identity conflict and let us broach wider ideologicalissues to do with language that the students perceived as impacting their lives and identities.

4

For reasons of space I have limited the focus in this paper to three of the students.

114

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield

The Interview Process
Lasting 45 minutes to an hour, the interviews were done mostly in English, and in part inJapanese, according to how the students wished to express themselves at certain points. In
the first interview the students drew a “language portrait” (Busch, 2012, 2015, 2018; Chik,
2014, 2015, 2017; Chik, Markose, & Alperstein, 2018; Wolf, 2014) of themselves, which they
then talked about and used for recalling and reflecting different language experiences they
had each had. Following Busch (2012, 2015, 2018), I asked the students about their portraits,
encouraging them to share how they experience language in their daily lives: the ways they
use language, how language has been important for them at different stages of their lives,and how language might be important in the future for them. I also invited the students toshare about particular persons, places, situations, and critical moments they had experienced
in relation to language, and what those experiences now meant to them (and why). Later I
listened to these initial interviews, focusing on how they used “I” to talk about themselvesin the critical episodes that they had faced. I then transcribed the interviews, before reducing
each critical episode to a short “I-poem” consisting mostly of statements they made about
themselves in these small stories (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008) of identity conflict.
For the second round of interviews in July 2018, the students were asked to bring along 6-8
popular culture artefacts (explained as images, headlines, objects, texts, slogans, and so on)
about “language issues” in society so that we might move between individual and societal
perspectives in relation to their now storied linguistic repertoires. In the second interview wewent over episodes from the first interview and also talked about the artefacts that they eachbrought with them and considered meta-narratives of language (ideologies, assumptions, andbeliefs within education systems, the mass media, governmental policies, popular stories andmyths, and so on) circulating within society that they saw as affecting their lives.

Language Portraits
The students’ language portraits are shown in Figure 2 below. From left to right portraits are
by Haruka, Midori, and Tomoko. (The students could choose from two silhouette outlines ordraw free-form.) In Figure 2, the silhouette form on the left and right comes from an online community for researchers and practitioners interested in heteroglossia (heteroglossia.
net, n.d.). The body outline in the middle comes from a freely available collection of “person
outlines” (Clipart Library, n.d.). It is worth noting that more recent work with language portraits—e.g., Chik, Markose, & Alperstein (2018)—has used a different silhouette form.

Figure 2. The Students’ Language Portraits.
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019115

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

Let’s look at each portrait in turn. In her language portrait (see Figure 3 below), Haruka gives prominence to the three languages (Kamusta!/Filipino (Tagalog); こんにちは [= konnichiwa]/Japanese; Hello!/Philippine English) that she grew up with at different stages in her
childhood and teenage years. Interestingly Haruka sees herself expressing herself directly toothers in all three languages.

Figure 3. Haruka’s Language Portrait.
Haruka had spent her first years in the Philippines, brought up by her grandparents. She
learnt from early on to use Tagalog and English. With her Japanese father and Philippine
mother working in Japan, she decided at the age of 15 to come to Japan, without any Japanese at all, to live with her parents. She was highly driven and got through to university withher peers of the same age—and along the way gave up speaking Tagalog with her mother for
five years (“at first she talked to me in Tagalog but even I know that what she’s saying I will ask her
to repeat it in Japanese” (Haruka, Interview 1, January 2018). She felt that this would help her
mother become more proficient in Japanese and have better employment prospects in Japan.
Midori started off the first interview by commenting on the difficulty that she experiencesin expressing herself precisely in whatever language she is using. She continued by reflecting
on how her language portrait (see Figure 4 below) also represented important connections
that “local languages” held for her:

Figure 4. Midori’s Language Portrait.

116

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield“I think I can’t explain what I’m really thinking with my language even if it’s Japanese or myown local language. I guess I can’t explain what I’m feeling exactly in a word, so this circle is
my feeling or thinking or something. Then I just separated the colour. This yellow green is my… it’s top or the center of my mind is local, local feeling or local languages. I think when I hear
local languages or just when I saw Nagano or Azumino, the word which is connected with myhometown, I feel… I feel happy if there is some posters or the letter in another areas, then “oh myhometown is outstanding.” (Midori, Interview 1, January 2018)
Midori had grown up in a small community in Azumino, Nagano, in the foothills of theJapanese Alps, using a local variety of Japanese at home, particularly with her grandmother.
She wondered why she needed to hide her local identity when she moved to Tokyo and started
her university studies—in fact, questioning why her local variety of Japanese had become/was
being stigmatised and why she was feeling “dis-located.” This led Midori to identify morewith the branding of her local area for tourism (“I feel happy if there is some posters or the letterin another areas, then “oh my hometown is outstanding”) than with using her local dialect in her
own life.
Like Midori, Tomoko had grown up in a rural part of Japan—in Fukushima prefecture. She
had been born to a Japanese-Vietnamese father and Vietnamese mother in Vietnam and had
moved with her parents to Fukushima at a very early age. Using Vietnamese within the home,
Tomoko learnt Japanese by going to the local elementary school (“I put the Japanese flag on thehead because since I was a children I went to the Japanese school so my thinking is mostly in Japanese”(Tomoko, Interview 1, January 2018). Her language portrait is shown in Figure 5 below.
Tomoko observed how Vietnamese covered her heart and family relationships, as well as let
her express her emotional self in particular ways:“I used the Vietnamese flag on my heart because I use Vietnamese with my families and I think
Vietnamese language is really emotional and some words relate to emotion is really special
there are so many so many words to express emotion” (Tomoko, Interview 1, January 2018).

Figure 5. Tomoko’s Language Portrait.
As she grew up, Tomoko had been required to act as mediator, quite reluctantly at times,
between her non-Japanese speaking parents and wider society. She had also made great efforts
to develop her English as she saw it as important for her future: “I chose England’s flag on my leg
because it will help me to go to a lot of countries by using English and making contact with a lot of people
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019117

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

by going there” (Tomoko, Interview 1, January 2018). Using Chinese was another important partof the future imagined identity that she was investing herself in, as shown in her feet in thelanguage portrait (“I also choose the Chinese language because I start to study Chinese recently and I
think it will help me to take contact with people too”—Tomoko, Interview 1, January 2018).
These starting conversations underline the rich diversity of identity issues in these three
students’ linguistic repertoires. Haruka foregoes speaking with her mother in their sharedlanguage, Tagalog, partly to help her mother find better employment, and partly to force
herself to use Japanese as much as possible and to become the same as her peers. Midori hasa sense of confusion about using her Nagano variety of Japanese in Tokyo and at university to
express herself; she feels, in effect, compelled to suppress her local identity, and this bothers her. Tomoko, on the other hand, navigates between the Vietnamese-using environmentof her home life and wider Japanese society to mediate social inclusion for herself and herfamily, and to find ways to express herself to others in positive terms. In the interviews, as
Busch (2017) predicts, the students used their language portraits to interpret their linguistic
repertoires multimodally, i.e., both visually and narratively, and to move between places andthe past, present, and future as they re-constructed their lived and imagined experiences oflanguage. For each of these young women important questions of identity and conflict cameup as they started seeing their multilingual selves both more holistically and more “contradictorily.”I-poem Analysis: Standing Alongside the Learner
To develop the research further, I listened to each interview a few times and made notes as
I listened, before transcribing the interviews. One question I had was how to work with theinterviews as speech rather than written text. Although I was intent on trying something different from the exhaustive thematic codification that a conventional Grounded Theory Analysis requires, I was not yet completely clear about what kind of creative process might enhance
critical analysis of learners’ voices in the interviews. My search led me to the Voice-Centred
Relational Approach/Method (Gilligan & Eddy, 2017), a qualitative approach that Gilligan
and her collaborators originated in the 1980s and which focuses on the voices and perspectives of individuals in the stories that they tell of their experiences. In their overview of the
Voice-Centred Relational Approach, Gilligan and Eddy (2017) refer to a Listening Guide that
includes “aspects of thematic and narrative analysis as well as elements of a grounded theory approach” (p. 76), but which distinctly specifies “a series of ‛listenings,’ including …
Listening for the ‛I’ (the first-person voice of the speaker) and Listening for Contrapuntal
Voices (the counterpoint of voices that speak to the researcher’s question).” (ibid.) In the first
listening, “Listening for the Plot”, the researcher focuses on plotting the narrative (who ispresent, who is not, particular themes, looking for “emotional hotspots”, and striking images
or metaphors that the interviewee uses in telling their story). Here the focus of the researcher is predominantly descriptive, whereas with the second listening, “Listening for the ‛I’”,
the researcher focuses on how the interviewee uses “I” in different phrases. S/he separates
each “I phrase” to create an “I-poem” around clusters of knowledge and experience that theinterviewee articulates “in an associative logic, rather than linear, rational, causal thoughtprocesses” (Gilligan & Eddy, 2017, p. 78). The third stage in the Listening Guide is called“Listening for Contrapuntal Voices” and pushes towards a deeper analysis. Here the researcher’s task is to listen for the interplay between voices, looking for harmonies and dissonances,trying to pick up “what is not being said or what may be silenced” (Gilligan & Eddy, 2017, p.
79).  Edwards and Weller (2012) point out that the Voice-Centred Relational Approach gives
attention to identifying “the different subjectivities from which the participant speaks” (p.
205) in “the stream of consciousness that is carried by the first person references” (p. 205).

118

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield

This enables the researcher to “stand alongside” the interviewee as they make an interpretation of the interviewee’s different voiced experiences and social reality.
At a more general level adaptations of the Voice-Centred Relational Approach (e.g., Bright,
Kayes, Worrall, & McPherson, 2017; Paliadelis & Cruickshank, 2008) tend to emphasise reading rather than listening to interview transcripts in successive stages. Bright et al. (2017)
propose, for example, four stages of reading, with a substantially more elaborate and explicit set of guideline questions for each stage (see Appendix A for the complete set of guideline
questions). For the present research I used both successive listenings and readings. While
voice-centred listening helped to sensitise me to the perspectives of the students on theirexperiences and to potential counterpoints central to my research interests, reading was
useful for extracting the I-phrases, questioning what non-I-phrase details to include, creating I-poems, and thinking further through some of the ideological aspects of each student’s
experiences.
The actual application of I-poem analysis made me question how to stand alongside an interviewee and represent their voice(s) in a trustworthy way in the I-poems that I created. The
three learners often provided further details about an element of an “I-phrase” without using“I” when they did. Should such details be included or not in an I-poem? Under what conditions? An example episode from the first interview with Haruka (see Appendix B for a verbatim transcript of this segment) serves to illustrate some of the questions about voice thatcame up. In this episode Haruka recalled searching for a different language school in Tokyo
after being initially placed in a community school class with much older adults. She wanted
to find a class with people closer in age to herself, adding the detail that it was a class taught
by volunteers: “I also looked for different language school which is taught by university students there
is a voluntary circle” (Haruka, Interview 1, January 2018). In a following detail, she commented
that she had indeed found such a volunteer-taught class, but the other children were muchyounger than her: “yes but almost all of them are elementary school (laughter) there is no students
that are the same age as me” (Haruka, Interview 1, January 2018). Both details provide contextual elaboration of “place” and “participants” in this narrative episode, but do not have any
explicit or implicit reference to “I”. Similarly, the final detail in this segment—“… and they
think that Japanese is kind of weird” (Haruka, Interview 1, January 2018)—is a “non-I” detail.
What is different is that it points to how Haruka experienced being negatively positioned byher classmates in high school for the way that she spoke Japanese. This “non-I” detail functions as a complication and connects to further actions that Haruka took in trying to change
her accent and align herself with her peers so that she would not be judged as different. This
led me to include it in the I-poem. I also decided to put at the end of this I-poem the phrase“it was my complex” even though it is not an I-phrase, either. Haruka uses “it was my complex” as a coda for the whole narrative episode that the I-poem addresses, so it shows theevaluative stance that she took about the incident. The phrase creates, as it were, a signature(Clandinin & Connelly, 2000) for her voice here, as if to signal: This is Haruka. This is Haruka
making sense of her languaged life. This is Haruka voicing how an identity conflict has impacted her development.
Figure 6 below shows the process of creating this particular I-poem. The text of the resultant I-poem is written in italic style with the deleted details struck through in plain style.

I couldn’t speak I think the modern Japanese
I also looked for different language school which is taught by university students there is a voluntary circle andI go there for 5 months and enter junior high school
but almost all of them are elementary school (laughter) there is no students that are the same age as me
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019119Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues
when I enter the junior high school
I couldn’t speak I think the modern Japanese
I can speak the formal Japanese
they think that Japanese is kind of weird
so from them I studied the modern Japanese by watching TVs or dramas
I entered high schoolin the first year of high school I thought that my accent isn’t so is very different than Japanese
it was my complex

Figure 6. Curating and creating I-poems: an example.
The selection and deletion of non-I-phrase details in Figure 6 goes some way to de-constructing the process of standing alongside each interviewee and of re-constructing their
voice(s) through I-poems. I-poems help crystallise moments of identity conflict by zeroingin on what Clandinin and Connelly (2000) term “the participant signature” (p. 148) of therespective individual. Is this I-poem trustworthy? Does this I-poem (and its interpretation)“give a tone and a feel” (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000, p. 148) for the identity conflict that theindividual experienced? With these questions in mind, I would like to look next at a selectionof I-poems from each student and explore different issues of identity conflict that they highlight.

I-poems: Haruka
With her parents working in Japan, Haruka grew up in her early childhood under the care ofher grandmother in the Philippines. They used Tagalog at home, and from a young age Haruka started learning and using English in a neighbourhood nursery school. Fluent in both
Tagalog and English when she moved to Japan at the age of 14, Haruka at first went to a community school in Tokyo. Because of her lack of Japanese ability, she couldn’t start high schoolwith children the same age as her. Instead, she dropped back a year to go to the community
school (which, further below, she calls a “volunteer class”) and studied with a group of mucholder classmates. As Okano and Tsuneyoshi (2011, pp. 14-18) indicate, it is quite possible thatthey had not completed their basic education and had been forced to leave school early forreasons of poverty or bullying. In this period of intense assimilation Haruka applied herself
to learning Japanese formally at the community school as well as at a language school thatwas taught by volunteer university students; she also worked on becoming fluent in everyday standard Japanese (which she refers to as “modern Japanese”) by watching TV shows anddramas:

I couldn’t speak I think the modern Japanese
I also looked for different language school
I go there for 5 months and enter junior high school
when I enter the junior high school
I couldn’t speak I think the modern Japanese
I can speak the formal Japanese
they think that Japanese is kind of weird
I studied the modern Japanese by watching TVs or dramas
I entered high schoolin the first year of high school I thought that my accent isn’t so is very different than Japanese
it was my complex

120

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield

Constantly corrected by her classmates and teachers, Haruka developed a complex aboutsounding different in Japanese. It was at this time that she decided to stop speaking Tagalog
and took on what she believed to be a monolingual Japanese-using identity. She gave up using Tagalog with her mother, as well as with her younger brother, and her cousins in Kyushu,
and entered junior high school less than half a year later. Haruka started talking exclusively
in Japanese, even with one of her oldest Filipino friends in Japan:

we talk in Japanese now
before there was a friend that is a Filipino
I used to talk with her in Tagalog
when I attended the volunteer classwhen I decided to not talk Tagalog
she also decided not to talk in Tagalog
we talk in Japanese now

This group of I-poems represents the voice of “assimilating Haruka.” Haruka wanted to
become and sound the same as her junior high school classmates. Any conflicts of identity
were buried deep within the desired normalcy of the monolingual world that she inhabited inher relationships with her peers at school. To attain this new identity, she started speaking
English with a heavy katakana accent—just as those around her did—so that she could put
distance between herself and any semblance of proficiency in that language. This also let her
avoid being put in the position of translating English into Japanese for her classmates:

I want to be normalwhen they listened to my Japanese
they knew that I came from other countries
I don’t like that
I entered Japanese school
I want to be normal
if they know that I can do English
they will ask me everything to translate in Japanesethe English that I know and they know is quite different
the English I know is not translating English
the Japanese people’s English is something about translating English to Japanese
I don’t want that situation

The above I-poem reveals Haruka recognising the language norms of her peers, including
their resistance to using English communicatively. She decided to perform a monolingual
identity and follow their language practices in order to belong with them. Yet, much as she
wanted to show herself as monolingually performative in standard Japanese, Haruka had—from extensive exposure to TV shows and dramas—unconsciously picked up different varieties of Japanese:

I didn’t know anything about dialect in Japan
I didn’t know anything about dialect in Japan
I input a lot of dialects
my cousins lived in Kyushu
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019121

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues
I talked to them there is Kyushu dialect
I don’t realise I’m talking in that
I thought all of them are Japanese
I input everything that I heard
now when I talk to my friends
sometimes they will ask me if I know Kansai dialect
I am supposed to use only the modern JapaneseThus, for others, Haruka sometimes passed for someone who had lived in Kyushu or Kansai. She was never quite as monolingual as she proclaimed herself to be to others, or as others
wished to position her.
In a different act of subversion to the monolingualism that she espoused in public, Haruka
secretly continued to use Tagalog on Facebook with her friends in the Philippines. Despite her
claims to the contrary with her parents and family, she continued to read, write, and talk thelanguage she had once used with her mother and other members of her family. For several
years she could not show that side of herself to others in Japan. Invisibilising (Grant-Thomas, 2018) a significant identity of hers, Haruka kept her membership of this home community hidden and suppressed her otherness. Yet while she made efforts to hide both her secretuse of Tagalog and her abilities in English, she unwittingly acquired traces of other identities
through speaking different, truncated varieties (see Blommaert, 2010, pp. 103-106) of Japanese. The second set of I-poems points to a “masking and passing” voice of Haruka.
At university Haruka uses Tagalog on social media for keeping up with her friends in thePhilippines and maintaining her fluency. She combines this with doing research for different
courses:I don’t want to lose it
I use it in my research
I’m reading articles in Tagalog
I’m chatting with my friends
if I’m researching about something
I don’t want to use Japanese
I use Tagalog when I research about the Philippines situation
I think it has more information than English and Japanese
I read it
I sometimes write about it in Tagalog
I don’t want to lose it
I’m practising
I think if I lose it
I couldn’t talk with my friends as normal as before

Still sensitive about how she may be accepted by her peers, Haruka often affects a heavy katakana accent when she first talks in English with other Japanese students at university. Thatway, her experience tells her, they will not feel scared or intimidated by how fluently she speaks.

