 

{ms

2.007

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

M

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

An Investigation Learner Beliefs at Two Stages of Study
Abroad

presented by

Eun Hye Lee

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Linguistics, Germanic, Slavic,
Asian and African Languages

 

 

wow

Major Professor’s Signature

Mﬁ IOono;

Date

 

MSU is an aﬂinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

..t-._.—-.-.-o-n-u-o--o-o-.-a-.-.-.-.-.-._.—--¢

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
MiHEiB 2 093,1

 

 

JUL242009
lilzﬁu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 pleIRC/DateDueindd-pi

AN INVESTIGATION OF LEARNER BELIEFS AT TWO STAGES OF STUDY
ABROAD

By

Eun Hye Lee

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ART

Department of Linguistics, Germanic, Slavic, Asian and African Languages

2007

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF LEARNER BLIEFS AT TWO STAGES OF STUDY
ABROAD

By

Eun Hye Lee

Learner beliefs have traditionally been considered to be stable and static.
However, recent research in learner beliefs has highlighted their dynamic and variable
nature. Adopting the new research approach to learner beliefs as a dynamic construct, the
current study explores effects of study abroad (SA) on learner beliefs. Participants of
early stage (N=38) and late stage (N=32 of study abroad were asked to respond to beliefs
items on a questionnaire. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted in order to
investigate sources of learners’ beliefs. The results reveal that learners who are at the
later stage of SA hold signiﬁcantly stronger beliefs regarding learner independence and
perceived improvement in listening compared to the learners at the early stage. In the
examination of belief changes, learners in both groups reported that their beliefs in
learner autonomy and the importance of feedback has signiﬁcantly strengthened during
SA when compared to the strength of their beliefs when they were studying English in
their home country. While learners at the early stage of SA showed signiﬁcant changes in
beliefs in the importance of grammar and in the difﬁculty of learning, beliefs of learners
at the later stage signiﬁcantly changed in the areas of teacher’s role and the importance of

knowing the culture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank Dr. Paula Winke and Dr. Debra A Friedeman Who provided guidance throughout
the process of thesis writing. This study would not have been possible without English
Language Center at Michigan University and English Language and Culture Center at
Lansing Community College that gave me a permission to collect data. A number of
people helped me with the data collection including Sherrie Davis, Seng Sook Han and
Mendel Ruth. Finally, I must tank Dozie Amuzie, my best friend, whose support has been
indispensable during the entire process of the research.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... . ........................................ v
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
METHODS .......................................................................................... 16
RESULTS ........................................................................................... 25
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 31
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 5 1
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 59

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Demographic Information .............................................................. 17
Table 2: Mean Age, Years of Instruction and Length of Residence ......................... 18
Table 3: Factor Analysis of Learner Beliefs .................................................... 20
Table 4: Between Group Difference in Teacher’s Role, Self-Efﬁcacy, Learner

Autonomy ................................................................................. 26
Table 5: Beliefs in the AH Context and the SA Context ....................................... 26
Table 6: Perceptions on Grammar, Vocabulary and Pronunciation .......................... 28
Table 7: Nature of Learning ........................................................................ 28
Table 8: Improvement in Learning ................................................................ 29

Table 9: Comparison of Instruction Practices Between the AH and SA Contexts... .. ....37

Introduction

Teachers and learners share the belief that the best way of acquiring a foreign
language is to learn in a country where the language is spoken (Kuntz & Belnap, 2001).
As for language learners, moving to a study abroad (SA) setting means a drastic change
of the learning context, which entails having different language input, interaction, and
instruction. SLA scholars have investigated how these changes learners experience in the
SA context might affect the language learning process. However little has been known
about how study abroad affects what learners believe about language learning and what
they believe about themselves as learners.

The present study aims to investigate changes in learners’ beliefs in a context of
study abroad. Learners at two different stages of study abroad were asked to self-report
what they believed about language learning when they studied English in their home
country and what they believe now in the US. The study follows the recent research
approach to beliefs as a dynamic and variable construct (Barcelos, 2006). The study aims
to increase the understanding of nature of learner beliefs in relation to the learning
context and learning stage.

Study abroad

As interest in the role played by the context of learning in second language
acquisition (SLA) has increased, the effects of study abroad (SA) contexts in language
learning have attracted the attention of SLA researchers in recent years (Freed, 1995;
Lafford, 2004). A considerable amount of empirical research has been conducted to
investigate SLA process and outcomes in study abroad contexts. Topics explored include

language gains in study abroad settings (Collentine, 2004; Diaz-Dampos, 2004; Huebner,

1995), the acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in study abroad environments
(Marriot, 1995; Ragan, 1998), and student. perspectives on language learning (Wilkinson,
1998; Pellegn'no, 2004).

A rich body of research has focused on the role of SA and language gains. These
studies lend support for positive impacts of study abroad in diverse language skill areas.
For example, Milton and Meara (1995) found that 53 European exchange students who
spent at least six months in the UK. showed signiﬁcant increase in acquiring vocabulary.
Siegal (1995) provided evidence that SA students of Japanese acquired improved
sociolinguistic skills as they encountered pragmatic conﬂicts while abroad. Barron’s
study (2003) investigated the pragmatic development of learners of German and found
that learners’ pragmatic competence improved while living in Germany. Beneﬁts of
language learning abroad are reported even in studies looking at short durations.
Woodman (1998) investigated effects of a study abroad program for 384 Japanese
speakers in Australia and observed increased language comprehension and production, as
well as reduced anxiety in language use.

However, researchers have not reached consensus about linguistic gains while
studying abroad. The literature also shows counterevidence that questions the value of
study abroad experience in language learning. Simoes (1996) examined ﬂuency in a
group of ﬁve adult-learners of Spanish in a SA program. The ﬁndings revealed that only
two students out of ﬁve showed signiﬁcant changes in their ﬂuency. A study conducted
by DeKeyser (1991) on lexical and grammatical development also failed to show any

advantage for gains in syntactic control in the SA context. The evidence found in these

studies demonstrates that the mere change in learning contexts per se does not guarantee
an automatic improvement in language skills.

In attempts to address the controversial issues relating to the beneﬁts of language
learning while abroad, more recent studies compare SA learners to at-home (AH) or
immersion (IM) learners. In a study on speaking gains, Segalowitz and Freed (2004)
looked at various indices of oral performance gains. Oral Proﬁciency Interview (CPI) and
three oral ﬂuency measures--speech rate, mean length of speech run not containing ﬁlled
pauses, and longest ﬂuent run not containing silent hesitations or ﬁlled pauses--were used
to measure oral performance gains. The results indicated that, compared to the AH
context, learning in the SA context led to signiﬁcantly greater oral performance gains.
However, superiority of the SA context to an AH setting was not conclusive in other
areas of proﬁciency. Dewey (2004) examined the effects of learning context on reading
behaviors. The study investigated the development of reading comprehension by L2
learners in SA and IM settings. Although SA learners showed more conﬁdence in reading,
their comprehension abilities did not signiﬁcantly improve more than IM learners. Diaz-
Carnpos (2004) also suggests that a study abroad context may not have signiﬁcant
inﬂuence on certain phonological abilities. Neither the SA nor AH groups in the study
made a signiﬁcant improvement on the most difﬁcult consonantal phenomena of Spanish.
Whether the SA context is superior to the IM setting in terms of greater learning gains
still remains a question. However the SA literature provides enough evidence to support
the notion that L2 learning is inﬂuenced by learning contexts (e. g. Brecht, Davidson, &

Ginsberg, 1995; Huebner, 1995; Lafford, 1995; Lapkin, Hart & Swain, 1995; Marriott,

1995; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004) and study abroad is a context that worth investigation
for better understanding of the relationship between the learning context and SLA.

While there is a plethora of research focusing on language-related outcomes (e.g.
Allen & Herron, 2003; Dewey, 2004; Diaz-Campos, 2004; Segalowitz & Freed, 2004),
scant research has been conducted on motivation and perception of the SA learner despite
their importance as potential factors for success or failure in learning (Pellegrino, 2004).
Although few in number, some studies have investigated learners’ perception in the SA
context (Brecht & Robinson, 1995; Miller & Ginsberg, 1995; Polanyi, 1995; Wilkinson,
1997). Lennon’s (1989) study investigated factors that affect language acquisition
process in the SA contexts. As learners advanced, the participants more freely engaged in
communication in the L2 and reported that they perceived themselves as improving in
ﬂuency more than grammar. They also held strong attitudes about and beliefs in the role
of the classroom in the SA context. The participants suggested that speaking English in
the classroom is not as effective as real interaction with native speakers.

Miller and Ginsberg (1995) investigated the language use and perception of
Russian learners through analysis of diaries. Learners’ writing in dairies showed they had
certain ideas about language learning, which the researchers called folklinguistics. More
importantly, their experience was inﬂuenced by these ideas about language learning. For
example, the students believed there was only one correct way to say things. This idea
subsequently consciously limited their language production. Students expressed beliefs
that their speaking improved or deteriorated in various situations. They avoided speaking
in situations where they tend to get more nervous but became more participatory in

communication in other circumstances. Such tendency that has developed over a period

of time led them to become selective of language use opportunities. The results of the
study strongly implied that learners enter an SA context with certain ideas and beliefs that
they have previously developed and these sometimes inﬂuence learning behaviors in the
SA context. However, little is known about how the SA context affects beliefs. The aim
of the study is to ﬁll this gap by investigating the SA effects on learners’ language
learning beliefs.

Learner Beliefs

When approaching and engaging in language learning tasks, learners have their
unique sets of beliefs, attitudes and preconceived notions that inﬂuence their actions
(Kern 1995; Horwitz 1988). SLA has recognized the important role of beliefs in
individuals’ learning as a potential to inﬂuence, or even determine their attitude,
motivation or behaviors (Riley 1996). This has provided a strong motivation for
investigation of beliefs. However, due to the complex nature and multiple dimensions of
belief system, how beliefs are viewed and examined varies according to the theoretical
orientations. (Sakui & Gaies, 1999).

