INSTITUDE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES IN A HIGH SCHOOL CONTEXT IN TURKEY
Yaşar Üstün KAPLAN
MASTER OF ARTS
ADANA / 2016
INSTITUDE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES IN A HIGH SCHOOL CONTEXT IN TURKEY
Yaşar Üstün KAPLAN
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jülide İnözü
Member of Examining Committee: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şehnaz ŞAHİN KARAKAŞ Member of Examining Committee: Assoc. Prof. Dr. M. Oğuz KUTLU
MASTER OF ARTS
ADANA / 2016
We certify that this thesis is satisfactory for the award of the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of English Language Teaching
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jülide İNÖZÜ
Member of Examining Committee: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şehnaz ŞAHİNKARAKAŞ
Member of Examining Committee: Assoc. Prof. Dr. M. Oğuz KUTLU
I certify that this dissertatiton confirms to the formal standards of the Institute of Social Sciences / /2016
Prof. Dr. Yıldırım Beyazıt ÖNAL Director of the Institute
Note: The uncited usage of the reports, charts, figures, photographs in this thesis, whether original or quoted from other sources, is subject to the law of Works of Art and Thought No: 5846.
Not: Bu tezde kullanılan özgün ve başka kaynaktan yapılan bildirişlerin, çizelge, şekil ve fotoğrafların kaynak gösterilmeden kullanımı, 5846 Sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu’ndaki hükümlere tabidir.
Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Tez Yazım Kurallarına uygun olarak hazırladığım bu tez çalışmasında;
Tez içinde sunduğum verileri, bilgileri ve dokümanları akademik ve etik kurallar çerçevesinde elde ettiğimi,
Tüm bilgi, belge, değerlendirme ve sonuçları bilimsel etik ve ahlak kurallarına uygun olarak sunduğumu,
Tez çalışmasında yararlandığım eserlerin tümüne uygun atıfta bulunarak kaynak gösterdiğimi,
Kullanılan verilerde ve ortaya çıkan sonuçlarda herhangi bir değişiklik yapmadığımı,
Bu tezde sunduğum çalışmanın özgün olduğunu,
bildirir, aksi bir durumda aleyhime doğabilecek tüm hak kayıplarını kabullendiğimi beyan ederim. 23/06/2016
Yaşar Üstün KAPLAN
ÖZET
ÖĞRENCİLERİN DİL ÖĞRENME YARGILARI VE DİL ÖĞRENME STRATEJİLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN TÜRKİYE’DE BİR ORTA
ÖĞRETİM ORTAMINDA ARAŞTIRILMASI
Yaşar Üstün KAPLAN
Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İngiliz Dili Eğitimi Ana Dalı Doçent Dr. Jülide İNÖZÜ
Haziran 2016, 69 sayfa
Yapılan bu nicel çalışma, Türkiye’de bir orta öğretim ortamındaki öğrencilerin dil öğrenme yargıları ve dil öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkiyi inceledi. Ayrıca, çalışma öğrencilerin dil öğrenme yargıları ve dil öğrenme stratejileri arasındaki ilişkiyi belirledi. Bu çalışmanın katılımcılarını, Adana Yüreğir Hayret Efendi Anadolu Lisesi’nin öğrencileri oluşturdu. Katılımcılardan dil öğrenme yargilarini belirlemek için Horwitz (1988)’ in Dil Öğrenme Yargıları Envanterine cevap vermeleri istendi. Ayrıca, Oxford (1990)’un Dil Öğrenme Stratejileri Envanteri katılımcıların çeşitli dil öğrenme strateji kullanımlarının sıklığını belirlemek için kullanıldı. Veriler, betimsel analizler ve Pearson r korelasyon yöntemi kullanılarak analiz edildi. Araştırma katılan öğrencilerin en çok hafıza ve telafi edici stratejileri kullandığı belirlendi. Ayrıca, bilişsel stratejiler en az sıklıkta tercih edilen dil öğrenme stratejisi olarak belirlendi. Buna ek olarak, sonuçlar öğrenciler için İngilizce öğreniminde pratik ve tekrarın önemli olduğunu gösterdi. Dahası, katılımcıların İngilizce’ nin kendilerine gelecekte daha iyi bir iş bulma fırsatı yaratacağına inandıkları için İngilizce’ yi kendileri için önemli olarak gördüğü belirlendi. Son olarak, dil öğrenme yargıları ve dil öğrenme stratejileri arasında pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki bulundu.
Anahtar kelimeler: Dil öğrenme yargıları, dil öğrenme stratejileri, ilişki.
ABSTRACT
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ BELIEFS ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES IN A HIGH SCHOOL CONTEXT IN TURKEY
Yaşar Üstün KAPLAN
Master Thesis, Department of English Language Teaching Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jülide İNÖZÜ
June, 2016, 69 pages
This quantitative study explored the students’ beliefs about language learning and strategies while learning the foreign language in a high school context in Turkey.
Also, it identified the relationship between students’ beliefs about language learning and their strategy use. Participants of this study were high school students at Hayret Efendi Anatolian High School in Yüreğir, Adana. Participants were asked to answer Horwitz’s (1988) the Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) so as to specify their beliefs regarding language learning. Secondly, Oxford (1990)’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) was utilized to measure frequency of participants’ usage of language learning strategies. Descriptive analyses and Pearson r correlation were utilized to analyze the data. According to results of this current study, the most frequently preferred strategies among participants were memory and compensatory strategies. However, the least preferred strategies were cognitive strategies.
Additionally, participants had a high opinion of repetition and practice in learning English and they perceived English as significant for better career opportunities.
Finally, result of the Pearson r correlation revealed that all language learning strategies were significantly and positively correlated with five different areas of learners’ beliefs about language learning.
Keywords: Beliefs about language learning, language learning strategies, relationship.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people have contributed to the completition of this dissertation. I will always be grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr Jülide İNÖZÜ, my supervisor, for her patience, sincerity and invaluable guidance and encouragement. Also, I would like to express my special thanks to members of examining committe: Assoc. Prof. Dr Şehnaz ŞAHİN KARAKAŞ and Assoc. Prof. Dr M. Oğuz KUTLU.
I would like to acknowledge and thank to my valuable students who participated to the study.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my family: my mother Sema KAPLAN, my brother Battal Servet KAPLAN, my wife Şengül KAPLAN, my grandmother Ayşe BOZDOĞANOĞLU, my aunt Selma BOZĞANOĞLU and my friend Ali Batuhan BARDAKÇI.
