Items 1 - 8 - language held by Russian language students at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). ... tongue (Malay, one of the Chinese dialects, Tamil, etc.) ...
Beliefs about Language Learning: A Case Study of Students Learning the Russian Language at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) Larisa Nikitina Centre for the Promotion of Knowledge and Language Learning University Malaysia Sabah Fumitaka Furuoka School of Business and Economics Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Abstract Beliefs that students and language teachers hold about language learning has been a focus of research since the 1980s. Seminal studies by Elaine Horwitz of the University of Texas at Austin spurred a multitude of enquiries into the subject. However, research on the beliefs about learning a foreign language in the Malaysian context is lacking. Malaysia as a multi-cultural and multi-lingual country provides an interesting socio-linguistic setting to explore the nature of beliefs concerning language learning. This study aims to assess beliefs about learning a foreign language held by Russian language students at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). This paper presents the results of a survey conducted among one hundred seven Russian language learners. Statistical analysis was done to investigate the learners’ beliefs according to five parameters: (1) foreign language aptitude; (2) difficulty of language learning; (3) nature of language learning; (4) learning and communication strategies; (5) the importance of learning a foreign language. The findings were then compared to Horwitz’s (1988) results. Pedagogical implications of the research’s finding are also briefly discussed.
1
Introduction Learners’ beliefs are part of a wider category of affective variables, such as motivation, foreign language anxiety, risk-avoidance, etc. The fact that learners’ conceptions about foreign language learning influence the choice of strategies they would employ to learn a new language as well as the learning outcome have been recognized by researchers and language teachers. Stevick (1980) suggests that the ultimate success in language learning depends less on materials and techniques of the teachers rather than on what goes on inside the learner. Language learners hold their own assumptions or ideas about the nature and process of language learning, the level of the language’s difficulty, the efficacy of certain learning techniques, their own ability to learn a language, etc. These assumptions have been also described as “mini-theories of second-language learning” (Hosenfeld 1978).
Discussing general beliefs held by people Rokeach (1968) proposed that beliefs are organized in a psychological rather than logical way, and some beliefs are more central and therefore more interrelated to other beliefs. These central beliefs are usually of a more permanent nature. Richardson (1996, p.103) describes beliefs as “psychologically held understandings, premises, or propositions about the world that are felt to be true”. Working definition of language learning beliefs in this study is that language learning beliefs are intangible property of human mind about what is right/true or wrong/false which can either enhance or impede the learners’ ability for language learning.
Formation of beliefs is usually influenced by such factors as personality and previous experiences. As Barcelos (2000, p.4) notes, “Beliefs cannot be separated from our identities, actions, and social experiences”. Regarding the learning process, students’
2
beliefs can also be influenced by their cultural backgrounds and family or home backgrounds. Living in a multi-cultural and multi-lingual country, Malaysian university students who learn a foreign language at tertiary level are usually bilinguals, “trilinguals” or even speak more than three languages. Besides speaking their mother tongue (Malay, one of the Chinese dialects, Tamil, etc.) these students have a good knowledge of English. Therefore, Malaysian socio-linguistic context could provide an interesting setting to inquire into the nature of university students’ beliefs about learning a foreign language.
This study aims to examine beliefs about language learning held by the Russian language students at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) and assess whether their beliefs differ significantly from those reported in some other studies. A question of significance here is whether students from multi-lingual environment possess distinct beliefs about language learning and whether they hold more realistic views regarding language learning.
Literature Review and the Scope of the Present Research A seminal study on the students’ beliefs about learning a foreign language was conducted by Elain Horwitz (1988). She asserted that students bring their own beliefs about language learning to the classroom and these beliefs influence learners’ success in language acquisition. Horwitz (1988, p.293) maintained that “foreign language teachers can ill afford to ignore those beliefs”.
After extensive consultations with teachers and psychologists Horwitz developed the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) consisting of thirty-four items. The original BALLI assessed students’ beliefs in the following areas: (1) foreign
3
language aptitude, (2) the difficulty of language learning, (3) the nature of language learning, (4) learning and communication strategies, and (5) motivations and expectations. The BALLI employed a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Participants in Horwitz’s (1988) study were 80 students of German, 63 students of French, and 98 students of Spanish in the University of Texas at Austin. Several of the BALLI statements received an overwhelming support from the students of all languages. Thus, the majority agreed that (1) it was important to repeat and practice a lot, (2) some languages are easier to learn than others, (3) children have better ability to learn a foreign language than adults, and (4) learning a foreign language is different from other subjects. A strong disagreement was generated by the statement that one should not say anything in a foreign language until one can say it correctly.
