Constructing and Validating an Identity Reconstruction Strategy Questionnaire: Interactive Acculturation Model in a Non-immigrant Iranian EFL Context
الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Hajar Moghaddasi-Hajiabad
1
( Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)
Sholeh Kolahi
2
( Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)
Behdokht Mall-Amiri
3
(Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran)
الکلمات المفتاحية: Identity transformation, separation, assimilation, integration, marginalization, individualism,
ملخص المقالة :
The present paper was an attempt to delve into the issue of adolescents’ identity reconstruction in a non-immigrant EFL context. Interactive Acculturation Model was used to derive sociocultural identity reconstruction strategies adopted by Iranian adolescent EFL learners in their homeland. To this end, a questionnaire with 75 items in 17 main domains was constructed and validated through the participation of 349 EFL learners aged 13 to 21 years as the identity confusion stage of adolescence. Factor analyses were performed to validate the questionnaire and the result led to a final 24-items instrument with 4 main domains of lifestyle, eligibility of English language and performers, social customs and traditions, and perceptions of freedom, on which, Iranian adolescent EFL learners’ identity reconstruction strategies can be derived. The questionnaire can be used in interdisciplinary fields of research related to TEFL, Sociology, and sociocultural and identity-related studies to come up with the effect of sociocultural elements in identity (re)construction of EFL learners.
References
ArendsToth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: implicit theories of TurkishDutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09.001
Barghouthi, R. M. (2008). Global English hegemony and the question of culture in the Palestinian educational context [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Birzeit University, West Bank]. https://fada.birzeit.edu/bitstream/20.500.11889/1788/1/thesis_57.pdf
Barrett, M. S., Flynn, L. M., & Welch, G. F. (2018). Music value and participation: An Australian case study of music provision and support in Early Childhood Education. Research Studies in Music Education, 40(2), 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x18773098
Berry, J. (1995). Psychology of acculturation. The culture and psychology reader, 457.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of social issues, 57(3), 615-631. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231
Boer, D., & Abubakar, A. (2014). Music listening in families and peer groups: benefits for young people's social cohesion and emotional well-being across four cultures. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 392. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00392
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach. International journal of psychology, 32, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629
Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., El‐Geledi, S., Harvey, S. P., & Barrette, G. (2010). Acculturation in multiple host community settings. Journal of social issues, 66(4), 780-802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01675.x
Bron, A. (2002). Construction and Reconstruction of Identity through Biographical Learning. The Role of Language and Culture. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED465083.pdf
Chen, S., Benet‐Martínez, V., & Harris-Bond, M. (2008). Bicultural Identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: immigration‐based and globalization‐based acculturation. Journal of personality, 76(4), 803-838. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00505.x
Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it, when we investigate acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004
Collett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating an identity to achieve in English: Investigating the linguistic identities of young language learners University of California]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r04p0w5
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? En A. Mackey y S. Gass. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 74-94.
Duncan, S. C., Strycker, L. A., & Chaumeton, N. R. (2015). Sports participation and positive correlates in African American, Latino, and White girls. Applied developmental science, 19(4), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1020156
Erikson, E. (1977). Childhood and Society. Paladin.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. Oxford University Press.
Gu, M. M. (2010). The discursive construction of college English learners' identity in cross-cultural interactions. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 7(4), 298-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2010.521488
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice hall.
Harrison, K., & Boyd, T. (2003). Understanding political ideas and movements. Manchester University Press.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jain, A., Lata, P., Goyal, A. R., Khandelwal, S., & Jain, G. (2015). Socio-cultural impact of film celebrities on teenagers: an empirical study. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 11(3), 308-322. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijicbm.2015.071589
Jensen, L., & Arnett, J. (2012). Going global: New pathways for adolescents and emerging adults in a changing world. Journal of social issues, 68(3), 473-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2012.01759.x
Jensen, M. (2007). Defining lifestyle. Environmental sciences, 4(2), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430701472747
Lule, J. (2015). Understanding media and culture: An introduction to mass communication. https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandculture/
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2021). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural psychiatry, 43(3), 462-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461506066989
Miller, M. J. (2007). A bilinear multidimensional measurement model of Asian American acculturation and enculturation: Implications for counseling interventions. Journal of counseling psychology, 54(2), 118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.118
Moghaddasi-Hajiabad, H., Kolahi, S., & Mall-Amiri, B. (2020). A Study of the Challenging Sociocultural Variables Affecting EFL Learners’ Identity in an Iranian Context. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 13(27), 210-236. https://doi.org/10.30495/JAL.2021.681356
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL quarterly, 29(1), 9-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587803
Peirce, B. N. (2000). Identity & language learning: Gender, ethnicity & educational change. Pearson Education.
Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5(1), 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580701696886
Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(99)00020-6
Pishghadam, R., Hashemi, M. R., & Bazri, E. (2013). Specifying the underlying constructs of home culture attachment scale. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 37-51. http://www.ijscl.net/article_1823_df04752e341a287d95a7f230f94d0cf5.pdf
Pitts, M. J. (2017). Acculturation strategies. The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0006
Rassokha, M. (2010). Language identity: Issues of theory and practice. Asian Englishes, 13(1), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2010.10801270
Rovira, L. C. (2008). The relationship between language and identity. The use of the home language as a human right of the immigrant. REMHU-Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana, 16(31), 63-81. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=407042009004
Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and Factorial Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1041-1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004028
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education.
Tajik, E. S. (2012). National identity in the globalization era. Media Studies, 7(18), 1-8. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=394044
Teng-Feng, M. (2019). Teacher autonomy: A buzzword in teaching English as a foreign language. Springer.