I-poems: Midori
As shown in Midori’s I-poem at the start of this paper, using her local variety of Japanese
made her feel deeply connected to her local area. A key anchor for Midori is her grandmother122

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield

who lives with her parents in the same house in Azumino, Nagano prefecture (Midori tends to
deploy a less localised variety of Japanese with her parents):

I feel strong connection with her
my way of using Japanese is biased from Nagano
I don’t think it’s proper way of Japanese
my parents don’t have that strong dialect
when I talk with her in strong dialect
I feel strong connection with herthen I often use dialect
but when I talking with my parents
I don’t really

Midori also professed a sense of conflict about using her local variety in Tokyo or other major cities: “Just not cool,” she commented at first, as if using her Nagano dialect would amountto an incongruent act of identity (Le Page & Tabouret-Keller, 1985) in her new student life.
Other see-saw tensions tended to de-centre Midori too. She had taken an extra year toprepare for university entrance exams. One year behind her peers of the same age, she now
struggled with using “keigo” (= a polite and respectful register used according to age andstatus) with older students as opposed to using “plain” Japanese (or “straight Japanese” asshe calls it). She recalled that she had first learnt to use “keigo” in her junior high school
sports club where younger members were bullied if they did not show due respect to theirseniors by employing “keigo”. At university Midori felt compelled to deploy “keigo” but confessed to having no sense of showing respect by doing so; it was simply something that sheneeded to do:

I just get used to this way of using keigo
I often feel I should use
I have to use keigo to sempai
sometimes I can use keigo to teacher
but for sempai I can’t
I think it’s strongly connected with my experience in my junior high school age
I joined volleyball club and these sports club have strong hierarchy system
if younger people didn’t use keigo to senior people
senior people just angry for not using keigo
I think it’s stupid
I just get used to this way of using keigo
because I have gap age
when I entered this university I was worried
I was worried for using keigo to third years student because they’re same age to me
I just want to use keigo
I think it’s from my experiencethat’s why I can’t use the straight Japanese
I just use keigo
but it’s not the sign of respect
I didn’t show respect to him
but I just use keigo

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019123

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

In addition to feeling social pressures around her use of her local variety of Japanese and“keigo,” Midori was at first lost about using English at university. Yet, she soon started identifying in a positive way about speaking English. Part of this change involved idealising people who use English communicatively rather than just studying it:

it’s a shame I didn’t have the courage to use English
when in the first class they started to use English in self-introduction
it was my first time to use English in the classroom in 10 years
I couldn’t say anything
I didn’t like English
I didn’t think anything
maybe speaking in English is significant
the people who use English is adorable I thought
it’s very 恥ずかしい とても恥ずかしい5

Overcoming the embarrassment that she initially felt in speaking English at university,
Midori starting to restructure part of her identity around becoming a proficient English user.
Now in Tokyo, she could hear many different languages around her, particularly English, andthis let her connect—albeit indirectly at first—her own increasing use of English with adopting a globalised identity for herself:

I felt “Oh Tokyo is now global city”
when I walking through the town
I often hear many languages especially in Shinjuku or Shibuya
I can hear English
then I recognize it’s English
but if I want to understand what they’re saying
I need to listen carefully
I thought it’s very interesting“Oh that’s Tokyo”
when I’m in Nagano we never hear other languages
sometimes Chinese but not English
I felt “Oh Tokyo is now global city”

Aware that this would be good for her future, Midori started to invest herself heavily inusing English and in making friends with international students on campus. She also madeplans to study abroad in her third year in Sweden and was later awarded a scholarship for
this, thus developing other forms of capital along the way.
Midori’s I-poems reveal significant identity shifts and conflicts. There is the enduring
emotional impact that using her local dialect has on her, as well as the tension between using
her local dialect or standard Japanese outside of her home area as she starts to encounter anddesire “the global” in her university life. She finds hierarchical relationship norms bothersome to accept, yet is also compelled to use “keigo” without ever feeling that she is showing
others the respect that is expected. The alluring branding of her local area as a tourist destination helps her keep a sense of her Azumino identity, while at the same time the salienceof English around her in Tokyo pulls her towards “the global” and to cultivating friendships
5“hazukashi totemo hazukashi” = embarrassing very embarrassing

124

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfieldwith students from different countries and preparing to study abroad for a year in Stockholm.
All this seems to have distanced her from the bothersome norms of formality that she experiences in using Japanese. Midori knew how to navigate those social rules, but they were empty for her. Wishing to relate to others as equals, she also became more and more focused on
moving from university in one global city in Japan to another in Sweden. All in all, a composite voice emerges in the ensemble of Midori’s I-poems—a “mobile glocal-egalitarian” voice,so to speak, of someone who embraces her local roots, yet wishes to develop and convert English into a global resource for making friends with international students outside of hierarchical relationships and becoming an international student herself by studying in Europe for ayear.

I-poems: Tomoko
Growing up in Fukushima, Tomoko longed to be seen as the same as other children in theway she used Japanese. She wasn’t, and this led to an enduring sense of misalignment for her
in her everyday life, first at elementary school and later at junior high:“Oh she’s Vietnamese”
I live in the countryside of Fukushima
the international people like me is really not really much there
if they talk me “Oh she’s Vietnamese”
some people see me in the different ways
actually I use Japanese like Japanese people
so after that they don’t mind that
I have many other points that they can mention
the first thing that they say to Tomoko will be in the class “She’s Vietnamese”
sometimes I think it’s a bias
I want to use Japanese like every other Japanese children

The othering (Grant-Thomas, 2018) as “foreign” that she experienced when younger did
not however lead Tomoko towards a clearer sense of her own Vietnamese identity. Rather, it
simply left her feeling different from others, and she became unwilling to assert at school theVietnamese identity that her peers assigned her:

I just think I am different from others
now I grow up
I can speak Vietnameseit’s a strong point of me
when I’m a child
I just think I am different from others
when I go to the junior high schoolit’s not bullying
but it’s like “gaikokujin”6then I couldn’t think that I have a Vietnamese identity
it’s not a really good thing
it makes me different from other students

In the interview Tomoko was careful not to characterise her experiences as bullying. She
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019125

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

had many friends, but being positioned as different made her long to be “fully” Japanese (“Ijust want to be one hundred per cent Japanese” is how she put it), a desire that she kept secretfrom her family. In this first set of I-poems Tomoko repeatedly articulates her sense of beingsocially and emotionally displaced by others—a voice, so to speak, of “marginalised positionand desire” around her heritage language and contested otherness (Doerr, 2010).
In her mediating role, Tomoko could fluently communicate in both Vietnamese and Japanese to create greater inclusion (and acceptance) for her younger brother and parents. Yet,rather than experiencing this role as a benefit, she felt that it disadvantaged her. Questioning why she was asked to do this, she was not able, on an emotional level, to find common
ground with her family about the extra responsibility placed on her:

I had to handle something that other children didn’t have to do
my parents couldn’t speak Japanese fluently
it is disadvantage for mesometimes I had to handle something that other children didn’t have to doin the school regularly they have a meeting with the parents
I have to sit there to hear what teachers saywhen I grow up
I can’t sympathise with my family
when I was a childI thought why I should do that
why I should do a lot of work
then I didn’t have to

Tomoko’s sense of belonging was further complicated by different expectations and practices within the family. Her parents made the home a Vietnamese-using environment for her.
She would listen to songs and watch films in Vietnamese, her parents insisting that she not
use Japanese at home. They were worried that she might otherwise lose her proficiency in
Vietnamese, as outside the home her environment was mostly in Japanese. At the same time,her (younger) brother grew up with limited proficiency in Vietnamese. He developed greater expertise in Japanese, so at home Tomoko and her parents would use Vietnamese, and herbrother Japanese, but, outside, the two siblings communicated in Japanese with each other.
Through her life Tomoko has been expected to respond on her brother’s behalf when needed.
His teachers would call Tomoko to come to the school and help interpret what they wanted toteach her brother. Many different demands were made of Tomoko by her family and by theschool to mediate and bridge gaps of understanding and communication. This second set of
I-poems seems then to embody the “constrained mediating” voice of Tomoko.
Over time she began to resolve some of these disconsonant tensions by affirming that she
had Vietnamese heritage and that she could speak different languages—not just Vietnameseand Japanese, but also English (and later Chinese). Once at senior high school, she started toassert her different roots as a strong point:

I don’t hide that I have a Vietnamese identity
when I go to the high school it changed
I don’t hide that I have a Vietnamese identity
I don’t want to show thatin the high school I start to show that I can speak Vietnamese
when I introduce myself

126

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield
I use
I talk like it’s my strong point
I changed my thinking
I show it like the positive not negative
my name is Tomoko and I’m from …
watashi no chosho vietnam-go hanasareru koto desu7

Her experiences of growing up bilingually and being required to use language helped
Tomoko find her own active way of learning English through films and music rather thanstudy. She was also driven to excel in using English fluently and, by dint of hard work, outshone her peers. They in turn ascribed her English prowess to the fact that she was Vietnamese, once more out-grouping and subordinating (Grant-Thomas, 2018) Tomoko, this time byre-establishing an implied monolingual norm for themselves as non-communicative users ofEnglish:it’s natural that she can she could speak English
when I was in junior high schoolin the English lectures I do better than other students
I worked really hard that I have to remaember the vocabularies or grammars
other students said “Oh she’s Vietnamese”“So it’s natural that she can she could speak English”“She can write English better than us”
I did same thing as they did
I have to attend the lectures or do the homework did the homework as they did

After a school trip and homestay in Yorkshire, England, Tomoko took up reading shortstories aloud to improve her pronunciation and take her English further. This was part of alonger, complicated process of addressing some of the identity conflicts that she had been
experiencing. Finding different part-time jobs where she could use a range of languages, shegained further skills and benefits. In one job Tomoko worked for an employment agency forinternational students, most of whom were Vietnamese. She would interview them in Vietnamese and check their Japanese skills for initial placement; her work also involved visiting
different employers and resolving any problems of communication in the workplace. She
would help Vietnamese students find employment and reduce misunderstanding and discrimination against them. In another job, Tomoko could use Vietnamese, Japanese and English,
as well as some Chinese, in researching intellectual property issues in Southeast Asia. All thisactivity helped her create a sense of greater alignment for herself. She could now re-negotiate
what had previously been subordinate positions and re-position herself according to how she
wished to belong (Brocket, 2018). This final set of I-poems points, then, to how, over time,
Tomoko came to adopt what I have come to see as an “agentive bridging voice” in finding
ways through language to perform different identities by her own choice, intention, and desire (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006), as well as mediate conflicts for herself and others.
Interestingly Tomoko mentioned that she wanted to let people learn about the lives of multilingual people like herself. Somewhat surprisingly, until being interviewed about her own
linguistic repertoire, Tomoko had never had the opportunity to make sense of the twists andturns in her languaged journey through life, and of how she had worked through different
identity conflicts that had previously entangled her—just as Haruka and Midori had similarly
7= “My strong point is that I can speak Vietnamese.”

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019127

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

exercised their agency to negotiate issues of discrimination, inclusion, and power in their own
strikingly individual ways.

Discussion
The research has let us recognise how these three learners’ languaged lives are rich and complex. Situated in the external and internal social worlds that they inhabit, the three students’
identity conflicts are deeply embedded in different sites, norms, practices, and discourses that
extend far beyond the here-and-now. To navigate their way, they adeptly draw on their linguistic repertoires and re-negotiate different positions for themselves in the identity conflicts
that they face. Applying what Burgess (2011) observes in relation to previous research about“newcomer” young learners in Japan, we see that the three students in this research “… are
not passive ‘victims’ moulded by their environment but active agents negotiating multiple
discourses… as they constantly construct and re-construct their identities” (p. 195). A casein point is how Midori’s life trajectory includes entrenched identity issues that she has faced
over several years in using a non-standard variety of Japanese and in deploying “keigo” inher relationships with her peers from junior high school through to university.
As active agents, the three students struggle and adapt, learning to act in a given social field
through “… exercis(ing) agency in the interstices of power” (Parker & Dales, 2014, p. 165). In
their micro-practices the students find ways to take part in a particular field on their terms
as far as they can. Tomoko’s decisions about her use of Japanese, Vietnamese, English, andChinese have taken her, for example, through challenging contradictions across her whole
life, within her family, her home community, at school with her peers, as well as in parent-teacher meetings, and in different work contexts. She has constantly re-negotiated withherself and with others to get by and resolve different identity conflicts that she has faced.
As with Haruka and Midori, Tomoko develops her agency not only in relation to others,
but also in response to dominant ideologies (Horner & Weber, 2018, pp. 20-28) that order
the world around her/them and regulate her life/their lives by creating different “modes ofinclusion and exclusion” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 43). Thus, for a certain period, Tomoko
experiences the exclusionary effects of “the one-nation-one-language” ideology when she
is othered as Vietnamese and marginalised by her peers (Norton, 2000, pp. 127-8). Midori is
wrong-footed by the “standard language” ideology when she moves to Tokyo to go to university and is thrown into confusion about using her local variety of Japanese in her new socialworld. Intensely focused on gaining acceptance by her peers, Haruka responds to the all-pervasive “ideology of monolingualism” by going to extraordinary lengths to perform in public amonolingual identity so that she may be seen to be the same as her peers. In these cases, thethree students are each positioned outside dominant ideological norms to do with language
which those around them reproduce (whether intentionally or not) in their everyday micro-practices. The students get caught in the gaps—and it is in these gaps, these intersticesof power, that they experience a sense of “in-betweenness” (Brocket, 2018) arising from theirdiffering experiences of inclusion and exclusion by others in their lives.
Each student is resourceful in how they deal with the in-betweenness that they face. Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001, as cited in Lantolf & Thorne, 2006, p. 239) argue that agency is“never a ‘property’ of a particular individual; rather, it is a relationship that is constantly
co-constructed and renegotiated with those around the individual and with society at large”(p. 148). We see this relational co-construction of agency in action as Haruka, Midori, andTomoko respond to how their peers position them. Yet, it does not follow that they are instantly “empowered” to realign themselves or resolve the conflicts that they experience.
Rather, there are long periods of confusion, resistance, and struggle, as with Tomoko’s dis-128

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfieldappointed questioning of her family’s demands of her, Midori’s dis-located use of Azumino
Japanese, and Haruka’s decision to act monolingually. They struggle over time to get by andre-negotiate their “positioned belongings” (Brocket, 2018). At the same time, as much as thestudents work to re-align and re-position themselves, it seems that they also wish simply to
get by and survive the forceful effects of othering, subordination, invisibilization, and alienation (Grant-Thomas, 2018) that they experience to differing degrees in the identity conflicts
that they go through.
In working in the interstices of power, the students make use of their agency as the “capacity to negotiate with power in whatever form” (Parker & Dales, 2014, p. 165). And they dothis even when their actions may make them complicit or leave them compromised, as with
Haruka in the decisions and actions that she took to fit in, but which also entangled her in
reproducing the monolingual norms that prevailed around her. The students’ agency is thus
situated “as complicity, compromise, deviance, resistance” (Parker & Dales, 2014, p. 165) asis their motivation—“whether it be intentional or unintentional, voluntary or involuntary,
self-expression, self-interest or group interest …” (Parker & Dales, 2014, p. 165). In so muchas this holds, the three students’ exercise of agency helps us understand their creative andcritical resourcefulness in dealing with the complexity of power, inclusion/exclusion, and discrimination in the “peculiar biographical trajectories” (to use Blommaert’s 2008 phrase) thatthey each take in their linguistic repertoires.
Looking back at this research project now that it is finally written, my sense is that it is the
combination of seeing the students’ language portraits, hearing their stories, and puzzlingover their individual voices in the I-poem analysis that has let us develop a deepening awareness of how they addressed the identity conflicts that they faced. Why that might be? While
the three I-poems at the start of this paper presented us with a fragmentary sketch of each
person’s life, the language portraits within silhouette outlines let us see each person holistically (yet still impressionistically). We were then able to embellish our formative holistic
impressions through short interview extracts and small stories. Be that as it may, at the sametime any sense of unitary coherence that you or I started to gain about the students’ identities was repeatedly dislodged by the associative logic and counterpointing impacts of the
I-poems. With each student, we were confronted, in short succession, with particular identity conflicts that an individual had experienced in different places, at different times, and indifferent personal and social interactions—the three fundamental dimensions of the narrativeinquiry space that Clandinin & Connelly (2000, pp. 48-62) propose. In that case, was it thenthe combination of language portraits, interviews, and the compressed, contrapuntal narratives of the I-poems that helped us crystallize our own perspectives on (how the studentssee) the identity conflicts that they experienced? For my part, I’m still not sure. Perhaps, on
further reflection, it is not so much the different modes of inquiry in themselves, but rather
the process of inquiring with our learners creatively and repeatedly, while recognising their
distinctive situated participant signatures, that takes us towards new, critical perspectives onlearner development?

