Self-Identity and EAL

English as an Additional Language (EAL) is a term used within educational settings to refer to students who are non-native English speakers attending traditionally English speaking educational settings. There are a variety of reasons behind this including: migration, refugee status, or non-English speaking parents at home. These can students can often experience significant difficulties accessing the educational information within the classroom environment due to both linguistic and cultural differences (Tangen & Spooner-Lane, 2008). However, these difficulties can have a significant impact upon the development of pupils self and social identity. This is key as Kaplan & Flum (2009) outlines self-identity is vital to the development of motivational factors, which are directly correlated to school performance (Fortier et al., 1995; Daniela, 2015). Similarly, social identity has been shown to have a significant role in motivation in low-status groups (van Laar et al., 2010). Furthermore, Anisef & Kilbride (2003) suggest that school is one of the first places children and young people may experience discrimination. Therefore, it is important to examine how EAL students develop their self and social identity throughout their educational experience through the social theories that influence this formation.

Social identity can be viewed as an understanding of the self, as derived from one's place within social groups (Charness and Chen, 2020). Social identity theory was first outlined by Tafjel & Turner (1979) and places this understanding of intergroup relations at the centre of understanding. Social identity theory states that self-concepts originate from the knowledge of their participation within a social group (Tajfel, 1981). This is important for EAL groups as they possess a salient distinguishing factor, which influences both their social capabilities (Welcome, 2021), as well as highlighting them as different in an educational context through poor performance (Creagh et al., 2019; Demie, 2017). Spencer (2021) outlines how EAL learners' cultural diversity leads to identity crises due to continued individualisation. This is the core difference between social- and self-identity, as both have behavioural implications but one impacts isolated interpersonal situations and the other affects group situations respectively. However, there is significant interaction between self and social identity with the idea of the self-concept being at least partially informed by social influences (Ellemers et al., 2002). Therefore, this presents a two-fold impact of social identity on EAL development, through being part of an in-group and an out-group. This can be further explained through studies directly involved within EAL.

Many EAL students, particularly those who are newly migrated, face significant language barriers influencing their social interactions. Although most children facing large-scale transitions during developmental periods experience challenges, these challenges are extenuated by their intercultural status (Phinney et al., 2006). This interculturality is further reflected by Safford & Collins (2007) who find that EAL students often struggle to balance their home culture and environmental culture. Similarly, Evans & Liu (2018) provide first-hand accounts from pupils and teaching staff on the impact language difficulties had on social development. They describe the 'markedness' of the language differences and the idea of acting out of their own self to please the established in-group. Some research also shows a lack of performing to appease an in-group and instead the formation of a new social group with shared EAL identity (Heller, 1999). This could be perceived as the formation of the core in-group and out-group presented within social identity theory (Islam, 2014). This provides at least two distinct responses to the integration within a new linguistic-dominated domain. Further work is needed to understand the difference in these behaviours and their causes, in EAL groups. However, wider research suggested that these could be linked to personality differences (Klimstra et al., 2013), quality of teaching provision or larger numbers of the out-group (Köster et al., 2011). However, the latter would also link into social identity theory through the promotion of prejudice and fear within the current in-group (Schlueter & Scheepers, 2010). Similarly, one key finding of the work by Evans & Liu (2018) is the commonality of the term "scary" to describe the experiences of newly migrated EAL students. On the other hand, whilst there are linguistic barriers, Berry et al. (2006) evidence how discrimination is more common in those groups who are visibly different in appearance. This provides a core insight into these experiences and their impact on social development but also suggest another lens being the experience of prejudice.