Traditionally, beliefs have been understood ﬁom the perspective of cognitive
psychology where a rich body of theories on beliefs were framed and developed.
According to Wenden (1998), metacognitive knowledge is the relatively stable human
information thinkers have about their own cognitive process. It consists of what learners
know about learning. Learners can become conscious of the knowledge and articulate
what they know. In cognitive psychology, beliefs about learning have been viewed as a
component of metacognitive knowledge (Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Wenden, 1998). Though

beliefs are distinct from metacognitive knowledge in that they are value related and tend

to be held more tenaciously (Alexander & Dochy, 1995; Wenden, 1999), as a subset of
metacognitive knowledge, beliefs are also considered to be stable. In SLA, metacognitive
knowledge is interchangeably used with the term learner beliefs (Wenden, 1999; Domeyi,
2005)

It is within the framework of metacognitive knowledge that mainstream research
on learner beliefs has been produced. Numerous studies have been conducted across
different cultures, target languages, academic settings, age groups and different learning
stages in seeking to answer the primary question “what do learners and teachers believe?”
What provided an impetus to beliefs research within the metacognitive framework was
the development of the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) by Horwitz
(1987). BALLI contains items in ﬁve major areas of language learning: 1) difﬁculty of
language learning, 2) foreign language aptitude, 3) the nature of language learning, 4)
leaming and communication strategies and 5) motivations and expectations. In an attempt
to identify beliefs of ESL students, Horwitz (1987) administered the BALLI to 32 ESL
students at the Intensive English Program. According to her report, most students
believed in language aptitude and acknowledged the importance of grammar and
vocabulary learning. They also agreed with the importance of repetition and practice in
learning. Studies also compare beliefs held by teachers and learners (e. g. Kern, 1995;
Kuntz & Belnap, 2001). In Kutnz and Belnap’s study the greatest difference in beliefs
between teachers and learners were found in the areas of motivation and expectation,
followed by attitudes about the nature of language learning. These studies identiﬁed and
classiﬁed beliefs held by learners and teachers with different characteristics, indicating

that multiple dimensions exist in beliefs.

Knowing what a learner believes generates a set of subsequent questions about the
impacts of beliefs on learning. How do beliefs affect motivation, learners’ behaviors, or
learning outcomes? Moving beyond the descriptive level of explanation, research on
learner beliefs expanded the notion of how beliefs might affect learners’ motivation and
learning behavior. Explanations for how beliefs may be directly related to learner
motivation are offered by self-efﬁcacy theories. In cognitive psychology, self-efﬁcacy is
deﬁned as the “personal judgments of performance capabilities in a given domain of
activities” (Schunk, 1985, p. 208). According to self-efﬁcacy theories, people have
conﬁdence about performing activities they judge themselves capable of doing, while
they avoid those they believe are beyond their abilities. Their perceptions about their
capabilities may also determine how much effort they will make in the face of challenges
or obstacles (Bandura & Schunk, 1981). What learners believe about themselves may
cause different emotional reactions, triggering different learner motivations and behavior
in turn (Yang, 1999; Domyei, 1994). Thus, many researchers have recognized self-
efﬁcacy as the major component of the motivational dimension in learners’ belief
systems. For example, Cotterall (1999) recognized self-efﬁcacy as one of six key factors
of learner beliefs and included a number of items aimed at measuring learners’ self-
efﬁcacy in her study. When proposing a theoretical construct of language learning beliefs,
which is composed of two primary dimensions, metacognitive and motivational, Yang
(1999) also acknowledged learners’ beliefs about their ability as one of three motivational
components along with their goals for L2 learning and learners’ emotional reaction to L2
learning. In addition, she calls for researchers to give more attention to motivational

beliefs, arguing that motivational beliefs play an important role in L2 learning.

The importance of investigating the relationship between learner beliefs and
learner behaviors is well acknowledged in learner autonomy research. Autonomy is
deﬁned the capacity to take over one’s own learning (Benson, 2001). According to
Bound (1988, p.23), “the main characteristic of autonomy as an approach to learning is
that students take some signiﬁcant responsibility for their own learning over and above
responding to instruction.” Promoting learner autonomy is considered as an important
teacher behavior (Yang, 1998). The reason why beliefs are so important in fostering
autonomy is because autonomous language learning behavior may be supported by a
particular set of beliefs. Cotterall (1995) argues that beliefs learners hold may either
contribute to or impede the development of their potential for autonomy. She identiﬁed
underlying dimensions of beliefs through factor analysis of data that was obtained by the
means of questionnaires from adult 139 ESL learners in an intensive English for
Academic Purposes course. She discussed each factor, examining the claims that have
been made in literature about the relationship of each factor to autonomous language
learning. Her conclusion was that understanding learner beliefs is a prerequisite to
understanding learner autonomy because beliefs are likely to reﬂect learners’ readiness
for autonomy. Though using a different term, self—regulation, Wenden (1999) also
maintains that learners’ acquired knowledge about learning inﬂuences the leaming
process. According to her explanation, learning beliefs affect task analysis and
monitoring, which are two key phases in self-regulation. Since learning is engaging in
cognitive knowledge, learners may deliberately call upon their metacognitive knowledge
(F lavell, 1979; Wenden, 1999). When faced with problems, learners make decisions

about how to deal with problems based on their metacognitive knowledge.

SLA scholars who seek evidence for the relationship between beliefs and
autonomous, self-regulated language learning turned their attention to learning strategy
research in the late 19808. It is suggested that leamers’ preconceived beliefs about
language learning would likely inﬂuence the way learners use their learning strategies
and learn a second language (e. g. Horwitz, 1988). Learners’ beliefs about their abilities
affect their goals and motivational patterns, which in turn inﬂuences their learning
behaviors (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Others suggest the importance of strategy use
research in this dynamic. Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that self—efﬁcacy beliefs are
positively related to the use of cognitive strategies and metacognitive strategies, both of
which are important learning strategies widely used among foreign and second language
learners (Oxford, 1990). Yang’s study (1999) also established a strong connection
between learner beliefs and strategy use. Yang administered both the BALLI (Horwitz,
1985) and Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) to more
than 500 students in Taiwan and examined the relationship between this belief and
strategy factors. The results Of correlation analysis suggested a signiﬁcant relationship
between beliefs and strategy use. The ﬁrst correlation was found between self-efﬁcacy
and all six groups of learning strategies (formal oral-practice strategies, compensation
strategies, social strategies, metacognitive strategies, ﬁmctional strategies, and cognitive-
memory strategies) with the strongest connection being to functional practice strategies
(e. g. watching TV shows or movies in English, encouraging themselves to speak, starting
conversations in English). The second signiﬁcant correlation was between language
learners’ beliefs about the value and nature of language learning and a more frequent use

of formal oral practice strategies (e. g. practicing the sounds of English, saying or writing

new English words several times, trying to talk like native English speakers). These
ﬁndings indicate that learner beliefs do inﬂuence learner behaviors. They are also
consistent with Wenden’s claim (2001) that metacognitive knowledge is related to the
ability to self-regulate one’s learning.

The common approach to beliefs taken in the studies reviewed above is that
beliefs are relatively stable. Learners act upon these beliefs with tasks they perform
during the second language process. The contribution of studies from within the
framework of cognitive psychology is undeniable in that it identiﬁes common beliefs
held by learners. This has helped us to understand the impacts theses beliefs have on
learning behaviors such as strategy use. However, the assumption that beliefs are stable
mental representations overlooks the fact that beliefs are connected to leamers’
experience and to learning contexts that are external to learners (Barcelos, 2006). Little is
known about how learners’ beliefs are formed and developed. However, it is reasonable
to assume that the learning experience involves interaction. Indeed, the learning context
may be an important (conscious or unconscious) source of learner beliefs.

The inﬂuence of the learning contexts on one’s beliefs about L2 learning has
been acknowledged by some researchers. In an effort to identify cultural differences in
learner beliefs, Horwitz (1999) examined eight studies that investigated learner beliefs:
Horwtiz (1988), which catalogued the beliefs of American learners of French, German,
and Spanish who were in their ﬁrst semester; Kern (1995), which compared the beliefs of
French learners at an American university with their instructors; Oh (1996), which
investigated the beliefs of American university students of Japanese; Kunt (1997), which

compared the beliefs of two groups of Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot pre-university

10

learners; Park (1995) and Truitt (1995), which used a sample of Korean university
students learning English; and Yang (1995), which examined the beliefs of Taiwanese
university students studying English. These particular studies were chosen because they
used similar research methodologies and allowed comparisons between similar and
different cultural groups. The data for each group was compared both between groups of
different cultures and between groups of the same culture. There were several differences
identiﬁed between the American learners and Asian and Turkish EFL learners. For
example, The Asian and Turkish learners more strongly believed that vocabulary is key
to foreign language learning. Their motivations and expectations also differed, with the
Asian and Turkish groups tending toward instrumental motivations and American groups
tending toward more integrative motivations. However, although there were some
variations in responses of the different culture groups, the results did not point to any
distinctive differences between them. Rather, beliefs differences within American groups
and same-culture EFL groups were observed. Horowitz’s conclusion was that differences
in beliefs should not be attributed to cultural inﬂuence but to contextual differences in the
language learning situations. Different instructional approaches, she hypothesized, would
have an impact on learner beliefs.

As demonstrated in Horwitz’s study (1999), most of the literature on learner
beliefs does not provide systematic explanations about how learner beliefs are developed
in relation to learning contexts. However, the contextual inﬂuence on beliefs is strongly
implied. Interestingly enough, the concept of changes in beliefs as a result of learners’
experience in different learning contexts has not drawn much attention from SLA

scholars in recent years. This could be because when beliefs are viewed as knowledge,

11

which is static and resistant to change, there is not room for consideration of the notion
that interaction with the environment might change beliefs.

In response to criticism concerning the metacognitive approach, researchers have
recently begun to depart from the traditional framework of cognitive psychology and to
approach learner beliefs from various perspectives (McGroarty, 1998). According to the
social constructionist perspective, “beliefs are not stable entities within the individual, but
situated in social contexts and formed through speciﬁc instances of social interaction and,
as a result, are constantly, evolving” (Woods, 2006, p202). A social psychological
perspective on beliefs also highlights the interactive nature of beliefs. From a social
psychological perspective, beliefs are greatly inﬂuenced by individuals’ experience
(Corsini 1994). Thus, a learner’s beliefs may change over time as the learner adapts to
and interacts with new learning experiences. In this sense a learners’ belief system is an
interactive and evolving structure, one that is constantly changing, as the learner’s L2
proﬁciency and/or learning environment changes. Both social constructionist and social
psychological perspectives acknowledge the dynamic nature of beliefs, which has been
ignored by those taking a more metacognitive approach to understanding beliefs.

An important empirical question is whether or not beliefs do change over time or
from one learning context to another (Woods, 2006). Wenden (1999), in his overview in
the special issue on learner beliefs in the journal System, also listed this question among
areas that are yet to be explored. One of the few studies that have examined this area is
Kern (1995). Kern collected data from students in ﬁrst-year French in order to determine
whether they changed their beliefs over the course of the 15-week semester. The BALLI

was given twice, at the beginning and end of the semester. The comparison of the scores

12

showed 35% to 59% of the responses changed over the 15-week period. However, 29%
of the French students showed no change in correlation with their instructor’s responses
over the course of the semester, suggesting that their beliefs were stable from the
beginning to the end of the semester.