Yaşar Üstün KAPLAN
İÇİNDEKİLER
Page
ÖZET ... iv
ABSTRACT ... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vi
ABBREVIATIONS ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introduction ... 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ... 2
1.3. Purpose of the Study ... 3
1.4. Research Questions ... 3
1.5. Significance of the Study ... 4
1.6. Assumptions ... 4
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction ... 5
2.2. Beliefs about Language Learning ... 5
2.2.1. Studies on Beliefs about Language Learning ... 7
2.3. Language Learning Strategies ... 8
2.3.1. The Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies ... 9
2.3.2. Classifications of Language Learning Strategies ... 9
2.3.3. Studies on Language Learning Strategies ... 11
2.4. Studies on the Relationship between Beliefs about Language Learning and Language Learning Strategy Use ... 14
2.5. Summary ... 16
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Design of the Study ... 17
3.3. Participants ... 17
3.4. Data Collection Procedure ... 18
3.5. Instrumentation ... 18
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS 4.1. Introduction ... 22
4.2. Findings ... 22
4.2.1. The Descriptive Analysis of the Findings from the BALLI Questionnaire .. 22
4.2.2. The Descriptive Analysis of the Findings from the SILL Questionnaire ... 31
4.2.3 The Relationship between Learners’ beliefs and their Strategy Use ... 41
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION 5.1. Introduction ... 44
5.1.1. Discussion ... 44
5.2. Implications ... 53
CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION 6.1. Introduction ... 56
6.2. Conclusion ... 56
6.3. Suggestions and Limitations ... 56
6.4. Summary ... 57
REFERENCES ... 58
APPENDICES ... 63
CURRICULUM VITAE ... 69
ABBREVIATIONS
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
BALLI: The Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory SILL: Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
L1: Native Language of Second Language Learners L2: A Target Language
LLS: Language Learning Strategy LLSs: Language Learning Strategies SLA: Second Language Acquisition
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Percentages and Frequencies of Beliefs about Foreign Language Aptitude .... 24
Table 2. Percentages and Frequencies of Beliefs about Difficulty of Language Learning ... 25
Table 3. Item 4 Frequencies and Percentages ... 26
Table 4. Item 14 Frequencies and Percentages ... 26
Table 5. Percentages and Frequencies of Beliefs about the Nature of Language Learning ... 28
Table 6. Percentages and Frequencies of Learning and Communication Strategies ... 29
Table 7. Percentages and Frequencies of Beliefs about Motivation and Expectation .... 31
Table 8. Overall Strategy Use Scores ... 32
Table 9. Memory Strategies: Frequencies and Percentages ... 33
Table 10. Cognitive Strategies: Frequencies and Percentages ... 35
Table 11. Compensatory Strategies: Frequencies and Percentages ... 36
Table 12. Metacognitive Strategies: Frequencies and Percentages ... 38
Table 13. Affective Strategies: Frequencies and Percentages ... 39
Table 14. Social Strategies: Frequencies and Percentages ... 40
Table 15. Correlations between SILL and BALLI ... 41
Table 16. Correlation between areas of Beliefs about Language Learning and categories Language Learning Strategies ... 42
APPENDICES
Page Appendix A: Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory ... 63 Appendix B: Strategy Inventory for Language Learners ... 65
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction
During the last decades, world has been changing rapidly and people have had to keep up with these changes. Learning a language is one of the most significant needs which should be met in order to keep up with those changes. For this reason, language learning is now considerably taking place in people’s lives. People are attempting to learn a foreign language for some reasons such as finding a good job, living in different countries, studying abroad.
Learning a new language is a complex responsibility. It includes adopting a new culture, thinking and behaving differently (Brown, 2000). A new language learner should commit himself/herself physically, intellectually and emotionally in order to interpret messages successfully in the new language and to achieve his/her desired goals in the language learning process. For a long time, language has been instructed based on various applications regarding language teaching. Language was taught through translation from target language to mother tongue aiming at improving learners’ reading abilities and their mental capabilities at the beginning of 19th century. At that time, repetition and practice were precious in learning. Afterwards, from the traditional methods which put emphasis on structural instruction, reading, vocabulary, writing and translation, and so on, there was shift to focus on communicative approaches which gave birth to learner centered instructions in following years. After applications of numerous methods and techniques, language is now being taught by blending of the contributions of previous methods by focusing on authenticity, social interaction, learners’ needs, interests as well as beliefs today. In other words, attention to the learners’ affective factors increased. Therefore, there has been a tendency in focus from teaching methods to features of learners.
Now, it is commonly known that every person is unique and they can differ from each other in terms of their needs, interests, motivations, attitudes, personalities and beliefs. Hosseini and Pourmandnia (2013) indicated that “once learners enter a classroom, they bring all their personality characteristics including their beliefs, attitudes, and language learning strategies to the learning environment” (p.63).
Additionally, Horwitz (1987) stated that learners’ earlier contact with language learning
may affect their beliefs regarding language learning. For example, an involvement to language learning resulting in failure may direct the learners to think that they had unsuccessful experience because they did not have necessary qualifications required for language learning. What is more, Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005) specified that beliefs affect learners’ anxiety and motivation levels, their learning style preferences and their strategy use while learning a language. Substantial investigations suggest that language learners’ beliefs have a significant effect on how learners set about the language learning. According to Puchta (1990), complementary and favourable beliefs assist learners to defeat problems by sustaining motivation while pessimistic ones may give rise to inadequate motivation and anxiety. In other words, among the factors influencing learners’ LLS use, beliefs about language learning occupy an important place and they partially determine the strategies used by learners (Wenden, 1987; Yang, 1999). For instance, learners having positive beliefs about importance of communication in the target language may want to use communication strategies.
This study will shed light on the relation between LLSs utilized by students in a high school context in Turkey and their language learning beliefs. This relationship may provide some significant information about how language learners approach to the language learning process.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
It is crucial for language teachers to have an idea about students’ language learning beliefs since they may influence the outcomes of language learning process (Horwitz, 1987). Similarly, Stern (1983) explained that learning outcomes are strongly influenced by learners’ internal characteristics. From this explanation, we can say that beliefs about language learning and language learning strategies which are some of the internal characteristics of language learners have great importance.
