Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Language learning motivation, self and identity:

current theoretical perspectives

Ema Ushioda

To cite this article: Ema Ushioda (2011) Language learning motivation, self and identity:
current theoretical perspectives, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24:3, 199-210, DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2010.538701

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.538701

Published online: 16 Jun 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9166

Citing articles: 56 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Vol. 24, No. 3, July 2011, 199–210

Language learning motivation, self and identity: current theoretical

perspectives
Ema Ushioda*

Centre for Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Recently, the impact of globalization and the dominant status of English have
provoked critical discussion in the L2 motivation field. Traditional concepts such
as integrative motivation lose their explanatory power when English is becoming
a ‘must-have’ basic educational skill and when there is no clearly defined target
language community. In this article, I will examine how L2 motivation is
currently being reconceptualized in the context of contemporary theories of self
and identity – that is, people’s sense of who they are, how they relate to the social
world and what they want to become in the future. As I will discuss, this
theoretical shift in focus to the internal domain of self and identity has important
implications for how we as language teachers engage the motivation, interests and
identities of our students; and for why we should exploit their world of digital
technologies, social networking and online communication to this end.
Keywords: L2 motivation; identity; possible future selves; digital technologies

Introduction
Since the turn of the millennium, the impact of globalization and the dominant
status of English as a world lingua franca have provoked critical discussion in the L2
motivation field. Traditional social psychological concepts such as integrative
motivation (defined in its strong form as identification with and a desire to integrate
into the target language community) lose their explanatory power: (a) when English
is fast becoming a ‘must-have’ basic educational skill in more and more primary
curricula (Graddol, 2006); (b) when there is no clearly defined target language
community (UK?, US?, The world?) into which learners of English are motivated to
‘integrate’; and (c) when physical geographical boundaries separating communities
of language users become dissolved in the world of cyberspace and online
communication networks. In this article, I will briefly review traditional theoretical
perspectives on L2 motivation and consider their limitations and then discuss how
L2 motivation is currently being reconceptualized in the context of contemporary
theories of self and identity. As I will argue, this theoretical shift in focus to the
internal domain of self and identity has important implications for how we as
language teachers engage the motivation, interests and identities of our students and

*Email: e.ushioda@warwick.ac.uk

ISSN 0958-8221 print/ISSN 1744-3210 online

Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2010.538701
http://www.informaworld.com
200 E. Ushioda

for why we should exploit their use of digital technologies, social networking and
online communication to this end.

Integrative L2 motivation: what does it mean today?

As a research field, the study of language learning motivation has a long history
stretching back to the pioneering work of Gardner and Lambert (1959), which as
Ellis (2008, p. xix) observes, pre-dates the onset of mainstream second language
acquisition (SLA) research in the 1960s and evolved largely independent of SLA’s
primary psycholinguistic tradition during the last century. As Dörnyei and
Ushioda (2011, p. 39) noted, L2 motivation research originated independently
also of the broader field of motivation research in education, since it was shaped by
a concern to address the unique social, psychological, behavioural and cultural
complexities that acquiring a new communication code entails. While instrumental
or pragmatic motives for language learning were acknowledged as important,
Gardner and Lambert’s theory was that social–psychological attitudinal dimen-
sions distinguished language learning motivation from motivation in other domains
of learning (e.g. science or mathematics), since L2 learners are expected not simply
to acquire knowledge of the target language but to identify with its speakers and
adopt their distinctive speech patterns and styles, or as Gardner (1979, p. 193) put
it, ‘allow elements of another culture into one’s own lifespace’. Drawing a parallel
with the processes of identification and imitation underpinning first language
acquisition in social-learning theory (e.g. Mowrer, 1960), Gardner and Lambert
(1972) developed the concept of integrativeness, reflecting a positive disposition to
the target language community and culture. As Gardner (2001, p. 5) explains,
different levels of integrativeness are possible, ranging from an openness towards
other cultures and communities to a desire for integration within both L1
and target language communities, and ultimately to complete identification with the
target community and withdrawal from one’s own. The concept of integrativeness
thus reflects how language learners position themselves in relation to their L1
community and culture and the people, culture and values represented by the target
language.
As Pavlenko (2002) and Coetzee-Van Rooy (2006) have both strongly argued,
however, this view of the world in terms of easily defined linguistic and cultural
groups and transitions from one group to another scarcely captures the complex
fluid realities of our globalized multilingual society, where more than half of the
inhabitants are not only bilingual or multilingual but members of multiple ethnic,
social and cultural communities, and where pluralism (rather than integration) is
the norm. Adding to this complexity, of course, is the growing status of English as
a global language (Crystal, 2003) and an international lingua franca (Jenkins,
2007), which makes it difficult to explain motivation for learning English as a
process of identification with a specific linguistic and cultural community.
Furthermore, while the dominance of English on the Internet may be declining
with the expansion of Web content and online communication in other languages
and scripts (Graddol, 2006, pp. 44–45), the direct linking of diverse language
users, communities and networks across cyberspace and cybercultures (Nayar,
2010) adds another layer of complexity in interpreting the notion of integrative
attitudes to target language communities and cultures in the globalized digital
world.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 201

