The Influence of Culture and Identity on Motivation in the English-as-a-Second-Language Acquisition Process: A Quasi-Experimental Study with Ecuadorian University Students

Abstract

Motivation is a key predictor of success in second language (L2) acquisition, yet how culture and identity shape it among Latin American learners remains under-examined. This study used a quasi-experimental design with non-equivalent control and experimental groups (n = 100) to test the effect of an eight-week culturally responsive pedagogical intervention on the motivation of intermediate-level English-as-a-second-language learners at a public university in Ecuador, measured with the validated Spanish version of Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB). An independent-samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in post-intervention motivation scores between the experimental group (M = 156.1, SD = 31.2) and the control group (M = 134.5, SD = 28.4), t(98) = 3.91, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.72. The intervention was associated with a medium-to-large increase in motivation, consistent with sociocultural theory, the socio-educational model, the L2 Motivational Self System, and identity-investment theory; because the control group did not receive an equally novel activity, this finding should be read as preliminary evidence for the cultural/identity component specifically. Implications for culturally sensitive language teaching in diverse Hispanic contexts are derived.

1. Introduction

Motivation is one of the most consistent predictors of success in second language (L2) acquisition. Dörnyei and Ryan note that, without a sufficient level of motivation, even learners with high linguistic aptitude rarely achieve advanced communicative competence [1]. Despite decades of research, significant gaps remain regarding how sociocultural variables, particularly identity and the learner’s culture of origin, shape the motivation of specific groups of learners [2,3].

The Latin American context offers a particularly interesting setting. Recent studies document tensions between the institutional demand for English as a global lingua franca and the local linguistic identities of university students [4,5]. Ecuador, in particular, has implemented higher-education internationalization policies that require increasingly high levels of English proficiency [6], generating motivational pressures that have rarely been examined experimentally.

This article has two objectives. First, to analyze the main theories that explore the interrelationship between culture, identity, and motivation in learning English as an L2. Second, to empirically evaluate the effect of a culturally responsive pedagogical intervention on the motivation of intermediate-level Ecuadorian university students, using a quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent control group.

The research questions guiding this study are: (1) How does the recent literature conceptualize the relationship between culture, identity, and motivation in L2? (2) To what extent does a pedagogical intervention that incorporates cultural and identity-related elements increase the motivation of university English students in Ecuador?

2. Literature Review

This section systematizes the literature review that underpins the study following the SALSA method (Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis), a protocol widely used in the social sciences and education to ensure the transparency, reproducibility, and critical rigor of literature reviews [7]. Unlike conventional narrative reviews, the SALSA method makes each phase of the process explicit, from the search strategy to the analysis of the findings’ implications.

2.1. Search

The literature search was conducted in three international databases: ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Scopus, and Web of Science, covering the period 2002–2023. This time range was selected because Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System model [8] and Norton’s foundational work on identity and investment [9] represent the most cited frameworks of the last decade in the field.

The descriptors used, in English and Spanish, were: (a) L2 motivation AND culture; (b) identity AND second language acquisition; (c) culturally responsive EFL teaching; (d) motivación L2 AND identidad; (e) intervención pedagógica AND motivación AND inglés. Filters were applied for peer-reviewed articles published in indexed journals and available in full text. The initial search yielded 312 results, of which 48 were selected after the critical appraisal phase described below.

2.2. Appraisal

Each identified study was evaluated according to three criteria: (1) direct thematic relevance to at least two of the three core constructs (culture, identity, L2 motivation); (2) methodological quality, prioritizing experimental, quasi-experimental, longitudinal, or meta-analytic designs with justified sample sizes; and (3) application context, with preference for studies conducted in Spanish-speaking or Latin American contexts when these existed.

Expert opinions without empirical support, studies with samples smaller than 30 participants without statistical justification, and works using motivation constructs without valid operationalization were excluded. Of the 312 initial results, 264 were excluded for not meeting at least two of the three criteria. The remaining 48 studies constituted the corpus of the review.