Additionally, Wenden (1991) stated that LLSs and language learning beliefs have a significant position in understanding how L2 learners learn the language. Furthermore, Horwitz indicated that “learners’ beliefs are related what the learners expect from learning, how they approach and commit themselves to learning process”(1988, p. 238).
For those reasons, learners’ beliefs and LLSs are the main concentration of this current inquiry and research is needed to explore students’ beliefs about language learning and
LLS use in a high school context in Turkey. In addition, relationships between language learning beliefs and LLSs need to be enquired.
More specifically, the problem of the study includes:
The need for exploration of students’ beliefs about language learning in a high school context in Turkey.
The need for strategy research in English as a Foreign Language context to examine students’ LLS use.
The need for the exploration of relationship between students’ LLS use and beliefs about language learning.
1.3. Purpose of the Study
The ultimate aim of the current research is to address the language learning strategies used by students in a high school context in Turkey and their beliefs about language learning. In addition, this current research aims at seeking relationship between the two concepts.
Within scope of this study the following objectives were set:
To find out beliefs about language learning adopted by students in a high school context in Turkey.
To discover LLSs preferred by students in a high school context in Turkey.
To investigate relationship between students’ beliefs about language learning and their LLS preferences.
1.4. Research Questions
On the basis of research objectives, this study addresses the following research questions:
What are the beliefs about language learning hold by students in a high school context in Turkey?
What are the LLSs used by students while learning English in a high school context in Turkey?
What are the relationships between learners’ beliefs about language learning and their LLS use?
1.5. Significance of the Study
This study aims to provide contribution to understanding of relation between students’ language learning beliefs and language learning strategy use by providing empirical evidence. The results of this present study may offer insight and practical suggestions in terms of theory and practice.
First of all, finding out a group of high school EFL students’ beliefs about language learning and their LLS use may offer understanding about what they anticipate and how they go along with learning English. To illustrate, if students have unattainable beliefs about language learning, teachers can modify these myths which influence the students’ LLS use negatively. Hence, considering achievable expectations, students may be helped engage in more effective learning process. Additionally, having idea about learners’ beliefs together with their LLS use may help material developers able to develop materials matching to students’ language learning beliefs and LLS use.
Therefore, teachers can have better opportunities to facilitate their learners by creating useful materials which are appropriate for students’ beliefs and strategy use.
1.6. Assumptions
This study established the following assumptions:
1. Participants joined the survey on voluntary basis.
2. The participants read the questionnaires carefully.
3. The participants identified their beliefs about language learning honestly.
4. The subjects addressed their LLS use voluntarily.
5. The BALLI and SILL measured students’ beliefs about language learning and strategy use accurately in a high school context in Turkey.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This part will discuss findings from the existing literature on language learning strategy use, learners’ beliefs about language learning and their relationships in second language acquisition studies. Accordingly, early studies on beliefs about language learning and studies on language strategies will be discussed. This chapter provides review of literature about LLS use and beliefs about language learning. First of all, the concepts are explained in terms of their definitions and classifications. Next, studies on LLSs and beliefs about language learning are examined. Lastly, studies examining relationship between learners’ LLS use and beliefs about language learning are reported as well.
2.2. Beliefs about Language Learning
Beliefs are key conceptions in every discipline which considers human behaviour and learning (Sakui and Gaies, 1999). Similarly, Gabillon (2005) stated that in every discipline whose concern is learning and behaviour, beliefs are seen as important concepts to be investigated since they have a subsequent impact on people’s behaviour. As for learning a foreign language, İnozu (2011) stated that beliefs have capability to affect students’ both future practices and involvements in language learning. Therefore, beliefs are implied to have a significant role during language learning process. Learners are affected by their beliefs either directly or indirectly.
According to Horwitz (1987), foreign language learners often adopt different thoughts or impressions about language learning and these predisposed notions may affect the language learners’ learning experiences both positively and negatively.
Many studies have been carried out focusing on language learning beliefs.
Horwitz (1988) stated that beliefs are different perceptions and expectations that language learners carry into any language class. Indeed, Horwitz utilized terms like preconceptions (1985), preconceived ideas (1987), and preconceived notions (1988) instead of giving exact definition of beliefs about language learning. She stated that it is important for language teachers to have an idea about what their learners believe or
perceive and what kind of expectations are brought to the class by their learners since beliefs considerably influence learners’ learning outcomes (1988). Similar to Horwitz’s approach to the definition of language learning beliefs, Victori and Lockhart (1995) defined them as common premises that students have as learners, about factors affecting language learning and about the nature of language learning. Furthermore, Yang (1999) defined language learning beliefs as predictors of learners’ learning. By considering the definitions, it can be said that it is important having idea about learners’ beliefs to better comprehend how they approach to language learning since beliefs may define learners’
approach to language learning and learners’ use of learning strategies better so that they can organize the language instruction properly (Horwitz, 1988).
Since 1980s, there has been great attention to investigate the role of affectional variables as a means of interpreting differences regarding capability of learning a new language and a good deal of investigations have been carried out on learner beliefs about language learning. One of the proponents who studied on beliefs about language learning is Horwitz (1985, 1987, 1988) seen as first researcher to elicit the language learners’ beliefs systematically. Different techniques have been employed to determine the learners’ beliefs such as diaries, journals, interviews, observations, and surveys. She designed an instrument in order to identify learners’ beliefs. Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) is one of the most famous inventories of studies on beliefs about language learning. She has used this instrument to collect data concerning beliefs of students and teachers. There are three different versions of BALLI today. First of all, BALLI (1985) was created in order to elicit beliefs of language teachers. In other words, firstly BALLI aimed at exploring teachers’ views about language learning (Horwitz, 1985). BALLI (1985) including four themes and 27 items is for foreign language teachers and comprised four areas: foreign language aptitude, the difficulty of language learning, the nature of language learning and language learning strategies.
Secondly, she directed her attention to ESL students and designed second version of the BALLI (1987) which includes five major fields comprising 34 statements. Then last and latest version of BALLI (1988) is developed by Horwitz (1988) for English-speaking learners of a foreign language. All of the types give only descriptive information of beliefs about language learning and each type uses Five-point likert scale items ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The 1988 version of the BALLI is utilized for this investigation in order to assess participants’ beliefs about language learning. It has 34 items and assesses beliefs about language learning in five different categories:
beliefs about the difficulty of language learning, beliefs about foreign language aptitude, beliefs about nature of language learning, beliefs about learning and communication strategies, and beliefs about motivations and expectations.