From external to internal processes of identification: possible future selves

These difficulties in interpreting integrativeness in terms of clearly defined external
reference groups have prompted some radical rethinking in the L2 motivation field
since the turn of millennium, leading to a major conceptual shift in focus from
external to internal processes of identification. To put it simply, given the global
nature of English language communication and of Internet use, our ‘integrative’
motivation to participate in these worlds may be better explained in terms of our
desired self-representations as de facto members of these global communities, rather
than in terms of identification with external reference groups.
This conceptual shift to the internal domain of the self-concept has been led in
particular by the work of Dörnyei (2005, 2009), who proposed a new model of L2
motivation based on the findings of a major empirical survey of Hungarian
teenagers’ L2 learning attitudes and motivation (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Dörnyei,
Csizér, & Németh, 2006). A consistent finding across the longitudinal data-set
(spanning the period from 1993 to 2004) was a strong relationship between
instrumentality and integrativeness, which prompted Dörnyei and Csizér (2002) to
question their conceptual separation. They speculated that integrativeness might be
better conceived as an internal process of identification within the self-concept
and that this process of identification might also involve internalized forms of
instrumental motivation.
Building on these findings, Dörnyei (2005, 2009) developed his new framework of
the L2 Motivational Self System, which draws on the psychological theory of possible
selves. According to Markus and Nurius (1986), possible future selves represent
individuals’ ideas of what they might become, what they would like to become and
what they are afraid of becoming. They function as future self-guides that channel
and give direction to current motivational behaviours and so provide a conceptual
link between the self-concept and motivation. Clearly, not all types of possible future
self will channel motivation and those which represent ‘ideal’ future self-images are
more likely to do so because of our psychological desire to reduce the discrepancy
between our current and ideal selves. This is the basic principle underlying Higgins’s
(1987) self-discrepancy theory of motivation and self-regulation, from which Dörnyei
derives the two key constructs of his model: ideal L2 self and ought-to L2 self.
The former represents the attributes one would ideally like to possess (i.e. a
representation of personal hopes, aspirations or wishes as a proficient L2 user). The
latter represents the attributes one believes one ought to possess in order to meet
social expectations and pressures or avoid negative consequences. The ought-to self
thus corresponds to the more externally regulated types of instrumental motive that
have a prevention focus (e.g. studying the L2 hard in order to avoid failing an
examination or disappointing one’s parents). In contrast, the ideal L2 self has a
promotion focus where motivation is shaped by desirable self-images in social,
personal or professional contexts of L2 use.
Aside from these future self-guides channelling motivation, Dörnyei’s L2
Motivational Self System also includes an L2 learning experience dimension, which
is concerned with the ongoing situated processes shaping day-to-day motivation such
as the influence of the teacher or social learning environment. How these ongoing
situated processes interact with the development of possible future selves remains to
some extent less clearly theorized, though work has begun on articulating practical
strategies for helping L2 learners to develop and visualize ideal L2 selves (see
Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, pp. 130–133; Hadfield & Dörnyei, in press). I will return
202 E. Ushioda

