Students' and Teachers' Beliefs About Language Learning

Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Learning

Richard G. Kern University of California, Berkeley

ABSTRACT This study compares one group o f students’ beliefs about language learning with those of their teachers and with those o f their peers at another institution. It furthermore examines change in students’ beliefs in relation to those of their instructors in an effort to develop hypotheses about the potential influence of teachers’ beliefs on students’ beliefs. Beliefs were assessed by means of the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory, developed by Horwitz (1 985, 1988) . Results were found to be significantly affected by the type of analysis: global analyses of group means and percentages showed overall similarities between teachers’ and students’ beliefs as well as between students’ pre- and posttest responses, while analyses of individuals and course section groups revealed much greater differences. The findings of the study suggest that teachers’ beliefs are but one o f many factors that affect students’ beliefs about language learning and that multivariate research designs are needed to explore with greater precision the complex interrelationships between learners’ and teachers ’ belief systems.

Popular conceptions of language learning have a profound influence on all aspects of the language teaching profession.’ “Insiders” (learners, teachers, teacher-trainers, materials developers, researchers, specialized agencies, consultants) as well as “outsiders” (learners’ peers and families, administrators, lawmakers, government officials) all bring their unique sets of beliefs and attitudes to bear in situa- tions and decisions related to language learning and teaching. Learners’ and teachers’ belief systems are of course particularly important to our understanding of language learning in institutional settings. The aim of this study is to consider the beliefs of one group of first-year French students and to compare them to those of students at another institution as well as to those of their teachers. The purpose of this comparison is to assess the degree of variation in beliefs about language learning within and across two institutions and to identify potential mismatches in students’ and teachers’ views on language learning.

Richard G. Kern (Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley) is Assistant Professor of French a t t h e University of California, Berkeley.

Background Research on students’ beliefs has evolved

out of a more general interest in learner characteristics (including factors such as personal- ity, motivation, learning styles, and language aptitude) as they relate to language acquisition. Rather than treating language learners as a monolithic, homogeneous group, scholars in this area of second language research examine differences among learners, hoping ultimately to determine what kinds of instructional environments might best suit different types of individuals. Research on learners’ b e liefs generally seeks to identify learners’ pre conceived notions about what is involved in learning a foreign language in order to predict expectational conflicts that may contribute to student frustration, anxiety, lack of motivation, and, in some cases, ending of foreign language study (e.g., Schumann and Schumann 1977; Schumann 1980) .*

During the late 1970s and early 1980s Yorio (1986) conducted a series of surveys of Inten- sive English students in the University of Toronto’s Continuing Studies Program. Exam- ining students’ beliefs about the efficacy of various aspects of language instruction, Yorio reported that “while students indicated a

Foreign Language Annals, 28, No. 1, 1995

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSAPRING 1995

marked preference for courses stressing communicative competence, they showed obvi- ous reluctance to abandon very traditional teaching techniques” (672). Widdows and Voller (cited in Nunan 1993) found that Japanese university students’ views o n the content and manner of instruction conflicted with the official university curriculum. Hor- witz, in her 1988 seminal study of Spanish, French, and German students’ beliefs about language learning, found that many beginning level university students held conflicting beliefs that might b e inconsistent with the principles underlying the instructional practices they would likely encounter in the foreign language classroom. For example, she reported that while a substantial number of students agreed that it was “okay to guess if you don’t know a word in the foreign language,” over half of the French students believed that mistakes made in the beginning would be difficult to get rid of later on. And even though the majority of students disagreed with the statement “you shouldn’t say anything in the language until you can say it correctly,” over half thought it was important to speak with an excellent accent and felt self- conscious speaking the language in front of other people. Honvitz pointed out that while certain of these beliefs are consistent with practices associated with communicative teaching methods (for example, students’ will- ingness to guess), other beliefs (such as the importance of correctness) may affect students’ level of comfort with certain communicative techniques and activities currently used in many foreign language classrooms.3 In her 1990 report, Horwitz illustrates the poten- tially anxiety-producing tensions that can arise from such mismatches in students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning:

Many teachers using communicative ap- proaches have encountered students who complain if their every mistake is not corrected, or if the teacher requires them to say something they have not practiced. At the same time, students who value the communication of mean-

ing over grammatical accuracy may bristle when their utterances are corrected constantly. This sort of clash of expectations between students and teacher about language learning can lead to a lack of student confidence in and satisfaction with the language class” (1 990, 24-25).

Honvitz’s suggestion that students and teachers may view classroom reality quite dif- ferently raises the question: to what degree do foreign language students’ beliefs about language learning correspond to those of their teachers? Preservice and inservice foreign language teachers’ beliefs and attitudes have been assessed (e.g., Horwitz 1985; Wolf and Riordan 1991), but to my knowledge no studies have directly compared foreign language teachers’ and students’ beliefs. A number of studies from ESL and international settings, however, have addressed this issue. Lutz (1990) explored culture-specific expectations about the respective roles of students and teachers in general instruction among Amen- can students, Japanese graduate students, and American faculty at Georgetown Univer- sity. He found that the American students’ and teachers’ responses were on the whole quite consonant with o n e another, while mismatches between the Japanese graduate students and the American faculty were widespread. McCargar (1993) studied student and teacher role expectations among FSL students from a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds. He found significant differences in expectations not only across nine student culture groups but also between student groups and American FSL teachers on most expectation categories. Kumaravadivelu (1991) examined differences between teachers’ intentions and intermediate ESL students’ interpretations of a skill-integrative language task and found ten potential sources of teacher-learner mismatch. Nunan (1993), re- porting the findings of an earlier comparative study of learning preferences of learners and teachers in the Australian Adult Migrant Edu- cation Program, found contrasts in students’

72

FOREZGN LANGUAGE ANNALSSPRING 1995

and teachers’ priority ratings of eight instructional components. Students and teachers disagreed most in three areas: error correction (rated “very high” by students and “low” by teachers), student selfdiscovery of errors, and pair work (both rated “low” by students and “very high” by teachers).

Considering that ESL students come from a very wide variety of language and cultural backgrounds, and only rarely share a common heritage with their teacher, the above findings are perhaps not surprising. In foreign language classrooms, however, students are commonly from similar backgrounds and often share both native language and culture with their teacher. Lutz’s finding that Ameri- can students and faculty gave very similar responses to questions about general instructional issues raises the question of whether American foreign language students and teachers have more in common than d o their ESL counterparts.

Previous research in students’ beliefs also raises a question of teacher influence: because students are likely to view their language teachers as experts in language learning matters, and since teachers presumably convey through their classroom practices many of their own assumptions about language learning, to what degree might teachers’ beliefs influence those of their students?

The present study examines the relationship between students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning within a foreign language setting and within a limited context: one language department at one university. Given the particular nature of beliefs about language learning and the myriad factors that can affect students’ and teachers’ beliefs, no attempt will be made to generalize the findings of this study beyond the local institutional context, although comparison data will be presented that suggest the feasibility of finding general trends across institutions through replicated studies. The questions to b e addressed in this report are the following:

1) What d o beginning French students at the University of California, Berkeley, believe about language learning?

