Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

SOCIOLOGY | REVIEW ARTICLE

Conceptualizing students’ learning experiences in
English as second language in higher education
from structure and agency
Received: 12 April 2016 Irfan Ahmed Rind1*
Accepted: 17 May 2016
Published: 13 June 2016 Abstract: This paper narrates my research journey to conceptualize students’
*Corresponding author: Irfan Ahmed learning experiences in English as Second Language program in higher education
Rind, Department of Education, Sukkur
Institute of Business Administration,
from structure and agency. It reviews literature of psychological and sociological
Airport Road, Sukkur 65200, Pakistan research traditions that conceptualize students’ learning experiences. Using a criti-
E-mails: [email protected],
[email protected] cal perspective, each research tradition is reviewed in-depth for its strengths and
limitations. However, the strengths and limitations are also seen from the perspec-
Reviewing editor:
Jamie Halsall, University of tive of my constructivist ontological and interpretivist epistemological stance. The
Huddersfield, UK
paper critique the psychological research tradition of Phenomenography as well as
Additional information is available at the quantitative learning inventories descended from Phenomenography. It, then,
the end of the article
focuses on Activity Theory, which is seen as a sophisticated analytical tool. However,
the limitations of Activity Theory pave the way to move to sociological concepts of
identity, community and institutional influences as theoretical lenses to conceptual-
ize students’ learning experiences from structure and agency. These concepts are
formed using Symbolic Interactionism, Community of Practices and Bourdieusian
notions of Habitus, Field, and Capital, respectively.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Irfan Ahmed Rind is working as an associate Examining students’ learning experiences in
professor and is the chair, department of ESL programs has been of great interest for
Education at Sukkur IBA, Pakistan. He is researchers, as the results have implications for
also working as associate for the Center of the teachers, course-designers, and policy-makers.
International Education, University of Sussex, Traditionally, research in this area has been
UK. He completed his PhD in Education and conducted from agentic (individuals) perspective,
MA in Applied Linguistics from University of i.e. students’ experiences are examined in the
Sussex. He secured first position in BA and MA context of the class/program/institute. In such
English Literature from University of Sindh and research, students are seen as mere learner
was awarded with gold medals. His teaching with no other roles/identities. The other research
and research interests include methods and traditions in this area focuses more on structures,
philosophy of research, theories in education i.e. how family/societal/institutional norms, values,
research, development and education (MDGs and and policies shape students’ choices and actions.
EFA), education for sustainable development, Students are seen as mere puppets that are played
gender and leadership, monitoring and by structural forces. I have defined students’
evaluation, assessment, education policy analysis learning experiences in ESL from structure and
and strategic planning, leadership and change agency, i.e. I acknowledge the structural forces
management, teacher education and training, that shape students’ choices and actions, at the
career counseling, and ESL. Irfan successfully same time, I also believe that students use their
executed different projects sponsored by British agency in making their decisions. In so doing, I can
Council, USAID, Land O’Lakes, RSU, CIDA, and HEC. get a better picture of how students experience
He has been the Lead Master Trainer in various learning in ESL programs.
Executive Training programs at Sukkur IBA.

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Subjects: Bilingualism/ESL; Classroom Practice; Curriculum Studies; Higher Education;

Philosophy of Education; Sociology of Education; Theories of Learning

Keywords: phenomenography; activity theory; Symbolic Interactionism; Community of

Practice; institutional influences

1. Introduction
Investigating into students’ learning experiences in educational programs in higher education has
been of great interest to the educationalists, policy-makers, and program coordinators, since the
findings can help in improving the policies, course designs, curriculums, and teaching approaches.
However, most of the research in this area has been conducted using a predominated psychological
perspective. Most of such research is quantitative and use learning inventories to investigate stu-
dents’ learning experiences by analyzing their learning approaches (Case & Gunstone†, 2003;
Kember, Charlesworth, Davies, McKay, & Stott, 1997; Kurlin, 2009; Leung & Kember, 2003; MCcune &
Hounsell, 2005). These studies analyze students’ learning experiences from individualistic perspec-
tive ignoring contextual factors (Ashwin, 2009; Greasley & Ashworth, 2007; Haggis, 2003; Richardson,
2000). On the contrary, some studies use the social practice perspective and examine students’
learning experiences from the social structure point of view alone (Berglund, 2002, 2004). Such stud-
ies portray students as mere puppets who have no agency, and their choices and actions are solely
informed by structural forces. A very few studies adopt poststructuralist perspective to conceptual-
ize students’ learning experiences (Alhawsawi, 2014; Ashwin, 2009; Rind, 2015, 2016; Rind &
Alhawsawi, 2013; Rind & Kadiwal, 2016). In this paper, I offer a theoretical framework which may
help exploring students’ learning experiences from structure and agency. The paper reviews the
relevant literature, offers an insight into different research traditions which are used to analyze
teaching and learning in ESL in higher education. The paper narrates my interactions with different
research perspectives and the way I have developed a theoretical framework from structure and
agency. It narrates how I started my research journey using Approaches to Learning and Teaching
(ALT) perspective, followed by Activity Theory and end up using the sociological concepts of identity,
community, and institutional culture as theoretical lenses to understand students’ learning experi-
ences in ESL.

2. The approaches to learning and teaching (ALT) perspective

I started my research journey using, what Ashwin (2009) called, the ALT perspective. The ALT per-
spective has its foundation in the qualitative research tradition of Marton and Säljö’s (1976)
Phenomenography, which was later used to develop quantitative questionnaires by Entwistle and
Ramsden (1983) and Biggs (1987).

2.1. Phenomenography
ALT emerged as a reaction to traditional, behavioristic approaches to learning second languages
such as B. F. Skinner’s Stimulus-Response Theory and Robert Lado’s Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
(Ashwin, 2009). Marton and Säljö (1976) strongly reacted against the behavioristic notion of the fix-
ity of learning with their phenomenographic approach. Marton and Booth (1997, p. 208) have con-
cisely defined Phenomenography as “a change in someone’s capability for experiencing something
in certain ways.” The phenomenographic view of learning developed as a reaction to earlier psycho-
logical research methods, which were seen as failing to provide insights into the way students “ex-
perience, conceptualize, perceive and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world
around them” (Marton, 1986, p. 31).

Phenomenographic investigation importantly moves away from the assumption that students’
learning is a stable personality characteristic. It emphasizes the choices made by students in select-
ing approaches to their learning task, and indicated that the way in which students learn is a result
of their interpretation of the learning context. The basic principle behind phenomenographic re-
search is therefore that “learning should be seen as a qualitative change in a person’s way of seeing,
experiencing, understanding, conceptualizing something in the real world” (Marton & Ramsden,

Page 2 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

1988, p. 271). Learning approaches (e.g. deep or surface) adopted by students can be taken as an
indicator of whether or not meaningful learning has occurred (Kember et al., 1997).