later to this issue of how current L2 learning experiences and classroom practices
may interact with the development of possible future selves.
Several large-scale studies have already been undertaken to investigate and
validate possible future selves constructs in a variety of L2 learning contexts (Japan,
China, Iran, Hungary; see Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi, Magid, &
Papi, 2009). This growing body of research provides empirical support for the
possible selves dimension of the L2 Motivational Self System and for the key
argument that integrativeness is better reconceptualized in terms of the ideal L2 self,
which is proven to have greater explanatory power in these studies.

L2 motivation and concepts of identity

In parallel with the idea of possible future selves, this shift in focus from
identification with external reference groups to desired self-representations has
been framed by other L2 scholars in terms of concepts of identity. This move to link
L2 motivation with concepts of identity reflects an increasing critical concern in
applied linguistics with issues of identity in language learning and use (e.g. Block,
2007; Lin, 2007). It also mirrors a growing emphasis on identity-oriented (rather
than achievement-oriented) theories of motivation in mainstream educational
psychology (see special issue of Educational Psychologist, edited by Kaplan &
Flum, 2009).
Of course, concepts of ethnolinguistic identity have a long history in social–
psychological theories of SLA and second language communication in multicultural
settings, such as Giles and Byrne’s (1982) intergroup model or Clément and Noels’s
(1992) situated identity theory. However, current perspectives on identity in the L2
motivation field broaden the focus beyond notions of ethnolinguistic identity and
ethnic group membership to consider, for example, the pursuit of global, bicultural
or multicultural identities (Lamb, 2004, 2009), or aspirations towards desired social
or professional identities in imagined L2 communities (Kanno & Norton, 2003;
Norton, 2001). In other words, L2 motivation is linked with identity goals that are
personally valued and that reflect how we relate the self to the social world (van Lier,
2007). As van Lier (p. 58) explains, when our lives change significantly as in the case
of learning a new language, we need to construct new ways of linking the self to new
worlds and words (i.e. forge new identities and new ways of expressing our
identities); we also need to develop relationships with new people and strive to
establish who we are and wish to become. Thus, while identities are ways of relating
the self to the world and are in this sense personally valued constructions, they are
socially forged and negotiated through our relations and interactions with other
people. As highlighted in Norton’s (2000, 2001) critically oriented research on
immigrant women learning and using English as L2 in Canada, uneven power
dynamics in these social relations mean that identities can become contested, resisted
or denied, which may in turn affect L2 learner-users’ degree of motivational
investment in the L2 and participation in the L2 setting (see also Menard-Warwick,
2009).

Linking identity perspectives with possible L2 selves

Unlike possible L2 selves that constitute imagined future self-representations that
may channel motivation, the identities affecting L2 learners’ motivation may
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 203