2) How d o these students’ beliefs in 1993 compare to those of the University of Texas students that Honvitz studied in the mid- 1980s? (i.e., what effect might institution and time have on students’ beliefs?)

3) How d o the Berkeley students’ beliefs relate to their instructors’ beliefs? 4) Do students’ beliefs change over the

course of one semester of French instruction, or d o they remain stable? And if they do change, d o they change in the direction of their teachers’ beliefs or not?

Method

Subjects Two hundred eightyeight students enrolled

in first and second semester French in the fall 1993 semester at the University of California, Berkeley, participated in the study. One hundred seventy-nine students were enrolled in French 1, and 109 were enrolled in French 2. Based on questionnaire data, 46 percent of the students were male, 54 percent female. Fiftyseven percent were freshman and sopho- mores, 32 percent juniors and seniors, and 11 percent graduate students, faculty or staff. Eighty-nine percent of the students were in the College of Letters and Science, by far the largest college on campus. Forty-two percent of the first semester students were taking French for the first time, but virtually all had prior experience learning at least one foreign language. Those who had taken French before had had between one and four years of French in Junior High and/or High School. Seventy-four percent said they were taking French for personal interest and 21 percent for a language requirement. When asked to rate themselves on their self-perceived success as foreign language students 73 percent rated themselves as either “very successful” (30 percent) or “somewhat successful” (43 percent), and 27 percent rated themselves “below average” (20 percent) or “very unsuccessful” (7 percent).

Berkeley students are a diverse and tal- ented group. Data on the 1993 freshman class collected by the University of California Office

73

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS4PRING 1995

of Student Research show that Asians form the single largest ethnic group (40 percent), fol- lowed by Caucasians (30 percent), Hispanics (1 7 percent), African-Americans (6 percent) and American Indians (1.2 percent). Incom- ing students have a median high school grade point average of 4.00, with a mean of 3.83, and graduate in the top 12 percent of their high school class. Their mean SAT scores are 564 (verbal) and 654 (math), and virtually all have previously studied a foreign language. Given this portrait, o n e cannot presume Berkeley students’ beliefs about language learning to be necessarily representative of those held by students at other institutions.

The students’ French teachers also participated in the study. The group of 12 instructors was composed of nine graduate students, two lecturers, and one tenure-track faculty mem- ber. Six were women, and seven were men. Four were native speakers of French. Their amount of teaching experience ranged from one to 15 years, with a n average of slightly more than five years. All rated their own teaching ability as either “successful” or “highly successful.” Among the graduate students, all envisioned a career in teaching, and most expected to teach both language and literature at the university level.

Instructional Context The goal of the first-year French program

(French 1 and 2) is to encourage basic competence in all areas of language use, with particular emphasis o n the development of speaking and writing. Instruction is conducted exclusively in French. Class time is spent on inductive presentations of grammar and vocabulary, oral small-group activities, listening comprehension activities, reading and discussion of short texts, viewing and discussion of French videotapes, and written discussion via networked computers. Classes meet five hours per week. Outside preparation in- volves one to three hours of daily homework, including oral and written grammar exercises, laboratory assignments, occasional readings, electronic mail correspondence with French

peers, and regular composition assignments (12 per semester). Half of the course grade is determined by performance on written exams and quizzes, 20 percent is based on oral par- ticipation and oral exams, and the remainder is based on written compositions, exercises, and activities.

Procedure All students enrolled in French 1 and 2, as

well as their instructors, were given a questionnaire called The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI). The BALLI was developed by Honvitz (1985, 1988) to assess student opinions on a variety of issues and controversies related to language learning. The BALLI contains 34 items and is designed to survey student beliefs in five areas: the difi- culty of language learning (items 3 ,4 ,6 , 14,24, 28); foreign language aptitude (items 1, 2, 10, 15, 22, 29, 32, 33, 34); the nature of language learning (items 8, 11, 16, 20, 25, 26); strategies of communication and learning (items 7,9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19,21); and learnermotivations and expectations (items 23, 27, 30, 31). BALL1 items were derived from frequently occurring comments culled from an extensive collec- tion of interviews with language learners and teachers (Honvitz 1985), thereby contributing to the validity of the in~trument .~

Students were given the BALLI during class time. They were asked to read each item, and to respond using a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Students were also asked to indicate some background information about themselves, such as: their reasons for taking French, their college major, whether or not they had studied French (or any other foreign language) before, and how they would rate their own language learning ability.

In order to determine whether students changed their beliefs over the course of the 15-week semester, the BALLI was given twice: once during the second day of classes and again during the last week of the semester. Students who changed course section (i.e., instructor) during the semester were excluded from the analysis, as were those who missed

74

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A”AL!SSPRINC 1995

o n e administration of the BALLI. Conse- quently, due to absences and section enroll- ment shifts, only 180 students (63 percent) were included in the analysis.

In order to allow comparison of students’ beliefs with those of their teachers, instructors were asked to complete a version of the BALLI adapted for teachers (Horwitz 1985). This version of the questionnaire contained 27 of the 34 items on the student version, excluding those items that were not relevant to teachers (e.g., “If I get to speak this language well, I will have many opportunities to use it”) and in- corporating certain verb changes (e.g., “the language I teach.. .” instead of “the language I am learning.. .”).

Students’ and instructors’ responses were tabulated and compared by means of correla- tional analyses. Because responses were not always normally distributed through their range (as in cases of uniform agreement or disagreement) the Spearman Rank-Order correlation was used. Shifts in individual students’ pre-post responses were tabulated and analyzed descriptively. Because the entire population of elementary French students at Berkeley was given the BALLI, and because no claims of generalizability of findings to other institutions were to b e made in this study, inferential statistics were not used.

Limitations of the Study The data presented below must be inter-

preted in the light of several important limitations. The first relates to the validity of assessing beliefs with a questionnaire, as discussed in note 4. The second has to d o with in- ferences about teachers’ influence o n students’ beliefs. In cases where there is a shift in student opinion, we can state whether the shift is consistent with the instructor’s response or not and we can examine the mea- sure of association between students’ responses and those of their instructors, but we cannot make any definitive statements about causal relationships between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. The third limitation has to d o with the generalizability of the findings. The results reported here pertain to the groups

studied; extrapolations to other populations must remain hypothetical.

Results and Discussion Students’ and instructors’ responses to all

items are presented in Table 1 (see page 89, accompanied by comparative data from Hor- witz (1988). Due to space limitations, this section will summarize highlights of the data rather than treat exhaustively each BALLl item. Concerning the French students’ perceptions about language learning and aptitude, several points are noteworthy. First, in terms of their general outlook, students were very optimistic. At the beginning of the semester 70 percent of the students believed that they would ultimately learn to speak French very well (item 6), and, of that sub- group, 43 percent believed that if one studied one hour a day it would take two years or less to become fluent (item 14).5 Eighty percent of the students believed that “everyone can learn to speak a foreign language” (item 34), and over half thought that they had foreign language aptitude (item 15), although only a small number of students (8 percent) thought that Americans as a group were good at learning foreign languages (item 33).