In a more recent study, Tanka and Ellis (2003) also used the BALLI to examine
changes in students’ beliefs as a result of a 15-week study abroad program. The results
revealed statistically signiﬁcant changes in the students’ beliefs relating to analytic
language learning, experiential language learning, self-efﬁcacy and conﬁdence, the
greatest being in self-efﬁcacy and conﬁdence. However, no statistically signiﬁcant
relationships were found between changes in beliefs and in proﬁciency.

With conﬂicting ﬁndings on changes in learner beliefs, the picture is still unclear.
Moreover, because they rely on questionnaires only, the studies reviewed above do not
provide answers to the questions of what affects the changes in beliefs, or what process
learners go through in developing beliefs. Many scholars have acknowledged the
methodological limitations of questionnaire-based studies in belief research. For
example, Sakui and Gaies (1999) state that learners might have different interpretations
of the questionnaire items. In addition, there are limits to what can be learned about
language learners’ beliefs from questionnaire items. Questionnaire items aim to look at
learners’ perspectives, yet they ﬁlter learners’ experience because the questions are
“necessarily and dangerously based on the researcher’s perspectives of what participants
my ﬁnd important in their experience” (Pellegrino, 2004. p. 115). These problems

inherent to the questionnaire-based studies raise the possibility that a different

13

methodological approach is needed in order to gain a deeper understanding into the
dynamic, context-dependent nature of beliefs (Alanen, 2006).

With the recognition of the limitations in using questionnaires only for
investigation of the dynamic nature of beliefs and the importance of contexts in beliefs
development, researchers are turning to new methodological approaches in conducting
belief studies. The new approaches incorporate qualitative methods in exploring the
dynamic nature of beliefs and their development in context. For example, White (1999),
who studied self-instructed language learners, employed multiple instruments including
interviews, ranking exercises, questionnaires, scenarios, and open-ended questionnaires
through the ﬁve phases of data collection to investigate shifts in expectations and to ﬁnd
emergent beliefs. The analysis indicated that as learners accrued experiences in the new
learning context, evident shifts in learner expectations and beliefs occurred. In particular,
there were signiﬁcant differences between the second and ﬁfth phase in the mean ranking
of conditions for success. While mean rankings of “persistence” and “knowing how you
learn best” signiﬁcantly dropped, rankings of “conﬁdence in self” and “amount of
interaction with a tutor” signiﬁcantly increased. Hosenfeld (2006) also found evidence
for emerging beliefs through the analysis of journals kept by learners during a two—month
period of self-directed language learning. The four emerging beliefs were 1) using
multiple voices, 2) learning dialogues in context, 3) using phonetic symbols and 4)
assessing improvement.

The ﬁndings of these studies have value in that they provide insight into the
nature of beliefs. They suggest that learners’ belief dynamics are affected by varying

learning contexts and stages of learning. This supports the claim that beliefs should be

14

viewed not as stable and static, but as dynamic and variable. In addition, these studies
exemplify how qualitative information in the investigation of beliefs is beneﬁcial. The
qualitative data collected through interviews and journals gave a greater understanding
about what underlies learner belief systems.

Past research on learner beliefs has provided a direction for the present study in
terms of both topical and methodological areas. First, little research has considered
learner beliefs as varying at different stages of study abroad. Also, though there is
evidence to support the idea that beliefs may change as a result of a study abroad
experience, the reasons behind the apparent changes in beliefs has not been satisfactorily
addressed. Second, in terms of a research methodology, research in learner beliefs has a
history of relying heavily on questionnaires only. A shift to using qualitative methods has
been observed in recent studies (e. g., Kalaja, 2006; Dufva, 2006). Acknowledging the
relative strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative measures, the present
study will employ both in an effort to triangulate data and to paint a broader picture of the
effects of study abroad on learner beliefs. The following hypotheses (H) and research
questions (RQ) guided this study.

H1: Learners who study abroad undergo a change in their L2 learning beliefs.
H2: These changes are due to their study abroad experience.

RQl: What beliefs become stronger or weaker due to study abroad?

RQ2: What aspects of the SA experience might account for these changes in

beliefs?

H3: Learners at the early and later stages of study abroad have differences in their L2

learning beliefs.

15

RQ2: How do learners’ beliefs differ between learners at the early and later stages
of study abroad?
Method

Participants

Table 1 shows the demographic information about the participants. A total of 70
international students (male: 30, female: 40) took part in the present study. The students
were enrolled either in an ESL program (N=28) or an undergraduate or graduate program
(N =41) in the United States. The target population of the study was limited to those who
had been in the US. no more than 2 years at the time of the study. The ESL students were
recruited from the English Language Center (ELC) at Michigan State University (MSU)
and the English Language and Culture Center at Lansing Community College (LCC).
According to the placement tests administered by these institutions, the proﬁciency level
of the ESL students ranged from the intermediate to the advanced level. Twenty ESL
students were in the English for Academic Purposes Program (BAP), which is designed
to help international students with their English language in order to prepare them for the
regular undergraduate programs. Their proﬁciency level is considered to be higher than
that of other ESL students but lower than that of regular international students who are
carrying out degree requirements. Undergraduate and graduate students were recruited
from activities for international students held at the International Center, MSU.
The study included participants with diverse language backgrounds. The majority were
Korean (N=30) and Chinese (N =22). The large proportion of Korean and Chinese

represents the international population at the two institutions. In ESL classes, Koreans

l6

Table 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Information
Sex Program 1 Language
N N N
Male 30 ESL 28 Korean 30
Female 40 Undergrad l 9 Chinese 22
Master’ 3 1 7 Arabic 5
PhD 5 Japanese 2
Other 1 French 2
Other 9
Total 70 Total 70 Total 70

 

outnumbered other nationalities, while in degree programs there were as many Chinese
speakers as Korean speakers.

The students were classiﬁed into two groups: early and later stages of study
abroad. The early group (Group E) consisted of students who had been in the US. less
than or equal to six months at the time of the study, and the later group (Group L)
consisted of students who had been in the US. more than six months and less than two
years. A six-month cut-off point was used for dividing the early and later stages because
students whose length of residency was under 6 months had had one semester or less of
classes in the US, while those who had been in the country longer than 6 months were
on average in their second or third semester of study abroad. A similar cut-off point was

used by Milton and Meara (1995). The average number of months of stay was 4.11 for

17

the early group and 14.19 for the later group. The detailed composition of each group is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Mean Age, Years of Instruction and Length of Residence

 

 

 

Mean St. Minimum Maximum
Group E
Age 23. 39 5.55 17 39
Years of instruction
in the home country 8.66 4.66 2 23
Length of Residence
in the US. (in 4.11 1.83 l 6
months)
Group L
Age 26.63 6.50 19 44
Years of instruction
10.61 6.60 2 30
in the home country
Length of Residence
in the US. (in 14.19 5.87 7 24
months)
Instruments

The current study used both questionnaires and interviews to collect quantitative
and qualitative data from participants. The questionnaire had two sections. The ﬁrst was a
background questionnaire. The second was a questionnaire on learners’ beliefs. The
belief questionnaire was constructed by adopting existing questionnaires (Cotterall, 1999;

Horwitz, 1985) and writing new items. The new items were written in order to examine

18

learners’ beliefs in study abroad learning (e. g., perceived improvement during study
abroad) that is not included in the existing questionnaires. The questionnaire included 54
items to which participants responded on a 10-point Likert scale ranging from strongly
agree (1) to strongly disagree (10). Though traditional questionnaires on learner beliefs
such as the BALLI (Horwitz, 1985) use a 5-point Likert scale, the current study
employed Cotterall’s IO-point scale in an attempt to obtain a wider distribution of
responses.

The beliefs questionnaire was tested through a pilot study with 45 participants.
The data from the pilot study was ﬁrst submitted to a factor analysis in order to reduce
the number of variables in the beliefs questionnaire by identifying broader underlying
dimensions. The factor analysis yielded a six-factor solution. The top three factors,
learner autonomy, self-efﬁcacy, and difﬁculty of learning, accounted for 54.94 % of the
total variance. Items pertaining to these factors were included in the pilot study and future
analyses because items related to the other three factors had a weak contribution to the
overall variance and questionnaire construct. That is, the other items did not contribute
much to the total variance and had low eigenvalues and so were dropped from the survey.
The reliability of the remaining three factors was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. The
reliability coefﬁcients were .89 for learner autonomy, .88 for self-efﬁcacy, and .66 for
difﬁculty of learning.

Based on the results of factor analysis and reliability tests, the questionnaire was
revised. New items were also added for the revision of the questionnaire. The ﬁnal
version of the questionnaire (Appendix 1) consisted of a total of 54 items. These items

aimed to measure the following areas:

19

Table 3

Factor Analysis of Learner Beliefs (Initial version)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item # Questionnaire Items F 1 F2 F3
Factor 1: Self-efﬁcacy
1 I am above average at language learning.
2 I am conﬁdent about my ability to learn English .816
successfully.
4 I am aﬁaid of making mistakes when speaking .826
with others in English.
7 I will ultimately learn to speak English very .898
well.
Factor 2: Learner autonomy
26 My language success depends on what I do .708
outside the classroom.
39 I should ﬁnd my own opportunities to use the .747
language
Factor 3: The difﬁculty of language learning
9 I believe English is a difﬁcult language. .777
16 It is possible to learn English in a short time. .642
Eigenvalue 3.98 2.09 1.61
Percentage of Variance 28.47 14.95 11.51
Cumulative Percentage 28.47 43.42 54.94

 

20

l. Self-efﬁcacy (Items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 12)

2. Learner autonomy (Items 26, 39,,44 and 45)

3. The difﬁculty of language learning (Items 9, 18, 16, and 37)

4. The nature of language learning (Items l7, 19, 20 and 23)

5. The role of teachers (Items 11, 14, 38, 43, 47 and 50)

6. Perceived competence in listening, speaking, reading, writing and grammar

(Items 22, 27, 28, 35, 39, 44, 48, 51 and 54)
7. Perceived importance of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation (Items 8, 15,
30, 31, 32 and 41)

The questionnaire was designed to capture learners’ beliefs before and after beginning
study abroad in order to examine the changes in the learners’ beliefs about language
learning. Each statement about a speciﬁc belief appears two times, once asking about the
belief in the home country, and once in the United States. For example, learners were
asked to respond to the statement “When I studied English in my’home country, I
believed that it was important to repeat and practice.” Later another statement asks “Here
in the U.S., I believe it is important to repeat and practice.” The two statements relate to
the same belief in different learning contexts. All items were randomized and then
checked to make sure no pair of statements occurred one after the other. This was done to
avoid item dependence as much as possible.
Data collection

The questionnaires were distributed to the ESL students during their classes. They
were allowed to bring it home, complete it on their own and return it to their teacher.