Some of students’ beliefs reported by Horwitz (1988) could be described as unrealistic or erroneous. Thus, 43 percent of respondents agreed that one could become a fluent speaker of a foreign language within two years with one hour per day study. This shows that learners may have underestimated the effort needed to become a good speaker. Additionally, 34 percent of them thought that learning a language was mostly a matter of memorizing new vocabulary. Further 29 percent agreed that it was mostly about learning grammar rules. As Horwitz maintained, if students placed too much importance to learning vocabulary and grammar, they might be reluctant to participate in communicative activities prepared by the teacher. Further, though 50 percent of Horwitz’s respondents agreed that some people have an aptitude for learning foreign languages, only 35 percent thought that they possessed such an ability. The importance of speaking with an excellent
4
pronunciation was greatly overrated as 71 percent of students said that perfect accent was important when speaking a foreign language. The present research will investigate whether beliefs held by learners of the Russian language at Universiti Malaysia Sabah differ from Horwitz’s findings.
Horwitz’s research on language learning beliefs paved way for a multitude of studies on learners’ perceptions of the language learning process. In the past two decades the subject of beliefs held by language learners has been a focus of intensive and extensive research. Different aspects of the subject have been looked into. On a more general scale, Mori (1999) examined whether students’ epistemological beliefs, i.e. beliefs about knowledge and learning in general, influenced their language learning beliefs. She concluded that epistemological and language beliefs were for the most part unrelated. This is an interesting point since it suggests that language learning beliefs form a special area and merit separate research.
It has been a recognized fact that language learning beliefs are context specific and learners from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds may hold different language beliefs. Learners’ language background plays a significant part in determining their beliefs about learning a new language. A considerable number of previous researches on the learners’ beliefs about language learning were conducted in predominantly monolingual environment (Horwitz 1988, Truitt 1995, Park 1995, Kimura et al 2001, etc.). Different learning and socio-linguistic contexts may result in different beliefs about the nature of language learning. Thus, learners from a monolingual socio-linguistic setting probably hold different views regarding language learning compared to those who are educated in a multi-lingual environment and are themselves speakers of several languages and dialects.
5
A study conducted by Tumposky (1991) compared language learning beliefs of Russian exchange students in the USA to the beliefs of American students learning Spanish and French in American universities. As reported by Tumposky, the Russian students believed that when learning a foreign language it was important to practice a lot and take linguistic risks while the American students did not share those beliefs. Also, the Russian students, coming from a multi-linguistic environment of the former USSR, believed that learning a language was important in order to “know” the native speakers of English. As for the American students, learning a foreign language was not an achievement valued by their compatriots, perhaps reflecting the view that monolingual environment was preferred in the USA. As Tumposky (1991, p.62) concluded, “It seems that culture does contribute to the belief system of foreign language learners”. 1 The present study investigates the language beliefs of the students learning Russian in a multi-lingual environment. A question of significance here is whether these learners’ beliefs differ significantly from the beliefs of learners coming from a monolingual environment, for example, such as that reported by Tumposky?
There is a scarcity of research on the beliefs of students learning the Russian language as the majority of previous studies focused on the learners of English, Spanish, German, and French. Concerning beliefs of the Russian language learners, Smith (1989, cited in Kuntz 1996) who conducted a study among the University of Texas at Austin students, reported that the students held generally positive set of beliefs about their language aptitude. They had good expectations regarding their study outcome; they agreed that everyone could learn a foreign language, including people who were good at science and math; they were confident to be able to speak Russian well and stated that they learned Russian in order to speak with the native
6
speakers of the language. The present research seeks to examine whether the Russian language students at UMS have special beliefs about language learning.
In Asian context, researches conducted in Japan concluded that inhibitory factors among Japanese learners of the English language were high and reported that the learners had negative beliefs about their foreign language aptitude and ability to use the English language (Kimura et al. 2001, O’Donnell 2003). Similarly, Truitt (1995) reported that Korean students in her study were not very confident of their ability to learn the English language. Some studies explored the relationship between ethnicity and learners beliefs. It has been repeatedly pointed out that Asian students preferred logical rather than intuitive approach to solve a task and therefore might be reluctant to make guesses and avoid taking risk (Anderson 1993). Emphasis on rote learning, repetition, memorization and planning has also been highlighted (Liu and Littlewood 1997, Oxford and Burry-Stock 1995). The present study will examine whether students from a multi-lingual environment have more positive beliefs about language learning compared to the learners from predominantly monolingual surrounding.