The experience of prejudice throughout development has implications of the development of EAL identities. Prejudice is experienced by a wide variety of minority groups, with some groups experiencing a recent increase in prejudice experiences such as Asian groups due to Covid-19 or Arabic groups after 9/11 (Croucher et al., 2020; Awad & Amayreh, 2015). These increasing prejudices are also experienced within an educational context, during critical development periods (Yang et al., 2023). Prejudice is the outcome of targeted social identity theory, in which an in-group physically or mentally attacks the out-group which they view as a perceived threat. Further to this, the effect this has on the self and social identity of the victims of prejudice is significant (Major et al., 2011; Dinas et al., 2021), and often damaging to self-concept (Dion et al., 1978). This also forms through EAL students own ethnic and national identities. Ethnic identities are the sense of belonging and attachment to one's group, whereas national identities relate to wider societies (Phinney et al., 2006). As such the experience of prejudice can have significant impacts on the formation of ethnic and national identities with both the current occupied nation and home nationality (Khanlou et al., 2008). Umaña-Taylor (2004) evidence the link between a strong ethnic identity and self-esteem, importantly this was not affected by school composition and was not mirrored by previous research with white adolescents (Roberts et al., 1999). Furthermore, this supports the idea that links between ethnic identity and self-esteem only exist for groups where ethnicity is a salient factor, such as EAL (Phinney, 1991). The impact that ethnic identity has on self-esteem is vital as Khanlou et al. (2008) report that EAL students often feel a silence or fear of disclosing native identity. This suggests that EAL students struggle to identify with their ethnic identity within the monolinguistic culture and therefore may not feel confident enough to disclosure their identity. Anisef & Kilbride (2003) find that prejudice for migrant children is one of the biggest barriers affecting acculturation and integration. These feelings of non-disclosure and silence over cultural identity may be caused by more than peer prejudice, with feelings of discrimination also directed from adults, such as parents and school leaders.

The experiences of prejudice that EAL students experience can extend to teaching and leadership staff, as such EAL students may risk misidentification of special educational needs and difficulties (SEND). Barker (2023) identifies the difficulties in assessing whether EAL students have additional needs beyond their English comprehension. McKay (2006) further describes how the reliance on standardised assessments within the educational system cause frequent misidentification. This misidentification of SEND may influence the self- and social-identity of EAL students, as recent work has shown the impact SEND labelling has on those with learning difficulties (Demetriou, 2020; Algraigray & Boyle, 2017). Therefore, the impact of false labelling will have impacts on self-concept formation and the interactions between students and staff (Qvortrup & Qvortrup, 2018). Teacher discrimination is not limited to difficulties in labelling as Anisef & Kilbride (2003) found that teachers often lacked support for EAL students and imposed higher expectations. This is further supported by Khanlou et al. (2008) who recognised the role adults can have in limiting the social experiences of EAL students. This repeated assumptions from peers and teaching staff will further engrain ideas of out-group perceptions effecting the development of self-concept in these vulnerable groups (Tarrant et al., 2006). However, within early childhood there are differences in the way prejudice is formed and exists.

The way prejudice exhibits itself in early childhood influences the way in which it affects later self- and social-identity development. Nesdale (1999a) outlines how these social experiences have dramatic impacts on integration of pupils and effects the friendship selection of EAL students. Nesdale (1999a) provides three explanations for prejudice within children: the Authoritarian personality, social reflection, and socio-cognitive. All these theories have links to social identity theory and its importance in the development of prejudice (Tafjal & Turner, 1979). Research outlines how from a young age children are capable of identifying groups with higher social regard and show preferences for being part of higher social status groups (Nesdale et al., 2005; Radke & Trager, 1950; Vaughn & Thompson, 1961). Building on social identity theory, Nesdale (1999a) then presents a model of how prejudice develops in early years in which is begins to emerge at age 3, when children become aware of ethnic differences. Children then develop a preference for similar ethnicities which only develops into prejudice at age 7. By this age children have developed the idea of ethnic constancy (Semaj, 1980), meaning that children develop awareness of their ethnic identity and its unchangeable nature. This has close links with the continuity aspect of self-identity as outlined by Guardo & Bohan (1971). However, it is also important to note that previous ethnic preference still has an impact on minority, and EAL, self and social identity development due to involuntary isolation (Bouma-Doff, 2016). These influences on early ethnic preferences and later ethnic prejudices impact the wider social development of out-group members.