therefore include current identities as well as future identity goals. While some
identities may be relatively stable, others are likely to be constantly constructed,
negotiated and reconstructed through our interactions with others and through our
changing experiences and relations with the social world (e.g. through the formative
years of adolescence and its rites of passage, entry into the world of work,
parenthood or evolving participation in various online communities, virtual worlds
or social networks). Identity perspectives on L2 motivation thus bring into sharp
relief the significance of current L2 learning experiences and interactions as well as
evolving identity goals and future aspirations. In other words, identity perspectives
may help to explain how long-term personal motivational trajectories (channelled by
possible future selves) are shaped by current situated motivational processes and
experiences (the L2 learning experience dimension of Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self
System). To examine this link between identity perspectives and possible future
selves, we need to consider the important role attributed to psychological experience
or reality in possible selves theory.
As Dörnyei (2009, p. 15) explains, a key difference between the notion of
motivational goals (e.g. instrumental or integrative) and the concept of possible
future selves is that possible selves ‘involve images and senses, approximating what
people actually experience when they are engaged in motivated or goal-directed
behaviour’. In essence, these future self-representations have strong psychological
reality in the current imaginative experience of language learners as they visualize
themselves projected into the future as competent L2 users and are thus entirely
continuous with their current selves (Ushioda, 2009, p. 225). Thus, if we wish to
enable learners to visualize themselves as competent L2 users in the future – or in
Dörnyei’s (2009, p. 33) terms, to ‘ignite the vision’ and construct an ideal L2 self – it
seems important that they are enabled to engage their current selves and identities
in their L2 interactions with people. In this way, learners are then also enabled to
engage directly with their possible future selves as users of the L2, but within the
scope and security of their current communicative abilities, interests and social
contexts (Ushioda, 2009, p. 225). Thus, how we engage our students’ social identities
in their L2 interactions within and beyond the classroom now would seem to have
important consequences for how they visualize themselves as users of the L2 in the
future. Let me then turn to discuss the pedagogical considerations this raises.

Engaging students’ identities: motivating the person rather than the L2 learner
Earlier, I referred to Gardner and Lambert’s (1972) argument that L2 motivation is
qualitatively different from motivation in other domains of learning because of the
unique social, psychological, behavioural and cultural complexities that acquiring
a new communication code entails. Of course, Gardner and Lambert’s original
theory and its later incarnations (e.g. Gardner, 1985, 2001) focused on the social–
psychological relationship between the L2 learner and the target language
community and its culture and values. On the other hand, as we have seen, current
theoretical perspectives focus on the psychological relationship between L2 learners’
current selves or identities and their possible future L2 selves or aspired identities.
Yet an important point still worth emphasizing is indeed the unique nature of L2
motivation that makes it distinctive from learning motivation in other skill or
knowledge domains. As I argue here, this distinctiveness is concerned not with the
role of learners’ attitudes to the target language community and culture but with the
204 E. Ushioda

fact that language is a medium of self-expression and a means of communicating,

constructing and negotiating who we are and how we relate to the world around us –
that is, of giving ourselves voice and identity. A foreign language is not simply
something to add to our repertoire of skills, but a personalized tool that enables us to
expand and express our identity or sense of self in new and interesting ways and with
new kinds of people; to participate in a more diverse range of contexts and
communities and so broaden our experiences and horizons; and to access and share
new and alternative sources of information, entertainment or material that we need,
value or enjoy.
From a pedagogical perspective, of course, this means that we should encourage
our students to view the target language as a means of self-expression and self-
development. In other words, we need to engage their own identities and interests in
our lessons and promote a sense of continuity between what they learn and do in the
classroom, and who they are and what they are interested in doing in their lives
outside the classroom, now and in the future. In this manner, as Little (2004, p. 106)
puts it, ‘what they learn becomes part of what they are’.
Such pedagogical practices may seem deceptively simple, common and obvious
when couched in well-known terms such as learner-centred teaching, authentic
communication, personalization or humanistic person-centred approaches to
language education. Surprisingly, however, this focus on language learners as
‘people’ (rather than types of learner) with uniquely individual personalities,
histories, motives, interests and identities, has not been a strong feature of L2
motivation theory and research (and associated implications for practice) to date.
As Ushioda (2009) argues, L2 motivation research has for many years been shaped
by a concern to develop generalizable models of motivation. Their aim is to make
predictions about the types of motivation and pedagogical intervention that may
lead to particular patterns of learner behaviour in particular contexts. Once
empirically tested and validated, these models can then be used to propose
pedagogical strategies (e.g. giving informational rather than controlling feedback
after learner performance) for enhancing learner motivation. However, translated
into classroom practice, such models focus teachers’ attention on generalized types
of learner motivation, behaviour and attitude and how to deal with them, rather
than on how to engage the uniquely individual people in their classrooms.
Thus, we might say that effective language teachers who have long recognized the
importance of motivating the person rather than the abstract language learner and
who have consistently engaged in such practices, do so despite rather than because of
what the L2 motivation literature has to say to teachers. Moreover, ironically
perhaps, they may have had useful recourse to relevant insights from other areas of
literature and professional or academic discussion within language teaching and
language teacher education where motivation is not actually a primary focus. These
include the areas cited above (e.g. learner-centred teaching, personalization and
humanistic approaches), as well as more general discussions of classroom manage-
ment and dynamics (e.g. Tudor, 2001; Wright, 2005), and the literature on learner
autonomy in language education (e.g. Benson, 2001; for detailed discussion of the
autonomy perspective on motivating the person rather than the learner, see Ushioda,
2011).
Within the professional field of English language teaching, a relevant area of
discussion that has developed is Dogme language teaching, originating in a brief
provocative article published by Thornbury (2000), and subsequently evolving into
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 205