References
Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–37.
Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective innarrative
and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377-96.
Barfield. A., & Morgan, J. (2016). Learning together with an extraordinary community ofeducators in non-state education in Burma/Myanmar. Learning Learning, 25(2), 9-17.
Retrieved from http://ld-sig.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Article-2-Barfield.pdf
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019129

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

Blommaert, J. (2010). The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Blommaert, J. (2008). Language, asylum, and the national order. Working Papers in Urban
Language & Literacies, 50, 1-21. Retrieved from https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ecs/research/
research-centres/ldc/publications/workingpapers/the-papers/50.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1980/1990). The logic of practice (Polity Press, Cambridge in association withBlackwell, Oxford, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bright, F. A. S., Kayes, N. M., Worrall, L. M., & McPherson, K. M. (2017). Exploring relational
engagement practices in stroke rehabilitation using the Voice Centred Relational Approach.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 35-48.
Brocket, T. (2018). From “in-betweenness” to “positioned belongings”: second-generation
Palestinian-Americans negotiate the tensions of assimilation and transnationalism. Ethnic
and Racial Studies. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1544651
Burgess, C. (2011). (Mis)managing diversity in non-metropolitan public schools. In
R. Tsuneyoshi, K. H. Okano, & S. Spence Boocock (Eds.), Minorities and education in
multicultural Japan (pp. 191-212). London, UK: Routledge.
Busch, B. (2018). The language portrait in multilingualism research: Theoretical andmethodological considerations. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies, 236, 1-13.
Busch, B. (2017). Biographical approaches to research in multilingual settings: Exploring
linguistic repertoires. In M. Martin-Jones & D. Martin (Eds.), Researching multilingualism:
Critical and ethnographic perspectives (pp. 46-59). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Busch, B. (2015). Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: On the concept ofSpracherleben—the lived experience of language. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 340–58.
Busch, B. (2014). Building on heteroglossia and heterogeneity: The experience of amultilingual classroom. In A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Eds.), Heteroglossia as practice andpedagogy (pp. 21-40). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–23.
Chik, A. (2017). Do you see what I see? Some thoughts on visualizing learner development.
The Learner Development Journal, 1(1), 114-18.
Chik, A. (2015, November). Visualizing language learning. Workshop conducted at the 2015
Japan Association for Language Teaching International Conference, Shizuoka, Shizuoka
Prefecture, Japan.
Chik, A. (2014). Constructing German learner identities in online and offline environments.
In D. Abendroth-Timmerr & E-M. Hennig (Eds.), Plurilingualism and multiliteracies:
International research on identity construction in language education (pp. 159-73). Frankfurt am
Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Chik, A., Markose, S., & Alperstein, D. (2018). Languages of Sydney: The people and thepassion. Hong Kong: Candlin & Mynard ePublishing. Retrieved from https://www.
candlinandmynard.com/sydney.html
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative
research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Clipart Library (no date). Collection of person outline coloring page (82). Retrieved fromhttp://clipart-library.com/person-outline-coloring-page.html
Council of Europe (2018). Project LIAM (Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants). Key terms.
Language repertoire. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/repertoirelanguageCouncil of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,teaching, assessment (CEFR). Council of Europe Modern Languages Division, Strasbourg/
Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97

130

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield

Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
Doerr, N. (2010). Introduction: Heritage, nationhood, and language. Critical Asian Studies, 42,
53-62.
Edwards, R., & Weller, S. (2012). Shifting analytic ontology: Using I-poems in qualitative
longitudinal research. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 202-217. Retrieved from http://eprints.
ncrm.ac.uk/2956/1/Edwards&Weller_QR_I-poems_2012.pdf
Gilligan, C., & Eddy, J. (2017). Listening as a path to psychological discovery: An introduction
to the Listening Guide. Perspectives on Medical Education, 6(2), 76–81. Retrieved fromhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-017-0335-3
Grant-Thomas, A. (2018). Object to subject: Three scholars on race, othering, and bearing
witness. Othering and Belonging Journal, 3, 16-29.
heteroglossia.net (no date). Research, projects and information on multilingualism. Retrieved
from http://heteroglossia.net/Home.2.0.html.
Horner, K., & Weber, J-J (2018). Introducing multilingualism: A social approach (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Routledge
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language
development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. , & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding
second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language
learning. New directions in research (pp. 141-58). London, UK: Longman.
Le Page, R. B., & Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of identity: Creole-based approaches to language
and ethnicity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, J-H (2012). Coming to belong: A narrative analysis of international students’ experiences inan Australian university (Doctoral dissertation). Centre of Learning Innovation Faculty of
Education, Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Retrieved from https://eprints.
qut.edu.au/54680/1/Jung-Hsiu_Lin_Thesis.pdf
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.
Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Okano, K. H., & Tsuneyoshi, R. (2011). Introduction. An interactive perspective forunderstanding minorities and education in Japan. In R. Tsuneyoshi, K. H. Okano, & S.
Spence Boocock (Eds.), Minorities and education in multicultural Japan (pp. 1-26). London, UK:
Routledge.
Paliadelis, P., & Cruickshank, M. (2008). Using a voice-centered relational method of data
analysis in a feminist study exploring the working world of nursing unit managers.
Qualitative Health Research, 18(10), 1444-53.
Parker, L., & Dales, L. (2014). Introduction: The everyday agency of women in Asia.
Asian Studies Review, 38(2),164-67.
Wolf, G. (2014). Discovering pupils’ linguistic repertoires. On the way towards a heteroglossic
language teaching. (J. Irons, Trans.). Sprogforum, 59, 87-94. (Original published in
Danish). Retrieved from https://unipress.dk/media/3583817/sprogforum_59_wolf.pdf

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019131

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

Acknowledgments
My thanks go to Ami Ishizuka and Ryo Moriya, as well as Masuko Miyahara, for exchanging
comments and stimulating questions on our original proposals, and to Ami and Ryo, as wellas Jim Ronald and Hugh Nicoll, for their constructive feedback on the first draft of this paper.
I’d also like to say thank you to Tim Ashwell, Sabine Little, Yoshi Nakai, and Alison Stewart
for their insightful feedback on further drafts of the paper, as well as to Chika Hayashi fortranslating the abstract and key words into English. In doing this research and writing thispaper, I’ve given both formal and informal presentations at conferences and get-togethers
about exploring my students’ linguistic repertoires, and those many different conversations
and discussions with students and teachers have been invaluable too: Thank you to everyone
who shared their experiences and ideas. My final thanks go to Tin Tin Htun for her insightfulcomments and feedback, and to my four students for sharing with me their language portraits
and the rich complexity of their languaged lives.

Review ProcessThis paper was open-reviewed by Tim Ashwell, Sabine Little, Yoshio Nakai, and Alison Stewart. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.)

Author Bio
Andy Barfield teaches in the Faculty of Law at Chuo University, Tokyo, where he helps to coordinate a large-scale taught-in-English curriculum in which students do self-directed research projects into social, political, legal, and global issues. Andy’s current research interests
include multilingual issues in society, critical literacy, and fieldwork.

Appendix A
Questions guiding the Listening Guide analysis (Bright, Kayes, Worrall, & McPherson, 2017, p. 40)
Reading

Questions

Reading One: •The story•
and response

What are the events, sub-plots, characters, metaphors, and recurrent
phrases?

•

What is my emotional and intellectual response to the participant?

•Who is speaking and with what voice?

•

How does the participant experience, feel, present and speak of themselves?

•

How does the participant believe others see them?

Reading Two: •Participant•
voices•132

What is going on here?

What emotions, reflections, opinions, actions, intentions are evident?
What pronouns does the person use when speaking of themselves?
What are people saying and doing (acting)? How do they expect to act?
How do they do things and how did they develop that knowledge?

•

What roles are the participants playing?

•

How do they perceive situations, words and actions (symbols)? How does
this impact on action?

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Andy Barfield••
Reading•
Three: Others•
and relationships•

Who is spoken about, the relationships, emotions, statements and stories
associated with each?
Who is related to who in what way?
How are people positioned within the relationships and interactions?
What are people saying and doing (acting)? How do they expect to act?
How do they do things and how did they develop their knowledge?
What roles are the participants playing?

•

How do they perceive situations, words and actions (symbols)? How does
this impact on action?

•

What are the broader social, political, cultural, professional and structural contexts surrounding the participants’ story, experiences, actions andinterpretations?

•

What is spoken and unspoken, overt and taken-for-granted?

•
Reading
Four: Context •Whose voices are heard informing the situation?

•

Why do people act in some ways and not others?

•

What is institutionalized? What is the ‘right’ way to do things? Where did
this come from? How have different roles come about?

•

What is privileged in talk and/or action?

What social values surround the interaction?

Appendix B
Interview segment for the I-poem “I couldn’t speak I think the modern Japanese” (Haruka,
Interview 1, January 2018(…)
AB: so you were you were quick to learn yeah yeah
Haruka: yeah and then I also looked for different language school which is taught by university students there is a voluntary circle and I go there for 5 months and enter junior highschool
AB: and that was for children they were teaching Japanese to immigrant children so did you
have other classmates
Haruka: yeah
AB: in the university school
Haruka: yes but almost all of them are elementary schoolthat are the same age as me(laughter) there is no students

AB: right right
Haruka: so when I enter the junior high school I couldn’t speak I think the modern Japanese
AB: yes yes yeah
Haruka: so I can speak the formal Japanese
AB: yes yes
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019133

Exploring Identity Conflict in Learners’ Linguistic Repertoires: Portraits, Stories, Poems, and Issues

Haruka: and they think that Japanese is kind of weird so from them I studied the modern
Japanese by watching TVs or dramas
AB: yeah
Haruka: and yeah I entered high school and in the first year of high school I thought that myaccent isn’t so is very different than Japanese so it was my complex
(…)

134

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

RESEARCH PAPER
British University Students Studying Abroadin Japan: L2 Japanese Learners’ Multilingual
Selves Captured by Language Portraits
Noriko Iwasaki, Nanzan University
This study uses language portraits to deepen our understanding of how experiences during the first few transitional months of study abroad (SA) may change second language (L2) learners’ linguistic identities and theirsenses of self. In contrast to linear methods of probing linguistic identities, such as interviews, language portraits
holistically capture the entirety of individuals’ perceptions of their linguistic repertoires and emotions related tolanguage learning and use (Busch, 2012, 2018; Martin, 2012). They enable us to examine the nature of L2 learners’
multilingual selves by revealing their attitudes and dispositions to each of their languages (their native language,
L2 Japanese, and other languages), as well as the relationship between them. The study focuses on three students
who majored in Japanese at a university in London, and compares their language portraits drawn before SA andabout 5 months into SA. Their SA experiences led to changes in their perception of their multilingual selves, andthe prominent aspects with regard to their L2 Japanese parallel the three components of the L2 Motivational Self
System (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009), namely Ideal L2 Self, Ought-to L2 Self, and L2 Learning Experience. Notably, thelanguage portraits also captured changes in how students perceived their other languages and how they related
to their L2, suggesting the need to take into account L2 learners’ other languages in order to understand theirsense of L2 selves. The study also underscores the importance of emotive and affective dimensions with regard tolanguage learning and use, which may not always be taken into consideration in language education.
本稿の調査では、言語ポートレートという方法を用い、英国から日本に留学したL2日本語話者の言語に関わるアイデンティティ・自己意識が留学前から留学中（日本に到着して4, 5か月）の過渡的な時期にどのように変容したのかを探った。一般にインタビューなどの調査方法では、協力者の言語それぞれについて言語ごとに意識を聞くことになるため、それぞれを線状にしか探れないのに対し、身体の線画に自己の言語を描く言語ポートレートは、自己の言語資源・言語レパートリーと自己の関係性と、それぞれの言語の使用・学習にまつわる情意を全体観的に捉えることを可能にする(Busch, 2012, 2018; Martin, 2012)。従って、言語ポートレートを用いることで、いわゆる「母語」、学習中の日本語、そのほかの言語それぞれへの思いや態度と共に、その関係性も見ることができ、L2話者の複数言語に関する自己意識、言語
アイデンティティの全体像を明らかにできる。本研究では、ロンドンの大学で日本語を専攻していた学生3名に焦点を当て、留学前と日本に到着してから4, 5か月経った留学中に描いた言語ポートレートに加え、その言語ポートレートに関わる語りを比較した。その結果、数ヶ月の留学経験で、3名の言語に関わる自己意識が大きく変容したことがわかった。その変容は、Dörnyei (2005, 2009)の提唱した動機付けモデルである「L2セルフシステム」で示されている理想自己、義務自己、学習経験に関わるセルフの変容であった。また、3名の言語ポートレートも言語ポートレートについての語りも、留学経験で目標言語である日本語や母語だけではなく、自分のほかの言語資源に関する意識も変わっていたことを示していた。このことから、L2話者のセルフを理解するためには、L2話者の目標言語と母語だけではなく、そのほかの言語資源についても注意を払う必要があることを説いた。さらに、言語教育において言語学習・言語使用をめぐる情意的側面も考慮する重要性を示唆した。

Keywords
multilingual users, language portraits, study abroad, L2 self, emotion

キーワード
マルチリンガリズム、言語ポートレート、留学、L2セルフ、情意M

any people who study a second language (L2) 1 cherish the opportunity to study
abroad (SA) in a country where the target language is used by the majority. This canbe a turning point or a time of transition—not only in their L2 learning but also intheir sense of self. However, not all students thrive during their SA. Some do not improvetheir L2 proficiency (see, for example, an extensive review by Kinginger, 2009); some may
affirm fixed national identities, failing to develop their intercultural understanding (e.g.,
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019135

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan

Kinginger, 2011). Such variable outcomes may be attributed, at least in part, to the students’
differing experiences and subjectivities during SA.
At British universities, students majoring in language spend a year abroad to study and/or use the target language as a compulsory part of their curriculum. In this paper, I reporton three students majoring in Japanese at a university in London who spent the third year of
their undergraduate programme in Japan. Much of past SA research has focused on changes
between before SA (pre-SA) and after SA (post-SA), especially in terms of language proficiency, and less attention has been paid to changes observed during SA (see, for example, a review
by Iwasaki, 2019). Hence, this study focuses on changes observed between pre-SA and 4-5
months into SA in terms of the students’ sense of their linguistic repertoires (i.e., their attitudes and emotions to their L2 Japanese and other languages) as revealed by language portraits. Students’ variable outcomes at times puzzle L2 teachers and administrators, who send
them abroad; they would benefit from gaining insights as to how students’ perceptions of
their sense of self in relation to their languages change during SA. 

Emotion and the Construction of Self during SA
During SA, some students experience insecurity and anxiety (Allen & Herron, 2003; Pellegrino
Aveni, 2005). Allen and Herron (2003) examined both linguistic and affective outcomes for 25
US-based university students who studied French in France for 6 weeks. In terms of affective outcomes, the researchers focused on language anxiety and integrative motivation. They
found that the students significantly improved in oral proficiency (assessed by performance inpicture description and role-play) and listening (assessed by multiple-choice questions about
3 segments of a TV drama). The students’ language anxiety, measured by 3 questionnaires,namely, Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986), French
Use Anxiety Scale (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995), and a 3-item questionnaire on the oral andlistening tasks, decreased after SA, while they showed the same level of integrative motivation as before. However, qualitative data such as interviews revealed that many of the students experienced anxiety due to cultural differences and linguistic incompetence during SA.
Decreased anxiety after SA may be related to increased enjoyment during SA. Hardison (2014)
examined linguistic development and changes in affective profiles among 24 US-based university students who studied German for 6 weeks in Germany. The comparison between preSA and post-SA questionnaires showed increased enjoyment and confidence in speaking, andgreater enjoyment in participating in social activities that involved communication in German. 
Anxiety often arises when a student cannot express their “true” self because of the limited expression they can communicate in their target language (Horwitz et al., 1986, p. 31).
Pellegrino Aveni (2005) looked at US-based university students studying Russian in Russia
for either 4 months or an academic year, focusing on 6 students who provided information
through narrative journals, interviews and questionnaires. She found that each student’s selfand sense of security were closely linked to their language use. Many students experienced
anxiety triggered especially by threats to their self-presentation, which arose from bothlearner-internal sources (e.g., their own belief about and attitudes towards self) and external,social-environmental cues (e.g., insulting vs. complimentary feedback from interlocutors). It
was enhanced internal security that enabled them to participate more actively in interactions. 
Yoshida (2016, p. 100) adopted Pajares and Schunk’s (2005, p. 15) definition of “self-concept” as “a psychological construct that comprises a self-description judgment that includes
an evaluation of competence and the feelings of self-worth associated with the judgment inquestion in a specific domain”, and argued that the development of positive self-concept is
how L2 learners can overcome anxiety. Utilizing diaries, interviews, and classroom observa-

136

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasakition, the author examined an Australian learner of Japanese as L2, Sandra, who underwent
two transitions—first from a vocational school (one-to-one tutorials) to a university, andthen to studying abroad for one academic year. Sandra overcame her anxiety about speaking
in the university class by persistent practice, but during SA her perception of the gap between
her ideal L2 self and real L2 self caused her anxiety about speaking outside the class—until
she encountered a critical experience in which she realized that she could speak better thanher peers. Yoshida’s study demonstrated non-linear, context-dependent change in the student’s anxiety. 
The development of L2 learner’s identities has been the subject of an increasing numberof studies, including in SA research (e.g., Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott, & Brown, 2012),
but the studies are mostly concerned with the social rather than psychological dimension, asMiyahara (2015) contends. Psychological dimensions of identities are, however, pertinent inmotivation research today. Importantly, psychological dimensions, such as motivation, aresusceptible to the surrounding social contexts; hence, students’ senses of self are undoubtedly
affected by their experience during SA.