Veal, A. J. (1993). The concept of lifestyle: a review. Leisure Studies, 12(4), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614369300390231
Verhoeven, M., Poorthuis, A. M., & Volman, M. (2019). The role of school in adolescents’ identity development. A literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 35-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9457-3
Zareie, G., Babayi, A. A., & Seyyedi-Noughabi, R. (2014). Identity Construction & English Language Learning: A Case Study of EFL learners. Language and Translation Studies, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v46i2.37319
Research Paper
Journal of
Language and Translation
Volume 14, Number 3, 2024, (pp.61-76)
Constructing and Validating an Identity Reconstruction Strategy Questionnaire: Interactive Acculturation Model in a Non-immigrant
Iranian EFL Context
Hajar Moghaddasi-Hajiabad1, Sholeh Kolahi2*, Behdokht Mall-Amiri3
1h.D. Candidate, Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Iran 2*Assistant Professor, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran 3Assistant Professor, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Received: February 02, 2023 Accepted: June 05, 2023
The present paper was an attempt to delve into the issue of adolescents’ identity reconstruction in a non-immigrant EFL context. Interactive Acculturation Model was used as the basis for a mixed method research to derive sociocultural identity reconstruction strategies adopted by Iranian adolescent EFL learners in their homeland. In the qualitative phase of the study, major identity challenging variables for the adolescent EFL learners were identified and selected as domains and sub-domains in a compiled item pool with statements related to five identity reconstruction strategies of assimilation, integration, separation, marginalization, and individualism. Then 75 items in 17 main domains were selected and put in a close-ended questionnaire which was then validated in the quantitative phase of the study through participation of 349 EFL learners aged 13 to 21 years as the identity confusion stage of adolescence. Factor analyses were performed on questionnaire validation and the result led to a final 24-items questionnaire with 4 main domains of lifestyle, eligibility of English language and performers, social customs and traditions, and perceptions of freedom, on which, Iranian adolescent EFL learners’ identity reconstruction strategies can be derived. The questionnaire can be used in interdisciplinary fields of research related to TEFL, Sociology, and sociocultural and identity-related studies to come up with the effect of sociocultural elements in identity (Peirce)construction of EFL learners.
Keywords: Adolescence, EFL learning, Identity reconstruction, Sociocultural identity, Strategies questionnaire
INTRODUCTION
The linguistically and socioculturally diverse world that EFL learners face today brings forward issues related to identity transformations and reconstructions, which result from the new cultures contact and also EFL class discourse with its underlying layers of power and attitude which in turn result in (Peirce)defining individuals' identity. The subsequent result of the contact between new and different cultures may be internalization of a second identity for the EFL
*Corresponding Author’s Email:
learners, which in turn directs them towards behaving in line with the cultural values and norms embedded in the foreign language, and thus lose their own identity.
Identity reconstruction is a phenomenon that has been considered an outcome of the interaction between different cultures and identities in language learning process. The concept has sometimes overlapped with and has sometimes been deemed similar to ‘acculturation’ in sociocul- tural studies, due to the entanglement of both concepts with readjustments made to individuals’ cultures during social contacts (Bron, 2002;
62 Constructing and Validating an Identity Reconstruction Strategy …
Chirkov, 2009). Identity reconstruction takes place when individuals keep "making and re- making [their] identities through interactions and language learning, as well as adjustment and readjustment to culture, sub-cultures and their symbols, all in the process of social interaction" (Bron, 2002, p. 17). Likewise, acculturation has been defined as “the process of psychological and behavioral change or adaptation that happens in response to cultural contact" (Pitts, 2017, p. 1). Both concepts deal with cultural changes happening to individuals due to culture contact (Chirkov, 2009).
Identity Reconstruction has been considered a process that engages individuals with access to an L2 that demonstrates dominance and hegemony. In such circumstances, according to Peirce (2000), an opportunity exists for language learners to reconstruct their selves in response to cultural differences through their investment in that other language. In fact, research has demonstrated that EFL learning contexts and learners’ activities may impact their identity reconstruction to a great extent (Teng-Feng, 2019). The instruments, methods, norms, and values used and expressed explicitly or implicitly in an EFL context by teachers and peers, and the learning content influence learners' identity reconstruction (Verhoeven et al., 2019).
However, little or no research has been conducted on the issue of identity reconstruction in a non-immigrant context, where participants are EFL learners in their homeland, having no access to an environment of L2 speakers. The concept has mostly been studied in immigrant contexts where learners experience L2 in a host country besieged by speakers of the second language (Gu, 2010); whereas, according to Jensen and Arnett (2012), same strategies adopted by immigrants coping with acculturative or identity reconstructive situations may also be adopted by individuals in a ‘non-immigrant’ setting; especially by adolescents, reconstructing their sociocultural identity during schooling, engagement in social networks, and other activities emerged from globalization. However, similar research on adolescents is also missing in a national (an also worldwide) context.
In addition, in an Iranian national context, be- sides a total lack of research in a non-immigrant
context, studies related to identity reconstruction have mostly focused on a unidimensional rather than a bidimensional and more comprehensive perspective. In other words, these studies have considered identity reconstruction to be taken place only in one dimension in the form of assim- ilation to the target culture, not as a concept with different possibilities.
The present study has, therefore, focused on constructing and validating a questionnaire to bidimensionally investigate identity recon- struction strategies of the non-immigrant Iranian adolescent EFL learners inside their country, whose access to English is limited to private EFL classes. Identity reconstruction has been assumed similar to acculturation (Chirkov, 2009) and studied based on the five strategies of assimilation, separation, integration, marginalization, and individualism which were presented in Bourhis et al. (1997)’s Interactive Acculturation Model (Hair et al.). In addition, the choice of age range has been based on proposing adolescence as the stage of identity confusion by Erikson (1977), where experimentation with different social roles and identification with different groups are common before forming a cohesive and positive or negative identity.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Models of Identity Reconstruction Meas- urement
To date, different models have been proposed to study acculturation or identity reconstruction strategies in immigrant contexts. However, according to Jensen and Arnett (2012) same models can also be applied to non-immigrant settings which involves language learning as well. The strategies have been approached with regards to two basic aspects of dimensionality and domain specificity (ArendsToth & Van de Vijver, 2004).
Some of the proposed models are unidimen- sional and some are bidimensional. In a unidi- mensional perspective, the only strategy resorted to by individuals in dealing with the phenomenon is assimilating towards the target culture and norms, which leads to successful or unsuccessful separation of identities (Rassokha, 2010). According to Matsudaira (2006), unidimensional perspectives hold “that individuals relinquish their
Journal of language and translation, Volume 14, Number 3, 2024 63
cultures of origin as they acculturate to new cultures" (p. 471). In such models, the assumption is that "adherence to one culture lessens adher- ence to the other" (Miller, 2007, p. 119), and individuals will either be assimilated or not assimilated into the new culture.