This optimism is not due to an impression that French is an easy language to learn: 89 percent of those who believed they would learn to speak French very well thought that French was a language of at least “medium” difficulty. (And 90 percent of the entire sample agreed with item 3 that “some languages are easier to learn than others.”) As might be expected, the students enrolled in French 1 tended to consider less time necessary to learn French than their more experienced peers in French 2.

No doubt fueled by advertisements promis- ing speedy language acquisition by means of the latest gimmick, students’ perceptions of the length of time needed to learn a foreign language were very similar to those reported by Horwitz (1988). Needless to say, depend- ing on their definition of “fluency,” those who persist in their belief that language learning is a relatively quick process will likely experi-

75

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSSPRING 1995

ence some degree of frustration and discour- agement during their foreign language study.

In terms of their beliefs about the nature of language learning, most students (76 percent) thought that learning a foreign language was different from learning other school subjects (item 25). Only 38 percent of the students thought that knowledge of the foreign culture was important (item 8), although the majority agreed that it is better to learn a language in the foreign country (item 11). This finding contrasts with Martin and Laurie’s (1993) finding that 84 percent of their intermediate- level French students thought that “knowing something/more about some of the major aspects of French culture” was important. Given that the students in the present study were novices, it may b e the case that students’ recognition of the importance of cultural learning increases with language learning experience.

Students’ opinions related to strategies of communication and learning often reflected current trends in foreign language pedagogy. For example, the overwhelming majority disagreed with the statement “you shouldn’t say anything in the language until you can say it correctly” (item 9) and 68 percent agreed that “it’s 0.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in the foreign language” (item 13). Only one- third of the group believed that allowing students to make mistakes in the beginning would lead to problems later on (item 19), contrasting with students’ opinions cited in other studies (Horwitz 1988, McCargar 1993, Nunan 1993). On the other hand, some traditional views were also validated. Almost all agreed that practice and repetition were important (item 17) and 69 percent of the students viewed the language lab as an important component of language learning (item 21).

Finally, in terms of motivation and expectations, most students did not agree that Ameri- cans think it is important.to speak a foreign language (item 30), but over half felt that if they learned French well they would have many opportunities to use it (item 23). Over half of the students also expressed the desire

to learn French in order to get to know French- speaking peoples better (item 31), indicating some overlap of instrumental and integrative motivation.

How does this group compare to the French students at the University of Texas that Horwitz (1988, 1989, 1990) studied? Exami- nation of Table 1 shows that the responses of the two groups are strikingly similar, suggesting that students’ beliefs about language learning may be quite well entrenched. Nev- ertheless, the two groups d o vary on certain points. While the differences are not pro- nounced, the Berkeley students are more optimistic that everyone can learn a foreign language (item 34) and have greater confidence in their own foreign language aptitude and eventual attainment (items 15 and 6). They agree less than the Texas students that learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of new vocabulary words (item 16) and disagree more strongly with the statement “you shouldn’t say anything in the language until you can say it correctly” (item 9). They agree more strongly that “it’s okay to guess when you don’t know a word” (item 13) and agree less that “if you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning it will be hard to get rid of them later on” (item 19). Finally, a higher percentage of the Berkeley students agreed with item 31, suggesting that they may be more integratively motivated than their Texan counterparts-not a surprising finding, considering the large proportion of Berkeley students who were enrolled because of personal interest rather than because of a language requirement. In sum, the Berkeley students’ beliefs, as measured by the BALLI, appear to be somewhat more consonant with current thinking in foreign language pedagogy, although it must be borne in mind that differences are not large and considerable individual variation exists within both groups.6

How did students’ beliefs compare with those of their instructors? The answer depends on one’s unit of analysis. When one compares the overall mean scores of the entire group of students with the instructors’ overall mean scores, for the 27 items that overlap between

76

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSSPRINC 1995

student and teacher versions of the BALLI, one finds a very high correlation (.93).7 This finding is encouraging, as it suggests that the relationship between these particular students’ and teachers’ beliefs is very strong, echoing Lutz’s (1990) findings for the Ameri- can group of students and teachers he studied. When one treats the indiuidual as the unit of analysis, however, and compares each student’s responses only with those of his or her own instructor, variability increases and more differences appear. All 12 class sections were analyzed in this manner, and correlations between each student’s and instructor’s responses to the 27 common BALLI items ranged from .OO to .80. Teacherstudent pretest correlations averaged within class sections ranged from .37 to .59 (see Table 3 OR page 92), with an overall mean average correlation of .47 across all sections. These correlations are clearly below the figure obtained when students’ and instructors’ responses were averaged before calculating the correlation coef- ficient. Moreover, 50 of the 180 students examined (28 percent) had correlations in the .30 range or lower-indicating very little overlap between their BALL1 responses and those of their instructors. In sum, when the analysis focuses on group tendencies, students and teachers appear to be quite similar in terms of their beliefs about language learning. When the analysis examines individual r e sponses, however, more differences between students and teachers come to light.

Where d o students and their instructors differ the most in terms of their beliefs about language learning? Again, one needs to consider both global and particular levels of analysis. When all 12 class sections were considered as a single group, the clearest differences were found in items 7, 20, 24 and 26. In item 7 students tended to agree with the statement “it’s important to speak a foreign language with an excellent accent,” while teachers tended to disagree. Pronunciation is not emphasized in many teacher education programs, nor is it frequently discussed in the recent profes- sional literature. For learners, however, it re- mains an important goal, as evidenced by

both the Berkeley and University of Texas students’ responses.8 Item 20 (“learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules”) brought strong disagreement from the instructors but mixed responses from students. Fiftysix percent of those who agreed had previously studied French for two years or more, and 63 percent of their high school teachers had spoken French half the time or less in the classroom. Those who disagreed with item 20 were slightly older on average, and had had less previous coursework in French (43 percent had studied for two years or more). This suggests that the type and du- ration of previous instruction may have influenced students’ perceptions of language learning processes. Teachers also disagreed with item 24 (“It is easier to speak than to understand a foreign language”), while students gave varied responses. Some students’ agree ment with item 24 may be due to the nature of speaking and listening activities in elementaty language programs. Speaking is generally limited to controlled topics, for which students are prepared; listening activity topics, on the other hand, tend to be more wide ranging in their scope and therefore sometimes perceived as more difficult. Finally, item 26 (“learning another language is a matter of translating from English”) also elicited uniform disagreement among teachers but s o m e what more varied responses from students. Because students were never given translation exercises as part of their coursework, those who agreed with item 26 may well have interpreted the word “translating” to mean alter- nating between French and English in their thoughts as they read, write, and speak. And there is some evidence to support their belief (e.g., Cohen 1994, Kern 1994). On the other hand, they may be referring to their previous instructional experiences, or to stereotypical notions of how people learn languages in classroom settings.