However, Greasley and Ashworth (2007) criticize the contradictions inherent in Phenomenography.
On the one hand, researchers recognize the need to focus on the students’ experiences reflected on
and discussed by the students themselves; on the other hand, the researchers understand students’
accounts of their learning as falling into a number of categories (deep/surface), which few (if any)
students would devise themselves. Moreover, Ashworth and Lucas (2000) and Richardson (2000)
point out the lack of detail available on the actual, engaged process of phenomenographic research.
They argue that, while there is considerable literature on the outcome of phenomenographic re-
search, little attention is paid to the actual process of this form of research.

2.2. Quantitative learning inventories

Following the phenomenographic research carried out by Marton and Säljö (1976) and Pask (1976),
Entwistle and Ramsden (1983) and Biggs (1987) adopted a quantitative approach to their studies,
and introduced learning inventories in order to assess distinctions between different learning ap-
proaches. The main function of these inventories is to operationalize the various constructs which
have emerged from qualitative insights from Phenomenography, and to generate quantitative
scores on specific dimensions or scales which can show the different aspects of learning (Coffield,
Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004; Richardson, 2000). A few examples of such learning inventories
are: Study Processes Questionnaire (Biggs, 1987); Revised Two-factor Study Processes Questionnaire
(Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001), and Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983).

The research carried out using these quantitative learning inventories focuses on students’ per-
ceptions of different variables, such as: teaching, assessment, workload, time to study, clarity and
aims of syllabus/task, work space, learning resources, and interaction with peers and teachers. The
findings conclude that students’ perceptions of these variables significantly influence their learning
experiences (Beattie, Collins, & McInnes, 1997; Matthews, 2003; Ramsden, 1979, 1984, 1987; Watkins
& Biggs, 2001).

2.3. Strength and limitations of ALT perspective

It is worth noting that the ALT perspective—and specifically the phenomenographic approach—has
emerged in response to earlier psychological methods of research, which did not provide insights
into how students “experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand various aspects of, and phe-
nomena in the world around them” (Marton, 1986, p. 31). From the ALT perspective, importance is
placed on the students (the agents), and the ways in which they process or change knowledge. ALT
perspective, particularly phenomenographic research, foregrounds the concept of variability in
learning a second language. Unlike the past behavioristic approaches to ESL learners, which perceive
ESL learning as a mechanically fixed process, ALT and Phenomenography foreground ESL learners as
individuals who have multiple ways of constructing their understanding of ESL and approaches to
their learning.

I was initially highly influenced by ALT perspective for two main reasons: its promotion of variabil-
ity in learning, and the value placed upon ALT in higher education research, and the fact that re-
searchers studying ESL contexts had found this approach particularly useful (e.g. Ming, 2004; Luas &
Rojo-Laurilla, 2008; Xiu-juan, 2008). However, I do not adopt ALT as a theoretical framework in its
entirety for two main reasons.

Firstly, the quantitative learning inventories approach conflicts with my interpretivist epistemo-
logical stance. In order to understand students’ learning experiences in the ESL program in question,
it is crucial to first interrogate my own assumptions about the nature of knowledge and the world,
and how, as a researcher, I express or interpret reality. This process of interrogation began with
questions including “what is knowledge?,” and “how is it acquired?”; seeking answers to these ques-
tions led to a discovery of epistemology. Heylighen (1993) asserts that epistemology essentially

Page 3 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

attempts to answer basic questions such as, “what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from
false (inadequate) knowledge?” In the context of research, such questions translate into issues of
scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing
theories? My primary focus in this study is not to develop a theory or model, but to select theory/ies
or model/s which support a holistic account of students’ learning experiences from their perspec-
tives, and within their context. This approach can be seen in my experience of moving from ALT to
Activity theory, and then to the sociological constructs of identity, community, and institutional in-
fluences (will be discussed in detail in the following sections). The departure from ALT was influ-
enced by the approach’s detachment of the individual from his/her context; from my perspective,
knowledge of students’ learning experiences is inadequate when not understood within its specific
context. This approach defines my epistemological position as Interpretivist, due to my underpin-
ning assumption that “all human actions are meaningful and have to be interpreted and understood
within the context of social practices. In order to make the sense of the social world, the researcher
needs to understand the meanings that form and are formed by interactive social behavior” (Scott
& Usher, 1996, p. 18).

As the quantitative learning inventories approach is based on questionnaires, there is little or no

room for individual interpretation. As an interpretivist, I wanted to gain a holistic account of stu-
dents’ experiences from their perspective and within their context, which cannot be done using
questionnaires alone. Moreover, survey instruments do not actually measure conceptions, but in-
stead only measure the way in which students respond to questionnaires: “they are not sampling
learners’ behavior, but learners’ impressions” (Mitchell, 1994, p. 8). Although, as an Interpretivist, I
do realize and acknowledge the importance of learners’ impressions, learning inventories are not
primarily intended to offer an insight into this.

Secondly, although this approach places an emphasis on students’ perceptions, it does not move
beyond these insights to consider the ways in which students’ perceptions, conceptualization and
comprehension of different variables in educational settings are also structured and shaped by con-
textual factors. An important critique of ALT is therefore based on its removal of the individual learn-
er from his/her rich, complex and multiple contexts (Ashwin, 2009; Case, 2008; Haggis, 2003; Mann,
2001). The learner is instead constructed as passively shaped by past experience, and passively ame-
nable to reconstruction as a deep learner through a new set of molding processes which occur within
the university: the learner, according to ALT, is “a human being without agency” (Haggis, 2003, p. 95).
There is little acknowledgment that learners are people who may have any number of reasons to
reject institutional agendas. Learners may be resistant or unable to engage with assumptions of
higher education, for example, due to a sense of alienation (Mann, 2001), perceived risk or personal
cost, or conflicting philosophical or cultural perspectives (Case, 2008). “In the new higher education,
the learner may be a person who is experiencing tremendous difficulty in the face of unexplained
norms and values; he or she may not know, for example, that facts are seen by many lecturers as the
vehicle for the more abstract forms of conceptualization that are expected, but not modeled or de-
fined. In addition, he or she may be exhausted from part-time work or parenting, distracted by family
or financial problems, or lacking the fundamental confidence, self-esteem or health to engage in the
ways that are assumed to be both desirable and possible” (Haggis, 2003, p. 96).

To address these issues, and to understand students’ learning experiences in the ESL from a struc-
ture and agent perspective, I sought a theoretical framework that would incorporate the theory of
variability from ALT into a more context-specific approach. In order to do this, I adopted Activity
Theory. Activity theory accepts students’ learning variability, and facilitates the analysis of their
learning experiences from their perspectives, and in their own context.