2.3. Synthesis

The synthesis was conducted narratively, organizing the studies into five thematic blocks corresponding to the subsections of the theoretical framework (Section 3): sociocultural theory, culture and L2 learning, identity and L2 acquisition, models of L2 motivation, and the integrative relationship among the three constructs. For each block, convergent findings and unresolved theoretical tensions were identified.

A finding that cuts across all five blocks is that L2 motivation cannot be understood as a static individual attribute, but rather as a dynamic disposition shaped by the sociocultural context, the learner’s identity history, and the power relations that structure access to the target language [1,2,9]. This conclusion directly informs the design of the pedagogical intervention described in the methodology section.

2.4. Analysis

The analysis of the reviewed literature identifies a relevant empirical gap: most studies on culture, identity, and L2 motivation are correlational or qualitative, with scarce evidence from controlled pedagogical interventions that causally test the effect of cultural and identity-related factors on motivation [3]. This gap justifies the quasi-experimental design adopted in the present study. Of the 48 studies retained after the appraisal phase, the most theoretically central are discussed in depth in Section 3, organized around the five thematic blocks identified during synthesis; the remaining studies inform the narrower points made throughout the introduction, methods, and discussion. Table 1 presents a synthesis of the four phases of the SALSA method as applied to this research.

Table 1. Four phases of the SALSA method.

Phase	Description of the SALSA Method	Application in This Study	Assessment
S (Search)	Definition of descriptors, databases, and study selection criteria	Literature review in ERIC, Scopus, and Web of Science (2002–2023); descriptors: L2 motivation, culture, identity SLA, culturally responsive EFL	This study declares the search criteria and time range
A (Appraisal)	Critical evaluation of the methodological quality of included studies	Priority given to studies with experimental, quasi-experimental, or meta-analytic designs; opinions without empirical support excluded	The selected theoretical frameworks have broad empirical support and verifiable citations
S (Synthesis)	Narrative or quantitative synthesis of the findings of the selected studies	Narrative synthesis of five theoretical frameworks: SCT, culture in L2, identity, L2MSS, and the relationship among constructs	The synthesis articulates the three constructs in a coherent model that grounds the intervention
A (Analysis)	Critical analysis of the implications of the findings for theory and practice	Own quasi-experimental study operationalizing the review findings into a measurable intervention (AMTB, n = 100)	The empirical design allows the study to move from theoretical review to causal evidence, strengthening the validity of the contribution

Note: SALSA = Search, Appraisal, Synthesis, Analysis [7]. ERIC = Education Resources Information Center.

Therefore, the systematic SALSA review not only theoretically grounds the study but also justifies its empirical design as a response to a gap in the literature: the need for causal evidence on the effect of culturally responsive interventions on the motivation of Latin American learners of English as an L2.

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1. Sociocultural Theory and L2 Acquisition

Sociocultural theory (SCT), originally developed by Vygotsky [10], holds that higher psychological processes, including language learning, emerge from social interaction mediated by semiotic and cultural tools. Applied to the field of L2 acquisition, SCT proposes that learning a foreign language is not an individual cognitive phenomenon, but a collaborative process in which learners gradually appropriate the linguistic and communicative forms of a new community [11].

From this perspective, motivation cannot be understood apart from the sociocultural context in which learning occurs. Zuengler and Miller argue that learners construct their orientation toward the L2 through the negotiation of meaning with other social actors (teachers, peers, and communities of practice), which makes motivation, in part, a situated and intersubjective phenomenon [12]. This situated view of motivation connects directly to the formation of identity: if motivation emerges from social interaction, then the identity that a learner brings to, and constructs within, that interaction becomes a central explanatory variable rather than a background factor. Norton’s concept of investment builds on this sociocultural premise, proposing that learners’ engagement with an L2 depends on how they see the target language community and the extent to which they can imagine themselves belonging to it, so that culturally responsive pedagogical designs that make that belonging visible and attainable can be expected to increase motivation through the same social mechanisms that SCT identifies [9,11].