In short, this study aims to assess the language learning beliefs held by the Russian language students at Universiti Malaysia Sabah. This study is different from the others as it looks at the beliefs of the learners from a multi-lingual and multi-cultural environment, where all the participants have had a previous experience of formal language learning. Since all the participants in the present research spoke two or more languages -- and had a good proficiency level in English -- this research aimed to investigate the students’ attitude towards learning a foreign language other than English and assess whether this cohort of learners considered learning a foreign
7
language a worthwhile pursuit. Pedagogical implications based on the research’s finding are briefly discussed.
Research Method
Participants The participants of this study were the Russian language students at Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS). One hundred seven students responded to the questionnaire, 31 of whom were at the beginners’ level and 76 at the intermediate level. This cohort of students consisted predominantly of science students (71%, n=76). The majority (97.2%, n=104) were between 19 to 22 years old; there were considerably more females (60.7%, n=65) than males (39.3%, n=42).
By ethnic groups, Malay students represented 14% (n=15) of respondents, Chinese 42.1% (n=45), Indians 10.3% (n=11), Kadazan 15.0% (n=16), and others 18.7% (n=20). 2
Regarding the linguistic background, the majority of respondents (45.8%, n=49) listed the “Chinese” language as their mother tongue; 26% (n=28) of respondents listed the Malay language, 10.3% (n=11) “Indian”, 9.3% (n=10) Kadazan, and 8.4% (n=9) “other” as their mother tongue. None of the respondents was monolingual. Bilinguals represented 24.3% (n=26) of the cohort. The majority (39.3%, n=41) spoke three languages, while a considerable number spoke four (21.55%, n=23) or five (14.0%, n=15) languages and/or dialects. All respondents learned the Malay and English languages at school, while more than half of them (54.2%, n=58) learned three languages (Malay, English, and Mandarin). The data indicate that all of the
8
students have had a previous language learning experience. However, none of the respondents mentioned learning a foreign language at school. 3
Instrument and Procedure The students answered a questionnaire specially developed for this study which consisted of 36 statements. The questionnaire employed a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” statements. When preparing the questionnaire, Horwitz’s (1988) Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) and Kuntz-Rifkin Instrument (KRI) (Kuntz 1996) were consulted and modified to suit the objectives of this study and reflect the Malaysian context.
Firstly, the questionnaire developed for the present research omits the items of the BALLI that focus on learner’s motivation because motivation is a psychological construct involving incentives – extrinsic or intrinsic -- to learn and, as such, is not based on the premise that something is right/true or wrong/false, which is an inseparable part of the concept of beliefs. Secondly, the instrument used in the present study includes a new parameter that examines learners’ beliefs about the importance of learning a foreign language. Considering the Malaysian socio-linguistic context (i.e., multilingual environment, wide-spread usage of the English language) and the respondents’ linguistic background, the learners’ opinion about the importance of learning a foreign language, as opposed to English, is an interesting question to consider.
The instrument employed in this study focused on the following parameters of the learners’ beliefs: (1) foreign language aptitude, (2) difficulty of language learning, (3)
9
nature of language learning, (4) learning and communication strategies, and (5) the importance of learning a foreign language.
The questionnaires were distributed in December 2005 during the first class of the second semester of the academic year 2005/2006. The students completed answering the questionnaires in the class and returned the forms to the lecturer. Thus, the response rate was 100 percent. In order to ensure that the respondents expressed their own views, they were encouraged to give answers individually without consulting their classmates.
Data Analysis and Results Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the data. The frequencies of the occurrence for each of the BALLI statements were first computed. Then, analysis of the data was performed using SPSS, version 13. Frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations were reported for each of the BALLI items.
All items in the questionnaire generated either disagreement or agreement with the statements; none of the items collected the majority of neutral responses. This shows that the students held quite strong opinions about language learning. Data analysis groups the responses “strongly disagree” and “disagree” as disagreement with a statement, while “strongly agree” and “agree” are marked as agreement.