2.2.1. Studies on Beliefs about Language Learning
Beliefs about language learning have sparked awareness and interest among the researchers. As a result, there are many studies conducted considering learners’ beliefs about language learning. To begin with, Horwitz (1988) examined the beliefs about language learning of 241 foreign language learners of German, French and Spanish. She used BALLI as a data collection tool. The BALLI was utilized to measure learners’
point of views on different aspects of language learning process under five main areas:
language aptitude, nature of language learning, learning and communication strategies, motivations and expectations and difficulty of language learning. She found that each group reported similar beliefs about difficulty of language learning. All three groups reported repetition and practice in language laboratory as important language learning strategies. Based on similar and different perceptions on these results, Horwitz (1988) concluded that language learners have a large number of language learning beliefs on strategy use, achievement levels, and notions of language acquisition.
Tercanlıoglu (2005) carried out a research to explore the beliefs of 118 pre- service EFL teachers at Atatürk University in Turkey about language learning regarding gender. He found that among the five different areas of beliefs about language learning, beliefs about motivation and expectations were the most effective. In other words, it was found that participants had positive emotional reactions to foreign language learning. They were not only inspired to learn a foreign language but also had strong beliefs about the significance and utility of learning a foreign language. Additionally, study found that there was a strong and close relationship among the five belief factors with each other. Regarding gender factor, significant difference was not found between the genders. In other words, it was found that participants’ beliefs about language learning didn’t vary by gender.
Altan (2006) examined 248 university students of English, German, French, Japanese and Arabic departments at different universities. Researcher investigated each groups’ beliefs about language considering the five factors of BALLI. First category was difficulty of language learning and participants believed that difficulty of language
learning was depended on the language they studied. For example, 95% of the students studying Japanese believed that their language was difficult to learn whereas 70 % of the students studying English saw their language as an easy language to learn.
Considering the beliefs about Foreign Language Aptitude, he found that great majority of the participants saw themselves as having specific abilities to learn a foreign language. As for the learning and communication strategies, participants ranging from 58% to 77% were aware of the meaningful practice and repetition. Finally, a wide range of the participants associated language skills with career opportunities in terms of finding a good occupation.
Kayaoğlu (2013) investigated good and poor language learners’ beliefs and aimed to find whether there is a relationship between them or not. He examined 146 Turkish university students at different levels of success in the target language use and reported that poor learners with certain beliefs about their self-efficacy in pronunciation and the nature of their language learning differed from those of the good learners. This implied a relationship between learners’ beliefs and their LLS use.
2.3. Language Learning Strategies
Every learning process requires a manner to achieve the ultimate objects and the most important thing which should be done in the process is decide “what” to use for learning and “how” to use it appropriately so as to achieve the goal. Learners use different kinds of strategies in language learning like any other learning situations.
While some of them result in failure, some others provide benefit. Many explanations of language learning strategies exist today and to date, the term, LLS, has been explained by many researchers considering the way through which learners deal with the information and strategies they use while processing the information they receive.
Rigney (1978) defined LLSs as steps taken by the learners deliberately to improve obtaining, storing, recall and use of new information. Weinstein and Mayer (1986) stated that LLSs are thoughts that a learner adopts during learning and are intended to affect the learner’s decoding process. Influence of cognitive science in earlier explanations of LLS can be seen clearly. Moreover, it is easily understood from the definitions that strategies are used by learners consciously during the learning process.
In other words, definitions implicate conscious movement of language learners toward an aim (Oxford, 1990). Rubin (1987) defined LLSs as techniques that language learners
utilize to ease language learning. Similarly, Oxford and Crookall (1989) defined language LLSs as actions; problem solving, or study skills. As understood from these authors, language learning strategies assist processing, storage, retrieval and use of information in the acquisition.
Also, Oxford (1990) included cognitive, social and emotional dimensions of language learning and she described the LLSs as operations used by the learners which help acquisition, storage, retrieval and usage of information and actions which make learning process easier, quicker, more pleasurable, more self-directed, more efficacious and more adaptable to new circumstances.
From the definitions above, it can be easily understood that LLSs help language learners process the information effectively, improving their own learning, in turn, resulting in efficient learning.
2.3.1. The Characteristics of Language Learning Strategies
Various terms have been used in a number of studies investigating strategies.
Whereas Wenden (1991) uses “learner strategies” while O’Malley and Chamot (1990) use the term “learning strategies” to refer strategies. Oxford (1990) uses the term
“language learning strategies” in her studies as well. Whatever the term is, there are common features which are accepted by researchers.
Oxford (1990) lists her views about key characteristics of language learning strategies below:
Contribute to the main goal, communicative competence.
Allow learners become more self-directed.
•Are specific actions taken by the learners and problem oriented.
Involve many aspects of the learner, not just the cognitive
Support learning both directly and indirectly
Are not always observable and often conscious
Are influenced by a variety of factors (Oxford, 1990, p.9).
2.3.2. Classifications of Language Learning Strategies
Research on the language learning strategies began with Rubin’s (1975) work which suggested a model of good language learner providing some basic features of
successful language learners. She classified the LLSs considering their contribution to learning process in the following years (1981). She differentiated them whether they involved in the language learning process directly or indirectly. According to Rubin (1981), direct strategies include: classification -verification, monitoring, memorization, guessing-inductive inferencing, deductive reasoning and practice while creating opportunities for practice and production tricks are under the title of indirect strategies.
Dansereau (1985) divided LLSs into two groups called primary strategy and support strategies. The former is used directly to handle learning materials and the latter help learners have proper attitude toward learning by overcoming problems.
In addition to these, O’Malley and Chamot (1990) focusing on the social interaction, scaffolding and development of metacognitive strategies stated that LLSs are classified into three categories: cognitive, metacognitive and socio-affective strategies.
Moreover, Stern’s (1992) classification system includes five main LLSs:
management and planning strategies, cognitive strategies, communicative – experiential strategies, interpersonal strategies and affective strategies.
In the light of the previous arguments on categorization of LLSs, Hsiao and Oxford (2002) claimed that every classification comprises implied theory about the nature of L2 learning strategies and even, to some extent, about language learning in general. Similarly, Hişmanoğlu (2000) supported by stating that attempts to classify the language learning strategies serve nearly the same categorizations of LLSs without basic change. Among the various categorizations of LLSs, Oxford’s (1990) classification of strategies is admitted as the most extensive one (Ellis, 1994).