3. Activity theory
Activity theory was developed from the work of Vygotsky (1978). Vygotsky’s triangular model of “a
complex, mediated act” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 40) was fundamental in illustrating the relationship be-
tween the human agent and objects of their environment, as mediated by cultural means, tools and

Page 4 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Figure 1. Vygotskys triangular

model of a complex mediated.

signs. As the model in Figure 1 depicts, the mediation process is two-way (represented by two-sided
arrows); human beings actively shape the forces which are active in shaping them, and this process
“lies at the heart of the many attempts to develop our understanding of the possibilities for interven-
tions in processes of human learning and development” (Daniels, 2004, p. 121).

Leont’ev (1981) developed a second generation of Vygotsky’s model, which distinguished be-
tween individual action and collective activity. Leont’ev viewed the activity system as incorporating
three hierarchical processes, driven by different individual or communal motives. These ideas were
further developed by Engeström (1987), illustrated in Figure 2.

Within the Activity theory approach, learning and other human activities are understood as inte-
grated into a larger system, or an activity. An activity is a theoretical entity, discerned, described, and
used by the researchers to consider the socially based nature of human activity. The interacting
constituents of an activity continuously develop into new forms which together create an activity.
Used in this way, Activity theory serves as a clarifying and descriptive tool rather than a strongly
predictive theory (Nardi, 1996), and does not prescribe any particular way of understanding learning
or a fixed ontology (Berglund, 2002, 2004; Havnes, 2002).

Figure 2. Engertroms model of

activity system.

Page 5 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Kaptelinin, Kuutti, and Bannon (1995) point out that to understand Activity theory, it is important
to understand a set of key concepts which together describe what constitutes an activity. Berglund
(2002) has discussed in detail some of these basic principles of activity theory, based on the works
of Engeström (1987), Kuutti (1996), Bannon (1997), and Havnes (2002). The principles Berglund
(2002) discusses are:

(1) An activity as a context: An activity is a theoretical construct which serves to describe and ana-
lyze a complex system as a unified whole. The activity gives “meaning to seemingly random
individual events” (Engeström, 1993, p. 65); an activity is therefore a context, in which partici-
pating individuals and different events are integrated. Following this approach, a part of the
activity cannot be studied as a separate unit without seeing it as belonging to and interacting
with the whole system. The activity is the context, and analyzed as a unified whole, an activity
is the unit of analysis. However, Berglund (2002) argues that this does not imply that the activ-
ity is a homogenous and harmonious entity, but has a multi-voiced character and an embed-
ded history, containing different, often contradictory, expressions and events.
(2) The dynamic structure and historicity of an activity: An activity is a dynamic entity that is al-
ways being developed. Its current state is related to its history, and a historical perspective is
therefore required.
(3) The object as a reason for existence of an activity: Engeström (1987) claims that an activity is
defined by its object, or the motive for the existence of the activity. An individual’s actions may
seem meaningless if the object of the activity is not considered.
The role of mediation: Tools (abstract or physical) play a fundamental role in human activity. Tools
(4) 
or signs have mediating functions between the subject and the object, and are “at the same time
both enabling and limiting” (Kuutti, 1996, p. 27). In other words, an individual interacts indirectly
with an object by using mediating tools. In this way, “the use of signs leads humans to a specific
structure of behavior that breaks away from biological development and creates new forms of a
culturally-based psychological process” (Vygotsky, 1978; in Engeström, 1987, p. 59).
(5) The role of inner contradictions: The multi-voiced, continuously changing character of an activ-
ity means that inner contradictions between and within its constituents are inevitable. Kuutti
(1996, p. 34) describes these tensions as “Contradictions manifest themselves as problems,
ruptures, breakdowns and clashes. Activity theory sees contradictions as sources of develop-
ment; activities are virtually always in the process of working though contradictions.”
Engeström (1987, p. 91) similarly argues that contradictions serve as driving forces in an activ-
ity system. He suggests that “Contradictions are not just inevitable features of activity. They
are principal of its self-movement and […] the form in which the development is cast. This
means that new qualitative stages and forms of an activity emerge as solutions to the contra-
dictions of the preceding stage [or] form.”
(6) Individual actions as parts of an activity: Long and complex activities consist of smaller entities,
and can be described in three levels that express the “hierarchical nature of human activity”
(Engeström, 1990, p. 172). Engeström (1990) describes the three levels, distinguished by
Leont’ev (1978) as “Activity is the molar unit, collective in nature and driven by a complex mo-
tive of which the individual actors are seldom aware. Activity manifests itself in the form of
goal-oriented individual actions in which the subject is consciously aware of what he or she is
trying to accomplish. Actions, in turn rely on automatic operations, dependent on the condi-
tions at hand” (Engeström, 1990, p. 172). An activity should therefore be understood as a col-
lective, changing context that both consists of and gives meaning to individual actions.
Engeström (1987, p. 66) stresses that “we may very well speak of the activity of the individual,
but never of individual activity; only actions are individual.”

Ashwin (2009) proposes the use of Activity theory as an analytical tool to analyze relations and
identify contradictions within an educational program, in order to see how these relations and con-
tradictions support or undermine students’ learning and teachers’ teaching experiences. His analysis
focuses on understanding the interaction of students and teachers within an educational program

Page 6 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Figure 3. Conceptualizing
students learning activity in
ESL.

from a structure-agent perspective. Ashwin (2009) maintains that generating the structure of an
activity system (whether for learning or teaching) is an empirical matter, which means that the re-
searcher must discover different variables through research and use Activity theory for further anal-
ysis. My generic model of students’ learning activity in the ESL program, based on preliminary
findings, can be seen in Figure 3.

This model includes elements of Activity theory reinterpreted for my own study. These elements
include the reinterpretation of the “subject” as student identities; “artifacts” as teaching, assess-
ment, textbooks, physical space and other learning resources; the “object” as gaining knowledge,
improving practices, passing exam, passing time, and maintaining good image in the classroom;
“rules” as institutional rules, assessment criteria, and tacit rules; “community” as peers and teach-
ers; and “division of labor” as students as learners vs. other roles, and students as learners vs. the
teachers’ role.

After placing these variables in different nodes, the initial analysis highlights the importance of
the sociological constructs of identity and community. Moreover, each node of Activity theory is the
product of another Activity theory (Engeström, 1987), which suggests that each node in Figure 3 is
shaped by structural influences (or the institutional influences in this case). I decided to use these
three concepts (e.g. identity, community, and institutional influences) for further analysis. This focus
was chosen largely due to the fact that it would not be possible to consider all the elements repre-
sented in Figure 3 by analyzing them individually. Moreover, this individual approach to analysis
would represent a return to traditional ways of analyzing assessment (Genesse & Upshur, 1996;
O’Malley & Pierce, 1996), teaching (Hughes, 2003), and syllabus (Jahanbakhsh, 1996). While I ac-
knowledge the contribution of these traditional analytical approaches to assessment, teaching, and
syllabus, I adopted a structure-agency perspective as theoretical approach in order to examine stu-
dents’ learning experiences. Therefore, I focused on the notions of identity, community, and institu-
tional influences (see Figure 4).