The findings of the research are reported in the tables below and discussed separately for each of the questionnaire’s parameters. Comparisons with other studies and overall discussion of results are carried out in the next section of the paper.
10
Regarding the language aptitude parameter (see Table 1), the statement that says children are better language learners than adults drew the strongest agreement (73% agreed, mean 3.89, SD 0.98). Table 1: Foreign Language Aptitude (Items 1-8) Item
1. It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language.
1* 2 3 4 5 SD D N A SA 1 11 15 44 29
Mean
SD**
3.89
0.98
6 15 33 33 13
3.33
1.06
2. Some people are born with a special ability which helps them to learn a foreign language. 3. It is easier for someone who already speaks few languages to learn another language.
3
27 29 35
6
3.15
0.99
4. I believe that I have a special ability to learn foreign languages.
5
27 43 21
4
2.93
0.91
5. Women are better than men at learning foreign languages.
10 34 45
7
4
2.61
0.91
6. People who are good at mathematics and science are not good at learning foreign languages.
25 50 20
3
2
2.06
0.86
7. Only very intelligent people can speak a foreign language.
41 45 11
3
0
1.76
0.76
8. All Malaysians are good at learning foreign languages.
4
4
2.77
0.89
39 37 16
* 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree not disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree ** SD=Standard Deviation The strongest disagreement was expressed with regard to statements 6 & 7. Seventy-five percent (mean 2.06, SD 0.86) of the respondents disagreed that people who are good at science and mathematics are less adept language learners. This perhaps was due to the fact that 71% of them were science majors who had had a successful previous experience of language learning. The statement that says only very intelligent people can learn a foreign language received even less support (86%
11
disagreed, mean 1.76, standard deviation 0.76). This may be connected with the respondents’ linguistic and family background where a majority of people are able to speak several languages and dialects. Therefore, the language aptitude is not connected with an individuals’ overall intelligence. Significantly, only 25% of respondents believed they personally had a special linguistic aptitude. Overall, the respondents did not support the assumption of the existence of special language aptitude. The fact that this section contains items that gathered the highest percentage of undecided opinion in the whole questionnaire (items 4 & 5) supports this conclusion. This finding is different from the results of Horowitz’s research, where students supported the idea that some people have special ability to learn languages.
The second parameter of the questionnaire looked at the beliefs regarding the difficulty of language learning (see Table 2). What transpired from this was that the overwhelming majority of respondents supported the assumption of hierarchy in language difficulty (85% agreed, mean 4.13, SD 0.79). The result is similar to Horowitz’s findings. Eighty-six percent of the respondents (mean 2.49, SD 0.73) considered the Russian language difficult or medium difficult while none agreed that the language was very easy, which is a realistic evaluation.
For this cohort of learners, the most difficult aspects of the Russian language study had been learning grammar (77% agreed, mean 3.94, SD 0.82) and understanding the native speakers’ speech (73% agreed, mean 3.72, SD 0.76).
12
Table 2: Difficulty of Language Learning (Items 9-15) Item 9. Some languages are easier to learn than others.
1 2 SD D 0 6
3 N 9
4 5 A SA 53 32
Mean
SD
4.13
0.79
10. The Russian language is: (1) very difficult; (2) difficult; (3) medium difficult; (4) easy; (5) very easy.
10 35 51
4
0
2.49
0.73
11. If someone spent one hour a day learning the Russian language, how long would it take him/her to become fluent? (1) less than 1 year; (2) 1-2 years; (3) 3-5 years; (4) 5-10 years; (5) not possible to learn Russian with 1 hour per day study.
10 38 31 12
9
2.70
1.08
12. I think it is easy to speak the Russian language.
6 44 37 13
0
2.58
0.79
13 I think it is easy to read in the Russian language.
3 24 30 41
2
3.15
0.90
14. I think it is difficult to understand (listening) the Russian language.
1
8
3.72
0.76
15. I think that Russian grammar is difficult.
0
6 17 53 24
3.94
0.82
7 19 65
While realistically evaluating the language difficulty, the respondents, however, thought it would be possible to become fluent in the Russian language within 1-2 years (38%) or 3-5 years (31%) studying 1 hour per day. Again, UMS students’ opinion was similar to the opinion of Horowitz’s respondents; both cohorts tended to somewhat underestimate the difficulty of the languages they were learning and had unrealistic expectations concerning the pace of language acquisition.