3.2. Culture and Language Learning

Culture can be defined as the set of meanings, practices, and products shared by a given social group [13]. In the context of L2 learning, culture operates on two complementary dimensions: as curricular content (the texts, values, and norms of the target community) and as an interpretive framework from which the learner evaluates and processes the new language [14]. This group-bounded definition reflects a classic, relatively stable conception of culture. It should be read alongside more contemporary accounts, most notably Appadurai’s theory of global cultural flows, which describe culture less as a fixed property of a bounded group and more as a set of meanings that circulate and are continually reconfigured across national and community borders through migration, media, and digital communication [15]. Both perspectives inform the present study: Latin American and Ecuadorian culture are treated here as a recognizable point of reference for the pedagogical intervention, consistent with the classic view, while it is also acknowledged that students’ cultural and linguistic identities are shaped by transnational flows of English language media and digital communication, consistent with Appadurai’s perspective.

Cross-cultural research has documented systematic differences in motivational orientation according to the learner’s cultural group. Tragant et al. found that students from contexts with high collective value on multilingual competence show higher levels of integrative motivation than those from contexts with more entrenched monolingual identities [16]. In Latin America, Cárdenas documented that ambivalent attitudes toward English as the language of economic power reduce instrumental motivation among Colombian higher-education students [5].

3.3. Identity and L2 Acquisition

The concept of identity has gained increasing centrality in L2 research since the seminal work of Norton Peirce and Norton [9,17]. Identity is conceived as a dynamic, multiple, and contested construct through which learners negotiate their sense of belonging to different linguistic and cultural communities. Learning a foreign language can involve a reconfiguration of the individual’s linguistic and cultural identity, a process that can be a source of both motivation and resistance [18]. This dynamic view of identity draws on Hall’s distinction between identity as being, a stable, shared essence, and identity as becoming, a discontinuous process of identification shaped by history, culture, and relations of power [19]. For Hall, cultural identity is not a fixed inheritance but a positioning that is constantly produced through difference, a framing that is particularly relevant for L2 learners who must negotiate between their existing linguistic identity and an emerging one as users of English.

Norton introduces the concept of investment to capture the relationship between identity and motivation: learners invest in learning an L2 when they anticipate that this investment will generate symbolic and material resources that will expand their cultural capital [9]. Investment theory goes beyond instrumental conceptions of motivation by incorporating dimensions of power, social positioning, and identity projection.

3.4. Models of L2 Motivation

The socio-educational model of Gardner and Lambert, later refined by Gardner, distinguishes between integrative motivation (the desire to learn a language in order to integrate into its linguistic community) and instrumental motivation (the pursuit of pragmatic benefits such as employment or academic access) [20,21]. Although this distinction has been criticized for its rigidity [22], it remains operative as a measurement framework.

The L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) proposed by Dörnyei offers an update that integrates possible-selves psychology [8,23]. The model posits three components: the ideal L2 self, the ought-to L2 self, and the L2 learning experience. The ideal L2 self (the learner’s vision of themselves as a competent speaker of the target language) emerges as the most robust motivational predictor in contexts of English as an international language [24,25].

Ushioda complements these models with an agentive perspective: learners are motivated agents, not mere recipients of contextual variables [2]. This view highlights the importance of designing pedagogical interventions that activate motivational agency through culturally meaningful tasks and opportunities for identification with the L2.

The L2MSS and Norton’s identity and investment theory are complementary rather than competing accounts of how culture and identity shape motivation. The ideal L2 self describes the psychological, future-oriented image that motivates a learner, while investment theory explains the social and material conditions, including access to cultural capital and recognition within a target community, under which learners choose to commit effort to reaching that image [8,9]. Read together, the two frameworks suggest that a pedagogical intervention is more likely to increase motivation when it both helps learners imagine a credible future self as an English speaker and gives them a socially meaningful reason, tied to their own cultural identity, to invest in that image; this combined logic directly informs the design of the intervention described in Section 4.2.