When one shifts the level of analysis and considers students’ and instructors’ responses within the context of the individual course section, additional differences are found. Per- haps not surprisingly, the greatest differences

77

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALCSPRING 1995

between students and their individual instructors were often found in those items that produced the greatest disagreement among instructors themselves. Although the instructors’ responses were on the whole quite uniform, they varied the most in items 8, 11, 14, 19, and 28.9 In item 8, concerning the importance of cultural knowledge for language learning, four instructors agreed it was important, six had no opinion, and two disagreed. Across class sections, from 10 percent to 42 percent of students’ pretest responses to item 8 fell into the same category as that of their instructor.’O In other words, from 58 percent to 90 percent of the students in individual sections did not share their instructor’s belief about the relative importance of knowledge of the target culture. In item 11 (“It is better to learn a foreign language in the foreign country”), five instructors agreed, five had no opinion, and two disagreed. Across sections, only 20 percent to 29 percent of students’ pretest responses to item 11 matched those of their instructor. Item 14, concerning the length of time needed to become fluent in a foreign language, elicited a range of answers from instructors: four said that one to two years was sufficient, four said three to five years was necessary, and four said either that a longer time was necessary or that one could not learn a language by studying only one hour a day. Students’ level of pretest agreement with their instructor ranged from 14 percent to 30 percent. In item 19, concerning the fossilization of uncorrected errors, half of the instructors disagreed, while one-fourth agreed and the rest had no opinion. Students’ level of pretest agreement with their instructor ranged from 19 percent to 50 percent. Finally, in response to item 28 (“it is easier to read and write a language than to speak and understand it”) half of the instructors agreed, four had no opinion, and two disagreed. Students’ level of pretest agreement with their instructor on item 28 ranged from 20 percent to 44 percent.

In sum, when viewed from a global perspective, the instructors and students appear to have relatively few conflicts in their beliefs. But when the analysis shifts to the level of the

individual classroom, one finds frequent in- stances of substantial difference in opinion. These differences cover a wide range of issues, from the nature of language learning (students gave more credence to the importance of good accent, grammar rules, and translation than did teachers) to pedagogy (error correction, cultural knowledge) to length of time needed to become “fluent.” The instructors, on the whole, tended to take a more definite stand on the issues than did the students. Presumably, this is due to their considerable experience as both learners and teachers of a foreign language. Like the students, the instructors indicated high optimism that everyone can learn a foreign language, but they also expressed more realistic expectations concerning the time needed to become proficient in the language, as well as greater awareness of the complexity and mul- tifaceted nature of language learning.

Did students’ beliefs appear to change over the course of the semester, suggesting classroom and/or teacher influence? From the global perspective, examination of the pretest and posttest percentages in Table 1 suggests remarkable stability in students’ beliefs from the beginning to the end of the semester. As was the case in comparing students’ and teachers’ beliefs, however, when one examines responses on an individual level one finds a somewhat different picture. On any given item, 35 percent to 59 percent of individual responses changed over the 15-week period. When all BALL1 items are considered, 52 percent of all students’ responses shifted over the course of the semester, constituting a substantial degree of individual change, not revealed by global percentages and means. Changes in pre/post responses are not always reflected in global statistics because many of the individual shifts cancel one another out in the averaging process. For example, in response to Item 15 (“I have foreign language aptitude”) 40 students (22 percent) moved toward greater agreement in their responses.“ This is counterbalanced by 45 students (25 percent) who shifted toward lesser agreement. The net result is that the mean and per-

78

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A”ALS4PRING 1995

centage categories d o not reveal any particular change, and yet 47 percent of the students are either more or less optimistic about their own foreign language aptitude than they were at the beginning of the semester. It is important to note, however, that while the frequency of opinion shift was substantial, the degree of shift was not. Eighty-nine percent of all posttest responses fell within one opinion category to either side of the corresponding pretest response (e.g., from “agree” to “strongly agree” or “neither agree nor disagree”).”

Because individual opinion changes were found in almost all BALLI items, this discussion will focus on those items in which teachers and students had differed the most in the pretest administration of the BALLI. Table 2 (see page 91) presents the percentages of students that changed responses to items 7,8,11, 14, 19,20,24,26 and 28. The left-hand column indicates the degree of shift between pre- and posttest administrations of the BALLI. Nega- tive numerals indicate a shift toward greater disagreement; positive numerals indicate a shift toward greater agreement. For example, a 4 represents an extreme change from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” A 3 represents a change either from “strongly disagree” to “agree” or from “disagree” to “strongly agree,” and so forth.

The most striking shift was found in item 19 (“If you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning it will be hard to get rid of them later on”). Thirtyseven percent of the students moved toward greater agreement with the statement, and 15 percent moved toward lesser agreement. Moreover, 11 percent shifted two or more opinion categories toward greater agreement, representing a substantial degree of change. Students’ responses thus reflect even lesser agreement with those of their instructors at end of the semester than at the beginning. This suggests that many students have become increasingly conscious of their mistakes and the difficulty they experience in avoiding them. The teacherstudent mismatch in beliefs about error correction is a robust finding, corroborated by other studies (e.g.,

McCargar 1993, Nunan 1993), and suggests that teachers’ beliefs about errors bear less influence o n students’ beliefs than d o actual classroom practices (e.g., correction, practice of formal features) and students’ personal awareness of their mistakes.

In item 7, concerning the importance of “an excellent accent,” the overall difference between students’ and instructors’ responses was still evident at the end of the semester. In fact, there was a n overall net 9 percent increase to 59 percent in students’ agreement with item 7, opposing the tendency in instructors’ responses (only 17 percent agreed). This finding suggests that either instructors’ beliefs about pronunciation have little influence on students’ beliefs or the instructors’ classroom practices did not accurately reflect their personal beliefs about pronunciation.

Item 24 (“It is easier to speak than to understand”) produced a n overall gain in agreement level of 7 percent (Table l), with 35 percent of students shifting their responses toward greater agreement and 24 percent toward lesser agreement (Table 2). The overall increase in student agreement supports the previously mentioned hypothesis that perceived differences in difficulty may be attrib uted to differences in the nature of elementary level speaking and listening activities.

Analysis of item 8 showed virtually no overall change, with negative shifts balancing positive shifts. Examination of items 1 1,26 and 28 showed very slight increases in students’ agreement with the statements and, in the case of items 11 and 28, shifts in the direction of most teachers’ responses.

In item 14, one finds a slight net shift toward a lengthier estimate of the time needed to b e come fluent in a foreign language. The direction of this change is consistent with instructors’ responses, although it is not possible to establish a direct link to instructors’ b e liefs. lt seems that other factors, such as students’ assessment of their own progress and expectations of achievement, would be more potent predictors of change in response to this item.

In item 20 (“learning a foreign language is

79


mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules”) 32 percent of the students shifted toward greater agreement; 20 percent toward lesser agreement, yielding an overall 12 percent move toward greater agreement. This is in stark contrast to instructors’ firm belief to the contrary. Examination of pre-post changes within individual sections shows a general shift away from the instructor’s response. The increase in student agreement with item 20 between the beginning and end of the semester suggests that the textbook, written exercises, and tests may have had a greater influence on students’ perceptions than did the particular beliefs of their in~tructors.’~

Other pre-post shifts of interest include lesser agreement with items 6 and 15 (concerning aptitude and eventual achievement) and greater agreement with item 18 (self-con- sciousness). These findings are consistent with other research showing a tendency for some learners’ attitudes and motivation to de- teriorate at the beginning of study (Bailey 1980) or with continued study of a foreign language (Gardner and Lambert 1972, Samimy and Tabuse 1992).