Table 3 reports the results regarding the beliefs on the nature of language learning. Although the majority of students agreed that learning a language required different strategies from learning other academic subjects (76% agreed, mean 3.92, SD 0.90),
13
they assigned greater importance in language study to memorizing vocabulary (76% agreed, mean 3.80, SD 0.96) and grammar rules (70% agreed, mean 3.77, SD 1.02). Table 3: Nature of Language Learning (Items 16-21) Item
1 2 SD D
3 N
4 A
5 SA
Mean
SD
16. It is necessary to know Russian culture in order to speak the Russian language.
2
11 28 46 13
3.57
0.92
17. It is best to learn the Russian language in Russia.
2
16 24 35 23
3.62
1.07
18. Learning a foreign language is mostly about memorizing many new words.
2
12 10 55 21
3.80
0.96
19. Learning a foreign language is mostly about learning many of grammar rules.
1
16 13 46 24
3.77
1.02
20. Learning a foreign language requires different strategies from learning other academic subjects.
0
10 14 50 26
3.92
0.90
21. Learning the Russian language is mostly a matter of translating from my native language.
10 32 30 26
2.79
1.00
2
These results are similar to the opinions of American students in Horowitz’s study. Also, UMS students valued the knowledge of the target language culture for a successful language acquisition (59% agreed, mean 3.57, SD 0.92) and thought it was best to learn the language in the country where it is spoken (78% agreed, mean 3.62. SD 1.07).
Regarding learning and communication strategies (see Table 4), statement 26 on the importance of repeating and practicing a lot received an overwhelming support from the respondents (94% agreed, mean 4.38, SD 0.69). The majority considered it was
14
necessary to practice the language outside the classroom (82% agreed, mean 4.11, SD 0.76). These results are similar to Horowitz’s findings. Table 4: Learning and Communication Strategies (Items 22-30) Item
1 2 SD D 0
22. It is important to speak the Russian language with excellent pronunciation.
9
3 N
4 A
5 SA
Mean
SD
3.66
0.85
0
1.96
0.91
30 46 15
23. You should not say anything in the Russian language until you say it correctly.
33 49
8 10
24. If I heard someone speaking the Russian language, I would approach them and try to practice speaking Russian.
1
15 34 37 13
3.47
0.34
25. It is OK to guess a Russian word if you don’t know its meaning.
5
9
3.53
0.97
26. It is important to repeat and practice the Russian language a lot.
1
1
4.38
0.69
27. If students are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning, it will be difficult for them to speak correctly later on.
15 36 19 21
9
2.75
1.22
28. It is important to practice the foreign language outside the classroom.
0
3
15 50 32
4.11
0.76
29. In order to read something in a foreign language, you must know all the words.
7
45
17 26
5
2.77
1.06
30. In order to listen something in a foreign language, you must know all the words.
4
32
20 33 11
3.16
1.11
24 52 10 4
48 46
While the majority of UMS students thought it was acceptable to make mistakes when speaking (82% agreed, mean 1.96, SD 0.91) excellent pronunciation was valued highly (65% agreed, mean 3.66, SD 0.85). Also, though the respondents were prepared to guess the meanings of unknown words (62% agreed, mean 3.53, SD 0.97), they were more ready for linguistic risks when reading rather then listening.
15
Of special interest for this research were students’ beliefs regarding the importance of learning a foreign language. As the results show, the respondents assigned great personal importance to the knowledge of foreign language (see Table 5). Table 5: Importance of Learning a Foreign Language (Items 31-36) Item
1 2 SD D
4 A
5 SA
Mean
SD
3 30 36
29
3.87
0.94
5
40
4.23
0.79
5
0
1.72
0.82
4 50
45
4.38
0.65
35. I think a well-educated person should know foreign language(s).
2 14 22 32 30
3.74
1.09
36. I don’t see any point in learning a foreign language. Having good professional training/skills is enough.
32 49 14
1.42
0.80
2
31. It is important that everyone knows a foreign language (other than English).
32. I think knowing a foreign language 0 besides English is important for me.
33. I don’t see any point in learning a foreign language. Knowing English is 46 41 enough. 34. I think everybody should have an opportunity to learn a foreign language either at school or university.