An Example of a unidimensional model of identity reconstruction is Gordon (1964)’s American Acculturation Scale. His model char- acterizes a process of assimilation where immi- grants are gradually absorbed into the dominant culture both at individual and group levels. Another example of such models is Suinn-Lew's Self Identity Acculturation scale (SL-ASIA) developed by Suinn et al. (1992) which tries to assess the degree of Asian-Americans' ac- culturation based on low acculturation to high acculturation. In a national context, Home Culture Attachment Scale developed by Pishghadam et al. (2013) can be considered a unidimensional model of identity reconstruction which measures the concept of cultural attachment on being low, average, or high level attached.
A bidimensional model, however, takes into account simultaneous (degrees of) adher- ence to the two cultures in contact. In other words, an individual may be at the same time culturally oriented towards both cultures, that of his/her origin and that of the second culture. The bidimensional model “holds that individuals can maintain their cultures of origin even when they acculturate to new cultures [and] posits that psychological acculturation is determined by individuals’ selective adoption of the new culture and selective retention of the culture of origin" (Matsudaira, 2006, p. 471). Here, in- dividuals do not necessarily reconstruct their identity through leaving their first identity aside, but rather, as dynamic actors, place their new social and cultural reality in a cultural multiplicity framework along with their previous identity (Zareie et al., 2014). Berry (1995)’s model has been one of the extensively used bidimensional models of identity reconstruction which includes four strategies of ‘assimilation’, ‘separation’, ‘integration’, and, ‘marginalization’. Another example of a bidimensional model is Interactive Acculturation Model proposed by Bourhis et al. (1997) as a further development of Berry’s model. In which the developers
enhanced the model by adding ‘individualism’ as a fifth strategy. A national Iranian context lacks a bidimensional model totally.
The domain specificity looks at the variety of acculturation preferences among individuals, and assumes that each person may adopt a certain identity reconstruction strategy in a certain domain or aspect of life such as family, marriage, and so one (ArendsToth & Van de Vijver, 2004).
Identity Reconstruction Strategies
For individuals with both migrant and non-mi- grant backgrounds, different patterns of identity transformation have been observed. Some of these strategies represent molding after the tar- get culture and norm and some have shown re- pudiating it (Rassokha, 2010). Furthermore, it has been observed that some language learners construct dual, separation or distant identities as well, perhaps other terms for biculturalism, repudiation, and assimilation (Collett, 2014). Assimilation, separation, integration, marginal- ization, and individualism strategies are also stated by Berry (1995) and Bourhis et al. (1997).
In an immigrant context, assimilation takes place for individuals who do not wish to hold onto their heritage culture after relocation, and welcome the new culture. However, same strategy may be adopted by individuals in a ‘non-immigrant’ setting, and in the course of learning, they may decide that their heritage culture does not have much to offer them, and instead see the other cultures as where their imaginative future lays, resulting in assimilation towards them (Jensen & Arnett, 2012).
According to Berry (2001), and Bourhis et al. (1997), individuals adopt separation strategy when they have a strong desire to maintain their heritage culture. In a non-immigrant context; however, separation strategy may apply to those individuals seeing their culture on the brinks of change under the influence of glob- alized identity which is heavily influenced by Western and American cultural values, beliefs, and norms, but prefer to stick to their native culture and leave the globalized identity aside (Chen et al., 2008; Jensen, 2007). It is believed that individuals who are more strongly attached
to their cultural, national and ethnic heritage are expected to resist globalization and its consequences more than others (Tajik, 2012) and thus resort more to a separationist strategy.
As another outcome of acculturation, in- dividuals are integrated when they preserve adherence to both original and foreign culture. Here people seek high heritage culture mainte- nance and simultaneously wish to achieve high levels of contact and participation among the target society (Piontkowski et al., 2000). When discussed in the light of non-immigrants, this strategy includes a combination of global westernized and native identity; which gives individuals a sense of awareness regarding different behaviors, styles, and values be- tween the two cultures and also a sense of belonging to the global culture which makes engagement and communication with people from other places possible in the course of physical and virtual relocations (Jensen & Arnett, 2012). These individuals develop a global and local identity together, based on their local environment and native traditions and language.
In the same token, a marginalized individual neither preserves his/her culture of origin nor participates in the foreign culture. In other words, marginalization occurs when the acculturated immigrant does not show a desire for maintaining his/her source-culture identity or a desire for participation within the other society (Berry, 2001). A non-immi- grant-rooted marginalization occurs in case of individuals who witness a rapid and sizable change in their heritage culture due to globali- zation, in a way that they don’t feel connected to it any longer, but they also feel no feeling of engagement with the new global culture as well (Jensen & Arnett, 2012). The reason may be that they “feel that their new culture is simply too different from their culture of origin for them to adapt it, or they may feel that their new culture rejects them, perhaps
due to their physical appearance, socioeco- nomic status, or religion" (Jensen & Arnett, 2012, p. 480).
Finally, individualism is the preferred strategy of those who believe on multiplicity of the cor- rect ways to tackle identity-related issues and the necessity of being entitled the right to adopt whatever strategy one wishes as an individual. It emerges when the "cultural strangers prioritize individual characteristics, achievements, and goals over membership, maintenance, or partic- ipation in either their heritage or host culture" (Pitts, 2017, p. 4). According to Bourhis et al. (2010), what defines individualists is their prefer- ence for "personal characteristics and achievements rather than group memberships" (p. 787) presented either by the heritage or the host culture.
METHOD
Participants
A total number of 349 Iranian adolescent EFL learners (IAELs) studying English in private language institutes were randomly selected to respond to the online self-designed identity re- construction strategies questionnaire (IRSQ). They were between 13 to 21 years old (Mage=17), including 170 Males and 179 females. In addition, to ensure the content validity of the original IRSQ, it was presented to 5 experts in the fields of TEFL, Sociology and cultural studies who were university lecturers with backgrounds on teaching and research on sociolinguistics and sociocultural topics.