According to Oxford (1990), ultimate aim of LLSs is helping learners become communicatively competent language users. She categorized the LLSs into two different classifications such as direct strategies requiring mental process of the target language and involving directly to the language learning and indirect strategies supporting and managing the language learning without direct contribution to language learning process. Furthermore, these two categories are divided into six subcategories functioning collaboratively so as to improve L2 learning. Direct strategies comprises memory strategies for remembering newly learnt information, cognitive strategies for understanding and producing new language, and compensation strategies helping learners to guess effectively by using clues. In addition to these, indirect strategies include metacognitive strategies helping language learners control their own learning,
affective strategies which consider learners’ emotions, motivations in language learning and social strategies focusing on the importance of learners’ interaction with others in the learning process. According to Oxford (1990), memory strategies help learners struggle with the problems happened in language learning and they help learners store or retrieve the newly learnt information. They fall into four sets such as creating mental linkages, applying images, reviewing well and employing actions. Next, cognitive strategies comprise practicing, receiving and sending messages, analyzing and reasoning, creating structure for input and output. Besides, compensation strategies are divided into: guessing intelligently in listening and reading and overwhelming limitations in speaking and writing enabling learners to use new language either for compensation or for production. As for the indirect learning strategies, Oxford (1990) stated that metacognitive strategies include centering your learning, arranging and planning your learning, and evaluating your learning whereas affective strategies comprise lowering your anxiety, encouraging yourself and taking your emotional temperature. In addition to these, social strategies which are one of the indirect strategies include asking questions, cooperating and developing empathy with others.
2.3.3. Studies on Language Learning Strategies
Nisbet, Tindall and Arroya (2005), conducted a study surveying the relationship between language learning strategy preferences and English proficiency among Chinese students. Results showed that meta-cognitive strategies were significantly correlated with students’ English proficiency levels. In addition, it was found that variations in learning strategy scores and proficiency did not appear to be influenced by gender.
Furthermore, participants were found to use strategies at a medium to high level. Also, findings revealed minimal correlation between learning strategies and proficiency.
Khalil (2005) assessed the LLSs used by Palestinian students and he explored whether proficiency level and gender affected participants’ strategy use or not. Results showed that Palestinian EFL learners reported that they used LLSs at medium level.
Also, gender and proficiency level had a statistically significant effect on frequency of overall strategy use.
Deneme (2008) examined Turkish students’ use of LLSs while they were learning English. Study found that all of the participants applied all the strategies at various levels. In other words, study showed that participants reported high use of
memory, compensation and meta-cognitive strategies and medium use of cognitive, affective and social strategies. In addition to these, study found that LLSs were used not only to make up for missing knowledge but also to plan and assess their learning more frequently by administering their emotions and learning with others.
Moreover, Nacera (2010) conducted a study in order to describe what kinds of LLSs that English department students used while learning English and relation to their vocabulary sizes. Study found that students used both direct and indirect LLSs and metacognitive strategies were found to be the most preferred strategies of six categories.
In addition, considerable difference was found between students’ with higher vocabulary size LLS preferences and students’ having lower vocabulary size. In the study, students having wider vocabulary size selected LLSs which require time causing efficacious learning while students having lower vocabulary size preferred surface strategies leading to less effective learning such as rote memory or gesture strategies.
Besides, Wong and Nunan (2011) investigated a study with 110 university students labelled as effective and ineffective language learners as a result of examination administered at the end of secondary school. Researchers explored difference between overall learning styles and strategies of more effective and less effective learners. Study identified statistically significant difference between less and more effective learners’ style preferences showing that less effective learners had authority oriented learning styles while more effective learners preferred communicative learning styles. Also, strategy preferences of more effective students were found to be statistically different than less effective ones’. In other words, more effective learners preferred strategy items reflecting their communicative orientation in contrast to less effective learners having authority oriented language learning strategy choices.
Considering that focus foreign language learning has shifted from teaching to learning Chen and Hung (2012) concentrated on learners’ individual differences and conducted a study with 364 high school students aiming at finding out the influence of students’ personality types on their style preferences and strategies for language learning. Results of the study pointed out that there was no statistically significant relationship between students’ style preferences and personality types of the four categories: extroversion / introversion, sensing / intuitive, thinking / feeling and judging / perceiving. In terms of relationship between personality types and LLS use, it was found that participants of introverted / extroverted and sensing / intuitive personality
type used compensation strategies more frequently than they used any of other strategies while participants having judging / perceiving personality type showed metacognitive, cognitive and social strategies. Also, study found no statistically significant relationship between the all categories of LLSs and thinking / feeling personality types.
In addition to these, Fazeli (2012) carried out a research to explore the LLSs of 213 Iranian female students at tertiary level and their relation to students’ extraversion trait. Results revealed that each of five categories was used at medium level while metacognitive strategy category was used at high level. According to Fazeli (2012) means of the conscientiousness trait was higher than any other four traits and neuroticism traits mean score was found to be lowest of all the traits. Also, results found out that there was statistically meaningful relationship between learners’ extroversion trait and only memory, meta-cognitive and social strategies.
Özmen and Güleroglu (2013) conducted a descriptive study so as to find out whether 210 students used direct or indirect language learning strategies and study aimed at presenting differences in LLSs considering their proficiency levels and genders. First of all, students were found to use each category of language learning strategies at medium level and at high level and memory strategies were mostly preferred by the students. They found that female students used strategies more frequently than male students and statistically difference in the use of LLS especially memory related strategies, compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies and affective strategies was found between genders. Additionally, study explored the difference in LLS use based on English proficiency variable. Considering students’
course grades, the most successful students used more learning strategies than poor learners. Statistically difference was found in almost all categories of LLSs between the most successful students and poor learners. Also, study figured out that social strategies were mostly preferred strategies by the most successful students.
Also, İzci and Sucu (2013) investigated primary school students’ LLS use and its relation to students’ gender, their school types and foreign language grades. They aimed at determining the LLS that students use in Nevşehir and level of their strategy use. As a result of the study, it was found that participants used LLSs at intermediate level and meta-cognitive strategies were found to be the most preferred LLSs while cognitive strategies were preferred the least. Also, considering the gender variable, female students statistically had higher level of strategy use than their male counterparts. Also,
students from private schools had higher level of strategy use while students from state schools had lower level of strategy use. Also, successful students used wider range of LLS than unsuccessful students.