a growing movement in ELT and a principled methodological approach (Meddings

& Thornbury, 2009). In essence, the Dogme approach places a premium on
conversational interaction among teacher and learners where communication is
authentic and learner-driven rather than pedagogically contrived and controlled by
the teacher. Choice of learning content and materials is thus shaped by students’ own
preferred interests and agendas, and language development emerges through the
scaffolded dialogic interactions among learners and the teacher. Relevant to our
concerns here is the value Dogme places on students’ own voices and identities in
these conversational interactions.
While there exists relatively little empirical research investigating the effectiveness
of the Dogme approach, the motivational importance of orienting to students’ own
preferred identities (rather than their L2 learner identities) is clearly illustrated in a
study of language classroom talk by Richards (2006; for further discussion of this
study, see also Ushioda, 2011). Here too, it is worth noting that this study does not
emanate from the L2 motivation literature yet has direct relevance to the
motivational issues at the core of this paper. Drawing on Zimmerman’s (1998)
model of discoursal and social identities, Richards (2006) investigates whether ‘real’
conversations are possible in the language classroom. Following Zimmerman,
Richards distinguishes three aspects of identity:

. Situated identities, which are explicitly conferred by the context of commu-

nication, such as doctor/patient identities in the context of a health clinic or
teacher/student identities in the context of a classroom;
. Discourse identities, as participants orient themselves to particular discourse
roles in the unfolding organization of the interaction (e.g. initiator, listener and
questioner);
. Transportable identities, which are latent or implicit but can be invoked during
the interaction, such as when a teacher alludes to her identity as a mother or as
a keen gardener during a language lesson.

Using conversation analysis techniques to examine samples of classroom talk

between teachers and students in different English language classrooms, Richards
shows very convincingly the powerful motivational impact of invoking and orienting
to students’ own transportable identities in the classroom talk. Engaging students’
transportable identities (e.g. as football fan, amateur photographer and film buff)
can stimulate a much higher level of personal involvement, effort and investment
from students than traditional teacher–student talk, where students are invariably
positioned as language learners who are merely practising or demonstrating
knowledge of the language rather than expressing their own voices and identities
through the language. Richards’s illuminating analysis thus shows how classroom
conversational structures and levels of motivational engagement change when
students’ transportable identities are invoked. In this regard, his analysis provides
useful empirical support for the key principles of the Dogme approach and for the
central argument in this paper that we should focus on the person rather than the
language learner.
Moreover, the notion of transportable identities is helpful in that it takes into
account the potential range of latent social identities, which students and teachers
may bring with them into the classroom and which they may choose or choose not to
invoke. As Richards (2006, p. 72) notes, engaging our identities in the classroom will
206 E. Ushioda