Materials
In order to design the IRSQ, the Sociocultural Variables Inventory (SVI) developed by (Moghaddasi-Hajiabad et al., 2020) was used which encompasses a comprehensive list of challenging sociocultural variables which were accumulated through analysis of EFL textbooks and opinions of EFL teachers and experts in Sociolinguistics, in addition to Iranian adoles- cent EFL learners themselves. A list of the main variables is stated in Table 1.
Table 1
SVI’s Main Variables
NO | Main Variable |
1 | Clothing & appearance |
2 | Cultural Norms |
3 | English Instructors & Peers |
4 | Entertainment |
5 | Family Relationships |
6 | Food & Drinks |
7 | Gender Equality |
8 | Literature |
9 | Male/Females Relationships |
10 | Media & TV & Movies |
11 | Occasions |
12 | Politics |
13 | Religiosity |
14 | Scholars & Celebrities |
15 | Source Of Information & Progress |
16 | Superiority Of EL |
17 | Travel & Immigration |
| Main Variable |
Procedure
Regarding the measuring instrument for identity reconstruction, no standardized or widely accepted measures exists. It is common for the researchers to design their own acculturation instruments using their own methodologies (ArendsToth & Van de Vijver, 2004). So, in the present study, first, the domains under which IRSQ items were to be included were chosen from the variables identified in SVI (Table 1). An item pool was suggested including all the variables stated in SVI and their subcategories. The variables constituted the main domains of the questionnaire and the items related to them were suggested based on the subcategories of each variable respectively. For each main domain, 3 to 5 items were included to cover the subject as much as possible. Finally, after consulting the experts some items were removed/added and some revisions were made in the wordings of the items, leading to 75 items acceptable items in the IRSQ.
In order to cover the five IAM strategies of assimilation, integration, separation, marginali- zation and individualism, for each item in every main domain, five statements related to the respec- tive strategy were used. In other words, the first statement showed a tendency towards assimilation, the second a tendency towards integration, the third a tendency towards separation, the fourth
a tendency towards marginalization and the fifth a tendency towards individualism. The respondents were supposed to choose only one statement that best suited their opinions. The choice of native language for the questionnaire was to ensure item clarity and equal level of understanding for all participants with different levels of English proficiency (Mackey & Gass, 2021), and ensure positive effects on the quality of the data obtained (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2012). The face validity of the questionnaire was observed via an orderly lay out and employing appropriate font size. The respondents were briefed about responding method and were assured of data confidentiality. The content va- lidity of the questionnaire was met through the judgments of five experts and some refinements were done in the content of the items and their
statements.
Since there was no access to EFL learners in the physical classrooms due to Covid-19 condi- tions, the questionnaire link was distributed online. A total number of 349 eligible participants fully responded to the questionnaire. After the distribution of the questionnaire and derivation of the data, the validation process of the question- naire started through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as well as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using IBM AMOS.
For EFA, factor analysis was run using Maximum Likelihood extraction method and Promax rotation, which showed adequacy of the sample and also existence of enough corre- lations in the data to run the factor analysis. This resulted in extraction of 20 factors under which questionnaire items could be assumed to be categorized, but the inspection of pattern matrix showed that some of the extracted factors did not meet the necessary criteria and were, therefore, omitted. The final analysis was done with 5 fixed factors where the requirements were met. These five factors were named accord- ing to the content of their relevant items into Life Style; Eligibility of English Language Sources and Performers; Social Customs and Traditions; Perception of Freedom and Clothing.
The next step was to check the convergent validity, i.e., see if the items included in each factor were significant predictors of that factor.
Here, some items in each domain did not meet
the requirements and were thus removed, together with the total items within the fifth factor (i.e. clothing). Then, goodness of fit criteria was checked to see if the four-factor model derived was compatible with the actual model in the society, where except two criteria, the rest were met.
The final stage was to check reliability and validity of the model that could be derived for the IRSs of IAELs. An acceptable reliability was seen through Composite Reliability indices and acceptable Average Variance Explained, which supported the convergent validity of the model. The discriminant validity was also supported by Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion.
Finally, the results of the statistical pro- cedures led to a total of 24 items in the final IRSQ under the four components of Life Style, Eligi- bility of English Language Sources and Perform- ers, Social Customs and Traditions, and Per- ception of Freedom. An English translation of the IRSQ is included in appendix I, which needs further validation since the original ques- tionnaire was in Persian.
RESULTS
The results of the EFA and CFA for validity and reliability of IRSQ are as follows:
Exploratory Factor Analysis
First, the data obtained from 349 participants was used to run an EFA to capture the existing pattern. The KMO results in Table 2 showed the research sample was adequate for running the factor analysis (KMO = 0.8) since according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) KMO values equal and above 0.6 are acceptable. In addition, the Bartlett’s test was also significant (p<0.05) indicating that there were enough correlations in the data to run the factor analysis.
Table 2
KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy | .860 | |
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity | Approx. Chi-Square | 9572.785 |
Df. | 2775 | |
| Sig. | .000 |
The results of KMO and Bartlett’s testshowed that there may be significant factors that could be extracted from the data. For deter- mining the factorability of the data, Maximum Likelihood extraction method and Promax rotation method were used which resulted in extraction of 20 domains/factors with eigenvalues above 1 which explained 47.92% of the cumulative variance (Table 3).