Self-and-Identity Perspective of Motivation
In recent years, motivation research has undergone a paradigmatic shift and the constructof “motivation” has been reconceptualized. Motivation is now construed as being fluid anddynamic, and change in motivation is reported to be non-linear, adaptive and unpredictable(Dörnyei, 2014). Researchers theorizing L2 motivation push for “contemporary notions of self
and identity to be brought to the core of this re-theorising” (Ushioda & Dörnyei, 2009)—asin Dörnyei’s (2005, 2009) L2 Motivational Self System model, which Boo, Dörnyei and Ryan
(2015) contend is the current dominant model.
Unlike previously dominant motivation research in which individuals’ traits were treatedas measurable variables in quantitative methodology, individuals as “persons” are focusedon and they are often analysed qualitatively. Many researchers “examine how L2 motivation
relates to self and identity” (Ushioda, 2009, p. 216). In her “Person-in-Context relationalview”, Ushioda argues for a “situated” approach to exploring the dynamic complexity of each
person’s interpretation of and reaction to their environments. 
L2 learners’ emotions, such as anxiety and enjoyment, are tied to their concepts of self andidentity. In previous studies on L2 self, students’ emotions have primarily been examined inrelation to their L2 language. However, how L2 speakers feel about their L2 must also be related to how they feel about their other languages, including their L1, as shown by Lau (2016),
who utilized language portraits in which students drew their languages on a line drawing
of a body silhouette. For instance, one of her participants, Janette, was born in Quebec toFrancophone parents but received English schooling. She felt that English schooling caused
her written French to suffer. On her language portrait, she depicted her fear of losing her L1
French and her “hostility” to L2 English by drawing “clawed English” invading her body. In
fact, SA students use multiple languages during SA; they often socialize with other international students in the target country, and they report using English as a lingua franca as wellas using (and learning) other languages. For example, English-speaking students studying
French in France engage in English-French bilingual practice (McManus, Mitchell, & Tracy-Ventura, 2015). 
Needless to say, L2 learners’ motivation during SA is expected to affect their L2 development. The current study utilizes language portraits to uncover L2 Japanese students’ sense of
self and their emotions related to each of their languages 4-5 months into a year-long SA—
an important phase in their development of L2 self as well as in their development of L2. 
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019137

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan

Language Portraits
Language portraits were originally used to assess children’s perception of their linguistic
repertoires and found to be effective; recently they have often been used to examine adults aswell. When drawing language portraits, participants often use body metaphors and colours
on language portraits, both of which facilitate the expression of emotions that are linked tolanguage (e.g., Busch, 2010). 
Krumm (2001) used language portraits to assess migrant children’s “subjective representations of linguistic identity” (Krumm, 2013, p. 103), rather than their linguistic proficiency.
Krumm (2013, p. 120) argues that to understand such children’s identity change during the
migration process, a language-based biographical approach (using language portraits andbiographical interviews) is necessary “to find out how languages support or endanger the development of self-concepts”.
Language portraits are also utilized in pre-service language teacher education (Coffey,
2015 in the United Kingdom; Lau, 2016 in Canada). Coffey (2015), for example, problematized
the reliance on the structure and competence-based formats for measuring proficiency, anddemonstrated how language autobiographies, utilizing language portraits, could illustrate theteachers’ own language-learning history through metaphors that were both embodied andemotional. He argued for the importance of reflexivity in language teacher education, as a wayof helping teachers to consider how individuals relate to and personally invest in languages. 
Originally used in schools and educational settings, language portraits are now also employed
as a research tool. They have been extensively used to examine individuals’ linguistic repertoires (e.g., Busch, 2012). Multilingual speakers are understood to have a repertoire consistingof various cultural and linguistic resources, rather than being considered to possess multiple“languages” that are each construed as a “bounded entity”. Multilingual speakers mobilize anyof these resources whenever needed, resulting in practice such as those previously referred toas “code-switching”, for example. This reconceptualization of multilingual speakers’ language
competence is significant in language education (e.g., Busch, 2012; Otsuji, 2016).
Busch (2018) critically examines language portraits as a research tool and discusses their
theoretical bases. The use of language portraits involves two modes of symbolization: language (linguistic-discursive) and image (pictorial-presentational). Language (such as a narrative) requires linear, successive ordering, while image enables simultaneous presentationsof multiple elements and directs one’s view both to the whole and to the relationship of elements. For this reason, Busch (2018: 11) argues that the language portrait is particularly useful for exploring individuals’ linguistic repertoires “beyond discursively produced categories
and dichotomies, such as those between first and second language”. She further notes thatthe reference to the body that the silhouette provides evokes the “bodily-emotional dimension of languages” and is configured by means of metaphors.
The language portrait, then, is a promising tool to uncover the L2 self, or multilingual selfof students. Furthermore, Dörnyei and Chan (2013) found that two constituents of the motivation system Dörnyei (2005) proposed, the Ideal L2 Self and the Ought-to L2 Self, arestrongly correlated with L2 learners’ capacity for generating visual imagery. Hence, the visualization of one’s languages on a body silhouette may have potential for displaying one’s Ideal
L2 Self and Ought-to L2 Self as well.

Current Study
The goal of this study is to deepen our understanding with regard to whether and how students’ sense of self, dispositions, attitudes and emotions in relation to their L2 and other lan-

138

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

guages change during SA by examining students’ language portraits and their narratives about
the portraits.
Earlier SA research tended to focus on the linguistic development of groups of students byquantitatively examining their pre-SA and post-SA knowledge, skills, and proficiency, but
recent SA research underscores the importance of examining individual students’ dispositions
and experiences during SA (see, for example, Kinginger, 2009 and Iwasaki, 2019).  Hence, thecurrent study explores the change observed in the transition period: a period between a coupleof months before SA and during SA (4-5 months into SA). 

Methods
Participants
The current study was conducted along with a larger collaborative project at a university in
the United Kingdom. In order to recruit participants for the project, an announcement about
the project was made to all second-year students majoring in Japanese. The project objective
was described generally as “understanding students’ development during SA”. Out of about
50 second year students, 12 students participated. 
For the current research, the participants drew their language portraits and provided explanations/narratives about them before, during, and after their year abroad. Prior to SA, they
completed 2 years of university Japanese language instruction (8-10 contact hours per week
for 22 weeks in each year). SA is a required component in the curriculum, and Japanese majors all went to Japan for one academic year in their third year to satisfy the requirement.
Based on their preferences and qualifications, each student was sent to one of the universities
with which their home institution had an exchange agreement in place. 
Changes to their sense of self in relation to their languages were evident in about half of thestudents’ language portraits in the ways they depicted their linguistic repertoires in terms ofweights (sizes of areas of the body depicting languages), where they were located on the body,and colours. Some students, such as those who had travelled to or studied in Japan before,drew similar portraits at 3 different times, with only relatively minor changes. Among those
whose language portraits clearly changed, one student’s change in her cultural identities was
linked to her Japanese heritage, as reported in Iwasaki (2018)2. Three students whose portraits depicted salient but very different changes are focused on here—Gray (female), Hazel(female), and Kiririn (male) (all pseudonyms chosen by the students themselves). This is tounderstand the dynamic changes of L2 self that emerge in response to the new environment
during SA.
All three were born in England. Gray, born to Irish parents, was a Japanese and Economics combined degree student. She was 24 years old when she studied abroad. She had visited
Japan three times before on holiday and for homestay, for a total of about one month. Hazel,
born to Turkish parents, was also a combined degree student, studying Japanese and Linguistics. She started studying Japanese at university, and SA was her first time in the country
though she had spent about five years of her childhood in the US. She was 21 years old when
she studied abroad. Kiririn had Ugandan heritage from one of his parents. He was a single
major BA Japanese student. He was 22 years old when he left for a year abroad in Japan. He
had not lived abroad and had not visited Japan before. The three students studied at threedifferent universities located in Tokyo. Table 1 below summarises their backgrounds. It isperhaps worth noting that of the 12 participants, only two were associated only with English
heritage, reflecting diverse profiles of students at the university.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019139

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan

Table 1. Profile of the selected participants
     

Age

Gender

Heritage background

Major(s)

Gray

23

F

Irish

Japanese & Economics

Hazel

20

F

TurkishJapanese & Linguistics

Kiririn

22

M

UgandanJapanese

I was a lecturer in the Department of Linguistics at the students’ university. I had once
taught Hazel in a discipline course (psycholinguistics), but had met the other two only for the
purpose of SA research. None of the students expected to enrol on any further courses that I
taught after SA. 

Procedures
The students voluntarily participated a total of four times (approximately three months before SA, approximately five months into SA, approximately two to three months after SA, andabout 10 months after SA). The current paper is based on the first two data sets and examines the students’ changes in sense of self in relation to their languages during the transition
to SA. The students were not shown their own language portraits from earlier sessions until
after they had completed their third portraits in the third session.
Around June 2015, the students came to the author’s university office in London. They were
given a line drawing of a body (Figure 1 below) and a set of coloured pens, and they were
instructed to think of colours suitable for their languages and position their languages on thedrawing). The line drawing shown in Figure 1 is now made available in Himeta (2016, p. 77)3
together with instructions to give to students. 

Figure 1. Line-drawing for language portraits (Himeta, 2016).
The students were also told that they could write comments on their portraits. They were
not given any time limit for drawing the portraits. They typically spent a few minutes. Noneof the students expressed reluctance in drawing the portraits. 
Once they had completed the language portrait, they were asked to explain the portrait in

140

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

whichever language they preferred to use: English, Japanese, or a mix of the two. The students also responded to questions for clarification and/or requests for elaboration. Narratives
in this study were not elicited through (semi-)structured interviews; rather, they are primarily students’ voluntary explanations about their portraits and responses to the researcher’sclarification questions. This was audio-recorded and later transcribed.
In January to February 2016, the students came to see me in a university office in Tokyo
where I was a visiting researcher for a month. I did not have any specific role in relation to
the students’ SA (e.g., coordinator); I was in Japan as a researcher and my research purpose
included seeing the SA students. The procedure was identical to the earlier session; the students were provided with the same line drawing and the same set of coloured pens. The students’ narratives were also audio-recorded and transcribed.  

Method of Analysis
The language portrait image was primarily analysed in terms of metaphors, referring to Coffey (2015), who based his metaphorical analyses on Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The linguistic
identities illustrated and narrated were then also considered in the light of the L2 Motivational Self System (Dörnyei, 2005, 2009), which has three components: Ideal L2 Self (the L2-specific facet of one’s “ideal self”), Ought-to L2 Self (one’s belief that one ought to possess given
attributes to meet expectations and avoid possible negative outcomes), and L2 Learning Experience (situated motives related to the immediate learning environment and experience). 

Findings
There were some commonalities among the three students. They were very passionate about
studying Japanese, which is not surprising among students who choose to major in the language at university level (though Hazel’s passion was a bit more nuanced than Gray’s andKiririn’s, as discussed below). They were also interested in different languages and cultures.
Prior to SA, all three students’ language portraits highlighted their multilingualism. DuringSA, however, their language portraits focused on their primary languages, mainly English andJapanese, but for very different reasons. The three students’ L2 selves differed greatly in their
responses to the SA environments. Below, the students’ changes are illustrated by showing their language portraits and by quoting their comments that are the most relevant to thechanges. 

Gray
Gray first got interested in Japanese and Japan when her family hosted a Japanese girl athome when she was a secondary school pupil. She studied Japanese for about five years insecondary school, though not in depth. She first enrolled at another institution to study fashion, but she missed studying Japanese. She transferred to the university in London in order tostudy Japanese and Economics. 
Figure 2 shows her language portrait before SA, and Figure 3 during SA. Gray chose to speakin English in the pre-SA session (28 minutes) and shared her passion for using different languages. On her torso are two hearts, one large and the other small, and her gut. Her narrative started with the explanation of these main parts as below. (Please note that in the quotes
below, the parentheses with dots inside indicate that parts in between are omitted.)
I start with my heart, which I think is kind of split between English and Japanese—obviously English because it’s my first language but Japanese because I really enjoy it. I chose to learn it andLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019141

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan

I’m learning it. And down here, it’s kind of like my gut. So it’s mainly English because it is myfirst language so it’s where it goes to first. That is very deeply rooted in me because of that. (…) I
think of it as red and a reason I added the black is because it’s so so deep and dark.

Figure 2. Gray before SA.          Figure 3. Gray during SA.

The more she studied Japanese, the more Japanese was “kind of sucked in to [her] gut”, shesaid. Japanese was her main foreign language, and whenever she was abroad she ended up
using Japanese “almost as if it was a gut reaction because it’s the only foreign language [she]know[s]”, even when she was supposed to use another language in that particular foreigncontext. Gray continued:
That’s another reason why I drew it kind of coming into my gut. Next I drew a little green heart
because I don’t know that much Irish but I know some words because my family is Irish so it’ssort of like there’s always going to be a place in my heart for Irish.
The brain mostly consisted of Japanese drawn in purple and bits of French and Latin. These
were languages she studied in formal education. She linked her favourite colour, purple, toJapanese, the language she likes. Three years of French and one year of Latin were compulsory, but she no longer remembered much of those languages. French was in yellow because
it was “fading” and Latin was a tiny dot in light blue, the colour that came to her mind when
she thought of it.  
[Japanese] takes more of my mind because it’s not my first language—you have to think about
it more, so I think it just fills up my brain really. And those little orange kind of bits and sparks
coming off are Japanese I haven’t learnt yet.
She placed several languages (German, Italian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish) on the feetbecause “these are all the languages that [she] know[s] a tiny amount” of, such as words andphrases she picked up and would use on holiday. The reason she put them on her feet wasthat they were related to travelling. She chose to travel to villages rather than cities because
she wanted to be integrated, but in a small village in southern France local people “got reallyangry” at her when she asked them if they could speak English. She found the French village
unwelcoming and had no desire to resume learning French thereafter. She added Polish on
her fingertips because she knew many Polish people and was familiar with Polish signs in the142

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

neighbourhood. Prior to SA, Gray placed Japanese on the main parts (heart, brain, torso) thatform the core (e.g., Coffey, 2015).
Five months into SA, she drew a very different language portrait. She chose to speak inJapanese and explained her language portrait for about eight minutes. Japanese was drawn in
red in order to indicate that it was important (“daiji na koto o shimesu tame ni”). She outlined
her entire body with red because she heard, saw, wrote, and read Japanese every day. She also
said that because she studied Japanese every day, her stomach was full of Japanese (though
she did not draw this on the portrait). She drew big red ears for the purpose of emphasis. The
mouth, however, was half Japanese and half English because she used English in the international student dormitory where she lived. 
Her heart was now filled with English because that was the language she used when speaking with her family. Her favourite colour, purple, was used for English because she missed herfamily, London, and her university (“natsukashii kara”). She still had a green heart for Irish,
but it was much smaller. German, French, and Spanish seemed distant and it did not matterto her which colour she used for them. Small dots representing these languages (to the left ofthe heart) were hardly visible.  
Gray’s first language portrait showed her interest in language, but her portrait during SA
indicated her L2 Learning Experience (immersion experience and constant use of the languagein every way) and her genuine enjoyment thereof. The immersion experience motivated her to
use Japanese, which appeared to have led her to use Japanese in the language portrait session
as well. Her motivation also led her to read a highly technical Japanese economics newspaper
on a daily basis. 
     

Hazel
Hazel is a Turkish-British Muslim. She is an aspiring writer (she writes short stories in English) who is very articulate and eloquent when speaking English. She became interested inJapanese because of her interest in linguistics. She preferred to speak English (with an American accent) when explaining her language portraits. She spoke for about 25 minutes before
SA and for 18 minutes during SA. Figure 4 shows her language portrait before SA, and Figure
5 her language portrait during SA.
     Figure 4. Hazel before SA.   

       Figure 5. Hazel during SA.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019143

British University Students Studying Abroad in JapanOn the pre-SA language portrait, Hazel had difficulty deciding how to draw Japanese because of her mixed feelings about it. 
Originally it was a set of squiggles and I was just sort of going to imply the neck area, but I
thought it was, that was too, shall I say, theatrical? It was too much for what I was trying to explain, so I made it as more of a cosy scarf instead.
Though she first referred to the scarf as “cosy”, what it actually depicted was a “clamp” onher neck. Before this language portrait session, she had just finished her Japanese exam. She
felt the pressure of studying, and because of her lack of confidence she felt very anxious. She
said: “When I get anxious I lose my voice, so it sort of reminded me of a clamp.”
She drew most of her languages in her brain (blue English, purple Japanese, pink Turkish,green Kurdish) with lines and designated colours. Japanese was purple because it was a mixed
colour to represent her “mixed feelings”. She explained:
It’s a mixed colour, it’s a secondary colour, um, like made using primary colours, red and blue,
and I had, I think, I feel like I have in a way mixed feelings. I’m studying Japanese because I lovethe language, but the actual course, the actual task of educating yourself, um, took a bit of a toll
on me.
She webbed her fingers with pink to represent Turkish, one of the languages she used athome, but she said she felt that she was “constantly trying to catch the words, like hands”.
Hands were also related to housework and thus home, where she used the language. It waspink because it was a warm, homely colour.  
English was on her feet because it was her foundation, using the metaphor that Coffey(2015) states is very common. She said it was the language she could “stand up on”. The blue
trousers represented “British dialect of English”. 
I feel like that’s the majority of me at this point, so it covers the most of my body in this picture,um, I think, it’s supposed to represent jeans in a way I suppose, like I see it as a westernized thing
and maybe I’m trying to imply that it’s not where I’m originally from (…) I feel most comfortablewith this more western style, and then they are being held up by an American belt (…) because I
feel like I have to, I’m always reminded of, um, my American accent and my Americanness.
English was blue, a cold colour, because it was “far away from her actual heritage”, but she
could talk the best in that language and could make her friends laugh.
She represented a tiny bit of Kurdish on the heart. She stated that Kurdish was “technically” her mother tongue because her parents were Kurdish and she thought she “should know”
her heritage language, but in reality she was more Turkish and loved the country4. At thesame time, she could not ignore the fact that she was Kurdish. She expressed “regret” thatshe did not learn Kurdish.
She drew Arabic on the shoulder and back, and French and German on her armpits. She
learned some Arabic at Sunday school to read the Quran. She learned French and German forabout five years in school but she had mostly forgotten them and associated them with forgotten, “embarrassing parts of the body”.
On Hazel’s portraits were various emotions towards her languages. She had nuanced feelings not only about Japanese but also about her other languages, including English. She hopedthat her scarf (Japanese) would become more comfortable and no longer be “choking” heronce she went to Japan. In a way, her pre-SA portraits predominantly showed her Ought-to
L2 Self with regard not only to Japanese (which she needed to study well to successfully complete the degree) but also to her heritage languages, Turkish and Kurdish, which she felt sheshould know better.  

144

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

About four and a half months into SA, the scarf was still present and it was thicker, as
shown in Figure 5. Her narrative started with an explanation about Turkish, which she said
she drew on the portrait first. She represented Turkish as tears falling down in light blue because her Turkish had “really gone down” in Japan. Her Japanese and Turkish were “battlingwith each other” for the space in her brain because she felt that the better her Japanese got,
the worse her Turkish became. Her other languages occupied small places; she did not think
about them any more even though, because of a French-speaking friend in her dormitory, sheused more French in Japan than she had done in London. 
Most importantly, her English was now the “red thermal shaper legging” (red, to contrast
with blue Turkish). She always thought of how cold she was, and English kept her warm andwas “the only thing that was keeping [her] together”. This was because her confidence in her
Japanese was very “bad” despite her perception that her Japanese was slowly growing, indicated by purple blobs all over her body. 
Hazel remembered that she had represented Japanese as a scarf before SA as well, andstated that it was still a scarf and a “weight on her shoulders” and around her neck, but one
that had started to feel warm. She then started to talk about her anxiety, which she had also
experienced before SA. She suffered from fear of failure and was scared of doing badly in her
degree. Her anxiety “stops [her] from being able to perform well”. She had a thick filter ofEnglish, which also made it difficult for her to speak Japanese. She no longer drew a heart because she was “not at home and feel[s] very cold and shut off”. She did not think of her otherheritage languages or any others any more, stating:
I’ve become very polarised. Like before I used to consider myself a mix of a lot of the different
experiences I’ve had or all of the different little languages I’ve learned in the past, but now I feellike it’s all been reduced.
She later added: “I feel like there is not much of me left.” Though Hazel stated that she had
improved her language skills and had less anxiety—perhaps to reassure me, the researcher,
who was concerned about her wellbeing—both her language portrait and her narrative clearlypresented anxiety caused by the gap between her Ought-to L2 Self (she felt she ought to be
Japanese user who performs well to complete her degree and to represent her capable self)and her perceived real self. She was fearful of speaking Japanese because she could not express herself; her L2 self that she could express in L2 Japanese was not her real self, unlike
when she spoke in English.  
     