Given that many of the differences between students’ and teachers’ responses to BALL1 items persisted at the end of the semester (and in some cases were even exacerbated) it appears that students’ beliefs and attitudes are not easily modified through teacher interven- tion or influence, as suggested by the research of Mantle-Bromley and Miller (1991). On the other hand, at least some students’ beliefs did change in the direction of their instructor’s beliefs. In order to further explore the degree to which students’ BALLI responses moved in concert or in opposition to their instructors’ responses, the correlations between individual students’ pre/post BALLI responses with those of their instructors were compared. Sec- tion and course average correlations are presented in Table 3 (see page 92). Beginning with the overall course averages, 35 percent of the French 1 student-teacher correlations were higher by a magnitude of .10 or more at the end of the semester than at the beginning. The magnitude of individual students’ cor re

lation increases ranged as high as .64 and averaged .23. On the other hand, 36 percent of the French 1 students’ BALLI responses cor re lated more weakly (by a magnitude of .10 or more) with their instructors’ responses at the end of the semester. The magnitude of individual students’ correlation decreases ranged as high as .48, and averaged .20. Twenty-nine percent of the French 1 students showed no change in correlation with their instructor’s responses over the course of the semester. Thus, when one averages the results, individual positive movement counterbalances individual negative movement, and the overall relationship between students’ and teachers’ responses appears to remain stable, even though in reality the BALLI responses of over two-thirds of the French 1 students had changed in relation to those of their instructors.

The French 2 students’ and teachers’ BALLI responses were correlated to roughly the same degree as those of the French 1 students and teachers, but a smaller overall proportion of French 2 students increased (25 percent) or decreased (23 percent) the magnitude of their student-teacher correlation. This difference suggests that the French 2 students may b e more resistant to change due to their greater experience, while the French 1 students may be more susceptible to teacher influence by virtue of being in the initial ~ o u r s e . ’ ~

The direction of the changes in individual students’ BALLI responses in relation to those of their instructors depended to a large extent on the instructor. In section 7, for example, 64 percent of the students increased the magnitude of the correlation between their BALLI responses and those of their instructor. On the other hand, in section 1,60 percent of the student-instructor correlations were lower at the end of the semester. One explanation of this variability is that other factors such as instructors’ personalities, teaching styles, level of experience, grading practices, and choices and implementation of classroom activities influenced the direction of students’ change. An- other explanation is that certain instructors’ classroom practices did not reflect their per-

80


sonal beliefs about language learning. Con- sidering the fact that French 1 and 2 are su- pervised courses with a uniform set of goals, materials, and instructional techniques across all sections, it would not be surprising to find some degree of mismatch between a given instructor’s beliefs and the pedagogical program he or she is asked to follow. In such a case one would not expect to find the teacher’s beliefs to be particularly influential. Clearly, ethnographic classroom observation is needed in future studies in order to confirm hypotheses of this sort.

In sum, any generalization about the relationship between these teachers’ and students’ beliefs about language learning depends on the level of analysis. From the global perspective there is no indication that the teachers’ beliefs influenced the beliefs of their students in any general and consistent way. Yet the individual correlation data indicate that some students greatly improved the degree of fit between their BALL1 responses and those of their instructors (and in one section, quite consistently so), suggesting the pos- sibility that teacher beliefs may be influential at the level of the individual.

Conclusions and Implications This study has sought to compare one

group of students’ beliefs about language learning to those of their teachers and to those of their peers at another institution. It has furthermore examined change in students’ beliefs in relation to those of their instructors in an effort to develop hypotheses about the potential relationships between teachers’ and students’ beliefs.

The results are at once encouraging and cautionary. It is encouraging that many students at both institutions believe that they will ultimately learn French very well (and, for that matter, that everyone can learn a foreign language) but it is somewhat troubling that this optimism in some cases may be based on an expectation that two years or less of nonin- tensive study will make one a “fluent” speaker. Clearly we should continue to provide strong encouragement to our students,

but we should also help our students to d e velop realistic expectations for their language development by presenting specific course objectives and by communicating our knowledge of language acquisition processes. At the same time, we must be attuned to our students’ expectations and ready to show them where their goals are consistent or inconsistent with those of the language program. By listening closely to our students, by identifying mismatches in beliefs, and by clearly explain- ing why we do what we do in the classroom it may be possible to significantly allay student frustration. It is also important to recognize, however, that students’ misconceptions may not always be easily changed and that some students’ attitudes may become more negative as they continue their foreign language studies-even despite the best efforts of a well-intentioned teacher.

It is encouraging that students’ beliefs were often consonant with those of their instructors and reflected certain current trends in foreign language pedagogy. However, the fact that students’ BALL1 responses sometimes shifted away from those of their instructors suggests that in certain domains teachers’ beliefs bear little, if any, relationship to students’ beliefs. For example, students’ and instructors’ opinions on pronunciation, error correction, and the importance of rule learning contrasted more at the end of the semester than at the b e ginning. Clearly in such cases, any influence of a teacher’s beliefs is subordinated to the influence of other factors, including the nature of textbook and test materials, classroom practices, peers’ beliefs, and learners’ self- awareness. In the final analysis it is not what we say is important or unimportant, but rather what we assess, and how we assess it, that will send a clear message to our students about what instructed language learning is all about.

The study’s findings lead to a number of implications for future research. First, the differences found between the global and particular analyses indicate the importance of supplementing grouplevel analyses with examination of individual learners. Because beliefs are based on idiosyncratic personal

81

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A ” A L S 4 P R I N G I995

factors as well as general sociocultural forces, it is ultimately just as important to explain individual tendencies as it is to make general- izations about large groups of learners. Second, from a measurement standpoint, future studies will need to consider a large number of variables in order to address the full complexity of students’ and teachers’ belief systems. An array of quantitative and qualita- tive measures and elicitation techniques, combined with multivariate analyses, will not only permit cross-validation of measures but also facilitate the identification of reliable patterns of interaction between learners’ and teachers’ beliefs. Third, detailed classroom observation, in conjunction with in-depth interviews of students and teachers, should help to contextualize and explain patterns found in quantitative data. Classroom observation is particularly important in examining how teachers’ beliefs are (or are not) manifested in their instructional and assessment practices, and in attempting to identify what effects these manifestations may have on learners’ performance and attitudes. Finally, the similarities between the Berkeley and Texas data suggest the feasibility of finding general trends across institutions through replicated studies. Differences between the two groups, however, remind us of the importance of considering contextual factors (e.g., institution, curriculum, composition of the student body) when comparing reports on students’ and teachers’ beliefs. Indeed, the variability in the data from this study underlines the fact that the “generic” student and “generic” teacher do not exist. It is hoped that replications of b e lief studies, involving a variety of settings, languages, and levels of study, will lead to greater understanding of the personal, instructional, and societal bases of beliefs about language learning.