Table 3
Total Variance Explained
Factor |
| Initial Eigenvalues | Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings | Rotation Sums of Squared Loadingsa | |||
| Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total | % of Variance | Cumulative % | Total |
1 | 13.460 | 17.947 | 17.947 | 3.533 | 4.710 | 4.710 | 8.223 |
2 | 4.326 | 5.767 | 23.714 | 11.399 | 15.199 | 19.909 | 5.677 |
3 | 3.425 | 4.567 | 28.281 | 2.764 | 3.685 | 23.594 | 7.288 |
4 | 2.458 | 3.278 | 31.558 | 2.934 | 3.912 | 27.506 | 7.026 |
5 | 2.222 | 2.962 | 34.521 | 1.940 | 2.586 | 30.092 | 5.351 |
6 | 1.948 | 2.598 | 37.118 | 1.384 | 1.845 | 31.937 | 5.639 |
7 | 1.759 | 2.346 | 39.464 | 1.538 | 2.051 | 33.988 | 2.956 |
8 | 1.599 | 2.132 | 41.597 | 1.198 | 1.598 | 35.586 | 5.920 |
9 | 1.521 | 2.028 | 43.625 | 1.194 | 1.592 | 37.178 | 3.312 |
10 | 1.454 | 1.939 | 45.564 | 1.014 | 1.352 | 38.530 | 4.891 |
11 | 1.448 | 1.931 | 47.494 | .986 | 1.315 | 39.845 | 1.464 |
12 | 1.334 | 1.779 | 49.273 | .914 | 1.219 | 41.064 | 2.451 |
13 | 1.295 | 1.726 | 51.000 | .774 | 1.032 | 42.096 | 2.768 |
14 | 1.239 | 1.651 | 52.651 | .734 | .979 | 43.075 | 3.843 |
15 | 1.197 | 1.596 | 54.247 | .725 | .967 | 44.042 | 3.596 |
16 | 1.150 | 1.534 | 55.780 | .659 | .879 | 44.921 | 1.450 |
17 | 1.125 | 1.500 | 57.280 | .611 | .814 | 45.736 | 3.280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 | 1.075 | 1.433 | 58.713 | .590 | .786 | 46.522 | 1.170 |
19 | 1.068 | 1.424 | 60.137 | .532 | .709 | 47.231 | 2.802 |
20 | 1.018 | 1.358 | 61.495 | .518 | .691 | 47.922 | 1.485 |
. |
|
|
|
| |||
. |
|
|
|
| |||
. |
|
|
|
| |||
75 | .171 | .227 | 100.000 |
| |||
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. a. When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance. |
| ||||||
The inspection of pattern matrix showed that 9 of the 20 extracted domains/factors did not meet the necessary two criteria (i.e., having at least 3 related items and also having loadings above 0.4). Therefore, the analysis was done with 11 fixed factors. In this analysis, again, 4
factors failed to have the two requirements. The analysis with 7 fixed factors also failed with 2 components not meeting the criteria. Finally, the analysis was done with 5 fixed factors (Table 4) where the two requirements were met.
Table 4
Pattern Matrixa
|
|
|
| Factor |
|
|
|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q01 | tie |
|
|
|
|
|
Q02 | fashion |
|
|
|
| .647 |
Q03 | western dress style |
|
|
|
| .605 |
Q04 | my feeling about Western dress style |
|
|
|
| .568 |
Q05 | Western style appeal |
|
|
|
| .563 |
Q06 | pet |
|
|
|
|
|
Q07 | use of dirty words |
|
|
| .411 |
|
Q08 | Western-Iranian behaviors |
|
|
|
|
|
Q09 | smoking |
|
|
|
|
|
Q10 | talking about private body parts |
|
|
| .468 |
|
Q11 | English teacher |
|
|
|
|
|
Q12 | language class |
|
|
|
|
|
Q13 | classmates |
|
|
|
|
|
Q14 | teacher’s accent |
|
|
|
|
|
Q15 | friends |
|
|
|
|
|
Q16 | party |
|
|
|
|
|
Q17 | game |
|
|
|
|
|
Q18 | dance |
|
|
|
|
|
Q19 | music | .530 |
|
|
|
|
Q20 | sports | .477 |
|
|
|
|
Q21 | children independence | .411 |
|
|
|
|
Q22 | gatherings | .428 |
|
|
|
|
Q23 | obedience to parents | .506 |
|
|
|
|
Q24 | father's role | .538 |
|
|
|
|
Q25 | consumption of alcoholic beverages |
|
|
|
|
|
Q26 | serving alcoholic beverages |
|
|
|
|
|
Q27 | eating pork |
|
|
|
|
|
Q28 | favorite food style | .482 |
|
|
|
|
Q29 | female singing |
|
| .650 |
|
|
Q30 | actors’ hijab |
|
| .562 |
|
|
Q31 | men and women rights |
|
| .786 |
|
|
Q32 | women employment |
|
|
|
|
|
Q33 | novels | .526 |
Q34 | poetry and literature |
|
Q35 | stories and myths |
|
Q36 | writing style |
|
Q37 | free relationships with the opposite sex |
|
Q38 | dating the opposite sex |
|
Q39 | marriage style |
|
Q40 | gender freedom |
|
Q41 | kiss | .526 |
Q42 | films |
|
Q43 | actors and actresses |
|
Q44 | anti-Iranian/Islamic films |
|
Q45 | censorship | .441 |
Q46 | rituals and ceremonies | .700 |
Q47 | festivals | .701 |
Q48 | solar and lunar occasions | .515 |
Q49 | valentine and Halloween | .657 |
Q50 | freedom of speech in Iran & America | .467 |
Q51 | citizenship |
|
Q52 | looking at America and the West |
|
Q53 | type of government |
|
Q54 | sanctions |
|
Q55 | religious customs | .412 |
Q56 | ELF class atmosphere |
|
Q57 | hijab | .429 |
Q58 | religious rulings |
|
Q59 | naming |
|
Q60 | celebrities | .619 |
Q61 | artists | .628 |
Q62 | female characters in movies | .523 |
Q63 | famous athletes | .507 |
Q64 | your opinion about learning English |
|
Q65 | English language vs. Persian language | .539 |
Q66 | my feeling towards English |
|
Q67 | progress |
|
Q68 | daily talk | .561 |
Q69 | alphabet | .611 |
Q70 | language rhythm | .608 |
Q71 | your view of the west |
|
Q72 | architecture |
|
Q73 | immigration |
|
Q74 | Israel |
|
Q75 | natural landscapes |
|
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. |
| |
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 11 iterations. |
| |
Based on the content of the questionnaire and the obtained pattern through EFA, five factors/domains were derived which were named according to the content of the items related to them. For example, items number
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 28 have been in- cluded within factor one, which was named as Lifestyle based on the content of the items. Similar process was performed with items related to other derived factors (Table
4) and the final categorization was as fol- lows: Factor 1: Lifestyle; Factor 2: Eligibility of English Language Sources and Performers; Factor 3: Social Customs and Traditions; Factor 4: Perception of Freedom; and Factor 5: Clothing.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Once more, the data obtained from 349 partici- pants was used to run CFA with a covariance- based software (IBM AMOS). Figure 1 shows the model based on the five factors derived out of the EFA results with standardized estimates.