Last but not least, Ismail and Khatib (2013) discovered the patterns of LLSs used by students at United Arab Emirates University and investigated relationship between gender, proficiency levels of the participants and use of LLS. Findings revealed that all the participants were medium strategy users with regard to the overall strategy use. When taken into consideration seperately, metacognitive strategies were found to be the most frequently used language learning strategies followed by social, compensation, affective, cognitive and memory strategies respectively. Also, it was found that there was no significant relationship between LLS patterns and language proficiency levels. Furthermore, no significant difference in the use of strategies between male and female students was found.
2.4. Studies on the Relationship between Beliefs about Language Learning and Language Learning Strategy Use
Liao and Chiang (2004) conducted a study to investigate how learners’ beliefs are related to their strategy use in Taiwan context. They found that participants had medium use of language learning strategies. All the categories of beliefs about language learning proposed by Horwitz (1988) were found to be closely linked to the participants’ medium use of LLSs as well.
Moreover, Chang and Shen (2010) investigated the 250 Taiwanese students’
beliefs about language learning, their LLS use. Relationship between them was investigated as well. Additionally, researchers explored the differences in the beliefs about language learning and LLS considering participants’ gender, extracurricular English learning and length of time in learning English. Results of the descriptive statistics showed that participants adopted various beliefs about language learning but generally all the participants saw that motivation was the most influential factor affecting their achievement in learning. Also, participants were found to be medium users of LLSs and compensation strategies were found to be most frequently used strategies.
Next, Abedini, Rahimi and Zare-ee (2011) explored the relationship among 203 undergraduate EFL learners’ beliefs and their LLS use. Study revealed that among the
categories of language learning strategies proposed by Oxford (1990), cognitive strategies were found to be the most frequently used strategies and metacognitive strategies were found to be least preferred ones. Results of the BALLI showed that the most preferred category of all areas was ‘ Perceived Value of Learning English’ and ‘ Self Efficacy about Learning English’ was found to be the least preferred category of BALLI. In addition to these, Pearson r correlation analysis showed that all types of the strategy categories except that of metacognitive strategies were strongly correlated with the participants’ beliefs about learning English and their perceived value of language learning.
Bonyadi, Nikou and Shahbaz (2012) conducted a study aiming at the relationship between EFL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and their LLS use as well.
Besides, difference in participants’ self-efficacy beliefs and strategy use due to gender and years of English was inquired in the study. As a result of the analyses, it was found that there was no significant relationship between participants’ self-efficacy beliefs and LLS use. When computed the participants’ use of LLSs, metacognitive strategies were found to be most frequently language learning strategies of all kinds of LLSs.
Considering the gender and the years of English study, researchers found that there was no significant difference in both self-efficacy beliefs and metacognitive strategies in terms of years of experience. In addition to these, it was found that learners who studied English for a long time had higher mean scores in the self-efficacy scale.
Furthermore, Suwanarak (2013) conducted a study to examine participants’
beliefs about language learning and their LLS use. Researchers asked the subjects to rate themselves as low and high achievers as well. Then relationship was explored among beliefs, learning strategies and achievement with the help of correlation studies.
Study revealed that participants hold different beliefs about language learning. For example, 72% of the participants agreed that learning English was easier than learning any other learning in the world whereas 9% of them saw English as a difficult language to learn. Additionally, 81% of the participants were found to be medium users of the LLSs and affective strategies were found to be least preferred strategies of all categories of strategies. More than half of the participants rated them as low achievers in English.
Suwanarak (2013) found that participants rating themselves as high achievers of English used various LLSs while students who rated themselves low achievers showed lower use of learning strategies. As for the relationship, significant relation was found among
beliefs, learning strategies, achievement in learning English and researcher concluded that beliefs to some extent affected participants’ LLS preferences.
Saeb and Zamani (2013) conducted a comperative study exploring LLS use and beliefs about language learning of two groups of students: students at high school and students studying at an English institute. Significant difference was found between high school students and students attending English institutes in terms of beliefs about language learning and LLS use. They found that institute students used significantly more memory, cognitive, compensation, meta-cognitive and social strategies. Also, there was statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding their beliefs about language learning. The differences between the two groups were significant regarding beliefs about the difficulty of language learning, motivation and expectations. Moreover, results revealed that institute students had stronger beliefs than high school students.
2.5. Summary
In this chapter, relevant literature on learners’ beliefs and LLS is provided. The research studies mentioned above recommend that learners hold various beliefs about language learning and these beliefs influence the way in which they approach the language learning (Horwitz, 1988). Additionally, significant correlation is found between language learning strategies and learner beliefs. Thus this research intends to provide clear insight into relationship between the concepts of learners’ beliefs and LLSs of high school students in Turkish context.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
This chapter provides information about the methodology of the study and includes design of the study, selection of participants, data collection procedure, data collection tools.
The major goal of this study was to explore the beliefs about language learning and strategy use of students in a high school context in Turkey. In addition, the current study aimed at exploring relationship between two concepts.
3.2. Design of the Study
Quantitative research methods were utilized in this study. Sukamolson (2010) defined quantitative research as “numerical representation and manipulation of observations for the purpose of describing and explaining the phenemona that those observations reflect” (p.4). In addition, Creswell defined (1994) quantitative research as a kind of research which explains phonemena by collecting numerical data that are analyzed by using mathematically based methods. The data for the 175 participants are considered quantifiable to generalize to larger population. Also, Balsley (1970) indicated that quantitative research methods provide reliability of gathered data owing to controlled results. For these reasons, quantitative research methods were decided to be used for the current study. Participant’ beliefs were measured by using Horwitz’s Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (Horwitz, 1988) and their language learning strategy use was identified by using Oxford’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learners (Oxford, 1990) as well. To analyze the quantitative data, descriptive statistics and Pearson r correlation were employed.
3.3. Participants
The data sources in this study were 175 students of Hayret Efendi Anatolian High School in Yüreğir, Adana. Participants were selected according to convenience sampling technique. According to Dörnyei (2007), convenience sampling is a kind of non-random sampling where members of the population meet the criterias such as easy
accessibility, availability at a given time, and so on. Because of convenient accessibility and availability, ninth and tenth grade students were chosen as participants for the study. Their ages ranged from fifteen to sixteen. On the average, participants started learning English as a foreign language when they were at primary school. In other words, almost all of them had at least five years of experience of learning English as a foreign language.