3.1. Strengths and limitations of activity theory

Activity theory is a useful theoretical framework which can help in understanding students’ interac-
tions with different variables from their perspectives and within their own context. The theory also
works as an analytic tool to understand students’ experiences in terms of their interactions with
different aspects of the ESL program. However, for further analysis, I focus upon three factors which
emerge from the conceptualization of students’ learning in the ESL program using Activity theory
(Figure 4). These factors are students’ identities, the community of ESL classroom, and the institu-
tional influences on the policies and practice of the ESL program.

Page 7 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Figure 4. Conceptualising
students’ learning experiences
using identity, community and
institutional influences.

I, therefore, use Activity theory to a limited extent for two main reasons. Firstly, although Activity
theory allows a focus on students’ interactions with different variables of the ESL program, and
shows the resultant outcome of such interactions, it does not explain how these variables are
shaped by structural (institutional) influences. For example, while it helps in the analysis of students’
interactions with rules, and the effects of these interactions on the objectives of the ESL program,
Activity theory does not explain why these rules are specifically formed with the context of a particu-
lar institution. Additionally, while Activity theory allows students’ interactions with teaching, sylla-
bus, physical space, and other tools, it does not explain how institutional influences shape these
tools.

Secondly, adopting a constructivist ontological and interpretivist epistemological stance, I con-

sider students as social agents, who therefore have multiple identities. From this perspective, the
subjects (i.e. students) in Activity theory are not merely embedded learners, but social agents with
multiple identities. However, Activity theory does not offer any conceptual understanding of identity.
Similarly, the idea of community is central to Activity theory, but the theory does not offer any con-
ceptual definition of community. I therefore limit the use of Activity theory, viewing it as a helpful
framework for the identification of variables which shape students’ ESL learning experiences, but not
as a main theoretical framework. Students’ identities, the community of the ESL classroom and in-
stitutional influences are instead used to analyze students’ learning experiences.

4. Conceptualizing identity from structure and agency

Several researchers have asserted that in almost all ESL teaching situations, teachers and research-
ers do not simply deal with language, or with learners and their cognitive and affective characteris-
tics, but also take into account the relational aspects of ESL learning (Arnold, 1999; Jackson, 2008;
Parkinson & Crouch, 2011). Arnold (1999, p. 18) argues that ESL learning and use is a transactional
process, which he defines as an act of reaching out beyond the self to others. As such, it is intimately
connected with learner’s emotional self. The way in which individuals consider who they are is sig-
nificantly formed by their social identity. A social perspective on ESL highlights the fact that learners
are not anchored to a fixed state, but are conditioned by social forces which affect their sense of self
(Arnold, 1999). This conceptualization of the self begins with an assumption that there is a reciprocal
relationship between the self and society (Stryker, 1980). Based on this understanding that the self
emerges in and is reflective of society, Brewer (2001) argues that a social understanding of the self
means that the society in which the self is acting must also be understood. Moreover, the idea that
the self is always acting in a social context in which other selves exist must be taken into
consideration.

Page 8 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

A review of the literature suggests that the concept of self and identity has been adopted in nu-
merous ways in the social sciences. For example, according to the traditional symbolic interactionist
perspective, known as the situational approach to self and society, society is viewed as constantly in
the process of being created through the interpretations and definitions of actors in particular situ-
ations (Blumer, 1969). Individuals identify the factors which need to be considered for themselves,
act on the basis of these identifications, and attempt to fit their lines of action with others in particu-
lar situations to accomplish their goals. From this perspective, it is assumed that individuals can
freely define situations, which means that society is always thought to be in a state of flux with no
real organization or structure (Stets & Burke, 2005, p. 129). By contrast, the structural approach does
not see society as tentatively shaped (Stryker, 1980), but assumes that society is stable and durable,
as reflected in the “patterned regularities that characterize most human action” (Stryker, 1980, p.
65). These contradictory approaches nevertheless share the notion that identity is embedded in so-
cial interactions; while the former perspective over-emphasizes individual agency, the latter ques-
tions individuals’ capacity to make choices. There are researchers who suggest a third way,
acknowledging the deterministic features of structure but also leaving room for individual choice.
For example, Giddens (1991) has suggested that even in the most extreme life conditions, space for
individual choice remains. Cultural anthropologist Mathews (in Block, 2007, p. 865) has similarly ar-
gued that identities are not innate personality traits, but assumed and worked out by individuals.
Identities are constructed in a “cultural supermarket,” which is not free from social constraints, and
individuals face these constrains in different ways. Giddens (1991) and Mathews’ contribution to this
discussion is that although identity is conditioned by social interaction and social structures, it simul-
taneously conditions social interaction and social structures. In short, it is constitutive of and consti-
tuted by the social environment. Using this third approach, I conceptualized the notion of identity in
terms of the extent to which it is shaped by structure, but also the extent to which agents can exer-
cise choice and agency in constructing identity. Identity is also used to refer to multiple, contradic-
tory, and contested understandings of self in relation to agencies.

5. Conceptualizing community from structure and agency

Learners construct different identities, which are socially, culturally, politically, and historically situ-
ated, within ESL classrooms. In fact, ESL classrooms are viewed as important sites in which learners
acquire English language skills in a formal or instructional setting, and in which teachers support
students to gain particular linguistic and academic competencies. In order to acquire these compe-
tencies, students’ participation in classroom activities is seen as essential (Barnawi, 2009; Hirst,
2007; Morita, 2004).

Classroom participation implies that students are engaged actors on socio-cognitive planes,
where cognitive and social properties are reciprocally connected and essential to solve given prob-
lems. Socio-cognitive interactions are inevitably more complicated in a classroom made up of lin-
guistically and culturally diverse students (Hirst, 2007). Morita (2004, p. 573) points out that
“understanding how these students participate in their new academic communities and acquire
academic discourses in their second language has become critical.” The crucial importance of ac-
quiring academic discourses on ESL programs requires in-depth analysis; however, for this analysis
to take place, the notion of community within an ESL classroom must first be conceptualized.