3.5. Relationship Between Culture, Identity, and Motivation

Recent research has begun to integrate the three constructs (culture, identity, and motivation) into more holistic frameworks [3]. Dörnyei and Csizér showed that cultural attitudes toward the target-language community predict integrative motivation more strongly than attitudes toward learning itself [26]. Guilloteaux and Dörnyei, in an observational study with 40 teachers and 1381 students in South Korea, found that teachers’ motivational strategies mediated the relationship between the sociocultural context and student motivation [27].

In Latin American contexts, MacIntyre et al. documented that willingness to communicate (WTC) in English is modulated by the perceived cultural distance from the English-speaking community: the greater the perceived distance, the lower the WTC, which in turn negatively feeds back into motivation [28]. This finding underscores the need for interventions that symbolically shorten this distance through the incorporation of local cultural references into the English classroom.

3.6. Technology-Mediated Contexts and L2 Motivation

Contemporary accounts of culture and identity in L2 acquisition increasingly have to account for technology-mediated environments, since learners’ exposure to the target language and community now happens as much through digital media as through the physical classroom. Godwin-Jones documents how telecollaboration and other forms of internet-mediated exchange expand learners’ access to authentic interaction with the target-language community, with effects on both intercultural communicative competence and motivation [29]. For Ecuadorian university students, everyday exposure to English-language social media, streaming content, and online communities constitutes an informal complement to classroom instruction, one that can either reinforce or compete with a culturally responsive pedagogical intervention depending on whether it validates or displaces the learner’s local cultural identity. Although the present study did not manipulate technology-mediated exposure as part of the intervention, this dimension is a relevant contextual variable that future replications of this design should consider, both as an additional channel through which cultural and identity-related content could be delivered and as a potential confound if experimental and control group students differ in their informal digital exposure to English.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Type and Design of the Research

This study used a quantitative approach, applying a quasi-experimental design with a non-equivalent control group and pretest posttest measurement [30]. This design allows the causal effect of an intervention to be evaluated when random assignment is not possible, provided that the initial equivalence of the groups on the dependent variable is verified [31]. The independent variable was participation in the culturally responsive pedagogical intervention; the dependent variable was motivation toward learning English, measured with the AMTB [21].

4.2. Description of the Pedagogical Intervention

The intervention lasted eight weeks (16 sessions of 90 min) and incorporated three principles of the culturally responsive approach [32]: (a) the use of authentic texts produced by Latin American English speakers and bilingual Ecuadorians; (b) intercultural comparison activities that promoted reflection on students’ own linguistic identity; and (c) project tasks oriented toward the construction of an ideal L2 self [8], including biographical portfolios in English and presentations on Latin American figures who used English as a language of empowerment.

Each of the three principles was operationalized in weekly session blocks. Principle (a) was implemented in weeks 1 to 3 through reading and listening tasks built around short interviews, opinion columns, and podcast excerpts produced by bilingual Ecuadorian professionals and by Latin American English speakers in academic, artistic, and business settings, followed by guided discussion and vocabulary work anchored in those texts rather than in the textbook’s native speaker dialogues. Principle (b) was implemented in weeks 4 to 6 through paired and small group activities in which students compared a cultural practice, value, or expression from their own context with its closest equivalent in an English speaking community, then wrote short reflective journal entries on where they located themselves between the two. Principle (c) occupied weeks 7 and 8: students built a biographical portfolio in English combining a written autobiography, a short recorded self introduction, and a closing oral presentation profiling a Latin American figure who uses English professionally, explicitly linking that figure’s trajectory to the student’s own ideal L2 self. All materials were reviewed by two instructors with experience in Ecuadorian higher education to confirm cultural relevance and linguistic appropriateness prior to use.