1
0
3 N
8 47
8
5
0
Statements 32 and 34 gathered the greatest support of the respondents. The overwhelming majority of students (95% agreed, mean 4.38, SD 0.65) agreed that everybody should have an opportunity to learn a foreign language. Furthermore, 87% of the respondents (mean 4.23, SD 0.79) considered knowing a foreign language as a matter of personal importance.
16
Overall, results of the data analysis are not controversial. The following section will compare findings of the present research with other studies highlighted in the literature review.
Discussion and Conclusion There are some striking similarities in the findings of the present research and the results of Horwitz’s (1988) study. Both cohorts of learners strongly agreed with the statements saying it is important to repeat and practice a lot (item 26), there exists a hierarchy of foreign languages difficulty (item 9), children have better ability to learn a foreign language than adults (item 1), and learning a foreign language is different from other subjects (item 20). Interestingly enough, both in Horwitz’s and the present study the statement that one should not say anything in a foreign language until one can say it correctly (item 23) generated the strongest disagreement. Further, both cohorts of students had somewhat unrealistic expectations regarding achieving fluency in the language they were learning (item 11), assigned great importance to memorization of new vocabulary and grammar (item 18), and agreed that it is important to speak with excellent pronunciation (item 22).
The most considerable differences in the finding of the present research and Horwitz’s survey concerned the “language aptitude” parameter (items 1-8). Contrary to the opinions of participants in the Horwitz’s study, UMS students did not believe in the existence of foreign language aptitude. Moreover, quite unexpectedly, the percent of Malaysian students who thought they had a special ability for learning a foreign language (25%) was even lower than that of American learners (35%). Different socio-linguistic settings may be accountable for these discrepancies. In Malaysia, a multi-lingual environment is promoted. The majority of respondents in
17
the present research spoke three or more languages. Besides, while some languages were formally taught (eg., Malay, English, Mandarin), local dialect(s) were acquired in informal surroundings. Therefore, Malaysian students in this study did not connect ability to speak several languages to a special linguistic aptitude and did not consider themselves being especially adept linguistically.
Comparing the beliefs of UMS students learning the Russian language with other learners of the Russian language described in the literature review, the Malaysian students placed greater value on learning a foreign language, were more ready to take linguistic risks and more intent on communicating with Russian native speakers than Tumposky’s (1991) students. Similar to Smith’s (1989) respondents, UMS students had good expectations of their learning outcome and thought that everybody can learn a foreign language disregarding learners’ propensity for science and mathematics.
Within Asian context, though Malaysian respondents shared opinion regarding workable learning strategies with the Chinese learners and stressed the importance of memorization (Liu and Littlewood 1997), the UMS students’ language learning beliefs were definitely more positive compared to those reported in other studies. Thus, unlike the Japanese learners who expressed negative opinions regarding their ability to learn the English language (Kimura et al. 2001, O’Donnell 2003), the majority of Malaysian students felt they could become fluent speakers of Russian within 1-2 years or 3-5 years. They did not exhibit any inhibitory tendencies and were positive about prospects of communicating with the Russian native speakers. Contrary to mainland Chinese students (Anderson 1993), Malaysian students were prepared to make guesses and take linguistic risks. This evidence lends support to
18
assumption that linguistic background affects the formation of language learning beliefs.
Understanding students’ beliefs about foreign language learning has important implications for organizing classroom activities. First of all, it helps language teachers to better understand what learners are expecting from their language classes. Also, knowing learners beliefs and assessing how those diverge from the teacher’s own beliefs will help to identify potential “problem areas” and make some rectifications, all of which will lead to a better classroom interaction. For example, as Horowitz warned, learners who stress memorization of new vocabulary and grammar rules may be dissatisfied with classes where the teacher does not prioritize rote learning. Such learners may expect more mechanical drills and/or translation exercises in the classroom and be reluctant to participate in communicative activities.
As some of the learners’ beliefs are quite central and deep rooted it may not be possible, or indeed necessary, for the teachers to try and change them. Especially, since the evidence as to whether learners’ beliefs can be modified is contradictory. Some researchers maintain that language learning beliefs are resistant to change (Peacock 2001). Others suggest that beliefs do evolve over the time and teachers can influence learners’ beliefs (Wenden 1987). Clearly, more research is needed in order to assess to which extent language learning beliefs are stable and which factors are important for the “construction and crystallization” of language learning beliefs before deciding on the classroom intervention methods to modify them (Bernat and Gvozdenko 2005). However, language teachers might want to give their students rationale for the choice and usefulness of different types of classroom activities. This will help to develop learners’ awareness of the classroom mechanics
19
and lead to their grater engagement in the classroom proceedings. Ultimately, knowing what students think about – and expect – from their language classes helps to reduce the gap between learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of what a language classroom should be and what a successful learning of foreign language involves.