KiririnKiririn spoke mainly in English for 47 minutes before SA but used Japanese most of the time
during SA (25 minutes). “Japanese has kind of been my life of the last six or seven years,” hesaid before SA. He started studying the language in secondary school. His original interest was
linked to his “discovery” of Japanese anime. He was also a big fan of Japanese music, particularly one celebrity, and aspired to become a Japanese-English translator. In fact, he had been
accepted for a part-time job as a translator just before he drew his first language portrait.
Learning Japanese also “opened up [his] mind to other languages and cultures”. He had tried tolearn Korean, which he believed was similar to Japanese, and Portuguese, his girlfriend’s L1. 
Figure 6 is Kiririn’s language portrait before SA. He carried two bags, Daigaku no kaban(university bag) and nichijō no kaban (daily life bag). The former was fully Japanese, drawn inlight blue, his favourite colour, which he said was anshin no yoo na iro (the colour of relief).
The daily bag had various languages, including those that he learned outside university: Japanese (light blue), Korean (red), and Portuguese (yellow).  
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019145

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan     

Figure 6. Kiririn before SA.          Figure 7. Kiririn during SA.

     The light blue lines, which he called wakaru sen (understanding lines), ran all over the body,indicating that he had confidence and could use the language. He felt it “flowing through”
him. 
He also felt that he was “made up of English”, indicated in black because it was “the strong
colour”. By studying other languages, he brought “more colours to [his] life”. Music was a
big part of his life and his motivation to study Korean was his desire to understand the lyrics of K-pop music. He also mentioned his desire to learn other East Asian languages such as
Mandarin and Cantonese. He wanted to add “understanding lines” for other languages. 
Five months into SA, he stated that Japanese was what he needed for his future. His language portrait, shown in Figure 7, had even more emphasis on Japanese drawn in red, indicating its importance: “ichiban daiji nanode akai” (it is red because it is the most important).
Being in Japan, he did not have opportunities to use Portuguese or Korean and kept forgetting
them. He said that Japanese was coming into him (“dondon haitte kuru”) and he was improving. His glasses were red (Japanese) because he translated written Japanese texts to English.
Both Japanese and English were shown going out of the brain; the arrows suggested that histranslation (English) was being transmitted to other people. He had applied for part-timetranslator positions related to music in Japan, and he was thoroughly enjoying his job—though he was not enjoying the university classes. 
His heart was filled with red, though it was covered by light blue (English). His legs, which
typically indicate one’s foundation, were also red, albeit partially.
And living in Japan, so I think at the moment, erm, the reason I haven’t coloured the whole of theleg in, erm, it’s because I think I’m still, because I’m still madamada. Er, I can’t necessarily standon my own two feet 100% confidently, just yet to have Japanese, but as I gain more experience, I
think this red will grow, and I’ll be able to stand confidently.
He was forward-looking and his gaze was directed to the future, as his language portrait
also indicated with his caption “yume ga mieru” (I can see my dream), but at the same time healready declared “yume o ikite imasu” (I am living my dream) in his narrative. It seemed that
he had a clear image of Ideal L2 Self and was actively seeking ways to achieve it in the immediate environment (L2 Learning Experience). 

146

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

Discussion
Despite the major differences between the three students in their interests, motives, and experiences, there were two commonalities in their changes. One was a reduction of their senseof multilingualism during SA. Language portraits have often been used in studies to illustrateand valorise the rich multilingual resources of a person’s linguistic repertoire, and indeed thestudents’ language portraits before SA showed their passion for languages and their multilingual, multicultural identities. During SA, however, all three students highlighted their L2
Japanese and L1 English—for very different reasons and with different emotions.
Gray’s portrait depicted L2 Learning Experience during SA, namely her experience of immersing herself into the L2 Japanese environment, while she used her favourite colour, purple, to draw her heart filled with English because she missed her home. Kiririn’s motivation
was forward-looking to fulfil his dream of becoming a Japanese-English translator, his Ideal
L2 Self. During SA, he was more focused than before on the languages required for the Japanese-English translation job, namely Japanese and English. He was enacting his Ideal L2
Self to an extent in Japan. However, Hazel felt that she was “polarised” and “reduced” due toanxiety caused by “fear of failure” in L2 Japanese and of not doing well academically. As a result, her L1 English was “the only thing that was keeping [her] together” because of her anxiety. In other words, she was anxious because she felt her L2 self diverged from her Ought-to
L2 Self. The anxiety she experienced is similar to what has been reported in previous studies(Pellegrino Aveni, 2005; Yoshida, 2016). 
Second, common across the three students, their L2 selves were influenced by their dispositions towards their other languages and were influencing them in return, including both their
L1s and other L2s. In other words, the findings suggest that L2 self needs to be considered inrelation to other languages to understand the multilingual self. Gray, for example, had experience of learning and using other L2s, but during SA she marginalised her other L2s andregarded Japanese as the most important L2. Hazel experienced sadness (expressed as tears)
during SA because her primary heritage language, Turkish, suffered when she spent moretime learning and using L2 Japanese, and her other heritage language, Kurdish, was literally
no longer in the picture. 
The students’ language portraits during SA revealed that a different component of the L2
Motivational Self System became prominent for each of the three students: Ideal L2 Self (inthe case of Kiririn), Ought-to L2 Self (Hazel), and L2 Learning Experience (Gray). According
to Dörnyei (2009), the Ideal L2 Self is particularly important, and it consistently correlates
highly with students’ intended effort (p. 30). With his L2 experience of using Japanese intranslation, Kiririn likely maintains his motivation to learn Japanese for his dream career asa translator in the remainder of the SA. Gray’s excitement in L2 immersion also likely maintains her motivation though her Ideal L2 Self is not apparent in her language portrait. In thecase of Hazel, the portrait and her narrative suggested that she would need to find a way tocounterbalance her feared self with her desired self. 
What made the students experience such diverse changes? Among the three students, thechange Hazel experienced seemed most pronounced, negatively affecting her motivation (touse L2 Japanese), sense of self, and linguistic identities. In a case study such as this, it isobviously not possible to pinpoint factors that potentially led to diverse changes among thestudents, especially because of various individual differences. Yet it is perhaps worth noting
two attributes that distinguish Hazel from Gray, whose L2 Experience during SA is what many
may expect as a desired SA experience. First, Hazel was 20 years old when commencing SA
and was the youngest of the three participants. In fact, she reported her growth in independence and confidence after SA. In other words, when arriving in Japan she was in the early
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019147

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan

phase of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2010), the time of life when “little about the future has
been decided for certain” (Arnett, 2010, p. 469). On the other hand, Gray, who was 24 years
old, was the most mature student. Having contemplated her future direction, she had changed
her major and transferred from another university to the one in London to study Japanese.
Second, Hazel had never been to Japan while Gray had been to Japan three times before SA,
albeit for a short period each time. Gray’s confidence about her direction and the familiarity with the destination may have allowed her to enjoy her SA soon after arrival, while Hazel
needed more time and adjustment.
In recent years, there has been a shift in SA research, from a primary focus on assessingchanges in language proficiency to attention to changes in other dimensions such as identities, personhood and intercultural understanding (see, for example, Iwasaki, 2019). The current study revealed how students’ emotions regarding their languages changed and affected
their perceptions of their linguistic repertoires. 
     Conclusion
With the use of language portraits, changes in the students’ L2 selves and linguistic identities have been revealed. Rather than comparing “before vs. after”, language portraits drawn
before SA and four or five months into SA were compared. They showed that within these
few transitional months of SA, the students’ attitudes and emotions towards L2 Japanese andtowards their other languages changed. Interestingly, all students who showed rich multilingual repertoires before SA focused on a smaller number of languages during SA. The reasonsfor the change were not only related to their original dispositions (e.g., Kiririn’s aspiration to
be a professional translator) but also to newly emerging L2 selves that were tied to their emotions towards L2 Japanese (e.g., excitement in engaging in translation work [Kiririn], happiness in being immersed in the language [Gray], anxiety due to inability to express her true
self [Hazel]) that the students were experiencing during SA. 
The prominent L2 selves during SA paralleled the components of the L2 Motivational Self
System: namely L2 Learning Experience, or rather L2 Using Experience (genuine enjoymentof immersion experience in the case of Gray; happiness of lived experience of dream job in
the case of Kiririn), future aspiration related to Ideal L2 Self (Kiririn) and anxiety caused bydisparity between L2 Ought-to Self and perceived real self (Hazel). The L2 Motivational Self
System helped to understand the students’ differing disposition during SA. At the same time,
however, it became evident that it is essential to take into account the L2 users’ attitudes andemotions towards their other languages, cultures, and communities in forming their multilingual L2 selves. 
The language portraits made it possible to capture the changes in the students’ language
identities and emotions. Understanding of such changes during SA is crucial in helping students prepare to study abroad and in guiding and supporting those who are abroad. Future
research is required to account for changes in L2 selves among multilingual speakers, andsuch research would benefit from the use of the language portrait. (Hazel, in retrospect, commented that drawing the portraits helped her understand herself.) Affective, emotive aspectsof L2 learners are not always considered in language education but are important, not least interms of affecting their motivation.

Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to the editors of this special issue, Christina Gkonou, Yoshio Nakai, and Jim
Ronald, for their thoughtful work and encouraging support. I would also like to take this op-

148

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

portunity to thank the Waseda Institute for Advanced Study, which provided me a venue andopportunity to collect data in January and February 2016. I am sincerely grateful to the students who participated in the project, whose wellbeing and career success I will always careand pray for. 

Notes
1.	 The expression “L2” stands for “second language”, but L2 here refers to any language(s)acquired after the first language regardless of how many other languages a given speakerhas learned before L2 Japanese, following the convention in applied linguistics.
2.	 A student with British-Japanese heritage, Hana (pseudonym), drew English and Japanese
flags in two halves of the body before SA but placed both English and Japanese on herheart and illustrated tangled thought of blue (English) and red (Japanese) lines after SA.
The study showed that her discursively constructed split halves (i.e., an imagined identityof a “half” individual) changed to a hybrid, merged whole: her ideal self.
3.	 Mariko Himeta has been actively promoting language portraits in Japan, especially in L2
French contexts (see Himeta, 2016). Other researchers often use the line drawing developed by Busch and colleagues, whose effectiveness is described by Busch (2018, p. 8-9). I
found Himeta’s line drawing useful because the larger space on the torso invited my participants to depict nuanced attitude to each of their languages.
4.	 Kurdish people are a minority in Turkey as well as in Iraq and Iran. Conflicts between
Kurdish and Turkish people in Turkey are often reported in the media.  

References
Allen, H. W., & Herron, C. (2003). A mixed-methodology investigation of the linguistic andaffective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3), 370-385.
Arnett, J. J. (2010). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens throughthe twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. 
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2012) Study abroad and thedevelopment of second language identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(1), 173-193.
Boo, Z., Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). L2 motivation research 2005–2014: Understanding apublication surge and a changing landscape. System, 55, 145–157.
Busch, B. (2010). School language profiles: Valorizing linguistic resources in heteroglossic
situations in South Africa. Language and Education, 24(4), 283-294.
Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503-523.
Busch, B. (2018). The language portrait in multilingualism research: Theoretical andmethodological considerations. Working Papers in Urban Languages & Literacies, Paper 236.
1-13. 
Coffey, S. (2015). Reframing teachers’ language knowledge through metaphor analysis oflanguage portraits. The Modern Language Journal 99(3), 500-514.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language
acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.),
Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 
Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: “Retrodictive qualitativemodelling” in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47(1), 80–91. 

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019149

British University Students Studying Abroad in Japan

Dörnyei, Z., & Chan, L. (2013). Motivation and vision: An analysis of future L2 self images,
sensory styles, and imagery capacity across two target languages. Language Learning 63(3),437-462. 
Hardison, D. M. (2014). Changes in second-language learners’ oral skills and socio-affective
profiles following study abroad: A mixed-methods approach. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 70(4), 415-444.
Himeta, M. (2016). Gengo pōtorēto katsudō ni tsuite, Études didactique du FLE au Japon, 25, 6277. 
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The
Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132. 
Iwasaki, N. (2018). “Hāfu” no gakusei no nihon ryūgaku: Gengo pōtorēto ga shimesu aidentiti
no henyō to raifu sutōrī [British-Japanese “half” student studying abroad in Japan:
Changes in identities shown on language portraits and her life story]. In I. Kawakami,
K. Miyake, & N. Iwasaki (Eds.), Idō to kotoba [Mobility and language] (pp. 16-38). Tokyo,
Japan: Kurosio Publishers. 
Iwasaki, N. (2019). Individual Differences in study abroad research: Sources, processes andoutcomes of students’ development in language, culture and personhood. In M. Howard(Ed.) Study abroad, second language acquisition and interculturality. (pp. 237-262). Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters. 
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research. New York,
NY: Springer.
Kinginger, C. (2011). National identity and language learning abroad: American students in thepost 9/11 era. In C. Higgins (Ed.), Identity formation in globalizing contexts: Language learningin the new millenium (pp. 147–166). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Krumm, H.-J. (2001). Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehsprachigkeit. Vienna, Austria:
Eviva. 
Krumm, H.-J. (2013). Multilingualism and identity: What linguistic biographies of migrants
can tell us. In P. Siemund, I. Gogolin, M. E. Schulz, & J. Davydova (Eds.), Multilingualism
and language diversity in urban areas: Acquisition, identities, space, education (pp. 165-176).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Cambridge
Press. 
Lau, S. M. C. (2016). Language, identity, and emotionality: Exploring the potential of language
portraits in preparing teachers for diverse learners. The New Educator, 12(2), 147-170.
Martin, B. (2012). Coloured languages: identity perception of children in bilingual
programmes. Language Awareness, 21(1-2), 33-56.
McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2015). Understanding insertion andintegration in study abroad context: The case of English-speaking sojourners in France.
Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 16(2), 97-116. 
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotion in foreign language learning: a narrativeoriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 
Otsuji, E. (2016). Repātorī, kotoba no kyōiku to shiminsei keisei: Kotoba no kyōsei omezasu shiminsei keisei kyōiku towa [Repertoire, language education and developmentof citizenship: Citizenship education that aims for co-existence of language]. In H.
Hosokawa, E. Otsuji, & M. Marcella (Eds.), Shiminsei to kotoba no kyōiku: Bogo, dainigengo,
gaikokugo o koete [Citizenship and language education: beyond native language, second language
and foreign language] (pp. 20-41). Tokyo, Japan: Kurosio Publisher

150

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Noriko Iwasaki

Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs. In H. W. Marsh, R.
G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), New frontiers for self research (pp. 95-121). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Pellegrino Aveni, V. (2005) Study abroad and second language use: Constructing self. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language
learning. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505-520. 
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self andidentity. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp.
215-228). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E., & Dörnyei, Z. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: A
theoretical overview. In Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and theL2 self (pp. 1-8). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. 
Yoshida, R. (2016). A learner’s foreign language self-concept and anxiety about speaking thelanguage. In A. Murphy (Ed.), New development in foreign language learning (pp. 99-120).
New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Author Bio
Noriko Iwasaki is a professor in the Department of Japanese Studies and Graduate School of
Humanities (Linguistic Science Program), Nanzan University. She is also a research associate in the Department of Linguistics, SOAS University of London where she taught until 2018.
She has an MA in TESOL from the Portland State University and a Ph.D. in Second Language
Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona. Her research interests include Japanese language education, Second Language Acquisition (e.g., study abroad, Japanese mimetics, sentence production processes), and pragmatics. Email: niwasaki@nanzan-u.ac.jp.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019151

RESEARCH PAPER
Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis
of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in
Narratives
Kie Yamamoto, Kanda University of International Studies
Study abroad is generally acknowledged as an optimal way of improving foreign language skills and gaining a setof competences required for the global market. While the outcome of study abroad is often discussed based on
acquisition of those skills, recent studies highlight the complexity of identity construction from sociocultural perspectives. In this study, I explore a series of narratives shared by a Japanese female college student in order to
unfold her challenges and changes over a one year period in an American community college. This study draws oncommunity of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and investment (Darvin and Norton, 2015) as theoretical perspectives in order to capture the complexity of learner identity construction through (non) participation
and belonging in multiple social groups. Adapting narrative positioning analysis (Bamberg, 1997) as an analyticalframework, the study reveals how she negotiated and developed her identities throughout participation in theculturally as well as linguistically distinctive communities. In particular, her investment in becoming a legitimate
member of the English academic discourse community was found to be a significant experience that impacted onher sense of self. The study concludes with consideration of the significance of narrative inquiry for investigating
language learner identity, particularly highlighting the researcher positionality that plays a crucial role in co-constructing and re-telling a learner’s narrative.
留学は一般的に、外国語スキルの向上や、グローバル化が進む社会において必要とされる能力を身につける有効的な手段と認識されている。それ故、留学の効果自体がスキル習得を中心とし議論されることが多いが、近年その影響として、学習者のアイデンティティ構築に注目した研究も見られるようになってきている。本研究は、日本人女子大学生よって語られた1年間のアメリカ留学経験に基づくナラティブから、彼女に起きた「困難」と「変化」を読み解くものである。様々な社会的グループへの(不)参加を通しなされるアイデンティティ形成を捉える上で、実践コミュニティ (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998)及びインベストメント(Darvin and Norton, 2015) の概念を理論的視座とした。また、分析手法としてナラティブ・ポジショニング・アナリシス(Bamberg, 1997)を用い、彼女が文化的かつ言語的に全く異なるコミュ
ニティにおいて、どのように自身を理解し、アイデンティティ構築を行ったか、他者との関わり合いに焦点を当てた。分析の結果、英語のアカデミック・ディスコースにおいて、有能なコミュニティの一員として認められることへの「投資」が彼女の自己意識に大きな変化を与えた要因となったことが明らかになった。また、本稿の結びとして、ナラティブ構築における相互性や語り直しのプロセスといった側面について言及
し、研究者が「聞き手」として果たす役割について、本研究を振り返りながら、言語学習者のアイデンティティ研究におけるナラティブ・インク
ワイアリーの重要性を論じる。

Keywords
language learner identity, narrative inquiry, study abroad, community of practice, researcher reflexivity

キーワード
言語学習者アイデンティティ、ナラティブインクワイアリー、留学、実践コミュニティ、研究者の再帰性

T

he usual benefits attributed to study abroad are linguistic improvement, cultural experiences and personal growth for global society (Kubota, 2016). Therefore, it has beenpromoted in international higher education as a means of gaining those skills. Following the trend of student mobility for global market, in the field of second language acquisition(SLA), study abroad is often simply considered as a particular type of context where language
acquisition occurs. Immersion within a target language is regarded as an important way ofenabling language learners to obtain high proficiency. Hence, research on study abroad, especially with a focus on L2 acquisition, often has simply dealt with language skill development
or communicative competence including strategic and discourse abilities (Kinginger, 2013).