3.4. Data Collection Procedure
First of all, the researcher got in touch with administrator of the school and the teachers to ask for permission for the data collection. All the participants had been informed about the survey before the instruments were distributed to them. Stress free environment was aimed to be created during the data collection process so that the participants would fill the questionnaires accurately. The study was conducted on voluntary basis. Before the instruments were delivered, participants had been told that their responses to the questionnaires would not be taken into account while they were being assessed in their English courses. Also, the current study used Turkish adapted versions of both questionnaires in order to inhibit any difficulties in comprehending the items of the questionnaires. Data were collected in two class periods by teachers. The questionnaire return rate was 100%. However, some of the questionnaires were found to be incomplete. Finally, researcher collected all the questionnaires from the teachers and prepared them for the data analysis.
3.5. Instrumentation
This study employed two instruments to collect the data. The Strategy Inventory in Language Learning (SILL, Version 7.0. , ESL / EFL, Oxford, 1990 ) and Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory ( BALLI, Horwitz, 1988). As it is stated before, Turkish adapted versions of the two instruments were employed for the current study.
Büyükyazı (2010) conducted a study by using Turkish version of the BALLI with 156 students and 19 teachers at Celal Bayar university. After the Turkish version had been back-translated by two different experts, the correlation coefficient was found to be .87.
In other words, Turkish version of the BALLI was found to be valid and reliable for the studies. Demirel (2009) also carried out a study aiming at performing the SILL into Turkish. Validity and reliability studies were conducted with 702 Turkish students and
it was found that correlation the scale with a similar scale assessing LLSs was found to be r: 0,70. Also, researcher found the internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found as 0,92. In addition, test retest reliability coefficient was found as 0,83.
Considering these analyses, Demirel (2009) asserted that SILL was equally valid and reliable for use in the studies of Turkey as the measuring instrument. In addition, Cesur and Fer (2007) investigated validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the SILL.
They applied the inventory to participants of 768 prep students enrolled in seven different universities. Pearson’s correlations between Turkish and English versions of the survey were found to range from .38 to .91. The total internal reliability of the scale was .92 and test rates reliability for external reliability of the subscales was between .67 - .82. As a result, Cesur and Fer (2007) stated that construct validity of Turkish version of the SILL is a valid and reliable instrument identifying language learning strategies.
First instrument used to determine students’ beliefs about language learning was Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory (Horwitz, 1988). The belief questionnaire was firstly designed by Horwitz for language teachers (1985) with 27 items. Secondly, the questionnaire was designed for ESL learners (1987) including 27 items. Then, Horwitz designed the BALLI (1988) for U.S. students learning a foreign language. This current study used BALLI (1988) as an instrument to collect data.
The BALLI (1988) comprises 34 likert scale items. 32 of the items were scored on a five-point likert scale:
1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree,
3= neither disagree nor agree, 4: agree, 5= strongly agree.
However, two items (4, 14) were scored on different scales. Item 4 was about the perceived difficulty of English. Accordinly, English is:
1) a very difficult language, 2) a difficult language,
3) a language of medium difficulty, 4) an easy language,
5) a very easy language.
Item 14 was about the amount of time needed to learn a language. If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it take them to speak the language very well? 1) less than a year,
2) 1-2 years, 3) 3-5 years, 4) 5-10 years,
5) you cannot learn a language in one hour a day.
BALLI (1988) including 34 items was used in this study. The 34 items in the questionnaire aimed to measure the following areas:
Language Difficulty (Items: 3, 4, 6, 14, 24, 28)
Foreign Language Aptitude (Items 1, 2, 10, 15, 22, 29, 32, 33, 34)
Nature of Learning (Items 8, 11, 16, 20, 25, 26)
Learning and Communication Strategy (7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21)
Motivation and Expectation (23, 27, 30, 31)
Second instrument to collect data, Oxford (1990)’s Strategy Inventory for Language Learners, was used for evaluating participants’ frequencies of strategy use. It is a paper based self-report. Two types of SILL are in existence today and they are available in Oxford’s (1990) book about LLSs for language teachers. First one is for foreign language learners whose native language is English and consists of 80 items (version 5.1.) and the other one is for learners of English as a second and foreign language comprised of 50 items (version 7.0.) The second version of SILL was used in this study to explore participants’ strategy use since the participants were learning English as a foreign language.
The 50 items are divided into six categories of strategies.
Memory Strategies (Items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Cognitive Strategies (Items: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Compensation Strategies (Items: 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
•Metacognitive Strategies (Items: 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
Affective Strategies (Items: 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44)
Social Strategies (Items: 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
The 50 items were scored on five – point likert scale as well:
1= never or almost never true of me, 2= usually not true of me,
3= somewhat true of me, 4= usually true of me,
5= always or almost always true of me.
Agreement and disagreement of the participants were interpreted through the likert scale points from 1 to 5. Agreements of the participants were expressed through 1 (strongly agree) and 2 (agree) while disagreements were expressed through 4 (disagree) and 5 (strongly disagree) options. In other words, strongly agree and agree percentages of the participants were compiled and interpreted together to reflect their positive responses while strongly disagree and agree percentages were evaluated together to indicate the negative responses.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
4.1. Introduction
This study aimed at exploring the beliefs and strategy use of students in a high school context in Turkey. Second objective of the study was to determine the relationship between students’ beliefs about language learning and their LLS use.
Research questions of the study required the collection and analysis of the data quantitatively.
4.2. Findings
In order to give answer to first and second research questions, percentages and mean scores were computed to show descriptive results. The results were tabulated and displayed in the present chapter. As for the third research question, Pearson r correlation analysis concerning relationship between students’ beliefs about language learning and LLS use was calculated as well.
4.2.1. The Descriptive Analysis of the Findings from the BALLI Questionnaire The Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory was delivered to the students to investigate their beliefs about language learning. The data were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Analyses of responses were based on the Horwitz’s (1988) original classification of five major areas such as difficulty of language learning, foreign language aptitude, the nature of language learning, learning and communication strategies, and motivation and expectation. BALLI does not provide a total score since it identifies students’ beliefs about language learning. For this reason, students’ responses to each item are handled distinctively. The overall frequency of each item, mean scores, percentages were calculated to determine participants’ beliefs about language learning.