The effect of ethnic and racial impacts on social interaction during educational years is shown through friendship choice. This tendency is referred to as homophily (McPherson et al., 2001) and can be seen through social network studies. Campigotto et al. (2021) evidence how foreign-born students are more likely to select friends based upon their country of origin. Similarly, Comola & Mendola (2014) found that migrants are more likely to select friends who have origins near their own home-nation. These studies are suggestive of a limited or influenced friendship selection for foreign students. These friendship selections relate to social identity theory, as they further reinforce in-group and out-group bias (Islam, 2014), this may then lead to higher rates of prejudice (Brewer, 2002). However, Campigotto et al. (2021) also evidences other social variables that influence friendship selection, such as gender, which may suggest that the formation of these social groups is not purely influenced by prejudice and instead be the result of familiarity, relating to earlier theories of ethnic preferences (Nesdale, 1999b). However, research shows that the ethnic preferences in relation to friendship choice do function bilaterally, with EAL or minority students showing preferences for ethnically similar friendship groups (Marks et al., 2007). However, even within this study there were presented differences in these preferences due to cultural background. This is suggestive that ethnic identity and preferences are closely linked but differ between cultures and individuals so cannot fully explain social identity theory for all groups. There are, however, interventions and support that can be put in place for EAL students to aid with social difficulties and increase chances of interethnic socialisation.

Studies show that for EAL students there is value in the role of both the teacher and educational setting in breaking down communication and social barriers. Much research has evidenced the important impact language and social intervention work can have on EAL students’ social identity formation (Whiteside et al., 2016; Oxley & de Cat, 2019). Wielgosz & Molyneux (2015) provide evidence on targeted art programmes to encourage identity construction and social transition for EAL students. This is one way in which negative aspects of identity formation can be eliminated allowing for positive self, ethnic identity and social identity in EAL pupils. Similarly, Theobold et al. (2019) evidence how the promotion and use of non-verbal methods and cues can have significant impacts on friendship formation for EAL students within a mono-lingual classroom. Hall et al. (2019) outlined the importance of nonverbal communication in everyday interactions through markers that identify key factors around people, which can then be further used for social categorisation. However, Marsh et al. (2003) outlines the impact cultural background has on nonverbal communication, such as facial expressions. It may then be suggested that EAL students may differ in nonverbal communication causing further social communication deficits. The impact this has on social identity is significant, with studies showing that there is a correlation between strength of social identity and language abilities (Norton, 2012).

However, the impact of EAL status on self and social identity is not limited to social interactions as there is a significant impact on the educational difficulties. Demie (2017) evidence how EAL pupils who are in the earlier stages of English proficiency achieved low level final grades from their school experience. On the other hand, Marsh & O’Mara (2008) evidence a lack of relationship between general self-concept and academic achievements. Additionally, this is further supported by Pullmann & Allik (2008) who found a similar lack of connection between general self-esteem and academic achievement. However, Steele (1997) suggest a mediating factor within these findings in that although ethnic minorities (such as EAL) often gain lower academic achievements, there is not as significant decrease in self-esteem. This is due to academic disidentification in which these groups disassociate from academic achievements to protect themselves from feelings of failure. The impact of academic disidentification on self-concept was further studied by Cokley (2002), who presents that the link between self-concept and grades was higher in white students than African American students. In the context of EAL, this may suggest that whilst they may struggle more academically this may not impact their self-concept as they may not acknowledge factors such as academic achievement as part of their own self-image. On the other hand, Demie (2017) also evidenced how those EAL students who did become proficient at English overachieved native English speakers, suggesting a positive relationship between acculturation and academic achievement reducing need for academic disidentification.

In conclusion, EAL students are at risk of negative self and social identity through their language difficulties. These language difficulties can set them behind academically leading to further differentiation from peers, engraining them further into out-group ideologies. Similarly, both their language use and visible differences may lead to discrimination within educational settings, which further shape their identities. Ethnic identity can act as a shield and build positive self-esteem but also causes further separation through segregated friendship circles. However, these differences can be tackled through targeted intervention work and focus on promoting English understanding to improve social capabilities.