152

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto

However, recent studies (e.g., Benson, Barkhuizen, Bodycott & Brown, 2013; Block, 2007;
Piller & Takahashi, 2006; Morita, 2002, 2004, 2009) have shed light on learners’ subjective
accounts of study abroad experience, which reveal challenges and struggles with re-conceptualizing their identities in the use of the target language in a culturally distinctive context.
Rather than simply investigating the process of how learners acquire a target language, thosestudies have attempted to reveal the contexts including the social, historical or political discourses that are intricately linked to learners’ motives and behaviors. In particular, studies of
non-native English speakers’ experiences in an English-dominant academic discourse communities during study abroad (e.g., Morita, 2004, 2009) underline the necessity of investigating their struggles and needs from socially-sensitive perspectives.
A year-abroad program is still a popular option for Japanese university students (Institute of International Education, 2018) as a part of their degree, however, the outcomes of the
program are still judged according to its effectiveness in terms of linguistic gains. I argue thatthe outcomes do not simply correlate with a learner’s individual differences but also dependon the intricate relationships that are “socially and historically constructed within particular
relations of power” (Norton, 2013, p. 11) in host countries. Thus, in this study, I have decided to focus on a single case study with a Japanese female college student in order to uncoverher challenges and changes over a year period in an American community college. It aims
to contribute to expanding the concepts of study abroad from a socially-informed approach,shedding light on how her participation in English academic discourse has impacted on her
identities. In the next section, I first provide key concepts related to language learner identity
and study abroad research. After describing the research methodology, three stories are analyzed drawing on narrative positioning analysis originally proposed by Bamberg (1997). This
study concludes by discussing the implications of longitudinal narrative research to criticallyexamine learners’ study abroad experiences from a socially-sensitive perspective.

Literature Review
With the flourishing of social constructivist and poststructuralist perspectives, the “socialturn” in applied linguistics (Block, 2003) empowered researchers to understand language
learning as a situated construct, taking account of social, cultural, and temporal context. Concomitantly, learner identity also started receiving attention from applied linguists as a crucial
dimension of language learning. Norton (2013) 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” (p. 45). The complexity of learner identity construction has also encouraged researchers to pay attention to both the self andthe contexts in which language learning is situated. In particular, socially-oriented approaches have lent their holistic and multifaceted theories to traditional individualistic perspectivesof language learning.
One of the significant concepts adapted from social learning theories is the notion of community, which has been used as an analytical lens to capture the concept of self as multiple, changing, and a site of struggle” (Norton & Toohey, 2011, p. 414). Particularly, Lave andWenger (1991) and Wenger (1998)’s Community of Practice has been used in various studies(e.g., DePalma, 2008; Gu, 2013; Morita, 2004; Norton, 2001; Toohey, 1998) as its proponents
theorize the development and acquisition of new identities through participation in social
communities. The premise of community involves not only the immediate learning environment, but also imagined ones that reflect “the desire of learners to expand their rangeof identities and to reach out to wider worlds” (Pavlenko & Norton, 2007, p. 590). The roleof imagination, as discussed in the major body of research in L2 motivation (Dornyei 2005;
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019153

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

Dornyei & Ushioda, 2009) is prominent in understanding why a language learner is willing toacquire a target language from a psychological account. Norton (2001) suggests an alternative
view of “imagined community”, which enables researchers to investigate not only observablelanguage learning behavior in accessible environments such as language classrooms, but alsoa learner’s imagined social relationships in the future, which sheds lights on the recursive
nature of his or her aspirations toward a target language acquisition.
Another key concept in theorizing language learner identity is investment. Interweavingsocial perspectives with the psychological construct of motivation, Darvin and Norton (2015)
define investment as “a significant place in language learning theory for demonstrating
the socially and historically constructed relationship between language learner identity andlearning commitment” (p. 37). Their proposed “Model of Investment” suggests that investment is situated at the intersection of three constructs; ideology, capital and identity. They
theorize that “if learners invest in a language, they do so with the understanding that they
will acquire a wider range of symbolic and material resources, which will in turn increase thevalue of their cultural capital and social power” (p. 37). While language learner motivation
primarily is viewed as an internal state from a binary perspective (e.g., motivated/demotivated), investment takes a more holistic approach that concerns the situatedness of learners’
positioning in relation to power relationships in various levels including personal, institutional and social. Their case studies with a female learner in rural Uganda and a male learnerin urban Canada provide illustrative examples of how learners’ geographical and social locations as well as economic position enable or restrict their access to a varied range of language
learning opportunities. The construct of investment “recognizes that the conditions of power
in different learning contexts can position the learners in multiple and often unequal ways,
leading to varying learning outcomes” (Darvin & Norton, 2015, p. 37). Thus, the notion of
investment enables researchers to investigate the complexity and fluidity of socially-oriented
desire in language learning.
Following the surge of language learner identity research in applied linguistics, recent
studies of study abroad investigate the complexity of identity construction and L2 use in a
distinctive sociocultural context (e.g., Block, 2007; Chik and Benson, 2008; Kinginger, 2009,2013). Benson et al. (2013) posit study abroad as “an experience in which embodied identities
are relocated and reflexive/imagined identities are challenged by the need to achieve recognition for identities in an unfamiliar cultural setting” (p. 39). Whereas the traditional viewof study abroad concerns the acquisition of a target language as a primary outcome, more
researchers have started shedding light on sojourners’ first-hand experiences of how they
are positioned in the host culture and how they interpret “the social, cultural, and linguistic
practices of their host communities” (Kinginger, 2013, p. 341). Benson et al. (2013) conducteda narrative inquiry with Hong Kong students who had a sojourn experience in English-speaking countries to analyze the relationship between L2 competence and second language
identity development. Their study provides a comprehensive framework that explains theintertwining relationship between the gain of sociopragmatic competence and personal development. It also suggests that those two aspects of learner development powerfully impact
on the learners’ self-concept. Taking a holistic approach, their framework also signifies that
linguistic gain and socio-emotional dimensions of study abroad experience are interwoven
into a second language sojourners’ identity development; hence, engagement in study abroadrequires a deeper insight into learners’ social as well as historical backgrounds and the natureof study abroad programs, which may vary in terms of expectation, participation and interaction with local hosts.
Another important branch of research concerning identity construction in study abroad includes academic discourse socialization (Duff, 2007; Kobayashi, 2016) and academic accultura-

154

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamototion (Fox, Cheng and Zumbo, 2014; Omachinski, 2014; Peeters and Fourie, 2016). These emerging lines of research disciplines illuminate the intricate process of L2 learners’ socialization andinteraction with other members of an academic discourse community. Specifically, they positthat entering a new academic culture requires L2 students not only to adjust to a L2-dominantclassroom but also to learn a set of social as well as literacy practices (Kobayashi, 2016). Thus,
the theoretical implications of those studies put emphasis on the role of social networks including peer and teacher support in/outside classroom as indispensable in promoting newcomers’
engagement and smooth transition into the target academic community.
As discussed in this section, this study takes a social-constructivist perspective on language
learner identity development, shedding light on the process of ‘becoming somebody new,with new patterns of participation’ (Lamb, 2013, p. 37) within a new academic community instudy abroad. In particular, paying closer attention to the research participant’s challenges
and changes in a new academic discourse community, this study aims to gain a deeper understanding of her identity negotiation and development through participation in the target
community. There are still few longitudinal studies that focus on Japanese college students’narrative accounts of their academic classroom experience in study abroad. This study willcontribute to providing a richer understanding of specific issues that they potentially face
while participating in an academic program in English-speaking countries.

Research Methodology
Narrative Inquiry
A narrative inquiry approach is employed in this study. Seeking “lifelikeness”, narrativeinquiry has been receiving a growing interest cross disciplinarily in social science. In particular, narrative plays a crucial role in representing “silenced voices and subjugated knowledge”(Riessman, 2008, p. 186). Barkhuizen, Benson and Chik (2014) note that narrative inquiry is
considered valuable for researchers when they attempt to “capture the nature and meaning ofexperiences that are difficult to observe directly and are best understood from the perspectiveof those who experience them” (p.8). Thus, in the field of SLA, narrative research has been
often used as a way of investigating language learning experience or language teaching experience to reveal the narrator’s sense of self in relation to a particular sociocultural context(e.g., Barkhuizen, 2010, 2016, 2017; Rugen, 2013).
In essence, narrative involves cognitive as well as social processes, which enables narrative research to be approached multidimensionally (Barkhuizen, 2013). The process of making stories involves cognitive activities such as preserving memories, prompting reflections,connecting people with their past and present and assisting them to envision their future(Kramp, 2004). Simultaneously, a narrative must be understood in relation to “social, cultural, and historical conventions as well as by the relationship between the storyteller and theinterlocutor” (Pavlenko, 2002, p. 214). As researchers (Barkhuizen, 2013; Reissman, 2008;
Pavlenko, 2002) argue, narrative inquiry does not rest on factual data analysis on what has
been told. Rather, the complexity of how the narrative is constructed needs to be thoroughly
discussed. The criticality of in-depth analysis on the multileveled narrative context has been
discussed elsewhere (Atkinson 1997; Connelly & Clandinin, 2006; Barkhuizen, 2013; Reissman,2008); yet, as Pavlenko (2002, 2007) points out, its importance is commonly ignored when
researchers aim to find generalized factual data from narrative by simply adapting content
analysis. Hence, adapting the analytical framework that enables me to address the form-content relationship (Barkhuizen, 2009) is necessary in my study.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019155

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

Narrative Positioning Analysis
While there is no single analytical approach to narrative inquiry, I find narrative positioning analysis (Bamberg, 1997, 2003, Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008) useful for the present
study. The notion of positioning is initially developed by Davies and Harré (1990), which isdefined as discursive practice where “selves are located as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced storylines” (p. 48). Thus, positioning analysis allows
researchers to make “the interactive site of storytelling the empirical ground, where identities
come into existence and are interactively displayed” (Bamberg, 2004, p. 36). Bamberg (1997)
has proposed three different levels of positioning which enable researchers to analyze thetransitional nature of narratives from both local and global perspectives. The first level mainly concerns the contents of the story, including the characters described by a narrator, therelationship among them, and the particular context drawn in the narrative. The second leveltakes a closer look at the way the narrator positions him/herself to the audience. Finally, thethird level aims to unfold the construct of selves produced by narrators themselves, weaving
the first two levels of positioning together.
Along with positioning analysis, Bamberg’s (2012) three realms of identity construction
were adapted as an analytical scope in investigating the transitional process of the research
participant’s identity construction. Defining identity construction as “dilemmatic spaces”(Bamberg, 2012, p. 204), he sheds light on (a) sameness/difference, (b) agentive/recipient and(c) constancy/change in analyzing narrative. The first point concerns how a narrator considers the sameness or difference in relation to other characters in the narrative to claim his/her positioning. The second point refers to how a narrator makes sense of an event as a resultof his/her agentic action or others. The third point focuses on the transition between present
and the past as a means of meaning-making of his/her change.
Bamberg (2011, 2012) denotes the significance of positioning within those three dilemmatic
spaces which appear in rather mundane conversations, as he calls “small stories” as opposed
to big stories that consist of autobiographical narratives. The significance of small stories has
been argued by narrative researchers (e.g., Barkhuizen, 2013; De Fina, 2013; Early & Norton,
2013; Rugen, 2013) as useful data set to investigate narrators’ transitional identities in everyday interaction. Compared to big stories, which are articulated from formally structured
research settings, small stories seek to obtain research participants’ “moment-to-moment
identity work” (Rugen, 2013, p. 201). The data used for the present study mainly entails theresearch participant’s everyday life in study abroad, thus each story may appear as a sort of
informal chat Nevertheless, what makes a narrative as a meaningful sense-making practiceis the audience’s insight into “how the referential world (of what the story is about) is constructed as a function of the interactive engagement, where the way the referential world is
put together points to how tellers “want to be understood” (Bamberg, 2011, p. 10). The analysis of the series of narratives in the present study, therefore values the essence of small stories to reveal how the research participant of this study, a Japanese female college student,
was trying to make sense of herself in relation to specific social as well as spatiotemporalcontexts. In the following section, I illustrate the detailed analytical framework.

Research Participant
The research participant in this study, Emi (pseudonym) was a college student in her second
year of study in the English department of a foreign language university in Japan when thisresearch started. Born in Japan, her parents encouraged her to learn English as a foreign language at an early age. Since then, the English language became her interest as well as enjoyment. Although her English classes in junior high school as well as high school significantly

156

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto

lacked the opportunities for communicative language learning, she imagined herself becoming bilingual and studying abroad in the future. I, as a learning advisor, first met Emi in April
2016. She requested a weekly advising appointment with me to talk about English learning;sometimes she had a number of grammatical questions, and other times we talked about her
personal issues in English classroom including anxiety, peer pressure and her willingness totry more challenging assignments. I gradually got intrigued by the multifaceted selves she
showed in the advising sessions, which encouraged me to ask her to participate in the longitudinal research while she was studying abroad.
Prior to study abroad, she was envisioning herself as a highly proficient English learner.
When asked about her future self-image after completing study abroad, she described hervision as follows: “I want to be like Japanese English teachers here. I feel I get misunderstoodwhen explaining a complicated thing. I want to speak good English so that I won’t be misunderstood by native English speakers” (Emi, August 2016, personal communication). She wasalso hoping to work in the hospitality industry possibly as working as a cabin attendant using
English.

Data Collection
Three stories presented here are a part of a longitudinal data set from the 14-month narrativeinquiry. This study mainly used a series of semi-structured interviews as the primary data
set. Additionally, audio recordings of advising sessions with the research participant as wellas my own advising notes were also used as supplementary data to understand how she had
been making sense of herself in different spatiotemporal contexts. While each interview covered various stories including Emi’s language learning history, as aforementioned, I particularly focused on small stories. Therefore, illustrative stories were selected in the process oftranscribing/re-reading stage from the three interviews that were held between October 2016
and September 2017. The first and second interviews were conducted via Skype and the third
one was held in person on campus. The first two interviews used Japanese as a main languageof communication; hence, once transcription was complete, it was translated into English
by the researcher. In the third interview, original transcription is presented as Emi chose to
speak in English. In presenting the interview transcripts in Findings, I follow Barkhuizen(2017) by breaking the stories down into lines of idea units, which was originally suggested byGee (1986).

Analytical Framework
The process of data analysis in this study consists of three stages. The first step entailed
reading and re-reading the transcripts of each interview and adding notes in the parts thatsignaled Emi’s identity negotiation and construction. As narrative researchers suggest, narrative data analysis requires iterative, recursive and emergent approaches (Barkhuizen, Benson& Chik, 2014; Gu, 2013; Miyahara, 2015). Simultaneously, I incorporated what Miyahara (2015)
suggests as a “memoing” process in the first stage to add my thoughts and theoretical background from existing literature. This process also helped me organize my analytical perspective on what has been told in the narrative. The second step followed Bamberg’s (2012) three
realms of identity construction described above to investigate the dilemma within her senseof self that the research participant faced. In this stage, the guided questions “how does theresearch participant want the audience to understand who she is?” and “How does she makesense of herself through storytelling?” proposed in Bamberg’s (1997) positioning analysis
were also helpful to pay closer attention to how she positioned herself/was positioned in relation to others and how the positioning was understood by her in the meaning-making proLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019157

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

cess. This process, once again, required constant iteration. Lastly, the findings in the first andsecond analytical stage were compared and analyzed to highlight the critical experiences that
impacted on Emi’s identities. In this stage, the contextual transition (e.g., social/academic
discourse) was also considered as a crucial factor that impacted on her identity construction. Figure 1 illustrates the analytical process.

Figure 1. Process of Analysis.
While the analysis of this study draws on Bamberg’s (1997) positioning analysis, I also adhere to what Riessman (2008) suggests as “hallmarks of narratives”, which emphasize sequential and structural features of each story. As she warns, rigorous categorization may leadto the loss of the essence. Thus, the present study also attempts to maintain narratives as awhole rather than de-contextualizing and extracting the positioning elements.

The Researcher Positionality
One dimension of this study rests on my positionality, particularly my sociocultural background and my profession of learning advisor in terms of co-constructing narratives with
Emi. The present study adopts Atkinson’s (2005) situated qualitative research approach,which stresses “the quality of what is being studied from the actor’s point of view (p. 50).
Sharing the first language, educational background, and my own study abroad experience inan English-speaking country, my researcher positionality as an “insider” research participant has also become an important dimension of situatedness in this study. This “insider”
perspective was adapted from Morita (2002, 2004) and Miyahara (2015), who also researched
Japanese learners of English. Both studies, although the research contexts are different, describe the researchers’ positionality as a crucial lens to delve into the learners’ narratives.
While I maintained my neutral position while listening to her stories, I was also aware thatcritical experiences she faced in the United States reminded me of my own past experiences as
a learner of English.
In the research context of this study, my professional role as a learning advisor also has
contributed to co-constructing the narrative with Emi. Working with her outside the class-158

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamotoroom, our advising session was never compulsory; in other words, it occurred when she waswilling to share something with me. In addition to sharing similar backgrounds with her, myprofessional role as a learning advisor allowed me to reduce the researcher-researched divide
by dissolving the ‘rigid hierarchical power structure’ (Morita, 2002, p. 71) in the expert-novice relationship in the institutional context. Rather than taking an objective approach, I took
advantage of my positionality in this study in various research dimensions including datacollection as well as data analysis.
Simultaneously, I paid careful attention to the delicate research dimensions of narrativeinquiry because it is built upon an “inherently relational endeavor” (Josselson, 2007, p.537).
As Josselson (2007, p. 538) describes, narrative researchers play a “dual role-in an intimate
relationship with the participant and in a professionally responsible role in the scholarly
community” Thus, in addition to following the ethical procedure provided by the researcher’s
institution, the series of interpretive work based on the analysis was shared with Emi in orderto make sure that I was representing her voice in an ethical way.