A conceptual clarification is warranted regarding the theoretical label used for this intervention. Culturally responsive pedagogy, as formulated by Gay [32] and the closely related culturally relevant pedagogy of Ladson Billings [33], was developed primarily to address the schooling of historically marginalized ethnic and racial minorities in the United States, and it typically foregrounds the contestation of hierarchical relations of oppression between a dominant culture and a minoritized one. Ecuadorian university students learning English as a foreign language are not a minoritized group within their own national context in the sense assumed by that literature; the relevant tension here is instead the one described in Section 3.2 and Section 3.5, between an internationalized institutional demand for English and students’ local linguistic and cultural identity. The design borrows the pedagogical mechanisms proposed by culturally responsive pedagogy, namely the use of learners’ own cultural references and identity-relevant tasks to increase engagement, while adapting the underlying rationale to a context of unequal access to a global lingua franca rather than to intra-national ethnic or racial hierarchy. This adaptation is treated as a limitation of the theoretical fit between framework and context, discussed further in Section 6.

The control group received conventional instruction centered on the institutional textbook (Interchange 3, 5th ed.) [34] without curricular modifications. Both groups were taught by the same instructor to control for instructor effects [35]. Intervention fidelity was verified through weekly classroom observations using a 12-item checklist (interobserver agreement coefficient k = 0.84).

4.3. Participants

The sample consisted of 100 university students at an intermediate level of oral English (n = 50 per group) enrolled in conversation courses at a public university in Quito, Ecuador. Sampling was non-probabilistic and by convenience [36]; inclusion criteria were: (a) enrollment in the intermediate-level oral English course, (b) age between 18 and 25 years, and (c) a minimum of two years of prior formal English instruction. Students who were simultaneously enrolled in another English module or who had resided for more than three months in an English-speaking country were excluded.

The final sample included 60 women (60%) and 40 men (40%), with a mean age of 21.4 years (SD = 2.3). Socioeconomic status was heterogeneous: 50% middle, 30% upper-middle, and 20% lower-middle, with no significant differences between groups (χ² = 0.54, p = 0.76). Sample size was estimated a priori using G*Power 3.1 [37] for an expected effect size of d = 0.60, statistical power of 0.80, and α = 0.05.

4.4. Instrument

The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) is a standardized, widely validated self-report instrument developed by Gardner within the socio-educational model to measure attitudinal and motivational orientations toward learning a second language, including integrative and instrumental motivation, attitudes toward the learning situation, and language anxiety [21]. It was selected for the present study because it operationalizes the same constructs, integrative versus instrumental motivation and the broader socio-educational model, discussed in Section 3.4, allowing the study’s theoretical framework to be tested with a measure specifically designed for it. The Spanish-language version of the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) [21], adapted and validated for Spanish-speaking populations by Llambés-Sánchez et al. [38], was administered. The instrument contains 104 items organized into subscales measuring: attitudes toward learning English, integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, language-learning anxiety, and attitudes toward the target community. Each item uses a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). The adapted version showed an overall reliability of α = 0.93 in the present study’s sample, consistent with the reliability values reported by Gardner for the original AMTB [21] and by Llambés-Sánchez et al. for the Spanish-adapted version [38].

4.5. Procedure and Data Analysis

The AMTB was administered collectively in the classroom, in printed format, during the first and last sessions of the intervention period, following the standardized administration protocols described by Gardner for the AMTB [21]. Data were processed in SPSS version 25.0. Descriptive analysis (means, standard deviations, frequency distributions) was performed, and the assumptions of normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and homoscedasticity (Levene’s test) were checked prior to parametric inference. The research hypothesis was tested using an independent-samples t-test on the posttest scores, with a significance level of α = 0.05. Effect size was estimated using Cohen’s d [39].

The study was approved by the institution’s Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the start of the study.

5. Results

5.1. Initial Equivalence Between Groups

Before the intervention, no statistically significant differences were found between the control group (M = 130.2, SD = 26.7) and the experimental group (M = 134.8, SD = 30.5) on pretest motivation scores, t(98) = 0.97, p = 0.34 (two-tailed), d = 0.16. This result confirms initial equivalence on the dependent variable, a necessary condition for the internal validity of the quasi-experimental design [31]. No significant differences were found in gender (χ² = 0.22, p = 0.80), mean age (t(98) = 0.51, p = 0.62), or socioeconomic status (χ² = 0.54, p = 0.76) either.