Twenty three ESL students received extra credit for their participation. Non-ESL students

21

were approached outside of class and asked to ﬁll out the questionnaire to return it
directly to the researcher. [

After a questionnaire was returned to the researcher, the respondents were asked
whether he or she would agree to participate in a follow-up interview. Interviews were
semi-structured. A basic set of questions for the interview was asked of everyone, and
additional questions were asked of individual participants depending on their responses
and individuals’ changes in beliefs that were identiﬁed in the questionnaire responses.
The interview questions were formulated based on the questionnaire responses. They
focused on learners’ perception on the value of SA, language improvement, and
comparison between the AH context and SA context. The basic set of interview questions
can be found in Appendix 2. Fourteen respondents, six from the early (Group E) and
eight from the late group (Group L) participated. They were from seven different
countries: Korea (5), Chinese (1), Taiwanese (3), Indonesian (1), Arabic (2), Japan (1),
Egyptian (1).

The interviews lasted for 20 minutes on average. The interviews were audio-taped
and transcribed. The interviews were conducted in English, except for some Korean
participants (N=5), who showed the tendency to start speaking English but to soon
change to speaking in Korean (the researcher’s L1). The ramiﬁcations of this will be
discussed in the limitations section. Interview data were transcribed verbatim; Korean
language data of four Korean interviewee were also translated into English by the

researcher.

22

Quantitative data Analysis

The questionnaire items were analyzed using Cronbach’s alpha to estimate the
reliability of the questionnaire. The data were also submitted to a factorial analysis to test
the underlying construct validity of the measurement. The three variables relating to the
teacher ’5 role, self-eﬂicacy and learner autonomy were conﬁrmed as major dimensions
of the belief questionnaire. The three variables accounted for 53.76 % of the variance of
the data. Unlike the results of the pilot-study, the reliability of the items for the diﬂiculty
of learning (a = .37) and nature of learning (a = .16) did not reach an acceptable level.
Thus, the items for these factors with a low reliability were examined separately. The
Cronbach’s alpha value of the major three variables and the items that belong to these
variables are presented below.

Variable 1 is associated with learners’ perceived importance of instruction and the
teachers’ role in their language learning and will therefore be labeled as the teacher ’s role.
The result of reliability analysis of three the items (11, 47 & 50) is .70. The three items
are listed below.

0 Here in the US. I believe that my language success depends on what the
teacher does in the classroom.

0 Here in the US. I believe that opportunities to use the language should be
provided by the teacher.

0 Here in the US. I believe that my language success depends on what I do
inside the classroom.

Variable 2 concerns learners’ beliefs about themselves. Four items (4, 5, 7 & 12)

are all associated with beliefs in their ability to learn English and their conﬁdence.

23

Accordingly, this variable will be referred as self-efﬁcacy. The Cronbach’s reliability of
coefﬁcient of the four items is .67.
0 Here in the US. I am afraid of making mistakes when speaking with
others in English.
0 Here in the US. I think I am above average at language learning.
0 Here in the US I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak English very
well.
0 Here in the US. I believe I am conﬁdent about my ability to learn English
successfully.

Variable 3 is related to learners’ view on their own responsibility for language
learning. Two items (26 & 45) were used to measure the degree to which learners accept
their responsibility for learning. They will be labeled as learner autonomy. The reliability
coefﬁcient (or: .59) showed a marginally acceptable level of reliability for the two items.

0 Here in the US. I believe that my language success depends on what I do
outside the classroom.

0 Here in the US. I believe that I should ﬁnd my own opportunities to use
the language.

Besides the three variables above, there are items that were separately analyzed as
subcategory of improvement in learning. The items concerned following areas: the value
of one’s study abroad experience; importance of grammar; importance of pronunciation;
and importance of vocabulary learning. Learners’ self-reported scores on perceived

improvement in speaking, listening, reading and writing and vocabulary were also

24

included in the analysis. The self-reported improvements in the ﬁve areas of learning will
be labeled as perceived competence.

Independent T tests were used to examine the between-group differences of
Group E and Group L for perceived improvement and perceived importance of grammar,
pronunciation and vocabulary. A paired-sample T test examined whether signiﬁcant
changes were found between what they believed in their home country and what they
believe now in the US. The results of these statistical analyses will be discussed in the
next section.

Results
Teachers ’ role, self-eﬂicacy, and learner autonomy

Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of scores for beliefs in the teacher '3 role,
self-efﬁcacy and learner autonomy. The mean score (M=15.84; M=15.22) for teacher’s
role is below the median point, suggesting that most learners disagree with the idea that
their language success depends on the role of teachers. On the other hand, the mean score
for learners ’ autonomy (M=15.l6; M=l7.03) suggests that learners hold a relatively
strong belief in learner autonomy. According to the independent t-test results, leamers
who are in the late stage held signiﬁcantly stronger beliefs in learner autonomy than
learners at the early stage, t(70) = -2.39, p < .05.

Paired sample T tests were used to compare means scores of the at-home (AH)
context to the SA context. The tests were separately conducted for each group in order to
examine whether or not signiﬁcant changes were found in the learners’ self-report.
According to the results, the late-stage learners had signiﬁcant changes in their beliefs in

the teachers’ role. The beliefs in the role of the teacher did not change signiﬁcantly for

25

Table 4

Between Group Difference in Teacher’s Role, Self-Efﬁcacy, Learner Autonomy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Mean SD Min. Max. M Diff. t P
Teacher’s role E 15.84 5.47 3 3O
.44 .66
L 15.22 5.91 3 30
Self-efﬁcacy E 24.87 7.69 4 40
‘ -.10 .92
L 25.03 5.78 4 40
Learner E 15.16 3.35 2 20
Autonomy 1 .87 —2.39 .02
L 17.03 3.09 2 20
Table 5
Beliefs in the AH Context and the SA Context
Dependent Mean SD
Variables Group AH SA AH SA T P
Teacher’s role E 17.64 15.96 5.69 5.49 1.84 .074
L 18.06 15.23 6.40 5.91 2.89 .007*
E 12.11 15.16 3.80 3.35 -4.08 .000*
Learner
Autonomy L 15.42 17.03 2.75 3.09 -2.54 .01 7*
Self-efﬁcacy E 21.55 24.87 8.78 7.69 -1.98 .056
L 24.77 25.33 7.23 5.63 -.48 .635

 

*Signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

26

the early-stage group. Both early and late stage learners reported that their beliefs in
leaner autonomy became stronger in the SA context compared to the AH context, t(3 8) =
-4.08, p < .001, and t (32) = -2.54, p = .02. These differences were signiﬁcant. The mean
scores for self-efﬁcacy also show changes in a positive direction; however, the changes
were not statistically signiﬁcant.
Perceptions on, grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation

Paired sample T tests were conducted for items that measured four areas of
learners’ perceived importance; grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. In perceived
importance of grammar, the results showed that learners’ belief in importance of
grammar is not as strong in the SA context as their beliefs were in the AH context. The
learners in the early stage of study abroad reported a signiﬁcant decrease in beliefs in the
importance of grammar; learners in the later stage of study abroad showed no signiﬁcant
change. Grammar was the only area where beliefs became weaker rather than stronger.
Belief scores in all other areas increased in the SA context, although changes in views on
vocabulary and pronunciation were not signiﬁcantly different.
Nature of learning

Table 7 shows the results of paired-sample T tests conducted for the two items
that are associated with the nature of learning. The two items that are included in the
analysis are related to the diﬁiculty of English learning and the importance of knowing
the culture. The mean scores of the SA context were compared with the mean score of
AH contexts for each item. According to the results, early-stage learners showed a
signiﬁcant change in their beliefs that it is possible to learn English in a short time, t(3 8)

= 3.44, p = .001. On the other hand, late-stage leamers’ beliefs focusing on the

27

Table 6

Perceptions on Grammar, Vocabulary and Pronunciation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent Mean SD

Variables Group AH SA AH SA T P

Grammar E 6.46 5.57 2.30 2.26 .-2.76 .009
L 6.28 6.00 2.71 2.81 .07 .665

Vocabulary E 7.29 7.05 2.03 2.16 -.85 .400
L 6.71 6.75 2.07 1.97 .06 .946

Pronunciation E 6.02 6.60 2.10 2.21 1.1 l .271
L 6.75 7.50 2.37 1.98 1.47 .153

Table 7

Nature of Leaming

Dependent Mean SD

Variables Group AH SA AH SA t P

It is possible to E 3.53 5.32 2.26 2.89 3.44 .001

learn English in

a short time. L 4.09 4.66 2.86 2.66 .93 .358

It is necessary E 6.73 7.14 2.39 2.23 -1.02 .311

to learn to know

foreign culture. L 7.09 8.18 2.57 1.79 -2.67 .012

 

28

importance of knowing a foreign culture were signiﬁcantly strengthened when compared
to their beliefs in the home country , t(32) = -2. 67, p = .01. Although the mean score of
the early-stage learners’ beliefs on the importance of culture also increased from 6.73
(SD = 2.39) to 7.14 (SD = 2.23), it did not reach a signiﬁcant level of difference.
Improvement in learning

Table 8 shows how much learners think they are making improvements in writing,
reading, listening, speaking and grammar. Overall, learners in the later stage are
Table 8

Improvement in Learning

 

Dependent variables No Group Mean SD M Diff. T P

 

Writing 48 E 6.79 2.28
.96 .1.70 .092
L 7.75 2.40

Reading 44 E 6.26 2.32
1.39 -2.80 .007
L 7.66 1.84

Listening 22 E 7.45 2.36
.99 -2.09 .041
L 8.44 1.58

Speaking 27 E 6.82 2.22
.97 -l .98 .052
L 7.78 1.86

Grammar 54 E 6.26 2.39
.30 -.50 .616
L 6.56 2.58
I know how to ﬁnd an 54 E 5.87 2.15 .
effective way to learn 1.54 3.23 .002

English. L 7.40 1.78

 

29

consistently higher in mean scores for all areas. The perception of improvement by
learners who were in the later stage of study abroad was signiﬁcantly higher in reading
(M=7.66, SD=1.84; M=6.26, SD=2.32) and listening (M=8.44, SD=1.58; M=7.45,
SD=2.36) than by learners who were in the early stages of study abroad, t(70)= -2,80,
p= .007; t(70)= -2.09, p= .041. The early and late learners reported that they were making
the greatest improvement in listening and the least improvement in grammar. The mean
scores for the item concerning whether they know how to ﬁnd an effective way to learn
English were also compared. The late learners (M = 7.40, SD = 1.78) agreed that they did
ﬁnd an effective way to learn English to a much larger extent than the learners of Group
E did (M = 5.87, SD = 2.15), possibly suggesting that leamers in a later stage of study
abroad are more conﬁdent about their ability to use effective learning strategies.
Discussion

The study set out to investigate the impact of study abroad on learner beliefs by
examining beliefs at two different stages of study abroad. The results can be summarized
as follows. The ﬁrst and second hypothesis concerned changes between AH beliefs and
SA beliefs. The ﬁrst set of research questions formulated from these hypotheses
addressed the question of what beliefs become stronger or weaker due to study abroad.
The learners in both early and later stages reported that their SA beliefs in learner
autonomy and the importance of feedback were signiﬁcantly strengthened when
compared to their AH beliefs. This confn'ms the Hypothesis One: Students who study
abroad do undergo a change in their L2 learning beliefs. .