Findings
This section presents the analysis of the conversational narratives in the selected excerpts
from three different periods of time respectively.

Dilemma of Being an International Student (October 2016)
It had been about two months since Emi moved to the United States. We made time to chatvia Skype after she finished her class. In this conversation, she shared various events happening in everyday life including her new friends, her host family, difficulties and excitementin school. Particularly, her experience of being an “international student” in the new academic community struck me the most.
(Y=Yamamoto; E=Emi)
1.	

Y How do you like your classes?

2.	

E Well, basically my advisor helped me choose the classes

3.	

that were popular among international students. Of course I am studying hard,

4.	

but no matter how hard I study, everyone gets good grades, which is

5.	

not rewarding...It’s a community college, so everyone cares about grading.

6.	

The teacher gives everyone a good grade.

7.	

To me, grading is not a problem. Next semester, I am thinking about

8.	

taking classes that have more American students.

9.	

Y I see I see. So are you becoming confident of your English skill?

10.	 E Oh no. I really feel teachers at (her home institution)speak English
11.	

really clearly and slowly after taking classes here.

12.	 I can only understand 70 percent of what the teachers say in class here.
13.	 Even my English writing teacher speaks really fast.
14.	 She always encourages me to come ask her questions though.
15.	 When I have a discussion with American students, I am like “I have no idea
16.	 what they are saying”. I haven’t been able to say much in class.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019159

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

17.	 Coming here, international students are quiet while
18.	 American students talk a lot. They suddenly raise their hands and start talking…
Throughout the story, Emi describes the reality in her new life within the new academic discourse. There are clear differences between what she had expected to become before
studying abroad in America and how she is positioned in American classroom. She becomesaware that she is seen as one of many international students by being put in the classes that
seemed to be easy to pass (line 2-4). It is intriguing to point out that Emi calls a group ofinternational students third person singular “everyone”; moreover, her statement “Grading
is not a problem” (line 7) distinguishes her motivation of learning from other international
students who appeared to be desperate to get good grades. Simultaneously, she expressed her
willingness to be part of the classroom that had more American student (line 8) in hoping tobe equally assessed by her instructor and possibly situate herself within more academicallychallenging environment.
When the topic moved onto the improvement in her English skill, she started illustrating
how she became a passive participant in class by comparing the nature of the community inher home institution and the new school. At a glance, the contrast seems to simply indicate
her lack of English proficiency; however, more importantly, the detailed illustration of othercharacters in this part of the story highlights her struggle with negotiating her identity in alinguistically as well as socioculturally different context. Whereas she successfully maintained
her reflexive identity as a hardworking and competent student in the community of English
learners at her home institution, she marginalized herself in the new academic community,
attributing to the lack of her English proficiency. Additionally, she considered herself as aninternational student (line 17) as opposed to American students who “suddenly raise theirhand and start talking” (line 18) in the new academic discourse. This shows her ambivalentsense of being “international student”; while she was resisting against the generalization ofinternational students earlier in the story, she also positioned herself as a part of the group by
accepting her marginalized presence in classroom.
Against her imagined college life in America, this story reveals her dilemma of being an international student. Her desire to be recognized as a legitimate member of the target community was, from her perspective, rejected. Simultaneously, she became conscious of her marginal position as a non-native English speaker in the English academic discourse community.

Surviving in the Classroom (February 2017)
Three months had passed since the last interview was held. I reached Emi by email to see how
she was doing as I was concerned about her situation. When we finally made time to talk via
Skype, I immediately noticed that the tone of her voice was very different from the previous
interview. Indeed, we talked more than one hour on that day. While there were a number ofsmall stories in this interview, I selected the one that illustrates the dynamics of identity construction after going through linguistic as well as emotional challenges in the new academic
discourse community.
19.	 Y How do you find the coursework in your classes?
20.	 E It’s really challenging to be honest. The book we have been reading is for21.	 American students. It’s about Christianity, which I am not familiar with at all.
22.	 It takes ages for me to read the textbook because there are160

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto23.	 way too many unknown words that American students even don’t know.
24.	 Y Wow, that must be really difficult!
25.	 Have you asked American students about the coursework?
26.	 E Yes yes. She said “I have no idea what the book is about and27.	 I really respect you reading this.” (Chuckle)
28.	 I am also taking Public Speaking because I want to improve my presentation skill.
29.	 Y Public Speaking?! Wow, you are so brave. Are there a lot of international students?
30.	 E No, many of them are American. So I often feel pressured…
31.	 I don’t want to fall behind everyone in the class you know.
32.	 Although my English has Japanese accents, at least I want to get attention from33.	 American students by choosing an interesting topic. That’s how I am surviving.
34.	 Y Do you see any change within yourself?
35.	 E I used to think I must become outgoing and speak a lot in front of others.
36.	 So I also need courage to say something in class.
37.	 In class, there are always outspoken students who immediately become
38.	 a center of the class discussion. While they are influential in class, one day,39.	 I was told by my teacher: “Although you don’t speak up much in discussion,
40.	 reading your essay, I can certainly understand that you have an insightful idea”.
41.	 Since then, I started thinking
42.	 “speaking up in classroom is not the only way to be the best in class”.
In this story, Emi describes how she is negotiating her identity in American-dominantclassrooms. First, Emi refers to the course material that is supposed to be for “American
students” (line 21). In addition to unfamiliar contents of the reading, she explains numerous
amount of vocabulary she had never seen. The meaning-making she attempts to do here isnot complaining the difficulty of the class; rather, she is positioning herself as a non-American student who is tackling the same academic subject as local students. Her American classmate who “respects” (“Sonkei” in Japanese) Emi (line 27) is referred as a convincing fact thatshe got acknowledged as a legitimate member of the classroom community. Compared to her
marginal position as an international student described in the first story, the second shows
how she resisted her imposed position and gained legitimacy by making effort for the classparticipation.
The next element of the story also represents how she is repositioning herself in the English academic discourse. While she still possessed the belief of the power of native English
as opposed to non-native English, she came up with the strategy to avoid being judged as a
deficit non-native English speaker and “get attention” (line 32) from American students bychoosing an intriguing academic topic. As depicted in the first story, her struggle with ascribed identity as an international student had seemed to impact on how she had positioned
herself in the new academic discourse at the beginning of her study; simultaneously, insteadof accepting the marginal position, in this story, she is making sense of agentic attitude toward classroom participation as a way to “survive” (line 33) to be recognized as a legitimate
member of the community.
Another significant experience described in this story is being accepted as a competent
member in classroom by her teacher. In this story, when asked about the change withinherself, she describes her imagined identity as an outgoing and talkative student (line 37) in
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019161

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

classroom in order to be recognized as a good student. This image is contrastive to what she
illustrated herself as an international student in the previous story (line 17). However, while
she was positioning herself as a passive student as opposed to outspoken local students inclassroom, in the writing class, she starts talking about her writing teacher who acknowledged Emi’s voice in her writing (line 37-38). This experience appears to have a powerful impact on re-envisioning herself as a competent student who can aim to be “the best in class”(line 42).
The whole story in this story represents how she changed herself against challenges in the
new academic discourse. She is making sense of each classroom experience as significant
elements to regain her reflexive identity, which gave her confidence to be a legitimate member of the target community. At the same time, her teacher’s feedback played a crucial role inre-envisioning her positive self.

Memento of Study Abroad (September 2017)
Approximately six months had passed since I talked with Emi last time online. We tried to arrange the chat several times, but she was extremely busy with her course work. Particularly,
she got an intern position at a local airport as well as a tourist office. In our email exchange,
she was describing how busy her life was; it also signaled her life had been filled with excitement and new experience.
When I finally met up with Emi in person in Japan, she appeared to be different from who
she had been before leaving for the United States. The dialogue presented here is informal as
it was a sort of “catch up” conversation after a while. It should be noted that the languageof this conversation was entirely English unlike the first two interviews as it naturally beganwith greetings in English. The story begins with the scene where she is opening her backpack, which is full of her coursework papers in America.
41.	 Y Wow, your backpack is full.
42.	 E I still keep all of my essays (showing Yamamoto the pieces of writing)...this is from
43.	 Spring quarter...and this is my CV...it’s fake though (chuckle)
44.	 Y Oh come on, it’s not fake!
45.	 E It’s not real, but we imagined our future and wrote this.
46.	 How was the rest of your study?
47.	 Good. English class was difficult, and my grade wasn’t good. But I learned a lot.
48.	 My teacher’s feedback was very helpful. I took astronomy too, but I didn’t like it.
49.	 When I asked him questions, he often said “Oh, you are an international student,
50.	 so you don’t need to know this.”51.	 Y That’s terrible.
52.	 E Yes, I took the class not for grade. I just wanted to learn.
53.	 (Showing another piece of paper) This is also from Spring quarter.
54.	 Because I was interested in racism, because I was in America, we had election.
55.	 I have many pictures (of political protests) to show you. We went protesting
56.	 in a university. These protests are very common in America.
57.	 Y Wow. I think you went to the States during a very dynamic period.
58.	 E Yes...this (photos) is kind of my memento.

162

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto

59.	 Y Actually, when you were telling me about the protest, I was really surprised.
60.	 Because you know...to me, you were definitely not a kind of the person
61.	 who goes protesting.
62.	 E Yes haha (chuckle)!
63.	 Y How did you feel about the people voicing in the protest?
64.	 E I was so impressed. I think the most powerful thing
65.	 my host mother (who took her to the protest) said “Future depends on our children
66.	 not on us. We have to show them the right thing to do.” I thought “that’s right”!
67.	 I also met so many LGBT people in Bellingham. At first, I felt really strange
68.	 to talk to those people because I was not used to communicating them in Japan.
69.	 But now, I want to encourage them.
The first thing that caught my attention while transcribing the interview was her positioning as a legitimate member of the English academic discourse community. The contrast of
two classes, English and physics implicates how she resisted against the unwanted identity
as a needy international student. Her statement “I just wanted to learn” also emphasizes herreflexive identity as an active student in the target community. Another remarkable change
from the previous stories is her integration to the communities in the host country. Interestingly, Emi frequently used first person plural “we” when describing her experience (line 45,
54, 55) in this story while she distinguished her and other classmates, especially American
students by calling them “they” in the previous stories. She continues on how she became
passionate about learning racism because of the presidency election (line 54), which evoked
the tension in cultural as well as racial divides at that time.
Moreover, she calls the pictures of young people protesting against racism and sexism at auniversity in the town she lived “my memento” (line 58), which signals her strong attachment to the community in the spatiotemporal context. Later in the interview, she described
how the protest made her think about herself as minority in America. “Living in Japan, I had
never felt being a minority because a lot of us come from the same cultural background. Because we are same, I never had thought my opinion would matter” (Emi, personal communication, September 2017).
At the end of this interview, I asked her what English means to her. “English is part of myself. My English is still not perfect and I am still a learner, but I use English not for learning
the language but for communicating with people I like” (Emi, personal communication, September 2017). Whereas she had been longing for becoming a good speaker of English as her
imagined-self prior to study abroad, a year later, she clearly envisioned herself as a legitimate
member of the target academic community in America. Additionally, her identity as a Japanese learner of English no longer appeared to be a significant facet in constructing her senseof self.
Participation in the socially-constructed communities outside academic classroom has also
become a salient experience that impacted on her emerging dimension of her identity construction.

Discussion
The previous section has attempted to investigate the identity construction of Japanese learner of English in study abroad context by unpacking three small stories. The analysis on eachstory mainly has focused on Emi’s positioning in relation to others, which clearly illustrates
Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019163

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

the discursive and transitional process of Emi’s identity construction throughout participationin the target language communities. In this section, I discuss three key issues that impacted
on Emi’s identity construction.

Representation of International Students in English Academic Discourse
As seen in the first story, Emi had struggle with internalizing the positioning of international student. The representation of international students in western higher education has
been problematic, labelling them as deficit or less capable (Leki, 2001; Kettle, 2017). As Emi
frustrated with her teachers, there has been a strong essentialist view that generalizes international students as deficient (Kettle, 2017). In this view, as Leki (2001) points out, language
ownership creates power relations that marginalize international students automatically. Not
only the deficit model of international student is shared as a norm within an institution, I
problematize the fact that the negative labelling even could impact on the learners’ self-concept, as seen in Emi’s narrative. In her case, the supportive others (Kettle, 2017) including her
teacher and her host family played crucial roles in providing inclusive approaches to Emi. In
particular, when her writing teacher acknowledged Emi’s participation and engagement inclassroom in the form of writing, Emi’s diminished self-image was powerfully re-conceptualized to be positive and empowering one.
It must be recognized that this type of support is inevitable in the transitional period of
identity construction in study abroad context. I echo Morita’s (2004, p. 598) quote: “insteadof assuming that individual students simply behave according to their abilities or cultural
personal preferences, instructors should question what kinds of roles and statuses a givenclassroom community comprises and how those roles are shaping or being shaped by classroom interaction”.

Investment in English Learning
The series of narratives from the beginning of her study abroad has captured the change in
Emi’s investment in language learning. Initially, her desire to study abroad stemmed fromlanguage acquisition and immersion in a local native English speakers’ community, imagining herself becoming a good speaker of English who would not be misunderstood by native
English speakers. As illustrated throughout the three stories, however, language acquisition
became no longer the subject of her initial investment. Instead, she was working extremely
hard to gain legitimacy as a competent student in the target academic discourse community.
Drawing on Darvin and Norton’s (2015) investment model, distinctive language ideologies
in Emi’s home country and host country can be seen as one of the powerful contributors to
impacting on her investment in English learning. While attainment of high proficient English
is symbolized as an advantageous capital for global society in Japan, she faced the position of
being in a marginal position as a non-native English speaking student. In other studies suchas Norton (2013), L2 learners showed their resistance to the language power by refusing toattend their language classes. In this study, Emi did so by proactively and strategically participating in the community, which eventually lead her to gain her imagined position and social
capital.
At a glance, her study abroad experience may appear as a story of “highly motivated language learner”. Emi was indeed a resilient and hardworking person who did not easily giveup on participating in the target community. Nevertheless, from a longitudinal perspective,
this study also illustrates how her investment changed over time in relation to capital, identity and ideology as Davin and Norton (2015) suggest.

164

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto

Target-Language Mediated Subject Position as an Independent Self
Comparing Emi’s identity illustrated in each narrative, it can be found that the sense of diversity is one of the crucial factors that impacted on constructing her sense of self.
Whereas her identities prior to study abroad appeared to be “relatively fixed position insocial and cultural space” (Benson et al., 2013, p. 163), the third small story depicted how her
imagined community she belonged to change as a result of study abroad. The uniqueness ofher narrative lies in how she reflected on her position as minority in the American academic community and intertwined her own story with other minorities’ lived experience. In her
narrative, the political protest she participated in with her host mother was marked as access to this sense of diversity as she described “it was my memento”. Her liberated sense of
self was clearly illustrated in her post-study abroad reflection (see Ota & Yamamoto, 2018),
which described how she became more open-minded and sensitive to inequality in Japan.
This change can be also seen as another facet of her multilingual identity development. Block(2007) describes such an emerging identity as “target-language mediated subject positions”,
which are found as a result of exposure to culturally as well as linguistically distinct context. Identity facets such as gender, race, social class and nationality are often challenged andre-imagined in study abroad context. Particularly, in previous studies that focus on Japanese
female learners of English in western context (Block, 2007; Piller & Takahashi, 2006; Skarin, 2001), the learners gained gender-related sense of self which lead “knowledge and ability they would take back home with them” (Block, 2007, p. 184) as outcome of their sojournexperience. In Emi’s case, the sense of diversity she experienced empowered her to have a“voice”, which she found invaluable hence represents who she became.