The notion of community, as with the concept of identity, has been defined in many different
ways; however, early conceptualizations of community were predominantly structuralist. For exam-
ple, Ferdinand Tönnies, a German sociologist, defined community as Gemeinschaft. Gemeinschaft is
a social configuration in which individuals are as oriented to the wider association as they are to
their own self-interest. Individuals are regulated by common beliefs about appropriate behavior, the
responsibility of members of the association to each other, and to the association at large.
Associations are therefore marked by a unity of will (Harris, 2001). Moreover, Gemeinschaft commu-
nity involves ascribed status, i.e. individuals are given a status by birth. For example, the child of a
farmer will assume their parent’s status until death.

Page 9 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Reacting against this structuralist conceptualization of community, a number of researchers (in-

cluding Cohen, 2001) developed an approach which views individuals as symbolically constructing
communities. Lave and Wenger (1991) are also among the cognitive anthropologists who developed
Community of Practice (CoP), an approach which considers both structure and agency when concep-
tualizing community. Like Tönnies’ Gemeinschaft, individuals in Lave and Wenger’s CoP are oriented
to the larger association as much as to their own self-interest, but unlike Gemeinschaft, individuals
develop themselves personally and professionally through the processes of sharing information and
experiences with the group.

Wenger explains CoP as “groups of people who share a concern or passion for something they do
and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (cited in Toohey, 2000, p. 1). Smith (2009)
maintains that a CoP involves much more than the technical knowledge or skill associated with un-
dertaking some task. Members are involved in sets of relationships over time, and communities de-
velop around things which matter to people. Describing Lave and Wenger’s conceptualization of
learning, Hanks (1991, p. 41) notes that “rather than looking to learning as the acquisition of certain
forms of knowledge, Lave and Wenger have tried to place it in social relationships—situations of co-
participation. […] Rather than asking what kind of cognitive processes and conceptual structures are
involved, they ask what kinds of social engagements provide the proper context for learning to take
place.” Learners are therefore not seen to acquire structures or models through which they under-
stand the world, but rather they participate in frameworks which are structured. Learning involves
participation in a CoP; in this sense, participation “refers not just to local events of engagement in
certain activities with certain people, but to a more encompassing process of being active partici-
pants in the practices of social communities and constructing identities in relation to these com-
munities” (Wenger, 1999, p. 4).

A number of researchers have used CoP in the context of ESL. Barnawi (2009) used CoP to explore
Saudi students’ English language learning experiences at a North American university. According to
Barnawi (2009), membership in a CoP situated in an English-medium academic classroom always al-
ters as newcomers (students who have no or minimal experience of attending English medium schools
and have no access to the power associated with English language skills) interact with old-timers
(students who have been to English-medium schools, and already have the access to the power as-
sociated with English language skills). This interaction involves language learning and socialization,
whereby competency and membership are required in order to participate in the discourse commu-
nity (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Morita, 2004). Here the process of participation—legitimate peripheral
participation—has significant implications for the membership in the discourse community.

Wenger (1998a) argues that the notions of “peripherality” and “legitimacy” are vital as both no-
tions facilitate newcomers’ actual participation in the classroom in order to help them move to the
center of the community, which in turns enables them to access greater power. Peripherality provides
“an opening, a way of gaining access to sources for understanding through growing involvement”
(Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 37). This idea suggests that individuals can be members of the CoP in vari-
ous ways, and their roles and positions in the community are subject to change over place and time.

Meanwhile, legitimacy affects the way in which individuals gain access to particular CoPs (Barnawi,
2009). Newcomers must be given a sufficient sense of legitimacy in order to be seen as viable potential
members. Wenger (1998b, p. 101) argues that “only with legitimacy can all their inevitable tumbling
and violations become opportunities for learning rather than cause for dismissal, neglect, or exclusion.”
Legitimacy therefore also plays a vital role in the teaching and learning process, as it facilitates access
to power. The higher the level of legitimacy granted to learners in a certain classroom setting, the more
they will be able to negotiate and construct their identities in the CoP (Toohey, 2000).

A significant number of research studies used CoP to examine different factors affecting the legiti-
macy students get in the form of class participation in the ESL classroom. These studies found that
students’ learning experiences are shaped by teachers’ roles and strategies (Christiansen, 2010);

Page 10 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

teachers’ previous experiences (Schweisfurth, 2011); student teacher ratio in the classrooms (Cuseo,
2007) and the opportunities for students to interaction with teachers (Carbone & Greenberg, 1998).
However, most of these studies used teachers’ perspective to understand students-teachers inter-
actions in the ESL classrooms. I use the CoP to conceptualize the ESL classroom from students’
perspective. This means that the focus is on how students understand the community of ESL class-
room and different power dimensions within this community; how they define the role of teachers in
the community; how teachers’ pedagogic strategies enhance or limit students’ opportunities to par-
ticipate, and therefore increase or decrease their legitimacy in the community; how large classes
affect student–student and student–teacher interactions, and how these interactions affect stu-
dents’ participation and legitimacy in the community.

6. Conceptualizing institutional influences from structure and agency

As observed in Figure 3, students’ learning experiences in the ESL program are influenced by numer-
ous variables (i.e. teaching, examination, syllabus, physical space and so on). However, these varia-
bles are not free from structural influences. For me, structure refers to the institute where I conducted
my research, and structural influences suggest institutional influences on the ESL program. Thus, it is
important for me to conceptualize institutional influences in a way that complements my structure
and agency stance to analyze students’ learning experiences in the ESL.

A number of studies have examined the institutional (i.e. universities and other institutes of higher
education) influences on the teaching and learning in higher education in general (Ashwin, 2009;
Barratt-Pugh, 2007) and on ESL programs in particular (Gao, 2005; Flowerdew & Miller, 2008; Kelly,
2010). Some studies have focused on analyzing the relationships between specific variables within
the institute, and the impact of these relationships on learning and teaching. These studies refer to
institutional influences as institutional culture. For example, Marginson (2008) discovered a link be-
tween institutional culture and the position of institute in the field of higher education. Exploring the
global field of higher education and drawing on Bourdieu (1993), Marginson divides the field of insti-
tutes of higher education along two axes. The first axis is a continuum from elite research universi-
ties to commercial vocational education, and the second axis is continuum based on the institute’s
focus on global or local markets.

Within the field of higher education, different institutes develop their own cultures which are
strongly influenced by their positions in the field, and which highly influence the teaching and learn-
ing within these institutes. Kezae (2006) finds that the size of an institute can be an important insti-
tutional influence that greatly impacts the way in which students engage with a program. Similarly,
Gibbs and Dunbas-Goddett (2007) establish a link between assessment and institutional culture,
arguing that different approaches to assessment on different programs are related to institutional
culture. Jones, Turner, and Street (1999) discuss the relationship between the use of English and in-
stitutional culture, noting that there are few differences in the quality of English produced in two
different institutional cultures; however, the ways in which it is produced differ. Another relationship
is established by Crozier, Reay, Clayton, Colliander, and Grinstead (2008), between entry requirement
for students and institutional culture. Using Bourdieu’s (1990, p. 56) notion of “habitus,” they argue
that the implicit understanding of an institute influences who can be “legitimate” students within
particular program within particular university. Henkel (2000) discusses the relationship between
teachers’ identities and institutional culture, describing differences in her examination of academic
identities in different universities. Likewise, other studies analyze the impact of students on institu-
tional cultures. These studies suggest that, for a number of reasons, students of different social
classes tend to attend different types of higher education institutes, which also affect the institu-
tional cultures (Ashworth, 2004; Brennan & Naidoo, 2008; Crozier et al., 2008).