The second set of research questions addressed the effects of the learning stage

on learner beliefs in the SA context. According to the results, a signiﬁcant difference in

30

beliefs between the early- and late-stage study abroad students was found in learner
independence and the perceived improvement in listening and reading. In those cases, the
mean scores of later-stage learners were signiﬁcantly higher than early-stage learners,
suggesting that learner beliefs at the early stage changed toward the later stage of study
abroad. This conﬁrms the third hypothesis: Learners at the early and later stages of study
abroad have differences in their beliefs about language learning.

The results also revealed different patterns in belief changes between the groups
of early-stage learners and late-stage learners. While learners at the early stage (those
with less than six months of study abroad) of study abroad showed signiﬁcant changes in
beliefs in the importance of grammar and in the difﬁculty of learning, beliefs of learners
at the later stage of study abroad (those who have been studying abroad more than six
months) signiﬁcantly changed their beliefs in the areas of the perceived important of the
teacher’s role and the importance of knowing the culture.

Overall, these ﬁndings provide substantial evidence for the claim that beliefs
should be viewed not as static and stable but as dynamic and variable. In this section,
interpretations and implications of the major ﬁndings will be discussed in the light of
literature. Moving beyond the descriptive level of beliefs patterns, this section will
present interview data that will provide insights into what might be the source of these
changes in beliefs.

Belief changes in learner autonomy
The most notable positive impact of study abroad on learner beliefs was shown
to be in the area of learner independence. The learners of both groups reported that while

abroad they more strongly believe that they themselves should ﬁnd opportunities to use

31

their L2 and that success in L2 learning depends on what they do outside of the classroom.
The signiﬁcantly increased score in learner independence in the SA context suggests that
study abroad helps learners better recognize the importance of their own role in their
learning. Furthermore, the signiﬁcant difference between the early and late stages
suggests that the learning stage might be a factor that inﬂuences changes in learner
independence: learner independence may increases as time spent on study abroad
increases. The mean score of learner independence of those at the later stage of study
abroad (M = 17.03, SD = 3.09) was signiﬁcantly higher than those at the beginning stage
of abroad (M = 15.16, SD = 2.75). The between-group difference in learner independence
is noteworthy in that no effect of learning stage was found in beliefs in the teacher’s role,
self-efﬁcacy, or the nature of learning.

Hypothesis 2 stated that study abroad directly inﬂuences the L2 learning beliefs
students have. The question is, “What factors related to study abroad inﬂuence the
increase of learner independence?” Participants’ responses to interview questions
provided some clues about the answers. Interestingly, the positive change in learner
independence seemed to be related to learners’ negative perceptions about study abroad
as a learning context. Many learners expressed frustrations and disappointments when
asked about how their experience matched up to their expectations that they had about
study abroad prior to leaving their home country.

Question: How is your study abroad experience similar to or different from your
expectations?

Example 1: Tom], Taiwanese student, male, Group L

It is so different from what I expected. I realized it is the same here... difﬁcult to
talk to a native speaker. I don’t have many chance to meet native speakers and

 

' Names are pseudonyms.

32

talk to them. In class I talk to classmates, other Taiwanese and Chinese, speaking
Chinese. When I come home, I talk to my roommate, also Chinese. I don’t speak
English much here.

Example 2: Young, Korean student, female, Group L
One of disappointing thing is that it is very hard to talk to Americans. Except
classes, other than project, all relationships with Americans are very ofﬁcial, not
like very comfortable or... not like friendship. It is through class, or meeting for
project. Maybe it is related to my personality, but I don’t know.
Example 3: Emily, Korean student, female, Group E
I was so surprised that there are so many Koreans here. Everywhere there are
many Koreans. I was very disappointed about that. I came here all the way from
Korea to be in a different learning environment. If I knew there would be so many
Koreans like this, I would have not come here. I know I need to try to speak
English here but usually I talk to other Koreans in Korean. I hang out with
Koreans, my classmates. We all speak Korean all the time because it is easier for
us. It is funny to speak English to them. Students from other counties also hang
out with their ﬁiends and speak to each other in their own language. I wish I
could make many American friends. But I don’t know where I can ﬁnd the
opportunities.
The ﬁ'ustrations that learners express are derived primarily from the discrepancy between
what they believe what study abroad should be and what it really is. Participants’
responses clearly show that learners came abroad with expectations that study abroad
would guarantee sufﬁcient opportunities to be immersed into a different culture and that
authentic interactions with native speakers of English would be readily available.
However, as they expressed during the interviews, the number of opportunities to actually
engage in communication with native speakers seems to be far below their expectations.
According to learners’ reports, both in and outside the classroom, learners tend to cluster
with ﬁiends from the same country, speaking their native language to each other.

Participants’ responses to items on the background questionnaire also revealed how little

learners use English outside the classroom. The mean time they spend using English

33

outside the class for reading and speaking was less than one hour per day. Even the time
they spent on listening to English did not go beyond 2 hours per day. This means that the
primary mode of communication outside the classroom is often in the learners’ ﬁrst
language, not the target language.

The similar trend of using more L1 over L2 while SA learning has been reported
in several studies (e.g. Barron, 2003; Schumann, 1980; Wilkinson, 1997). Barron (2003),
who studied pragmatic developments of SA learners, concluded that even spending a full
year abroad, learners may not have enough access to meaningful interactions with native
speakers that could help them acquire pragmatic norms “because SA learners often hang
out with other L1 peers” (p.70). The fact that learners do not take advantage of superior
strengths and advantages the SA context offers should be surprising (Collentine & Freed,
2004). The discouraging picture is contradictory to expectations of most of learners and
teachers.

Consequentially, the mismatch between the expectations they had and the reality
they are facing seems to be leading these learners to the realization that the study abroad
environment alone does not promise success in L2 learning in the absence of their own
efforts to increase their opportunities to engage in L2 communication. For example,
learners who disagreed with the idea that SA is the most effective way to improve
English often cited the need to make extra effort to gain beneﬁts from their SA

experience.
Example 4: Ray, Japanese student, male, Group E

I also knew it is how I use my time. If I don’t try, try really hard, then they will
not develop. But if you try to meet many people and talk to people, then it is good.

34

I like the environment. But I am no satisﬁed with myself. I have to put more time.
I don’t have to hurry, but I‘need to make some effort, really, really is my effort.
Example 5: Young, Korean student, female, Group L
I don’t think learning English in the US. is the best way to improve English
anymore. What is important is to be proactive about creating learning
opportunities myself. I realized that there is no such thing as automatic
improvement in language learning. Study abroad can be a good opportunity if one
makes a lot of efforts to take advantage of the context. Without my own efforts,
the environment makes little impact.
Example 6: Laura, Egyptian student, female, Group E
The most important thing is exposure. Some people, although they are here to
improve English skills, they always hang out with their ﬁ'iends from the same
country. If they don’t expose themselves to American culture, American people,
their English is not going to improve. It does not matter how long they are here. If
I don’t make effort to have a lot of exposure, I will not have gains and beneﬁts.
These learners seem to agree with DeKeyser (1991) who said that “the sheer number of
hours spent in the native-speaking environment provides a huge amount of
comprehensible input for all students and a sizable amount of speaking practice for those
who are willing to make an effort” (p. 116, my italics). Obviously, opportunities for
target language use are much more abundant in the SA context compared to the learning
environments in the AH context. However, the opportunities might not be so meaningful
if learners do not make use of them. Though unfortunate, the paucity of meaningful
communication in the face of an abundance of potential opportunities seemed to play a
role in helping learners to realize what their own role and responsibility for learning
should be, resulting in a signiﬁcant increase in beliefs in learner independence.

From the perspective of educational psychology, increased learner independence

should be viewed as a positive change. Researchers who have attempted to discover the

35

“secret” of strategic learners have recognized that a critical element of ‘good’ learners is
autonomy. According to Macaro (2001, p. 264), “one thing seems to be increasingly clear
and that is that, across learning contexts those who are proactive in their pursuit of
language learning appear to learn best.” It is not types or directions of strategies per se
but a proactive approach to learning that characterizes successful learners (Domeyi,
2005). While it is beyond the scope of the paper to discus whether these leamers with
strong beliefs in learner independence will actually demonstrate self-regulated,
autonomous learning behaviors, the learners in the current study clearly showed the
cognitive and affective components of self-regulation, which are said to “provide
individuals with the capacity to adjust their actions and goals in order to achieve desired
results in light of changing environmental conditions” (Zeidner et al., 2000, p.751). The
signiﬁcantly increased beliefs in learner independence certainly reﬂect learners’
readiness for autonomy (Cotterall, 1995).
Belief changes in the teacher ’5' role

Another ﬁnding that should be discussed in relation to learner autonomy is
changes in the beliefs about what the teacher’s role should be. The mean scores of both
' early-stage learners (M=15.96, SD=5.49) and late-stage learners (M=15.23, SD=5.91) for
SA beliefs in the teacher’s role are signiﬁcantly lower than the mean scores for AH
beliefs in teacher’ role (M=17.64, SD=5.69; M=l8.06, SD=5.91). The within—group
difference for the learners at the later stage of study abroad is signiﬁcant, t(32)= 2.89,
p= .007. Note that the mean scores of both groups for the AH context is above the median
of the scale, while the mean scores for the SA context is below the median, which

suggests learners studying abroad no longer believe that their language success depends

36

on what their teachers do. The beliefs that were changed in the SA context again seemed
to grow stronger at the later stage of study abroad, again suggesting a longitudinal impact
of study abroad on learner beliefs. The decrease in learners’ dependence on teachers can
be explained by the increase in learner independence. It is logical that the more they
recognize their own responsibility for learning, the less dependent on teachers they
become.