Conclusion
This article has presented an analysis of small stories, which illustrated the dynamic identity work by a Japanese learner of English in study abroad context. Detailed attention to positioning of the characters as well as Emi’s dilemmas have revealed resistance, negotiation,
re-imagination and emergence of new identities. In her case, growing L2 competence certainly impacted on her positive sense of self as a user of English in the academic community,
as Benson et al. (2012) propose in their framework. However, more importantly, the challenges and changes in her study abroad have remarked the dynamics of learner agency andsocial contexts in English academic discourse community. While Emi’s initial desire to acquire
English derived from her social and historical backgrounds remained the core of her reflexive
identity at first, she also faced the power relations between local students and international
students, which became a critical struggle in maintaining her positive sense of self. Simultaneously, she proactively tried strategic actions to gain legitimacy in the target classrooms
rather than accepting the marginal position. The uniqueness of this study also lies in how
Emi’s English-mediated subject position as an independent woman was emerged throughout
socialization with other members of the community, who powerfully empowered her to reflect on her identity in relation to the diverse world. I conclude this article by reflecting on thesignificance of narrative inquiry in language learner identity research.
First, as I have tried to demonstrate in my analysis, narrative inquiry unfolds not only what
happened but also how it was understood and made meaning in varying spatiotemporal aswell as contextual orientation of her stories. In this study, the positioning in narrative haschosen as an analytical scope to understand how the narrator, Emi was trying to make senseof her experience. Constructing a narrative as a “transitional space” (Sclater, 2003, p. 10), analyzing not only contents’ of the story but also temporal as well contextual nature that agentic subjects hold is crucial. Weaving the three stories together, crucial issues such as the marLearner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019165

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

ginal positioning of international students, the importance of acknowledgement from othermembers of the community became evident in her lived experience. These are also powerful
voices that allow researchers to explore more in multilingual identity in study abroad context.
Second, narrative inquiry encourages narrators to retell their stories. When I shared mypreliminary analysis with her, her immediate response was “It is really interesting to lookback who I was!” She was surprised at her past imagined self-comparing to her present self
and felt emotional about the journey of “becoming” in the socioculturally different community. By retelling of her own narrative, she was unearthing and making sense of her pastexperience. This re-storying, as Barkhuizen (2009) denotes, serves as a reflective space inrepositioning and reimagining her identities built on her study abroad experience. Emi indeed
engaged in retelling her stories in writing as well as in presentation to disseminate her experience and empower other students to study abroad as a chance to new “self”.
Finally, narrative inquiry is, as discussed through this study, fundamentally a social practice co-constructed by a narrator and audience. As I was a primary listener of her storytelling, a whole research process required me not only to analyze how she was trying to makesense of her lived experience but also to pay closer to attention to my own positionality. Whiledelving myself into her stories, there were several powerful moments that emotionally moved
me. At those points, I was departing from my position as a researcher or a learning advisor;
instead, her story brought me my past self as a Japanese student in England who struggledwith similar situations. The feeling of “I was there too” is fairly subjective and in my professional work, I try my best to avoid my personal view in order to encourage students to maketheir own decisions. In research setting, subjectivity is even considered a distractor to obtain“objectifiable” data. Nevertheless, this study enabled me to consider the role of narrative
researcher in depth. I hope I clarified my positionality enough to help readers to understandEmi’s narrative as socially constructed products rather than a simple summary of the incidents in her study abroad experience.
This study has rested on a single research participant’s perspective; hence, as clarified
earlier, the aim of this research does not intend to generalize the findings to represent study
abroad experience. Nevertheless, it is my hope that this study encourages researchers totake an in-depth longitudinal case study approach in order to unfold the complexity of study
abroad experience. The collection of such studies will help understanding learners as “multifaceted social beings” (Miyahara, 2015) in socioculturally distinct discourse communities.
Simultaneously, it should be reminded that narrative practice itself serves as a social space forthem to disseminate their lived experiences.

References
Atkinson, P. (1997). Narrative turn or blind alley. Qualitative Health Research, 7(3), 325–44.
Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative andLife History, 7 (1-4), 335-342.
Bamberg, M. (2003). Stories, tellings, and identities. In C. Daiute and C. Lightfoot (Eds.),
Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society. London, UK: Sage.
Bamberg, M. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development, 47,
366-369.
Bamberg, M. (2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory &Psychology, 21(1), 3–24.
Bamberg, M. (2012). Why narrative? Narrative Inquiry, 22(1), 202-210.
Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrativeand identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28, 377-396.

166

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto

Barkhuizen, G. P. (2010). An extended positioning analysis of a pre-service teacher’s better
life small story. Applied Linguistics, 31 (2), 282-300.
Barkhuizen, G. P. (Ed.) (2013). Narrative research in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Barkhuizen, G. (2016). A short story approach to analyzing teacher (imagined) identities overtime. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 655-683.
Barkhuizen, G. (2017). Investigating multilingual identity in study abroad contexts: A shortstory analysis approach. System, 71, 102-112.
Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2014). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning
research. New York, NY: Routledge.   
Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2013). Second language identity innarratives of study abroad. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh
University Press.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London, UK: Continuum
Chase, S. E. (2011). Narrative inquiry: Still a field in the making. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 421–434). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Chik, A., & Benson, P. (2008). Frequent flyer: a narrative of overseas study in English. In P.
Kalaja, V. Menezes, & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds.), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL (pp.
155-170). London, UK: Palgrave.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli,
P.Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (3rd ed.) (pp. 477- 487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 20, 43-63.
De Fina, A. (2013). Narratives as practices: negotiating identities through storytelling. In
G. Barkhuizen (ed.) Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp.154-175). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
DePalma, R. (2008). When success makes me fail: (De)constructing failure and success in aconventional American classroom. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 141–64.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language
acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dornyei, Z., & Ushioda, M. (2009). Motivation, language identities and the L2 self: atheoretical overview. In: Z. Dornyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity, andthe L2 self (pp. 1-8). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Duff, P. (2007). Problematising academic discourse socialization. In H. Marriott, T. Moore,& R. Spence-Brown (Eds.), Learning discourses and discourses of learning (pp. 1–18).
Melbourne, Australia: Monash University ePress.
Early, M., and Norton, B. (2013). Narrative inquiry in second language teacher education inrural Uganda. In G. Barkhuizen (ed.) Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp.132-151).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, J., Cheng, L., & Zumbo, B. (2014). Do they make a difference? The impact of English
language programs on second language (L2) students in Canadian universities. TESOL
Quarterly, 48(1), 57–85.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019167

Transitional Self in Study Abroad: An Analysis of a Japanese Female Student’s Positioning in Narratives

Gee, J, P. (1986). Units in the production of narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 9(4), 391422.
Gu, M. (2013). Individuality in L2 identity construction: The stories of two Chinese learnersof English. In P. Benson & L. Cooker (Eds.), The applied linguistic individual: Sociocultural
approaches to identity, agency and autonomy (pp. 119-134). London, UK: Equinox.
Institute of International Education (2018). Open Doors 2017 Executive Summary. Retrieved from:https://www.iie.org/Why-IIE/Announcements/2017/11/2017-11-13-Open-Doors-2017Executive-Summary. [accessed on February, 21, 2019].
Josselson, R. (2007). The ethical attitude in narrative research. In: D. J. Clandinin (ed.)
Handbook of narrative inquiry (pp. 537–566). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Kinginger, C. (2009). Language learning and study abroad: A critical reading of research.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Kettle, M. A. (2017). International student engagement in higher education: Transforming practices,pedagogies and participation. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Kinginger, C. (2013). Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign Language
Annals,46(3), 339-358.
Kobayashi, M. (2016). Academic discourse socialization through oral presentations: An
undergraduate student’s learning trajectory in study abroad. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 72(1), 95-121.
Kramp, M. K. (2004). Exploring life experience through narrative inquiry. In K. deMarrais& S.D. Lapan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social
sciences ( pp. 103-121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kubota, R. (2016). The multi/plural turn, postcolonial theory, and neoliberal multiculturalism:
Complicities and implications for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 474-494.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lamb, M. (2013). The struggle to belong: Individual language learners and teachers in SituatedLearning Theory. In P. Benson and L. Cooker (eds)., The applied linguistic individual:
Autonomy, agency and identity (pp.32-45). Sheffield, UK: Equinox Publishing.
Leki, I. (2001). A narrow thinking system: Nonnative-English-speaking students in groupprojects across the curriculum. Tesol Quarterly, 35(1), pp.39-68.
Miyahara, M. (2015). Emerging self-identities and emotions in foreign language learning: A narrativeoriented approach. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Morita, N. (2002). Negotiating participation in second language academic communities: A studyof identity, agency, and transformation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.                                         Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic
communities. Tesol Quarterly, 38(4), 573-603.
Morita, N. (2009). Language, culture, gender, and academic socialization. Language and
Education, 23(5), 443-460.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In
M. Breen. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 156171). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language
Teaching, 44(4), 412-446.

168

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Kie Yamamoto

Omanchiski, K. (2014). The Transition to College: an Acculturation Comparison of Domestic andInternational Students. Theses and Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, USA.
Ota, A., & Yamamoto, K. (2018). Disseminating a learner voice through collaborativereflection. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 9(2), 234-242.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Narrative study: Whose story is it anyway? TESOL Quarterly, 36, 213-218.
Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied
Linguistics, 28 (2), 163-188.
Pavlenko, A., & Norton, B. (2007). Imagined communities, identity, and English language
learning. In: J. Cummins, & C. Davison (Eds.) Kluwer handbook of English language teaching(pp. 669-680). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Peeters, W., & Fourie, C. (2016). Academic acculturation in language learning throughFacebook, passing the turning points. English Text Construction, 9(2), 292-316.
Piller, I., & Takahashi, K. (2006). A passion for English: desire and the language market. In A.
Pavlenko (Ed.), Bilingual minds: emotional experience, expression, and representation. (pp. 5983). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.                                                        Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Rugen, B. (2013). Language learner, language teacher: negotiating identity positions inconversational narratives. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narrative research in applied linguistics (pp.
199-217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
Sclater, D. S. (2003). What is the subject? Narrative Inquiry, 13(2), 317-330.
Skarin, R. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, class and social identity: a case study of two Japanesewomen in US universities. Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: Japanese Learners andContexts, November 2001 (Vol. 19) pp. 26-55.
Toohey, K. (1998). Breaking them up; taking them away: Constructing ESL students in gradeone. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 61-84.
Wenger, E. (1998). Community of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.   

Review ProcessThis paper was blind peer-reviewed by members of the Learner Development Journal Review
Network. (Contributors have the option of open or blind review.)

Author Bio
Kie Yamamoto is a senior learning advisor in the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) at Kanda University of International Studies, Japan. She holds an M.S.Ed from Temple University
Japan, and is currently pursuing an Ed.D at the University of Bath in the UK. Her researchinterests include advising in language learning, language learner identity, narrative analysis
and student engagement in higher education. Email: yamamoto-ki@kanda.kuis.ac.jp

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019169

AFTERWORD
On the Relationship Between Identities,
Beliefs, and Emotions of Language Learners,
Teachers and Researchers
Ana Maria Ferreira Barcelos, Federal University of Viçosa, BrazilIn 2015 I wrote an article talking about the relationship between beliefs, emotions and identities (Barcelos, 2015). Although implicitly we all know these are interrelated co-constructed concepts, at that time, no studies had been written about the interrelationship between
these three concepts in Applied Linguistics (except in Social Psychology). Our thoughts trigger
emotions in us which color the different identities we perform in our diverse contexts. Yet,somehow, at least up to now, these concepts have tended to be investigated separately with afew exceptions (see Barcelos & Aragao, 2018; Barcelos & Ruhotie-Lyhty, 2018; Kalaja, Barcelos,
Aro, & Ruohotie-Lyhty, 2016, for a review of these).
This special issue of the Learner Development Journal on Learner Identities and Transitions
showcases several studies on identities, but also the importance of the interrelationship of theseconcepts. Making use of intricate data and research design, these studies show how identities
are closely interconnected to emotions and beliefs. In addition, they suggest that investigating
learners’ emotions and identities, depending on the research design and questions, may bringto the surface researchers’ and teachers’ own identities, emotions, and beliefs. In what follows
I comment on how I saw the convergence of the interrelationships of these concepts in the nine
papers that make up this issue.
Ryo Moriya and Ami Ishizuka investigated the self-esteem of 43 non-English-major university students, through close and open-ended questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Their study shows us the importance of investigating students’ self-esteem, emotions
and identities through narratives. We learn that self-esteem is at the intersection of emotions
and identities, and that students feel emotions of discomfort but also joy. Low self-esteem
may influence them in either completing or averting a task altogether. This study (as all others in this issue) also suggests how teachers and researchers can learn from students when
they take time to listen to their histories and understand their perspectives.
The study by Daniel Hooper, Jo Mynard, Ross Sampson and Phillip Taw set at a Self-AccessCentre (SAC) in Japan with six learners of English investigates how their identities shift inthis social learning space. The SAC is seen by the authors as a social learning community anda community of practice raising different students’ beliefs about what it is to learn English
in that space. Over the course of 18 months, the instructors listened to the learners throughinterviews, observations and written language learning histories and found out that the SAC,
for some, represented the target country and was viewed as a place that brought them “confidence, practical benefits, social interactions, posture and group identification”. In addition,
students’ identities shifted as their views (or beliefs) about the SAC changed: “We were able
to identify changes in their perspectives of the English Lounge and changes in their perceived

170

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ana Maria Ferreira Barcelos

identities as English language learners and users. It was crucial to investigate participants’shifting views of the English Lounge as these views directly relate to identity constructions.”
Caroline Hutchinson investigated the very interesting topic of how to help students’ transition through different phases in their academic lives. In this case, how can instructors (andinstitutions) help students move to a university setting? Although the study does not mention
beliefs, it is clear to me how both the professor and students held different beliefs about whatbeing a university student and what a course at a university should be like from the emotions that accompany these beliefs and how they influence the identities constructed in thistransition phase. As Hutchinson mentions, as socializers, teachers and other students should
be aware of the beliefs and emotions in the classroom so that they help each other in taking
advantage of the affordances given in each context.
The study by Takuya Kojima and Chihiro Thomson also dealt with belief mismatch, in myopinion, in their investigation of the identity of a marginalized student of Japanese in Australia. This study clearly shows us what can happen when instructors and students have different beliefs about what a language class at a university should be like and the sorts of conflicts
and emotions that come with that and how it helps shape the identities that the students areable to perform or enact. The conflict and frustration over the mismatch of expectations andbeliefs between instructors and this learner brought strong emotions. These in turn helped
the teachers to reflect about their own practice.
Paula Kalaja and Maria Ruohotie-Lyhty reviewed their previous studies of learner identity in pre-service and in-service teachers of English conducted in the Finnish context. Theirthorough review pointed out the theoretical and methodological lessons learned in using visual, oral and written narratives. In their implications, they highlight the pedagogical potential use of narratives, as well as the use of other media, such as moving pictures, social media
and natural data, among others, in creating narratives. In addition, they believe it is wise togive participants a choice on how they want to share their stories. Once again, these authors
point out in their review the importance of emotions and beliefs in learners’ (and teachers’)
identities.
Kie Yamamoto uses narratives to investigate a female student’s positioning while studying
English abroad. Her results indicate how students learning English abroad are positioned as“international students” and how they deal with this. Yamamoto also shows us her own positionality as a researcher and the emotions that ensued when she reflected on her own beliefs
and emotions. As narratives are a “social practice co-constructed by a narrator and audience”,
the relationship between researchers and participants can bring a lot of vulnerability to boththe participant and the researcher as well. Yamamoto reminds us of the importance of researchers’ reflexivity and how researchers can feel emotionally moved by listening to participants’ histories, emotions and beliefs. Like Yamamoto, Masuko Miyahara was also concerned
about researcher reflexivity (as well as her own emotions, beliefs and identities) when doinga research study with an EFL student at a university. Revisiting her own diaries she calls ourattention to the importance of the relationship between researcher and participants and statesthat we “research not only on or for participants, but with”. According to the author, her reflections and journal writing were “not only effective in locating [her] subjectivity, but alsoenabled [her] to consider different aspects of [her]self (e.g., identities, positions, roles as wellas [her] beliefs, assumptions, etc.), and evaluate the impact they could potentially have on theentire research. Such a “reflexive space” also gave [her] the opportunity to carefully monitor
how and in which ways our beliefs and biases are crucial to the understanding of the self inthe creation of knowledge”.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019171

Afterword: On the Relationship between Identities, Beliefs, and Emotions of Language Learners, Teachers and Researchers

The two other studies that complete this collection use a different instrument and methodology to understand learners’ identities. Andy Barfield investigated the identity conflicts
as well as the language ideologies that students had during their coursework in a year-longstudy. In analyzing their narratives, the author used “I” statements to write poems thatclearly show not only students’ identities but also how they felt about it (their emotions) andtheir beliefs about languages. In a similar vein, although with learners of Japanese, Noriko
Iwasaki used students’ language portraits to show their multilingual selves in a study abroad
context. In this way we learn that students’ anxieties triggered some emotions and shaped
their multilingual identities.
In summary, the collection of papers in this Special Issue makes it explicit first, that identities are related not only to age, gender, race/ethnicity, autonomy, nationalities, class, money,
status, appropriation, ownership, intersectionality, situated practice, globalization, opportunity/access, expectations, languages, motivation, personal history, faith, family, subcultures,
negotiation, agency, structure, self/other positioning, but also, and very importantly, to thebeliefs we hold dear and the emotions attached to these beliefs. Secondly, the papers showthat if we want to understand students’ identities we have to make time to really listen tothem as teachers and/or researchers. By listening to them and honoring and respecting thisrelationship, we are able to identify their beliefs and emotions. By narrativizing our histories and lives (Murphey, Barcelos, & Moraes, 2014) we can also notice our own beliefs andemotions; we can notice how teachers and students, researchers and participants may holddifferent beliefs about what a language classroom or process should be like and the array of
emotions that can be stirred up not only in our students but within ourselves. Through ournarratives we become language learners and teachers. Through narrating our research we become researchers. Through narratives we can see ourselves holistically and acknowledge thecomplexities, vulnerabilities and beauty of shifting identities, emotions and beliefs along thepath of learning and teaching languages.

References
Barcelos, A. M. F. (2015). Unveiling the relationship between language learning beliefs,
emotions, and identities. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(2), 301–325.
Barcelos, A. M. F., & Ruohotie-Lythy, M. (2018). Teachers’ emotions and beliefs in second
language teaching: Implications for teacher education. In J. D. Martinez Agudo (Ed.),
Emotions in second language teaching: Theory, research and teacher education (pp. 109–124). New
York, NY: Springer.
Barcelos, A.M. F., & Aragao, R. (2018). Emotions in language teaching: A review of teacher
emotions in Brazil. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41(4), 506–528.
Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A. M. F., Aro, M., & Ruohotie-Lyhty, M. (2016). (Eds.). Beliefs, agency andidentity in foreign language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Murphey, T., Barcelos, A. M. F., & Moraes, R. B. (2014). Narrativizing our learning lives
through action logs and newsletters. Revista Contexturas, 23, 99–111.

Author Bio
Ana Maria Ferreira Barcelos is Full Professor of English and Applied Linguistics in the Undergraduate and Graduate Program of Languages and Applied Linguistics at Universidade
Federal de Viçosa in Brazil. She holds a Ph.D. from the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa,
AL, USA. Her research interests are how pedagogical love is related to, and can be enacted in

172

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019

Ana Maria Ferreira Barcelos

language learning and teaching; beliefs and how they relate to actions, emotions and identities in the social context of language learning and teaching. She has edited and coedited
the following books: (with Paula Kalaja) Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches by Kluwer (2003); (with Paula Kalaja and Vera Menezes), Narratives of learning and teaching EFL byPalgrave MacMillan, 2008; and more recently with Paula Kalaja, Maria Ruohotie-Lythy andMari Aro: Beliefs, Agency and Identity in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, by Palgrave
MacMillan, 2016.

Learner Development Journal • Volume 1: Issue 3 • December 2019173