For future research, a bigger sample of Malaysian students learning various foreign languages at local universities may be needed to give a sharper picture of learners’ beliefs about language learning. A longitudinal study on the evolvement of language learning beliefs among foreign language learners in a multi-cultural and multi-lingual environment could contribute to the existent body of knowledge on this subject. Using qualitative data to back up or clarify self-reported questionnaires may further expand our understanding of students’ language learning beliefs.
NOTES A study conducted by Siebert (2003) at colleges in USA supports this assumption. Siebert reported remarkable differences in the beliefs of English language learners from different countries and ethnic backgrounds, especially in the learners’ assessment of their language aptitude, the length of time required to master the English language and the language difficulty. 2 “Others” include other ethnic groups, such as “bajau”, “bajau-dusun”, “sino-kadazan”, “sino-dusun”, “bidayuh”, and “iban”. 3 Mandarin being a lingua franca for the Chinese community cannot be considered as a “foreign” language in Malaysia, since ethnic Chinese represent about 24% of the country’s population. 1
REFERENCES Anderson, J. (1993). "Is a Communicative Approach Practical for Teaching English in China? Pros and Cons." System, 21(4), pp. 471-480. Barcelos, A.M.F. (2000). Understanding Teachers’ and Students’ Language Learning Beliefs in Experience: A Deweyan Approach (John Dewey). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Bernat, E. and Gvozdenko, I. (2005). “Beliefs about Language Learning: Current Knowledge, Pedagogical Implications, and New Research Directions”. TEST-EJ, 9(1), pp.1-21. Retrieved March 5, 2006, from
http://writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej33/a1.pdf
20
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University Foreign Language Students. Modern Language Journal, 72, pp. 283-294. Hosenfeld, C. (1978). Students’ Mini Theories of Second Language Learning. Language Association Bulletin, 29, 2. Kimura, K., Nakata, Y., Okumura, T. (2001). Language Learning Motivation of EFL Learners in Japan. JALT Journal, 35(1), pp.47-68. Kuntz, P.S. (1996). Students of “Easy” Languages: Their Beliefs about Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED397658). Kuntz, P.S. (1999). Secondary Students’ Beliefs about Language Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED427514). Liu, N. F. and Littlewood, W. (1997). “Why Do Many Students Appear Reluctant to Participate in Classroom Learning Discourse?”. System, 25(3), pp.371-384. Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological Beliefs and Language Learning Beliefs: What Do Language Learners Believe about Their Learning? Language Learning, 49, pp.377-415. O’Donnell, K. (2003). Uncovering First Year Students’ Language Learning Experiences, Attitudes, and Motivations in a Context of Change at the Tertiary Level of Education. JALT Journal, 25(1), pp.31-62. Oxford, R. L. and Burry-Stock, J. A. (1995). "Assessing the Use of Language Learning Strategies Worldwide with ESL/EFL Version of the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)." System, 23(1), pp. 1-23. Park, G. (1995). Language Learning Strategies and Beliefs about Language Learning of University Students Learning English in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-Service ESL Teachers’ Beliefs about Second Language Learning: A Longitudinal Study. System, 29(2), pp.177-195. Richardson, V. (1996). The Role of Attitudes and Beliefs in Learning to Teach. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery and E. Guyton (eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan. Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Siebert, L. L. (2003). Student and Teacher Beliefs about Language Learning. The ORTESOL Journal, 21, pp. 7-39. Smith, S.H. (1989). Preliminary Statistics of the BALLI with Students Learning Russian. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. (Manuscript).
21
Stevick, E.W. (1980). Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Truitt, S.N. (1995). Beliefs about Language Learning: A Study of Korean University Students Learning English. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2(1), pp.1-14. Tumposky, N.R. (1991). Student Beliefs about Language Learning: A Cross-Cultural Study. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 8, pp. 50-65. Wenden, A. (1987). How To Be a Successful Language Learner: Insights and Prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden and J. Rubin (eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. London: Prentice Hall.
22