One of the factors that might have inﬂuenced the learners’ dependence on
teachers may be SA instruction practices that are different from what the learners had
been exposed to in their home country. Table 9 shows a comparison of the learners’
English classes in the AH contexts and the SA contexts. According to the learners’

responses, the instructional approach in English classes in the US. is signiﬁcantly

Table 9

Comparison of Instruction Practices Between the AH and SA Contexts

 

Mean SD

 

 

Dependent variables AH SA AH SA T P

 

Teachers have us
review vocabulary 8.12 5.00 1.95 2.30 8.16 .000*
and grammar a lot.

Teachers get us to 4.43 7.26 2.07 2.45 -6.60 .000*
talk a lot in class.

In my English class
we do a lot of 6.87 5.62 2.14 2.45 -3.17 .002*
repetitions.

 

* Signiﬁcance is at the .05 level.

37

different from that in English classes in their home countries. The learners reported that
English teachers in their home countries used more drills, had learners review grammar
and vocabulary more, and had them talk less in class-

The differences in instructional practices revealed in the questionnaire items were
consistent with the comparison that learners made between the AH classes and SA
classes in the interviews. Below are some of individual students’ descriptions about
English classes.

Question: What is the biggest difference between your English classes here in the

US and your classes in your home country?

Example 7: Eric, Arabic student, male, Group E

In my home country, teachers are like you know teachers. They know everything.

So, and we learn from them... it is not easy to talk to them and question is hard. I

mean asking question. But here teachers ask my ideas, opinions.

Example 8: Sara, Indonesian student, female, Group E

Here we make a lot speakings and writings. In Indonesia, we focused on grammar

a lot and teachers explain. We don’t have to talk. We listen and write down on the

note book. It is not a talking to me. It is explaining.

The instructional techniques that emphasize drills and repetition for learning grammar
and vocabulary are characteristics of traditional EFL classes where grammar-translation
and audiolingual methodologies are dominantly used (Celce-Murcia, 2001). Most of the
learners in this study are from countries where English is taught as a school subject in a
teacher-fronted English class. Teachers are often viewed as authority ﬁgures as opposed
to facilitators of learning, which may be due to cultural inﬂuences on teacher-student

relationships (Wright, 1987). The participants’ own comparisons highlight the differences

in their beliefs concerning their teachers’ role in their own L2 learning, beliefs that differ

38

depending on if they are in the AH or SA context. SA English classes provide learners a
different learning environment, one that they have not experienced in their home country.
While a learner’s participation may be minimal in AH English classes, learners in SA
classes are encouraged to express their ideas, ask questions and interact with peers. The
different nature of teacher-student interactions and peer interactions in class was pointed
out as the biggest difference between English classes in the US. and English classes in
their home country.
Example 10: Eric, Arabic student, male, Group E

The way they teach you, the way they talk to you is very different. In classes, I

can share a lot with people... Everything I do here, they give a lot of feedback.

They say what is good and what is not good. What to change, how to change. I

think it is good, very helpful.

Example 11: Mina, Korean student, female, Group L

We do a lot of activities including group activities. When we are doing activities,

teachers always ask how we are doing or if we have questions. In Korea, teachers

usually don’t ask that kind of questions. They don’t have to because teacher does

everything. And whether I am doing ok or not will be judged alter exams. The

scores will tell them.
In their home countries, learners stated that they did not engage in group work with
others in the classroom. According to learners’ descriptions, the structures of English
classes were not different from the lecture classes they had where students are not
required to play an active role apart from attentively listening. Also, the nature of
feedback and student-teacher interaction during class is different in that SA teachers’
feedback more international, participatory, and explanatory. All of these create more

opportunities for learners’ participation during the class. This might help learners depart

from viewing learning as teacher-directed process and teachers as authorative ﬁgures

39

(Cotteral, 1995), resulting in decreased in dependence in the teacher’ role in learning. It is
possible that the totally different ways of teaching and interaction that learners are
exposed to may foster the view of learning not as a teacher-led process but as learner-
centered and self-regulated process in which their proactive participation and initiates are
important.

In this study it was found that learners believed teachers had less to do with their
L2 learning than they themselves did. That is, SA students came to believe that they were
responsible for their L2 learning, and that leaner autonomy was very important, even if
this was not something they had believed strongly when they studied the language in their
home country. In addition, these beliefs in the diminished role of the teacher and an
increased role for leaner autonomy were more ﬁrmly solidiﬁed with more time spent in a
study abroad context. The negative correlation between beliefs in the teacher’s role and
learner autonomy has been discussed in literature. Galloway and Labarca (1990)
recommended that teachers provide “scaffolding” for their learners, gradually
withdrawing support as learners gain greater task autonomy. Tudor (1993) claims that the
teachers need to prepare learners for their new role by helping them develop learners’
self-awareness as language learners. Other studies (e. g. Kumaravadivelu, 1991)
examining learners’ perception on the roles of teachers and learners point to the
mismatch of differing perceptions of the roles among teachers and learners, illustrating
that learners often expect the teacher to function as an authority ﬁgure in the classroom.
Cotterall argues (1995, p.197) that “learners who subscribe to such a View do not
correspond to the proﬁle of the autonomous learner... and learners’ expectation of

teacher authority can present an obstacle to teachers to transfer responsibility to their

40

learners”. From these perspectives, the signiﬁcantly deceased dependence in the teacher’
role that was found in this study can indeed be considered to be a positive change.
Perceived importance of and competence in grammar

When comparing their beliefs about L2 learning before and during study abroad,
many learners commented on their views of grammar instruction. The results of the
survey reveal that learners’ perception of the importance of grammar decreased in the SA
context (Group E: M=6.46, SD=2.30; M=5.57, SD=2.26, p(38)= .009), though the
difference for the late-stage learners was not signiﬁcant, M=6.28, SD=2.71; M=6.00,
SD=2.81; t(32)= .665. Among the areas of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and
feedback, the lowest mean score for the learners both in early and later study abroad
stages was found in perceived importance of grammar, meaning learners believe
grammar is the least important area in their L2 learning during SA. Grammar was not
perceived as being as important as it was when participants were learning English in their
home country. Also, the learners’ self-assessment of their perceived improvement in the
different skill areas (listening, reading, writing, speaking, and grammar) revealed that
they believed they were making the most improvement in listening, but least
improvement in grammar. During the interviews, the learners explained what had
changed their perception on grammar. The learners seemed to attribute the decrease in
perceived importance of grammar to the different focus of learning between the AH
context and the SA context.

Example 12: Tom, Taiwanese student, male, Group L

In Taiwan, I studied English only for TOF EL and school exams. So I focused on

grammar and memorizing vocabulary. I thought my English is good because my

scores was good. But now I know that grammar is like not nothing but not that
important, if you cannot speak. It is not you don’t know grammar. I know the

41

grammar but it is hard to think of that when communicating. I thought grammar is
really important because that is only thing I studied before.

Example 13: Sue, Korean student, female, Group E

I knew my listening was not very good. But I'was so surprised I could not

understand what they were saying. Even when I know the word and grammar, I

could not still understand them. You cannot think of grammar when you have to

speak and listen. It is a different process. When I try to think of grammar before
speaking, the chance to speak is already gone.

Example 14: Maureen, Chinese student, female, Group E

I studied grammar a lot. Grammar is very important in the school. So I thought

grammar is very important. Teachers come ﬁ'om China. They are very good at

grammar. But maybe they cannot teach speaking, I don’t know... The test, we
have many test and questions are grammar questions.

The learners described their learning experiences in their EFL classes as often
having a focus of instruction on grammar. Students were primarily evaluated by
measuring how much they mastered in terms of linguistic rules. Also, a grammar test was
a major component of many standardized English tests these learners prepared to take,
such as the TOEFL and TOEIC. As a response to the demands, the primary needs and
goals of EFL learners are related to academic achievements for which grammar learning
is very important. However, with SA, learners enter a different context where linguistic
demands placed on learners are different from EFL. The SA context is an English
speaking environment. SA learners have far greater need to communicate in English than
EFL learners.

Language learning goals reﬂect learners’ linguistic needs. The language needs of
SA learners that are different from EFL learners are revealed in their expressed study

abroad goals. According to these interview data, learners’ study abroad goals were often

related to their overall improvement in communication skills and speaking, in particular.

42

When asked what goal they had in mind when they decided to go abroad for language
learning, few expressed goals pertaining to the improvement of grammar. Rather, they
stressed their intent to improve their speaking ability. Two examples below show that
learners’ primary goal for L2 improvement is focused on the communication skills, and
speaking skills in particular.
Example 14: Mary, Taiwanese student, female, Group L
I wanted to learn vocabulary, especially idiomatic expression is important. Not
academic words, but more conversation words. I wanted to express well and
really use English.
Example 15: Mina, Korean student, female, Group E
I wanted to improve everything, but mostly communication skills, especially
speaking and listening. I thought most important goal was to acquire basic skills
to communicative with speakers.
Example 16: July, Chinese student, female, Group L
My goal was improving speaking and listening. In China, we teach grammar and
writing a lot... reading too. But we don’t get to speak... I tried to watch movies
and news from China but it was difﬁcult to understand. I wanted to improve
listening, then I can watch movies and TV.
The goals of language learning expressed by the learners above were related to abilities to
express themselves and communicate with others. SA learners tend to think that the
opportunity to engaging in real communication in L2 is the biggest advantage of learning
English in the SA context (Pellegrino, 2004). For this reason, the learners might have

shifted their attention from grammar learning to speaking and listening as essential for

interactive communication in L2. The less attention on grammar might have resulted in

43

less perceived improvement in grammar, which account for the change of leaming
contexts account for the low score for the perceived improvement.

The greater focus on ﬂuency over accuracy among SA learners is not an
uncommon phenomenon in SA learning. In Lennon’s study (1989), German learners of
English who were spending a six-month period in England were afraid of making
mistakes at the beginning stage but they later overcame that fear and more freely engaged
in L2 communication. As a result, they perceived themselves as improving in ﬂuency
more than in grammar. Robinson (1995) also found in her study of American students in
Russia that participants were more focused on communication than on accuracy when
interacting with native speakers of Russians. Tanaka & Ellis (2003), in their study using
the BALLI, investigated changes in beliefs by measuring learner belief before and after a
15-week study abroad program. They reported that learners’ beliefs in analytic learning
had slightly strengthened as a result of study abroad. However, compared to the changes
that had occurred in beliefs in experiential learning, self-efﬁcacy and conﬁdence, the
belief change in analytic learning was relatively modest. Overall, ﬁndings in this study
are consistent with those reported in the literature: learners’ perceived improvement in
grammar does not increase as much as in other areas of learning.