necessarily involve an investment of self, with all the emotional, relational and moral
considerations this entails. Such an investment of self may be perceived as
uncomfortable or threatening in some contexts and there are undoubtedly private
aspects of the self that students (and teachers) will not wish to lay bare in the
language classroom. In this respect, we might say that engaging students’ identities
should entail orienting to the transportable identities they choose to invoke in their
classroom interactions.
In short, to the extent that we as teachers invoke and orient to our students’ own
preferred transportable identities in the classroom and engage with them as ‘people’
rather than as simply ‘language learners’; to the extent that we encourage and create
opportunities for them to engage and express their own preferred meanings, interests
and voices through the medium of the target language; the more likely that students
will feel involved and motivated to communicate and thus to invest effort in the
process of learning and using the target language. Moreover, restating my argument
in the previous section, through this experience of expressing themselves in the target
language they are thus enabled to engage directly with their future possible selves as
proficient users of this language but within the scope and security of their current
communicative abilities, interests and social contexts.

Engaging students’ transportable identities in the digital age

Returning briefly to the Dogme language teaching approach, it is true to say that it
has provoked much critical debate in ELT professional circles for its apparent
rejection (in its strong purist form) of published materials and resources as well as
technology, as reflected in the ‘vow of chastity’, which Thornbury (2000) exhorts
teachers to undertake – the idea being that they should focus primarily on learner
talk and learner-produced materials. Yet despite its advocated technology-free ideal
of ‘teaching unplugged’ (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009), there is growing recognition
among Dogme proponents that the newer technologies – particularly Web 2.0 – may
actually sit well with the Dogme principles of interactive, communication-focused
and learner-focused language use and learning. This recognition is evident in the
coining of ‘Dogme 2.0’ (Vickers, 2009, March 15) to denote a fusion between Web
2.0-based language teaching and Dogme principles.
More generally, the arguments I have put forward for motivating the ‘person’
rather than the language learner and for engaging students’ preferred transportable
identities in their language use and learning clearly point to the relevance of their
world of digital communication and online networks. Put simply, students’
transportable identities are grounded not only in the physical world of their lives,
interests and social relations outside the classroom, but increasingly in the virtual
world of cyberspace as well as mobile communication and entertainment
technologies in which so much of their life is immersed. As Prensky (2001) has
famously put it (in his rather generalized terms), our students are ‘digital natives’,
born into a world that is already digital and thus fluent and comfortable with the
technology, unlike those of us in the older generations who are mere ‘digital
immigrants’ and have had to learn the hard way to understand the latest technology.
A key characteristic of this digital age is that the focus is not just on accessing
information (as in the now rather dated notion of the Internet as an ‘information
super highway’). Rather, with Web 2.0 or the second generation of Web
development and Web design, the emphasis is more on creating and sharing
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 207