Understanding students’ and teachers’ beliefs and how they interact is an important goal for foreign language educators. Aware- ness of the assumptions that learners and teachers bring to the classroom can help us and our students to become realistic in setting goals, it can shed light on our students’ frus-

trations and difficulties, and it can allow us to provide more thoughtful (and ultimately more effective) guidance to our students in their efforts to learn a foreign language. Fi- nally, and perhaps most important, discussion of beliefs about language learning can foster a reflective partnership between students and teachers-a partnership that helps both par- ties recognize and possibly sidestep obstacles to learning through collaborative thinking and action.

NOTES This article is an expanded version of a paper

delivered at the 1993 Modern Language Associ- ation Annual Convention in Toronto.

* Other areas of investigation related to beliefs about language learning include general assessment of students’ attitudes toward foreign language study (e.g., Glisan 1987, Roberts 1992), differences in beliefs about the characteristics of particular languages (Horwitz 1988, Ludwig 1983), attitudes toward literature and cultural content (Davis et al. 1992, Martin and Laurie 1993); relationships between attitudes and measures of foreign language achievement (e.g., Holmquist 1993, Mueller 1971), and links between students’ beliefs and their choice of learning strategies (Bacon and Finnemann 1990, Nyikos and Oxford 1993).

Green (1993), studying ESL students’ attitudes toward communicative versus traditional classroom activity types, reported that his students believed communicative activities were more enjoyable but not necessarily more effective.

Christison and Krahnke (1986) rightly point out methodological problems of objectivity, sam- pling, and validity inherent in all questionnaires used to examine learner beliefs and attitudes, including the BALLI. They claim that open-ended interviews with a structured set of topics yield more valid findings, particularly when examining multicultural students’ perceptions of language study. In the present study, however, the ability to compare the findings of this study with those of Horwitz (1988) depended on using the same survey instrument. Furthermore, comparison of teachers’ and students’ beliefs would be rendered unsystematic without a common list of statements to which each group responded. Finally, the large

82

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A”ALSSPRINC 1995

size of the student population precluded the pos- sibility of interviewing individual subjects. Given the careful design and development of the BALLI, whatever sacrifice in validity might exist was judged to be an acceptable trade-off for the ability to address certain research questions.

Note, as indicated in Table 1, that across the entire sample, 40 percent of the students believed that two years or less would be sufficient.

It is interesting to compare these generally positive attitudes with those reported in earlier studies. Mueller (1971), for example, studying the attitudes of students in four levels of basic French instruction at the University of Kentucky in the early 1970s, reports: “The students in all but one of the French courses have definitely negative attitudes toward the subject. The magnitude of disaffection is especially evident in the better students. The percentage giving the course a favor- able rating is small. Only a minority feel that they achieved the perceived objective or are confident of success in subsequent courses; the majority advise their friends to avoid these courses” (296).

’ Spearman Rank-Order correlations were cal- culated since responses were not always normally distributed across the five-point scale. All reported values of rho are corrected for ties.

This finding is consistent with other studies as well. Yorio (1986) reported strong student approval of pronunciation practice. Over a three- year period, roughly 85 percent of the 711 Intensive English students surveyed rated pronunciation exercises as “very important” and only 3.4 percent rated them as “unimportant.” Bacon and Finnemann (1990) reported that 59 percent of the nearly 1,000 Spanish undergraduates they surveyed thought that “getting sounds right” was important or very important.

Correlations across all possible pairs of instructors’ responses ranged from a low of .25 to a high of 21, with an average pairwise correlation of .62. This indicates a strong association among many of the instructors’ BALLI responses. How- ever, one of the native French-speaking graduate student instructors had consistently low pairwise correlations, ranging from .25 to .53. This is consistent with Lutz’s (1990) finding that Japanese graduate students and American faculty members differed considerably in their opinions on a range

of issues related to instruction. lo In assessing the level of student-instructor

agreement, the “strongly agree” and “agree” cate gories were collapsed, as were the “strongly disagree” and “disagree” categories. “Neither agree nor disagree” was maintained as a distinct category.

I ’ The expressions “greater agreement” and “greater disagreement” as they are used in this paper are elliptical, and should be interpreted as “greater agreement or lesser disagreement” and “greater disagreement or lesser agreement” respectively. These latter expressions, while more precise, have been excluded from the text for styl- istic reasons.

l2 The percentage was slightly lower (87 percent) among the French 1 students alone.

l 3 Examination of responses to items 7,8, 11, 14, 19, 20, 24, 26, and 28 within individual sections showed that although students in some sections shifted in the direction of their instructor’s response, there was no discernible tendency to do so across all sections.

l4 Because almost all of the French 1 students had had prior language learning experience, however, they too are likely to carry beliefs from their previous foreign language teachers’ influence. This being the case, even the French 1 students are probably not a sufficiently “naive” group to exhibit a robust teacher effect. The difference between the French 1 and French 2 students nev- ertheless suggests that one would likely find clear- er evidence of teacher belief influence among a group of true foreign language novices.

REFERENCES Bacon, Susan M., and Michael D. Finnemann.

1990. “A Study of Attitudes, Motives, and Strate gies of University Foreign Language Students and Their Disposition to Authentic Oral and Written Input.” Modem Language Journal 74, 4: 459473.

Bailey, Kathleen M. 1980. “An Introspective Analy- sis of an Individual’s Language Learning Experi- ence,” 5865 in R. C. Scarcella and S. D. Krashen, eds., Research in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Papers of the Los Angeles Second Lan- guage Acquisition Research Forum. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

83


Christison, Mary Ann, and Karl J. Krahnke. 1986. “Student Perceptions of Academic Language Study.” TESOL Quarterly 20, 1: 61-81.

Cohen, Andrew. 1994. “In Which Language Do/Should Multilinguals Think?” Paper presented at the Second Haifa Trilingual Confer- ence, June 12-13, Haifa, Israel.

Davis, James N., Lynn Carb6n Gorell, Rebecca R. Kline, and Gloria Hsieh. 1992. “Readers and For- eign Languages: A Survey of Undergraduate At- titudes toward the Study of Literature.” Modern Language Journal 76,3: 320-332.

Gardner, R. C., and Wallace E. Lambert. 1972. Atti- tudes and Motivation in Second Language Learn- ing. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Glisan, Eileen W. 1987. “Beginning Spanish Stu- dents: A Survey of Attitudes at the University of Pittsburgh.” Hispania 70, 2: 381-94.

Green, John M. 1993. “Student Attitudes Toward Communicative and Non-Communicative Activ- ities: Do Enjoyment and Effectiveness Go To- gether?“ Modem Language Journal 77, 1: 1-10,

Holmquist, Jonathan Carl. 1993. “Social and Psy- chological Correlates of Achievement: Spanish at Temple University.” Modern Language Jour- nal 77, 1, 34-44.

Horwitz, Elaine K. 1985. “Using Student Beliefs About Language Learning and Teaching in the Foreign Language Methods Course.” Foreign Language Annals 18,4: 333-340.

-. 1988. “The Beliefs about Language Learn- ing of Beginning University Foreign Language Students.“ Modern Language Journal 72, 3: 283- 294.