5.2. Distribution of Motivation Levels Pre- and Post-Intervention

Table 2 presents the distribution of motivation levels for the total sample before and after the intervention. A notable shift is observed from the low and very low levels (23% pretest vs. 9% posttest) toward the high and very high levels (41% pretest vs. 62% posttest).

Table 2. Distribution of motivation levels pre- and post-intervention (total sample, n = 100).

Motivation Level	Pre-Intervention n (%)	Post-Intervention n (%)	Change
Very low	5 (5%)	1 (1%)	−4
Low	18 (18%)	8 (8%)	−10
Moderate	36 (36%)	29 (29%)	−7
High	28 (28%)	39 (39%)	+11
Very high	13 (13%)	23 (23%)	+10

Note: Levels were defined based on the percentiles of the total sample at pretest: very low < P10; low P10–P25; moderate P25–P75; high P75–P90; very high > P90.

5.3. Comparison of Posttest Motivation Between Groups

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for motivation by group and measurement time. The experimental group showed an average increase of 21.3 points between pretest and posttest, while the control group increased by only 4.3 points.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for motivation by group and measurement time.

Group/Time	M	SD	Min	Max
Control (Pre)	130.2	26.7	67	178
Control (Post)	134.5	28.4	73	183
Experimental (Pre)	134.8	30.5	45	185
Experimental (Post)	156.1 *	31.2	51	192

Note: * Statistically significant difference relative to the control group at posttest (p = 0.002).

Table 4 presents the results of the independent-samples t-test on the posttest scores. A significant difference was obtained, t(98) = 3.91, p = 0.002 (two-tailed), leading to rejection of the null hypothesis.

Table 4. Independent-samples t-test: posttest motivation.

Group	n	M Post	SD	t (98 df); p
Control	50	134.5	28.4	3.91; 0.002 *
Experimental	50	156.1	31.2	N/A

Note: * p < 0.05 (two-tailed). df = degrees of freedom.

5.4. Effect Size

Table 5 presents the effect-size calculation using Cohen’s d [39]. The value obtained (d = 0.72) corresponds to a medium-to-large effect, a category placed between d = 0.50 (medium effect) and d = 0.80 (large effect). This result indicates that, in addition to being statistically significant, the difference between groups has substantial practical relevance.

Table 5. Estimation of the pedagogical intervention’s effect size.

Statistic	Value	Interpretation (Cohen [39])
Mean difference (M exp minus M ctrl)	21.6 points	N/A
Pooled SD	29.8	N/A
Cohen’s d	0.72	Medium-to-large effect

Note: Cohen’s d calculated as: d = (M experimental − M control)/pooled SD. Pooled SD = √[(SD1² + SD2²)/2]. Small d = 0.20; medium d = 0.50; large d = 0.80 [39].

6. Discussion

The results of the present study provide empirical evidence that a culturally responsive pedagogical intervention can significantly increase the motivation of Ecuadorian university students learning English as an L2. The experimental group achieved a posttest motivation mean 21.6 points higher than the control group, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.002) with a medium-to-large effect (d = 0.72). These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted in Asian and European contexts documenting positive effects of motivational interventions on L2 motivation [27,40,41].

From the perspective of the L2 Motivational Self System [8], the observed improvement can be attributed to the activation of the ideal L2 self through identity-projection activities, namely biographical portfolios and presentations on Latin American English-speaking role models. These pedagogical resources facilitated the construction of a future-self vision as a competent English speaker, consistent with the student’s Ecuadorian cultural identity, thereby reducing the identity tension that Cárdenas identifies as a motivational inhibitor in Latin American contexts [5].