Figure 1
Standardized Estimates of the Initial Model
As is evident from figure 1, the model has five components of Lifestyle, Eligibility, Customs, Freedom and Clothing. The items for each component and the initial estimated loadings are evident in the figure. In order to find if the items included in each factor are significant predictors of that factor the con- vergent validity was conducted and the re- sults were presented below.
Evaluation of Convergent Validity According to Hair et al. (2010), two conditions must be met for a model to have convergent validity. First, the loaded value for unstandardized esti- mation must be significant (p<0.05) and second, the loaded value for standardized estimation must be larger than 0.4 (R Estimate>0.4, R Square>0.16). Therefore, the description of factor loadings for all the five components was evaluated (Tables 5).
Table 5
Initial Factor Loadings for All Five Factors
Observed |
|
Latent Variable | Unstandardized Estimates |
| Standardized Estimates | |||
|
|
| Estimate | S.E. | T | P | R Estimate | R Squared |
Q19 | <--- | Life.Style | 1.000 |
|
|
| .422 | .178 |
Q20 | <--- | Life.Style | 1.489 | .291 | 5.117 | .000 | .560 | .314 |
Q21 | <--- | Life.Style | 1.370 | .275 | 4.982 | .000 | .528 | .279 |
Q22 | <--- | Life.Style | 1.668 | .313 | 5.332 | .000 | .620 | .385 |
Q23 | <--- | Life.Style | 1.931 | .344 | 5.611 | .000 | .740 | .548 |
Q24 | <--- | Life.Style | 1.690 | .329 | 5.142 | .000 | .567 | .321 |
Q28 | <--- | Life.Style | .352 | .153 | 2.304 | .021 | .179 | .032 |
Q60 | <--- | Eligibility | 1.000 |
|
|
| .604 | .365 |
Q61 | <--- | Eligibility | 1.233 | .131 | 9.420 | .000 | .806 | .650 |
Q62 | <--- | Eligibility | 1.195 | .130 | 9.198 | .000 | .775 | .601 |
Q63 | <--- | Eligibility | .917 | .114 | 8.028 | .000 | .637 | .406 |
Q65 | <--- | Eligibility | .792 | .121 | 6.564 | .000 | .494 | .244 |
Q68 | <--- | Eligibility | .716 | .111 | 6.471 | .000 | .486 | .236 |
Q69 | <--- | Eligibility | .690 | .126 | 5.494 | .000 | .402 | .161 |
Q70 | <--- | Eligibility | .593 | .143 | 4.152 | .000 | .295 | .087 |
Q29 | <--- | Freedom | 1.000 |
|
|
| .356 | .127 |
Q30 | <--- | Freedom | 1.002 | .239 | 4.192 | .000 | .402 | .162 |
Q31 | <--- | Freedom | 1.055 | .236 | 4.474 | .000 | .461 | .212 |
Q33 | <--- | Freedom | 1.031 | .256 | 4.032 | .000 | .373 | .139 |
Q41 | <--- | Freedom | 1.236 | .261 | 4.731 | .000 | .529 | .279 |
Q45 | <--- | Freedom | 1.565 | .308 | 5.085 | .000 | .660 | .436 |
Q50 | <--- | Freedom | 1.304 | .269 | 4.856 | .000 | .568 | .323 |
Q55 | <--- | Freedom | 1.124 | .249 | 4.521 | .000 | .472 | .223 |
Q57 | <--- | Freedom | 1.294 | .269 | 4.817 | .000 | .555 | .309 |
Q06 | <--- | Customs | 1.000 |
|
|
| .252 | .064 |
Q10 | <--- | Customs | 1.271 | .428 | 2.968 | .003 | .316 | .100 |
Q46 | <--- | Customs | 2.780 | .764 | 3.636 | .000 | .697 | .485 |
Q47 | <--- | Customs | 2.345 | .650 | 3.606 | .000 | .656 | .430 |
Q48 | <--- | Customs | 2.530 | .707 | 3.580 | .000 | .624 | .389 |
Q49 | <--- | Customs | 2.746 | .765 | 3.588 | .000 | .633 | .400 |
Q02 | <--- | Clothing | 1.000 |
|
|
| .083 | .007 |
Q03 | <--- | Clothing | 1.979 | 1.915 | 1.033 | .301 | .204 | .042 |
Q04 | <--- | Clothing | 6.850 | 6.203 | 1.104 | .269 | .715 | .511 |
Q05 | <--- | Clothing | 7.448 | 6.786 | 1.098 | .272 | .797 | .636 |
As it is evident from Table 5, most items in the first four categories had significant loads and, therefore, were significant predictors of the factors under which they were categorized, but items 28, 70, 29, 33, 6, 10 did not meet the two criteria (p<.05, R estimate>0.4) and, there- fore, had to be excluded from the model and consequently from the questionnaire. Likewise, none of the items related to the fifth factor
‘clothing’ (items 2, 3, 4, 5) had significant loaded values and, therefore, the whole variable was excluded from the model.
After the exclusion of the items, and using the suggestions made by the software, sug- gested modifications were done in the model. Figure 2 shows standardized esti- mates of the model after modifications are applied.
Figure 2
Standardized Estimates of the Modified Model
Goodness of Fit
In order to check the compatibility of the model derived in the research with the actual model in the society, goodness of fit criteria was also checked. According to Hu and
Bentler (1999), in order for the model to have a goodness of fit, a number of criteria have to be met. These criteria alongside the values obtained from the data are reported in Table 6.
Table 6
Evaluation of the Model’s Goodness of Fit
Criteria | Observed Value | Required Value | Evaluation |
CMIN/df | 1.566 | < 3 | Met |
RMSEA | .048 | < .08 | Met |
PClose | .597 | >.05 | Met |
SRMR | .063 | <.08 | Met |
PNFI | .708 | > .5 | Met |
GFI | .884 | > .8 | Met |
AGFI | .855 | > .8 | Met |
NFI | .814 | > .9 | Not Met |
TLI | .914 | > .9 | Met |
CFI | .922 | > .9 | Met |
RFI | .786 | > .9 | Not Met |
IFI | .974 | > .9 | Met |
Table 6 shows that only 2 out of 12 criteria were not met. However, according to Hu and Bentler (1999), only 3 out of the 5 comparative criteria (NFI, TLI, CFI, RFI, IFI) need to be met; therefore, the model has acceptable goodness of fit.