The results were presented in the following pages for each of the five areas of BALLI.
The BALLI items 1, 2, 10, 15, 22, 29, 32, 33, 34 concern the existence of special ability for language learning and beliefs about features of successful and unsuccessful language learners. Table 1 reports the students’ responses concerning foreign language aptitude. As shown in Table 1, it was found out that majority of the students (75. 4%)
believed that it is easier for children than for adults to learn a foreign language while 9.
8% of the students were opposed to the idea (Statement 1). Moreover, 14.9% of the participants had no idea about this statement. As for the item concerning the existence of an ability to learn foreign languages (Statement 2), participants seemed to have different views about this belief. While 24 % of the participants agreed with the belief that people have special ability for learning foreign languages, the percentage of participants who disagreed with the idea was 35. 4%. On the contrary, 40.6% of the students who participated to this current study reported that they were uncertain regarding this belief. As for another item which states that it is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one (Statement 10), the quarter of the participants (25.1%) agreed with this belief while 45.1% of them did not believe in it. In addition, the percentage of the participants who were undecided about the item was found to be 29.7%. Furthermore, the study revealed that most of the participants (40.6%) supported the belief that they have special ability for learning a foreign language (Statement 15). Percentage of the participants who were undecided about this belief was 31.4%. Moreover, 28% percent of the participants believed that they did not have special ability to learn a foreign language. As for another item that women are better than men at learning foreign languages (Statement 22), 21.8% of the participants were found to have the similar beliefs. In other words, percentage of the participants believing that women are more qualified in learning a foreign language was 21. 8%
while the percentage of the participants who disagreed with this belief was 32%. On the other hand, almost half of the participants (46.3%) were undecided about this belief.
Considering another item which is “people who are good at mathematics or science are not good at learning foreign languages” (Statement 29), 52% of the participants seemed to show disagreement while 12% of the participants were found to agree or strongly agree with this belief. Also the percentage of the participants who were undecided about this belief was 36%. In other words more than half of the students (52%) believed that people who are good at mathematics and science can learn foreign languages easily. In addition, nearly half of the students (47. 4%) believed that people who speak more than one language are very intelligent (Statement 32). While 23.4 % of the participants were opposed to the belief, 29.1 % of the participants had no idea about the statement. Next, regarding the belief that “Turkish people are good at learning foreign languages”
(Statement33), 52.6 % of the participants were found to be undecided about it. What is more, 30.3 % of the students supported the belief whereas 17.2% of the participants
reported that they disagreed with the statement. As for the last item of the foreign language aptitude, the item that “everyone can learn to speak a foreign language”
(Statement 34) provides great inspiration for people starting to learn a new language.
Despite the fact that only a small percent (8.6%) of the participants responded that they disagreed and 9.7% of the participants were found to be uncertain considering this belief, great majority of the participants (81.7%) supported the belief that everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
Table 1
Percentages and Frequencies of Beliefs about Foreign Language Aptitude Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree Agree
Strongly agree
N % N % N % N % N %
Statement1 5 2,9 12 6,9 26 14,9 45 25,7 87 49,7 Stateement2 30 17,1 32 18,3 71 40,6 30 17,1 12 6,9 Statement10 20 11,4 32 18,3 79 45,1 31 17,7 13 7,4 Statement15 17 9,7 32 18,3 55 31,4 63 36,0 8 4,6 Statement22 33 18,9 23 13,1 81 46,3 19 10,9 19 10,9 Statement29 50 28,6 41 23,4 63 36,0 11 6,3 10 5,7 Statement32 13 7,4 28 16,0 51 29,1 56 32,0 27 15,4 Statement33 11 6,3 19 10,9 92 52,6 43 24,6 10 5,7 Statement34 3 1,7 12 6,9 17 9,7 58 33,1 85 48,6
As shown in the Table 2 which reports participants’ responses to the items of difficulty of language learning, 57. 1 % of the participants reported that they agreed with the idea that some languages are easier to learn than others (Statement 3) while small percent of them (10.1%) objected to the belief. In addition to these, more than quarter of the participants were found to be undecided about it. Likewise, Table 2 shows participants’ answers when they were asked whether they would learn to speak English very well or not (Statement 6). It was found that almost half of the students (49. 2%) believed that they will learn to speak English very well, whereas 16% of the participants were found to be hopeless about the belief. Additionally, the percentage of the participants who were undecided about this belief was 34. 9%. As for another item, that
“it is easier to speak than understand a foreign language” (Statement 24), it was clearly seen that 47.9 % of the students believed in this belief. While 33.1 % of the participants were undecided about it, 23.4% of the participants were found to be opposed to the idea that it is easier to speak than understand a foreign language. Lastly, it was found that the majority of the students (41.2%) believed that it is easier to read and write English than speak and understand it (Statement 28). The percentage of the participants who agreed or strongly agreed with this belief was 41. 2% while almost quarter of the students participating to the study (23.4%) showed disagreement. Also, 34.4 % of the participants did not have any idea about this belief.
Table 2
Percentages and Frequencies of Beliefs about Difficulty of Language Learning Strongly
disagree Disagree
Neither agree nor
disagree Agree
Strongly agree
N % n % N % n % n %
Statement3 10 5,7 9 5,1 56 32,0 70 40,0 30 17,1
Statement6 6 3,4 22 12,6 61 34,9 54 30,9 32 18,3 Statement24 15 8,6 19 10,9 58 33,1 60 34,3 23 13,1 Statement28 16 9,1 25 14,3 62 35,4 50 28,6 22 12,6
The instrument exploring the participants’ beliefs about language learning has two items having different response scales (Item 4 and Item 14). Table 3 shows the participants’ responses to the item 4 which is about the perceived difficulty of English.
Accordingly, English is: 1) a very difficult language, 2) a difficult language, 3) a language of medium difficulty, 4) an easy language, 5) a very easy language (Statement 4). According to results, nearly half of the students who participated to this study (48%) thought that English is a medium of difficulty language while 5. 1 % of the participants thought English to be very difficult language and 9.1% of the participants considered English as a very easy language to learn. Concurrently, participants constituting 24.6 % of the total saw English as an easy language while 13. 1% of the students perceived English as a difficult language.