Contrary to the positive reports on perceived improvement, leamers’ perceptions
of their overall progress were very negative. According to learners’ responses to the
questionnaire items, they agreed that that they were making improvements in listening,
speaking, reading, writing and grammar, though variations in terms of the degrees of
improvement were found. However, learners’ dissatisfactions that was not captured in the

questionnaire was revealed through interviews. The participants’ responses to interview

44

questions about how they think they are improving were far ﬁom positive. Learners’
common response was that although they perceive their English improving, they are not
satisﬁed with their progress that is far below their expectations they had. Below the
examples reveal how the learners felt frustrated and disappointed about the little
improvement they were making.

Example 17: Rachel, Taiwanese Student, female, Group L

No, it is almost the same. After I came to U.S., I don’t think I actually improved. I

actually feel stressed in language study. I think my academic program is helpful

for my professional development but not for language learning, not necessarily. I

think my English is almost the same and I will go back home pretty soon.

Example 2: Japanese, Group, female, L

I think I improved some, but not as much as expected. I don’t know why. Maybe

my expectation is too much. Learning English is not that easy.

Example 3: Emily, Korean, female, Group E

I don’t think my English is improving as fast as I thought it would be. But I want

to think positively. I hope I will eventually make a lot of progress. Though it is

not happening yet, I hope it will be the case. To be honest, when I see other

people who have been here for a longer time, I feel like I don’t have much hope. I

am not sure how I can be so different.

The interview data indicate that learners think that their English improvement is
not what they expected it should be. Simply, the level of progress is far below what they
had expected. Especially, learners felt ﬁ'ustrated from little or slow progress in speaking.
Their responses again revealed that they held certain expectations and beliefs about how
their SA learning would be or should be like. In her ethnographic examination of two

learners studying French during a summer abroad in France, Wilkinson (1998) called

such learners’ expectation the “language myth”. Wilkinson highlights that a common

45

erroneous belief held by learners in her study was that study abroad would ultimately and
inevitably lead to language improvement due to the sheer number of the hours students
spend simply exposed to the language. It was evident that the participants in the current
study held similar false beliefs about study abroad effects. Apparently the
discouragement and frustrations may have resulted from the unrealistic beliefs about
language improvement.

Little discussion is found in literature about the relationship between beliefs and
motivation. However, it is very possible that not being able to handle the gap between
their expectations and the reality of the learning situation might be a source of
demotivation in learning. Domeyi (2001) said that “unrealistic beliefs about how much
progress to expect and how fast, can function like ‘time bombs’ at the beginning of a
language course because of inevitable disappointment that is to follow” (p. 67). Further,
when talking about motivational strategies teachers could use to; improve learner
motivation, he recommended that helping learners create realistic beliefs is important to
maintain their motivational level.

The ﬁndings of the study have a pedagogical implication for SA program
developers and administrators, regarding the length of SA programs in particular. The
learners’ responses on the questionnaire items revealed a general pattern of more positive
beliefs about language learning being more stronger among late-stage. For example, they
were more conﬁdent about their ability and they perceive their skills more improving in
all areas of learning. The differences were signiﬁcant especially in the areas of learner
autonomy. This suggests that learners can gain more beneﬁts of being in the SA contexts

from longer period of exposure. This is not to say that the longer it is, the better should be

46

for learners or that short-term programs has no value.. However, as far as learner beliefs
are concerned, learners need a longer period than six months during which their beliefs
system respond to the new learning contexts, cope with expected/unexpected challenges,
go through the process of reconsruction or reafﬁrrnation and play a role in learning as a
driving power of learner motivations and learning behaviors.

Limitations of the Study

The present study explored changes in learner beliefs between the two different
contexts: AH vs. SA and between two different stages of SA. By using both quantitative
and qualitative methods, the study provides rich data that allows insights into the beliefs
of SA learners and considers what inﬂuences changes in beliefs. However, the ﬁndings of
the study should be interpreted with caution due to some limitations of the study.

First, the effect of the learning stage was operationalized through the inclusion of
two different groups, one at the early- and one at the late-stage of study abroad. The
participants were divided by the timeline of 6-months. Although it is not unreasonable to
assume that the different stages of study abroad might be what distinguishes the groups
from each other, it is still possible that there might have been other differences that might
have accounted for the belief differences found between early-stage learners and late-
stage learners. A longitudinal study investigating the belief changes of a single group
over a long period of time might be able to better capture a dynamic change of beliefs at
different stages of study abroad.

Second, the current study included both ESL students and students in an academic
degree program; however, they were not equally distributed across the early-stage group

and late-stage group. That is, second language (English) proﬁciency was not controlled in

47

this study. In this case, there were more ESL students (N=l9) in early-stage group while,
undergraduates and graduates (N=23) predominated in the late-stage group. In addition,
their purposes for studying abroad is very different. While ESL students are staying in the
US primarily for the purpose of improving their language skills, international students
who are in an undergraduate or graduate program might not necessarily be focused on
language learning, though a good command of English is important for their academic
performance. It is likely that those who are in degree programs spend more time on
reading and writing than ESL students, who might focus more on basic skills and
grammar. The students who are working on their degree usually take more classes, and
the nature of their classes is different from ESL classes. In addition, the proﬁciency level
of students in the degree programs is higher. It is prerequisite that international students
demonstrate a high level of English proﬁciency with a minimum 213 on a computer-
based test in order to apply for a degree program, while students at any level can enroll in
the ESL classes. Therefore, it is possible that the study-abroad learning stage might not
be the only variable contributing to the differences found between the two groups. The
differences might be partially attributed to the students’ different goals related to their
academic programs and to their own stages of development in English as a second
language.

Third, the study used a sample of convenience. The participants of the study
might not be the representative of the SA populations as a whole. By the same token, the
group of 14 interviewees might not represent the whole group of 70 who were included in

this study since we could only hear the voice of those who were willing to talk.

48

Fourth, language barriers should be recognized as a limitation. The questionnaires
were written in English which is L2. The participants’ responding to the questionnaire
items requires a certain level of reading comprehension. If learners’ reading
comprehension is not good enough, it is be possible that they might misunderstand what
is being asked. More comprehension difﬁculties might have emerged during the
interviews. Learners had to respond to open—ended questions using their L2 except for
Koreans. Learners, especially ESL students whose proﬁciency level is low, might have
not been able to fully express themselves. In addition, the issue of comparability might
arise due to the fact that Koreans used their L1 and others spoke in their Ll. More
accurate and comparable data might have been obtained if all the interviews were
conducted in learners’ ﬁrst language. However, this problem might not be signiﬁcant,
since there were only a few participants who used Korean in the interview.

The present study attempted to investigate belief changes by comparing two
things, the beliefs held by AH and SA students and the beliefs held by students at two
different stages of abroad. The study depended on participants’ retrospective reports for
measuring their beliefs in the AH context. The participants were asked to recall what they
believed when they were studying English in their home country. One might question the
reliability of self-reported data due to concerns about the accuracy of reporting, memory
loss or situational and relational variables that might inﬂuence learner response (Mackey
& Gass, 2005). Others even characterize such data as unscientiﬁc due to their
idiosyncratic nature and lack of objectivity (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990). It is true that the
way that we represent ourselves to others (not only to researchers, but to everyone) is .

always in ﬂux, depending on our relationship with that other person, the situation, our

49

moods, etc. In this sense, the data obtained from self-report of research cannot be seen as
objective “facts” but as subjective perceptions.

Yet Barcelos (2006), quoting the discussion of Bailey and Ochsner (1983) on
diary studies, point out that “it does not matter if someone actually received a bad grade
on a test: what interests us is how the author perceives that bad grade---as an
embarrassment or as an irrelevance not even worth mentioning in the report” (p. 192). In
any type of self report, what we are getting is representation. In the case of the present
study, the participant represented both a past and present self to the researcher. The
purpose of the study was “not to ﬁnd ‘the’ truth, but students’ subjective reality, ‘their
truth’ because it is their beliefs more than anybody else’s that will inﬂuence their
learning” (Riley, 1997, p. 127). The study cannot claim to present what the participants
“really” thought before they came to the US. or what they “really” think now, but what it
does present is their current representations of their past and present experiences as
language learners. This variable and dynamic nature that is evoked by experience is the
very core of what this study aimed to reveal about learner beliefs as social constructions

rather than static entities.

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the study abroad effects on learner
beliefs. The impetus of the current study was provided by the contextual approach to
beliefs, which assumes that they are part of a learner’s construction of his or her
experiences (Kalaja, 1995). Therefore, “beliefs change along with the experiences in

which they are embedded” (Hosenfeld, 2006, p. 39). The signiﬁcant changes found

50

between AH and SA beliefs and differences between the groups at the two stages
conﬁrmed that the leaming context and the stage of study abroad inﬂuence belief
formation or development. The evidence provided in the study renders strong support to
the view that beliefs should be seen as dynamic, socially constructed, and “relational and
responsive to context” (Benson & Lor, 1999, p.464). The within-group differences and
between-group differences strongly suggest that learning context and learning stages
inﬂuence changes in beliefs. The ﬁndings contribute to the literature by providing deeper
insight into the nature of beliefs as a dynamic construct. Beliefs may emerge or fade
away, become stronger or weaker in a new learning context. According to Hosenfeld
(2006), emerging beliefs that arise during learning can become an integral part of a
learner’s belief system after the beliefs are acted upon repeatedly. Whether learners are
acting upon their changed beliefs or whether they will continue to hold these changed

beliefs after they return to their home country is a matter for ﬁrture investigations.

51

ll.

12.
l3.

14.

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.
23.

24.

Appendix A

Learner Beliefs Questionnaire

. When I studied English in my home country, I believed that I was above average

at language learning.

When I was in my home country, I was conﬁdent about my ability to learn
English successfully.

Here in the US. I believe having my work evaluated by others is helpful.
Here in the US. I am afraid of making mistakes when speaking with others in
English.

Here in the US. I think I am above average at language learning.

When I studied English in my home country, I was afraid of making
mistakes when speaking with others in English.

Here in the US. I think I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak
English very well.

Here in the US. I believe that the most important part of learning English is
learning vocabulary.

Here in the US I believe that it is possible to learn English in a short time.

. When I studied English in my home country, I believed I would ultimately

learn to speak English very well.

Here in the US. I believe that my language success depends on what the teacher
does in the classroom.

Here in the US. I am conﬁdent about my ability to learn English successfully.
When I studied English in my home country, I believed that having my work
evaluated by others was helpful. ’

When I studied in my home country, I believed that my language success
depended on what I do inside the classroom.

Here in the US. I can communicate in English without knowing the rules.
When I studied English in my home country, I believed that English is a
difﬁcult language.

When I studied English in my home country, I believed that it was

necessary to know the foreign culture in order to speak the foreign language.
When I studied English in my home country, I believed that it was possible
to learn English in a short time.

Here in the US. I believe that it was necessary to know the foreign culture
in order to speak the foreign language.

When I studied English in my home country, I believed that it is better to
learn English in an English-speaking country.