information, participating, communicating and collaborating, through electronic

discussion forums, live chat, blogs, micoblogs, wikis, podcasts, social networking
sites, video-sharing sites and so on. This is the highly interactive world of the current
net generation that we need to connect with and tap into as a motivational resource
for language learning and language use, since participation in this cyberworld has
become such an integral part of their identity, motivation and daily activity in life.
Furthermore, the opportunities that cyberspace presents for trying out new and
alternative identities and modes of self-presentation (e.g. through bots or avatars in
virtual worlds such as Second Life) offer interesting possibilities for learning and
communicating in the L2 in ways that are creative, individual and exploratory, yet
without posing a threat to students’ real-world identities and private selves. At the
same time, the Internet gives L2 learners immediate access to such a wide range of L2
Web content, communication channels and communities that it would be surprising
indeed if they were unable to engage their own real interests and identities via this
medium at some level. From a motivational perspective, such engagement needs to
be shaped and driven by students themselves if learning is to be autonomous and
effective, yet it is clear that teachers must play a significant role in mediating this
process (Ushioda, 2003). By mediating this process, I mean in particular that
teachers can help their students to see the connections between their personal use of
the Internet and mobile communication technologies to pursue their real-life needs
and interests on the one hand, and on the other, the potential for using these
everyday technologies and resources to develop their L2 skills in service of the same
or an expanded range of personal needs and interests. As a reviewer of this paper has
commented, and as Levy (2009) observes in his recent analysis of technologies in use
for second language learning, students themselves may not necessarily recognize such
connections between their personal use of technology and the possibilities for
exploiting it for language learning. The role of the teacher is thus critically important
in mediating students’ awareness of the L2 learning affordances offered by the
everyday technologies they use. Creating this kind of fusion between how students
use technology inside and outside the language classroom will help reduce the
barriers between L2 learning and life. Moreover, once they are brought to recognize
this fusion, those students who are more fluent with the technology can help lead the
way and work with teachers or less technically skilled students to understand how
the technology can be creatively and imaginatively exploited as an L2 learning
resource (for ideas on exploiting Web 2.0 in L2 learning, see Le Baron, 2010; Panichi,
2010; see also Thomas, 2009).

Concluding remarks
This brings me back to my central arguments in this article that have highlighted the
importance of concepts of self and identity in current theories of L2 motivation and
the importance of engaging students’ personal voices and identities in their L2
interactions in the classroom. The notion that students themselves can take the
initiative through their creative use and understanding of digital technologies and
virtual environments to transform L2 learning raises interesting questions about
identity roles and relationships in the L2 classroom. It is clear that in many cases
teacher–student roles and identities may become reversed, with students assuming
the identity of expert as far as use of the technology is concerned and working with
teachers to understand how it can be exploited to meet their language learning needs
208 E. Ushioda

(for an example of this role-reversal in the context of online support in language

teacher education, see Ushioda, Smith, Mann, & Brown, 2011). From a motivational
perspective, this kind of role-reversal and associated shift in identity (from that of
novice to expert) may reshape students’ psychological relationship to the content and
process of their learning as they assume greater autonomous control over aspects of
their learning (Little, 1991, p. 4), and thus develop more strongly internally regulated
motivation (Ushioda, 2003). This sense of autonomy and ownership would seem
critical in safeguarding against the perception that their personal and social world of
digital technologies is being appropriated for language learning purposes by teachers
(see Levy, 2009, p. 778). Finally, moreover, the development of new situated
identities in the L2 learning context brings with it the potential for developing new
possible future L2 selves that can further channel and sustain current motivation and
learning.

Notes on contributor
Ema Ushioda is an associate professor in ELT and applied linguistics at the Centre for
Applied Linguistics, University of Warwick. Her main research interests are language learning
motivation, learner autonomy, sociocultural theory and teacher development. Recent
publications include Teaching and researching motivation (2011, co-authored by Z. Dörnyei)
and Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (2009, co-edited by Z. Dörnyei).

References
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy. Harlow: Longman.
Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
Clément, R., & Noels, K.A. (1992). Towards a situated approach to ethnolinguistic identity:
The effects of status on individuals and groups. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 11, 203–232.
Coetzee-Van Rooy, S. (2006). Integrativeness: Untenable for world Englishes learners? World
Englishes, 25(3/4), 437–450.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Csizér, K., & Kormos, J. (2009). Learning experiences, selves and motivated learning
behaviour: A comparative analysis of structural models of Hungarian secondary and
university learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self (pp. 98–119). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
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: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2002). Some dynamics of language attitudes and motivation:
Results of a longitudinal nationwide survey. Applied Linguistics, 23(4), 421–462.
Dörnyei, Z., Csizér, K., & Németh, N. (2006). Motivation, language attitudes and globalisation:
A Hungarian perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Gardner, R.C. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In H. Giles
& R. St Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 193–220). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R.C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei
& R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition (pp. 1–19). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press.
 Computer Assisted Language Learning 209

Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1959). Motivational variables in second language
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266–272.
Gardner, R.C., & Lambert, W.E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Giles, H., & Byrne, J.L. (1982). An intergroup approach to second language acquisition.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 17–40.
Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a foreign
language’. London: British Council.
Hadfield, J., & Dörnyei, Z. (in press). Theory into practice: Motivation and the ideal self.
London: Longman.
Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,
94, 319–340.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kanno, Y., & Norton, B. (2003). Imagined communities and educational possibilities:
Introduction. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2(4), 241–249.
Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2009). Motivation and identity: The relations of action and
development in educational contexts – An introduction to the special issue. Educational
Psychologist, 44(2), 73–77.
Lamb, M. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32, 3–19.
Lamb, M. (2009). Situating the L2 self: Two Indonesian school learners of English. In Z.
Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 229–247).
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Le Baron, F. (2010). Using Wikis: Motivation and anxiety issues met by third-level students.
Paper presented at the 14th International CALL Conference, 18–20 August 2010,
Antwerp, Belgium.
Levy, M. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. Modern Language Journal,
93(Focus Issue), 769–782.
Lin, A. (Ed.). (2007). Problematizing identity: Everyday struggles in language, culture and
education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Dublin: Authentik.
Little, D. (2004). Democracy, discourse and learner autonomy in the foreign language
classroom. Utbildning & Demokrati, 13(3), 105–126.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.
Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language
teaching. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Gendered identities and immigrant language learning. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Mowrer, O.H. (1960). Learner theory and behavior. New York: Wiley.
Nayar, P.K. (Ed.). (2010). The new media and cybercultures anthology. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.
Harlow: Longman.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M.
Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 159–171). Harlow: Pearson.
Panichi, L. (2010). Learner motivation and participation in virtual reality. Paper presented at
the 14th International CALL Conference, 18–20 August 2010, Antwerp, Belgium.
Pavlenko, A. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to the study of social factors in second
language learning and use. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 user (pp. 277–302).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Richards, K. (2006). ‘Being the teacher’: Identity and classroom conversation. Applied
Linguistics, 27(1), 51–77.
Ryan, S. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan. The ideal L2 self and Japanese
learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and
the L2 self (pp. 120–143). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Taguchi, T., Magid, M., & Papi, M. (2009). The L2 motivational self system among Japanese,
Chinese and Iranian learners of English. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation,
language identity and the L2 self (pp. 66–97). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
210 E. Ushioda

Thomas, M. (Ed.). (2009). Handbook of research on Web 2.0 and second language learning.
Hershey, PA: IGI Global Reference.
Thornbury, S. (2000). A dogma for EFL. IATEFL Issues, 153(February–March 2000), 2.
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ushioda, E. (2003). Motivation as a socially mediated process. In D. Little, J. Ridley & E.
Ushioda (Eds.), Learner autonomy in the foreign language classroom: Teacher, learner,
curriculum and assessment (pp. 90–102). Dublin: Authentik.
Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and
identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self
(pp. 215–228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E. (2011). Motivating learners to speak as themselves. In T. Lamb, G. Murray & X.
Gao (Eds.), Identity, motivation and autonomy: Exploring the links (pp. 11–24). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Ushioda, E., Smith, R., Mann, S., & Brown, P. (2011). Promoting teacher-learner autonomy
through and beyond initial language teacher education. Language Teaching, 44(1), 118–
121.
van Lier, L. (2007). Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity. Innovation in Language
Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 46–65.
Vickers, H. (2009). Dogme 2.0. What ‘Teaching 2.0’ can learn from Dogme ELT [Web log
message]. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.avatarlanguages.com/blog/dogme-
elt-web20-dogme20/
Wright, T. (2005). Classroom management in language education. Basingtoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Zimmerman, D.H. (1998). Discoursal identities and social identities. In C. Antaki & S.
Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London: Sage.