Ashwin (2009) has conducted research integrating all of the above-mentioned variables, and
linked it within institutional culture. Ashwin (2009) used a Bourdieusian structural approach to con-
ceptualize the influence of macro-structure (i.e. the influence of higher education on the policies of
a university; the influence of university policies on its departments; the influence of departments on

Page 11 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

the structure of the programs offered) on the micro-structure (i.e. the interaction between students
and teachers) in higher education. He suggests that using the Bourdieusian notions of habitus, field,
and capital, it is possible to consider the position of different institutes in the field of higher educa-
tion, and how these positions impact on their institutional habitus.

This notion of institutional habitus was borrowed from the works of McDonough (1997) and Reay
(1998). McDonough (1997) develops the concept of institutional habitus as a link between institu-
tions and the wider socio-economic context, and it is this link which, she argues, differentiates insti-
tutional habitus from institutional culture. She argues that the formation of institutional habitus
constitutes a complex mixture of agency and structure, and could be understood as the impact of a
cultural group or social class on an individual’s behavior as it is mediated through an organization
(McDonough, 1997).

McDonough (1997) further claims that institutional habitus is established over time and develops
its own history. It is, therefore, capable of change, but by dint of its collective nature, institutional
habitus is less fluid than individual habitus (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 78 describes it as “a power of adapta-
tion”). McDonough (1997) argues that institutional habitus is developed in relation to each institute’s
position in the field of higher education. Each institute has a form of capital (economic, cultural, and
social capital that takes on different forms of symbolic capital) which are developed or maintained in
the field of higher education. The ways in which institutes attempt to develop or maintain their capi-
tal inform the notions of what is reasonable. In her study of how schools in the United States influ-
ence their students’ choice of college, McDonough (1997) argues that institutional habitus informs:
(1) an institute’s sense of its students’ expected identities, (2) the courses institute will offer; and (3)
which progression routes constitute reasonable uses of the capital developed by students.

Ashwin (2009) argues that institutional habitus can be articulated in different forms of expression,
which constitute institutional settings for the development of students as learners. These forms of
expression include: the selection criteria for entry to an institute and onto a program within institute;
the particular form of the program offered by institutes; institutional teaching and learning quality
regimes, which include the general standards of institute; teaching standards; examinations criteria;
curriculum; and the quality of learning space (i.e. the size of classrooms, the quality of libraries or
laboratories, etc.). All these forms of expression determine the ways in which institutes perceive the
role of students. Some institutes perceive students as “consumers” (Naidoo & Jamieson, 2006),
while others adopt approaches to develop “independent learners” (Smith, 2007). Ashwin (2009) ar-
gues that institutional settings do not act in a deterministic way, but instead, different students can
respond to the same institutional setting in different ways, depending on the relationship between
students’ identities as learners and their other personal identities.

This review foregrounds the importance of institutional influences on teaching and learning in
higher education institutes. At the same time, it highlights the importance of an institute’s position
in the field of higher education, its institutional habitus, and different forms of capital that an insti-
tute tries to maintain. Thus, I use Bourdieusian notion of field, capital, and habitus to conceptualize
institutional influences from structure and agency. Using this theoretical framework, I can concep-
tualize the field of higher education; the position of the institute within this field; the status of the
ESL program within the institute; different policies and practices of the institute; and the influences
of such policies and practices on the teaching and learning of ESL.

7. Conclusion
The ESL teaching and learning in higher education have mostly been examined using psychological
tradition of research, known as the ALT perspective. The ALT perspective is based in the phenomeno-
graphic research traditions of Marton and Säljö (1976), which was further developed by Entwistle
and Ramsden (1983) and Biggs (1987) using quantitative learning inventories. Despite its popularity,
the ALT perspective has been importantly critiqued for its individualistic approach to understanding
students’ learning in ESL. Nevertheless, unlike previous behavioristic and neurological approaches to

Page 12 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

understanding ESL teaching and learning, the phenomenographic research tradition has tried to
consider issues relating to context. These contextual issues are only covered to a very limited extent
in phenomenographic research, but this research tradition can be credited with moving from a no-
tion of fixity to the notion of variability in ESL learning. I, therefore, aimed to locate myself within this
theory of variability in learning, but at the same time I sought to use this notion of variability within
a more context-specific understanding of ESL teaching and learning. In particular, I was interested
in understanding how certain variables impact upon ESL teaching and learning from students’, or
agents’ perspective. I, therefore, needed to find a theory which could explain the different variables
affecting teaching and learning in the context of ESL.

To this end, I found Engeström’s (1987) Activity theory to be a sophisticated tool for the analysis
of individuals’ experiences of learning from their perspective and within their own context. I, there-
fore, adopted an Activity theory framework to generate a model of students’ learning activity in ESL
program by identifying different variables. This model highlighted important factors such as stu-
dents’ identities, the community within the ESL classroom, and institutional influences on different
variables that shape students’ learning experiences. However, Activity theory does not offer concep-
tual insights into these notions. My use of Activity theory in the current study has therefore been
limited to explaining variables in students’ learning experiences; it has not been adopted as an over-
arching theoretical framework for my research. Nevertheless, my brief interactions with Activity
theory were useful in enabling me to finally decide to focus upon the use of identity, community, and
institutional influences for further analysis. Thus, I decided to use the concept of identity in relation
to students and teachers in ESL context; the concept of community to examine interactions in the
field space of ESL, and the concept of institutional influences in order to understand how the policies
and practice of ESL are shaped by an institute’s position in the field of higher education. As I in-
tended to understand students’ learning experiences in the ESL program from a structure and agent
perspective, I conceptualized identity, community, and institutional influences using theories, such
as Symbolic Interactionism, CoP, and Bourdieusian notions of habitus, field, and capital.