Here in the US. I believe that it is important to speak English with an
excellent accent.

I think my listening is improving.

Here in the US. I believe that it is better to learn English in an English-
speaking country.

Here in the US. in my English class we do a lot of repetitions.

52

25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

38.
39.

40.
41.
42.

43.
. Here in the U.S., I believe that I should ﬁnd my own opportunities to use the

45.
46.

47.
48.
49.

50.
51.
52.
53.
54. ..

When I studied English in my home country, teachers had us review vocabulary
and grammar a lot.

Here in the US. I believe that my language success depends on what I do outside
the classroom.

I think my speaking is improving.

I have the ability to learn a language successfully.

When I studied English in my home country, I believed that it was

important to speak English with an excellent accent.

When I studied English in my home country, I believed that I could communicate
in English without knowing the rules

When I studied English in my home country, I believed that it is important

to repeat and practice a lot.

When I studied English in my home country. I believed that the most

important part of learning English is learning vocabulary.

When I studied English in my home country, my English teacher got us to talk a
lot in class.

When I studied in my home country, I believed that the most important part

of learning English was learning the grammar.

I think my vocabulary is improving.

Here in the US. I think English is a difﬁcult language.

When I studied in my home country, I believed that my language success
depended on what the teacher did in the classroom

I have the ability to express myself in English

When I studied in my home country, I believed that I should ﬁnd my own
opportunities to use the language

Here in the US. I believe that it is important to repeat and practice a lot.

In my home country, in my English class, we did a lot of repetitions.

When I studied in my home country, I believed that opportunities to use the
language should be provided by the teacher.

I think my reading is improving.

language.

When I studied in my home country, I believed that my language success
depended on what I did outside the classroom.

Here in the U.S., I believe that opportunities to use the language should be
provided by the teacher.

I think my writing is improving.

Here in the U.S., my English teachers get us to talk a lot in class.

Here in the US. I believe that my language success depends on what I do inside
the classroom

I have the ability to write accurately in English

Here in the US. my English teacher have us review vocabulary and grammar a lot.
I know how to ﬁnd an effective way to learn

I think my grammar is improving.

.plays an important role in successﬁrl learning

53

1. Feedback, 2. practice, 3. opportunities to use the language, 4. own efforts, 5.
classes

54

Appendix B
General Interview Questions

. What was your goal that you wanted to achieve during study abroad in terms of
language learning?

. What expectations did you have about study aboard?

. How’s your study abroad experience similar to or different from your
expectations?

. Do you believe that study abroad is the best way to improve English? Why or
why not? What aspect of study abroad do you think is helpful? What aspect of
study abroad is disappointing?

. What is the biggest difference in your English classes in the US. and English
classes in your home country?

. How did you study English when you were in your home country? Do you still
use the same methods?

55

References

Alanen, R. (2006). A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about
language learning. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds), Belieﬂs about SLA:
New research approaches (pp. 55-85). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Allen, H. W., & Herron, C. (2003). A mixed methodology investigation of the linguistic

and affective outcomes of summer study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 36(3)
370-385.

Alexander, P.A., Dochy, F., (1995). Conceptions of knowledge an beliefs: a comparision
across varying cultural and educational communities. American Educational
Research Journal, 32, 413-442.

Bailey, K. M., & Ochsner, R. (1983). A methodogocial review of the diary studies:
Windmill tilting or social science? In K. M. Bailey, M. H. Long, & S. Peck (Ed.),
Second Language Acquisition Studies. Rowely, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efﬁcacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,
41, 586-598.

Barcelos, A. M. F. (2006). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. In P. Kalaja
& A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds), Beliefs about SLA: New Research approaches (pp. 7-
33). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things
with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benj arnins.

Baudura, A., & Schunk, D. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efﬁcacy and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 586-598.

Benson, P., & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System,
27(4), 459-472

Brecht, R. D., & Roninson, J. L. (1995). On the value of formal instruction in study
abroad: Student reactions in context. Second Language Acquisition in a Study
Abroad Context. In B.F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study
abroad context (pp. 317-333). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Celce-Murcia. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. In M. Celce-Murcia

(Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 3-11).
Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

56

Collentine, J. (2004). The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 227-248.

Collentin, J ., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language
acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153-171.

Corsini, R. (1994). Encyclopedia of psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Cotterall, SM. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23
(2), 195-205.

DeKeyser, R. (1991) Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In B. F.
Freed. (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition: Research and the classroom (pp. 104-
l 19). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Dewey , D. P. (2004). A comparison of reading development by learners of Japanese in
intensive domestic immersion and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26(2), 201-327.

Diaz-Compos, M. (2004). Context of learning in the acquisition of Spanish second
language phonology. Studies in Language Acquisition, 26(2), 249-273.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, D. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Domyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.
Modern Language. 78(3), 273-284.

Domyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Domyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deweck, C.S., Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Dufva, H. (2006). Beliefs in dialogue: A Bakhtinian view. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F.
Barcelos (Eds), Beliefs about SLA: New Research approaches (pp. 131-151).
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Eisner, E. W., & Peshkin, A. (1990). Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing
data. New York: Teachers College Press.

Flavell, J. H., (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911.

57

Galloway, V., Labarca, A. (1990). From student to learner: style, process and strategy. In
D. W. Birchbichler. New Perspectives and New Directions in Foreign Language
Education (Ed). (pp. 11 1-158). Illinois: National Textbook Company.

Hesenfeld, C. (2006). Evidence of emergent beliefslof a second language learner: A diary
study. In P. Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds), Belieﬁ‘ about SLA: New
Researchapproaches (pp. 37-5 3). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Horwitz, K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language learning. In A. L. Wenden
& J. Rubin (Eds). Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-129).
Prentice-Hall, London.

Horwitz, K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign
language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

Horwitz, K. (1999). Cultural and situational inﬂuences on foreign language learners’
beliefs about language learning: a review of BALLI studies. System, 27, 557-576.

Huebner, T. (1995). The effects of overseas language program: Report on a case study of
an intensive Japanese course. In B.F. Freed (Ed), Second language acquisition in
a stud abroad context (pp. 171-193). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

lfe, A. (2000). Language learning and residence abroad: How self-directed are students?
Language Learning Journal, 22, 30-37

Kalaja, P. (1995). Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 191-204.

Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning.
Foreign Language Annals, 28, 71-91.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language-learning tasks: teacher intention and learner
interpretation. ELT Journal, 45, 98-107.

Kuntz, P., & Belnap, R. K. (2001). Beliefs about language learning held by teachers
and their students at two Arabic programs abroad. Al-Arabiyya, 34, 91-113.

Lafford, B. (1995). Getting into, through and out of a survival situation: A comparison
communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and “at
home”. In B.F. Freed (Ed), Second language acquisition in a study abroad
context (pp. 97-121). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication

strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 26, 201-225.

58

Lennon, P. (1989). Introspection and intentionality in advanced second-language
acquisition. Language Learning 3(3), 375-396.

Macaro, E. (2001). Learning strategies in foreign and second language classroom.
London: Continuum.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Marriot, H. (1995). Acquisition of politeness patters by exchange students in Japan. In
B.F. Freed (Ed), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 197-
224). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

McGroarty, M. (1998). Constructive and constructivist challenges for applied linguistics.
Language Learning, 48(4), 591-622.

Miller, L. & Ginsgerb, RB. (1995). Folklinguistic theories of language learning. In B.F.
Freed (Ed), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 293-316).
Amsterdam: Benj amins

Milton, J. & Meara, P. (1995). How periods abroad affect vocabulary growth in a foreign
language. Review of Applied Linguistics, 107, 17-34.

O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language
Acquisition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House.

Pellegrino, V. A. (2004). Student perspective on language learning in a study abroad
context. Frontiers, 10, 91-120.

Pintrinch, P. R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82,33-40.

Ragan, V. (1998). Sociolinguistics and language learning in a study abroad context.
Frontiers, 4, 61-120.

Riley, P. (1996). BA Ts and BALLS: Beliefs about talk and beliefs about language
learning. Proceeding of the International Conference AUTONOMY 2000: The
development of learning independence in language learning, Bangkok, November,
pp. 1 5 1 -168.

Riley, P. (1997). The guru and the conjurer: aspects of counseling for self-access. In R.

59

Pemberton, E.S.L. Li, W.W.F. Or & H.D. Pierson (Eds). Autonomy and independence in
language learning (pp. 114-131). New York: Longrnan.

Robinson, L. (1995). Second language learning in social context: An ethnographic
account of an academic semester abroad in Russia. Dissertation. U. Maryland.

Sakui, K., & Gaies, SJ. (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about language
learning. System, 27, 473-492.

Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad: Women learning Japanese in
Japan. In B.F. Freed (Ed), Second language acquisition in a study abroad
context (pp.225-244). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Schunk, D. L. (1985). Self-efﬁcacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools,
22, 208-223.

Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral ﬂuency
acquisition: Learning Spanish at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 173-199.

Tanka. K., & Ellis. R. (2003). Study-abroad, language proﬁciency, and learner beliefs
about language learning. JALT Journal, 25, 63- 85.

Tudor, I. (1993). Teacher roles in the learner-centered classroom. ELT Journal, 47.22-31.

Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 515—537.

Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metagonitive knowledge and beliefs in
language learning beyond the basics. System, 27, 435-441.

Wenden, A. L. (2001). Megacognitive knowledge in SLA: The neglected variable. In
M.P. Breen (Ed), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in
research (pp. 44-64). Harlow, England: Longrnan. ‘

Wenden, A. L., & Rubin, J. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning. NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners.
System, 2 7, 443-457.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). On the nature of immersion during study abroad: Some participant
perspectives. Frontiers, 4, 121-138.

Wilkinson, S. (1998). Study abroad from the participants’ perspective: A challenge to
common beliefs. Foreign Language Annals, 31(1), 23-39.

60

Woods, D. (2006). The social construction of beliefs in the language classroom. In P.
Kalaja & A. M. F. Barcelos (Eds), Beliefs about SLA: New Research approaches
(pp. 201 -230). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Woodman, K. (1998). A study of linguistic, perceptual, pedagogical change in a short-
terrn intensive language learning program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Victoria, British Colombia, Canada.

Wright, T. (1987). Roles of Teachers and Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yang, N. D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy
use. System, 2 7, 515-535.

Yang, N. D. (1998). Exploring a new role or teachers: promoting learner autonomy.
System, 26, 127-135.

Zeidner, M., Boekaerts, M., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Self-regulation: Directions and

challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner
(Eds), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 749-768). San Diego: Academid Press.

61

ll“|ll|"'l|||llllll"||ll|"|l’ll‘|Ill

293 02845

 

 

.Mk-H-~ '0'