Validity and Reliability of the Model
The validity and reliability of the model was investigated using different indices. Table 7 summarizes the results.
Table 7
Reliability and Validity of the Model
| Composite Reliability |
| MaxR(H) | Fornell & Larcker’s Criterion |
| ||
Life Style | Eligibility | Freedom | Customs | ||||
Life Style | 0.705 |
| 0.746 | 0.546 |
|
|
|
Eligibility | 0.797 |
| 0.850 | -0.096 | 0.613 |
|
|
Freedom | 0.700 |
| 0.720 | -0.043 | 0.402 | 0.507 |
|
Customs | 0.757 |
| 0.760 | -0.032 | 0.497 | 0.443 | 0.662 |
As Table 7 shows, the Composite Reliability (CR) for all components were larger than re- quired value of 0.7, which indicates acceptable reliability. Furthermore, Average Variance Explained (AVE) was larger than required value of 0.5, which supports the convergent validity. The Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion also supports the discriminant validity as each component had the highest values in its own rows and columns. In other words, the square root of average variance explained by each factor (the bold values in the table) were larger than their respective shared variances. Therefore, according to the results of the research, IRSQ was found to be a valid instrument with 24 items and 4 main domains based on which the IRSs of the IAELs can be derived.
DISCUSSION
As demonstrated earlier, a total of 24 items remained in the validated IRSQ under 4 components which have the strongest effect on identifying identity reconstruction strategies adopted by adolescent EFL learners in an Iranian context.
In the category of lifestyle, 3 sub-components of music, sports, and family relationships came together. According to Veal (1993), Life- style is related to "the distinctive pattern of personal and social behavior characteristics of an individual or a group” (p. 247) which includes activities involved in relationships with those that the individual has interactions with, such as family, relatives and friends, and also “consumption behavior, leisure, work and civic and religious activity” (p. 248). Therefore, music and sport can
be considered relevant to the same component related to family relationship.
In addition, family is the center of emer- gence of early bandings and attachments (Boer & Abubakar, 2014) two of which are music and sports which have been found to be among the most widely used leisure activities in family routines. The relationship between family, home and sports has been stressed in research (e.g. Duncan et al., 2015). Likewise, from a developmental perspective, the role of family in shaping child musical tendencies, and the role of music on shaping family rituals and cultures and collective identity has also been recognized in research (e.g. Barrett et al., 2018; Boer & Abubakar, 2014).
Another domain in the validated IRSQ was eligibility of English language and performers. Some items that had previously been classified under the main component of scholars and celebrities found togetherness to this new category, which also includes opinions regarding EFL learners’ feeling towards English language. No doubt, English has been used as an instru- ment to disseminate British and American imperialist system of thought throughout the world and linguistic globalization and formation of an imagined community is set as a goal (Barghouthi, 2008; Phillipson, 2008), and EFL learners may very much be motivated by a desire to become members of this imagined global community (Peirce, 1995).
American movies are an integral part of the American culture/worldview and a reflection of its prevailing concerns, attitudes, and beliefs which influence the culture of their customers.
Since the audience adopt the attitudes and styles of the movie characters, media industry has the ability to shape cultural attitudes and customs (Lule, 2015). The respondents' reception of movies, their attention to positive and negative characters, and the huge number of foreign films available to them shows that "celebrities whether from films, modelling or advertising leave an indelible imprint on our social and cul- tural values" (Jain et al., 2015, p. 310).
As to the category of social customs and traditions, the results of the study demon- strated no change in the original order of items. The items in this category deal with opinions regarding Iranian and western cultural and religious customs. Undoubtedly, customs and traditions, together with values and histories shared by groups, constitute individuals’ culture which has a very strong influence on their behaviors, thoughts, and worldviews (Rovira, 2008). Culture also affects individuals’ identity, attitudes and beliefs, especially where there are opportunities for contact between cultural communities (Jensen, 2007), such as an EFL learning context. Therefore, the rela- tionship between the items in this category and identity reconstruction of the Iranian adolescent EFL learners are also established.
The final category came up with 7 items, including opinions towards Islamic covering, views towards religious customs in the country, equality of men and women, freedom of expres- sion, censorship, and public kissing. All the sub-components were categorized under a differ- ent heading in the original questionnaire, but in the validated IRSQ their relevance was revealed. Going-togetherness of these items can be seen in the division of freedom by Harrison and Boyd (2003) into different categories of individual freedom and freedom of opinion, where the former includes freedom of expression, speech, religion, and travel; and the latter freedom of academic, religious and political opinions. Therefore, based on the division made by
Harrison and Boyd (2003) which covers all these items, the heading of this new category was changed to ‘perception of freedom’.
CONCLUSION
The present research led to the validation of IRSQ as a valid and reliable tool for identifying identity reconstruction strategies that Iranian adolescent EFL learners face during their EFL learning period. The questionnaire comprises of 24 items in 4 main domains that address issues related to Lifestyle, Eligibility of English Language Sources and Performers, Social Customs and Traditions, and Perception of Freedom.
IRSQ is the first IAM-based questionnaire in the adolescent non-immigrants and also EFL context. It is simple, easy to answer, easy to measure, time-saving and reportedly appealing to the respondents. As a validated tool, and also with a sociolinguistic basis, it can be applied in TEFL and other relevant areas such as social and cultural studies which deal with adoles- cents engaged in English language production and use.
The validated IRSQ can be used in different methodological settings as a useful tool for EFL instructors in evaluating possible identity reconstructive effects of teaching practices in the classroom. Being aware of EFL learners’ IRSs may offer insights for EFL teachers to manage their classes in a way to create a critical environment for their pupils to freely express their feelings towards certain features present in EFL classrooms or certain teaching practices to help mitigate the negative effects of vari- ables at work in their identity reconstruction. It helps teachers handle challenging situa- tions and discourses in the EFL classroom, reinforce their self-image and their view towards their teaching profession and responsibili- ties, and raise their awareness towards their own capabilities as important cross-cultural agents.