Funding Bannon, L. (1997). Activity theory. Retrieved from http://

The author received no direct funding for this research. www-sv.cict.fr/cotcos/pjs/TheoreticalApproaches/Actvity/
ActivitypaperBannon.htm
Author details Barnawi, O. Z. (2009). The construction of identity in L2
Irfan Ahmed Rind1 academic classroom community: A small scale study
E-mail: [email protected] of two Saudi MA in TESOL students at North American
1
Department of Education, Sukkur Institute of Business University. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5,
Administration, Airport Road, Sukkur 65200, Pakistan. 62–84.
Barratt-Pugh, L. (2007). Exploring and evaluating structuration
Citation information theory as a framework for investigating formal and
Cite this article as: Conceptualizing students’ learning informal learning within organizations. Paper presented
experiences in English as second language in higher and published in Evolution, Revolution or Status
education from structure and agency, Irfan Ahmed Rind, Quo? Vocational Education Training in New Contexts,
Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978. Melbourne. Retrieved from http://avetra.org.au/
documents/64-Barratt-Pugh.pdf
References Beattie, V., IV, Collins, B., & McInnes, B. (1997). Deep and
Alhawsawi, S. (2014). Investigating student experiences of surface learning: A simple or simplistic dichotomy?
learning English as a foreign language in a preparatory Accounting Education, 6, 1–12.
programme in a Saudi university (Doctoral dissertation). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096392897331587
University of Sussex. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4265.3205 Berglund, A. (2002). Learning computer systems in a
Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: distributed course: Problematizing content and context.
Cambridge University Press. European Association for Research on Learning and
Ashwin, P. (2009). Analyzing teaching-learning interactions in Instruction, SIG, 10. 1–22. Retrieved from: http://user.it.uu.
higher education: Accounting for structure and agency. se/~andersb/publications/Canberra-berglund.pdf
London: Continuum. Berglund, A. (2004). A framework to study learning in a
Ashworth, P. (2004). Developing useable pedagogies research complex learning environment. Association for Learning
skill. In. C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning: Theory Technology Journal, 12, 65–79.
research and scholarship (pp. 296–306). Oxford: Centre for Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and
Staff and Learning Development. studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational
Ashworth, P. D., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and Research.
engagement: A practical approach to the design, conduct Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised
and reporting of phenomenographic research. Studies in two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British
Higher Education, 25, 295–308. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713696153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709901158433

Page 13 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Block, D. (2007). The rise of identity in SLA research, post firth from three life histories. Critical Inquiry in Language
and Wagner (1997). The Modern Language Journal, 91, Studies, 5, 201–224.
863–876. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/modl.2007.91.issue-s1 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15427580802286173
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, Gao, Y. H. (2005). A structuration theory perspective of the
NJ: Prentice-Hall. social psychology of foreign language learning. Research
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). in Foreign Language and Literature, 5, 25–36.
Cambridge: Polity Press. Genesse, F., & Upshur, J. A. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge: in second language education. Cambridge: Cambridge
Polity Press. University Press.
Brennan, J., & Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education and the Gibbs, G., & Dunbas-Goddett, H. (2007). The effects of
achievement (and/or prevention) of equity and social programme assessment environment on student learning.
justice. Higher Education, 56, 287–302. York: Higher Education Academy.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9127-3 Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society
Brewer, M. B. (2001). The many faces of socialidentity: in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, Greasley, K., & Ashworth, P. D. (2007). The phenomenology of
22, 115–125. “approach to studying”: The university student’s studies
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.2001.22.issue-1 within the lifeworld. British Educational Research Journal, 33,
Carbone, E., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Teaching large classes: 819–843. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411920701656977
Unpacking the problem and responding creatively. To Haggis, T. (2003). Constructing images of ourselves? A critical
Improve the Academy (Paper 399). Retrieved from http:// investigation into “approaches to learning” research in
digitalcommons.unl.edu/podimproveacad/399 higher education. British Educational Research Journal,
Case, J. (2008). Alienation and engagement: Development of 29, 89–104.
an alternative theoretical framework for understanding http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000057401
student learning. Higher Education, 55, 321–332. Hanks, W. F. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (Eds.),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9057-5 Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation (pp.
Case, J. M., & Gunstone†, R. (2003). Going deeper than deep 13–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
and surface approaches: A study of students’ perceptions Harris, J. (2001). Community and civil society. Cambridge:
of time. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 55–69. Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052320 Havnes, A. (2002). Examination and learning: An activity-
Christiansen, C. (2010). Creating classroom communities of theoretical analysis of the relationship between
practice: Students as practioners of content (An M.A assessment and learning. Paper presented at the Learning
dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Evergreen Communities and Assessment Cultures Conference
State College). Retrieved from http://archives.evergreen. organised by the EARLI Special Interest Group on
edu/masterstheses/Accession89-10MIT/Christiansen_ Assessment and Evaluation. University of Northumbria.
MIT2010.pdf Retrieved from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/
Coffield, F., Moseley, D., Hall, E., & Ecclestone, K. (2004). documents/00002238.htm
Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in
A systematic and critical review. Learning and Skills higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Development Agency. Retrieved from www.lsnlearning. Heylighen, F. (1993). Epistemology: Introduction. Retrieved
org.uk/search/Resource-32188.aspx from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/epistemi.html
Cohen, A. P. (2001). The symbolic construction of community. Hirst, E. (2007). Identity construction in complex second
London: Taylor & Francis e-Library. language classrooms. International Journal of Educational
Crozier, G., Reay, D., Clayton, J., Colliander, L., & Grinstead, Research, 46, 159–171.
J. (2008). Different strokes for different folks: Diverse http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.09.008
students in diverse institutions- experiences of higher Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. Cambridge:
education. Research Papers in Education, 23, 167–177. Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520802048703 Jackson, J. (2008). Language, identity, and study abroad:
Cuseo, J. (2007). The empirical case against large class size: Sociocultural perspective. London: Equinox Publishing.
Adverse effects on the teaching, learning, and retention Jahanbakhsh, L. (1996). Evaluation of the English for specific
of first-year students. Journal of Faculty Development, purposes (ESP) programme in Iran (Unpublished thesis
21, 5–21. available at British Library Electronic Theses Online
Daniels, H. (2004). Activity theory, discourse and Bernstein. Service). Retrieved from http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.
Educational Review, 56, 121–132. do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.285063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031910410001693218 Jones, C., Turner, J., & Street, B. (1999). Students writing in
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity- the university. Ambition of university English in mass
theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: higher education: An alternative methodology. Arts and
Orienta-konsultit. Humanities in Higher Education, 4, 247–264.
Engeström, Y. (1990). When is a tool? Multiple meanings Kaptelinin, V., Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L. (1995). Activity theory:
of artefacts in human activity. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Basic concepts and applications. In B. Blummenthal, J.
Learning, working and imagining. Twelve studies in activity Gornostaev, & C. Unger (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer
theory (pp. 171–195). Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit. science (pp. 158–159). Berlin: Springer.
Engeström, Y. (1993). Developmental studies of work as a Kelly, N. (2010). A Bourdieusian perspective on identity and its
test of activity theory: The case of primary care medical role in second language acquisition. Cultus, 3, 45–63.
practice. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., & Stott,
practice (pp. 64–103). Cambridge: Cambridge University V. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of educational
Press. innovations: Using the study process questionnaire
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625510 to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in
Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student Educational Evaluation, 23, 141–157.
learning. London: Croom Helm. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)00009-6
Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2008). Social structure and Kezae, A. (2006). The impact of institutional size on student
individual agency in second language learning: Evidence engagement. NASPA Journal, 43, 87–114.