-. 1989. “Facing the Blackboard: Student Per- ceptions of the Language Learning and the Lan- guage Classroom.” ADFL Bulletin 20, 3: 61-64.

-. 1990. “Attending to the Affective Domain in the Foreign Language Classroom,” 15-33 in S. Magnan, ed., Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Confer- ence on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.

Kern, Richard G. 1994. “The Role of Mental Trans- lation in L2 Reading.” Studies in Second Lan- guage Acquisition 16,4: 441-461.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 1991. “Language-Learning Tasks: Teacher Intention and Learner Interpre- tation.” ELTJournal45, 2: 98107.

Ludwig, Jeannette. 1983. “Attitudes and Expecta-

tions: A Profile of Female and Male Students of College French, German, and Spanish.” Modern Language Journal 67,3: 216-227.

Lutz, Richard. 1990. “Classroom Shock: The Role of Expectations in an Instructional Setting,” 144-56 in J. E. Alatis, ed., CURT 1990: Linguistics, Lan- guage Teaching and Language Acquisition: The Interdependence of Theory, Practice and Re- search. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

MantleBromley, Corinne, and Raymond B. Miller. 1991. “Effect of Multicultural Lessons on Atti- tudes of Students of Spanish.” Modern Language Journal 7 5 4 : 418-425.

Martin, Anne L., and Ian Laurie. 1993. “Student Views About the Contribution of Literary and Cultural Content to Language Learning at Inter- mediate Level.” Foreign Language Annals 26, 2: 18&207.

McCargar, David F. 1993. “Teacher and Student Role Expectations: Cross-Cultural Differences and Implications.” Modem Language Journal 77,

Mueller, Theodore H. 1971. “Student Attitudes in the Basic French Course at the Univerisity of Kentucky.” Modern Language Journal 55,5: 29@ 298.

Nunan, David. 1993. “From Leaming-Centeredness to Learner-Cen t eredness. ” Applied Language Learning 4: 1-18.

Nyikos, Martha, and Rebecca Oxford. 1993. “A Fac- tor Analytic Study of Language Learning Strat- egy Use: Interpretations from Information- Processing Theory and Social Psychology.” Modern Language Journal 77, l : 11-22.

Roberts, Linda Pavian. 1992. “Attitudes of Entering University Freshmen toward Foreign Language Study: A Descriptive Analysis.” Modern Lan- guage Journal 76,3: 275-283.

Samimy, Keiko Komiya, and Motoko Tabuse. 1992. “Affective Variables and a Less Commonly Taught Language: A Study in Beginning Japan- ese Classes.” Language Learning 42, 3: 377-398.

Schumann, Francine M. 1980. “Diary of a Lan- guage Learner: A Further Analysis,” 51-57 in R. C. Scarcella and S. D. Krashen, eds., Research in Second Language Acquisition: Selected Papers of the Los Angeles Second Language Acquisition Research Forum. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

2: 192-207.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A L S S P R N G 1995

Schumann, Francine M., and John H. Schumann. 1977. “Diary of a Language Learner: An Intro- spective Study of Second Language Learning,” 241-249 in H. D. Brown, R. H. Crymes, and C. A. Yorio, eds., On TESOL ‘77, Teaching and Learn- ing English QS a Second Language: Trends in Re- search and Practice. Washington, DC: TESOL.

Wolf, W. C., and Kathleen Riordan. 1991. “Foreign Language Teachers’ Demographic Characteris- tics, In-Service Training Needs, and Attitudes T o ward Teaching.” Foreign Language Annals 24,6: 471478.

Yorio, Carlos A. 1986. “Consumerism in Second Language Learning and Teaching.” Canadian Modern Language Review 42,3: 668687.

TABLE 1

Students’ and Teachers’ Responses to BALU Items’ [N = 180 First and Second Semester French Students, 12 instructors at Unioersity of California, Berkeley)

1. It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language. Pre Post Horwitz’ Instructors

strongly agree 38% 48% 44% 17% agree 41% 34% 39% 50%

neither agree nor disagree 1 1 % 7% 11% 25% disagree 9% 9% 4% 8%

strongly disagree 2% 2% 1% 0%

2. Some people are born with a special ability which helps them learn a foreign language. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors


neither agree nor disagree 26% 27% 29% 33% disagree 14% 14% 19% 0%


3. Some languages are easier to learn than others. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




4. The language I am currently studying is: Pre Post Honuitz Instructors

a very difficult language 3% 2% 1% 0% a difficult language 25% 30% 38% 25%

a language of medium difficulty 60% 54% 54% 67% an easy language 11% 13% 5% 8%

a very easy language 2% 1% 0% 0%

’ Figures were rounded to nearest percentage. Consequently, some percentage columns may add to slightly below

* Data from first semester French students at the University of Texas at Austin (N = 63), reported in Honvitz (1988). ’ The instructors’ version read: “The language I am currently teaching is.. .”

or above 100%.

85


TABLE 1 (Continued)

Students' and Teachers' Responses to BALLI Items

5. The language I am trying to learn is structured in the same way as English.4 Pre Post Horwitz

agree 27% 29% reported strongly agree 5% 7% not

neither agree nor disagree 28% 23% disagree 35% 35%

strongly disagree 5% 7%

6. I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak this language very well.

strongly agree agree

neither agree nor disagree disagree

strongly disagree

7. It's important to speak a foreign language



strongly disagree

Pre Post Horwitz 25% 26% 13% 45% 39% 41% 21% 23% 36% 8% 11% 9% 1% 1% 1%

with an excellent accent. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors 13% 15% 15% 0% 37% 44% 37% 17% 29% 22% 30% 33% 19% 18% 14% 33%

1% 1% 3% 17%

8. It is necessaly to know the foreign culture in order to speak a foreign language. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




9. You shouldn't say anything in the language until you can say it correctly. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




10. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors



strongly disagree 4% 3% 3% 8% The instructors' version read: "The language I teach is structured in the same way as English."

86

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALSAPMNG 1995

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Students’ and Teachers’ Responses to BALLI Items

11. It is better to learn a foreign language in the foreign country. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors

strongly agree 37% 41% 25% 8%


agree 41% 43% 41% 33%


12. If I heard someone speaking the language I am trying to learn, I would go up to them so that I could practice speaking the language.