References
ArendsToth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: implicit theories of TurkishDutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.09
Barghouthi, R. M. (2008). Global English hegemony and the question of culture in the Palestinian educational context [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Birzeit University, West Bank]. https://fada.birzeit.edu/bitstream/20.500. 11889/1788/1/thesis_57.pdf
Barrett, M. S., Flynn, L. M., & Welch, G. F. (2018). Music value and participation: An Australian case study of music provision and support in Early Childhood Education. Research Studies in Music Education, 40(2), 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103x18773 098
Berry, J. (1995). Psychology of acculturation. The culture and psychology reader, 457. Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of social issues, 57(3), 615-631.
https://doi.org/10.1111/0022- 4537.00231
Boer, D., & Abubakar, A. (2014). Music listening in families and peer groups: benefits for young people's social cohesion and emotional well-being across four cultures. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 392.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.0039 2
Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach. International journal of psychology, 32, 369–386.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0020759974006 29
Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., El‐Geledi, S., Harvey, S. P., & Barrette, G. (2010). Acculturation in multiple host community settings. Journal of social issues, 66(4), 780-802.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4560.2010.01675.x
Bron, A. (2002). Construction and Reconstruction of Identity through Biographical Learning. The Role of Language and Culture. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED4650 83.pdf
Chen, S., Benet‐Martínez, V., & Harris-Bond,
M. (2008). Bicultural Identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: immigration‐based and globalization‐ based acculturation. Journal of personality, 76(4), 803-838.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 6494.2008.00505.x
Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical psychology of acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it, when we investigate acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12
Collett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating an identity to achieve in English: Investigating the linguistic identities of young language learners University of California]. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r04p0w 5
Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in SLA research? En A. Mackey y S. Gass. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, 74-94.
Duncan, S. C., Strycker, L. A., & Chaumeton,
N. R. (2015). Sports participation and positive correlates in African American, Latino, and White girls. Applied developmental science, 19(4), 206-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015. 1020156
Erikson, E. (1977). Childhood and Society.
Paladin.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243781018 00104
Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. Oxford University Press.
Gu, M. M. (2010). The discursive construction of college English learners' identity in cross-cultural interactions. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 7(4), 298-
333.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2010. 521488
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice hall.
Harrison, K., & Boyd, T. (2003). Understanding political ideas and movements. Manchester University Press.
Hu, L. t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1070551990954 0118
Jain, A., Lata, P., Goyal, A. R., Khandelwal, S., & Jain, G. (2015). Socio-cultural impact of film celebrities on teenagers: an empirical study. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 11(3), 308-322.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijicbm.2015.071 589
Jensen, L., & Arnett, J. (2012). Going global: New pathways for adolescents and emerging adults in a changing world. Journal of social issues, 68(3), 473-492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 4560.2012.01759.x
Jensen, M. (2007). Defining lifestyle.
Environmental sciences, 4(2), 63-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/1569343070147 2747
Lule, J. (2015). Understanding media and culture: An introduction to mass communication. https://open.lib.umn.edu/mediaandcult ure/
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2021). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Matsudaira, T. (2006). Measures of psychological acculturation: A review. Transcultural psychiatry, 43(3), 462-
487.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461506066 989
Miller, M. J. (2007). A bilinear multidimensional measurement model of Asian American acculturation and enculturation: Implications for counseling interventions. Journal of counseling psychology, 54(2), 118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0167.54.2.118
Moghaddasi-Hajiabad, H., Kolahi, S., & Mall- Amiri, B. (2020). A Study of the Challenging Sociocultural Variables Affecting EFL Learners’ Identity in an Iranian Context. Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 13(27), 210-236.
https://doi.org/10.30495/JAL.2021.6813 56
Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL quarterly, 29(1), 9-31.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3587803
Peirce, B. N. (2000). Identity & language learning: Gender, ethnicity & educational change. Pearson Education. Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire.
Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5(1), 1-43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1542758070169 6886
Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0147-
Pishghadam, R., Hashemi, M. R., & Bazri, E. (2013). Specifying the underlying constructs of home culture attachment scale. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 37-51.
http://www.ijscl.net/article_1823_df047 52e341a287d95a7f230f94d0cf5.pdf
Pitts, M. J. (2017). Acculturation strategies. The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1002/97811187836 65.ieicc0006
Rassokha, M. (2010). Language identity: Issues of theory and practice. Asian Englishes, 13(1), 20-33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2010. 10801270
Rovira, L. C. (2008). The relationship between language and identity. The use of the home language as a human right of the immigrant. REMHU-Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana, 16(31), 63-81.
https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id= 407042009004
Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and Factorial Validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4),
1041-1046.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052 004028
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education.
Tajik, E. S. (2012). National identity in the globalization era. Media Studies, 7(18), 1-8.
https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPape r.aspx?id=394044
Teng-Feng, M. (2019). Teacher autonomy: A buzzword in teaching English as a foreign language. Springer.
Veal, A. J. (1993). The concept of lifestyle: a review. Leisure Studies, 12(4), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261436930039 0231.
Verhoeven, M., Poorthuis, A. M., & Volman,
M. (2019). The role of school in adolescents’ identity development. A literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 35-63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018- 9457-3
Zareie, G., Babayi, A. A., & Seyyedi-Nough- abi, R. (2014). Identity Construction & English Language Learning: A Case Study of EFL learners. Language and Translation Studies, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.22067/lts.v46i2.37319
Biodata
Hajar Moghaddasi-Hajiabad holds a master‘s degree. Her main area of interest is interdisciplinary research, especially in the area of psychology and philosophy.
E-mail: hj.moghaddasi@gmail.com
Sholeh Kolahi is an assistant professor in Applied Linguistics at IAUCTB. She has been teaching under and post graduate courses for more than twenty years. She has published and presented in many local and international journals and conferences. Her primary research interests are EFL writing, second language acquisition, SL/FL teaching methodology, teacher training, language syllabus design and material development. She is also interested in research in some areas of translation studies.
E-mail: Sh-Kolahi@iauctb.ac.ir
Behdokht Mall-Amiri is an Assistant Professor in Applied Linguistics and a faculty member since 1998. She teaches courses such as, research methodology, teaching language skills at MA and Ph.D. levels.
Email: beh.malamiri@iau.ac.ir