Page 14 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Kurlin, V. (2009). Student learning experience in mathematics. Nardi, B. (1996). Activity theory and human–computer
Retrieved from http://maths.dur.ac.uk/~dma0vk/ interaction. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness,
eLearning/studentsLearning.pdf activity theory and human–computer interaction (pp.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for 7–16). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
human computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), O’Malley, J. M., & Pierce, L. V. (1996). Authentic assessment
Context and consciousness, activity theory and human– for English language learners: Practical approaches for
computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT teachers. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Press. Parkinson, J., & Crouch, A. (2011). Education, language, and
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: identity amongst students at a South African University.
Cambridge University Press. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 10, 83–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 Pask, G. (1976). Conversational techniques in the study and
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of the practice of education. British Journal of Educational
mind. In Y. Engeström (Ed.), Learning by expanding: Ten Psychology, 46, 12–25.
years after. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.1976.46.issue-1
Paper/Engestrom/expanding/intro.htm Ramsden, P. (1979). Student learning and perceptions of the
Leung, D. Y. P., & Kember, D. (2003). The relationship between academic environment. Higher Education, 8, 411–427.
approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01680529
Educational Psychology, 23, 61–71. Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Marton, D.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410303221 Hounsell, & N. Entwistle (Eds.), The experience of learning
Luas, R. I. S., & Rojo-Laurilla, M. A. (2008). Language (pp. 144–164). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
amotivation and approaches to learning among Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher
Filipino college freshmen students. Paper presented in education: The case for a rotational perspective. Studies in
International Conference: Language Issues in English- Higher Education, 12, 274–286.
medium Universities: A Global Concern. Retrieved from Reay, D. (1998). “Always knowing” and “never being sure”:
http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/abstracts/0708/ced.asp Familial and institutional habituses and higher education
Mann, S. (2001). Alternative perspectives on the student choice. Journal of Education Policy, 13, 519–529.
experience: Alienation and engagement. Studies in Higher http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093980130405
Education, 26, 7–19. Richardson, J. T. E. (2000). Researching students learning:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070020030689 Approaches to studying in campus-based and distance
Marginson, S. (2008). Global field and global imagining: education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bourdieu and worldwide higher education. British Journal Rind, I. A. (2015). Gender identities and female students’ learning
of Sociology of Education, 29, 303–315. experiences in studying English as second language at a
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690801966386 Pakistani university. Cogent Education, 2, 1115574. http://
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography─A research approach to dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1115574
investigating different understanding of reality. Journal of Rind, I. A. (2016). How newly appointed ESL teachers’ beliefs
Thought, 21, 28–49. are translated into their pedagogic strategies. IOSR
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 6,
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 124–132. doi:10.9790/7388-0613124132
Marton, F., & Ramsden, P. (1988). What does it take to improve Rind, I. A., & Alhawsawi, S. (2013). The effects of students’
learning? In P. Ramsden (Ed.), Implying learning: New previous learning on graph-comprehension in the English as
perspectives (pp. 268–286). London: Kogan Page. second language (ESL) textbooks in a Pakistani university.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in Educationalfutures, 5, 44–58. Retrieved from http://www.
learning: I-outcome and process. British Journal of educationstudies.org.uk/materials/irfan_rind.pdf
Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11. Rind, I. A., & Kadiwal, L. (2016). Analysing institutional
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.1976.46.issue-1 influence on teaching-learning practices of English as
Matthews, B. M. (2003). Life values and approaches to learning: second language programme in a Pakistani university.
A study of university students from Confucian heritage Cogent Education. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1160606
cultures (Unpublished PhD thesis available at The Finders Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in
University of South Australia). Retrieved from http://hdl. developing country contexts: From solution to problem?
handle.net/2328/10918 International Journal of Educational Development, 31,
MCcune, V., & Hounsell, D. (2005). The development of 425–432.
students? Ways of thinking and practising in three final- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.03.005
year biology courses. Higher Education, 49, 255–289. Scott, D., & Usher, R. (Eds.). (1996). Understanding educational
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6666-0 research. London: Routledge.
McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class Smith, P. (2007). An overview of research on student support:
and schools structure opportunities. New York, NY: State Helping students to achieve or achieving institutional
University of New York Press. targets? Nurture or de-nature? Teaching in Higher
Ming, T. S. (2004). Learning English in multicultural Malaysia: Education, 12, 683–695.
Are learners motivated? Journal of Language and http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562510701596240
Learning, 2, 142–153. Smith, M. K. (2009). Communities of practice. The
Mitchell, P. (1994). Learning style: A critical analysis of the encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved from www.
concept and its assessment. In R. Hoey (Ed.), Design for infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm
learning: Aspects of educational technology 5–10. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2005). A sociological approach to self
Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity and identity. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook
in second language academic communities. TESOL of self and identity (pp. 128–152). New York, NY: Guilford
Quarterly, 38, 573–603. Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588281 Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural
Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2006). Empowering participants version. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.
or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on Toohey, K. (2000). Learning English at school: Identity, social
the impact of student consumerism in higher education. relations and classroom practice. Clevedon: Multilingual
Journal of Education Policy, 20, 267–281. Matters.

Page 15 of 16
Ahmed Rind, Cogent Social Sciences (2016), 2: 1191978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2016.1191978

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practices: The key to
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard knowledge strategy. In E. L. Lesser, M. A. Fontaine, & J. A.
University Press. Slusher (Eds.), (2000) Knowledge and communities (pp.
Watkins, D., & Biggs, J. (2001). The paradox of the Chinese 3–20). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
learner and beyond. In D. Watkins & J. Biggs (Eds.), Xiu-juan, J., (2008). An Empirical Study on the Correlation
Teaching the Chinese learners, psychological and between Project-Based Learning and Deep Approach
pedagogical perspectives (pp. 3–23). CERC and ACER: Hong of Learning, [Online] Published in 2008 International
Kong. Workshop on Education Technology and Training & 2008
Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities of practices: Learning as a International Workshop on Geoscience and Remote
social system. The Systems Thinker, 9, 2–3. Sensing. Retrieved from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of practice. Cambridge: stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=%205070299http://ieeexplore.
Cambridge University Press. ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber= 5070299
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Social Sciences (ISSN: 2331-1886) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 16 of 16