Pre Post Horwitz strongly agree 6% 7% 5%

agree 33% 31% 27% neither agree nor disagree 37% 35% 36%

disagree 19% 24% 27% strongly disagree 5% 3% 2%

13. It’s 0.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in the foreign language. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors

strongly agree 16% 20% 5% 33%

disagree 9% 10% 19% 0% strongly disagree 2% 1% 8% 0%

agree 52% 51% 33% 42% neither agree nor disagree 21% 18% 33% 25%

14. I f someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it take him/her to become fluent?

less than a year 1-2 years 3-5 years

5- 10 years You can’t learn a language in 1 hour a day

15. I have foreign language aptitude.



strongly disagree

Pre 7%

33% 37% 11% 12%

Pre 9%

49% 33% 8% 1%

Post Horwitz Instructors 3% 6% 0%

35% 38% 33% 41% 34% 33% 9% 7% 8%

12% 12% 25%

Post Horwitz 14% 8% 38% 25% 36% 44% 9% 19% 3% 3%

87

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS4PRING 1995

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Students’ and Teachers’ Responses to BALL1 Items

16. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of new vocabulary words. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




17. It is important to repeat and practice a lot. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




18. I feel self-conscious speaking the foreign language in front of other people. Pre Post Horwitz

strongly agree 12% 12% 14%

neither agree nor disagree 20% 20% 17% disagree 23% 20% 18%

agree 38% 44% 45%

strongly disagree 7% 4% 3%

19. If you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning it will be hard to get rid of them later on. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors


neither agree nor disagree 20% 22% 17% 25% disagree 33% 27% 17% 42 %


20. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules. Pre

strongly agree 2% agree 20%

neither agree nor disagree 28% disagree 44%

strongly disagree 6%

Pre strongly agree 16%

agree 53% neither agree nor disagree 21%

disagree 8% strongly disagree 1%

21. It’s important to practice in the language laboratory.

Post 4%

27% 29% 36% 4%

Post 21% 50% 21%

7% 1%

Horwitz 4%

21% 32% 36%

5%

Horwitz 39% 45% 9% 3% 2%

Instructors 0% 0%

17% 58% 25%

Instructors 0%

84% 8% 8% 0%

88

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ANNALS-SPMNG 1995

TABLE 1 (Continued) Students’ and Teachers’ Responses to BALLI Itefns

22. Women are better than men at learning foreign languages.



strongly disagree

23. If I get to speak this language very well, I



strongly disagree

24. It is easier to speak than to understand a



strongly disagree

Pre Post Horwitz Instructors 1% 3% 1% 0% 6% 9% 8% 0%

42% 39% 39% 17% 31% 28% 31% 42% 20% 21% 19% 42%

Pre Post Horwitz 19% 14% 16% 36% 40% 33% 29% 30% 31% 16% 16% 15% 0% 1% 3%

Pre Post Horwitz Instructors 2% 5% 6% 0%

12% 16% 24% 0% 22% 20% 6% 17% 47% 43% 51% 58% 17% 16% 13% 25%

will have many opportunities to use it.

foreign language.

25. Learning a foreign language is different from learning other school subjects. Pre Post Horwitz


neither agree nor disagree 15% 8% 7%

strongly disagree 1 % 4% 3%

agree 57% 55% 42%

disagree 8% 6% 8%

26. Learning another language is a matter of translating from English. Pre Post Horwik

strongly agree 1 % 1% 2% agree 7% 11% 13%

neither agree nor disagree 16% 11% 17% disagree 52% 51% 48%

strongly disagree 24% 26% 17% 27. If 1 learn to speak this language very well, it will help me get a good job.5

Pre Post Horwitz strongly agree 8% 9% 3%

agree 17% 27% 19% neither agree nor disagree 47% 35% 44%

disagree 21% 22% 21% strongly disagree 6% 8% 10%

Instructors 17% 42% 33% 8% 0%

Instructors 0% 0% 0%

17% 83%

Instructors 0% 8%

84% 0% 8%

‘The instructors’ version read: “If my students learn to speak this language well, it will help them get a good job.”

89

FOREIGN LANGUAGE A N N A S S P R I N G 1995

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Students’ and Teachers’ Responses to BALL1 Items

28. It is easier to read and write a language than to speak and understand it. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors

strongly agree 1 1 % 21% 22% 8% agree 39% 37% 49% 42%

disagree 26% 19% 11% 17% neither agree nor disagree 21% 20% 16% 33%


29. People who are good at math and science are not good at learning foreign languages. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




30. Americans think that it is important to speak a foreign language. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




31. I would like to learn this language so that 1 can get to know its speakers better. Pre Post Horwitz


neither agree nor disagree 32% 29% 33%

strongly disagree 1% 3% 5%

agree 40% 41% 38%

disagree 14% 13% 13%

32. People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent. Pre Post Horwitz Instructors




90


TABLE 1 (Continued)

Students' and Teachers' Responses to BALLI Items

33. Americans are good at learning foreign languages. Pre

strongly agree 1% agree 7%

strongly disagree 4%

neither agree nor disagree 67% disagree 21%

34. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language. Pre 44% 36% 13% 7% 0%



strongly disagree

'p E 2

Post 2%

11% 55% 27% 3%

Post 43% 42% 12% 2% 1%

Horwitz 0% 6%

60% 23% 9%

Horwitz 25% 48% 17% 7% 2%

Instructors 0% 8%

67% 25% 0%

Instructors 25% 75% 0% 0% 0%

Percentage of Shift in Student Responses within Selected BALLI Items (N = 180)

Shifi in Response BALLI Items (pre minus post)" Item 7 Item 8 Item 11 Item 14 Item 19 Item 20 Item 24 Item 26 Item 28

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0%

-3 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2%

-2 4% 6% 3% 6% 3% 3% 5% 2% 4%

-1 16% 21% 12% 20% 11% 17% 17% 20% 17%

0 51% 46% 57% 50% 47% 49% 42% 58% 41%

1 24% 20% 21% 17% 26% 19% 23% 9% 19%

2 4% 4% 5% 4% 9% 11% 9% 7% 12%

3 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4%

4 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

* Negative numerals indicate a shift toward lesser agreement with the BALL1 item; positive numerals indicate a shift toward greater agreement.

91

FQREIGN LANGUAGE A " A U 4 P R I N G 1995

TABLE 3

Mean Correlations of Teachem' and Students' Reponses to 27 BALLI Items and Percentage of Students whose Level of Correlation Increased, Decreased, or

Remained Constant over the Course of one Semester (N = 180)

Instructor / Level Mean correlation Individual student-teacher correlation changes

Pre post % decreased % increased % same

1 (F, NNS) Fr 1 .52 .47 60% 30% 10%

2 (M, NNS) Fr 1 .58 .59 25% 25% 50%

3 (F, NS) Fr 1 .46 .49 2 7% 36% 36%

4 (F, NS) Fr 1 .46 .4 1 41% 26% 33%

5 (M, NNS) Fr 1 .56 .52 36% 21% 43%

6 (M, NNS) Fr 1 .37 .45 36% 43% 21%

7 ( M , N N S ) Fr 1 .4 1 .46 27% 64% 9%

Average Fr 1 (N = 103) .48 .48 36% 35% 29%

8 (F, NS) Fr 2 .47 .50 33% 50% 17%

9 (F, NS) Fr 2 .44 .40 40% 20% 40%

10 (F, NNS) Fr 2 .37 .39 19% 19% 62%

11 (M, NNS) Fr 2 .50 .40 18% 12% 70%

12 (M, NNS) Fr 2 .50 .52 7% 26% 67%

Average Fr 2 (N = 77) .46 .44 23% 25% 51%

F = female; M = male; NS = native speaker; NNS = nonnative speaker. Criterion magnitude for correlation increase or decrease is .lo.

92

Documents

Students' and Teachers' Beliefs About Language Learning