The incorporation of texts produced by Latin American English speakers is consistent with Kramsch’s postulates on symbolic agency [14]: when learners see themselves reflected in the L2, not only in native English speakers, perceived cultural distance decreases and willingness to communicate increases [28]. This mechanism could explain the magnitude of the effect found, which slightly exceeds the average reported in meta-analyses on motivational interventions in L2 (d ≈ 0.50–0.60) [3].

The quasi-experimental design with a control group and verified initial equivalence strengthens the internal validity of the study. However, several important limitations must be acknowledged, spanning methodological constraints of the quasi-experimental design, the characteristics of the sample, and the resulting boundaries on the generalizability of the findings; each is addressed in turn below. First, and most critically, the control group received only conventional instruction using the institutional textbook, so the experimental group differed from the control group not only in the cultural and identity-related content of the activities, but also in its curricular novelty. This introduces a possible novelty effect (and, to a lesser extent, a Hawthorne effect associated with the perception of participating in a special intervention) that is confounded with the effect attributed to cultural relevance. The current design does not allow these two sources of variation to be fully disentangled; future studies should incorporate an active control group, exposed to equally novel but culturally neutral activities, in order to attribute the motivational gain more confidently to the cultural and identity-related components specifically. Second, the inferential analysis was limited to a t-test on posttest scores, after verifying initial equivalence with an independent t-test on pretest scores; an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the pretest score as a covariate would have offered more robust statistical control over residual baseline differences between groups, and is recommended as a robustness check in a revision of this study or in future replications. Third, the study reported only the composite AMTB score; the subscales of integrative motivation, instrumental motivation, and language anxiety were not analyzed separately, which precludes a finer-grained test of the specific predictions of the socio-educational model [20] and the L2 Motivational Self System [8]; for example, whether the intervention preferentially increased the ideal L2 self or integrative motivation. Fourth, non-probabilistic sampling restricts the generalization of the results to contexts similar to that of the sample, given that a single university and a single instructor were involved. Fifth, the absence of longitudinal follow-up prevents an assessment of the durability of the observed motivational effects. Finally, measuring motivation through a self-reported questionnaire does not capture process-oriented motivational dynamics [2], nor does it rule out a social-desirability component in the experimental group, who knew they were participating in an intervention different from the usual one; both limitations call for complementary qualitative methods.

A composite AMTB score and a single group comparison are, by design, a coarse instrument for constructs as subtle as investment, hybrid cultural identity, or the negotiation of an ideal L2 self; the quasi-experimental design can establish whether motivation changed and by how much, but not the fine-grained processes through which culture and identity produced that change. Future research should adopt mixed methods that combine quantitative measurement of motivation with narrative discourse analysis and stimulated-recall interviews, in order to capture how cultural and identity-related factors manifest in L2 interactions [42]. It is likewise necessary to replicate the study with larger samples, cluster-randomized designs, an active control group, and subscale-level analysis in order to strengthen both external validity and the specific causal attribution of the cultural and identity component relative to the novelty effect.

7. Conclusions

This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between culture, identity, and motivation in learning English as an L2 in the Ecuadorian university context. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that an eight-week pedagogical intervention, designed on the basis of culturally responsive principles and the L2 Motivational Self System, is associated with significant and practically meaningful improvements in student motivation (d = 0.72). Because the control group did not receive an equally novel alternative intervention, this conclusion should be interpreted as preliminary evidence of the effect of the cultural and identity component, pending confirmation through designs with an active control group.

From a practical standpoint, the study supports, with the caveats noted regarding the design, the systematic incorporation of Latin American cultural references and identity-projection activities into English programs at Ecuadorian universities. Higher-education internationalization policies that require English competencies should be complemented by pedagogical approaches that validate students’ local linguistic identity, rather than presenting English as a foreign or culturally threatening language.

In conclusion, L2 motivation is not a static attribute of the learner, but a dynamic disposition that can be activated through pedagogical interventions that recognize and mobilize students’ culture and identity. Culturally responsive English teaching thus constitutes not only an effective pedagogical strategy but also an act of linguistic justice.